Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/19/2017 - CONSIDERATION OF THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNAgenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 1 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. Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 2 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 Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 3 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 Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 4 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 Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 5 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: Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 6 • 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) 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: ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 2   x 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. x The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. x The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards. x 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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: x Concern about radio frequency emissions x The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods x A 60 foot tower is too tall and obtrusive x Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower x Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: 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 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 Proposed (mountain Vista Site) LMN Maple Hill Park E Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Sunbury Ln Marshfield Ln Forecastle Dr Lake View Dr Nedrah Dr Frontage Rd Lind e n La k e R d S h e r e l l D r Chesapeake Dr Summerpark Ln Cott o nwoo d P o i n t D r Cambria Ln Adriel Dr Muir Ln Milton Ln D a yto n D r Friar Tuck Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct E l i m C t Supplementary Narrative – Long Pond $XJXVW, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524. This facility will be 2,500 square feet and house a 60’ silo communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This request is made in an effort to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Kenneth E. Forbes Jeanette L Forbes Address: 2008 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant: Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 36' 51.50" N 105° 02' 14.96” W Zoning: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Lease Area: 2,500 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a silo and housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a developing residential area where there is very spotty coverage and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As there area develops, and the existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the- ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect We strive to design our facilities and locate parcels that create the least amount of community disturbance. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped farmland and residential properties of medium density. The proposed site was previously used for agricultural purposes with multiple agricultural structures. The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a silo and blend with the surrounding area and the aesthetics of the proposed parcel. 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could vary on occassion. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could vary depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. Generators are used in rare instances for backup emergency power, and for very limited run times, if needed. The generator would create very minimal noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be 3 attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had favorable zoning and cable of addressing the growing coverage need and demand of the area. Exhibit 2 to this application shows the ring where Verizon would ideally place a tower. Exhibit 3 shows an expanded search area around Verizon’s ideal location that Atlas has considered for a possible lease, though not all of these locations would necessarily be effective for housing a WTF or meeting the coverage objectives planned for this WTF. This expanded search ring is based on nearness to the population to which the proposed telecommunications facility will provide coverage, and nearness to Verizon’s ideal location. Atlas’s expanded search ring is about one mile from Verizon’s ideal location, while as near as possible to the medium dense residential areas to the southwest of Verizon’s ideal location. The proposed site is just south of Verizon’s ideal search ring. Properties to the east of the proposed site are undesirable because they are not near the population that the tower will serve. In order for a telecommunications facility to function effectively, it needs to be near the population it will serve. The Industrial zoned properties to the east are over a mile from the center of the residential areas that the proposed telecommunications facility would serve, and therefore are undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. In addition to being located too far away from the coverage objective, the Industrial zoned properties to the east of the search area are also undesirable because they are significantly lower in elevation than the desired coverage area. In order for towers to work effectively, they need line of site with each other and with most of the area to which they will provide coverage. Properties to the east and northeast of the proposed site have a drop in elevation of 30ft – 50ft as shown in Exhibit 4. This 30ft – 50ft elevation drop makes the Industrial zoned properties to the east undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. The proposed site is ideal when taking into account likely future development in the area. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the area to the west of the proposed site is a medium dense residential area. To the north and south of the proposed site are new residential developments that are in the process of development. Directly to the east of the proposed site is the site of a future high school. As depicted on Exhibit 5, the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility is zoned LMN or UE. Both the LMN and UE zones are designed to support residential housing. If the proposed telecommunications facility is not developed at the proposed site, as the area continues to be developed with residential properties, the portion of northern Fort Collins from just east of College to what will be Timberline will be almost exclusively residential properties. This would be an almost two- mile wide area among which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a telecommunications facility, especially one of sufficient height. The proposed telecommunications faculty is within what will be a residential area and will allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to northeastern Fort Collins with almost no negative visual effect. Atlas was unable to secure a lease on other properties within the search area depicted on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is an image of the zoning in the search area with notes concerning Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease. Atlas and Verizon were unable to secure a lease on the property to the northeast of the proposed site owned by State of Colorado Land Commissioners or the property to the east owned by Anheuser-Busch. Neither of these properties indicated interest in a lease of any price. The Fort 4 Collins Country Club to the west of the proposed site was also not interested in a lease for a cell tower at a reasonable rate. Exhibit 7 is a letter from Greg DiBona, a contactor for Verizon, stating that after about a year of work, he was unable to secure a lease on a preferentially zoned property that meets Verizon’s coverage objectives and was acceptable to the Fort Collins Planning department. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed telecommunications facility would be located 136ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 118.5ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a silo, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which includes small residential farming properties and larger working farms, among other medium dense residential properties. We are proposing a wooden fence, as depicted in page C-2 of the Zoning Drawings enclosed with this application. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing farm buildings and residence. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth silo a beige color that matches the existing buildings on the property. All of the antennas on the stealth silo will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth silo and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. 5 Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new stealth silo, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth silo will be mounted behind the paneling of the silo, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. C-2 of the enclosed drawings. A 6’ wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. C-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. 6 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. As designed, the telecommunications facility does not have vegetation and therefore would not need automatic irrigation systems. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth silo, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Existing access roads are paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. Extension of the access roads will be made of gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 8. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. 7 The proposed site is not located on any designated historic site or structure. Atlas has obtained NEPA and Phase I environmental studies for the proposed site. The studies have determined that the site will not negatively impact any nearby historically significant sites. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth silo in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a WTF. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. According to Division 4.5, (A) Purpose: the L-M-N District is “to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood.” The proposed telecommunications facility would be a supporting land use to the neighborhood because it would provide a vital utility to the surrounding area. The L-M-N District lists “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. In addition, because the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility has been, or is currently, used for agricultural purposes, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would not look out of place. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 6, the location of the proposed tower is over 110 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original 8 location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth silo. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 60 ft. silo on farm property, the proposed 60 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Exhibit 8 to this narrative includes photo simulations showing what the proposed WTF would look like at the proposed site. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the surrounding area is a mix of newer residential properties and older rural properties, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. The L-M-N District has “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with other permitted uses for the L-M-N district which include small scale and medium scale solar energy systems and wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. 9 The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 60’ stealth silo tower at 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Ken Bradtke Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Network Engineering RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview: Verizon Wireless strives to provide excellent wireless service for our users with a network of telecommunications facilities that allows our users to reliably place and receive mobile-phone calls and utilize data services. Verizon is working to improve its network in the residential areas in northeast Fort Collins, centered near Long Pond. The performance of a network consists mainly of two factors: coverage and capacity. Coverage can be thought of as the strength of a wireless signal in a given area. Capacity can be thought of as the ability of the wireless network to handle the amount of voice and data demands placed upon it. Neither the coverage nor the capacity of the network in northeastern Fort Collins meet Verizon’s performance goals or user expectations. Increasing coverage and capacity in the area requires the development of a new telecommunications facility that can house up to twelve antennas, near users, with line-of-site to much of the surrounding area. Line of Site Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as –80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to provide a line of sight to the roads, offices, and homes where users work and reside. One of the challenges of providing excellent coverage is providing strong in-building coverage to users. Strong in-building coverage is often difficult to attain because of the degradation of the Radio Frequency (RF) signal when it travels through solid obstacles such as tree foliage or buildings. A tower height that is greater than the existing tree and building clutter increases in-building coverage because it decreases the number of solid objects, such as trees and buildings, that a cellular signal must pass though in order to reach a user. Because the proposed facility would be located on ground that is relatively high and the stealth silo would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of-site from the proposed facility would be ideal for providing coverage to the surrounding residential area. With the proposed facility at 60ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 55ft on center and could have line-of-site coverage to most of the users that Verizon seeks to serve with the proposed facility. Location Requirements: Early cellular network designs placed tall telecommunications facility towers (often in excess of 200ft) on top of hills. This provided cellular providers the ability to cover the most area possible with very few telecommunications facilities. As cell-phone users have increased, these tall, hill top facilities have been forced to provide service to an increasing number of users in a given area. In addition to there being more users, the average user is utilizing applications on their phones and tablets that require more data than ever before. With more people using cell phones and most cell-phone users requiring more data, existing structures are no longer able to handle the capacity load placed upon them. Cellular design has evolved so that multiple shorter cell sites, located near high traffic or high population areas, are now favored. These smaller sites near population centers can provide fast and reliable service to a more focused geographic area. This ultimately results in fewer dropped calls and access failures for users. The proposed location directly abuts the residential area the proposed facility would cover. The proposed location is ideal for providing fast and reliable coverage to much of the residential area of northeastern Fort Collins. Exhibit 1 The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network in northeastern Fort Collins (north of Vine and east of College) is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations. Verizon has received multiple complaints from users of dropped and degraded calls and slow data speeds. In this area there are both issues of coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year in order to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non- functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are requiring more and more data. In addition to this, Fort Collins is growing quickly and there is planned development in northeastern Fort Collins. As more homes and schools are built, the existing infrastructure will become less and less able to meet demand. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because more and more people are no longer utilizing landlines, it is becoming more and more common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Average users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. Exhibit 1 Continued Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon’s existing coverage in northeastern Fort Collins. Map Legend: (Same for both Maps) Exhibit 1 Continued The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon’s coverage in northeastern Fort Collins could be with the proposed facility. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity in northeastern Fort Collins for both current and future use. The proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road it ideally situated with regard to both topography and with regard to its proximity to the residential users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding residential area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site’s topography and location is ideal for Verizon’s purposed and will allow it to greatly improve wireless performance in northeastern Fort Collins. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless FTC_LongPond Exhibit 1 Continued Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 1 -- Ridnour Wesley P/Gerldine J – In addition to being located too far away from the search ring and coverage area and having insufficient elevation, Atlas inquired about leasing on this parcel with the landlord in the fall of 2015, and was unable to secure a lease. The property owner was un-interested in a lease. 2 – Colorado Board of Land Commissioners – Atlas Tower reached out to multiple contacts regarding a lease on this property and was informed that the owners and occupiers of the property were not interested in leasing for a WTF. Additionally, this location is largely too far from the search ring center and is too low in elevation for the proposed tower to function effectively. 3 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Atlas made multiple rounds of calls to the Landlord with no response. Additionally, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future. 4 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 5 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 6 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Calls to Landlord were unsuccessful in getting a response. Furthermore, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future and how to site the tower location. Our parcel and siting location has established agricultural residences that allow for a stealth structure that fits the character of the existing development, while still providing the much needed coverage. Lease Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Exhibit 5 Continued 7 – Fort Collins Country Club – In the summer of 2015, Greg Dibona, approached the Fort Collins Country Club, but was unsuccessful in securing a lease. Additionally, Atlas employee, Mike Powers approached the Fort Collins country club, but they were completely uninterested in a telecommunications lease. $WODVGLVFXVVHGDOHDVHZLWKWKH)RUW&ROOLQV&RXQW\&OXEDJDLQDWWKHUHTXHVWRIWKH&LW\DV UHFHQWO\DV$XJXVWRIDQGDIWHUSURYLGLQJWKHGHWDLOVRIWKHSURMHFWWKHJROIFRXUVHLQGLFDWHGWKH\ZHUH QRWLQWHUHVWHGLQSXUVXLQJDOHDVH$QHPDLOIURPWKH*HQHUDO0DQDJHU-RKQ6WHEELQVLVLQFOXGHGZLWKWKLV VXEPLWWDOLQGLFDWLQJWKHFRXUVH VGHFLVLRQQRWWRSXUVXHDOHDVH 8 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 9 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – Verizon contractors reached out to Budweiser in the fall of 2015, and Budweiser never responded to Greg’s inquiries. Atlas additionally reached out to local and corporate Budweiser contacts regarding cell tower leasing options, and received no interest or response. Additionally, as stated by Verizon RF engineer, Ram Nandiraju, in Exhibit 9, the Anheuser-Busch property is too far from Verizon’s desired search ring to provide effective coverage to the target area. In fact, the Anheuser-Busch property falls within another search ring being pursued by Verizon and would not be suitable for the desired coverage of this search ring. 10 – Poudre R-1 School District – This parcel is undeveloped and not a better location for the proposed telecommunications facility as it has the same zoning as the proposed site and is lower in elevation than the proposed site. Additionally, this is the planned area of a new school development. With the uncertainty in development and the type of planned development, this is not a suitable candidate for communications tower siting or leasing. 11 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 12 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – See response to #9 above. This property is too far away to provide the intended service to the desired coverage area. Additionally, multiple leasing efforts have failed.. Lat40 , Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SITE PLAN ATLAS TOWER: FORBES Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 7 Continued Exhibit 8 Photo Simulation #1 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #1 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation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eb 10, 2017 Attn: Clay Frickey Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Noise and traffic generated by the proposed WTF at 2008 Turnberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could very greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. Please feel free to contact me with follow-up question or concerns. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Project Manager Atlas Tower 1, LLC (303) 448-8896 ccrossand@atlastowers.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 2008 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS C-2 TOWER ELEVATION C TURNBERRY KES NMC A 04-27-16 ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 ZONING C 07-27-16 ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL EROSION NOTES: PUBLIC ROAD NOTES: CONSTRUCTION NOTES: “ ” “ ” “ ” EROSION & DRIVEWAY PLANS C-2 SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 SILT FENCE DETAILS STANDARD ROAD SEC. (POOR SUBGRADE) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STANDARD ROAD SEC. (GOOD SUBGRADE) FIRE ACCESS ROAD SIGNS SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN TURNBERRY ROAD CODES TESTING GUARANTEE CO-ORDINATION: EXAMINATION OF SITE CUTTING, PATCHING AND EXCAVATION: SCOPE: ELECTRICAL NOTES: CONDUCTORS GROUNDING PENETRATIONS: EXTERIOR CONDUIT: EQUIPMENT: RACEWAYS ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND MATERIALS POWER NOTES: UTILITY PLAN SCHEDULE H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-1 ELECTRICAL NOTES & UTILITY COORDINATION ELECTRICAL NOTES UTILITY COORDINATION NOTES: FRONT VIEW REAR VIEW POWER PANEL SCHEDULE NOTES: VZW SERVICE RACK (FRONT AND BACK) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (FRONT) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (BACK) ONE LINE DIAGRAM NOTES: NOTES: NOTES: DRAWING NOTES: H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-2 ELECTRICAL DETAILS SERVICE RACK DETAILS ONE LINE ELEVATION ONE LINE DETAIL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT(S) TRENCH DETAIL POWER AND TELCO PLAN TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FIXED GENERATOR GROUNDING NOTES DRAWING NOTES: NOTES: SINGLE CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS GROUNDING DETAILS E-3 ELECTRICAL DETAIL H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 CADWELD GROUNDING DETAIL TOWER GROUNDING ISOLATED GROUND BAR COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD TOWER GROUNDING MOUNTING DETAIL COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXTERNAL CIGBE - BOTTOM TYPE 1 GROUND BAR TYPE 2 GROUND BAR COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXT. CIGBE - TOP & INTERMEDIATE GROUNDING PLAN GROUNDING AT GATE POST TRENCH DETAIL INSPECTION WELL DETAIL CONNECTOR AND HARDWARE DETAIL entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).'. SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- `(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. `(B) LIMITATIONS- `(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- `(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and `(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. `(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. `(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. `(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. `(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. `(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- `(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; `(ii) the term `personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and `(iii) the term `unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. SEC. 705. MOBILE SERVICES DIRECT ACCESS TO LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS. Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end City Structure Plan Printed: August 30, 2017 Fort Collins GMA City Limits Zones that do not allow wireless towers Zones that allow wireless towers © Adopted: February 18, 1997 Amended: January 6, 2015 CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Zones that will allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Mountain Vista Rd. Turnberry Rd. Giddings Rd. Richards Lake Rd. Douglas Rd. Applicant's Search Area Site From: John Stebbins <johns@fcgolf.org> Date: August 17, 2017 at 6:15:45 PM MDT To: Mike Powers <mpowers@atlastowers.com> Subject: Tower     City of Fort Collins Administrative Policies 90 C. Any donation valued under $5,000 may be accepted by a department. The appropriate department shall prepare and furnish a quarterly report to the City Manager and Accounting containing a listing of the donations accepted including information designated in B.1. above. Upon acceptance of the donation, the department shall furnish the donor with a receipt acknowledging the donation, if requested by the donor. Any individual donations received in connection with a specific fundraising program or project of a department shall be included in the quarterly report above, but may be reported in summary form indicating the total amount received in connection with the program or project and the information designated in B.1. above regarding the overall program or project (each individual donation need not be separately reported). 4.8 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Owned Property A. Purpose and Scope The potential for location of wireless telecommunication facilities, including transmission towers, antennae, and signal repeaters, on lands open for public recreation has created concern in the community. In order to uphold community values and investments in such lands, this policy exercises the City’s discretion as a property owner to prohibit the issuance of any license, permit, or other consent, for third parties to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City parkland, golf course, cemetery, public facility, or open space (“public land”). B. General Conditions and Restrictions 1. This administrative policy prohibits granting to third parties, pursuant to a license, permit, easement, lease, or other form of consent, any property interest to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City-owned public land, including park land, city golf courses, cemeteries, city facilities, or open space. 2. This policy does not affect development rights otherwise available under applicable land use and zoning regulations, with regard to location of such facilities on private property. 3. Wireless telecommunication facilities existing on public land in City Park at the time of this policy’s adoption may remain in place, and co-location of equipment by multiple carriers may be encouraged. 4. Exceptions to the strict application of this policy may be made at the discretion of the City Manager. ATTACHMENT 2 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE ROAD 518-439-3079 GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX: 518-478-0909 November 2, 2017 (via regular mail and e-mail) Clay Frickey Fort Collins Planning 281 North College, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Fort Collins CO Atlas Tower 2008 Turnberry Road Dear Mr. Frickey; We have reviewed all of the materials submitted by the applicant for the above referenced application relating to the conditions of the approval of a Special Use Permit. This includes the following three documents: City of Fort Collins Development Review: Application Form dated 5/25/16 PDF Attachment 2: Atlas Tower Supplementary Narrative - Long Pond dated August 22, 2017 PDF Attachment 3: Atlas Tower Zoning Construction Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17. Brief description / project overview: Applicant: Atlas Tower Proposed Project: Construct a 60’ silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd with capabilities to enclose 3 wireless carriers. Scope of Review: 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant’s search ring 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is taken from the April 23, 1996 Federal Communications Commission FACT SHEET. “Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act") governs federal, state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The 1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and placement of facilities such as towers for cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) transmitters: - • The new law preserves local zoning authority, but clarifies when the exercise of local zoning authority may be preempted by the FCC. • Section 704 prohibits any action that would discriminate between different providers of personal wireless services, such as cellular, wide-area SMR and broadband PCS. It also prohibits any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a particular area.” ATTACHMENT 3 2 Page 2 of 6 11/2/17 Of particular note in this review is the “Applicant” is not a provider of personal wireless services covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but is an infrastructure provider desiring to construct a silo that could potentially support up to three service providers. While Verizon has included a document “Exhibit 1” titled RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80524, Verizon is not listed as a co-applicant and does not appear to be committed or integrated into this application. This is confirmed in the Attachment 2 document which includes the following statement by Atlas Tower. Based on this information the Proposal Summary section (copied below) is incorrect. The second sentence states “This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area.” This statement is incorrect. This facility will provide a support structure for wireless service providers who in the future may attach and install antennas / equipment that will provide wireless coverage to the surrounding area, is a more correct statement. The reason this wording is important is that without a commitment and installation of a service provider’s equipment, no improvement in wireless coverage will occur as a result of the construction of this project. It also makes it clear that this application is not for a provider of personal wireless services and therefore is not a protected class under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For the purpose of providing the City of Fort Collins and the applicant as much information as possible based on the documentation the applicant has provided to date, the balance of this report will be written as if the applicant is a service provider or that Verizon has committed to the project and will install wireless equipment as a co-applicant. 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site In order to have a proper understanding of the existing and proposed coverage a significant amount of supplemental and additional information is required. First, we will address the deficiencies of the submitted information which was included in Exhibit 1: Verizon provided the following statement: 3 Page 3 of 6 11/2/17 Based on this statement it appears that Verizon is stating the purpose of a new site in this area is both to improve coverage and to increase capacity. The data typically required to document these issues are different. We will first look at coverage. Verizon provided a propagation map for the existing coverage in Northeastern Fort Collins. This existing coverage map has multiple deficiencies: 1. It appears to have included three color codes; green -75 dBm, yellow -85 dBm, and grey -95 dBm. Verizon implies that in order to provide excellent in building coverage requires -80 dBm. Verizon typically uses -95 dBm (700 MHz and 2100 MHz frequencies) for in building services in cities, suburban and dense residential communities. Verizon prepared a coverage map for this location using -75 dBm which is not consistent and conflicts with Verizon’s in building requirements for other communities. 2. It does not state what frequency band was utilized to generate the map? Is it the 700 MHz band or the 2100 MHz band? The coverage gaps will be significantly different based on the frequency band. 3. Verizon has not provided adjacent site information, such as location, operating power (ERP), losses, elevations, etc. 4. Verizon did not provide drive test data to document the model is correct and properly reflects the actual gap in coverage. 5. Verizon did not include a scale or street labels to assist in defining the areas where coverage is an issue. Verizon also submitted a propagation map of what coverage “could be” with Verizon located at the 55’ elevation of the proposed facility. This “conceptual” coverage map also has multiple deficiencies. In addition to all the deficiencies for the existing coverage, additional deficiencies include: 1. The location of the proposed analyzed facility appears to be different than the proposed location at 2008 Turnberry Rd. It appears the analyzed location and conceptual coverage map is for a facility located at a maintenance facility on the Fort Collins County Club located approximately 1 mile to the North/Northwest. This location adjustment would obviously impact the conceptual coverage map. 2. The proposed coverage maps should be provided using the 700 MHz frequency at the proposed elevation and at 10’ lower elevations along with a narrative explaining the loss in coverage at the lower elevation in order to justify the need for the proposed height of this structure. Information required to address Verizon’s capacity concern also has not been provided. Verizon provided one chart with no supporting documentation or information. (Copy of chart below) 4 Page 4 of 6 11/2/17 The demonstration of need for capacity relief requires the presentation of the data requirements identified below with a narrative. The narrative should present the summary results of the supporting studies and documentation. To further clarify, an analysis of current and projected usage for each adjacent or adjoining site will be required, by sector, for each existing sector of each/all sites in need of capacity relief, and a description of specifically how the proposed site will relieve current and projected capacity issues in each sector requiring relief. Data must include a description of the capacity design for each sector requiring relief (usage capacity) to include the transmitting base station equipment specifications (cut sheets) in use or proposed for the upgrade and indicating how the equipment in use or as proposed relates to the maximum possible usage capacity for each sector affected by a need for capacity relief. Usage data should utilize a bouncing busy hour and should be over a period of five (5) consecutive days. The report should show the average bottom-line numbers for those five consecutive days. The documentation required to support an application for a capacity increase falls into one of two scenarios: 1. A situation in which a sector or sectors are over capacity at the present time, or 2. A situation in which a sector or sectors are anticipated to be over capacity during for the next busy season. The following site information is required for each scenario: a. What is at capacity, i.e. voice or data? b. Which sector at each site is at capacity? c. What are the number of voice carriers and data carriers per sector at each site? d. How many voice carriers and how many data carriers1 are there in each necessitating this application? e. Can the number of voice or data carriers be reallocated (to voice or data) to address the capacity issue/need? If not, why not? f. The number of channels/voice radios installed per each affected sector; g. Minimum acceptable Bit Rate; h. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that can be installed. Radio that can be put at each current site divided by the number of radios per sector. i. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that are installed. j. All calculations that are related to the capacity of the voice or data capacity of the affected sectors, e.g. minutes of use. Erlangs, Bit Error Rate, number of data customers per busy hour data. k. Number of anticipated voice users and data users for each type of use per site; l. Any other data that provides documentation as regards the need for increased voice or data capacity relief, such being the obligation of the applicant to provide to enable verification of the need. (This may include a customer limit, design thru put data rates or other criteria prescribed in internal technical documents.) 1 The number of paths or circuits used for voice or data 5 Page 5 of 6 11/2/17 Data required for each scenario are as follows. Scenario 1: Sector or sectors currently at or over capacity. (Data needed for the past busy season) • Data collected over 5 (five) consecutive days for minutes of use for the bouncing busy hour (i.e., highest use hour for each of the 5 days); • Convert the use data to Erlangs; • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be each in sector(s); • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage. Scenario 2: Sector or sectors anticipated to be at or over capacity during the next busy season • Data for the past 2 (two) year’s busy seasons to establish a trend of use following the same guidelines as under Scenario 1 (i.e., 5 consecutive days bouncing busy use for each of the last 2 busy seasons) The trend should be straight line. • Convert the use data to Erlangs. • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be in each sector(s) • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage Propagation Projections Propagation projections must be provided depicting existing and proposed coverage at –95dBm in vehicle or –85dBm in building coverage, or for 700 d/B/m service at -95d/B/m for city/suburban in- building coverage and state whether the applicant is designing for in-vehicle or in-building coverage, and how the proposed coverage will overlap existing coverage to relieve existing or projected capacity issues. The maps must indicate the output power level used at the antenna height requested. On a tower, the applicant must show the minimum height necessary to achieve the required capacity relief, i.e. below which the facility will not provide any capacity relief. Capacity Summary Narrative Present the narrative summary and conclusion for need with reference to the capacity use studies to be presented. The supporting technical data requested shall be accompanied by a written explanation of why a new facility/site is needed is, i.e. why additional capacity can not be added to the existing facility. 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant’s search ring Supporting documents for alternative sites evaluated by the applicant have not been provided including communications / proposals related to the Fort Collins Country Club. It should be noted that the proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road is approximately 0.6 miles south of the Verizon search ring shown in Exhibit 2. Other potential sites are discussed below and warrant evaluation. All of these sites are closer to the Verizon search ring than the proposed facility or within the Verizon search ring. Fort Collins Country Club (Maintenance Building) Supporting documents for this alternative site evaluated by the applicant and Verizon should be provided to document the commercial impracticability. This location sits approximately 25’ higher in elevation than the proposed site and is on the fringe of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. 6 Page 6 of 6 11/2/17 Parcel 9 Anheuser-Bush This site is located within the preferential zoning of the City of Fort Collins. Verizon provided a letter discussing the Anheuser-Bush property along with a description that it is 70’ lower in elevation and 2 miles southeast of the Verizon search ring. Parcel 9 is currently owned by Anheuser-Bush. The NW corner of parcel 9 is 30’ lower than the proposed site and is only 0.3 miles outside of the Verizon search ring. This is actually 0.3 miles closer than the proposed site to the Verizon search ring. Further consideration and evaluation is justified for this parcel. Verizon made the following statement in the application materials: Richard’s Lake Park (and other park space) Based on the Verizon letter this location is obviously a target of improved coverage for Verizon. This park sits approximately 45’ higher in elevation than the proposed site at Turnberry Rd. It also is near the center of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. There is also open space / park at the NE corner of Richards Lake Road and Turnberry Road that is the same elevation as the proposed site and also is within the Verizon search ring that warrants evaluation. We find the application materials for these three items to be incomplete and the documentation that has been provided does not justify this facility at this time. Before we can make a final recommendation to the City on this application these items must be addressed. Should the applicant be willing to provide additional application material, we strongly recommend a conference call with the applicant’s individual(s) that will be providing the information to review the items needed in order to assure that the next submittal is complete and contains all of the information needed for the city to make an informed decision on this application. Please contact Bob Naumann at (402) 850-3424 if you have any questions. Sincerely, R.A.Comi (electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS Cc: Robert A. Naumann CMS (via e-mail) Response Narrative – Long Pond November 28, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower (Response to CMS Memo Dated November 2, 2017) To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC has prepared the below Narrative in response to the report prepared by The Center for Municipal Solutions dated November, 2017. Accompanying this Response Narrative is a letter prepared by Sherman and Howard, counsel to Verizon Wireless, a co-applicant on the application referenced in these materials. 1. Assess development application of completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996. This section states that “the “Applicant” for this project is not a provider of personal wireless services covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act”, and further asserts that “Verizon is not listed as a co- applicant and does not appear to be committed to or integrated into this application.” RESPONSE: Atlas and Verizon are co-applicants on this application. Verizon’s equipment is shown in the Zoning Drawings submitted with the application, is referenced numerous times through the application narrative, and submitted materials on Verizon Letter head from Verizon employees as part of the application materials including RF materials, Text Campaign results, and other site-specific information. VZW radio frequency engineer, Ram Nandiraju, also testified during the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, further highlighting the joint efforts of the project. While the facility has been designed to accommodate additional future carriers, as required by Fort Collins code, the assertion that Atlas and Verizon are not co-applicants on this initial application submittal is baseless, and it is clear that Atlas and Verizon are co-applicants on the project. Therefore, any points or assertions made by CMS in this section are groundless and do not apply to our application review. 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site. Capacity Summary Narrative Present the narrative summary and conclusion for need with reference to the capacity use studies to be presented. The supporting technical data requested shall be accompanied by a written explanation of why a new facility/site is needed, i.e., why additional capacity can not be added to the existing facility. RESPONSE: Our response to the materials requested in this section is detailed in the above- referenced letter from Sherman and Howard. As stated in that letter, the information previously provided in the narrative, RF letter, and coverage maps was already of sufficient detail to address the coverage and capacity issues that exist at the proposed site location and coverage area. However, we have provided some additional RF materials with this response in a good-faith effort to further demonstrate the need for the facility. The enclosed RF coverage maps show the gap in coverage and capacity even with the existing neighboring sites. As stated throughout the original application materials, additional infrastructure is needed to address the large gap in coverage that exists today ATTACHMENT 4 2 without the proposed structure that is the subject of this application. Furthermore, the plots provided at different proposed antenna heights, show the improved coverage as the facility achieves greater height. A 60’ structure will provide the greatest overall benefit to the user base, and will reduce the need for future infrastructure to meet coverage and capacity demand. 2. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant’s search ring. Fort Collins Country Club – Atlas and Centerline, working on behalf of Verizon wireless, engaged the Country Club on multiple occasions and were not able to secure a lease for a communications tower on the property. An email from John Stebbins, General manager for the Fort Collins Country Club, stating that the Country Club did not wish to move forward with a lease on the property, was provided to the City on August 24th, 2017. Anheuser-Bush – Atlas and Centerline, working on behalf of Verizon wireless, also approached Anheuser-Bush on multiple occasions in order to secure a lease. The results of those efforts are already detailed in the original application materials. Not only is the Anheuser-Bush property located within a different search ring, we were not able to secure a lease with them despite multiple efforts to engage them. The property is also located outside of the intended search ring and at a lower elevation, hence the property part of a different search ring altogether. Richard’s Lake Park – Fort Collins does not lease public property for the Cell Tower use. Further details as to why this property did not work for leasing purposes was also detailed in the original application materials. For the above-stated reasons, the report provided by CMS should have no bearing on the determination of our application completeness or whether it meets the requirements of the Fort Collins Code. As detailed by Staff, and presented during the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the application, as provided, met the requirements of the Code. The additional points highlighted by the CMS report were already addressed in that original application, and have been further addressed in this Response Narrative, the enclosed Sherman and Howard letter, and the additional provided Coverage Maps. Sincerely, Ken Bradtke Atlas Tower 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 ATTACHMENT 5 CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE (518) 439-3079 GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518) 478-0909 December 6, 2017 (via regular mail and e-mail) Clay Frickey Fort Collins Planning 281 North College, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: CMS Supplemental Report - Fort Collins CO Atlas Tower 2008 Turnberry Road Dear Mr. Frickey; We have reviewed the supplemental materials submitted by Atlas Tower for the above referenced application relating to the conditions of the approval of a Special Use Permit. This review includes two documents: PDF titled: Long Pond Response Narrative 11.27.17 (Atlas Tower) PDF titled: 2017 11 28 Ltr C Hendrickson to Fort Collins Planning Department (Sherman & Howard) Our original review included the following three documents: City of Fort Collins Development Review: Application Form dated 5/25/16 PDF Attachment 2: Atlas Tower Supplementary Narrative - Long Pond dated August 22, 2017 PDF Attachment 3: Atlas Tower Zoning Construction Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17. PDF titled: Long Pond Response Narrative 11.27.17 (Atlas Tower) This Supplemental Narrative addressed three main points identified by CMS in the original CMS review. • Issue 1: This application is not for a provider of personal wireless services. • Issue 2: Supplemental RF information required. • Issue 3: Alternative site considerations. Issue 1: This application is not for a provider of personal wireless services. The Atlas tower PDF states that Atlas and Verizon are co-applicants on this application. They added statements that Verizon’s equipment is shown in the Zoning Drawings, Verizon is referenced numerous times in the narrative, submitted materials on Verizon letterhead including RF materials, Text Campaign results and other site specific information. CMS reviewed these items and reference the following documentation from Atlas Tower’s application materials. 1. City of Fort Collins Development Review Application Form lists Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant. 2. The Atlas Tower cover page dated August 22, 2017 lists Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant. 3. The Atlas Tower narrative dated August 22, 2017 states the Purpose of this request is “to build a telecommunications tower”. ATTACHMENT 6 Page 2 of 3 12/6/17 4. The Atlas Tower narrative dated August 22, 2017 states “Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations.” 5. The Atlas Tower Planning Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17 and the Utility Plans Rev G dated 3/3/17 list Atlas Tower 1, LLC as the applicant and provided only Atlas contact information with no reference to Verizon as a co-applicant or any contact information for Verizon. 6. The Planning and Utility Drawings do indicate proposed locations for Verizon equipment but label these construction details as by Verizon which clearly documents that Verizon will provide separate plans for these details which are not included in these plans. No Verizon specific details, generator, grounding, cabling, radio equipment and antenna specifications are included in these plans. 7. The letter from Sherman & Howard objected to technical issues in the original CMS report however, they did not object to the original CMS report stating that the applicant, Atlas Tower 1, LLC, is not a provider of personal wireless services. They also did not affirm that Verizon is a co-applicant for this application. Based on the 7 items listed above in CMS’s opinion Verizon should not be considered an applicant until Verizon provides documentation to the City confirming they are committed to improving wireless services in this location. Atlas Tower 1, LLC is not a provider of personal wireless services Issue 2. Supplemental RF information required. Atlas Tower states in their letter, “the information previously provided in the narrative, RF letter, and coverage maps was already of sufficient detail to address the coverage and capacity issues that exist at the proposed site location and coverage area. However we have provided some additional RF materials with this response in a good faith effort to further demonstrate the need for the facility. The enclosed RF coverage maps show the gap in coverage and capacity even with the existing neighboring sites.” The original CMS report documents the unresolved and incomplete documentation / detail from the Atlas narrative. This supplemental submittal by Atlas Tower has not provided any additional information to respond to the incomplete information needed for the City of Fort Collins to make an informed decision. In addition the additional RF materials Atlas said was included with their response was thumbnail size images that become blurry upon enlarging, making them impossible to read and understand. Therefore the only additional material was not legible. CMS requested these to be provided in large detail but as of this writing nothing has been provided. It should be noted that documentation required to illustrate coverage gaps and capacity issues are different as they represent two separate concerns. The original CMS report documents numerous deficiencies that need to be corrected by Verizon, assuming they will become an applicant, in order to prove the coverage gap and capacity issues for this location. Without a clear understanding of the coverage gap it is impossible to determine if the proposed silo is the least intrusive solution to a purported gap that has not been defined. Issue 3: Alternative site considerations. Atlas Tower included a response to the three alternatives discussed in the original CMS report. The original CMS report comments remain valid. No relevant supplementary information was included in the latest Atlas Tower supplemental narrative. Page 3 of 3 12/6/17 PDF titled: 2017 11 28 Ltr C Hendrickson to Fort Collins Planning Department (Sherman & Howard) This Supplemental letter from counsel to Verizon Wireless addressed four main points. 1. The APU Application Meets All Requirements of the Land Use Code 2. The CMS Letter Imposes Requirements Not Found in the Land Use Code 3. The City Failed to Provide a Notice of Incomplete Application Within the Time Frame Required by the “Shot Clock” Ruling. 4. The Federal Telecommunications Act Mandates Approval of the Application The first two points relate to the requirements of the Land Use Code. The City of Fort Collins have agreed to address any Land Use Code concerns and has not included or requested from CMS to review Code comments. The last two points are not applicable until Verizon Wireless formally is included as an applicant for this project. Currently Atlas Tower 1, LLC is listed as the applicant. We find the application materials reviewed by CMS to be incomplete and the documentation that has been provided does not justify this facility at this time. Before we can make a final recommendation to the City on this application these items must be addressed. Should the applicant be willing to provide additional application material, we strongly recommend a conference call with the applicant’s individual(s) that will be providing the information to review the items needed in order to assure that the next submittal is complete and contains all of the information needed for the city to make an informed decision on this application. Please contact Bob Naumann at (402) 850-3424 if you have any questions. Sincerely, R.A.Comi (electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS Cc: Robert A. Naumann CMS (via e-mail) ATTACHMENT 7 Resident Comments Received as of 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 13, 2017 Any comments received between Wednesday, December 13 and 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19 will be included in Council read‐ before packet ATTACHMENT 8 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Brent Bartlett" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:17:07 PM Good evening Mr. Bartlett - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Brent Bartlett [mailto:casabartlett@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:16 AM To: City Leaders Subject: We support the cell tower proposal on Turnberry Rod. Please don't let a a few load voices influence a practical decision over the many who need the coverage. Sent from Outlook From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Becca Bramhall" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Towers Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:17:47 PM Good evening Ms. Bramhall - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Becca Bramhall [mailto:beccabram@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:24 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Towers Hello, I am writing this email as a resident of Northwest Fort Collins. My family and I are having a very difficult time understanding why our area of town cannot have reliable cell service. We used to. I am told by my cell phone carrier (who has always been Verizon) that the increase of dropped calls and the inability to even make a call may be due to the increased number of people in the area. I have learned that this area is now rated as a highly problematic area according to their data. I learned all this while making the call sitting on the curb outside of my home because that is where I have the best chance of completing a call. Last Fall my husband had a series of serious health issues which landed him in the hospital a couple of times and necessitated many calls with doctors, our home health care nurse, our pharmacy, not to mention trying to communicate with my husband while he was in the hospital to check in with him while I was not by his side. The frustration and angst and tears that resulted from continuous dropped calls or the inability to even get a call through was deeply troubling and, at times, scary. My husband had colon cancer and many complications from surgery to get rid of it. He was suffering from life-endangering circumstances. It seems to me that homes that neighbor Budweiser do not have a leg to stand on by using the concern of aesthetics to try and stop a cell tower from being built near them. I have not heard of health issues concerning cell towers but, 1) would like to hear about those issues if they exist and, 2) feel that with all of the open space still nearby there would be a spot that would not pose health concerns. Just yesterday I was trying to call my 91 year old mother who had been feeling under the weather and my call was dropped three times, which was confusing and disturbing to my mother and maddening to me. Please vote on behalf of the majority of families and elderly who live in this area and rely on their cell phones as necessary and even vital tools to their security and to the quality of their life. Thank you very much for your time and your service, Becca Bramhall 2516 Greenmont Drive From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Sandra Brooks" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Turnberry Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:46:30 PM Hi Sandra – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Sandra Brooks [mailto:sraebrooks@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:28 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower at Turnberry Thank you for serving on the City Council If I were to have a stroke tomorrow, fall, or have any kind of an emergency, I may not be able to call 911 simply because I don't have good cell service in my area. Last night I was talking on the phone, took two steps to my left and lost service. I understand two families on Turnberry are concerned about the health effects of emissions of the cell tower. Since Federal law says this cannot be taken into account, I believe that one life lost to inability to contact 911 is one life to many. Please vote YES on this issue. Thank you for listening. Sandra Brooks 1905 Kedron Circle -- Sandra Brooks 303-808-3633 The test we must set for ourselves is not to march alone but to march in such a way that others wish to join us. From: Delynn Coldiron To: "kcgftfun@msn.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower #private DND Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:23:42 PM Good evening Karen and Frank - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: KG Campanella-Green <kcgftfun@msn.com> Date: October 2, 2017 at 11:33:09 AM CDT To: "boverbeck@fcgov.com" <boverbeck@fcgov.com> Cc: KG Campanella-Green <kcgftfun@msn.com> Subject: Cell Tower Hello Bob. We live in the Maple Hill subdivision. This morning I read the Coloradoan Silver Pen editorial written by Sandra Brooks. My husband and I are often frustrated by the meager cell connections in this NE area. A cell tower would mean that our communications, which of course are our life lines in more ways than one, would be greatly improved and enhanced. We wholeheartedly endorse a cell tower for NE Fort Collins. We would appreciate your vote in favor of the cell tower. Karen and Frank Campanella-Green 2426 Ballard Ln; 80524 970-37703682 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "nee@naturalverities.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Re Lond Pond/Turnberry Road Cell Tower Date: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:42:59 PM Good afternoon Ms.Eason - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Nancy Eason [mailto:neeason@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:35 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Re Lond Pond/Turnberry Road Cell Tower Dear Councilmembers, I am writing today to urge you to not approve the APU for the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project. Although cell service in our area of town is bad, there are good reasons that this particular project should not be approved. According to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, cell towers are not a permitted use in residential zones such as the LMN zone where this tower would be constructed if approved. Large stand-alone towers such as this 60' tall stealth silo are out of scale in residential zones, but particularly so on this property with its small outbuildings. The Planning & Zoning Board made the correct recommendation to Council in voting against it 4-1 on Sept. 14. Such large installations cannot be properly disguised in residential settings as we've all seen with funky trees in other areas. It makes sense to stick with the current zoning and keep larger collector-type cell towers outside of residential zones. We do not believe the applicant, Atlas Tower, has demonstrated due diligence in vetting other locations for a cell tower in our area. This became clear to us when we contacted nearby landowners. There are hundreds of industrial and commercially zoned acres to the east and north where cell towers are an allowed use. Before granting this waiver, thus possibly making it easier to erect cell towers in other residential zones, shouldn't Council at least be certain no other options exist? Our city, like many local communities around the nation, lacks expertise in wireless technology infrasturcture. Therefore, city staff and city residents end up having to take the telecommunications industry's word on how the infrastructure build-out should occur. This seems rather convenient for the telecom industry. At the very least, we would like to see the city consulting with third party experts and/or hiring such expertise before waiving zoning regulations to allow cell towers to be built within residential areas. I appreciate your hard work and willingness to engage issues like this for the good of our community. I believe a solution can be found that will vastly improve our cell service while keeping these large towers where they belong as currently zoned. I encourage you to take a quick drive out here to see where it would be located (2008 Turnberry Road) as photos do not always give a proper sense of scale. Thank you, Nancy Eason 1909 Turnberry Road, FC 970-493-7588 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Sam" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:19:13 PM Good evening Kendall and Margaret - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:sam.glover20@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:37 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell tower Dear Mayor and City Council, Thank you for giving your time and energy to make our city a better place to live. You do a wonderful job. We would appreciate cell service in our area very much. Please vote to approve a cell tower in the Turnberry area. The one on Shields that looks like a tree might make everyone happy. There are many elderly residents in this area and cell service is critical for their lives. We appreciate your dedication and service to the people of this community. Sincerely, Kendall and Margaret Glover Sent from my iPad . From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Pam Hawley" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: northeast cell tower needed!! Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:16:23 PM Good evening Ms. Hawley - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Pam Hawley [mailto:prhawley@frii.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:59 AM To: City Leaders Subject: northeast cell tower needed!! Hello- I live in Adriel Hills in the Northeast part of Fort Collins (not in the City Limits). Adriel Hills is a condominium association at the corner of Turnberry Rd and Mountain Vista Road. There are 177 residences in this association alone. Large neighborhoods surround us. In this age of advanced technology, I am required to continue having a landline because my cell phone only works the best when I stand by my living room window and cannot be depended on in the case of emergency or for that matter, in any case for trusted communication. This is unacceptable as I work from home and live in a neighborhood where this issue of very poor cell service is prevalent. I understand that the recent cell tower controversy along Turnberry Road will have varying opinions. I also realize there are zoning issues to consider. However, as more people are living in this area and with cell phones being the technology we use, we MUST have a cell tower that serves this area. I need to pay for a landline because I cannot trust the cell service. This is costly to me to simply have this as a backup plan and this area must move forward with technology to serve the many residents in this quadrant of the County. Your research and continues consideration of how to get a cell phone tower to this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Pam Hawley From: Rita Knoll To: "donnhopkins@comcast.net" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: Turnberry Road proposed cell tower Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 6:56:02 PM Donn, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com ********************** Dear Mayor Troxell, and Council Members Overbeck, Martinez, Horak, I live 3 blocks from the proposed cell phone tower on Turnberry (see message string below). My wife Linda and I have Verizon service for our land line and cell phones. Phone service in our area is not reliable, 2 bars most days. Recently our land line went down, no service, for 3 weeks. I complained to Verizon many times until it was restored. My personal health now requires me to use a wheel chair or walker (progressive MS). I'm constantly concerned about falls and other health related maladies. Without reliable phone service I feel at risk in my own home. Reliable cell/phone service is a real public safety need in the neighborhoods along Turnberry Road. I'm aware of a story in our neighborhood (not personally verified) that a man was mowing his lawn in the Maple Hill neighborhood this summer. He suffered a heart attack and needed emergency medical assistance. Several neighbors tried to use their cell phones and had no service. I understand while a person gave aid to the man another person ran door to door until they contacted someone who had a land line that worked to call 911. The story is that the man died. There is a swimming pool in this neighborhood and residents report weak or no cell service there. There are several small neighborhood parks in the area too. Without reliable cell service there is a potential risk to anyone engaging recreational activity and assuming they can get help if needed. I urge the Council to allow this cell tower on Turnberry for the safety of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Donn Hopkins 1809 Rangeview Drive From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Joseph Horan" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry cell tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:25:32 PM Good evening Dr. and Mrs. Horan - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Joseph Horan [mailto:joho7218@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:43 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry cell tower I am writing to request that the proposed cell tower on Turnberry Road be approved. We live in the Hearthfire subdivision and have dreadful cell service. Fortunately we can afford a land line, but without it we would often need to leave home to make a phone call! I am amazed that the City is investigating Internet service for the whole city while many of us don't even have cell service in our homes. This is a safety issue for sure, and I would hope that the city council will place the safety of all residents at the highest priority, and approve the cell tower. Respectfully, Dr. and Mrs. J. Joseph Horan 3209 Town Center Ct. 80524 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "lesliem01@comcast.net" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell tower off Turnberry Road Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:14:20 PM Good evening Ms. Knaup - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: lesliem01@comcast.net [mailto:lesliem01@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 5:55 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell tower off Turnberry Road I am in favor of the cell tower on Turnberry Rd. People have access to cell towers all over the city. Why can't we have a cell tower? Our cell phone access at this end of town is terrible. I have heard that people have health concerns. I am not aware of this issue but I haven't heard of anyone dying from a cell phone any place else in Ft. Collins. The city is developing extensive property along Turnberry Rd. Are we barring all of these people from having cell phones?. Come on, get with it. The cell phone is here. It is 2017. Leslie Knaup 3333 Hearthfire Dr. Ft. Collins From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Dominique Knudson" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:39:08 PM Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com "Tell us about our service, we want to know!" From: Rita Knoll Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 5:10 PM To: 'Dominique Knudson' Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com From: Dominique Knudson [mailto:dknudson4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:45 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower To Whom it may concern, My husband and I are Fort Collins residents writing in regards to voice a concern about the proposed cell tower in the Long Pond area. We live in the area and would not like to see it in the proposed location and do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. My wish is that there would be another location further from the residential neighborhoods. Thank you for hearing my voice on the matter and wish you a great day. Sincerely, Dominique & Eric Knudson From: Rita Knoll To: "Dominique Knudson" Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 5:10:19 PM Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com From: Dominique Knudson [mailto:dknudson4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:45 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower To Whom it may concern, My husband and I are Fort Collins residents writing in regards to voice a concern about the proposed cell tower in the Long Pond area. We live in the area and would not like to see it in the proposed location and do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. My wish is that there would be another location further from the residential neighborhoods. Thank you for hearing my voice on the matter and wish you a great day. Sincerely, Dominique & Eric Knudson From: Rita Knoll To: "Jon Mendenhall" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower on Turnberry Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:27:41 PM Jon, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. From: Jon Mendenhall [mailto:jon@jonnanco.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:07 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower on Turnberry Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am urging you to vote against allowing the cell tower to be built on Turnberry since they are not a permitted use in residential zones. A 60 foot tower, even if disguised as a silo, is out of character for our neighborhood. Silos in Fort Collins and surrounding areas are normally only 30 or 40 feet tall. I am convinced property values will be adversely affected if this tower is allowed to be built on this site, Also the Atlas Tower folk have not convinced me that this is the only, or even the best, location for a tower in our area. Please, don’t allow a zoning change or exemption for this cell tower. Budweiser has apparently agreed to have the tower there, which fits in much better in a commercial area. Even if it has to be a little taller there it would reach the same area and not be out of character there. Thank you, Jon L. Mendenhall 2150 Sherwood Forest Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-229-1947 1 Rita Knoll From: Jon Mendenhall <jonlmendenhall@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 4:37 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower - Turnberry The Planning & Zoning Board made the correct recommendation to Council in voting against putting a cell tower in this residential area. Please do not change the zoning or make an exception and set a precedent of allowing these towers in residential areas. There are los of options in our area that are zoned industrial or commercial. Thanks you for protecting our neighborhood. Jon & Nancy Mendenhall 2150 Sherwood Forest Ct. . From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Jim Moore" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: cell tower on turnberry Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:27:12 PM Good evening Mr. and Mrs. Moore - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Jim Moore [mailto:jjmoore1121@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 2:13 PM To: City Leaders Subject: cell tower on turnberry please vote for cell tower on turnberry we really need better service i also havehealth issus please vote yes we need your help if you lived in our area you would understand. thank you jim and judy moore From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Brenda Olander" Cc: Delynn Coldiron; Rita Knoll Subject: RE: Cell Tower Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:08:12 AM Good Morning Ms. Olander - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Brenda Olander [mailto:brenda.olander@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:56 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower Please do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. Regards, Brenda Olander Sent from my iPhone From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Susan Pankey" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Approve Turnberry Cell Phone Tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:24:36 PM Good evening Ms. Pankey - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Pankey [mailto:slpankey@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 10:53 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Approve Turnberry Cell Phone Tower I understand that you will be making a final decision regarding the cell phone tower at Turnberry road tomorrow. I want to strongly encourage you to support approval of the tower. The tower is needed to improve the terrible service. I own 2 rental properties and my tenants constantly complain about the service. They are elderly and afraid they could die if they can't medical help. The board needs to think of the needs of the whole community and approve this tower as well as other towers as soon as possible. Aesthetic should not be a major concern as most residents can't even tell you where existing towers in the community are located. It's just the old syndrome "not in my backyard." I ask you to be proactive in taking care of the needs of the community. Regards - Susan Pankey From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Adriel Hills" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:05:52 AM Good morning Mr. Pankey – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Adriel Hills [mailto:adrielhills@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 8:58 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower Good Morning, I am the full-time Manager at Adriel Hills which is located on the corner of Mountain Vista and Turnberry. I understand you will have the final say on the Verizon Cell tower at your meeting on October 3. The cell service at Adriel Hills is sporadic at best. I understand that there are concerns about the aesthetics. Is that a reason not to build the tower? Adriel Hills has a high percentage of elderly people who may have a need to call 911. Please vote yes on this issue. Ralph Pankey, Property Manager Adriel Hills Condominium Association 1900 Kedron Circle Ft. Collins, CO 80524 970-484-3098 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Jeff Snowden" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:34:40 PM Dear Mr. Snowden – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your emails will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com "Tell us about our service, we want to know!" From: Jeff Snowden [mailto:troop97@frii.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:12 AM To: Ray Martinez Cc: CCSL Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area I found the city-owned property just east of us. It's a little east of Timberline & north of Vine immediately north of the BNSF tracks & south of A-B land. It doesn't have a zoning label on the city's zoning map, which makes it look like it's in the county. From: Jeff Snowden [mailto:troop97@frii.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:55 AM To: 'Ray Martinez' Cc: 'CCSL' Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Hi Ray, Thanks for such a quick reply. There are several non-residential areas around us: · Fort Collins Country Club (in the county) · other county areas just north of Richards Lake Rd · there is a "CC" zone (Community Commercial district) just east of us (this may be the city property I referred to) · there are a couple of "MMN" zones (Medium-density Mixed-use) just east & southeast of us (not sure if that zoning allows cell towers or not) · there is a good-sized area of county land just east of Timberline Rd & north of Vine Dr · there is a very large "E" zone (Employment district) immediately east of us · the A-B Brewery is in an I (Industrial) zone I would think in particular that the north end of the "E" tract, or the A-B Brewery site, or the county land just north of Richards Lake Rd would be good potential sites. The Country Club would also be a good location. I think Atlas has found a land owner willing to lease a 50x50 foot plot for a relatively low price, so they are not anxious to make the extra effort to contact the brewery or other land owners where their time and cost might be somewhat higher. Thanks for following through on this! Jeff From: Ray Martinez [mailto:raymartinez@fcgov.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:26 AM To: Jeff Snowden Cc: CCSL Subject: Re: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Jeff, thank you for taking the time to write me. While I don't know all the nuances of recent legislation that indicates we may not have a lot of say and what's allowable. I'll ask our city manager to respond to this with more specifics. You mentioned that there are better options to improve cell reception without impacting neighborhoods whose property owners thought they were protected by our zoning against such actions. I would like to know what are some of the better options you may have in mind. On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Jeff Snowden <troop97@frii.com> wrote: Hi Bob, Mayor Troxell, and City Council, Cell phone towers are prohibited in residentially zoned areas of Fort Collins. In addition, neither the city itself nor the Poudre School District currently allow cell towers on their properties. However, Atlas Tower is attempting to get an exemption to build a cell tower that is literally a stone's throw from our neighborhood (Storybook) and from other houses on Turnberry Rd. While we all want better cell service, there are better options to improve cell reception without impacting neighborhoods whose property owners thought they were protected by our zoning against such actions. We checked both the zoning and the city's "long-range" plan before we built here. While we understand that Federal law prevents the city from considering potential health effects of a nearby cell tower, the presence of such a tower nevertheless will negatively impact our property values. In addition, there are other nearby locations with zoning that allows cell towers, such as the A-B Brewery and even a small city parcel just east of our neighborhood. Finally, if this exemption is passed, it opens up the possibility of cell towers in other residential areas of the city, which largely defeats the value of having zoning. At their September 14 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 to 1 to recommend AGAINST the cell tower in our residentially zoned area. We urge you to support their recommendation by maintaining the value of residential zoning in the city. Thanks, Jeff & Twila Snowden 2151 Friar Tuck Ct Ray Martinez, Councilman District-2 raymartinez@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com | twitter @raymartinez31 970.690.3686 With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA. From: Delynn Coldiron To: "thorntondoyle@gmail.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:20:29 PM Good evening Mr. Thornton - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Julie Ellis Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:56 AM To: Delynn Coldiron Subject: FW: Turnberry Cell Tower From: Doyle Thornton [mailto:thorntondoyle@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:38 AM To: City Clerk Office Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower City Counsel, This is in regards to the approval of the cell tower off Turnberry Rd in Fort Collins, CO. I live on the north side at 700 Knollwood Circle in Fort Collins, CO and my cell provider is Verizon and we have always had great service up until the last couple of years and I don’t know why but it has gotten really bad and we loose our service all the time and if this tower can fix that I am all for it. The reason I am writing this is because what I have been reading in the paper, please pass this along to the city counsel and have them vote in favor of said cell tower. The paper said it would be on the agenda at tomorrow’s counsel meeting. If that’s true I would like to attend, but I did not see this on the agenda. Can you confirm this and let me know. Sincerely Doyle Thornton 970-218-0514 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Cheryl Vieira" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:16:55 AM Good morning Ms. Vieira - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Cheryl Vieira [mailto:cmvieira34@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:47 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower The cell tower needs to go in as planned!!! The city is in the business of providing emergency services and a North Fort Collins resident's inability to call 911 due to no cell service if this project is voted down just opens the city up for legal implications. There are no proven health affects for having a cell tower nearby so that argument is non-existent. A viable plan is proposed - let's support it and give the homeowners what they are entitled to in the Turnberry area by providing a way for them to use their cell phones - for personal use or emergency services. Cheryl Vieira 1221 Bateleur Lane Hearthfire subdivsion 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:47 PM To: Kenneth.Watkins@ColoState.EDU Cc: Sarah Kane; Delynn Coldiron; Rita Knoll Subject: RE: proposed tower Good evening Mr. Watkins - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Watkins,Kenneth Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:41 PM To: boverbeck@fcgov.com Subject: proposed tower Dear Councilman The proposed tower is out of character with our residential neighborhood. We have a beautiful neighborhood and the tower would be an eyesore and detract from the value of our homes. I never understood how the tower could have ever been considered for this place they have chosen. Aren't there zoning laws. As councilmen isn't it your responsibility to protect your citizens from harmful impacts. Please vote against the tower location. It should not be permitted in a residential neighborhood. 2 Sincerely Ken W. Watkins 2109 Sherwood Forest Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 From: Rita Knoll To: "poogleway" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:36:37 AM Peter, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. From: poogleway [mailto:poogleway@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 6:40 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower I'm opposed to granting a waiver of the residential zoning for a cell tower on Turnberry. This would become a precedent for other home owners who want to make money leasing out their land, while reducing the property values around them. Peter Way Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:41 PM To: Andreas Ambuhl Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: TURNBERRY CELL TOWER Good afternoon Andreas - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Andreas Ambuhl [mailto:andreasambuhl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:10 PM To: City Leaders; Turnberrycelltower@gmail.com Cc: Wade Troxell; Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez; Ken Summers; Kristin Stephens; Ross Cunniff; Gerry Horak Subject: TURNBERRY CELL TOWER Ladies and Gentlemen: Allow me to make the following points about the proposed TURNBERRY CELL PHONE TOWER: • First and foremost – a cell phone tower within a residential community simply is inconsistent with the image of a residential area. It is especially inconsistent with the recreational, look-after-nature and be-part-of-nature image that Fort Collins is famous for. Plainly it is inconsistent with the city’s image. • The proposed site is residential and thus requires a WAIVER for a commercial cell phone tower. • FACT: Installing a wireless base station and tower in a residential area will lead to a deterioration in the quality of life that we have come to treasure here in Fort Collins. It does not fit in with the General Plan, and it simply does not fit into the zoning requirements. • The cell tower, plain or disguised, is a visual blight, and sets an unwelcomed precedent for our Fort Collins neighborhoods. How many more will follow? What will happen to our parks, our views, and our natural scenery? 2 • The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2009 sided with the City of Palos Verdes Estates and its residents' right to oppose a wireless tower based on aesthetics: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/10/fake_trees_will_not_grow_in_pve.php and http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ugly-telecoms26-2009oct26,0,5439620.story • Public Safety – Fire, Fall Hazard, and Attracting Crime o Routine maintenance has lead to fires, and high winds have toppled poles.  The Malibu, CA fires, according to an ABC news report, were caused by utility poles "overburdened by new cellular phone gear." Power poles that should have withstood winds of 92 mph snapped in the 50mph hour winds"  In addition, back-up batteries for wireless facilities can be made of hazardous substances. Read this June 2008 Board of Appeals Report that addresses this serious concern that residents raised there about the dangers and hazards of lead back-up batteries: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/zah/pdf/reports/s-2709.pdf. Also read this article, http://www.city.waltham.ma.us/lepcweb/EPAinfo/EPA_Lead-Acid_Battery_fax_sheet.htm. Here are more articles about the hazards and dangers these batteries pose: http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html and http://www.calicorp.com/articles/battery- advisory.html. • In spite of monumental scientific studies and research regarding the harmful effects of wireless technologies on our bodies, it is “illegal” to cite health reasons for preventing the erection of a cell phone tower due to the FCC’s Telecommunications Act of 1996. HOWEVER, there is still a perceived health risk due to cell-towers near residential areas. In fact, the EPA, which participated in FCC’s exposure standard setting, explains the limitations and uncertainty of the FCC’s adopted standard in protecting human health. In a July 16, 2002 letter, EPA’s Norbert Hankin, states clearly : “I believe it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures (exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years). The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence….” • This PERCEIVED health risk is directly related to lower residential property values. In fact there are multiple studies proving exactly this: o The Bond and Hue – Proximate Impact Study  The Bond and Hue Study conducted in 2004 involved the analysis of 9514 residential home sales in 10 suburbs. The study reflected that close proximity to a CELL TOWER reduced price by 15% on average. o The Bond and Wang – Transaction Based Market Study  The Bond and Wang Study involved the analysis of 4283 residential home sales in 4 suburbs between 1984 and 2002. The study reflected that close proximity to a CELL TOWER reduced the price between 20.7% and 21%. o The Bond and Beamish – Opinion Survey Study  The Bond and Beamish Study involved surveying whether people who lived within a 100’ of a tower would have to reduce the sales price of their home. 38% said they would reduce the price by more than 20%, 38% said they would reduce by only 1%-9%, and 24% said they would reduce their sale price by 10%-19%. o Experts, Courts and News  “As a licensed real estate broker with over 30 years of experience, it is my professional opinion that the installation of a Cellular Tower can significantly reduce the value of neighboring residential properties.” – Lawrence Oxman, Licensed Real Estate Broker o US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. o Phone Masts (Cell Towers) Blight House Sales [Article Link] • The proponents of erecting the Turnberry Cell Tower state that there is a COVERAGE GAP and lack of cell phone signal near and around our RESIDENTIAL area. o When reviewing almost every single wireless providers cell coverage map, that GAP simply does not exist. In fact quite the contrary can be concluded by looking at VERIZON, SPRINT, T-Mobile, and many other provider’s web sites and coverage maps. Residents and CITY OFFICIALS need to know: There is a burden of proof to be met by the applicant that a truly “significant” gap in coverage actually exists in the location where the applicant proposes to install a wireless facility. • NOISE AND NUISANCE • Who wants a noisy cell tower next to your home? We don't want to live near a cell tower base station. It is an industrial facility. 3 In fact, if you're wondering what it's like to live next to and near a T-Mobile cell phone antenna, and all the lights and noise that come with it, listen to Mr. Ken Howard speak before the Glendale's City Council members about his 24/7 experience: Maintenance can occur at any hour of the day or night! Noisy, spot lights etc etc etc. • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCaOazQauvc&feature=player_embedded* • Many more reasons exist why this is a bad idea, however, some of the arguments I get from proponents of cell phone towers are: o You use your cell phone, why are you against a tower?  When I use my cell phone, I do so voluntarily and temporarily. When a Cell Tower is placed in such close proximity to my neighborhoods, our children, our wives, our husbands and our parents are exposed to continuous and prolonged RF emissions 24/7. The studies on this level and proximity of exposure are clear and conclusive. o I don’t have signal where I live, there is a coverage gap.  I use Verizon, my wife uses Sprint and neither of us have issues with cell phone reception where we live in Maple Hill Subdivision. If you have trouble with your signal, options exist to switch services. Landlines are also an option. There is no need for a cell tower due to some residents’ alleged and unproven lack of coverage. o How do I call 911 in an emergency?  How did you call 911 prior to cell phones? Most residents, if not all, currently have a wireless router in their home, which negates the alleged signal gap and will allow 911 calls to be placed even if a gap exists. If the concern is so grave that it causes panic in your household, then get a landline. How can we justify a cell tower for an entire area if only a handful of people are alleging signal gaps? • I have simply not heard any other arguments in favor of a cell tower other than the ones cited above. I have however, heard 100s of arguments against. And whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is over 20 years old at this point and in dire need of revision, allows it or not, scientifically the verdict is clear on cell tower RADIATION and the effects that radiation has on our immune system. o https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html o https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html • Many more studies and links exist to scientifically prove RF to be a carcinogen and the implied effects of Real property values, quality of life for a community and city, and the loss in tax revenue for cities due to mass exodus after installation. • Lastly, the following are a couple of links to web sites which describe why living in Fort Collins is so rewarding. I think it is in the city council’s best interest to up hold those values described, otherwise soon, Fort Collins will be described as the city of unlimited views…so long as you don’t mind a cell tower in the way, or in your backyard…. Make the right call for the citizens of this tremendous city. https://www.newscastic.com/news/15-reasons-why-fort-collins-is-the-greatest-city-in-america- 1090988/ https://livability.com/co/fort-collins/real-estate/why-fort-collins-co-is-one-of-the-best-places-to-live https://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/24-reasons-fort-collins-colorado-is-the-greatest-city-on- ear?utm_term=.pkN2qVzp9k#.qaMMm3lP1w “Fort Collins is so idyllic and picturesque, even Walt Disney looked to us as an example.” Oddly enough, none of those sites make any mention of residential cell towers! Andreas M. Ambühl SATCS 4 Denver ARTCC CFI/CFII/MEI Cell: 970.541.4683 “Can You Imagine All I Could Do, If I Did All I Can” 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:34 PM To: Kathy Beck Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower by Maple Hill Neighborhood Good afternoon Ms. Beck - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Kathy Beck [mailto:kathy@kathybeck.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:33 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower by Maple Hill Neighborhood Hello - Wanted to voice my opinion that I am all for the proposed cell tower by the Country Club/Maple Hill area. The reception in that part of town is very fragmented. My mother lives in the immediate area as well as my children/grandchildren. In the case of an emergency I worry greatly that they will not be able to effectively communicate with emergency personnel. This is a need that will only be increasing as time goes on. Cell towers are a necessity and, like all other “new” buildings, will cease to draw attention once they have been in place for a very short period of time. Please approve this so the families with marginal cell coverage can feel more comfortable in their communities. 2 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:19 PM To: ladychawklat@gmail.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower on Turnberry DND Good afternoon Ms. Heath - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Betsy Heath [ladychawklat@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:53 PM To: Bob Overbeck Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Turnberry I am definitely in favor of the proposed cell tower on Turnberry Road. Unfortunately, I'm not able to attend the city council meeting because I'm out of town...or I would show up and speak up. The one thing I'm disappointed about is the proposed reduction in height of the tower from 60 to 45 feet. As you know, the height of the tower helps to determine the number of carriers that are possible. So reducing the height from 60 to 45 feet will drop the number of possible carriers from 3 to 1. While adding any additional service to our area will be better than nothing, it substantially inhibits the tower's ability to provide a stable wireless infrastructure. Just my two cents.... Thanks for all you do. 2 Sincerely, Betsy Heath Maple Hill subdivision 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:26 PM To: kathrynmcgirr78@gmail.com Cc: Sarah Kane; Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower - In support DND Good afternoon Ms. McGirr - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Kathryn McGirr [kathrynmcgirr78@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:26 PM To: Bob Overbeck Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower - In support Hello Councilman Overbeck, I have contacted you about this before but thought I would reach out to you one more time before the council meeting tonight. I am one of your constituents and I am in favor, as much of my surrounding neighbors are, of the Long Pond Cell Tower. We have terrible cell coverage in our area and it is only going to get worse as the area expands. The limited coverage poses a danger to those of us in the area. Below are a couple of stories from my neighbors that I promised to pass along and a couple of stories of my own. Thank you for your consideration. This is from Derek Sherlock in Hearthfire: Since my wife and I won't make it to the meeting, and you mentioned you were collecting talking points, I figured I'd share our experience. (I have also emailed this directly to Clay Frickey on the city council.) We live on the west side of the Hearthfire subdivision where, unlike many of our neighbors, we actually do get a limited cellphone signal. It's intermittent and unreliable, and only available from a few places in our house. Back in March of 2 this year, I had to call 911 when my wife had a seizure (she's a brain tumor patient). Luckily, the seizure occurred upstairs and on the west side of our house, so I was able to call 911 without having to leave her unattended. And fortunately the connection held for the duration until paramedics arrived. If it had occurred in another part of the house where the signal is not so reliable, I might have had to leave my seizing wife to go summon help. The consequences may have been disastrous if we'd lived in Maple Hill or parts of Richards Lake, where service is far worse, or non-existent. It is time to solve this long-standing problem once and for all. It's a question of basic public safety, plain and simple. This is from Donn Hopkins in Nedrah Acres: Hello, I sent an email to the Mayor and Council expressing my concern for safety, explicitly in emergencies and/or when landlines fail. I'm disabled and rely more on cell service for safety and medical incidents. I will not be able to attend the meeting. Thanks for your work! And my two stories: 1) I was outside with my kid and neighbors while the kids were playing. We see a little girl (no more than 2) wandering down the street by herself. No adult insight. I can't call 911 because I don't have coverage. I also can't quickly post on Next Door. Luckily about 10 minutes later her older brother comes running out of the house to get her. But we had no way of connecting to try and find her parents. 2) Drive around the lake on country club we come across two loose dogs. They have collars and tags but we don't have cell service to call their owners. We can't call the humane society or again post on Next door. We are getting ready to load the dogs into our car and drive them to the human society (which would throw off our day completely as we were headed to pick our kid up from my dad who had something going on and couldn't easily continue to watch our kid while we figure out what to do). Luckily a neighbor comes out and knows the dogs so we coaxed them back into their yard. But again, luckily. Not having cell service in these two situations was not only inconvenient but could have been dangerous. In this day and age, and with our area exploding in growth, we need cell service in our area. 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:40 PM To: susansel@frii.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Opposed to Long Pond Wireless proposal Good afternoon Ms. Selkirk - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: susansel@frii.com [mailto:susansel@frii.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:18 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Opposed to Long Pond Wireless proposal To the Fort Collins City Council, I live in close proximity to the proposed "Long Pond Wireless" tower (or "Turnberry" wireless proposal). I am very much against this proposed development. I think it will look hideous, will totally dominate the landscape, and will reduce our property values. I urge you go vote to DENY the AUP exception needed for this proposal. Surely there are other ways to provide decent wireless coverage, rather than destroying an already-existing neighborhood atmosphere. 2 Granting the AUP would also create a propensity toward other similar projects in just about ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD in the city. Please vote to DENY the AUP for the wireless tower proposal. Sincerely, Susan Selkirk From: Delynn Coldiron To: kdespins@gmail.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Sarah Kane; Delynn Coldiron; Carrie Daggett Subject: RE: couple things...#private Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:49:05 PM Good afternoon Ms. Despins - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Despins <kdespins@gmail.com> Date: November 16, 2017 at 11:23:53 AM EST To: Bob Overbeck <boverbeck@fcgov.com> Subject: couple things... Hi- First, I want to email you to express my adamant support for the proposed cell tower being discussed in next Tuesday's meeting. I will be out of town, otherwise I would attend the meeting. After reading and hearing the arguments around this project, I am completely shocked that aesthetics would even be an argument when we're talking about access to emergency services (911) for hundreds of tax payers in a growing area of town. I don't understand how this project is even in question. Please approve this project and provide cell service and access to emergency services to this part of town. I've been here 10 years. This cell tower is long past due. Second, I received a notice that Boxelder Sanitation is considering another rate hike. I will be attending the meeting on 12/7. If you recall, they upped their rates by more than 40% this past March. Their rates are already roughly double those of Fort Collins utilities, and now they want more? As a homeowner in this area what recourse do I and my neighbors have to fight these types of rate hikes? What guards are in place to ensure Boxelder can't charge whatever they like? At the moment it appears they can raise rates to $500 a month if they want, and there's nothing we can do about it. Lastly, I understand Boxelder is a special district. I know very little about special districts and would love to learn more. Can you recommend anywhere I can read to better understand how this all works? Kim Despins Brightwater Landing neighborhood resident From: Delynn Coldiron To: kgates_co@msn.com Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower Date: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:14:07 PM Dear Ms. Gates – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: KRIS GATES [mailto:kgates_co@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:06 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Cell Tower We are writing concerning the Turnberry Cell Tower. Personally, we have had two incidents when we did not have sufficient cell signal. For both we had to physically get into our car and drive up to Turnberry Road near Country Club Road to get a good signal. The first was concerning an elderly parent who had fallen in her apartment in south Fort Collins. On her initial call we couldn’t get a signal, her words were broken and the call eventually dropped, requiring us to drive to get a signal. The second incident was many missed calls from a relative trying to reach us because he was at the emergency room at a hospital in Texas. We were near the Budweiser Plant and again had to drive all the way up to Turnberry to reach him. In both of our incidents our family members are okay now but we worry about not having a cell signal. Through Verizon we have WiFi calling but it is not always reliable. Being retired we are on a fixed budget and obviously we cannot afford landlines and cell. We need the cell service more so we can be mobile. We would like the City Council to stop postponing this decision! We deserve good cell signals in our Fort Collins neighborhood and it needs to be sooner than later. We are in support of the cell tower. Karl and Kristina Gates 2521 Maple Hill Drive From: Delynn Coldiron To: joho7218@gmail.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron; Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: RE: Turnberry/Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:32:55 PM Dear Mr. Horan – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Joseph Horan [mailto:joho7218@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 6:02 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Turnberry/Long Pond Cell Tower My wife and I have lived in the Hearthfire subdivision for over 5 years now, and have had dreadful to no cell service at our house since we moved in. It is hard for us to understand why the planning commission has a problem with a new cell tower. The City Planners had no problem approving the Water’s Edge development adjacent to our subdivision, effectively adding 400 new dwelling which will also have poor to no cell service. How does this make sense? This is a safety issue, not merely a convenience issue. We have had to maintain a land line to be able to have consistently secure telephone service. Fortunately even though we are retired, we are able to afford this. Some might call it a luxury, but for us it is a necessity. It seems to me that the City should put the safety of it’s residents at the top of the list. City controlled Internet is a true luxury, but the City endorsed it immediately. Why not give citizens dependable cell service? I encourage the City Council to approve the cell tower as soon as possible! Respectfully, J. Joseph Horan MD 3209 Town Center Ct. 80524 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Delynn Coldiron To: curtiswpaul@gmail.com Cc: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Regarding cell towers near Maple Hill neighborhood... Date: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:11:43 PM Dear Mr. Paul – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Curtis Paul [mailto:curtiswpaul@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:54 PM To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: Regarding cell towers near Maple Hill neighborhood... 1. Most people complaining about cell signal in the Maple Hill neighborhood likely have outdated cell phones...or cell phones that are more then two years old. Newer cellphones will do a better job working with existing cell towers. 2. If you have to rezone to allow a cell tower then question the reasoning. Zoning is for a reason. We cannot just make zoning variances to benefit for-profit commercial use over whenever a few citizens complain. We have zones for a reason. 3. There are people in Maple Hill who have absolutely zero issues with cell phone signal, likely because those of us who don't have issues have newer/better cell phones. 4. Go into this well informed and don't give in to a the whims of uninformed citizens. http://it- takes-time.com/2015/09/22/health-effects-of-cell-towers/ 5. If a zoning variance is issues for a cell tower in close proximity to the Maple Hill neighborhood what can the neighborhood do if health issues begin to crop up as a result? What is the citizens recourse? If there is no recourse and doing something about it is costly for the citizens and or the city in terms of legal disputes and necessary investigation requirements I strongly urge reconsidering allowing the variance. 6. A new cell tower does not need to be close to Maple Hill in order to service the citizens in the area. From: Delynn Coldiron To: karleenes@me.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Road Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:06:42 PM Dear Ms. Schindler: Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Karleene Schindler [mailto:karleenes@me.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:50 PM To: City Clerk Office <cityclerk@fcgov.com> Cc: Karleene Schindler <karleenes@me.com>; Dallace Unger <Dallace.Unger@ColoState.EDU> Subject: Turnberry Road Cell Tower November 20, 2017 Fort Collins City Council Re: Cell Tower on Turnberry Road We live in Hearthfire – a subdivision located within the city of Fort Collins. We pay city taxes, city utilities, and vote in city elections, but we do not currently share all the city services as we do not have a cell tower allowing us to have cell reception. Our subdivision has to rely on intermittent WiFi at our homes to receive cell service, meaning that we cannot use our cell phones in the back yard, front yard, when it is windy, or 10 feet outside of the home. If I am more than 10 feet away from my house I do not receive cell calls. If an emergency occurs, we are at the mercy of intermittent WiFi. Recently my son called me from school while I was at home, the call was not clear and I could not understand him. He called me 5 times before I could understand him, he was very upset and crying by that time, he had separated his shoulder at school and needed to be taken to the hospital for treatment. It was not a bad enough injury for school to call an ambulance, but he needed care. My children need to be able to contact me when they have a health concern. I understand another person had a heart attack and died recently, without being able to connect to 911 since their cell phone would not connect. This is becoming a real issue up here and will continue to escalate as more homes are built with Waters Edge and the other planned developments in the planning pipeline. I understand the homeowners who live near the proposed cell tower site are upset with how the cell tower will look and its effect on property values. I sympathize with them but the builder has offered a solution to that issue by making the tower look like a silo, so their property values would not suffer. This seems like a reasonable solution. This appears to be the only detriment to having the cell tower for them. For us, it is a potential lifesaver. What if someone else has a heart attack or is stung by a bee and has an anaphylactic reaction? Is the City Council willing to take on the liability of those events occurring? How much money is the City Council willing to pay in negligence lawsuits? Small cell facilities – or Personal Wireless Services Facilities – are meant to complement the larger cell towers, not replace them. They are not intended for large scale use in a large area. They are considered “Micro” Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities, as opposed to the cell towers, which are “Macro” Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities. My question for the Council is this: why is there even a question of looks vs. safety? Who on this Council can justify voting against a cell tower that will bring required services to residents of the City of Fort Collins, whom this Council is supposed to represent. Karleene Schindler / Dallace Unger 1202 Bateleur Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 karleenes@mac.com // 970-218-9656 1 Sara Gonzales From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:09 AM To: Sara Gonzales Subject: FW: Verizon cell phone tower on Turnberry Here is another response for Long Pond…. Thanks, Delynn "Tell us about our service, we want to know!" From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:07 AM To: Connie Klibbe <cklibbe@gmail.com> Cc: Delynn Coldiron <DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>; Rita Knoll <RKNOLL@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: Verizon cell phone tower on Turnberry Dear Ms. Kibbe: Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal ‐‐ a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an "Addition of a Permitted Use" and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for December 19, 2017. In the case of an "Addition of a Permitted Use" decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council's hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970‐416‐2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Connie Klibbe [mailto:cklibbe@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:16 PM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Subject: Verizon cell phone tower on Turnberry 2 Hi, I know your meeting on this topic was postponed until January, 2018. I know there are so many opinions on this requested tower on Turnberry, and I understand that. I just ask that you all stop to think about this as if it were a decision that would affect your family. How would you be affected if you had basically NO cell service at your home? We have dealt with this for about 3 years and it is beyond frustrating! We live a stone's throw from the Country Club golf course and our service deteriorates all the time. When my husband was building our house he could drive to end of Richard's Lake Rd to get service but now that isn't a guarantee. I now start losing service on Country Club Rd. You are probably all aware a man died who lived in Maple Hill, and nobody could call out. I understand he may have died anyway but I would feel better knowing my loved one died with Paramedics there instead of wondering would he have lived if help was there. Verizon gave us a "booster" when they saw all of our dropped calls, three years ago it really helped. Unfortunately, it isn't doing much anymore, we must keep a land line for emergency reasons but also just to receive phone calls. I know the neighbors right around the property that would hold the tower are against this, but making it look like a silo would definitely blend in. Please don't take this decision lightly, your decision will greatly affect hundreds of people. Thank you, Connie Klibbe Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Long Pond WTF & APU Clay Frickey ATTACHMENT 9 Overview • 60’ tall wireless telecommunications facility • Disguised as silo • Located in Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone • Not an allowed use 2 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 4 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 6 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 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 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 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 11 AB/ InBev FCCC City of Fort Collins 12 13 14 15 16 APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings • Can meet criterion with two conditions • 45’ height limit • Located closer to out buildings 17 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 APU Criterion 4 • No greater impact than other permitted uses Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4. 19 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 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 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 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 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 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 -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 -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). 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 -3- 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. (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 -4- 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 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -1- ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DENYING 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 -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 denies 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, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) The APU fails to satisfy the following requirement or requirements set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (a) Such use is not appropriate in the L-M-N zone. (b) Such use does not conform 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 not compatible with and has more than minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (d) Such use creates more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or 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 change the predominant character of the surrounding area. -3- (f) Such use is not compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the L-M-N zone. (2) The APU is detrimental to the public good; (3) The APU is not in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in LUC Section 3.5.1. 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 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk                      JJohn Stebbins General Manager Fort Club Collins Country LAT40 INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV G TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL SITE NAME: TURNBERRY UTILITY PLANS LAT40, INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: TURNBERRY LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PLANNING DRAWINGS         %*7=*7+900=7944368&(*0083;*62**)'*88*6(*007*6:.(*&81=-31*  &:.2,(*007*6:.(*.28-.7,63;.2,4&683+83;2.7032,3:*6)9*  )*+.2.8*0=79443688-.7$*2**)7*6:.(*'&)0=.7,9.7*)36238;*2**)7*6:.(*  7944368&;.6*0*77+&(.0.8=  7944368.1463:.2,7*6:.(*&88-.7&6*&  79443688-*2*;83;*6.8.7&1&88*63+49'0.(7&+*8=  794436883-&:*(*0083;*621&40*-.008962'*66=6)(39286=(09'6)  7944368  ;390):38* 8.1*7=*7+368-.7  !*6:.(*&6392)-*6*.76*&00='&)  $*(&28*:*297*396(*004-32*7&88-*-397*;.8-398-&:.2,)6344*)(&007  $*2**)&;.6*0*77+&(.0.8=).7,9.7*)&7&7.03  $*2**)8-&8(*004-32*83;*6'&)0=  $*79443682)2**).8  %!.1463:*);.6*0*77(3:*6&,*.2368-368300.27.7736*0=2**)*)&2)032, 3:*6)9*  %*78-*46*7*287*6:.(*.7.2830*6&'0*  %!7944368&;.6*0*77+&(./.8=).7:9.7*)&7&7.03&8 "962'*66= )  %*7$*2**)8-.7(*0083;*696(3:*6&,*.7:*6=4336-*6*  %*7&(*0083;*6.72**)*)&88962'*66=  %*7&;.6*0*77+&(.0.8=&8 "962'*66=;390)'*,6*&8&2)#*6.>32(97831*67;390) ,6*&80=&446*(.&8*.8  Ashland Ln R a ng e v ie w Dr Maid Marian Ct Rainbow Dr Hi l lsid e D r S View Dr Sherwood Forest Ct K e dr o n Dr M iram on t D r Banbury Ln Middlebury Ln Waterbury Ln Adri e l Cir Adriel Way Simsbury Ct Shelburne Ct Barrington Ct Westover Ct Kalmar Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct Milton Ln Rangeview Dr Maple Hill Dr Thoreau Dr Bar Harbor Dr Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd Mountain Vista Dr N Timberline Rd Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility © and Addition of Permitted Use 1 inch = 667 feet Zoning & Site Vicinity Map Site