The Planning Commission on Aug. 13 denied a conditional‑use application to raise an existing stealth monopine cell tower at 575 Airport Creek Point from 50 feet to 80 feet. The denial followed staff findings that the proposed modification failed to meet separation and design compatibility criteria in the UDC.

Planner Drew Fox explained that earlier approvals allowed a 50‑foot stealth monopine, but the applicant seeks a 30‑foot extension "to improve and maintain wireless communication services in the area as well as provide opportunities for colocation of other service providers." Fox noted the proposed 80‑foot height exceeds the MXM zone district maximum (50 feet) and that, because the extension constitutes a "substantial change," the modification must be reviewed as a new facility under the UDC's conditional‑use standards.

City planning staff concluded the specific stealth‑tower design standards were not met: the surrounding area primarily features 15‑ to 30‑foot deciduous trees and the site sits in an open field, making the taller monopine especially visible. Staff also found the application failed to meet the applicable separation requirement (five times tower height adjacent to residential zoning), which for an 80‑foot tower would require 400 feet of separation; only about 110 feet of separation exists to a planned residential zone to the south.

Applicant Capital Telecom said three carriers — AT&T, T‑Mobile and DISH — have lease agreements and that an extended height is the minimum needed to place antenna arrays above the roofline of two approved apartment buildings immediately north and west of the lease area. Counsel and the applicant argued the extension is necessary to maintain coverage and to avoid building another tower. Resident Diane Pelletier, representing nearby townhomes, urged denial, saying another 30 feet would be "a monstrosity" visible from Sand Creek and neighborhood properties.

Commissioners weighed coverage and public‑safety considerations against the code standards. Commissioners expressed concern about the lack of separation from residential zoning and visibility of the taller structure. The commission voted to deny the conditional use, and staff reiterated the appeal process and the 10‑day appeal window to City Council.