Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 February 15, 2018 Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 15, 2018 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Packet Page 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 February 15, 2018 1. HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 MAJOR AMENDMENT, #FDP170036 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the approved Final Plan for Harmony Commons Lot 5 for a new Child Care Facility. As proposed, the one-story building would contain 12,142 square feet. Lot 5 is 1.8 acres in size and located at the northwest corner of Lady Moon Drive and Timberwood Drive. Lot 5 was originally approved for a two-story, 25,000 square foot medical office building in 2016. Access would be from internal private drives with no direct access to either Lady Moon or Timberwood Drives. The site is a portion of Tract S of the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Seventh Amendment, and represents an individual phase of a larger (total of seven lots) commercial center. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. APPLICANT: Everbrook Child Care c/o Ms Allison Morgan Capital Real Estate, Inc. 50 South Sixth Street, #1480 Minneapolis, MN 55402 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ted Shepard • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, PDP160018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless telecommunication facility use is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project. APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clay Frickey • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Page 2 AGENDA ITEM #1 HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 MAJOR AMENDMENT HAS BEEN POSTPONED PLEASE SEE MEMORANDUM ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. PACKET PAGES 3-30 HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKET. TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Board Tom Leeson, C.D.N.S. Director� Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager� Ted Shepard, Chief Planner,-r February 13, 2018 Harmony Commons Lot 5 Major Amendment - Continuance to March 15, 2018 At the request of the applicant, Harmony Commons Lot 5, Major Amendment, will be forwarded to the March 15, 2018 public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed to resolve various issues related to the private covenants as established by the owners of the commercial center. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, PDP160018 STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecom- munications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless telecommunication facility use is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project. APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNER: Forbes Kenneth E Jeanette L 2008 Turnberry Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: Packet Page 31 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 - Districts. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club East Annexation on September 6, 1983. In 1989, the property owner subdivided the property to create the existing lot pattern that exists today. The site has been used as a farm property and contains buildings dating from 1900 to 1950. This Project Development Plan application required an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) since wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the LMN zone district. The APU application went before City Council initially on October 17, 2017. City Council continued the hearing until December 19, 2017 to allow for the City to contract with a consultant to analyze the application for compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The consultant’s analysis is attached to this staff report. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use application with the following conditions: 1. The height of the facility shall not exceed 45’ in height. 2. The location of the tower shall be moved further north on the property in closer proximity to the outbuildings on the site. 3. The tower shall be removed if it becomes functionally obsolete or out of use for more than 180 consecutive days. 4. The tower shall meet the wind loading requirements in Section 5-27(70) of the Municipal Code. 5. Upon re-development of the parcel located at 2008 Turnberry Rd., the applicant must alter the exterior appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility to be more residential in character. This change to the wireless telecommunications facility shall be processed in conjunction with a Project Development Plan submittal for 2008 Turnberry Rd. Prior to City Council’s consideration, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and evaluated a previous version and recommended denial of the Addition of Permitted Use. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Vacant West County Residential (R) Single-family detached residential Packet Page 32 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 2. UCompliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.6.6 - Emergency Access The applicant proposes a 20-foot-wide gravel path in an emergency access easement with a turnaround to provide emergency access to the tower. This path will allow emergency vehicles to access the site and provide fire and emergency services pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. B. Section 3.8.13(C)(1) - Setbacks Facilities must be setback from the property one foot for every one foot in the facility’s height. The applicant may also demonstrate the facility is designed to collapse rather than topple to meet this requirement. The proposed facility is 121 feet away from the nearest property line, which meets this requirement. If the conditions of approval for 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the new location of the facility to also satisfy this requirement. C. Section 3.8.13(C)(2) - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. As discussed previously in this staff report, the proposed silo is consistent with the agricultural character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed material, fiberglass, is equal to or better than the materials used on the house and outbuildings located on the development site. D. Section 3.8.13(C)(5) - Fencing Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six feet in height. The proposed fence is made of wood and will not exceed six feet in height in accordance with this standard. E. Section 3.8.13(C)(8) - Color Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed color will be a muted green to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods and agricultural uses in accordance with this standard. F. Section 3.8.13(C)(11) - Access Roadways The proposed access roadways meet the requirements for emergency access per Section 3.6.6, satisfying this standard. Packet Page 33 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 G. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) - Stealth Technology Applicants must use stealth technology to the extent reasonably feasible to minimize the visual impact of the facility. Silos are included in the list of permissible structures per this section so long as the structure has a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Given the agricultural heritage of northeast Fort Collins, a silo generally provides this contextual relationship. City Council approved the APU application with a condition of approval that the silo be no more than 45 feet in height. This design complies with this standard. 3. UCompliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.5(B)(1) - Permitted Uses The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not permitted in the LMN zone. For this application to be approved, the applicant must satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. City Council approved this use on January 2, 2018 on this parcel. 4. UFindings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 - Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Narrative 3. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations) 4. Reports from Center for Municipal Solutions 5. Council Ordinance 136 6. Letters from Sherman and Howard 7. Agenda Materials from December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting Packet Page 34 LMN Proposed (mountain Vista Site) Crescent Park E Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Sunbury Ln Marshfield Ln Forecastle Dr Lake View Dr Nedrah Dr Frontage Rd Lind e n La k e R d S h e r e l l D r Chesapeake Dr Summerpark Ln Cott o nwoo d P o i n t D r Cambria Ln Adriel Dr Muir Ln Milton Ln D a yto n D r Friar Tuck Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct E l i m C t Ashland Ln Supplementary Narrative – Long Pond August 22, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524. This facility will be 2,500 square feet and house a 60’ silo communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This request is made in an effort to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Kenneth E. Forbes Jeanette L Forbes Address: 2008 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant: Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 36' 51.50" N 105° 02' 14.96” W Zoning: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Lease Area: 2,500 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a silo and housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a developing residential area where there is very spotty coverage and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As there area develops, and the existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the- ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect We strive to design our facilities and locate parcels that create the least amount of community disturbance. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped farmland and residential properties of medium density. The proposed site was previously used for agricultural purposes with multiple agricultural structures. The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a silo and blend with the surrounding area and the aesthetics of the proposed parcel. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 36 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could vary on occassion. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could vary depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. Generators are used in rare instances for backup emergency power, and for very limited run times, if needed. The generator would create very minimal noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 37 3 attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had favorable zoning and cable of addressing the growing coverage need and demand of the area. Exhibit 2 to this application shows the ring where Verizon would ideally place a tower. Exhibit 3 shows an expanded search area around Verizon’s ideal location that Atlas has considered for a possible lease, though not all of these locations would necessarily be effective for housing a WTF or meeting the coverage objectives planned for this WTF. This expanded search ring is based on nearness to the population to which the proposed telecommunications facility will provide coverage, and nearness to Verizon’s ideal location. Atlas’s expanded search ring is about one mile from Verizon’s ideal location, while as near as possible to the medium dense residential areas to the southwest of Verizon’s ideal location. The proposed site is just south of Verizon’s ideal search ring. Properties to the east of the proposed site are undesirable because they are not near the population that the tower will serve. In order for a telecommunications facility to function effectively, it needs to be near the population it will serve. The Industrial zoned properties to the east are over a mile from the center of the residential areas that the proposed telecommunications facility would serve, and therefore are undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. In addition to being located too far away from the coverage objective, the Industrial zoned properties to the east of the search area are also undesirable because they are significantly lower in elevation than the desired coverage area. In order for towers to work effectively, they need line of site with each other and with most of the area to which they will provide coverage. Properties to the east and northeast of the proposed site have a drop in elevation of 30ft – 50ft as shown in Exhibit 4. This 30ft – 50ft elevation drop makes the Industrial zoned properties to the east undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. The proposed site is ideal when taking into account likely future development in the area. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the area to the west of the proposed site is a medium dense residential area. To the north and south of the proposed site are new residential developments that are in the process of development. Directly to the east of the proposed site is the site of a future high school. As depicted on Exhibit 5, the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility is zoned LMN or UE. Both the LMN and UE zones are designed to support residential housing. If the proposed telecommunications facility is not developed at the proposed site, as the area continues to be developed with residential properties, the portion of northern Fort Collins from just east of College to what will be Timberline will be almost exclusively residential properties. This would be an almost two- mile wide area among which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a telecommunications facility, especially one of sufficient height. The proposed telecommunications faculty is within what will be a residential area and will allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to northeastern Fort Collins with almost no negative visual effect. Atlas was unable to secure a lease on other properties within the search area depicted on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is an image of the zoning in the search area with notes concerning Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease. Atlas and Verizon were unable to secure a lease on the property to the northeast of the proposed site owned by State of Colorado Land Commissioners or the property to the east owned by Anheuser-Busch. Neither of these properties indicated interest in a lease of any price. The Fort ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 38 4 Collins Country Club to the west of the proposed site was also not interested in a lease for a cell tower at a reasonable rate. Exhibit 7 is a letter from Greg DiBona, a contactor for Verizon, stating that after about a year of work, he was unable to secure a lease on a preferentially zoned property that meets Verizon’s coverage objectives and was acceptable to the Fort Collins Planning department. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed telecommunications facility would be located 136ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 118.5ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a silo, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which includes small residential farming properties and larger working farms, among other medium dense residential properties. We are proposing a wooden fence, as depicted in page C-2 of the Zoning Drawings enclosed with this application. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing farm buildings and residence. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth silo a beige color that matches the existing buildings on the property. All of the antennas on the stealth silo will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth silo and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 39 5 Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new stealth silo, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth silo will be mounted behind the paneling of the silo, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. C-2 of the enclosed drawings. A 6’ wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. C-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 40 6 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. As designed, the telecommunications facility does not have vegetation and therefore would not need automatic irrigation systems. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth silo, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Existing access roads are paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. Extension of the access roads will be made of gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 8. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 41 7 The proposed site is not located on any designated historic site or structure. Atlas has obtained NEPA and Phase I environmental studies for the proposed site. The studies have determined that the site will not negatively impact any nearby historically significant sites. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth silo in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a WTF. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. According to Division 4.5, (A) Purpose: the L-M-N District is “to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood.” The proposed telecommunications facility would be a supporting land use to the neighborhood because it would provide a vital utility to the surrounding area. The L-M-N District lists “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. In addition, because the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility has been, or is currently, used for agricultural purposes, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would not look out of place. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 6, the location of the proposed tower is over 110 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 42 8 location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth silo. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 60 ft. silo on farm property, the proposed 60 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Exhibit 8 to this narrative includes photo simulations showing what the proposed WTF would look like at the proposed site. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the surrounding area is a mix of newer residential properties and older rural properties, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. The L-M-N District has “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with other permitted uses for the L-M-N district which include small scale and medium scale solar energy systems and wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 43 9 The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 60’ stealth silo tower at 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Ken Bradtke Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 44 Network Engineering RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview: Verizon Wireless strives to provide excellent wireless service for our users with a network of telecommunications facilities that allows our users to reliably place and receive mobile-phone calls and utilize data services. Verizon is working to improve its network in the residential areas in northeast Fort Collins, centered near Long Pond. The performance of a network consists mainly of two factors: coverage and capacity. Coverage can be thought of as the strength of a wireless signal in a given area. Capacity can be thought of as the ability of the wireless network to handle the amount of voice and data demands placed upon it. Neither the coverage nor the capacity of the network in northeastern Fort Collins meet Verizon’s performance goals or user expectations. Increasing coverage and capacity in the area requires the development of a new telecommunications facility that can house up to twelve antennas, near users, with line-of-site to much of the surrounding area. Line of Site Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as –80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to provide a line of sight to the roads, offices, and homes where users work and reside. One of the challenges of providing excellent coverage is providing strong in-building coverage to users. Strong in-building coverage is often difficult to attain because of the degradation of the Radio Frequency (RF) signal when it travels through solid obstacles such as tree foliage or buildings. A tower height that is greater than the existing tree and building clutter increases in-building coverage because it decreases the number of solid objects, such as trees and buildings, that a cellular signal must pass though in order to reach a user. Because the proposed facility would be located on ground that is relatively high and the stealth silo would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of-site from the proposed facility would be ideal for providing coverage to the surrounding residential area. With the proposed facility at 60ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 55ft on center and could have line-of-site coverage to most of the users that Verizon seeks to serve with the proposed facility. Location Requirements: Early cellular network designs placed tall telecommunications facility towers (often in excess of 200ft) on top of hills. This provided cellular providers the ability to cover the most area possible with very few telecommunications facilities. As cell-phone users have increased, these tall, hill top facilities have been forced to provide service to an increasing number of users in a given area. In addition to there being more users, the average user is utilizing applications on their phones and tablets that require more data than ever before. With more people using cell phones and most cell-phone users requiring more data, existing structures are no longer able to handle the capacity load placed upon them. Cellular design has evolved so that multiple shorter cell sites, located near high traffic or high population areas, are now favored. These smaller sites near population centers can provide fast and reliable service to a more focused geographic area. This ultimately results in fewer dropped calls and access failures for users. The proposed location directly abuts the residential area the proposed facility would cover. The proposed location is ideal for providing fast and reliable coverage to much of the residential area of northeastern Fort Collins. Exhibit 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 45 11 The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network in northeastern Fort Collins (north of Vine and east of College) is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations. Verizon has received multiple complaints from users of dropped and degraded calls and slow data speeds. In this area there are both issues of coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year in order to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non- functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are requiring more and more data. In addition to this, Fort Collins is growing quickly and there is planned development in northeastern Fort Collins. As more homes and schools are built, the existing infrastructure will become less and less able to meet demand. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because more and more people are no longer utilizing landlines, it is becoming more and more common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Average users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. Exhibit 1 Continued ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 46 12 Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon’s existing coverage in northeastern Fort Collins. Map Legend: (Same for both Maps) Exhibit 1 Continued ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 47 13 The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon’s coverage in northeastern Fort Collins could be with the proposed facility. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity in northeastern Fort Collins for both current and future use. The proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road it ideally situated with regard to both topography and with regard to its proximity to the residential users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding residential area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site’s topography and location is ideal for Verizon’s purposed and will allow it to greatly improve wireless performance in northeastern Fort Collins. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless FTC_LongPond Exhibit 1 Continued ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 48 14 Exhibit 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 49 15 Exhibit 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 50 16 Exhibit 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 51 17 Exhibit 5 1 -- Ridnour Wesley P/Gerldine J – In addition to being located too far away from the search ring and coverage area and having insufficient elevation, Atlas inquired about leasing on this parcel with the landlord in the fall of 2015, and was unable to secure a lease. The property owner was un-interested in a lease. 2 – Colorado Board of Land Commissioners – Atlas Tower reached out to multiple contacts regarding a lease on this property and was informed that the owners and occupiers of the property were not interested in leasing for a WTF. Additionally, this location is largely too far from the search ring center and is too low in elevation for the proposed tower to function effectively. 3 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Atlas made multiple rounds of calls to the Landlord with no response. Additionally, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future. 4 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 5 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 6 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Calls to Landlord were unsuccessful in getting a response. Furthermore, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future and how to site the tower location. Our parcel and siting location has established agricultural residences that allow for a stealth structure that fits the character of the existing development, while still providing the much needed coverage. Text Text Lease Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 52 18 Exhibit 5 Continued 7 – Fort Collins Country Club – In the summer of 2015, Greg Dibona, approached the Fort Collins Country Club, but was unsuccessful in securing a lease. Additionally, Atlas employee, Mike Powers approached the Fort Collins country club, but they were completely uninterested in a telecommunications lease. Atlas discussed a lease with the Fort Collins County Club again, at the request of the City, as recently as August of 2017, and after providing the details of the project the golf course indicated they were not interested in pursuing a lease. An email from the General Manager, John Stebbins, is included with this submittal indicating the course's decision not to pursue a lease. 8 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 9 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – Verizon contractors reached out to Budweiser in the fall of 2015, and Budweiser never responded to Greg’s inquiries. Atlas additionally reached out to local and corporate Budweiser contacts regarding cell tower leasing options, and received no interest or response. Additionally, as stated by Verizon RF engineer, Ram Nandiraju, in Exhibit 9, the Anheuser-Busch property is too far from Verizon’s desired search ring to provide effective coverage to the target area. In fact, the Anheuser-Busch property falls within another search ring being pursued by Verizon and would not be suitable for the desired coverage of this search ring. 10 – Poudre R-1 School District – This parcel is undeveloped and not a better location for the proposed telecommunications facility as it has the same zoning as the proposed site and is lower in elevation than the proposed site. Additionally, this is the planned area of a new school development. With the uncertainty in development and the type of planned development, this is not a suitable candidate for communications tower siting or leasing. 11 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 12 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – See response to #9 above. This property is too far away to provide the intended service to the desired coverage area. Additionally, multiple leasing efforts have failed.. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 53 21 Lat40 , Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SITE PLAN ATLAS TOWER: FORBES Exhibit 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 54 22 Exhibit 7 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 55 23 Exhibit 7 Continued ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 56 24 Exhibit 8 Photo Simulation #1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 57 25 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 58 26 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 59 27 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 60 28 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 61 29 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 62 30 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 63 31 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 64 32 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 65 33 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 66 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 67 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 68 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 69 1 of 5 Sample Text Messages of Support 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins Yes yes! I fully support a cell tower. I need better cell service at my home. Having cell service in this growing part of town is long overdue! I definitely support this! We need service badly. Disguised or not, we need service. I support a wireless facility. I support improving service at this area! I support the new tower it is a matter of public safety!! I support to have cell tower In maple hill , turnberry rd , country club rd I support. I would vote 500 times yes for this &: Service around here is really bad! We can't even use our cell phones at the house without having dropped calls. We need a wireless facility disguised as a silo. We need that cell phone tower badly. We support And need it YES - improved wireless coverage in North Fort Collins is sorely needed and long overdue. Yes - the present service is intolerable. YES , I support a wireless facikity disvuised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd. Yes !! We need this cell tower. Our coverage is very poor here. Yes a cell tower is needed at turnberry. Yes a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry would be great and Verizon customers would greatly appreciate it. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 70 2 of 5 YES absolutely! Service is terrible many dropped calls! Build it NOW! YES because I'm tired of having no cell reception at home YES City of Fort Collins please allow a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road for better Verizon wireless service. Yes I live in Adriel Hills and the Verizon service is marginal at best. I would be thrilled to have my cell service improved YES I support the cell tower on Turnberry road! Yes I supporte this because reception in this area is terrible YES I was not able to receive an emergency call from family due to poor cell service. It is a danger to the community as it currently exists. Yes I would be in support of a wireless tower to in prove the service thank you yes I would like the cell tower so hopefully we get better cellphone service Yes my service needs to be improved at home off Douglas and Highland YES Please get this done, silo disguise or not. Yes please HWY 1 Fort Collins Yes services needs to improve Yes to plan for wireless Verizon tower on Turnberry! Badly needed. Yes tower is ok with me Yes we approve the cell tower proposed YES we need a new tower! We have very bad reception! Yes we support this initiative Yes Yes I support the new cell tower. We have zero cellphone service at my house in Serramonte. YES YES YES! YES YES YES. It's a matter of life and death. We cannot call 911 from our house. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 71 3 of 5 Yes- we support tower Yes-I have to drive to Wellington or Ft. Collins library to do research because the connection is so poor! Thank you! Yes, we need the cell tower Yes, and need better service in Wellington Greens area as well. Yes, calls either dropped or bad connection for over 12 years. Yes, I am a strong supporter of a new cell tower on Turnberry Rd. Yes, I support a new Verizon wireless service disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd. Yes, I support a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road. YES, I support the installation of a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2800 Turnberry Road. Yes, more wireless coverage is better all around Yes, please approve the site at 2008 Turnberry. Yes, please improve cell service out near turnberry and country club. Yes, silo! Yes, we support a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry Road YES, we support a wireless facility disguised as a silo - this is NEEDED in our area!! Yes, we support the enhanced Verizon cell service. Turnberry road is an excellent location. Yes! I definitely support wireless service as a silo on Turnberry road. We have little if any cell phone service in the Chesapeake subdivision. Yes! I support a tower at 2008 Turnberry Rd. YES! I support this tower. It's for everyone's safety! In an emergency, calls would not go through. This is unacceptable! We are not in rural Colorado. Yes! We need it. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 72 4 of 5 Yes! And to the city - my husband I both greatly wish for better service so we completely support a tower disguised as a silo. Yes! My call dropped during an emergency, we need service!!! Yes! We are in a hole with little or no service! YES! We need the tower very badly! Yes! Yes! Yes! YES! Yes. Yes Yes!! I support a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 rubbery road. Not rubbery! Turnberry! Stupid spell check!! Yes!! Yes!! We defiantly need this tower so we have decent service!! Yes. And I hope this will improve our service in the Hearthfire neighborhood. Yes. Am constantly getting disconnected or service won't go thru. Di Yes. Please do this Yes. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! YES. 100% support. Long overdue. Appreciate the silo design. Cell service is sub par north Fort Collins. YES. Disguising as a silo or other feature preferred. Yes. I absolutely support the new wireless facility on turnberry. yES. I am very interested in improving cell service. I have health issues that require I have reliable communication. Thank you! YES. I routinely miss calls due to the lack of cell service in the area. Yes. I support a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry. Yes. I support the silo facility. Yes. Reception at our house is terrible! Thank you. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 73 5 of 5 Yes....I support a tower on Turnberry Rd YES...I support s new cell tower at Turnberry and Country Club Road. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 74 Feb 10, 2017 Attn: Clay Frickey Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Noise and traffic generated by the proposed WTF at 2008 Turnberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could very greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. Please feel free to contact me with follow-up question or concerns. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Project Manager Atlas Tower 1, LLC (303) 448-8896 ccrossand@atlastowers.com ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 75 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 77 NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 78 FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 2008 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS C-2 TOWER ELEVATION C TURNBERRY KES NMC A 04-27-16 ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS C 07-27-16 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 79 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 81 NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 82 EROSION NOTES: PUBLIC ROAD NOTES: CONSTRUCTION NOTES: “ ” “ ” “ ” EROSION & DRIVEWAY PLANS C-2 SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 SILT FENCE DETAILS STANDARD ROAD SEC. (POOR SUBGRADE) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STANDARD ROAD SEC. (GOOD SUBGRADE) FIRE ACCESS ROAD SIGNS SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 83 TURNBERRY ROAD CODES TESTING GUARANTEE CO-ORDINATION: EXAMINATION OF SITE CUTTING, PATCHING AND EXCAVATION: SCOPE: ELECTRICAL NOTES: CONDUCTORS GROUNDING PENETRATIONS: EXTERIOR CONDUIT: EQUIPMENT: RACEWAYS ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND MATERIALS POWER NOTES: UTILITY PLAN SCHEDULE H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-1 ELECTRICAL NOTES & UTILITY COORDINATION ELECTRICAL NOTES UTILITY COORDINATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 84 NOTES: FRONT VIEW REAR VIEW POWER PANEL SCHEDULE NOTES: VZW SERVICE RACK (FRONT AND BACK) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (FRONT) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (BACK) ONE LINE DIAGRAM NOTES: NOTES: NOTES: DRAWING NOTES: H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-2 ELECTRICAL DETAILS SERVICE RACK DETAILS ONE LINE ELEVATION ONE LINE DETAIL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT(S) TRENCH DETAIL POWER AND TELCO PLAN ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 85 TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FIXED GENERATOR GROUNDING NOTES DRAWING NOTES: NOTES: SINGLE CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS GROUNDING DETAILS E-3 ELECTRICAL DETAIL H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 CADWELD GROUNDING DETAIL TOWER GROUNDING ISOLATED GROUND BAR COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD TOWER GROUNDING MOUNTING DETAIL COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXTERNAL CIGBE - BOTTOM TYPE 1 GROUND BAR TYPE 2 GROUND BAR COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXT. CIGBE - TOP & INTERMEDIATE GROUNDING PLAN GROUNDING AT GATE POST TRENCH DETAIL INSPECTION WELL DETAIL CONNECTOR AND HARDWARE DETAIL ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 86 November 2, 2017 (via regular mail and e-mail) Clay Frickey Fort Collins Planning 281 North College, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Fort Collins CO Atlas Tower 2008 Turnberry Road Dear Mr. Frickey; We have reviewed all of the materials submitted by the applicant for the above referenced application relating to the conditions of the approval of a Special Use Permit. This includes the following three documents: City of Fort Collins Development Review: Application Form dated 5/25/16 PDF Attachment 2: Atlas Tower Supplementary Narrative - Long Pond dated August 22, 2017 PDF Attachment 3: Atlas Tower Zoning Construction Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17. Brief description / project overview: Applicant: Atlas Tower Proposed Project: Construct a 60’ silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd with capabilities to enclose 3 wireless carriers. Scope of Review: 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant’s search ring 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is taken from the April 23, 1996 Federal Communications Commission FACT SHEET. “Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act") governs federal, state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The 1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and placement of facilities such as towers for cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) transmitters: - • The new law preserves local zoning authority, but clarifies when the exercise of local zoning authority may be preempted by the FCC. • Section 704 prohibits any action that would discriminate between different providers of personal wireless services, such as cellular, wide-area SMR and broadband PCS. It also prohibits any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a particular area.” ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 87 Page 2 of 6 11/2/17 Of particular note in this review is the “Applicant” is not a provider of personal wireless services covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but is an infrastructure provider desiring to construct a silo that could potentially support up to three service providers. While Verizon has included a document “Exhibit 1” titled RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80524, Verizon is not listed as a co-applicant and does not appear to be committed or integrated into this application. This is confirmed in the Attachment 2 document which includes the following statement by Atlas Tower. Based on this information the Proposal Summary section (copied below) is incorrect. The second sentence states “This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area.” This statement is incorrect. This facility will provide a support structure for wireless service providers who in the future may attach and install antennas / equipment that will provide wireless coverage to the surrounding area, is a more correct statement. The reason this wording is important is that without a commitment and installation of a service provider’s equipment, no improvement in wireless coverage will occur as a result of the construction of this project. It also makes it clear that this application is not for a provider of personal wireless services and therefore is not a protected class under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For the purpose of providing the City of Fort Collins and the applicant as much information as possible based on the documentation the applicant has provided to date, the balance of this report will be written as if the applicant is a service provider or that Verizon has committed to the project and will install wireless equipment as a co-applicant. 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site In order to have a proper understanding of the existing and proposed coverage a significant amount of supplemental and additional information is required. First, we will address the deficiencies of the submitted information which was included in Exhibit 1: Verizon provided the following statement: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 88 Page 3 of 6 11/2/17 Based on this statement it appears that Verizon is stating the purpose of a new site in this area is both to improve coverage and to increase capacity. The data typically required to document these issues are different. We will first look at coverage. Verizon provided a propagation map for the existing coverage in Northeastern Fort Collins. This existing coverage map has multiple deficiencies: 1. It appears to have included three color codes; green -75 dBm, yellow -85 dBm, and grey -95 dBm. Verizon implies that in order to provide excellent in building coverage requires -80 dBm. Verizon typically uses -95 dBm (700 MHz and 2100 MHz frequencies) for in building services in cities, suburban and dense residential communities. Verizon prepared a coverage map for this location using -75 dBm which is not consistent and conflicts with Verizon’s in building requirements for other communities. 2. It does not state what frequency band was utilized to generate the map? Is it the 700 MHz band or the 2100 MHz band? The coverage gaps will be significantly different based on the frequency band. 3. Verizon has not provided adjacent site information, such as location, operating power (ERP), losses, elevations, etc. 4. Verizon did not provide drive test data to document the model is correct and properly reflects the actual gap in coverage. 5. Verizon did not include a scale or street labels to assist in defining the areas where coverage is an issue. Verizon also submitted a propagation map of what coverage “could be” with Verizon located at the 55’ elevation of the proposed facility. This “conceptual” coverage map also has multiple deficiencies. In addition to all the deficiencies for the existing coverage, additional deficiencies include: 1. The location of the proposed analyzed facility appears to be different than the proposed location at 2008 Turnberry Rd. It appears the analyzed location and conceptual coverage map is for a facility located at a maintenance facility on the Fort Collins County Club located approximately 1 mile to the North/Northwest. This location adjustment would obviously impact the conceptual coverage map. 2. The proposed coverage maps should be provided using the 700 MHz frequency at the proposed elevation and at 10’ lower elevations along with a narrative explaining the loss in coverage at the lower elevation in order to justify the need for the proposed height of this structure. Information required to address Verizon’s capacity concern also has not been provided. Verizon provided one chart with no supporting documentation or information. (Copy of chart below) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 89 Page 4 of 6 11/2/17 The demonstration of need for capacity relief requires the presentation of the data requirements identified below with a narrative. The narrative should present the summary results of the supporting studies and documentation. To further clarify, an analysis of current and projected usage for each adjacent or adjoining site will be required, by sector, for each existing sector of each/all sites in need of capacity relief, and a description of specifically how the proposed site will relieve current and projected capacity issues in each sector requiring relief. Data must include a description of the capacity design for each sector requiring relief (usage capacity) to include the transmitting base station equipment specifications (cut sheets) in use or proposed for the upgrade and indicating how the equipment in use or as proposed relates to the maximum possible usage capacity for each sector affected by a need for capacity relief. Usage data should utilize a bouncing busy hour and should be over a period of five (5) consecutive days. The report should show the average bottom-line numbers for those five consecutive days. The documentation required to support an application for a capacity increase falls into one of two scenarios: 1. A situation in which a sector or sectors are over capacity at the present time, or 2. A situation in which a sector or sectors are anticipated to be over capacity during for the next busy season. The following site information is required for each scenario: a. What is at capacity, i.e. voice or data? b. Which sector at each site is at capacity? c. What are the number of voice carriers and data carriers per sector at each site? d. How many voice carriers and how many data carriers1 are there in each necessitating this application? e. Can the number of voice or data carriers be reallocated (to voice or data) to address the capacity issue/need? If not, why not? f. The number of channels/voice radios installed per each affected sector; g. Minimum acceptable Bit Rate; h. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that can be installed. Radio that can be put at each current site divided by the number of radios per sector. i. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that are installed. j. All calculations that are related to the capacity of the voice or data capacity of the affected sectors, e.g. minutes of use. Erlangs, Bit Error Rate, number of data customers per busy hour data. k. Number of anticipated voice users and data users for each type of use per site; l. Any other data that provides documentation as regards the need for increased voice or data capacity relief, such being the obligation of the applicant to provide to enable verification of the need. (This may include a customer limit, design thru put data rates or other criteria prescribed in internal technical documents.) 1 The number of paths or circuits used for voice or data ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 90 Page 5 of 6 11/2/17 Data required for each scenario are as follows. Scenario 1: Sector or sectors currently at or over capacity. (Data needed for the past busy season) • Data collected over 5 (five) consecutive days for minutes of use for the bouncing busy hour (i.e., highest use hour for each of the 5 days); • Convert the use data to Erlangs; • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be each in sector(s); • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage. Scenario 2: Sector or sectors anticipated to be at or over capacity during the next busy season • Data for the past 2 (two) year’s busy seasons to establish a trend of use following the same guidelines as under Scenario 1 (i.e., 5 consecutive days bouncing busy use for each of the last 2 busy seasons) The trend should be straight line. • Convert the use data to Erlangs. • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be in each sector(s) • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage Propagation Projections Propagation projections must be provided depicting existing and proposed coverage at –95dBm in vehicle or –85dBm in building coverage, or for 700 d/B/m service at -95d/B/m for city/suburban in- building coverage and state whether the applicant is designing for in-vehicle or in-building coverage, and how the proposed coverage will overlap existing coverage to relieve existing or projected capacity issues. The maps must indicate the output power level used at the antenna height requested. On a tower, the applicant must show the minimum height necessary to achieve the required capacity relief, i.e. below which the facility will not provide any capacity relief. Capacity Summary Narrative Present the narrative summary and conclusion for need with reference to the capacity use studies to be presented. The supporting technical data requested shall be accompanied by a written explanation of why a new facility/site is needed is, i.e. why additional capacity can not be added to the existing facility. 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant’s search ring Supporting documents for alternative sites evaluated by the applicant have not been provided including communications / proposals related to the Fort Collins Country Club. It should be noted that the proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road is approximately 0.6 miles south of the Verizon search ring shown in Exhibit 2. Other potential sites are discussed below and warrant evaluation. All of these sites are closer to the Verizon search ring than the proposed facility or within the Verizon search ring. Fort Collins Country Club (Maintenance Building) Supporting documents for this alternative site evaluated by the applicant and Verizon should be provided to document the commercial impracticability. This location sits approximately 25’ higher in elevation than the proposed site and is on the fringe of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 91 Page 6 of 6 11/2/17 Parcel 9 Anheuser-Bush This site is located within the preferential zoning of the City of Fort Collins. Verizon provided a letter discussing the Anheuser-Bush property along with a description that it is 70’ lower in elevation and 2 miles southeast of the Verizon search ring. Parcel 9 is currently owned by Anheuser-Bush. The NW corner of parcel 9 is 30’ lower than the proposed site and is only 0.3 miles outside of the Verizon search ring. This is actually 0.3 miles closer than the proposed site to the Verizon search ring. Further consideration and evaluation is justified for this parcel. Verizon made the following statement in the application materials: Richard’s Lake Park (and other park space) Based on the Verizon letter this location is obviously a target of improved coverage for Verizon. This park sits approximately 45’ higher in elevation than the proposed site at Turnberry Rd. It also is near the center of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. There is also open space / park at the NE corner of Richards Lake Road and Turnberry Road that is the same elevation as the proposed site and also is within the Verizon search ring that warrants evaluation. We find the application materials for these three items to be incomplete and the documentation that has been provided does not justify this facility at this time. Before we can make a final recommendation to the City on this application these items must be addressed. Should the applicant be willing to provide additional application material, we strongly recommend a conference call with the applicant’s individual(s) that will be providing the information to review the items needed in order to assure that the next submittal is complete and contains all of the information needed for the city to make an informed decision on this application. Please contact Bob Naumann at (402) 850-3424 if you have any questions. Sincerely, R.A.Comi (electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS Cc: Robert A. Naumann CMS (via e-mail) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 92 CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE (518) 439-3079 GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518) 478-0909 December 6, 2017 (via regular mail and e-mail) Clay Frickey Fort Collins Planning 281 North College, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: CMS Supplemental Report - Fort Collins CO Atlas Tower 2008 Turnberry Road Dear Mr. Frickey; We have reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by Atlas Tower for the above referenced application relating to the conditions of the approval of a Special Use Permit. This review includes two documents: PDF titled: Long Pond Response Narrative 11.27.17 (Atlas Tower) PDF titled: 2017 11 28 Ltr C Hendrickson to Fort Collins Planning Department (Sherman & Howard) Our original review included the following three documents: City of Fort Collins Development Review: Application Form dated 5/25/16 PDF Attachment 2: Atlas Tower Supplementary Narrative - Long Pond dated August 22, 2017 PDF Attachment 3: Atlas Tower Zoning Construction Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17. PDF titled: Long Pond Response Narrative 11.27.17 (Atlas Tower) This Supplemental Narrative addressed three main points identified by CMS in the original CMS review. • Issue 1: This application is not for a provider of personal wireless services. • Issue 2: Supplemental RF information required. • Issue 3: Alternative site considerations. Issue 1: This application is not for a provider of personal wireless services. The Atlas tower PDF states that Atlas and Verizon are co-applicants on this application. They added statements that Verizon’s equipment is shown in the Zoning Drawings, Verizon is referenced numerous times in the narrative, submitted materials on Verizon letterhead including RF materials, Text Campaign results and other site specific information. CMS reviewed these items and reference the following documentation from Atlas Tower’s application materials. 1. City of Fort Collins Development Review Application Form lists Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant. 2. The Atlas Tower cover page dated August 22, 2017 lists Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant. 3. The Atlas Tower narrative dated August 22, 2017 states the Purpose of this request is “to build a telecommunications tower”. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 93 Page 2 of 3 12/6/17 4. The Atlas Tower narrative dated August 22, 2017 states “Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations.” 5. The Atlas Tower Planning Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17 and the Utility Plans Rev G dated 3/3/17 list Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant and provided only Atlas contact information with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant or any contact information for Verizon. 6. The Planning and Utility Drawings do indicate proposed locations for Verizon equipment but label these construction details as by Verizon which clearly documents that Verizon will provide separate plans for these details which are not included in these plans. No Verizon specific details, generator, grounding, cabling, radio equipment and antenna specifications are included in these plans. 7. The letter from Sherman & Howard objected to technical issues in the original CMS report however, they did not object to the original CMS report stating that the applicant, Atlas Tower 1, LLC, is not a provider of personal wireless services. They also did not affirm that Verizon is a co-applicant for this application. Based on the 7 items listed above in CMS’s opinion Verizon should not be considered an applicant until Verizon provides documentation to the City confirming they are committed to improving wireless services in this location. Atlas Tower 1, LLC is not a provider of personal wireless services Issue 2. Supplemental RF information required. Atlas Tower states in their letter, “the information previously provided in the narrative, RF letter, and coverage maps was already of sufficient detail to address the coverage and capacity issues that exist at the proposed site location and coverage area. However we have provided some additional RF materials with this response in a good faith effort to further demonstrate the need for the facility. The enclosed RF coverage maps show the gap in coverage and capacity even with the existing neighboring sites.” The original CMS report documents the unresolved and incomplete documentation / detail from the Atlas narrative. This supplemental submittal by Atlas Tower has not provided any additional information to respond to the incomplete information needed for the City of Fort Collins to make an informed decision. In addition the additional RF materials Atlas said was included with their response was thumbnail size images that become blurry upon enlarging, making them impossible to read and understand. Therefore the only additional material was not legible. CMS requested these to be provided in large detail but as of this writing nothing has been provided. It should be noted that documentation required to illustrate coverage gaps and capacity issues are different as they represent two separate concerns. The original CMS report documents numerous deficiencies that need to be corrected by Verizon, assuming they will become an applicant, in order to prove the coverage gap and capacity issues for this location. Without a clear understanding of the coverage gap it is impossible to determine if the proposed silo is the least intrusive solution to a purported gap that has not been defined. Issue 3: Alternative site considerations. Atlas Tower included a response to the three alternatives discussed in the original CMS report. The original CMS report comments remain valid. No relevant supplementary information was included in the latest Atlas Tower supplemental narrative. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 94 Page 3 of 3 12/6/17 PDF titled: 2017 11 28 Ltr C Hendrickson to Fort Collins Planning Department (Sherman & Howard) This Supplemental letter from counsel to Verizon Wireless addressed four main points. 1. The APU Application Meets All Requirements of the Land Use Code 2. The CMS Letter Imposes Requirements Not Found in the Land Use Code 3. The City Failed to Provide a Notice of Incomplete Application Within the Time Frame Required by the “Shot Clock” Ruling. 4. The Federal Telecommunications Act Mandates Approval of the Application The first two points relate to the requirements of the Land Use Code. The City of Fort Collins have agreed to address any Land Use Code concerns and has not included or requested from CMS to review Code comments. The last two points are not applicable until Verizon Wireless formally is included as an applicant for this project. Currently Atlas Tower 1, LLC is listed as the applicant. We find the application materials reviewed by CMS to be incomplete and the documentation that has been provided does not justify this facility at this time. Before we can make a final recommendation to the City on this application these items must be addressed. Should the applicant be willing to provide additional application material, we strongly recommend a conference call with the applicant’s individual(s) that will be providing the information to review the items needed in order to assure that the next submittal is complete and contains all of the information needed for the city to make an informed decision on this application. Please contact Bob Naumann at (402) 850-3424 if you have any questions. Sincerely, R.A.Comi (electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS Cc: Robert A. Naumann CMS (via e-mail) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 95 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 96 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 97 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 98 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 99 Melissa Kerin Reagan Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 303.299.8310 E-mail: mreagan@shermanhoward.com October 17, 2017 VIA E-MAIL City of Fort Collins – City Council Mayor Wade Troxel PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Verizon Wireless – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 Dear Mayor Troxel and City Council Members: We represent Verizon Wireless. We write in connection with the City of Fort Collins City Council (“City Council”) hearing scheduled for October 17, 2017, to consider Atlas Tower’s application (“Application”) for an Addition of Permitted Use (“APU”) to install a 60-foot wireless facility concealed as a silo (“Facility”) located at approximately 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Atlas Tower is the applicant for the proposed Facility. Atlas Tower will construct the tower, and Verizon Wireless will place its antennas on the Facility. Verizon Wireless partnered with Atlas Tower on this Application, and the location was selected based upon Verizon Wireless’ coverage and capacity needs. Verizon Wireless will benefit from the approval of this Application and has an interest in the APU. Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the City Council approve the APU Application for the Facility for the following reasons: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 100 1. The APU Application Meets All Requirements of the Fort Collins Land Use Code The APU Application meets all of the relevant requirements of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (“Code”), specifically §§ 1.3.4, 2.2, 3 and 4.5. The Fort Collins’ Planning Staff issued a detailed Staff Report dated September 14, 2017 (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report explains in detail how the APU Application complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Code. Verizon Wireless incorporates the Staff Report in support of its argument that the APU Application meets all requirements of the Code. Atlas Tower has presented and will present adequate evidence on each of these standards, as required by the Code, and each of the standards weighs in favor of granting the APU Application. Finally, there was substantial public support for this Application and these efforts to improve telecommunications and wireless coverage for those living in and passing through this area. Furthermore, under the Federal Telecommunications Act, a state or local government denial of a request to place a wireless facility must be “supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). It is not enough for a local government to declare whether the application is approved or denied; the local authority is legally obligated to defend its conclusions and rebut an applicant’s evidence with evidence of its own. See GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership v. City of Watsonville, 2017 WL 492876, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) (once an applicant establishes a prima facie case for its facility, the burden shifts to the locality to offer sufficient evidence of feasible alternatives in order to deny the application). If no such evidence can be provided, then the only valid conclusion is that Atlas Tower’s Application must be approved. The City may impose reasonable conditions on an Application that comply with the Code before it approves it, but the City Council may not arbitrarily deny an Application without proof. 2. Verizon Wireless Supports Atlas Tower’s Agreement to Reduce the Height to the Maximum of Forty-Five Feet and Locate the Facility at the North End of the Site While the Facility as proposed is entirely consistent with the standards for granting an APU Application, and the Facility is designed to not be visually conspicuous, Verizon Wireless recognizes the aesthetic concerns raised by a few citizens from the area. The Fort Collins’ Planning Staff made two conditions of approval to the Facility – to reduce the height and to move the location. Verizon Wireless supports Atlas Tower’s agreement to the proposed conditions recommended by Planning Staff and can still operate effectively if the height of the facility is reduced from 60’ to 45’ and the Facility’s location is moved to the north end of the site, closer to the existing outbuildings so as to appear integral to the site. Verizon Wireless cannot make any further modifications to its Application without compromising the Facility’s effectiveness in providing wireless coverage from an RF perspective. Because the Facility is necessary to fill a coverage/capacity gap and improve wireless coverage in the City, and the Application meets all criteria for a special use permit, the Facility must be approved. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 101 3. The Application Must Be Approved under the Federal Telecommunications Act. Atlas Tower and Verizon Wireless seek to construct its Facility in order to reduce overloaded data capacity on Verizon Wireless’ networks and remedy gaps in its coverage network around Fort Collins. The Facility is required because Verizon Wireless is required by federal law to remedy these coverage and capacity gaps. Because these facilities are required, Congress has restricted the power of state and local governments to deny applications for sites like this one under the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332. Should the City Council deny the Application, it would be in violation of the Telecommunications Act, which forbids local governments from reaching decisions on the placement of wireless facilities that would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Courts interpreting this provision have held that, while the Federal Telecommunications Act did not supplant local authority altogether, it prevents local governments from regulating “personal wireless service facilities in such a way as to prohibit remote users from reaching such facilities.” Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2nd Cir. 1999). The City may only act to limit the aesthetic impact of a cell site, favor alternative sites which would provide comparable service coverage, or condition approval on the use of preexisting structures or camouflage. Id. a. The APU Application Represents the Least Intrusive and Most Code-Compliant Means of Fulfilling Federal Requirements Central to the determination of whether an Application may be denied under the Telecommunications Act is whether the coverage gap can be “closed by less intrusive means.” Sprint Spectrum L.P., 176 F.3d at 643. Atlas Tower and Verizon Wireless may show an effective prohibition “by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap.” City of Watsonville, 2017 WL 492876 at *2; T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). When an applicant demonstrates that a facility would represent the least intrusive means for resolving a coverage gap, the locality “must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives” in order to reject the applicant’s evidence. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 998. Mere speculation as to alternatives, without the use of third-party consultants to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of the alternatives, is an insufficient basis to deny an application. Id. As demonstrated by Exhibits 1 through 9 to the Application and Narrative submitted by Atlas Tower dated August 22, 2017 (“Application”), Verizon Wireless demonstrated, and will ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 102 conclusively prove at the upcoming hearing, the Facility in the Application is the least intrusive and most code-compliant means of fulfilling federally-mandated coverage. No other location is both available and adequate to resolve this coverage gap. The City Council therefore may not deny the Application without rebutting this evidence, as to do so would constitute an illegal prohibition on coverage within Fort Collins. b. The APU Application is Necessary to Close Gaps in Coverage and Capacity. Atlas Tower and Verizon Wireless did and will present propagation maps at the hearing that show the proposed facility will cure a significant gap in coverage and capacity. Exhibit 1 to Application. Recent updates to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations include internet in the definition of “personal wireless services.” The updated language of the regulations provides a gap in internet (capacity) is now included in the Federal Telecommunication Act prohibition on the gap in personal wireless services. The FCC’s regulation was updated June 12, 2015 to now include internet in its definition of “public switched network,” which affects the definition of “personal wireless services” in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Therefore, the Federal Telecommunication Act’s provision regarding the inability of local zoning authorities to prohibit personal wireless services now includes the provision of mobile internet. The update to the federal statutory scheme provides a significant gap in either voice or data coverage constitutes a prohibition of personal wireless services in violation of the Federal Telecommunication Act. Atlas Tower and Verizon Wireless have demonstrated and will demonstrate there is a significant gap in coverage and capacity and the proposed facility is the least intrusive means available to remedy those gaps. c. Verizon Wireless Has Performed an Analysis of Alternative Candidate Locations; No Alternative Location Would Sufficiently Close these Gaps in Coverage and Capacity. Verizon Wireless provided an analysis that demonstrates there are no other feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities that will provide the necessary coverage and capacity Verizon Wireless needs and in a less intrusive, Code compliant location to provide personal wireless services to emergency service providers and the citizens of Fort Collins. Exhibits 2 – 9 to the Application. The analysis examines other locations and facilities and explains why these are not viable alternative locations. All locations discussed with the City are contained in the analysis. There are no other location within the search area that will provide the coverage Verizon is seeking, meet city code requirements, and have adequate access to utilities or physical access to the site. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, we urge the City Council to grant the Application, including with such conditions as the City Council may deem reasonable. Federal law requires, and the City’s own Land Use Code, permits such a result, which will enable ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 103 improved access to and quality or wireless telecommunications services in the area. This is important to not only the City and its residents, but also to those traveling through. Sincerely, Melissa Kerin Reagan cc: Christian Hendrickson, Esq. Carey Gagnon, Esq. Jennifer Sedillo Jennifer Thomas Schneider Carey Daggett Encl. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 104 633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-3622 Telephone: 303.297.2900 Fax: 303.298.0940 www.shermanhoward.com Christian H. Hendrickson Sherman &Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 303.299.8306 E-mail: chendrickson@shermanhoward.com November 28, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Clay Frickey Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Atlas Tower/Verizon Wireless —Supplemental Materials Supporting Application for Addition of Permitted Use for Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility - PDP160018, 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins Dear Mr. Fricicey: We are counsel to Verizon Wireless in connection with the referenced application ("Application")1 for an Addition of Permitted Use ("APU") to install a 60-foot wireless facility concealed as a silo ("Facility") located near 2008 Turnberry Road in Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. As Atlas and Verizon Wireless already demonstrated and are further demonstrating through the additional information provided with this letter and via testimony at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting, the site is needed to address a significant gap in coverage/capacity and represents the least intrusive means of doing so. On October 16, 2017, Verizon Wireless submitted a letter to the Fort Collins' City Council in an effort to assist the City Council in evaluating the pending Application and to provide a roadmap of the applicable law the City has been and is required to follow in approving applications for wireless communications facilities. Verizon Wireless' letter did not present any new law or new information regarding its Application. After receiving the letter, the City postponed the City Council hearing on the Application and retained Center for Municipal Solutions to evaluate the ' Atlas Towers filed the Application and Verizon Wireless will install its antennas and related equipment on the Facility and, thus, utilize the Facility as part of its network. Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 105 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 2 pending Application. In addition to providing supplemental information for this site, we write to respond to certain of the positions in the Center for Municipal Solutions ("CMS") letter dated November 2, 2017 ("CMS Letter") regarding the Atlas/Verizon Wireless Application. In short, the Application should be approved because it already meets applicable legal requirements, and the Facility complies with the Fort Collins Land Use Code ("Land Use Code"). Verizon Wireless disputes CMS' characterization of the City of Fort Collins' ("City") requirements for granting an APU and other requirements applicable to the Application. Moreover, the information CMS requests in its report not only exceeds that required for prior applications in the City, and, is thus discriminatory, but it also calls for information far beyond what the Land Use Code and federal law require for such an Application. Knowing the City wants to comply with applicable law and only require what is permissible, Verizon Wireless provides only information called for by law and the Land Use Code. The additional information requested in the CMS Letter is not provided because it is not legally required. Contrary to CMS' assertions, and as demonstrated by the City Staff's September 14, 2017 Report and October 17, 2017 Power Point presentation recommending approval of the Application, the Verizon Wireless/Atlas APU Application should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The APU Application Meets All Requirements of the Land Use Code The original Application materials submitted presented adequate evidence demonstrating the Facility is appropriate under the Code. Indeed, the City Planning Department initially assessed in extensive detail the Application, properly determined it to be complete, and correctly concluded the APU Application and Facility meet all of the requirements of the Land Use Code. The City Planning Department's twelve-page Staff Report, prepared for the September 14, 2017 Planning &Zoning Board Meeting (which was also Attachment 1 to the Agenda Item Summary for this Facility prepared for the October 17, 2017 City Council Meeting), along with its 25-slide Power Point presentation recommending approval of the Facility, show the substantial review and in-depth analysis City Staff performed to determine the Application and proposed Facility comply with all applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and should be approved. These documents identify applicable Land Use Code provisions and demonstrate that the Application is complete and compliant. Because of this, the City Council is required to approve the Facility. 2. The CMS Letter Imposes Requirements Not Found in the Land Use Code The CMS Letter attempts to create new standards and a series of criteria and extensive requirements that are not found in the Land Use Code. Indeed, such information and standards have not been required of any other wireless facility in the City prior to this Application. The CMS Letter specifies a number of elements, analyses, and technical reports it claims Verizon Wireless "should" have included in its Application, including more thoroughly distinguishing between an application for a wireless facility and the structure that will conceal it, and more Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 106 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 3 exhaustively analyzing the clear gaps in coverage to demonstrate exactly how the Facility will relieve gaps, down to the minutia of asector-by-sector type of analysis. However, the Land Use Code does not require Verizon Wireless take any of these extraordinary steps, nor are they necessary to understand that a significant gap exists or that a wireless facility will address that gap. Further, under federal law, an applicant must merely demonstrate a gap in coverage and the exhaustion of available alternatives (see AT&T Mobility Services, LLC v. Village of Corrales, 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 889 (10th Cir. 2016)) —both of which already were comprehensively addressed in the pending Application materials and are further supported by the materials provided in this letter. Verizon Wireless demonstrated the gap through the various attachments that were provided with the Application and included with the Staff Report, consisting of (among other items and assessments) the Application, Verizon Wireless propagation/RF maps, the area of the search ring in which a new facility must be located to address the gap, property and elevation maps for parcels within the search ring, a site plan, photo simulations, correspondence from users complaining about service issues and requesting coverage, and letters from other property owners demonstrating why the proposed site is the only feasible alternative within the search ring. Such materials are routinely provided with telecommunications applications, and are routinely held to be sufficient to demonstrate a gap in coverage and the necessity of a proposed site. See, e.g., Orange County-Poughkeepsie Limited Partnership v. Town of East Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d 274, 280-81 and 297-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (to determine whether gaps exist, "courts have relied on RF reports, expert testimony, propagation maps, and field test data"); referencing T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Inc. Vill. of E. Hills, 779 F.Supp.2d 256, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); T- Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Ramapo, 701 F.Supp.2d. 446, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and Omnipoznt Commc'ns, Inc. v. Vill. of Tarrytown Planning Bd., 302 F.Supp.2d 205, 218-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, after the Application and supporting submittals were presented to the City, nothing further was requested, and City Staff appropriately recommended approval of the Application. Now, CMS is asking that Verizon Wireless provide an unprecedented and unnecessary level of detailed and proprietary information. To demonstrate coverage gaps to the degree of precision CMS requests would be inefficient, costly, and superfluous. Such ongoing and varying information requests would also make it unclear how a wireless services provider is to prove that a proposed facility is necessary. That is neither the purpose nor intent of the Land Use Code or Federal Telecommunications Act, which was passed as part of a "national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services." See Town of East Fishkill, supra, 84 F. Supp. 3d at 294; citing Spring Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 637 (2d Cir. 1999). Indeed, the Act encourages providers like Verizon Wireless to promptly address serious coverage issues like that being remedied with the Facility. See Town of East Fishkill, supra, 84 F. Supp. 3d 274, 297-98 (under the Federal Telecommunications Act, district courts find significant gaps by looking at "the gap's physical size, the number of customers affected by the gap, the location of the dap, and drop call or failure rates ... [relying] on RF reports, expert testimony, propagation maps, Active/47270634.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 107 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 4 and field test data"); see also id. at 305 ("nothing in the Code or the [Federal Telecommunications Act] requires that [an applicant] present data on dropped calls or customer dissatisfaction [or other comparable statistical evidence], and accordingly, it is not, without more, an adequate basis on which to deny the Application"). To require that Verizon Wireless exceed the requirements of the law and Land Use Code and jump through all the hoops the CMS Letter calls for creates a dangerous standard and, more importantly, is unlawful. See Town of East Fishkill, supra, at 305, citing Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC v. Douglas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commis, 544 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1245 (D. Kan. 2008) (holding "a denial is not supported by substantial evidence if it `imposes a burden upon [the plaintiff] to prove facts for which there is no requirement under state or local law"'). Under the process being applied to the Application, applicants may never meet the application requirements, and there would be fear that the City may simply continue to arbitrarily tack on more requirements. This unpredictability and risk of additional expense would undoubtedly chill future applications, and thus slow development and key technological advancement around the City, all contrary to the express intentions of the Federal Telecommunications Act. The requests in the CMS Letter are not only more stringent and unprecedented, they are discriminatory. The standards applicable to the Facility should be the same as those applicable to the dozens of existing wireless facilities already in the area. But those facilities were approved without such a heightened standard or set of application criteria or requirements. Under the Federal Telecommunications Act, the City may not require that (only) Verizon Wireless provide such detail to approve its Application. In this context in particular, such selective application requirements and a denial based on them would constitute unreasonable discrimination, which is expressly prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). See Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 380 F.3d 1258, 1270 n.9 (10th Cir. 2004). 3. The City Failed to Provide a Notice of Incomplete Application Within the Time Frame Required by the "Shot Clock" Ruling Verizon Wireless's Application, as submitted, must be approved because the City appropriately did not provide Verizon Wireless with a notice of incomplete application, let alone do so within 30 days of the date the Application was submitted. Pursuant to the FCC's 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, local governments can notify an applicant an application is "incomplete," but that notice of incompleteness is only effective if it is given within the first 30 days after submission. Id. at 14015; see also City of Arlington, Tex. V. F.C.C., 668 F.3d 229, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2012), aff'd, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (confirming the binding effect of the 2009 Ruling). There was no notice of incomplete application in advance of the Planning and Zoning meeting. The CMS Letter was the first mention of new requirements. Not only were the additional requirements outlined in the CMS Letter inconsistent with the Land Use Code, the Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 108 Mr. Clay Fricicey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 5 CMS Letter was not a notice of incomplete application sent by the City. Even if it was, however, the letter was not received within the first 30 days after the submission of the Application. Therefore, the time for requesting additional information has passed. Nonetheless, Verizon Wireless will provide certain additional information in a good faith effort to cooperate and further demonstrate the need for this facility. However, because Verizon Wireless received no notice of incomplete application within the 30-day period specified by the FCC's 2009 Ruling, additional information may not be requested as a matter of law or under the Ruling.2 4. The Federal Telecommunications Act Mandates Approval of the Application The Application complies with all applicable requirements, as the proposed Facility meets Land Use Code and federal law. The Facility is needed because the gap is clear and Verizon Wireless is required by federal law to remedy coverage and capacity gaps such as that identified in the Application; this will provide and enhance wireless services for many area residents, travelers, and local health, safety, and support providers. Because these facilities are required, Congress has restricted the power of state and local governments to deny applications like Verizon Wireless' under the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332; see Town of East Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d at 313 (holding that if a wireless provider "makes the required showing [under state and local law], which necessarily means the record is devoid of substantial evidence to support a denial, the [permit or] variance must issue") (citations omitted). The Telecommunications Act forbids local governments from reaching decisions on the placement of wireless facilities that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Wireless providers may show an effective prohibition by, as has been done through the Application, "submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." City of Watsonville, 2017 WL 492876 at ~2; T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Czty ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the Facility in the APU Application is the least intrusive Code-compliant means of providing federally-mandated coverage. No other location is both available and adequate to resolve this coverage gap. The City cannot preclude Verizon Wireless from addressing this demonstrated service gap and meeting citizen demands and needs in this promptly growing area. 2 Verizon Wireless expressly reserves and declines to waive all legal positions and defenses it may raise on this issue. Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 109 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 6 a. The APU Application Represents the Least Intrusive and Most Code- Compliant Means of Fulfilling Federal Requirements Central to the determination of whether an Application may be denied under the Telecommunications Act is whether the coverage gap can be "closed by less intrusive means." Willoth, supra, 176 F.3d at 643. Verizon Wireless may show an effective prohibition "by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." City of Watsonville, 2017 WL 492876 at *2; T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). It has done so here. b. The APU Application is Necessary to Close Gaps in Coverage and Capacity Courts have held a gap in coverage may be demonstrated by presenting evidence of "gradations in service," based on a multitude of factors including: the size and location of a coverage gap; the number of affected customers and/or dropped-call rates; reliability of in- building or in-vehicle service; and the proximity of gaps to well-traveled roads where the gap could affect large numbers of travelers. See Village of Corrales, supra, 642 Fed. Appx. at 889- 91;see also Town of East Fishkill, supra, 84 F. Supp. 3d at 297 (quoting Lzberry Towers, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Falls Township, 2011 WL 6091081, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2011) ("[t]here are no magic numbers or percentages that constitute a significant gap[, and] neither the [Federal Telecommunications Act], the FCC, nor the courts have established the `significant gap' threshold. Hence, each case must be viewed on its own")). Here, Verizon Wireless already submitted propagation maps, expert Verizon Network Engineering analysis, and extensive customer input demonstrating the coverage problems in this area —they clearly reflect the present lack of quality coverage in the area, and that the problem will be addressed by the Facility. Verizon Wireless is also submitting additional technical RF information showing RSRP values in the vicinity of the Facility both before and after it is in service. These detailed propagation maps prove both the extent of the problem and that the new Facility will address the coverage/capacity issues. Indeed, the maps plainly show a coverage gap of approximately four square miles that the new Facility will effectively address. This area encompasses over 5,000 residents, and is routinely used by emergency service providers, visitors, and travelers. Further, the area is experiencing an increase in growth, and there are plans for additional development, malting this site critically important. Finally, adding a macro site like the Facility will offload capacity from existing sites, creating enhanced coverage for many users beyond the area of the gap. Under the Land Use Code and federal law, the materials provided sufficiently demonstrate a gap. See Village of Corrales, supra, 642 Fed. Appx. at 891; Town of East Fishkill, supNa, 84 F.Supp.3d at 297-98. Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 110 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 7 c. Verizon Wireless Performed an Extensive Analysis of Alternative Candidate Locations; No Alternative Location Would Sufficiently Close these Gaps in Coverage and CapacitX Courts allow wireless service providers to demonstrate the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of addressing a gap by a showing of "a good-faith effort to find and evaluate less intrusive alternatives: consideration of other sites, other system designs, other tower designs, existing structures, etc.". See Nextel West Corp, v. Unzty Township, 282 F.3d 257, 266 (3rd Cir. 2002) (outlining applicable test); City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at 997-98 (holding that alternative sites/designs must actually be available to a wireless provider to be considered as a possible less intrusive means); T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1159 (D. Kan. 2007) (applying the "good faith" test because it "gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials"). Courts routinely deny arguments that wireless providers are obliged under local codes to "evaluate every potential location where the Facility hypothetically could be constructed, and submit evidence showing why each site is not a viable alternative." New York SMSA Limited PaNtnership v. Village of Floral Park Board of Trustees, 812 F. Supp. 2d 143, 166 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). Rather, courts generally look to ensure a provider makes a good faith effort to evaluate alternative locations, and provide information as to why alternative locations are not suitable or otherwise unavailable. See Town of Fishkill, supNa, 84 F.Supp.3d at 303, referencing New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Fenton, 843 F.Supp.2d 236, 254 (N.DN.Y. 2012), and Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d 539, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). This is particularly relevant given CMS' claim that "an analysis of current and projected usage for each adjacent and adjoining site will be required, by sector, for each existing sector of each/all sites in need of capacity relief." Such a level of analysis is not required by the Land Use Code, was not applied to prior applications, and is unnecessary to demonstrate that the Facility is necessary and beneficial to the area being served (or that alternate locations will not work). Here, contrary to the CMS Letter's inference that other alternatives were not adequately considered or discussed, Verizon Wireless and Atlas previously submitted an explanation and extensive documentation (which was provided in connection with the Application and appeared as attachments to the Staff Report) showing that it created a search ring, and then considered all other alternatives within the search ring. There are maps reflecting the options in the search ring, and then summaries and correspondence discussing various possible properties and why they are not feasible or available as options. Some would not work due to topographical or logistical problems, and others would not work due to the owners not being interested in or willing to lease land for such a facility. This left the proposed site as the least intrusive means to fill the coverage gap, which is all that is required by law. See Unity Townshzp, 282 F.3d at 266. Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 111 Mr. Clay Frickey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 8 This analysis similarly precludes a solution to this gap through alternative technologies such as multiple small wireless facilities (commonly called small cells). As shown in the enclosure to our October 15 letter, small cells complement macro sites — in other words, macro sites are still a necessary component of the wireless network ecosystem. In addition, small cells are usually used to enhance capacity. In this location, however, a macro site is necessary to meet both coverage and capacity needs. Multiple small cells, especially given the topography of this area and constraints surrounding the limited number of available possible locations, cannot satisfy the coverage gap. As a result, there are no alternative technologies that will fill the identified gap and service needs in the area. The Tenth Circuit has made clear that cities may not deny reasonable applications where a showing has been made that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of filling a gap, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. See T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, 546 F.3d 1299, 1309 (10th Cir. 2008); cf. Village of Corrales, supra, 642 Fed. Appx. at 892 (holding that agood-faith showing by a wireless services provider that other alternatives are inadequate is sufficient to support an application, barring substantial contrary evidence offered by the government). Nor may a city deny an application based on standards not found within a local code, as CMS is asking the City to do. See Unified Government of Wyandotte County, 546 F.3d at 1310 (reversing the denial of an application based on an applicant's failure to prove that there was no other feasible alternative, when the county's Code did not include such a standard). When an applicant demonstrates that a facility would represent the least intrusive means for resolving a coverage gap, the locality may only deny an application by showing, with the support of "substantial evidence," that "there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at 998. Mere speculation as to alternatives is an insufficient basis to deny an application; the city must demonstrate that such alternatives are available and would be less intrusive than the proposed facility and still meet the same public need. Id. As there are no such alternatives here, the Application must be granted. As demonstrated by Verizon Wireless' Application and supplemental materials, and as will be further demonstrated at the upcoming hearing, the Facility in the APU Application is the least intrusive Code-compliant means of providing federally-mandated coverage. No other location is both available and adequate to resolve this coverage gap. The Commission therefore may not deny Verizon Wireless' application without rebutting this evidence, as to do so would constitute an illegal prohibition on coverage within this area of Fort Collins. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II); Willoth, supra, 176 F.3d at 643. For the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless' Application is reasonable, compliant, and appropriate, and should be granted. Federal law, and the City's own Land Use Code, requires Active/472706341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 112 Mr. Clay Fricicey, Planning Department, City of Fort Collins November 28, 2017 Page 9 such a determination. Please let us know if you have any further questions in connection with this Application. Thank you. Sincerely, ` ~ P Christian H. Hendrickson CHH/MKR/RS/mis Encls, c: (via e-mail, w/ends.) Carey Gagnon, Esq., Verizon Wireless Marls W. Williams, Esq., Sherman &Howard L.L.C. Melissa K. Reagan, Esq., Sherman &Howard L.L.C, Carrie Daggett, Esq., City Attorney, City of Fort Collins Wade Troxell, Mayor, City of Fort Collins John Duval, Esq., Assistant City of Attorney, City of Fort Collins Ken Bradtke, Atlas Tower Companies Active/47270634.1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 113 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 19, 2017 City Council STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Consideration of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2017, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018. OR B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2017, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018. The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP160018. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the LMN. PDP160018 proposes a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use request subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and move the facility further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PDP160018 proposes the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility at 2008 Turnberry Road. The applicant proposes to disguise the facility as a silo. 2008 Turnberry Road is 4.512 acres in size and contains a single-family detached home with a series of outbuildings. The Maple Hill and Story Book neighborhoods are north and south of the site, with County subdivisions located on the west side of Turnberry Road. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s land extends to the east property line of 2008 Turnberry Road. Wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the zone in which this project is located. Ordinance No. 080, 2015, amended the Land Use Code to require City Council approval for Addition of Permitted Use applications in eight residential zone districts. One of the zone districts in this list is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 114 Regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also apply to wireless telecommunication facility applications. The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains regulations that limit how municipalities can regulate wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities may not ban wireless telecommunication facilities or zone their city in such a way to de facto ban wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities also may not deny applications for wireless telecommunication facilities based on health impacts. Northeast Fort Collins contains few parcels that have zoning that allow wireless telecommunications facilities. The applicant has been unable to obtain a lease with property owners that have properly zoned land. Based on direction received from Council at the October 3, 2017 hearing for this item, City staff retained a consultant, Center for Municipal Solutions, to review this submittal for compliance with the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996. Center for Municipal Solutions provided the City with its initial report on November 2, 2017. Based on this report, Atlas Tower provided the City and Center for Municipal Solutions with additional information regarding the coverage gaps this facility expects to fill. Center for Municipal Solutions provided a supplemental report based on this additional information on December 5, 2017. Historically, staff has not invoked section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code dealing with architectural compatibility for wireless telecommunication facilities. Building is a defined term in the Land Use Code. The definition of a building is as follows: Building shall mean any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind, which is governed by the following characteristics: (1) is permanently affixed to the land; (2) has one (1) or more floors and a roof; and (3) is bounded by either open space or the lot lines of a lot. Wireless telecommunications facilities do not provide shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since a wireless telecommunications facility does not meet the definition of a building. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) requires stealth technology for all wireless facilities and equipment. This addresses compatibility issues by requiring wireless projects to blend into their surroundings. Compliance with APU Criteria In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment which facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the LMN zone district. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 115 other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of this AIS. C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the City. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim. In the portion of the City where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have zoning that would allow wireless telecommunications facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser-Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s parcels do not make good candidates for a wireless tower to serve the neighborhoods the provider is looking to serve per the applicant’s project narrative. None of the other parcels in the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one. The property that would enter the City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the applicant’s request for a lease. The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower. Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park, Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District (PSD), the future Northeast Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor PSD allow leases for cell towers on their property. The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd., including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate a site as any in the applicant’s search ring. Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, townhomes, and single-family detached homes on large lots. PSD owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 116 currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two-story, single-family detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area developing. The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site. Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins. Both silos are 30-40 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear integral to the operation of the site. Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process: 1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet. 2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral to the site. These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co-location opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the cell tower be designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 117 approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. In addition to these criteria, Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) also requires Addition of Permitted Use applications to not be detrimental to the public good, comply with the standards in Section 3.5.1, and not be specifically listed as a prohibited use in the zone district. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not detrimental to the public good. As mentioned earlier, Section 3.5.1 applies to buildings. Wireless telecommunications facilities do meet the definition of a building and so this standard is not applicable. The LMN zone district does not have any uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the application. The Board found the application does not meet the APU criteria in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1). More specifically, the Board found the proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood and does not conform with the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district. PUBLIC OUTREACH Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 118 • Concern about radio frequency emissions • The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods • A 60-foot tower is too tall and obtrusive • Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower • Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report and attachments provided to Planning and Zoning Board, September 14, 2017 (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 14, 2017 (PDF) 3. Center for Municipal Solutions Report, November 2, 2017 (PDF) 4. Response Narrative from Atlas Tower, November 28, 2017 (PDF) 5. Sherman and Howard Letter, November 30, 2017 (PDF) 6. Center for Municipal Solutions Supplemental Report, December 6, 2017 (PDF) 7. Revised Coverage Maps from Verizon Wireless, November 28, 2017 (PDF) 8. Resident Comments received by 12:00 p.m., December 13, 2017 (PDF) 9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 119 MEETING DATE Sep. 14, 2017 STAFF Clay Frickey PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNERS: Forbes Kenneth E Jeanette L 2008 Turnberry Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 60 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the LMN zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve, subject to one condition, the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 120 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 2   • The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met. • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). COMMENTS: 1. Background The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club East Annexation on September 6, 1983. In 1989, the property owner subdivided property to create the existing lot pattern that exists today. The site has been used as a farm property and contains buildings dating from 1900 to 1950. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Vacant West County Residential (R) Single-family detached residential 2. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code – General Provisions The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not allowed in the LMN zone. For proposals where a use is not allowed in the zone district but is allowed elsewhere in the City, an applicant may apply for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). An APU will allow the proposed use on this parcel only. In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 121 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 3   Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN) zone district. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 122 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 4   needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of this staff report. C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the city. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). In the portion of the city where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have zoning that would allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser- Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s parcels do not make good candidates for a wireless tower to serve the neighborhoods the provider is looking to serve per the applicant’s project narrative. None of the other parcels in the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one (attachment 6). The property that would enter the City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the applicant’s request for a lease (attachment 7). The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 123 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 5   Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park, Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District, the future Northeast Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor Poudre School District allow leases for cell towers on their property (attachment 8). The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd., including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate of a site as any in the applicant’s search ring. Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.1.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, townhomes, and single-family detached homes on large lots. Poudre School District (PSD) owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two- story, single-family detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area developing. The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 124 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 6   Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins (attachment 9). Both silos are around 30 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear integral to the operation of the site. Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process: 1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet. 2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral to the site. These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co- location opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 125 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 7   cell tower be designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 126 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 8   May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review. Section 5 of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.6.6 – Emergency Access The applicant proposes a 20-foot-wide gravel path in an emergency access easement with a turnaround to provide emergency access to the tower. This path will allow emergency vehicles to access the site and provide fire and emergency services pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. B. Section 3.8.13(C)(1) – Setbacks Facilities must be setback from the property one foot for every one foot in the facility’s height. The applicant may also demonstrate the facility is designed to collapse rather than topple to meet this requirement. The proposed facility is 121 feet away from the nearest property line, which meets this requirement. If the conditions of approval for 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the new location of the facility to also satisfy this requirement. C. Section 3.8.13(C)(2) – Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 127 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 9   be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. As discussed previously in this staff report, the proposed silo is consistent with the agricultural character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed material, fiberglass, is equal to or better than the materials used on the house and outbuildings located on the development site. D. Section 3.8.13(C)(5) – Fencing Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six feet in height. The proposed fence is made of wood and will not exceed six feet in height in accordance with this standard. E. Section 3.8.13(C)(8) – Color Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed color will be a muted green to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods and agricultural uses in accordance with this standard. F. Section 3.8.13(C)(11) – Access Roadways The proposed access roadways meet the requirements for emergency access per Section 3.6.6, satisfying this standard. G. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) – Stealth Technology Applicants must use stealth technology to the extent reasonably feasible to minimize the visual impact of the facility. Silos are included in the list of permissible structures per this section so long as the structure has a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Given the agricultural heritage of northeast Fort Collins, a silo generally provides this contextual relationship. To better satisfy this code section, staff recommends a condition of approval related to Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) that reduces the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 128 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 10   height of the silo to 45 feet and locates the proposed facility closer to existing outbuildings. This will make the silo better integrated into the existing site and mitigate the visual impact of the tower. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.5(B)(1) – Permitted Uses The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not permitted in the LMN zone. For this application to be approved, the applicant must satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. By approving the project with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, this project would achieve an APU and would thus come into compliance with this section of the code. 5. Public Outreach Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: • Concern about radio frequency emissions • The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods • A 60 foot tower is too tall and obtrusive • Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower • Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 129 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 11   In evaluating the request for proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards if the plan is modified consistent with the requested conditions of approval. D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Narrative 3. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations) 4. Coverage maps from Open Signal and Sensorly 5. Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 6. City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map for northeast Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 130 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 12   7. Letter from Fort Collins Country Club 8. Administrative policy disallowing new wireless equipment and facilities on property owned by the City of Fort Collins 9. Photos of nearby grain silos ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 131 Long Pond WTF & APU Clay Frickey ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 132 Overview • 60’ tall wireless telecommunications facility • Disguised as silo • Located in Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone • Not an allowed use 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 133 Addition of Permitted Use (APU) • Process for uses not allowed in a zone district • Must be an allowed use in another zone • 8 criteria – 1.3.4(C)(1) • City Council decision maker • Only in residential zones 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 134 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 135 Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Cities must permit cell towers • May use zoning to control location • May not consider environmental/health impacts • Zoning may not result in de facto ban on cell towers 5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 136 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 137 APU Criterion 1 Criterion 1 - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless equipment allowed in LMN • Facility vs. equipment • Design, not function Staff finds proposal meets criterion 1 7 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 138 APU Criterion 2 Criterion 2 - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • LMN purpose statement • Integrated neighborhoods • Neighborhood services • Must be designed to fit into neighborhood Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion 2 based on conditions of approval 8 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 139 APU Criterion 3 Criterion 3 - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties 9 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 140 APU Criterion 3 • Few parcels with appropriate zoning • Unable to obtain lease on properly zoned properties • Fort Collins Country Club • Anheuser-Busch/InBev • City property not eligible • Poudre School District does not allow leases 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 141 11 AB/ InBev FCCC City of Fort Collins ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 142 12 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 143 13 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 144 14 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 145 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 146 16 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 147 APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings • Can meet criterion with two conditions • 45’ height limit • Located closer to out buildings 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 148 APU Criterion 4 Criterion 4 - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 149 APU Criterion 4 • No greater impact than other permitted uses Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 150 APU Criterion 5 Criterion 5 - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area • Will not change character of neighborhood Staff finds proposal meets criterion 5. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 151 APU Criterion 6 Criterion 6 - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless Telecommunications Equipment allowed • Design compatible if conditions of approval are met Staff finds proposal meets criterion 6 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 152 APU Criterion 7 Criterion 7 - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 153 APU Criterion 7 • Held two neighborhood meetings • March 30, 2016 (pre-submittal) • May 17, 2017 (after one round of review) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 7. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 154 APU Criterion 8 Criterion 8 - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code • Use is not marijuana related Staff finds proposal meets criterion 8 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 155 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 subject to the following condition: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Page 156 LAT40 INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV G TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL SITE NAME: TURNBERRY UTILITY PLANS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 80 LAT40, INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: TURNBERRY LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PLANNING DRAWINGS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 76 R a ng e v ie w Dr Maid Marian Ct Rainbow Dr Hi l lsid e D r S View Dr Sherwood Forest Ct K e dr o n Dr M iram on t D r Banbury Ln Middlebury Ln Waterbury Ln Adri e l Cir Adriel Way Simsbury Ct Shelburne Ct Barrington Ct Westover Ct Kalmar Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct Milton Ln Rangeview Dr Maple Hill Dr Thoreau Dr Bar Harbor Dr Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd Mountain Vista Dr N Timberline Rd © Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications 1 Facility inch = 667 feet Zoning & Vicinity Map Site ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 35