HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingGENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, E. SUTHERLAND
ITEM 3, TRAFFIC RESPONSE RE: PED LOS
TO:
THROUGH:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Pfanning and Zoning Board
Tom Leeson, C.D.N.S. Director
Cameron Gloss, Planning Mana~
Plannlng, Development and
Transportation Services
Plannlng Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.comlcur79ntplanning
Karen Tharp, Building and Development Review Technician
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner 1"S
January 18, 2018
Platte River Power Authority Campus Expansion - Change in
the Project Type Designation
When the Platte River Power Authority Campus Expansion was submitted, it was
logged into the Accela, the City's project tracking system, as a Project
Development Plan and assigned the project tracking designation #PDP170040.
This was in error as the project is a Major Amendment.
The naming convention has been corrected. The new project tracking designation
is #MJA 180001. The Accela tracking system will be modified accordingly.
ITEM 3, MEMO FROM TED SHEPARD
ITEM 4, MINERAL ESTATE NOTIFICATION - UPDATED
ITEM 4, MINERAL ESTATE NOTIFICATION - UPDATED
ITEM 4, MINERAL ESTATE NOTIFICATION - UPDATED
From: Valerie Hunter-Goss
To: Jason Holland
Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Subject: The Hub On Campus
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:14:34 PM
Hi Jason,
I'm against 'The Hub On Campus' with it's massive development project. This is very close to the single family
homes in my neighborhood of Avery Park. While I agree that CSU needs to build more housing to accommodate
their students's needs, it shouldn't be in a neighborhood that has traditionally only had buildings no taller than 3
stories. Even the name 'The Hub On Campus' doesn't reflect the true location of this development since this address,
1427 W. Elizabeth St. is not 'on' the CSU campus.
Please don't allow a 5 story building at this location. Please scale back the plans to something more in line with what
the neighborhood looks like. I'm concerned if this development is allowed as it is proposed, the future of west Fort
Collins will be all about students's needs and not anyone else.
Thank you,
Valerie Hunter-Goss
Avery Park Neighborhood
Fort Collins, CO
--
What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world
remains and is immortal.
-- Albert Pike (1809-1891)
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, V. HUNTER-GOSS
From: Renee
To: Jason Holland
Subject: Development At Old CB Potts Location
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:30:11 PM
Jason,
I understand that on the 18th there is a public hearing scheduled for comments regarding this property.
Unfortunately, I will have surgery that morning and am unable to attend.
However, we live off of W. Elizabeth near this property and I am very concerned about increased traffic and
pollution if the plan goes through.
Here are my points:
1. Excessive traffic on Elizabeth without the infrastructure to handle it. There are a multitude of pedestrians and
bikes from CSU, cars, and a two lane road with little space for leeway. This is also a bus route which also creates a
challenge. Adding several hundred cars to this area is a danger to pedestrians and an inconvenience to all.
2. At Overland and Elizabeth, the intersection is a traffic nightmare. If you look at the road there, the city has the
equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic; people, bikes, and lanes of cars, without a roundabout, light, or ANY traffic plan.
Drive by one day, and good luck crossing on foot, via bike, or turning left/going straight in your car. It’s virtually
impossible when the weather is good or it’s rush hour. I have personally witnessed 3 accidents in the past 3 months
at that intersection. This is approximately 1/2 mike from where the city is proposing this property expansion.
3. Parking. There isn’t any on Elizabeth and/or in the parking lots near by. Where are all of those cars going to park?
4. It is clearly a poor idea to jam over 350 people in this proposed space. Please share my comments.
Thank you,
Renee Walkup
Renee Walkup
SalesPEAK, Inc.
Walkup@salespeak.com
Sent from my iPhone
(please excuse typos)
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. WALKUP
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, D. ERNEST
From: Jason Holland
To: Jason Holland
Subject: FW: Project at old cb and Potts location
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:39:51 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Fletcher [mailto:rejab5@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com>
Subject: Project at old cb and Potts location
This project is too massive. Will bring way too much traffic to an already over congested area. Reduce its size.
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. FLETCHER
From: Vicky Hansen
To: Jason Holland
Subject: Re: Elizabeth project
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:55:02 PM
Thanks. If the city is moving toward a tall skyline, then near downtown and the college is a good place for it.
That close to CSU, I would expect mainly students - who seldom have spare rooms for hobbies and such, and
sometimes have roommates - so 395 bedrooms will probably equal 395 tenants, most of whom have cars. Since
there are only 337 parking spaces, that means zero for guests or shoppers. Guests are most likely other students who
likely live nearby so it just means no business from other residents of the city
I have no objections to the project but if I had a business there (I won’t), I would ask for a couple of designated
spots so non-students and off-campus students could do business at my place
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:25 PM, Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com> wrote:
>
> Ms. Hansen,
>
> They are proposing a six level parking garage, with the 6th level on the roof of the main building. 337 parking
spaces are proposed in the garage, and this is all of their proposed parking. There are two buildings. The main
building includes the parking garage, and is 5 stories. The second building is three stories. Lastly, private views of
the foothills are not protected by the Land Use Code criteria. We do consider views from public parks and city-
owned natural areas, just not views from private property.
>
> I can forward your comments below to the Planning and Zoning Board if you'd like, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
> Jason Holland, PLA | City Planner
> City of Fort Collins
> 281 North College Avenue
> Fort Collins, CO 80522
> 970.224.6126
> jholland@fcgov.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vicky Hansen [mailto:vickysamster@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:50 PM
> To: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>
> Subject: Elizabeth project
>
> How many parking spots are proposed in that 3 story garage? 500 may be adequate for that facility since a lot of
the retail customers will be on foot
>
> However, few buildings in town are over 3 stories so it is a good thing it is just west of campus so should not
affect views from too many homes. I would be against that height if I lived east of there. Since my Mountain View’s
are already blocked by a 2 story home, it won’t affect me
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, V. HANSEN
1
From: Sally Harris [mailto:spgasper@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>
Cc: Sylvia Tatman‐Burruss <statman‐burruss@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: The Hub on Campus ‐ status?
Hi Jason and Sylvia,
As a mother of two young kids who live in the Avery Park neighborhood, my primary concern is that with all of these students
moving in, the amount of litter and broken glass along Elizabeth and into the surrounding neighborhood will increase. I'm
concerned that the Hub on Campus, along with the Union on Elizabeth, will give Elizabeth street a party atmosphere and not a
family‐friendly atmosphere. I'm also concerned about the City allowing such tall buildings to be built, as one of the great things
about Fort Collins is the ability to see the mountains and the sky, which are blocked by 5 story buildings.
Sincerely,
Sally Harris
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com> wrote:
Ms. Harris, the next step for this project is the public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board this Thursday, January 18, 2018
at Council Chambers, City Hall
300, Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO. A decision regarding the approval or denial of the proposal will be made at the hearing.
If you are unable to attend the meeting or would like to provide comments in advance, please contact me or Sylvia Tatman‐
Burruss, Neighborhood Development Review Outreach Specialist, at 970‐224‐6076
or statman‐burruss@fcgov.com. Sylvia is available to assist residents who have questions about the review process and how to
participate. We welcome and encourage your participation, as your input is an important part of the development review process.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Holland, PLA | City
Planner City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.224.6126
jholland@fcgov.com
From: Sally Harris [mailto:spgasper@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:29 PM
To: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>
Subject: The Hub on Campus ‐ status?
Hello,
I live in the Avery Park neighborhood and found out on Nextdoor about the proposal for the Hub on Campus. What is the
current status of this proposal and when is the next opportunity for community feedback?
Thank you for your time.
Sally Harris
(970) 817‐0145
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT, S. HARRIS
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
January 16, 2018
Mr. Sam Coutts
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521
Re: The Hub Fort Collins
Traffic Analysis Letter – Operations Update
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Coutts:
This letter has been prepared to document the results of a traffic operations analysis update as
identified through comments received from the City of Fort Collins. This update analysis includes
incorporating traffic generated from the nearby Union on Elizabeth student housing project that
obtained Planning Commission approval recently. Initially, the traffic study for The Hub Fort Collins
project did not include specific traffic from the Union on Elizabeth project, since The Hub Fort Collins
project began prior to The Union on Elizabeth project starting. Since the Hub went on hold for several
months, the Union on Elizabeth project has since been introduced and gained Planning Commission
approval prior to the hearing for The Hub Fort Collins project. Therefore, this letter includes this
Union on Elizabeth student housing project as background traffic in the analysis of The Hub Fort
Collins through this addendum.
The Union on Elizabeth Transportation Impact Study was completed by Delich Associates on
November 1, 2017. This specific letter is an addendum to The Hub – 1415 Elizabeth Street Traffic
Impact Study completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates on December 14, 2017. The purpose of this
letter is to determine the operational analysis of the key intersections with including site generated
traffic from the Union on Elizabeth site. The Hub is to be located along the south side of Elizabeth
Street, between Constitution Avenue and City Park Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. The Union on
Elizabeth project is proposed along the north side of Elizabeth Street between City Park Avenue and
Shields Street.
Traffic Operations Analysis
Analysis of traffic operations was conducted to determine potential capacity deficiencies in 2020 at
the three study area intersections under full project build out conditions, including the Union on
Elizabeth project. The acknowledged source for determining capacity operational analysis is the
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Capacity analysis results are listed
in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver
will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It
ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). For intersections in this study area,
typical standard traffic engineering practice identifies intersection LOS D as the minimum threshold
for acceptable operations for signalized intersections and LOS E for movements or approaches of
unsignalized intersections. Table 1 shows the definition of level of service for delay conditions at
signalized and unsignalized intersections.
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
Table 1 – Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service
Signalized Intersection
Average Total Delay
(sec/veh)
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Total Delay
(sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15
C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25
D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35
E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50
F > 80 > 50
_______________
Definitions provided from the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
Study area intersections were analyzed based on average total delay analysis for signalized and
unsignalized intersections. Under the unsignalized analysis, the level of service (LOS) for a two-way
stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined
for each minor movement. Level of service for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is not defined for
the overall intersection. Level of service for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections is
defined for each approach and for the overall intersection.
The Synchro Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology reports were used to analyze
intersection delay and level of service. Calculations for the level of service at the study area
intersections are attached.
Elizabeth Street and Shields Street
With the addition of site generated traffic from both The Hub Fort Collins and the Union on Elizabeth
developments, the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Shields Street is expected to continue to
operate (as in the previous study) with LOS C during the morning peak hour and LOS D during the
afternoon peak hour in 2020 with the recently constructed improvements. All movements at this
intersection are expected to continue to operate with LOS E or better during the peak hours. Table 2
provides the results of the level of service at this intersection.
Table 2 – Elizabeth Street and Shields Street LOS Results
MOVEMENT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Overall Intersection
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through/Right
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
29.8
32.5
34.8
79.1
37.8
42.8
14.4
23.8
Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue
With the addition of site generated traffic from The Hub Fort Collins and Union on Elizabeth projects,
the intersection of Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue is expected to continue to operate (as in the
previous study) with LOS B during the peak hours without the need for any improvements. All
movements at this intersection are expected to continue to operate with LOS D or better during the
peak hours. Table 3 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection.
Table 3 – Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue LOS Results
MOVEMENT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Overall Intersection
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
Northbound Left
Northbound Through/Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through/Right
12.5
13.2
14.2
14.3
18.2
10.8
10.9
9.7
9.7
11.0
8.8
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
12.0
16.9
11.3
11.3
13.2
7.6
7.6
20.2
15.4
19.0
15.3
B
B
B
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total AM.syn
1: Shields Street & Elizabeth Street 01/15/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 64 343 24 10 8 152 946 124 5 805 152
Future Volume (veh/h) 362 64 343 24 10 8 152 946 124 5 805 152
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.77 0.73 0.90 0.79 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 496 121 372 39 32 18 167 1261 149 12 866 108
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.53 0.76 0.61 0.31 0.44 0.91 0.75 0.83 0.42 0.93 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 840 435 373 257 139 78 369 1727 203 182 1743 768
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.49 0.49
Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1863 1157 1774 1013 570 1774 3178 374 1774 3539 1560
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 496 121 372 39 0 50 167 699 711 12 866 108
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1863 1157 1774 0 1582 1774 1770 1782 1774 1770 1560
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 5.9 25.7 2.0 0.0 3.1 4.9 32.8 33.3 0.4 18.1 4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 5.9 25.7 2.0 0.0 3.1 4.9 32.8 33.3 0.4 18.1 4.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 840 435 373 257 0 217 369 961 968 182 1743 768
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.28 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.23 0.45 0.73 0.73 0.07 0.50 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 915 435 373 467 0 259 540 961 968 237 1743 768
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 34.5 39.5 37.6 0.0 42.3 13.5 19.0 19.1 17.1 18.8 15.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.3 39.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.9 4.8 4.9 0.2 1.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 3.1 15.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 2.4 17.2 17.5 0.2 9.0 1.9
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 34.8 79.1 37.8 0.0 42.8 14.4 23.8 24.0 17.3 19.8 15.6
LnGrp LOS C C E D D B C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 989 89 1577 986
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.3 40.6 22.9 19.3
Approach LOS D D C B
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 64.3 9.5 30.2 11.6 58.7 20.1 19.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 51.0 18.0 18.0 17.7 38.3 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 35.3 4.0 27.7 6.9 20.1 15.0 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 14.5 0.6 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.8
HCM 2010 LOS C
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total PM.syn
1: Shields Street & Elizabeth Street 01/16/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 371 45 439 92 64 11 431 1292 71 7 1182 455
Future Volume (veh/h) 371 45 439 92 64 11 431 1292 71 7 1182 455
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.74 0.53 0.88 0.59 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 442 60 499 105 67 18 490 1374 78 14 1257 459
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.75 0.76 0.88 0.96 0.62 0.88 0.94 0.91 0.50 0.94 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 690 334 541 272 146 39 496 1992 113 198 1260 551
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1863 844 1774 1212 326 1774 3398 192 1774 3539 1549
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 442 60 499 105 0 85 490 714 738 14 1257 459
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1863 844 1774 0 1537 1774 1770 1821 1774 1770 1549
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 3.3 21.5 6.1 0.0 6.2 28.9 33.6 33.9 0.6 42.6 32.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 3.3 21.5 6.1 0.0 6.2 28.9 33.6 33.9 0.6 42.6 32.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 690 334 541 272 0 185 496 1037 1068 198 1260 551
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.18 0.92 0.39 0.00 0.46 0.99 0.69 0.69 0.07 1.00 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 737 334 541 401 0 224 496 1037 1068 245 1260 551
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 41.8 36.5 41.9 0.0 49.2 37.6 17.2 17.3 24.1 38.6 35.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.2 18.6 0.9 0.0 1.8 36.9 3.7 3.7 0.1 24.9 13.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 1.7 18.7 3.0 0.0 2.7 21.3 17.3 17.9 0.3 25.1 16.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.0 42.0 55.1 42.8 0.0 50.9 74.5 20.9 21.0 24.2 63.5 49.1
LnGrp LOS D D E D D E C C C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1001 190 1942 1730
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.2 46.5 34.5 59.3
Approach LOS D D C E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 74.8 12.8 26.0 34.0 47.2 19.9 18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 62.5 17.0 17.5 29.5 38.0 17.0 17.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 35.9 8.1 23.5 30.9 44.6 15.0 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 23.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.4
HCM 2010 LOS D
Notes
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total AM.syn
2: City Park Avenue & Elizabeth Street 01/15/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 598 99 27 263 56 31 48 67 53 44 28
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 598 99 27 263 56 31 48 67 53 44 28
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 729 127 44 313 89 62 66 97 73 62 30
Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.62 0.84 0.63 0.50 0.73 0.69 0.73 0.71 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 438 1127 196 260 1046 291 660 291 427 592 509 246
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 965 2911 507 639 2700 751 1287 672 988 1208 1175 569
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 443 413 44 203 199 62 0 163 73 0 92
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 965 1770 1648 639 1770 1681 1287 0 1660 1208 0 1744
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 10.2 10.2 3.0 4.0 4.1 1.5 0.0 3.1 2.0 0.0 1.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 10.2 10.2 13.3 4.0 4.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 5.1 0.0 1.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 438 685 638 260 685 651 660 0 718 592 0 755
V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.65 0.65 0.17 0.30 0.31 0.09 0.00 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 479 761 708 288 761 723 660 0 718 592 0 755
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.0 12.5 12.5 18.0 10.6 10.6 9.4 0.0 8.9 10.5 0.0 8.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.6 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.2 4.9 0.5 2.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.8
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.2 14.2 14.3 18.2 10.8 10.9 9.7 0.0 9.7 11.0 0.0 8.8
LnGrp LOS B B B B B B A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 924 446 225 165
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.1 11.6 9.7 9.8
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.1 23.9 26.1 23.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 21.5 19.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 12.2 7.1 15.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 5.6 1.7 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.5
HCM 2010 LOS B
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 Total PM.syn
2: City Park Avenue & Elizabeth Street 01/15/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 643 93 95 666 102 124 123 93 86 117 83
Future Volume (veh/h) 94 643 93 95 666 102 124 123 93 86 117 83
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.87 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 714 109 114 724 115 141 137 109 102 154 89
Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.90 0.85 0.83 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.85 0.84 0.76 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 341 1443 220 326 1416 225 424 354 281 420 409 236
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 649 3047 465 659 2991 475 1112 939 747 1109 1086 628
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 414 409 114 428 411 141 0 246 102 0 243
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 649 1770 1742 659 1770 1696 1112 0 1687 1109 0 1713
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 9.7 9.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 6.3 0.0 6.4 4.4 0.0 6.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.6 9.7 9.7 17.6 7.9 7.9 12.5 0.0 6.4 10.8 0.0 6.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 341 838 825 326 838 803 424 0 635 420 0 645
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.49 0.50 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.33 0.00 0.39 0.24 0.00 0.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 929 915 360 929 891 424 0 635 420 0 645
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 10.9 10.9 12.8 7.3 7.3 18.1 0.0 13.7 17.6 0.0 13.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.1 0.0 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 4.7 4.6 1.4 3.9 3.7 2.2 0.0 3.3 1.5 0.0 3.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.9 11.3 11.3 13.2 7.6 7.6 20.2 0.0 15.4 19.0 0.0 15.3
LnGrp LOS B B B B A A C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 950 953 387 345
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 8.3 17.2 16.4
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.1 32.9 27.1 32.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 31.5 19.5 31.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 19.6 12.8 19.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 8.9 2.4 8.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.0
HCM 2010 LOS B
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Total AM.syn
3: Private Access & Elizabeth Street 01/15/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 681 14 22 268 23 43
Future Volume (Veh/h) 681 14 22 268 23 43
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.50 0.50 0.96 0.25 0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph) 884 28 44 279 92 78
Pedestrians 9 9 9
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 1 1 1
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 822
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 921 1144 474
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 907
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 236
vCu, unblocked vol 921 1144 474
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 72 85
cM capacity (veh/h) 731 331 528
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 589 323 44 140 140 170
Volume Left 0 0 44 0 0 92
Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 78
cSH 1700 1700 731 1700 1700 612
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.19 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 0 0 28
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 16.8
Lane LOS B C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 16.8
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Total PM.syn
3: Private Access & Elizabeth Street 01/15/2018
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 710 55 91 748 52 86
Future Volume (Veh/h) 710 55 91 748 52 86
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.68 0.89 0.91 0.55 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 826 81 102 822 95 115
Pedestrians 17 17 17
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 2 2 2
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 812
pX, platoon unblocked 0.92
vC, conflicting volume 924 1516 488
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 884
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 632
vCu, unblocked vol 924 1394 488
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 86 68 77
cM capacity (veh/h) 723 296 509
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 551 356 102 411 411 210
Volume Left 0 0 102 0 0 95
Volume Right 0 81 0 0 0 115
cSH 1700 1700 723 1700 1700 655
Volume to Capacity 0.32 0.21 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.32
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 12 0 0 35
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 18.0
Lane LOS B C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 18.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:53 PM
To: Thomas Scott <thomas.scott.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: PDP170034
Good afternoon, Mr. Scott –
Thank you so much for your message regarding the Johnson Drive Apartment Development
(PDP170034).
You are certainly correct to note a difference in parking requirements for this development.
Because this development is within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), parking
requirements are lower than they are for multi-family developments outside of the TOD. As a rent-
by-the-bedroom development, they are required to provide .75 spaces per bedroom, which would
get you to 309 parking spaces. Then, the developer can offset that number using parking mitigation
options, including transit passes for each tenant, a certain level of bike/pedestrian service and a car
share on site (zipcar, usually). With those, they are able to remove a certain amount of spaces,
getting them to the 261 parking stall number.
We certainly understand the concern with parking, especially as the city grows with new residents
and businesses. The goal with the TOD is to strike a balance between car parking and transit
availability in an attempt to lower car-dependency, especially in student areas.
I will definitely pass your comments on to the Project Planner, Jason Holland (cc’d on this email).
This can also be included in the Planning and Zoning Board packet for their consideration at the
hearing, scheduled for Thursday, January 18th
at 6:00 P.M.
Please let us know if you have further questions about this development and/or the Transit Oriented
Development Overlay Zone.
Thank you again,
Sylvia
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss | Development Review Liaison
Neighborhood Services, City of Fort Collins
(970) 224.6076 | statman-burruss@fcgov.com | www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, T. SCOTT
T. SCOTT Page 1 of 2
From: Thomas Scott [mailto:thomas.scott.phd@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 5:18 PM
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com>
Subject: PDP170034
Sylvia,
Thanks for sending the note about the Johnson Drive Apartment Development. I think it will be a great
addition to the area and am quite pro-development.
Having an MBA and PhD I tend to do a just a bit of math, I noticed 412 bedrooms for college students (most
of which are over 16 I would imagine). That would imply the need for one parking spot per bedroom and a
few extras for visitors (noting CSU is not a nunnery or monastery, these things tend to happen). There are
only 261 parking spaces allocated. What is the plan for the addition 151 resident cars and assuming visitor
rate of 5% the 21 visitor spaces?
The king county parking tool suggests 470 units for a development like this, here is the
link: http://www.rightsizeparking.org/
We have a great community adding new businesses (like Blackbottle and Music City) but co-existence
requires space. If the new development residents start taking the parking from the businesses that will
create conflict and animosity. With the wealth of this city and community it’s just silly to set people up for
conflict.
It would also be great is the entire development could be made a smoke-free zone, the preponderance of
evidence indicates second hand smoke is a significant heath hazard.
Thanks,
Thomas
_____________________________________
Thomas Scott, MBA, PhD
720-663-7303
http://www.dbseries.org/ (Vice-President, Denver Business Series)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomasscottphd
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, T. SCOTT
T. SCOTT Page 2 of 2
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 136, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #160018
WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #160018 (“PDP#160018”) proposes the
placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone district (“L-M-N zone”) on the parcel located at 2008 Turnberry Road,
parcel number 8832005002 (the “Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the L-M-N
zone; and
WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition
of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#160018 for the addition of wireless
telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board
(“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the
decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary
application, PDP#160018; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such
requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting
held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 30, 2016, and the second
meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of
staff review on May 25, 2017; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such
requirement, 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; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the
proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the L-M-N zone, and
in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a
prohibited use in the L-M-N zone; and
WHEREAS, at its September 14, 2017, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU
and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council not approve the APU; and
WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below,
that must be satisfied in order for Council to approve the APU; and
ITEM 6, COUNCIL ORDINANCE 136
-2-
WHEREAS, the APU was originally scheduled for October 17, 2017, but Council
continued the hearing on October 17 to November 21 to allow City staff time to evaluate the
issues raised in a letter from legal counsel for Verizon Wireless; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the APU applicant Atlas Tower, Council further continued
the hearing on November 13 to December 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017, Council held a public hearing on the APU at which
the APU applicant, members of the public, and City staff presented Council with evidence,
testimony and argument.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on December 19, 2017, at
which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and
argument, and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU, hereby approves the
requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the
Parcel located in the L-M-N zone.
Section 3. That the Council imposes the following condition or conditions of
approval:
(1) The addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on the Parcel
is conditional upon the approval of PDP#160018. Upon a final decision to deny
PDP#160018 and the conclusion of any related appeals and subsequent action, if
PDP#160018 is ultimately denied, the approval of the APU granted herein shall
automatically terminate and shall thereafter be null and void.
(2) To satisfy the requirement set forth in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1), the
wireless telecommunications facility shall:
(a) Be 45 feet or less in height; and
(b) Be located further north than proposed in order to be closer to the existing
outbuildings on the Parcel and such location shall not be changed without an
approved amendment to PDP#160018 and approval of a new addition of permitted
use pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(F) if required pursuant to Section
1.3.4(F).
ITEM 6, COUNCIL ORDINANCE 136
-3-
(3) That if, after construction of the wireless telecommunications facilities is completed,
such facilities are not operated for any reason for a continuous period of 270-
consecutive days, the facilities and the structure in which they are housed shall be
removed from the Parcel in accordance with all requirements of the City Code and
Land Use Code. For purposes of this condition, any failure to continuously operate
resulting from forces beyond the reasonable control of the owner, other than financial
inability to operate, shall not be counted against the 270-consecutive day period.
Additionally, the wireless facilities use added by the APU process pursuant to this
Ordinance No. 136, 2017, shall terminate and shall thereafter be null and void.
Section 4. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was
provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, and in consideration of the
conditions of approval imposed in above Section 3, makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
(1) The APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the L-M-N zone.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the L-M-N zone and the other
permitted uses in the L-M-N zone.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(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 L-M-N zone.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the L-M-N zone
district.
(g) The LUC requirement for two neighborhood meetings regarding the APU was
fulfilled with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development
application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting held after submittal of the
development application and completion of the first round of staff review on May 25,
2017.
(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 6, COUNCIL ORDINANCE 136
-4-
(2) The APU is not detrimental to the public good;
(3) The APU is in compliance with the applicable requirements and criteria contained in
LUC Section 3.5.1; and
(4) The APU is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the L-M-N zone.
Section 5. That the Council’s approval of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon
the development proposal described in PDP#160018 and the associated APU request, the
conditions of approval set forth in above Section 3, the testimony and evidence presented at the
December 19, 2017, APU hearing, and the P&Z recommendation and hearing record. Unless
otherwise specified as a condition of approval of the APU, any changes to the use or to its
location, size, and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the
negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of
permitted use under the LUC.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
December, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of January, A.D.
2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of January, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
ITEM 6, COUNCIL ORDINANCE 136
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, C. HENDRICKSON
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, M. REAGAN
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, M. REAGAN
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, M. REAGAN
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, M. REAGAN
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 6, SHERMAN & HOWARD LETTER, M. REAGAN
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
• 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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
Long Pond WTF & APU
Clay Frickey
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
Overview
• 60’ tall wireless
telecommunications
facility
• Disguised as silo
• Located in Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(LMN) zone
• Not an allowed use
2
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
4
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
6
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
11
AB/
InBev
FCCC
City of
Fort Collins
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
12
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
13
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
14
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
15
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
16
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings
• Can meet criterion with two conditions
• 45’ height limit
• Located closer to out buildings
17
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
APU Criterion 4
• No greater impact than other permitted uses
Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4.
19
ITEM 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
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 6, STAFF REPORT & PRESENTATION
FROM 12/19/17 COUNCIL HEARING
B
B
A
A
C
B
B
B
Elizabeth Street Access
With the addition of site generated traffic both from The Hub Fort Collins and the Union on Elizabeth
projects, all movements at the proposed Elizabeth Street Access intersection are expected to operate
acceptably with LOS D or better during the morning and afternoon peak hours in 2020. Table 4
provides the results of the level of service at this intersection.
Table 4 – Elizabeth Street Access LOS Results
MOVEMENT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Westbound Left
Northbound Approach
10.2
16.8
B
C
10.8
18.0
B
C
Conclusion
As shown in this analysis, acceptable traffic operations result with adding site generated traffic from
the Union on Elizabeth development. Therefore, adding specific traffic from the Union on Elizabeth
project does not change the results or conclusions from the original traffic study prepared for The Hub
Fort Collins project. It is believed that all potential traffic impacts with the proposed project have been
previously addressed within the original traffic impact study. If you have any questions or require
anything further, please feel free to call me at (303) 228-2304.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE
Vice President
01/16/2018
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM
24.0
17.3
19.8
15.6
C
C
C
E
D
D
B
C
C
B
B
B
46.4
39.0
42.0
55.1
42.8
50.9
74.5
20.9
21.0
24.2
63.5
49.1
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
C
C
C
E
D
ITEM 4, TRAFFIC ADDENDUM