Concept review: proposed 150‑foot monopole behind Westminster Walmart to boost cellular capacity

City planning staff and an applicant representative held a concept plan review Jan. 6 for a proposed cellular installation behind the Walmart at West 130th Avenue and I‑25. Staff described the item as a concept review — not a public hearing — intended to inform the applicant and give Council the opportunity to provide nonbinding feedback prior to a technical application.

The proposal calls for a 150‑foot monopole (150 feet to antenna top, 155 feet to lightning rod) and a fenced equipment compound roughly 35 feet by 65 feet placed in a landscaped slope area behind the existing Walmart building. The applicant representative said Verizon is the initial carrier and that the tower would be built to accept additional carriers. Jake Hamilton, the applicant’s representative, described the installation as addressing a network “capacity” need along the Interstate 25 corridor and adjacent streets by filling gaps that currently tax nearby sites.

Why it matters: City staff flagged two planning concerns during the concept review: visual prominence of a tall pole when sited on the east side of the building (the applicant had earlier proposed that location) and impacts on a public multi‑use trail if access for maintenance required an easement across the trail. Staff said they asked the applicant to relocate the facility to a lower, south‑side position where the building and existing berm will screen the base of the tower and avoid opening gates onto the trail.

Staff overview and applicant presentation
City planning staff summarized the required process: the project, as presented, would need a preliminary development plan (PDP) amendment and an official development plan (ODP) amendment because the height exceeds current PDP limits for the property. Staff emphasized that the concept review only gives Council nonbinding feedback and that the applicant’s revised site reflects staff guidance to reduce trail and gateway visibility impacts.

Jake Hamilton, the applicant representative, said the company is proposing a monopole design with a low‑contrast, light‑gray finish and a masonry or architectural screen wall around the ground equipment to reduce visual impacts. He said the tower is framed into an existing landscaped berm behind the store and that the compound would be screened by added planting. Hamilton said the site would accommodate three sectors (three antenna sectors with three antennas each) and that Verizon would be the initial carrier. On coverage, Hamilton said, “I’d say more of a capacity need because as I‑25 fills up and some of these streets fill up more post work time, 05:00, 6 o’clock, 7 o’clock, the coverage needs change dramatically based on the time of day.”

Council questions and staff responses
Councilors asked about process and timing, alternate sites and whether city‑owned land adjacent to the proposed site could be used. Staff and the applicant said the city right‑of‑way and vacant city parcel near the site present constraints (floodplain/creek and topography were cited in the discussion), and the applicant said the site selection also reflected existing master‑lease agreements large carriers maintain with major retail property owners such as Walmart. City staff said the PDP/ODP amendment route will require public notice, a neighborhood meeting and future public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Technical details and next steps
The applicant’s concept materials showed the proposed equipment compound, a retaining wall into the slope, and a landscaping plan that replaces removed trees at a higher planting ratio. The applicant noted the monopole is built to accept multiple carriers; staff noted that co‑location is typical but not guaranteed and depends on commercial carrier decisions. If the applicant proceeds, staff said they will process the PDP and ODP amendments and that the public will have at least one neighborhood meeting and formal hearings as part of the technical review. No permits or construction were approved at the study session; Council’s comments were advisory only.

The council discussion closed with staff reiterating that comments at a concept review are nonbinding and with the applicant indicating plans to pursue the formal applications if the project moves forward.