Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/03/2018 - ITEMS RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CENTURY WIRAgenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Consideration of the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2018, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. OR B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2018, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Century Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP170017. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the RL. PDP170017 proposes a 55-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower at 620 West Horsetooth Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PDP170017 proposes the installation of a 55-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility at 620 West Horsetooth Road. The applicant proposes to disguise the facility as a bell tower. 620 West Horsetooth Road is a 5.12-acre property containing the Southside Baptist Church. Single-family detached homes border the property to the north, west, and east. Horsetooth Road runs along the south side of the parcel. 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 Residential zone district. Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 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. The area between College Avenue and Shields Street along Horsetooth Road contains few parcels that have zoning that allow wireless telecommunications facilities. The applicant has been unable to obtain a lease with property owners for land zoned to allow a telecommunications facility. 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. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not have a roof and does not provide shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since the 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 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 RL zone. 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 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the RL zone is, “…for predominately single-family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the RL zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose statement of the zone district indicates that it encompasses predominately single-family residential areas developed prior to City Plan and the Land Use Code. 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 RL zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 3 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 this area of 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). Atlas Towers submitted a narrative describing their attempts to locate on parcels with more appropriate zoning to fill the coverage gap in this area. Atlas identified 19 areas in which to secure a lease within their search ring. Most of the properties in the applicant’s search ring have RL, Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), or Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zoning. None of these zone districts allows wireless telecommunications facilities. Seven parcels within the search ring have Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, which does allow wireless telecommunications facilities. Atlas Tower described their attempts in securing a lease on these NC-zoned properties in their project narrative. There is also only one co- location possibility in this area. Crown Castle owns a tower located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. This tower does not have capacity for an additional carrier. Given the remaining parcels in the search ring, only two are located on large lots that could accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility: Southside Baptist Church and the LMN parcel owned by Jack Worthington. The Worthingtons were not interested in a lease. This leaves the Southside Baptist Church as the only appropriately-sized property willing to accommodate a cell tower lease in this area. Staff finds Atlas made a bona fide attempt to secure a lease with properties located in the NC zone and could not secure a lease. 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. Southside Baptist Church is a single-story building with a steeple on the east end of the building. The building is 20-feet tall at its highest point excluding the steeple. The steeple is approximately 20-feet tall, rising to 40 feet. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) indicates bell towers are an appropriate method of meeting the stealth technology requirement. Per the APU criteria, the method of stealth technology must also harmonize with the surrounding context. The context around the church is one of an established residential area. Subdivisions predominated by single- family detached homes surround the church on all sides. Most structures in the vicinity are one-story with some two-story apartment, condominium, and commercial buildings east and west of the site. These structures are all modestly scaled and fit the predominantly residential character of the area. Atlas Tower proposes to locate the bell tower immediately adjacent to the church on the east side. This location is near the center of the site along the east-west axis and towards the south end of the site. Horsetooth Road runs along the south property line of the site. By locating the tower in the southern half of the site, the proposed tower has less of an impact on homes abutting the site on the north. A central location on the east-west axis minimizes impacts on properties abutting the site on the east and west. Staff finds the location of the proposed tower on the site is appropriate and minimally impacts neighboring properties. Church buildings are commonly amongst the tallest and largest structures within neighborhoods. Bell towers and steeples often accompany church structures and add to their height. The table below contains the height of various churches located in residential zones throughout the City along with the heights of their associated steeples or bell towers. Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 4 Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. Neighborhood Conservation - Low Density (NCL) 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approximately 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) The size and scale of the churches noted in the table vary but generally have bell towers or steeples of a similar height to the bell tower proposed at Southside Baptist Church. Southside Baptist, however, is a shorter building compared to these other churches. The proposed tower is also bulkier than the aforementioned bell towers and steeples. This combination of factors creates the perception of a larger structure. When considering all of the above issues, staff finds the proposed tower is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is similar to other churches with tall bell towers and steeples. While the proposed tower is bulkier than many other bell towers and steeples in the community, the proposed tower is also shorter than other bell towers and steeples. As stated earlier, Section 3.8.13(C)(15) states bell towers are an appropriate way to meet the stealth technology requirement. Bell towers are common on church properties so the design is appropriate. The applicant has also proposed a location on the site to minimize the impact of this tower on abutting properties. This proposed tower will also not impact the use of adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff finds the proposal meets Criterion C. 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. 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 an established, residential neighborhood. Just as the bell towers and steeples on churches in other parts of the community do not define the character of their neighborhoods, nor shall the proposed bell tower define the character of this neighborhood. 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. As discussed for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed bell tower achieves compatibility with the zone district through its location on the site and design. Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 5 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 23, 2017, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018, after the first round of staff review. The following section 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. 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 RL zone district does not have any uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application with a condition limiting the overall height of the structure to 45 feet. The Board found the application would meet the APU criteria in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1) if the proposed tower were reduced in height to 45 feet. 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 23, 2017, at Southside Baptist Church. Thirty-seven neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 9, 2017. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018. Twelve neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: • Concern about negative health effects due to radio frequency emissions • The proposed design is too bulky and out of scale with the neighborhood o Preference for a more tapered, artistic design • Preference for a different location in a non-residential area ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (PDF) 2. Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (PDF) 3. Letters received prior to June 20, 2018 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) MEETING DATE May 17, 2018 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: Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNERS: Southside Baptist Church 620 W Horsetooth Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. 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 Residential (RL) zone district and, as such, is subject to review and approval by City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the RL 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 City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Century 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: 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 2   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. COMMENTS: 1. Background The property annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth South Mesa Annex on March 18, 1977. Shortly after annexation in 1978, a church built the current building. In 1992, Southside Baptist Church platted the lot as part of the Southside Baptist Church Minor Subdivision. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Residential (RL) Duplexes, single-family detached residential East Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential West Low Density Residential (RL) 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 RL 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 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 Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 3   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 RL zone. 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 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the RL zone is, “…for predominately single-family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the RL zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose statement of the zone district indicates that it encompasses predominately single-family residential areas developed prior to City Plan and the Land Use Code. 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 RL zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. 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 this area of 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). Atlas Towers submitted a narrative describing their attempts to locate on parcels with more appropriate zoning to fill the coverage gap in this area. Atlas identified 19 areas in which to secure a lease within their search ring. Most of the properties in the applicant’s search ring have RL, Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), or Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zoning. None of these zone districts allows wireless telecommunications facilities. Seven parcels within the search ring have Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, which does allow wireless Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 4   telecommunications facilities. Atlas Tower described their attempts in securing a lease on these NC-zoned properties in their project narrative. There is also only one co-location possibility in this area. Crown Castle owns a tower located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. This tower does not have capacity for an additional carrier. Given the remaining parcels in the search ring, only two are located on large lots that could accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility: Southside Baptist Church and the LMN parcel owned by Jack Worthington. The Worthingtons were not interested in a lease. This leaves the Southside Baptist Church as the only appropriately-sized property willing to accommodate a cell tower lease in this area. Staff finds Atlas made a bona fide attempt to secure a lease with properties located in the NC zone and could not secure a lease. 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. Southside Baptist Church is a single-story building with a steeple on the east end of the building. The building is 20-feet tall at its highest point excluding the steeple. The steeple is approximately 20-feet tall, rising to 40 feet. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) indicates bell towers are an appropriate method of meeting the stealth technology requirement. Per the APU criteria, the method of stealth technology must also harmonize with the surrounding context. The context around the church is one of an established residential area. Subdivisions predominated by single-family detached homes surround the church on all sides. Most structures in the vicinity are one-story with some two-story apartment, condominium, and commercial buildings east and west of the site. These structures are all modestly scaled and fit the predominantly residential character of the area. Atlas Tower proposes to locate the bell tower immediately adjacent to the church on the east side. This location is near the center of the site along the east-west axis and towards the south end of the site. Horsetooth Road runs along the south property line of the site. By locating the tower in the southern half of the site, the proposed tower has less of an impact on homes abutting the site on the north. A central location on the east-west axis minimizes impacts on properties abutting the site on the east and west. Staff finds the location of the proposed tower on the site is appropriate and minimally impacts neighboring properties. Church buildings are commonly amongst the tallest and largest structures within neighborhoods. Bell towers and steeples often accompany church Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 5   structures and add to their height. The table below contains the height of various churches located in residential zones throughout the City along with the heights of their associated steeples or bell towers. Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. Neighborhood Conservation – Low Density (NCL) 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approx.. 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) The size and scale of the churches noted in the table vary but generally have bell towers or steeples of a similar height to the bell tower proposed at Southside Baptist Church. Southside Baptist, however, is a shorter building compared to these other churches. The proposed tower is also bulkier than the aforementioned bell towers and steeples. This combination of factors creates the perception of a larger structure. When considering all of the above issues, staff finds the proposed tower is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is similar to other churches with tall bell towers and steeples. While the proposed tower is bulkier than many other bell towers and steeples in the community, the proposed tower is also shorter than other bell towers and Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 6   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. 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 an established, residential neighborhood. Just as the bell towers and steeples on churches in other parts of the community do not define the character of their neighborhoods, nor shall the proposed bell tower define the character of this neighborhood. 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. As discussed for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed bell tower achieves compatibility with the zone district through its location on the site and design. 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 Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 7   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 23, 2017, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018, after the first round of staff review. The following section 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. 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 23, 2017 at Southside Baptist Church. 37 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 9, 2017. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018. 12 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: x Concern about negative health effects due to radio frequency emissions x The proposed design is too bulky and out of scale with the neighborhood o Preference for a more tapered, artistic design x Preference for a different location in a non-residential area 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for proposed Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 8   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. 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 the relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Vicinity Map 2. Applicant’s Project Narrative 3. Century 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 The Learning House Lopez Elementary RL CG LMN MMN LMN MMN MMN NC Tradition Dr A r b o r A ve Eagle Dr Benthaven St Dennison Ave Century Dr Gunnison Dr Albion Way Riva Ridge Dr Blue Mesa Ave R o c k a w a y S t Justice Dr Killdeer Dr Bonita Ave Zuni Cir W a l d e n Way C o r o n a d o A v e Silverthorne Dr Haven Dr Supplementary Narrative – Century Nov 13, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 55’ Stealth Bell Tower 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 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. This facility will be 1,600 square feet and house a 55’ bell-tower communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is working to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Southside Baptist Church of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado non-profit corporation Address: 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Applicant: Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 32' 19.44" N 105° 05' 13.69” W Zoning: Low Density Residential District RL Lease Area: 1,600 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a bell tower and housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a residential area where the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As 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 The proposed location is currently being used as a church and a Christian school. A three-sided bell tower communications facility will complement this existing use and will be unrecognizable as a telecommunications tower. The walls of the upper portion of the telecommunications facility will be made of RF transparent material that will completely mask telecommunications antennas that will be housed inside of the bell tower. A six-foot fence will surround the supporting ground equipment in the lease area. The portion of the fence facing Horsetooth will be made of brick that matches the existing building. A wooden fence will surround the other three sides of the lease area. 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 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 were 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. 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 bell tower is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Facility & Traffic This site is unmanned and only occasionally visited by maintenance personnel. Therefore, it does not require public facilities or services greater than presently available. Given the limited visits to the facility, approximately 1-6 annually, there is no distinguishable impact on existing infrastructure or pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow. 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. 3 Noise, Safety, and Public Health Our proposed uses will not cause any measurable increase in noise levels in the surrounding area, any detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity, and will not create any reasonable public health concerns. 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 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 adequate location, favorable zoning and use, and a willing Landlord. Exhibit 1 to this application is a satellite image with one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to land use. Exhibit 2 is a zoning map with a one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to preferential zoning. Though the commercial properties near the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields are zone preferentially, most lack adequate space for a telecommunications facility. The properties that do have adequate space were unwilling to engage in a telecommunications lease with Atlas. Exhibit 3 details Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease in the area surrounding the original search ring. Because the search is fairly densely populated, going beyond a mile with the search could put the tower too close to another site—or another planned site—in Verizon’s network. In addition to this, it could place the tower too far from intended users. The commercial properties located near College Avenue and Horsetooth are too far from the coverage objective and too close to another existing Verizon antenna. The proposed site is excellent when taking into account its location in relation to the residential and commercial properties that the tower will serve and the size and use of the proposed property. The proposed location is surrounded by residential properties, but the tower itself would not be close to any residential structures. The use of the proposed location would allow for a convincing stealth use that would minimize the visual effect of the proposed tower. (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 4 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 tower facility would be located 137ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 117ft 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 bell tower, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower to the untrained eye, and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which is a church building. The proposed facility would be surrounded with a brick fence on the south side and a wooden fence on the remaining sides. 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 church building. (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 bell tower a beige color that matches the existing church building. All of the antennas on the stealth bell tower will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth bell tower and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. 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 self-supporting bell tower, 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 5 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 bell tower will be mounted behind the paneling of the tower, 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. Z-2 of the zoning drawings. A 6’ brick and 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. Z-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ brick and 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. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas will install an automatic irrigation system for any required landscaping. (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 bell tower, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. 6 (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. Current access roads are via paved and 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 6. (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. Atlas does not believe that the proposed site is located on any designated historic site or structure. NEPA and Phase I environmental studies are currently being performed at the site and will confirm the lack of any historical significance at the site location. (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 bell tower in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a communications tower. 7 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 Residential District (R-L). Places of worship or assembly are allowed in the R-L district and the proposed telecommunications facility masked as a bell tower would conform to the current use in the R-L district while providing vital infrastructure. (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 5, the location of the proposed tower is over 117 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original 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 bell tower. 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 55 ft. bell tower on church property, the 55 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on 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 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. 8 (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the existing church building has been located at this location for around fifty years, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower 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 Residential District (R-L). The R-L District has “Places of worship or assembly” as an “Institutional/Civic/Public Uses” in Division 4.4, (B) Permitted Uses. (2), (b), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower would conform to the places of worship or assembly allowed use of the R-L District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with the Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses for the R-L district, which includes 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. 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 55’ stealth bell tower at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. 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, Caleb Crossland Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Exhibit 1 9 10 Exhibit 2 11 12 Exhibit 3 1) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 2) J/Jack C Sherman Worthington – Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in the fall of 2016 and the property owner was vehemently opposed to a lease on his property under any circumstances. 3) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 4) Southside Baptist Church - This is the location of the proposed telecommunications facility. Though the property is not zoned preferentially for a telecommunications facility, the land use works well for a telecommunications facility, there is sufficient space, and it is well situated among residential parcels in order to provide effective coverage to the surrounding area. 5) Various Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 6) The Southland Corporation – Though this property is preferentially zoned, it is not of sufficient size to house the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The proposed facility needs around 2,500 sq. ft. of ground space to house equipment. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 13 7) PVP Property Owners Association – Though this property is preferentially zoned, there is not sufficient space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, spoke to the property owner in 2016 regarding leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Exhibit 3 Continued The property owner cited parking space requirements as the primary issue with leasing space to Atlas Tower for the proposed telecommunications facility. There is already an existing telecommunications tower on the property, which cannot house additional carriers. 8) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 9) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 10) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. Atlas Tower pursued a telecommunications facility on one of these properties but was strongly discouraged by Fort Collins Planning and Zoning from pursuing the location. Atlas then pursued other locations. 11) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 12) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 13) Associates Investments LLC – In 2016, Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, visited this location and spoke to representatives of the owners on multiple occasions in 2016. Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, also spoke with a representative of the owner on several occasions in 2016. In the end, the owner decided not to pursue a lease because of concerns with a possible future sale of the property. 14) JDS Properties LLC – There is not sufficient space for a telecommunication facility at this location. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 15) SLR LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland of Atlas Towers pursued a lease on this location in 2016. The property owner was uninterested in a lease. There is no practical location on the property with sufficient space for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. 16) Bright Horizons Family Solutions – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease on this property in 2016. The property is currently being used as a daycare facility. The property owner was strongly opposed to a telecommunications facility anywhere near the property. 17) Eyesite LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Mike Powers met with the property owner in person. After significant correspondence, the property owner determined that it was not interested in a telecommunications lease do to possible future expansion of their building. In addition, the property owner did not want to deal with the possible hassle of the telecommunications facility. 18) Harold J Santner – Mike Powers pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Because of parking requirements, there is not sufficient space to house a wireless telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in a lease. 19) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 14 Exhibit 4 15 16 Exhibit 4 Continued The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network on Horsetooth between Shields and College is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent performance, or user expectations. In this area there are issues of both coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year 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 demanding increasing amounts of data. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because an increasing number of people are getting rid of their landlines, it is becoming increasingly 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. Chart Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Forward Data Volume in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. 17 Exhibit 4 Continued 18 19 Exhibit 4 Continued 20 Exhibit 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INDEMNIFICATION STATEMENT: BENCHMARKS: TITLE SHEET T-1 SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUB SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 55' STEALTH TOWER CENTURY ZONING: R-L, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 THORNTON, CO 80229 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: FORT COLLINS SITE PLAN NOTES F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES I N-1 GENERAL NOTES LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES II N-2 GENERAL NOTES W. HORSETOOTH RD. (100' PUBLIC R.O.W.) LEGEND 1-A COORDINATES NOTES: SCHEDULE B., SECTION II. EXCEPTIONS: SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETAIL Z-1 SITE PLAN F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING COMPOUND DETAIL FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 620 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS Z-2 TOWER ELEVATION F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL BRICK WALL DETAILS WALL SIDE ELEVATION BOARD MOUNTING DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW SECTION A-A A A NOTES: TYPE IV ATTACHED WALK DRIVEWAY WIDTHS CLASSIFICATION APPROACH TYPE MINIMUM WIDTH MAXIMUM WIDTH ● ● ● GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NOTES: SITE GRADING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL & DRIVEWAY DETAILS Z-3 LCUASS DRAWING 707.2 (STANDARD DRIVEWAY APPROACH) F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING NOT USED EROSION CONTROL PLAN SILT FENCE 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 1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview     NEIGHBORHOODINFORMATIONMEETINGNOTES MeetingDateMarch23,2017 Thesenotescapturestaff’sinterpretationofquestions,commentsandideasfromthemeeting.   PROJECT: SouthsideBaptistChurchWirelessTelecommunicationFacility  DATE: March29,2017  PLANNER:  ClayFrickey,CityPlanner  PROSPECTIVE  CalebCrossland,AtlasTower APPLICANT    CityPlannerClayFrickeyintroducedthepurposeofthemeeting,theagenda,andtheCity’sLandUseCode whichaddressestheplacementanddesignofcelltowerfacilitiesandequipment.FCCregulationslimitlocal governmentauthorityandspecificallyrestrictStateorlocalgovernmentsfromregulatingwirelessfacilitieson thebasisoftheenvironmentaleffectsofradiofrequencyemissionstotheextentthatafacilitycomplieswith FCCregulationsonsuchemissions.  TheproposedfacilitywouldneedtoproceedthroughtheCity’sDevelopmentReviewprocesswithsubmittal ofplans,staffreviewofplans,andapublichearing.Planswouldbeavailableonlineforpublicinspection,and amailingnoticewouldbesentforthehearinginaccordancewiththecode.  CalebCrosslandexplainedtheproposalandrationale.  x Serviceprovidersareseeinganeedformore,smallertowersclosertousersbasedontheincreasing demandsofcommunicationdevices.  x Whyatowerhere?Demand.Itisneededtoservicethisarea.Thereiscoveragebutservicelevelis decliningcorrespondingtoincreasingdemand.Thenearesttowerisaboutamileaway.  x TheFCCviewsthiscommunicationinfrastructureasbasicutilityinfrastructure.Itisviewedasasafety issue.Emergencyservicesuseitonoverhalfof911calls.  x Worksbestwhensurroundedbyusers,andnearbusystreets.Thislocationisideal.  x Thedesignconceptisabelltower.Thechurchwoulddecideontheactualdesign.Shownisaconceptual illustrationat65feetinheight.  Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 CalebexplainedtheFRorradiofrequencywavesusedinwirelesscommunications.RFwavesareaformof nonͲionizingradiation.Theyareonthespectrumthatincludeslight,radio,xrays,andotherformsof radiation.  Therearezerostudiesofacellantennacausingcancer.Aphonenexttotheearworksatahigherpowerlevel thanatatypicaldistancefromanantennatower.Writtenmaterialhandoutsareavailableshowingfactsand informationaboutRFwaves.  Anyquestionsorrequestsforinformationarewelcomeat: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com,phone303.448.8896  QuestionsandDiscussion:  Q=Question R=Response C=Comment  Q:Whereisthetowerproposedonthesite? R(City):closetothebuilding,ontheeastsideofthebuilding.  Q:Isthechurchthebestroutetostopordenythis? R:Yes,thatwouldbeagoodway.Otherwise,itwouldbeapproved,changed,ordeniedaftertheCityreview process.  C:ThisisthelargestmetroareaI’veeverbeeninwiththeworstcoverage. R:FortCollinsisahotspotforproviderslookingtoimprovecoverage.  Q:Howfarwoulditbefromtheeastpropertyline? R:Muchclosertothechurchthanthepropertyline.Outsidetheeastwallofthechurchbuilding.  Q:AchurchonProspectbackedoutofadeallikethis.Doyouknowwhy? R:Notspecificallybuttypicalreasonswouldbethattheownerwasneverreallyserious,ortheyreceived oppositionthatpersuadedthem.  C:SouthridgeGreensisadenialexample.Itwascloseto2schools.Children’shealthisimportant.Doyou haveanystudiesonchildrenspecifically? R:Yes,aUKstudysortoflookedatthat.Itfoundnoassociationofcancerwithantennas.Ingeneral,schools areacommonspotfortheseantennas.Theygeneraterevenuefortheschools.NopeerͲreviewedstudies showriskforcancer.  Q:Whyaretherenostudiesthatshowdefiniteproof?Canyounameanystudies? R:Studieshavefoundnostatisticalincreaseincancerrelatedtothesefacilities.Butit’sadifferentchallenge toprovethatthere’snoeffect.Thestudieshavebeendone.Resultsarethere.Youshouldlookathow expertstestit,andlookatthestudies.Youcanlookattheexampleofwaterinothercities–peoplehavedied fromthat.Thatshowsthattherewasaproblem,theproblemwasfound,andknown,anddealtwith.No problemhasbeenfoundwiththis. Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3  Q:WherearetheantennasinFortCollins? R:Theremaybeabout100.Theyareubiquitous.Manyshoppingcentershavethem,andtheyarerightnext tohouses.ScotchPines,KingSoopersatTaftandElizabeth.There’sachurchonLaporteStreetrightacross fromPoudreHighSchoolthathasabelltowerfacility.  C:Ifeelthey’resafe.Thesignalsareeverywhere.They’reonyourhouse,inthemeter.  Q:What’sthetimeframetoconstruct? R:About8weeks.  C:IwasagainstthiswhenIheardaboutit.AneighborhasadefibrillatorandIwenttoseeifhewascomingto thismeetingtoopposethis.HisdefibrillatorrunsonVerizonandheneedsthecoverage.Itissometimes weak.Thisisthesafetyaspect.  Q:DESIGNisthekeything.Canitbebuiltintothesteeple? R:It’shardtogettheheightneeded,andthegroundequipment,andtherearestructuralchallenges.Itneeds togetabovetrees,andhavecapacityformultiplecarriers.  C:Wesoldahouseinanotherstatethathadpowerlinesinback.It’sbeenfoundthatthere’snorisk.But therewasaPERCEPTION.So,it’simportanttomakeitstealth.There’smoredangerfromhavingyourphone atyourear.ButDESIGNforstealthtoavoidtheperceptions. R:Thatistheplan,wewouldworkwiththeCityonthedesign.Andthechurch.  C:Ididreadthatchildrenaremoresusceptible.Theyhavethinnerskulls,littlereproductiveorgans.Some countriesarebanningWiFi.NonͲionizingwavesCANdisturbcells.SotthereISinformationoutthere.Maybe theinternetjustgivestoomuch,maybethat’swhat’shappeninghere. R:Thereisanestablisheddistrustofmedicalorganizations.Acknowledgethat.Butberealcarefulwiththe source.Lookforpeerreview.  C:Therearelotsofoverseasstudies.I’vehadamedicalconditionforyears,andneededelectromagnetic frequencytreatment.SoitdoesaffectDNAandcells.AndpropertyvaluesAREaffected.  Q:WhatISthepower? R:I’mnotanexpertorengineerbutthiswouldfollowFCCrules.Beingclosetousers,it’llbelimited.Itwon’t beastrongsignal.  C:Ibeteverybodyherehasacellphone.Ifyoulookaround,you’llfindthesetowersinallofourbackyards.  C:I’marealtor–Icansaythatsomeclientsseeatower,andsayno.Southridgewasanexample,withabig electricaltower.  C:Design,design,design.  ClayFrickeydismissedthemeetingandthankedeveryoneforcoming.  1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview     NEIGHBORHOODINFORMATIONMEETINGNOTES MeetingDateJanuary31,2018 Thesenotescapturestaff’sinterpretationofquestions,commentsandideasfromthemeeting.   PROJECT: SouthsideBaptistChurchWirelessTelecommunicationFacility  DATE: January31,2018  CITYSTAFF:  SylviaTatmanͲBurruss,DevelopmentReviewLiaison ClayFrickey,CityPlanner  PROSPECTIVE  CalebCrossland,AtlasTower APPLICANT  MichaelPowers,AtlasTower  ProjectDescription  Thisisarequesttoconstructawirelesstelecommunicationfacilityat620WHorsetoothRd.Theproject proposestheinstallationof65footstealthbelltowerwitha40footby40footleaseareaatthebaseofthe tower.TheprojectproposalislocatedinaLowDensityResidential(RL)district.Wirelesstelecommunication facilitiesarenotapermittedusedintheRLzonedistrict.ThisproposalissubjecttoanAdditionofPermitted Use(APU)withreviewbythePlanning&ZoningBoardandCityCouncil.  Meeting  SylviaTatmanͲBurrussintroducedthepurposeofthemeetingandwentthroughtheagendafortheevening. ClayFrickeyfollowedupwithapresentationontheCity’sdevelopmentreviewprocessandLandUseCode. TheproposedfacilitywouldneedtoproceedthroughtheCity’sDevelopmentReviewprocesswithsubmittal ofplans,staffreviewofplans,andmultiplepublichearings.Theproposedused,WirelessTelecommunications Facility,isnotallowedinthezoneinwhichitisbeingproposed.ThisnecessitatesanAPU.Sincethisproposal issubjecttoanAPU,CityCouncilwillbetheultimatedecisionmakerforthisprojectwiththePlanning& ZoningBoardprovidingarecommendationforapprovalordenialtoCityCouncil.Planswillbeavailableonline forpublicinspection,and,whenscheduled,amailingnoticewillbesentforthehearing(s)inaccordancewith thecode.  TheLandUseCodeaddressestheplacementanddesignofcelltowerfacilitiesandequipment.FCC regulationslimitlocalgovernmentauthorityandspecificallyrestrictStateorlocalgovernmentsfrom regulatingwirelessfacilitiesonthebasisoftheenvironmentaleffectsofradiofrequencyemissionstothe extentthatafacilitycomplieswithFCCregulationsonsuchemissions.  Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 CalebCrosslandexplainedtheproposalandrationale.  x Serviceprovidersareseeinganeedformoretowersclosertotheirusers.  x Whyatowerhere?Demandandfewotherviablelocations.Thisareahaspoorcapacityduetodatausage andfewparcelshavepermissivezoningandavailablelandforacelltower.  x Antennaswillbecompletelyshieldedfromview.  x Theproposedtowercouldaccommodatemultiplecarriers.  x BrickfencetoscreengroundequipmentalongHorsetoothRd.Woodfenceproposedforallothersidesof fencedarea.  x Thedesignconceptisabelltower55feetinheight.  Anyquestionsorrequestsforinformationarewelcomeat: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com,phone303.448.8896  QuestionsandDiscussion:  Q=Question R=Response C=Comment  Question:WilltheproposedtowerbeforaGSMorCDMAnetwork?Howdoesthisplayintotheproposal? Response(Applicant):GSMandCDMAarejusttwodifferentwaysofprocessingasignal.Theydon’treally makeadifferenceintermsofradiofrequencyemissions.GSMnetworksaremorecommon.IbelieveCDMA hasbeenadoptedbyVerizon.  Question:Iknowthatyoucan’tconsiderthehealtheffectsaspartofthedevelopmentprocess,butfromwhat IhavereadGSMnetworksemitmoreradiation,soIwouldpreferthistobeaCDMAnetwork. Response(Applicant):ThismightbeaCDMAnetwork,Iamnotsure.Eitherway,GSMandCDMAnetworks aresubjecttothesameFCCregulations.Radiofrequencyemissionsdonotchangebasedonthe encoding/decodingmethod.Asyoustated,thefederalgovernmenthaspreͲemptedtheCityofFortCollins withrespecttoradiofrequencyemissionissues.AwaytothinkaboutthisishowtheFederalDrug Administrationworkswithrespecttothesaleofdrugs.TheFDAdetermineswhatissafeandwhatisn’tand lowerlevelsofgovernmentoperatewithintheseregulations.Forexample,theCityofFortCollinsdoesnot havedifferentstandardsforsellingprescriptiondrugscomparedtoothercommunities.TheFCChastakenthe sameapproachwithwirelessfacilities.TheFCCconductsstudiesandusesexpertstocreaterules.  Question:Doestheproposedbelltowerhaverealbells? Response(City):No.  Comment:Ithinkthisisappropriatetosayhere,thankGod.Withthatbeingsaid,Ithinktheproposedtower isoutofcontext.Iwouldliketoseeyouworkontheshapeofthetowersoitismoretaperedandsimilartoa Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 steeple.Theproposedtowerisjarring.Iwouldalsolikeyoutoworkonthecolor.Thewhitecoloristoostark andjarring.Abeigecolormightbemoreappropriate.Also,considerbrickforthefenceontheeastsideas well.ThiswillbeveryvisiblefromHorsetoothsoitwouldmakesensetohavebrickontheeastsideaswell. Response(Applicant):Theseareallgreatsuggestionsandwewouldliketoaccommodateyoursuggestions. Wechosethewhitecolortomatchthechurchbutthatcancertainlybechanged. Response(City):TheCityisopentosuggestionsondesignsopleasefeelfreetoofferyoursuggestions.  Question:Willthissitesupport5G?Willitrequiremodificationstohouse5Gequipment? Response(Applicant):Rightnow,thissitewillsupport4Gequipment.Thereisnoofficialdesignstandardfor 5Gequipmentsowe’renotsurehowthissitecouldhandle5Gequipment.Thissitewillcertainlybe upgradable,though. Comment:Justtomakethisclear,IamnotagainstthetowerbutIamagainstthedesign.NewYorkerswould notlikeit. Response(Applicant):Wewillworkonthedesign. Question:HaveyouconsideredapinetreedesignsimilartotheoneatShieldsandVine? Response(City):WejokinglyrefertothefakepineonShieldsandVineastheFrankenpine.Monopinedesigns tendtoworkbetterwhensurroundedbyothertrees.Forexample,anewmonopinerecentlywentupat ProspectandShields.It’snearmyhouseandhadn’tnoticedituntilacoͲworkertoldmeithadbeenbuilt. Now,Ican’tunͲseethemonopine.  Question(City):Whatothersortsofdesignswouldyouprefer? Response(Community):Iwouldpreferasteeple,acanister,orsomethingintegratedintootherinfrastructure likeapowerlineorlightpole.  Question:Whatwilltheenvironmentalimpactsofthisfacilitybe?I’veheardwecanexpectadepreciationof ourpropertyvalueofatleast5%.IwouldliketheretobeanEnvironmentalImpactStatementperformedfor thisproposal. Response(City):TheFCCdisallowsconsiderationofenvironmentalimpacts. Response(Applicant):Wecantalkaboutthesethingsinaneighborhoodmeeting;theCityjustcan’tmake decisionsbasedonhealthimpacts.  Comment:TheCanadiangovernmentseemsmoreunbiasedwhenitcomestocellphoneregulations.TheUS governmenthasbeenbought.TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)recentlyupgradedradiofrequency emissionstoaTypeIIcarcinogen.Europeangovernmentsarealsoalotmorestrictonradiofrequency emissions.Ittookus30yearsbeforewerealizedradonisn’tgoodforyou,Iworrywe’redoingthesamething withcellphones.IwouldliketoseeanEnvironmentalImpactStatement. Response(Applicant):TheWHOhasnotplacedradiofrequencyemissionsontheCategory1listof carcinogens.Category1carcinogensareknowncarcinogens.Category2Aagentsareprobablycarcinogenic, meaningstudiesshowtheylikelycausecancerbutarenotconclusive. Comment:I’mtalkingaboutradiofrequencyemission’simpactonbirdsandbeesaswell,notjusthumans. Response(Applicant):Ok,letmefinish.Category2Bagentsarepossiblycarcinogenic,meaningthereissome evidencetheycausecancerinhumansbutitisnotconclusive.Category2Bisnotasconclusiveanditmeans thereneedstobemoreresearchtoprovethereisacausalrelationshipbetweentheagentanditcausing cancer.Undercurrentruleswithcurrentresearch,thereisnotcausalrelationshipbetweenradiofrequency emissionsandcancer,likemicrowaves.Mostofthesestudieslookattheradiationfromhandsets,notfrom Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 4 celltowers.ThereisRFeverywhere.Handsetsalsooperateatahigherwattagewhentheyarefurtheraway fromcelltowers,sohavingatowerclosertoyoureducesyourexposuretoRF.  Comment:I’mmainlyconcernedaboutthehomesaroundthefencelineandtheirexposuretoRFsincethey willbeclosesttothetower. Response(Applicant):Whenyouare50feetawayfromthetower,theRFis1/100thofthesafelevelapproved bytheFCC.RFfollowsanexponentialcurveintermsofitsreductionofpowercomparedtodistancefromthe antenna.WealsohadtoperformaNEPAstudyaspartofthisprojectandwewouldbehappytoshareitwith you.TheNEPAstudyraisednoconcerns.  Question:Canyoucommentonthe5%reductioninpropertyvalues? Response(City):Wecannotconsiderpropertyvalueseitheraspartofourdecisionmaking.Therearetoo manyfactorswhendeterminingthevalueofahometosingleoutacelltowerascausingachangeinthevalue ofahome.  Question:Whatfrequencieswillyoubeusing?I’malsoconcernedaboutinterferencewithotherdevices. Response(Applicant):We’renot100%sure.Verizontypicallyoperatesaround700MHz.Wecangetthat informationtoyou,interferencewithotherequipmentistightlyregulated.  Question:WillthisfacilitybeoperatinginatawavelengthsimilartoFMradio? Response(Applicant):No,wewillnotbeoperatinginasimilarfrequencyrangeasFMradio.Ifwecause interference,wehavetoresolvethisissueanditisaverybigprocess.  Comment:Idisagree,thereissomeleakage. Response(Applicant):Ifweinterferewithotherequipment,wehavetoaddressitandwewillmakesure thereisnointerference.  Question:Whatisthedurationofthelease? Response(Applicant):Thisisa20Ͳyearleasewithrenewals,similartoatelephonepole.  Question:Willthisbelocatedonthechurch’sproperty? Response(Applicant):Yes.  Comment:Thisdoesn’tlooklikeabelltower,itlookslikeaboxkitegettingreadytotakeoff.Iwouldlike somethingmoreartisticwithmorecolors.Didthechurchapprovethisdesign? Response(Applicant):Wehaveworkedtogetherwiththechurchonthedesign.  Comment:Maybethechurchwantstoputtheirmottoonthetower. Response(Applicant):Ifyouseesomeotherdesignyoulike,pleaseletusknowsowecanconsiderit.  Question:Didadesignermaketheproposedtower? Response(Applicant):Yes,notme,butwehaveusedthisdesigninthepast.We’vealsoreducedtheheightto 55feet.The65ͲfootreferenceintheCity’spresentationwasfromapreviousiterationoftheplan.  Question:Whatisthemaximumheightinthiszonedistrict? Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 5 Response(City):Thisisagreyareaofthecode.Inthiszonedistrict,themaximumheightforanonͲresidential buildingis3Ͳstories.SincestoriesaremeasuredfromfloorͲtoͲfloor,however,aoneͲstorystructurecould technicallyhaveanunlimitedheight.There’salsotheissuethatpertheLandUseCode,thismaynotbe consideredabuildingsinceitmaynothavearoofanddoesn’tencloseanything.Duetothis,werelyonthe compatibilityrequirementsoftheLandUseCodetodealwithheightissuesforcelltowers.  Comment:IliveonCoronadoCourtandImisscriticalcallsallthetimeduetothelackofcoverage.Iworkfrom homeandhavelostbusinessbecauseofthis,soitisarealproblem. Response(Applicant):Thanksforthefeedback.Also,most911callsarefromcellphones.Mostemergency servicesalsorelyoncellphonessothisisasafetyissue.Alotpeoplelookforgoodcellphonecoveragewhen purchasingahomesothepriceofhomesmightdropwithnocellphonecoverage.  Question:Howmuchareawillthisfacilitycover? Response(Applicant):Backinthe2Gand3Gdays,youusedtobeabletoputupatoweronahillandcovera wholecity.Now,cellphonesarelikeminiͲcomputerssothenetworkneedsmorefacilitiestoservicecell phones.Carriershavestartedbuildingahighernumberoflowpoweredfacilitiesclosertoenduserstofillin gaps.Thisalldependsonnetworkusageandavailablelocations.Eitherway,weneedmorefacilitiesto antennascanhandlethedemand.  Question:Sothisfacilitywon’tprovidecoveragetothenorthpartofthecity,correct? Response(Applicant):That’sright.Insomecities,acelltowerwillcoveronlyoneblock.Westillhavedead spotsinFortCollinsandVerizoncustomersdemandthatwefixthesegaps.  Question:Couldyouputthetowerinalessobtrusivelocation?Whatisthepotentialcoveragearea? Response(Applicant):Thisfacilitycouldtheoreticallyserveuptoamileradius,butthatisimpossiblewiththe demandwesee.  Question:Soyou’resayingyouneedatleastoneofthesetowerseverytwomiles? Response(Applicant):No,weneedmorethanthat.Ratherthanthinkingaboutcoverageintermsofanarea, thinkofitintermsofnumberofusersserved.  Question:Doyouhaveastudyshowingcoveragebyheightofthetowerandthebandwidthofthetower?I thinkthenewstadiumwouldbeamuchbetterlocation. Response(Applicant):Wedon’thavethatleveloftechnicalexpertise,butVerizonwouldhavethatsortof information.  Question:Whataretheclosesttowerstothislocation? Response(Applicant):There’satoweronShieldsandHorsetoothaswellassomefacilitiesonDrake.These otherlocationsaresmall,hidden,andoftentimesonlysupportonecarrier.Theissueiswehavehitormiss coverageanditistoughtomeettheexpectationsofVerizon’scustomersaswellastheCity’sexpectations withrespecttotheLandUseCode.  Comment:InNewYork,I’veseentheyrelymoreonmicrotowers. Response(Applicant):Smallcellsitesliketheonesyouarereferencingaugmentmacrotowers.Weneedboth kindsoffacilities.CitieslikeNewYorkandLosAngelesusedifferenttechnologybecauseofhowdensely Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 6 populatedthosecitiesare.ThattechnologyisnotcomingtoFortCollins.There’snotenoughdensityofusers tosupportthatsortoftechnology. Response(City):SmallcellsarecomingtoFortCollins.Therewasarecentstatutepassedatthestatelevel thatrequirescitiestoallowsmallcellsintherightͲofͲway.TheCityiscurrentlynegotiatingaMasterLicense AgreementwithVerizononwhatthesefacilitiesintherightͲofͲwaywilllooklike.  Question:Canwejustwaitforsmallcells? Response(Applicant):Icantellyouthatiftherewasn’taneedforthissortoffacility,wewouldn’tbetryingto buildit.  Question:Iftheyspend$2millionhereonalargetower,whywouldtheyspendmoneyonsmallcellinthis area? Response(Applicant):Therearen’tanyplansforsmallcellhere.AsClaystated,Verizonisworkingonamaster planwiththeCity.Smallcelltechnologyisforlowpowerequipmentindenselypopulatedareas.Thisareaisn’t denseenoughforsmallcell.  Comment:I’mproͲwirelessbutIamantithisdesign,itneedssomework. Response(Applicant):PleasesubmityourideastoClay,wewillworkwithyou.  Comment:Ihaveterribleserviceandcan’tevengetdatainmyfrontyard.Thedensityinthisareaisonly increasingandIcan’twait5yearsforbettercoverage.Signmeupforthetower.Ievengotaboosterfrom VerizonandIstillhavecoverageissues.  Comment:Iagreeonthedesign,itlookslikethreebillboards.Brickwouldbeamoreappropriatematerialfor thetower.Iwouldalsolikeaneutralcolorbetter.Also,trytoworkontheshape.  Comment:Perhapsitcouldbetriangularormoretapered?Makeitthecolorofbricksoitismorenatural?  Comment:I’minfavoroftheprojectbutIdon’tlikethedesign.Iknowthiscouldtakesomemoretimebut couldyousubmitthistodesignclassesatCSUoralocalhighschool?Maybeyoucoulddoadesign competitionwhereyoupickthewinningdesignanduseit.Maybeyoucouldseeiftheycouldusenatural materialsandmakeitmoreartistic.Youcouldusethedesignonothersitesandgivecredittothedesigner. Response(Applicant):Ilikethatidea,thanks.  Question:Whywasthissitechosen?Isthereabetterfitelsewhere?I’mconcernedaboutthehealthofthe studentshere.  Question:Couldweseethefrontviewofthetoweragain?Whatshapeisit,asquare? Response(Applicant):It’striangular.  Comment:Theylooklikebillboards,theCitycouldleasethemout. Response(City):Thiswouldviolatethesigncode.Ihearthatyouallareconcernedaboutthedesignsowewill workonimprovingthedesign.  Comment:Iagreethistowerisanecessaryevilandthatthereisconsensustoworkonthedesign,butIhave neverseensomethingsooutofplace.WhathappenedwiththeproposalatSouthridge? Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 7 Response(Applicant):TheCitybackedawayfromthatproposal.Duetoallofthepushbackagainstthattower, theCitydecidedtonotallowanynewleasesonCityͲownedproperty.  Question:WhatreplacedthefacilityatSouthridge? Response(Applicant):Asilo,Idareyoutofindit.  Question:Didyoutrytogetaleaseatthenearbyfarm? Response(Applicant):Yes,andwegotchasedofftheproperty.  Question:Doyoulivehere?Ijustaskthatyoupleaserespectourconcerns. Response(Applicant):No,IliveinDenvernowbutgrewupinFortCollinsandappreciateyourconcerns.You’ll startseeingthesesortsoffacilitiesinotherplaces.  Question:Canyousendmeexamplesofotherfacilities? Response(Applicant):Yes.  Question:Thisseemslikeanexerciseinfutility.Istheleasealreadyfinalized? Response(Applicant):No,weneedtogetapprovalforthefacilityfirst.ThePlanning&ZoningBoardcares aboutthecommunityandconsiderseveryone’stestimony.TherearenoslamdunkprojectinFortCollins.We wantwhat’sbestforthecommunity.ThePlanning&ZoningBoardwillhearyourconcernsandsaynoif everyonecomesoutagainsttheproject.  Question:Itsoundslikethechurchisatriskhere,too.Sothere’snoguaranteeonthelease? Response(Applicant):Wehaveanagreementthatifwegetapprovedandgetabuildingpermit,thenwewill havealease.Therearenoguarantees. HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held May 17, 2018 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, May 17, 2018 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Jeffrey Schneider, Chair Cameron Gloss Michael Hobbs Clay Frickey Jennifer Carpenter Brad Yatabe Ruth Rollins Shar Gerber William Whitley ATTACHMENT 2 2 1 CHAIR JEFFREY SCHNEIDER: So, moving on to the last item, which is the Century Wireless 2 Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. So Shar, before we start, have 3 we received any new additional information on this item? 4 MS. SHAR GERBER: We have; Patrick Wilson objects to the project and expressed concerns 5 about the aesthetics and impact on property values. We also have attachments 6, 7, and 8 added to staff 6 report and packet on 5/11 of ’18. 7 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Does anyone on the Board have anything that they 8 need to disclose or any ex parte communications on this item? Alright, seeing none, we’ll turn it over to 9 staff for their presentation. 10 MR. CLAY FRICKEY: Alright, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning 11 Board, Clay Frickey, City Planner, project planner for the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility 12 and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP 170017. The proposal calls for a 55-foot tall wireless 13 telecommunications facility located at 620 West Horsetooth Road, which is between Shields and College, 14 which is the site that is in the hatching in the vicinity map on the left. The proposal calls for the tower to 15 be disguised as a bell tower. The property houses a church, the Southside Baptist Church. The site is 16 located in the low-density residential zone district in which a wireless telecommunications facility is not a 17 permitted use, so the applicant must seek an addition of permitted use in order to proceed with this 18 project. So, that concludes staff’s overview of the project. 19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Is the applicant team ready to present? Alright. Do 20 you guys think you can do this in 30 minutes or less? Or do you feel like you need some more time? 21 MR. KEN BRADTKE: I think that should be good. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thirty minutes? Okay. Please state your name so we can write it down 23 and for the record. 24 MR. BRADTKE: My name is Ken Bradtke, B-R-A-D-T-K-E…do you need my address? No? 25 Okay. 26 So, good evening board members; I’d like to thank you for being here tonight and hearing our 27 proposal. I’m the Director of Operations for Atlas Tower; we’re the co-applicant for the communications 28 tower project before you tonight, along with Verizon Wireless. Can I click? Cool. 29 So, I just wanted to start my presentation with a brief overview of what I’ll be covering tonight. 30 First, I’ll provide a little bit of background on Atlas Tower and who we are; I know I spoke before this 31 Board on another recent project, so forgive me if I’m covering anything you may already know, but I do 32 think it’s important to talk briefly about Atlas’ role in the project and what part we play. Second, I’ll 33 touch on the federal guidelines that pertain to our project as they provide, sort of, the framework for the 34 standard of review for our proposal. Next, I’ll get into some detail about the need for the site and 35 highlight some of the differences between coverage and capacity. And then from there I’ll go into some 36 detail about how and why we chose this particular location, why it was the least intrusive possible 37 location to provide the quality coverage that’s needed and lacking in the area. And then to wrap it up, 38 we’ll go over some of the photo sims and finish up with some additional information on why height is an 39 essential element to telecommunications infrastructure and our need for a 55-foot structure. 3 1 So, Atlas Tower, we’re a small independently-owned, Boulder-based communications 2 infrastructure company. We’re not a carrier; we don’t put the antennas on the tower, you can’t sign up for 3 Atlas Tower wireless service, but instead we own, operate, build and maintain wireless infrastructures, 4 towers mainly, and then we lease space on the towers to all the different carriers: AT&T, Sprint, T- 5 Mobile, and of course, Verizon. We’ve been developing towers since the early 2000’s, started in the 6 Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain region, and have recently expanded into the 7 Midwest. 8 And so, as I mentioned, first particular project, our anchor tenant, our co-applicant, is Verizon 9 Wireless, but we’re always looking to co-locate. So, we don’t discriminate against any carrier. We build 10 all our towers with a future-looking approach. And so, you know, that’ll kind of tie into the height 11 argument when I talk about that a little bit later. 12 So, section 332 of the Telecommunications Act basically states that regulation of the placement 13 and construction of communications tower facilities by any local government shall not have the effect of 14 prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. And, what does that mean? Basically, there are 15 two factors to determine if a denial or a decision effectively prohibits the provision of personal wireless 16 service. The first is, is that location the least intrusive available alternative. As our application sort of 17 describes in detail, and Clay’s staff report mentions, and discussed later in the presentation, Atlas and 18 Verizon both conducted comprehensive examination of the search area and found no other suitable 19 parcels capable of fulfilling the coverage gap in this area. And the second factor, is there a significant gap 20 in coverage and capacity for the intended service area. Again, as our application covered in detail and 21 discussed a bit more in the presentation, Verizon provided coverage maps showing the significant gap in 22 coverage and capacity existing in the area. And those are also…you can also see that same gap in 23 coverage in Clay’s staff report with the OpenSignal and Sensorly exhibits. So, while local municipalities 24 certainly aren’t compelled to approve all applications for communications towers, by meeting the 25 aforementioned requirements, the onus is there to approve the proposal absent some sufficiently 26 compelling counter-argument. 27 Okay, so let’s get into some of the coverage and capacity issues and the remedies that we’re 28 proposing. In the maps that follow, I just want to highlight that sections in green have good coverage, 29 yellow has moderate, grey has limited to poor, and sections in white have no coverage. And, additionally, 30 something to keep in mind, the existing sites…and this ties into our capacity discussion we’ll get into a 31 little bit later…are covering too large of an area right now. The ideal service area for a macro site is 32 about one square mile…yeah, so let’s look at the maps. So, this is the site, the coverage plots as it exists 33 right now without our site. You can see our site is basically that area in grey off of Horsetooth Road, so 34 you can see…you know, as you move west from 287, there’s really poor coverage throughout the whole 35 area. And this is the coverage that you’d see with our site; you can see there’s a dramatic improvement in 36 excellent coverage shown by the green, with moderate coverage extending…and we’re also connecting 37 the coverage area between the other existing Verizon sites shown by the black bullets there…along…near 38 the commercial area by 287. 39 In addition to the coverage gaps shown in our previous images, a major issue some of the 40 networks face is capacity. Every cell site has a limit to the amount of cellular traffic it can handle, and the 41 reality is capacity issues have dramatically increased over the last several years as the average smart 42 phone takes up almost 50 times the amount of network capacity as a standard phone. The only way to 43 address this issue is to reduce the geographical area which each site is required to cover. And so, in the 44 first map I showed where there was limited to no coverage, those areas where you might be able to get the 4 1 occasional fleeting bar, are getting service from one of the existing nodes that were also highlighted in 2 those maps. But, as population and data use grows, those towers not only become continually unable to 3 provide service to our intended area, but they also become taxed just by serving the customers in their 4 more immediate vicinity. Every user that attempts to access the networks here, near our proposed site, 5 adds additional stress on the existing nodes, and as that number of users increases, you get more dropped 6 calls, denials of service, and frustrated citizens. So, not only will our site provide coverage where it is 7 currently insufficient or non-existent, but it will also remedy some of the stress on the existing nodes 8 caused by distant users trying to access that infrastructure while it’s just trying to keep up with the 9 demand in its own immediate service area. 10 So this table was again in the application…just sort of shows capacity trends up, it actually peaks, 11 more towards the end of the year…the red line being the capacity line where you start getting denial of 12 service, dropped calls, and that kind of thing. So, this slide shows some of the statistics that highlight the 13 capacity issue and growing data…wireless service trends…so I’ll just read them off real quick: the 14 demand for wireless data service has increased 238% from 2016 to 2018 according to a CTI report from 15 April of this year, in many areas, over 80% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone, with over 70% being 16 the national average, over 50% of households are wireless only, again, that’s according to the CTI here in 17 an April report, and more than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong wireless communications 18 according to…metrics. 19 So, not only is wireless service for residents in a specific area, but also serves other users as well. 20 You know, we often get the concern…I can make a phone call at my house, and so, the answer to that is 21 Verizon uses high-level detailed network statistics from every server and device in an area to determine 22 where to invest. One single device in one home may perform well, but we have data showing that 23 thousands of others do not. Wireless services are mobile and serve any device in an area, not just the 24 devices owned by residents. Verizon and roaming partners, customers who live in, work in, shop in, play 25 in, and even drive through Fort Collins all benefit from new communications infrastructure, and certainly 26 this one. And different applications have different quality needs. For example, very slow data might be 27 fine for a phone call, but it makes it very difficult or impossible for police officers to receive dispatch info 28 on their laptops while on patrol. That’s a problem that’s magnified during a personal emergency, or 29 especially during large-scale emergencies like tornadoes, floods, and similar phenomena. 30 Okay, so let’s get into our site selection process. Essentially, the first step is a search area is 31 identified, usually by a carrier where they, you know, according to that info I just shared with you, their 32 network statistics are showing poor coverage, bad coverage, they’re getting complaints, that sort of thing. 33 So, they’ll identify a search area. Then, once we have that search area, we review the City Code to 34 identify any locations in the area that meet City requirements, mainly zoning, setbacks. Next, we 35 determine if the facilities that meet City Code have adequate utilities and access, is there enough space. 36 And then the last step is we contact property owners to determine if they’re willing to lease space. 37 So, this was the original search area; it’s about a square mile there. This is that same search area 38 but it just kind of has that zoning break down; these were in the application packet. It just kind of gives 39 you a sense of where we were looking. And then this image kind of shows, you know, I think part of the 40 issue with the existing nodes not being able to cover areas…there is an elevation drop of about 45 feet as 41 you move from the church down to that more commercial area. And, if you’ve driven down Horsetooth 42 Road heading west, you’ll definitely notice there’s a huge drop off in coverage once you basically get to 43 about our property. 5 1 So, this is also in the application…it shows, you know, each sort of area and our leasing attempts. 2 It’s pretty well detailed in the application. Most of the area is pretty dense residential and doesn’t have 3 favorable zoning. Number 4 on the map is our actual parcel. The parcels in purple have more favorable 4 zoning; they’re more commercial. And, again, that’s detailed in our application why we were unable to 5 get a lease; most of them either didn’t have enough space on the property, or after many, many attempts, 6 they just basically told us they weren’t interested in leasing whether it was because they didn’t feel like 7 they had the property space, or they just didn’t want to do a lease or have the project on their property. If 8 you have any further questions on our leasing due diligence, Mike Powers, our Director of Legal Affairs, 9 is here and he did some of that actual meeting with a lot of these landlords. This is just another…as I 10 mentioned, the ideal service area is one square mile. So, from our property, that’s one square mile…just 11 to kind of give you a sense of, you know, what’s the ideal service area for a macro site to provide ideal 12 coverage and, you know, meet capacity issues, and that sort of thing. 13 So here are some of the photo sims. We actually had an alternative design and then we did 14 another neighborhood meeting and got some feedback, so we changed up the design a bit. This is the 15 proposed structure; the original design looked really similar except we added some brick cladding and, 16 you know, just basically designed it so that it would meet the exterior of the church with the brick and the 17 white paint. And this is another image…this is looking southwest I believe…or no, sorry, this is looking 18 northeast. There’s the structure. 19 So, need for height…towers work via line of sight, so if they are able to communicate with each 20 other, the nodes, they work much better, so that’s why height is essential. Basically, we start getting 21 degradation below 50-feet of our optimal coverage area. Also related to that is the ability to allow future 22 tenants. So, you know, every foot you lose, you lose coverage for not only the anchor tenant but also for 23 future co-los in the future, which you know, the more carriers we can fit on a single structure, we limit the 24 need for additional future structures down the road. 25 So, Clay, I think on Friday or Monday we got a request that the Board wanted to see some 26 additional plots…some additional plots showing propagation at 45 and then our additional lower rads of 27 38 and 28 I think. So, this is the 50-foot plot we had done to sort of meet that request just to show you 28 what we’re looking at. And then the next slide, that’s at 45-feet. That is 36, 38 sorry, and that’s 28…26. 29 And this is…shows the cell splits. It basically shows which node is serving which area. And so, again, 30 this is at 50-feet…basically our structure is…you can see where it’s, you know, taking the capacity off of 31 the existing nodes. That’s at 45. I’m having some mouse difficulties…I think we skipped one…so this 32 would be 38…or no…can I right-click back Clay? Yeah, so that’s 38, and that’s 26. 33 Yeah, so basically to conclude, federal requirements mandate the provision of wireless service 34 and explicitly forbid the prohibition of personal wireless service if conditions are met. Atlas has met 35 these requirements, in addition to the City’s requirements, as detailed in staff’s recommendation for 36 approval and our application. There is a significant coverage gap and capacity issues at this location. The 37 location chosen was the only available in the extended search ring that we looked at and the stealth bell 38 tower minimizes any aesthetic impact of the site and fits the character of other existing church 39 infrastructure in Fort Collins. Clay did a good job of sort of detailing that in his staff report showing that 40 our structure is actually quite a bit shorter than a lot of the ornamental church structures in Fort Collins. 41 And, the overall benefit provided the community, including the improved reliability and availability of 42 both personal and emergency communication services far outweigh any visual impact of the project. And 43 we also have and RF engineer here from Verizon if you guys have any specific RF questions as well. 6 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Do you have anyone else on your team that would like 2 to address the Board with the time allotted? No? Seeing none…not at this time? 3 MR. BRADTKE: Not at this time. 4 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, then we’ll turn it back to staff for their analysis. 5 MR. FRICKEY: Thank you Mr. Chair. So, I’d like to begin the presentation to briefly discuss the 6 addition of permitted use process for those in the audience that may not be familiar with the process. 7 What this process allows is for an applicant to apply for a use that’s allowed elsewhere in the city of Fort 8 Collins, but is not allowed in the zone district in which they are seeking the use. In this case, this is a 9 wireless telecommunications facility, meaning a freestanding tower for the purpose of providing wireless 10 coverage. There’s eight specific criteria outlined in the Land Use Code in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Code 11 for residential zone districts…in which case the low-density residential zone district is a residential 12 zone…City Council is the ultimate decision maker on addition of permitted use applications. So, what 13 will happen here tonight is Planning and Zoning Board will make a recommendation to City Council. 14 I’m going to briefly go through all eight of the APU criteria and then drill down into each specific 15 criterion one by one throughout the presentation. So, just for a brief overview, the first criterion says that 16 the use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added, the second criterion is that it conforms to 17 the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is 18 added, the third criterion deals with the compatibility of the design, size, and location of the use, and that 19 it has minimal impact on the use of the nearby properties, the fourth criterion essentially states that the 20 use will not create any sort of nuisance issue, and there’s a lot of different elements that are listed there 21 that I won’t go into painstaking detail on. Criterion number five is that the use will not change the 22 predominant character of the surrounding area, criterion six, that such use is compatible with the other 23 listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it’s added, criterion seven requires two neighborhood 24 meetings, one after conceptual review and one after the first round of staff review, and then the eighth 25 criterion says that a medical marijuana business or retail marijuana establishment is not eligible for an 26 addition of permitted use. 27 So, for criterion number one, something that’s important to note is that wireless 28 telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in every zone district within the city. The difference 29 between wireless telecommunications equipment and a wireless telecommunications facility is that 30 equipment is an antenna attached to an existing structure or building; a facility is a purpose-built facility 31 for the express purpose of housing wireless equipment. So, in this case, since wireless equipment is 32 allowed in the low-density residential zone district, the question really comes down to design. Is the 33 design appropriate for the area? And so, since we allow wireless telecommunications equipment, staff 34 finds that the proposal meets criterion number one. 35 Criterion number two is that the use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and 36 the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. So, the purpose statement in the Land 37 Use Code for the low-density residential zone district is that it was a zone district for existing single- 38 family…or predominantly single-family neighborhoods at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code in 39 1997. So, most of the subdivisions that have low-density residential zoning were built between the 40 1960’s and 1980’s, and they were predominantly single-family homes. So, the question is, is the facility 41 designed to really fit into the neighborhood. And so, again, sort of boils down to the design because 7 1 wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in every zone in the city. So, staff finds the 2 proposal satisfies criterion two. 3 I’m going to spend the majority of the time discussing criterion three which deals with the 4 location, size, and design of the use. And so, just wanted to also bring up the Telecommunications Act of 5 1996…the applicant already did this, so I’m not going to dwell on this, but essentially, that Act requires 6 cities and municipalities to not de facto ban cell towers through zoning. Cities may determine the 7 location of cell towers in the community through zoning and how they’re designed, but they may not 8 result in a de facto ban on cell towers. So, this was in the project narrative supplied by the applicant. 9 This was the propagation map that was provided by the applicant…so this shows the existing coverage of 10 the area…it shows up a lot of grey and white which means spotty coverage in the immediate area around 11 the proposed site. So, to corroborate that data, staff took a look at two open source platforms that provide 12 maps of cell phone coverage for Verizon. This first one came from OpenSignal…and so these are 13 applications that run in the background of users’ cell phones. So, it’s not a cell phone user uploading 14 their coverage data on their own volition…it runs in the background. So, it’s not a self-selecting sort of 15 thing, if that makes sense. And so, as this map shows, red is poor coverage, green is good coverage. So, 16 as you can see around the applicant’s search ring that the coverage is generally poor. And Sensorly is 17 another open source application that does a similar thing to OpenSignal. The lighter shades of purple 18 indicate poor coverage, the darker shades of purple indicate good coverage. As you can see around the 19 site, which is identified with that red marker, there is, generally speaking, poor coverage around the site. 20 So, the other thing to consider is the availability of other parcels with appropriate zoning in the 21 immediate vicinity within the applicant’s search ring. So, there are a few parcels in this area that have 22 zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Those parcels in this area happen to have 23 neighborhood commercial zoning. So, the applicant provided a narrative discussing their attempts to 24 obtain a lease on these properties. Staff also followed up. There’s an existing cell tower at the 25 intersection of Shields and Horsetooth in a commercial center, so staff called the property management 26 company of that strip mall and inquired as to whether or not there is an additional spot on that tower, and 27 it was indicated to staff that there is not. And in fact, staff has also gotten two minor amendment 28 proposals to try and co-locate on that tower, and neither proceeded because they could not make it work 29 with that tower. And so, that says to staff that there isn’t really an opportunity to co-locate, which would 30 have…which staff would have guided the applicant to do had there been that opportunity. 31 So, to discuss the context a little bit more, again, it’s predominantly neighborhoods around the 32 site that consist of one- and two-story buildings. It’s mainly single-family detached homes with some 33 duplexes, and as mentioned, there are some commercial uses as well…pretty small scale, mainly one- and 34 two-story buildings as well. So here is an aerial showing the surrounding area around the church; the 35 church property is identified by that yellow dashed line. As you can see, it’s mainly single-family homes 36 with trees. And so, this view is looking to the north and to the west, so looking from the southeast. And 37 then just to flip it around, this is looking south and west from the northeast showing the context. Again, 38 pretty modestly-scaled structures in the area; there’s not a lot of tall structures around. This is a view of 39 the church site as it exists. This is looking from Horsetooth Road, and this is another view that more or 40 less matches one of the photo simulations that was provided by the applicant…just to give the Board and 41 those in attendance a sense of what the site looks like now. So, this is looking northwest as well from 42 Horsetooth Road. 43 This is a brief view of the site plan. The applicant proposes placing the facility immediately east 44 of the church building. There would be a 40 by 40 square foot ground area for equipment that would be 8 1 screened by a fence; it would be fully screened. And then that triangular shape inside that little 2 compound is the proposed tower. This is an elevation view of the proposed tower; it has three sites for 3 potential carriers to locate on the tower. The legs could be clad in brick that would match the brick on the 4 existing church structure, and then the cross would be painted to also match the church structure, in 5 addition to the rest of the tower being painted to match the cream white color that is found on the church 6 as well, so it blends in as well as possible. 7 I also wanted to just note to the Board some of the other structures in the city that are somewhat 8 similar, that had similar zoning. So, this is actually a Baptist church on LaPorte Avenue; this is between 9 Taft Hill and Overland Trail on the north side of LaPorte Avenue. The steeple in the front contains 10 wireless telecommunications equipment. The top of that steeple reaches 78 feet, 6 inches in height. And 11 then that large white structure in the background is a bell tower as well. As you can see, it looks like in 12 this photograph, the wireless carrier was actually doing service on the tower. Normally there is a white 13 screen in front of that equipment up towards the top of that tower. That bell tower is 50 feet in height. 14 The top of the roof line of the church building, excluding the steeple and all that, is 32 feet. And I 15 mention this to give the Board and those in attendance a sense of the scale, so that way we can try and 16 compare the proposal to other similar structures in the city and try to do an apples to apples comparison. 17 So, this is just a reiteration of what was shown on that slide just so that way people can get a sense of the 18 scale of these existing structures. There are some other…and also I should note that’s in the low-density, 19 mixed-use neighborhood zone district, that previous image. 20 So, I also took some…went out and…well, I got some photos from Google Maps of some other 21 church facilities and structures around the city that have steeples and bell towers just to compare the scale. 22 This is the Westminster Presbyterian Church at 1709 West Elizabeth, so this is near Taft Hill Road. 23 This…the building in the picture is 13 feet, 8 inches tall. The top of the cross in that image reaches 48 24 feet in height, and this is also in the low-density residential zone district. This is the Bridge Church at 25 833 South Taft Hill Road, so just north of Elizabeth on the west side of the road. Staff was unable to 26 reach the church…made a phone call, did not get a phone call back about the height of the building and 27 the height of the steeple, and the building permit records were incomplete for this building, so these are 28 estimates in terms of height. The church building itself is approximately 30 feet in height with a steeple 29 of approximately 60 feet in height. This is in the medium-density, mixed-use neighborhood zone district. 30 This is the First United Methodist Church at 1005 Stover Street, so this at Stover and Elizabeth in Old 31 Town. The top of the sanctuary space is 47 feet in height, so that is the principal building that’s a little bit 32 in the background behind the trees in this image. The top of the roof of the bell tower in the foreground is 33 62 feet in height and the top of the cross is 81 feet in height. This site is located in the neighborhood 34 conservation, low-density zone district. This is the fifth church, which is the church…well one of the 35 closest churches to the Southside Baptist Church…there’s another one on the southwest corner of Shields 36 and Horsetooth as well, but that one does not have a bell tower or steeple. This church…the top of the 37 building is 48 feet, and then the top of the cross in the image is 85 feet. And this is also located in the 38 medium-density, mixed-use neighborhood zone district. 39 So, this table shows all the information that I just conveyed to the Board and to those in 40 attendance, and then I highlighted the proposal at the bottom here. The existing church building at 41 Southside Baptist Church is 20 feet tall, and then this proposed bell tower would be 55 feet in height, and 42 so that sort of gives you a sense of the ranges of heights that other churches have in the community 43 compared to this proposal. 9 1 So, when staff was analyzing the proposal, the first thing that staff considered was the location of 2 the facility. So, the location of the facility is towards the interior of the site, towards the middle of the 3 site, from an east-west axis, and so that minimizes the impact to neighbors to the east and to the west. It’s 4 also located very close to the church building so it appears more integral to the site as well, which is very 5 important as opposed to it being off by itself which would appear a bit more awkward and not as integral 6 to the church site. It’s also, too, from a north-south perspective, it’s located next to the church, and you 7 have Horsetooth Road acting as a buffer from the single-family homes to the south. So, from a location 8 perspective, staff finds that the location is the best that you could do on this site considering the 9 circumstances and minimizes the impact on the uses of the other properties nearby. 10 The size question…staff considered both the height, but also too, the bulk of the proposed bell 11 tower. The height itself is in range of the other bell towers and steeples; it’s shorter than many of the 12 other bell towers and steeples on churches around the city. The real issue is the bulk. The bulk…it is a 13 larger facility in terms of bulk than these other facilities. And so that’s where staff had a little bit of pause 14 when analyzing the application, but ultimately came to the conclusion that because of the shortened 15 height and then the materials chosen, the design was appropriate. 16 And then in terms of design, bell tower is an explicitly listed stealth technology option in 17 3.8.13(C)(15) of the Land Use Code…that is a supplementary regulation that deals with wireless 18 telecommunications facilities. The City of Fort Collins has a stealth requirement for all wireless 19 telecommunications facilities, meaning that you can’t just put up a pole with antennas hanging off of it; 20 you have to conceal the antennas and make it look integral to the site in some way. And so, bell towers 21 are explicitly listed as an option in that Land Use Code standard. For those reasons, staff finds the 22 proposal meets criterion three. 23 Criterion four essentially states that there’s no nuisance from the site that is above and beyond 24 any of the other permitted uses in the zone district. So that includes things like smoke, odor, glare, 25 environmental impacts, adverse effects to public facilities, those sorts of things. The proposed use does 26 not propose any greater impact than the other permitted uses, so staff finds that the proposal meets 27 criterion four. 28 Criterion five states that this use won’t change the predominant character of the area. As shown 29 in these other images, there are lots of bell towers and steeples on church sites throughout the community 30 and those don’t necessarily define the character of those neighborhoods, and so staff finds that this 31 proposal meets criterion five since this bell tower will not come to define this neighborhood as well from 32 a character perspective. 33 Criterion six states that the use is compatible with the other permitted uses. As stated through a 34 couple of these other criteria, wireless telecommunications is an allowed use in every zone district in the 35 city, so the compatibility is really dependent on the design, and since staff is recommending approval 36 based on criterion number three, staff also finds the proposal meets criterion number six. 37 Criterion seven required two neighborhood meetings, one before…or sorry, one post-conceptual 38 review but before submittal of the development application, and one after one round of review with the 39 City of Fort Collins. Staff held two neighborhood meetings, one on March 23rd, 2017, that occurred 40 before submittal of the project by the applicant. The second neighborhood meeting we convened on 41 January 31st, 2018, after one round of review. So staff finds the proposal meets criterion seven. 10 1 And then criterion eight requires that the use not be marijuana-related, which this is not, so staff 2 finds the proposal meets criterion eight. Staff finds that the application complies with the APU criteria in 3 Section 1.3.4, and that the application also complied with relevant standards in Article II of the Land Use 4 Code, so staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve 5 the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use PDP 170017, and that 6 concludes staff’s presentation. 7 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Looking at the time, I guess let’s take a ten-minute 8 break because we try to take a break around eight o’clock for the media folks to do what they need to do. 9 So, let’s take a ten-minute break and then we’ll come back, and we’ll open it up for citizen participation 10 at that point. 11 (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Welcome back to the May 17th, 2018, City of Fort Collins Planning and 13 Zoning hearing. We’re on our sixth item tonight, which is the Century Wireless Telecommunications 14 Facility and Addition of Permitted Use PDP 170017. We just got done with staff’s analysis following the 15 applicant’s presentation. So, before we move it into pubic comment, is there any clarifying questions that 16 we’d like to ask staff at this point? 17 I just have one. Clay, is there a reason why on your map, or on the applicant’s map, there was the 18 tower that’s at Shields and Horsetooth, why that was never indicated or put on those maps for coverage? 19 MR. FRICKEY: It might be because it’s owned by a different carrier. I believe AT&T is the 20 carrier on that site, in which case, Verizon wouldn’t have data showing what area that covers since they 21 use different technology. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, the coverage maps were Verizon-only coverage? 23 MR. FRICKEY: Correct. 24 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Do we know who co-locates at the Shields and Horsetooth, or is there just 25 one company on that tower. 26 MR. FRICKEY: AT&T is on that tower. 27 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And that’s the only provider on that tower? Okay. Now I’d like to open 28 it up for citizen participation. Again, this is your chance to address the Board, ask questions about this 29 item on tonight’s agenda. Please come down to the podium; you’ll have three minutes to speak. Please 30 sign in, state your name for the record. Can I see a show of hands of how many people would like to 31 address the Board on this item? Okay, seeing a couple, there are two podiums, so if you would come 32 down, line up…that way we can make it expeditious. And make sure that you ask the questions to the 33 Board so that we can take notes and then make sure that those questions get addressed and answered after 34 you speak. So, see who’s going to sign in first. So, alright, sir, if you’re ready, go ahead. 35 MR. WILL MOORE: Yes, my name is Will Moore; I’m a resident of Fort Collins and I live 36 approximately 500 feet southwest of the proposed project in Village in Four Seasons townhomes. My 11 1 question is, are there any potential health concerns, if any, due to exposure from radio frequency waves 2 for those who live in close proximity to the proposed project? That’s my question. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: That’s it? 4 MR. MOORE: That’s it. 5 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Sir, if you’re ready, go ahead. 6 MR. MIKE MOSES: My name is Mike Moses; my family and I live at 3706 Coronado Avenue, 7 which is just a couple blocks south of the location. And, first of all, I’ve attended both of the 8 neighborhood meetings, and I want to give my compliments to the staff and also the professional people 9 from Atlas who provided a lot of information and answering questions late into the evening on both of 10 those occasions. I’m a Verizon customer; I have zero cell service at my house. I can’t make a phone call, 11 in fact I cannot even receive a text. This impacts me in two ways. One, I’m a small business owner, so I 12 have daily disruptions anytime I work from my home office and work with my employees or work with 13 my clients. But, more importantly, it’s a safety issue. I cannot access emergency services through 911 14 from my house. And more disheartening is on several occasions, I’ve missed emergency calls from both 15 my elderly parents and my children. So, I can tell you there’s nothing more saddening than not being able 16 to provide help when a family member wants to reach out. So, I’m a big proponent of this tower and I 17 want to encourage you to vote in support of its approval. Thank you. 18 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, sir, go ahead. 19 MR. JAMES ANDERSON: I’m James Anderson; I’m the current pastor of Southside Baptist 20 Church, and we just wanted to say that we appreciate your looking favorably with this project as we can 21 help serve our community a little bit better as a church. Thank you. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Mam, when you’re ready, go ahead. 23 MS. NATALIE STERLING: My name is Natalie Sterling. While I do agree that there is a need 24 for this cell tower, I find the design very disappointing…even feels a little lazy…and I really believe it’s 25 going to stick out like a sore thumb in that neighborhood. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 27 address the Board and ask questions? Again, this will be your only chance to ask questions of the Board, 28 so…alright, seeing none, I’m going to go ahead and close citizen participation and bring it back to staff or 29 the applicant to address a couple of the questions that were brought up. 30 MR. FRICKEY: So, to begin, I’ll address Will Moore’s question about radio frequency 31 emissions. The Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits cities from considering health impacts as part 32 of the decision-making process for wireless telecommunications facilities, so staff did not perform any 33 sort of analysis on the potential health impacts on this facility. And that’s the only question I’ll address, 34 thank you. 35 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Any other follow-up from citizen participation from 36 the applicant team? 12 1 MR. RAM NANDIRAJU: Good evening; Ram Nandiraju, Verizon Wireless…RF engineer. I 2 just wanted to add…just, the question about RF emissions. Since the emissions that are produced out of 3 wireless facility are generally pretty low, there are so significant impact to…or any health concerns. So, 4 the power density level…ground level power density levels…are well below acceptable thresholds set by 5 FCC…thousands of loads below. So, there are no health concerns. Thank you. 6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Any other follow-up comments? No? Okay, I’ll bring 7 it back to the Board for questions of staff or the applicant team. Who would like to start? Ruth? 8 BOARDMEMBER RUTH ROLLINS: Yes, I have a question for Clay. Clay, when you 9 contacted…and I believe it was on the southeast corner of Shields and Horsetooth…the property manager 10 of that location…you asked if there was co-location. Did you ask if there could be an additional tower? 11 MR. FRICKEY: Yeah…so, I did not personally ask for an additional tower. The applicant 12 indicated in their narrative they had asked for an additional tower at that location and were not able to 13 secure a location there. Staff would not feel comfortable asking for leases on these properties, so I was 14 more confirming the existing capacity on the tower at that site. 15 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Other questions? Michael? 16 BOARDMEMBER MICHAEL HOBBS: I would like to ask a question of the pastor if that’s 17 possible? Sir, could you come down to the podium please? Is your church the owner of the property or 18 are you leasing the property? 19 MR. ANDERSON: We own the property…been there 45 years. 20 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: You certainly have a nice large piece of property that is 21 undoubtedly very valuable at this point. Do you have plans on the board for…I don’t mean with the City, 22 but do you have plans that you are willing to talk about or can talk about for…I’m curious as to whether 23 or not you have development plans for adding on to your church or whatever for that remaining north part 24 of your property. 25 MR. ANDERSON: Not at the moment, no. We have talked about doing some, like a baseball, 26 football, you know, activity area, but that’s about all. 27 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: And what is the nature of, or length of, the lease that you’ve 28 negotiated or would enter into with Atlas Tower? Is it an in-perpetuity lease, is it a 20-year lease, what’s 29 the term of the lease? 30 MR. ANDERSON: I believe it’s 40 years…it’s 5 years renewable…is that correct? Yeah, it’s 20 31 years plus renewable after that. 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay. 33 MR. ANDERSON: Yes sir. 34 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Thank you. 35 MR. ANDERSON: You’re welcome. 13 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Other questions? Okay, I guess I have…okay…do you mind? Okay. So, 2 Clay, when you were going through the analysis of the other facilities, the churches with the steeples and 3 bell towers and what have you, it looked to me like the maximum height difference between a bell tower 4 versus the top of the existing structure is approximately maybe twice the size? Is that an accurate 5 statement, or am I…? 6 MR. FRICKEY: In and around there; that’s fairly accurate. The biggest…the two biggest 7 disparities would be between the Cavalry Baptist Church…so the steeple is more than double the height 8 of the existing building there, and then same thing with Westminster Presbyterian Church, where it’s 9 more than twice the size as well. Again, the big difference being that those steeples taper of towards the 10 top, and so the bulk is a lot less, so, the perception of the mass is also less from the street. So, that’s 11 really the key distinction in terms of design between the different facilities. 12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. My next question is for the applicant. Do you have other carriers 13 that you’re contracting with other than Verizon, or is Verizon the only one…the only willing participant? 14 Can you disclose that at this time? 15 MR. MICHAEL POWERS: Good evening, my name is Michael Powers and I also work for Atlas 16 Tower; I represent the applicant. We are currently working with T-Mobile and Sprint in this market, as 17 well as AT&T. We currently are primarily working with Verizon as the anchor tenant, in other words, the 18 initial carrier. And based on the nuances of our industry, it is extremely difficult for us to actually 19 negotiate a specific contract with a site for co-location when the initial tenant hasn’t been approved by 20 Planning and Zoning and gone through a building permit process. But, we are currently in talks with 21 others to promote at least one additional carrier onto this location. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And would T-Mobile and Sprint be…use the same facility since they are 23 now joining forces and combining as one organization? 24 MR. POWERS: An excellent question…no one really knows the answer to that. Obviously, the 25 Department of Justice will review that proposed merger, and my guess is that could take at least a year 26 before a decision is made there. That doesn’t change our position as potential developer of this site. We 27 market all of our sites in all of our locations to all the carriers simultaneously. Generally speaking, our 28 average time to move from one tenant to two, on average, on a national average, is about two and a half 29 years. But in high demand markets like Fort Collins, that time is often considerably shorter. 30 The difficulty with giving you some specifics is, number one, this site hasn’t been 31 approved…recommended for approval, or actually approved, so it’s difficult for us to market it to a 32 second tenant. And, additionally, we don’t necessarily know exactly what the needs of the other carriers 33 are. We present them potential locations, and generally speaking, in the areas that are hard to zone for 34 this use, we generally get quick lease up. I’m sorry if that’s a vague answer, but that’s the best answer I 35 can give you based on the information I have at this time. 36 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Since we’ve had other applications come through in the past year, 37 12 months…in the past it has been indicated that there is future technology, new technology, that would 38 make the sizes of those antennas smaller so you would not need the height in order to get the same 39 coverage. Has that technology come to fruition or is it still that you need the taller antennas in order to 40 get the coverage that you’re…? 14 1 MR. POWERS: What I can tell you for certain is the trend over the last five years has been for 2 the antennas to actually get bigger and taller and heavier. That’s been a consistent trend easily for the last 3 five years. There is some talk about a 5G standard, but that is probably years away from full adoption by 4 the international standards and actually being implemented into communities. We really don’t have any 5 good insight in terms of what that will look like, or whether or not that technology will be utilized at this 6 location or at any specific location. We do have an RF engineer here with Verizon staff who might be 7 able to answer your question with more specificity as to what the specific sizes are that they’re using in 8 this market now. 9 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Because I know in the past, you’ve indicated with the reduction that 10 technology is trying to make them smaller instead of larger, so that’s a different answer than what we’ve 11 heard in the recent past, as far as size of the antennas, so… 12 MR. POWERS: Well, I guess I’m saying two things; I’m saying in the last five years, we’ve seen 13 nothing but the antennas getting larger and more voluminous, particularly in hard-to-zone areas because 14 of the desire of the carriers to bring on as robust of an array as possible know that there aren’t other 15 locations available to offload the size and number of antennas that they need. 16 On the other hand, sure, there’s lots of talk about the next technology. And there is indication 17 that in the future, at some time unknown in the future, the 5G standard may be adopted, and it may be 18 implemented in the communities. And that equipment could conceivably be considerably smaller. It’s 19 propagation patterns may be totally different from 4G; there’s quite a few unknowns. I’m sorry that I’m 20 no better than anyone else in this room at predicting the future, but hopefully, yes, hopefully the 21 technology will get smaller and more easy to install and less intrusive in the future, but we can only deal 22 with what we have in the present in terms of trying to improve the network. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. 24 MR. POWERS: Thank you. 25 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Michael, do you have other questions? 26 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yeah, I have a question I think probably for Ken. The…one of the 27 issues with kind of the mass and scaling of this involves the legs and how big they are. And, so I want to 28 ask you a question about…that this is described as clad in brick. I assume that means around H-beams or 29 I-beams, whatever the leg, the internal part, the structural part of the legs are? 30 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, that’s right. So, the legs themselves won’t be brick, but there will be 31 brick cladding around them, so it’ll look like brick. 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: It would seem to me that a tower like this has to be built with some 33 flexibility in…for wind loading. And, flexibility and brick doesn’t seem to go together with me. So, my 34 question for you is, have you used that sort of brick-clad tower legs in other installations and have 35 experience with that? 36 MR. BRADTKE: So, Atlas Tower hasn’t, but Stealth, the manufacturer that did the photo sims 37 and provided us the cladding, they use it quite a bit. It’s sort of almost…if it’s like the sample we have in 38 our office, it’s almost like a foam. But, I know that it’s all engineered towards IBC standards and all that 15 1 kind of stuff, and it doesn’t impact wind loading and we will still provide, as part of our building permit 2 process, all the engineer drawings and, you know, we go above and beyond to meet all of the wind 3 loading and that kind of stuff. 4 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: So, you’re saying it’s not real brick, it’s like a faux brick of some 5 sort? 6 MR. BRADTKE: That’s right, yeah. 7 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay. 8 MR. BRADTKE: And they actually go out to the site; they take pictures, they go and they 9 actually touch the brick at the site, and they go to their, sort of, manufacturing plant, and they make the 10 specifically to match the brick on site. So, it’s not just one user all brick; they actually engineer it to 11 match specifically with the property. 12 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, so my next question is, when you were in front of this Board 13 just several months ago and we were going over the Turnberry cell tower…again…we…that tower ended 14 up being approved for 45 feet, not 55 feet, and we were under the assumption at that point, as Chairman 15 Schneider alluded to, that having that reduction was probably going to mean that you couldn’t co-locate 16 on that tower anymore, that it was going to be a single-use tower. And that was a concern to us because 17 we didn’t want to necessarily just create need for more towers. So, we understand both from a business 18 perspective for you and for the community, it may in fact be the best solution to co-locate. But at that 19 hearing, you or one of your team, stated that even though it was 45 feet, with some of the new antenna 20 capabilities and smaller antennas, that you would be still able to co-locate on that. And so, we’re hearing 21 something a little bit different thus far. Can you clear that up for us? 22 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, I know every location is a little different, but certainly there’s, you know, 23 there’s the ability to provide optimal coverage and so we always just try and meet the target we’re given 24 by the carrier, which in this case was a 50-foot rad center, so a 55-foot tower. As you go down, there’s 25 definitely degradation in service that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s, you know, no service provided. 26 And, you know, if we, you know, if you’re reduced to a lower height, does that completely eliminate co- 27 location? Not necessarily, but it could. It just sort of depends on, you know, future carriers and their 28 network needs. So, I know we’ve had sites in the past where a carrier approaches us and they want to co- 29 locate on something we’ve built. We tell them the height and they say no thanks, it doesn’t work for us. 30 And other times, we’ve had structures that aren’t super tall, that are, you know, 55, 60 feet, and we’re 31 able to get a second tenant on there without issue. So, I think it’s sort of a case-by-case basis, but, you 32 know, taller is definitely better, I think. That existing tower that’s across the street is a good example of, 33 you know, I’m not sure what the height of that is…I think it’s a pretty small, slim pole from my 34 understanding, so…that’s kind of a good example of, you know, if you build it too small, you can’t get a 35 second tenant on there. So, yeah, I guess that’s how I’d answer that question. 36 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, one more question or two. Clay, could you put up the picture 37 of the tower…showing the artist rendering of the tower on the site please? I think it’s page 118 in our 38 packet…it may be coming from a different presentation. Maybe the one from the other side? Yeah, that 39 one. So, it was explained to us in work session…there’s three sets of panels on there, and those are not 40 just designed…is it correct that those three sets of panels indicate the…where the cross is, the top one, 41 that would be the primary and initial antenna site, and then the next one down which is at this 36-foot 16 1 level, or 38-foot level, is co-location number two, and then the bottom one at 26-feet is co-location 2 number three? 3 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, that’s correct. The panels are somewhat decorative, but yeah, they 4 basically screen the antenna locations. So they’re there to cover the antennas basically. 5 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, thank you. 6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Bill? 7 BOARDMEMBER WILLIAM WHITLEY: I have a design question. Looking at the artist 8 rendering of the simulation and comparing it to the drawing, they don’t look like the same tower. The 9 proportions are entirely different. Which one is correct? 10 MR. BRADTKE: So, we did…at our second neighborhood meeting, the design was one of the 11 bigger things, and I think staff had recommended us to kind of see what we could do to come up with 12 something alternative. So, it actually took a long time. We had several meetings with Stealth, our tower 13 manufacturer. So, this is what we came up with to sort of address those concerns. And so this would be 14 the design…I think in the original submittal, it was more just kind of all white and it looked slightly 15 different, but this would be the design provided to us by our manufacturer. So, they would basically 16 engineer this to how they designed it. 17 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: On page 115, the tower looks rather squat and wide, and rather 18 unattractive, whereas the simulations look more elegant and perhaps more…it says bell tower to me a lot 19 more than cell tower. 20 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah…I don’t think we updated the construction drawings, or the zoning 21 drawings, once we had this new design done. So that’s, I think, my…but, again, this design was done to 22 basically address the comments which were kind of similar to what you’re echoing, was, people didn’t 23 really love the aesthetic, so we tried to make something that looked a little bit more elegant while still 24 being able to, you know, house our equipment and all that kind of stuff. 25 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, thank you. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Ruth? 27 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: So, I have a question. When I’m looking at the plans, it looks 28 like the enclosed area is 40 feet by 40 feet? 29 MR. BRADTKE: Correct. 30 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And so, that’s an area of 1,600 square feet? 31 MR. BRADTKE: Correct. 32 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. So, when I come to the applicant’s…what do they call 33 it…exhibit three, where they are talking to other property owners in the area, and I look at location 34 number six, which is the gas station, it says that the proposed facility needs around 2,500 square feet. So, 35 I…you know…why is there that difference there? Is it really 1,600 and would this possibly work on this 17 1 facility? And the reason I’m asking this, Clay, is because when I look at your pictorial display of service 2 versus no service, it seems to make sense to get this as close…closer to the intersection of Harmony [sic] 3 and Shields, because then you have a bigger area and less overlap over to College. You know, you’re 4 providing better coverage as you get closer and closer to this intersection. With the current site, it’s closer 5 to where you already, kind of, have coverage, if you look at it that way. 6 My second thing is, when they looked at various…number 19…various residential properties, it 7 says these properties are not zoned preferentially and are too small, and the land use is incompatible with 8 the wireless telecommunications facility. So, it seems odd to use that as a reason not to go and explore 9 those properties when that’s exactly what they’re proposing to do with the church site. So, I don’t know 10 if you can answer that, or the applicant needs to address that…? 11 MR. FRICKEY: It’s in the applicant’s narrative, so I’ll let the applicant answer those questions. 12 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Thank you. 13 MR. POWERS: So, again, Michael Powers for the applicant. I’ll do my best to answer your 14 questions in the order you stated them, but if I miss something, please catch me. 15 So, the 2,500 square foot ground space listed in item number six is simply the result of our staff 16 using our standard footprint for a generic site when we’re trying to lease. In other words, when we go to 17 a landlord, the industry standard is a 50 by 50 square, and the reason for that is that typically is the size 18 that will accommodate four carriers and allow for the structure in a square confined space. But, you’re 19 correct to note that that number doesn’t have much accuracy when you look at property number six, the 20 Southling Company. Quite frankly, that particular property doesn’t have 25 by 25 feet…it doesn’t have 21 any space available. That parcel is almost entirely utilized by the existing owner. So, generally speaking 22 on this list, I could go through all of them, but where size was noted as a restricting criteria, in other 23 words, space available, land that wasn’t being utilized by the primary purpose of the land owner not being 24 available, we weren’t necessarily saying we need 2,500 square feet, we were saying, do you have any 25 space available? Properties…I did most of this work on the second round, in other words, we had one 26 member of our staff do an initial scrub and talk to every single land owner. And then later in the 27 process…we’ve been working on this site for over two years…I went back and talked to as many land 28 owners as I could possibly meet with. And so, I’m pretty well aware of the nuances of each of these 29 properties. 30 Properties number 6 plus 13 through 17, there’s literally no space available for us to build 31 anything that would be co-locatable. 32 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Right, and what about 19? 33 MR. POWERS: So, 19, okay…so, 19 has a similarity to this parcel that we’re proposing in the 34 sense that it doesn’t meet the zoning code’s exact criteria to allow for a structure. But, the big difference 35 is, in the 19 area, basically our structure would be closer to residential, and there is no parcel that has the 36 amount of available unused space for this proposed facility, you know, in comparison to the parcel that 37 we’re proposing on. I mean, just as a practical matter, it’s almost impossible to get a residential owner, a 38 home owner, to lease space for this use. And all of these parcels are extremely small, so it’s still the same 39 problem; it’s a space problem. There isn’t enough space on any of these parcels to logically make this 40 facility make sense or get approved by this Board. 18 1 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 2 MR. POWERS: Thank you. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other questions? Alright, I guess my last question is…I’m having a 4 little bit of heartburn or concern about the height and compatibility. I mean, it’s a similar conversation 5 that we had on prior projects and what have you. Just, when you’re putting these into residential zones 6 and what have you, when you look at the size versus the building, I’m just having a little bit of hardship. 7 So, if we were to make it contingent based on 45 feet, does that drop one of the potential carriers so then 8 it could be just two carriers? Is that ultimately what would happen, or…depends on technology, again, in 9 the future. Can you address that at all? 10 MR. POWERS: Thank you; Michael Powers, again, at the podium. Thank you, sir, for the 11 opportunity to answer your question. Again, I regret that my answer is going to be vague, but generally 12 speaking, the carriers seek 10 feet of separation from each installation. The typical panel size that’s 13 commonly used with today’s technology is an 8-foot panel, sometimes as short as a 7-foot panel, but a 6- 14 foot panel is very unusual. When you assume an 8-foot panel plus 10 feet of separation, and then you’re 15 starting with a maximum height of 45 feet, that means the center of what’s called the rad, the center of the 16 first antenna, is going to be 4 feet below 45 feet, so now we’re at 41 feet. The bottom of that antenna is 17 going to be at 37 feet, and if we create even a very minimal amount of separation, the second carrier’s rad 18 center is going to be in the low 30’s at best. And then, obviously, I’m not doing the math because I’m not 19 that quick on my feet, but basically, the third tenant is now going to be at a height that’s below the 20 neighboring building and well below what you might call the clutter. So, the height of the neighboring 21 houses and trees and foliage and so on. So, sure, would it be useful for a second tenant? Yes. Would it 22 be useful for a third tenant? I think the likelihood declines, but it’s impossible for me to say yes or no 23 necessarily. 24 This is the tough part about this type of a hearing…height matters; it matters a lot. And the RF 25 engineer from Verizon can speak to that with specificity, but in the end, the taller the structure, the more 26 useful the structure is, the better the co-locatability is, and the more likely the community is going to get 27 multiple users to get use out of it. And it’s not…there’s not like a specific no-go height, so it’s hard for 28 me to give you a specific height at which a third tenant would be impossible. 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I appreciate that, but I also know that there’s other towers that you guys 30 have done in the last 12 months that you proposed a certain height, and settled on, you know, even 40 to 31 45 feet within Larimer County, not even within the City. With me sitting on the Larimer County Board of 32 Appeals, you know, we’ve had other projects come through where you started at X height then came 33 down just to accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and everything else as well, so it’s not 34 undoable, it’s just not preferred I guess too…so… 35 MR. POWERS: Yeah, and I can say this with specificity, of the few towers, structures, that we’ve 36 built in Fort Collins and in Larimer County generally that were 45 feet or less, to date, we don’t have a 37 single second tenant. Is that because of the height? I think probably to some degree, but it could be a 38 whole bunch of other factors as well, it’s impossible for me to say. 39 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. 40 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: I have one question. 19 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Go ahead Ruth. 2 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: The…we had an example, Clay, where there was a cell service 3 out of the steeple, and then there was also a bell tower. Did you speak to the church at all about somehow 4 locating within their steeple…? 5 MR. POWERS: Based on the specific criteria we were given from Verizon in terms of what they 6 needed for their network, we did not, because the height was not sufficient for them to meet their specific 7 goals. 8 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And how about reconstructing the steeple such that it is high…I 9 mean like rebuilding the steeple such that it’s a little bit higher, but it’s contained within the steeple. You 10 know, not using the existing steeple, reconstructing the steeple. 11 MR. POWERS: Anything is possible, but the practical elements of such a proposal make a site 12 like this extremely difficult and expensive. And we did not…we did not explore that for that reason. 13 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 14 MR. FRICKEY: And, Ruth, I can provide…Boardmember Rollins, rather, sorry, I can provide a 15 response to that as well. So, the church at Cavalry Baptist…that steeple, that entire structure, did not 16 exist. They added it to the front of the structure. The current site at 620 West Horsetooth…the issue is 17 the steeple is already built into the roof of the building, and so it would likely require some pretty 18 significant changes to the existing building, not just to the steeple. So, there’s some practical limitations 19 there too that are different between the two sites. 20 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jennifer? 21 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: This may be a strange question, Clay, but if the 22 church came and wanted to build an actual bell tower on their property like this, what would the 23 procedure be, and would they be able to do that? 24 MR. FRICKEY: The procedure would be a minor amendment; it would be an accessory structure 25 and accessory use to the existing church building. Since these structures don’t have ceilings and they’re 26 not enclosing anything, they’re not technically buildings, so the building height restrictions would not 27 apply. So, they could build a bell tower 100 feet tall with no wireless equipment in it and they would be 28 fine, and it would be approved at the staff level. 29 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 30 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, any other questions or can we move to deliberation? Seeing 31 none, let’s go ahead and move into deliberation. Anyone would like to start? Michael? 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I’d be glad to. My issue is the, kind of, mass and scaling of it. 33 And, I think that putting a condition of reducing it to 45 feet, I think that would be a compromise that 34 would not only reduce the size in terms of the height, but I would strongly believe and hope that that 35 would also enable them to decrease, kind of, the weight and heft of the structure to some extent as well; 20 1 the diameter of the legs perhaps, the size of the panels a little bit. I think that that would do more than 2 just knock 10 feet off the top, that it would reduce the look of it. It just looks overly heavy to me. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other comments? 4 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Well, I agree with Michael; I look at these photos and I…it seems 5 absolutely overwhelming to me. And so that’s…what I had in my mind was can you knock that first…the 6 top panel off and start from underneath there. I don’t know what that height is, Clay, because our 7 drawings don’t match what’s in the pictures. 8 MR. FRICKEY: So, to be clear, they do match. So, the updated drawings are the same, they 9 should match the photo simulations. The photo simulations don’t have a scale bar next to them, but staff 10 did receive an updated packet that indicated the changes in the tower based on the neighborhood meeting. 11 So, to be clear, we do have the most updated set of drawings as part of your packet for your consideration 12 this evening. 13 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, so when I look at that, then, would you say that taking the 14 top piece of that off, is that 10 feet, or is that more than 10 feet? 15 MR. FRICKEY: So, based on the images provides, the middle of the second panel is 16 approximately 38 feet, so about to the top of that would be in the realm of 40 feet, somewhere in that next 17 of the woods. So, taking off the top panel, you’re looking around 40 to 45 feet. 18 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. 19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Clay, just for clarification, we’re looking at page 115 in our packet? 20 Because that seems to me like the side…those panels are a lot larger than what’s indicated in the photo 21 simulation? 22 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I don’t see any similarity between the two; basically, they are 23 two different designs as far as I can see, proportion wise. Page 115…so if they are the same drawing… 24 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: It’s not a good picture…simulation… 25 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Something is wrong. It seems to me there’s clearly not a match 26 in the drawings either…to the drawings and the photo sims. I mean, is that really what you’re saying? 27 That page 115 is the same proportions as the simulation? 28 MR. FRICKEY: I’m saying staff has the most updated set of drawings, not necessarily that 29 they’re the same proportions; that would be up for the photo simulation folks to prove. Since we don’t 30 have a scale bar, I can’t compare the two and say, yes, they’re the same, or no, they’re different. 31 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, staff has that, do we have it? 32 MR. FRICKEY: I’m saying staff does not…yes, so your packet is the same thing that staff 33 reviewed, so you’re getting the same set of information that staff reviewed in writing the staff report. All 34 I’m saying is that, since there’s no scale bar on the photo simulations, it’s impossible to compare the two 35 images apples to apples. Do they look different? Yes. Is it…can I say that they are different or are they 36 exactly the same? No, because there’s no basis for comparison. 21 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Who did the photo simulations? Was it done by the City? 2 MR. FRICKEY: No; the applicant provided those images. 3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 4 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, I think we can agree that the photo simulation is not maybe a clear 5 depiction of what the plans indicate, looking at the scale of the height of the building compared to what’s 6 on here from an elevation standpoint. 7 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I guess my confusion is that the applicant said that the 8 simulations were the more accurate representation than the drawing. And you’re saying that they’re the 9 same, so I’m confused. 10 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: No, he’s not saying it’s the same; he’s just saying he has the most current 11 information, but because there’s no scale on that photo simulation, there’s no way to compare the two 12 other than us looking at this bottom panel being at 26 feet and looking at, if we would have put the 13 simulation up on the screen, and looking at it compared to the height of the overall church with what 14 we’ve been told is the height of the church, that’s the only way that we could compare the two. Because, 15 the overall height of the church is approximately 20…? 16 MR. FRICKEY: To the top of the roof, correct. 17 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And so, what we’re saying is, the bottom of that is 26 feet according to 18 the drawing, and on this it’s definitely not 26…that bottom panel is definitely a lot lower than what the 19 simulation shows, is all I’m trying to say. 20 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: We need to look at the drawings, the plans, not the photo 21 simulation. It just doesn’t…we don’t have any way to know if it’s accurate, because, as Clay said, there’s 22 no scale on it, so you can’t tell if it’s accurate even. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Well, but we can tell pretty easily if it’s 20 feet to the top of the roof and 24 it’s 26 feet to the bottom of this panel, that that simulation… 25 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Right, so I think we should be looking at the drawings. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Correct. 27 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, thank you. 28 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: So, last time we did this, did we…I think we recommended a 29 reduced height and got concurrence from the applicant that that would be acceptable? Or are we just 30 looking at taking this as is? That’s a question. 31 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Council had already looked at it an indicated that they had 32 conditioned it to 45. 33 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: No, that’s not correct. 22 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No? 2 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: No; when we were at the APU process, staff had recommended a 3 reduction to 45 feet from 50 or 55 feet. And so, the staff report was recommending a condition of 4 approval of reducing the height to 45 feet, correct? 5 MR. FRICKEY: Correct, and this Board denied that application the first go around of P and Z, 6 and then Council applied those conditions, and then it came back to the Board for the second meeting and 7 that’s where the Board confirmed those conditions. 8 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Well, it wasn’t a second reading for us, it was actually a review of 9 the PDP, because the APU had already been accepted. 10 MR. FRICKEY: By second time, I meant second time back to the Board, not second reading, but 11 the second hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, so we’re saying the same thing. 12 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, thank you Clay. 13 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, the Board denied the addition of permitted use, not the tower itself 14 originally. So, again, that’s what we’re looking at is the additional permitted use on this property, and 15 they’re requesting the 55-foot tower. And so, if the Board wishes to make a modification to that to 45 16 feet, that would be part of the recommendation to Council in the motion. 17 Any other discussion or can I entertain a motion? 18 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I would make a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning 19 Board recommend for approval the APU for the Century Wireless Transmission [sic] Facility with the 20 condition that the maximum height of the structure is reduced to 45 feet, and that that would be based 21 upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this 22 hearing, and our discussion on this item. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: We have a motion, is there a second? 24 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Second. 25 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, comments, final comments? Any comments? Michael? 26 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I still think that the simulation is a bit misleading, visually. So, 27 I’m not happy with that. It doesn’t give me a true sense of the massing and scale and proportions of the 28 final product. 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, would that mean that you’re going to vote against this, or…? 30 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: That’s correct. 31 CHAIR SCHNEDIER: Okay, Jennifer? 32 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’ll support the motion; I just have…I guess it kind of gives 33 me pause that an actual bell tower could go in here at this size. And, yet we’re reducing it because it’s a 23 1 cell tower. I think we need to maybe look at these again in work session or whatever. I’ll support the 2 motion because I think that’s what, you know, is going to pass and I don’t want to vote against it just 3 because I think it would be okay being a little bit higher. But, it’s something I’d like to look at again in 4 work session. 5 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Can I ask a question of either Cameron or Clay, or Brad? 6 Because of this simulation, when this goes forward to City Council, is there any way that the plans, or 7 some plan, to scale, could show the church and the steeple in relationship to the tower? Because we don’t 8 see that on the plans, you know, we don’t actually see a scaled drawing. So, I’m just asking if, when this 9 is forwarded, that can be done, or is that…? 10 MR. FRICKEY: Yes. 11 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, I think that would be helpful for Council because we’re 12 somewhat questioning that, and if it’s actually a scaled drawing, that might help them. 13 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other final comments? So, Jennifer, I agree with you that I’ll support 14 this. I would have huge concerns if it was a bell tower and it came in at 100 feet and staff just said, yeah, 15 go for it. And, again, it goes back to compatibility and size and the surrounding area. So, I would hope 16 that that wouldn’t move forward without some sort of conversation. So, I think my decision based on this 17 is purely a compatibility standpoint with surrounding and looking at the massing of this proposed bell 18 tower versus other churches and bell towers in our city, and I think it’s more of a true comparison of 19 compatibility and a mass issue. So, with that, roll call please. 20 MS. GERBER: Hobbs? 21 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes. 22 MS. GERBER: Carpenter? 23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 24 MS. GERBER: Rollins? 25 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes. 26 MS. GERBER: Whitley? 27 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: No. 28 MS. GERBER: Schneider? 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Yes. So, with that, the recommendation is forwarded to Council with the 30 condition. From: Nikki Higgins To: Clay Frickey Subject: Fwd: Cell tower Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:58:36 PM Hello Mr. Frickey, I hope I am not too late, but I was unable to attend the meeting a couple of weeks ago regarding the proposed Cell Tower on Horsetooth Road at First Baptist Church. I am deeply disturbed by this proposal and strongly oppose it. I am attaching the email I had sent to you and Rick Cagle back in March. Please add this to the opposition. Regards, Nikki Higgins ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nikki Higgins <nikkiaija@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:31 PM Subject: Cell tower To: rick.cagle@aol.com Cc: cfrickey@fcgov.com Hello Mr. Cagel, It was a pleasure meeting you last night, thank you for inviting the community into your church to discuss this proposal. I must admit, when I found out that a church was proposing a health risk to my family, I was outraged. This location is in a densely populated area, and it is sandwiched between Lopez Elementary and Beattie Elementary. Learning House is also very close, and as someone mentioned at the meeting, there is also a school in your church. I have two children myself, ages 9 and 11, and I do my best to protect their health as fiercely as I can. Their dad has early onset dementia, so keeping us all strong and healthy is a huge priority. Naturally, proponents of the cell tower will dig up the "research" that supports that there is "no risk" to human health. I believe the tobacco industry played a similar role, didn't they? There is mounting evidence that EMRs are harmful, and even if we are uncertain, do we really want to take the chance with something as important as our health? What will happen when the dangers become widely accepted; how will we ever remove these towers once they are in place? In 2011, Fort Collins rejected a similar proposal from AT&T because neighborhood opposition was too formidable. In 2015, the Southridge Golf Course community did the same, out of concern for property values and the impact on health. In 2016, it was University Acres. ATTACHMENT 3 Let me be clear, we do not need a cell phone tower in OUR neighborhood either. I’d like to talk about what happened at University Acres. At issue were the potential health impacts from the cell tower’s close proximity to a residential neighborhood and Lesher Middle School, similar to the current proposed location. Residents uncovered more than 6000 studies showing harm from electromagnetic radiation (EMR). All of this, coupled with the emergence of new science, emboldened the community to speak out. In the University Acres situation, something set this community apart. Unlike so many churches across the US, which have never informed their congregation of the microwave radiation raining down from above, only yards away in their church tower, LifePointe Church invited the community to openly express its view, much as you have. I am grateful that Southside Baptist Church has done the same. The compassion from the LifePointe elders was stunning; someone said it felt like being suddenly catapulted back to a previous era, a time when character and caring took precedence over economic imperatives and big corporate interests. The meeting at LifePointe featured two presenters, an expert in non-ionizing radiation and a researcher who presented an emerging scientific theory, which connects the current pandemic of chronic disease in America with a single molecule in the body. The presenter calls the dangerous ion, peroxynitrite, P- Factor. P-Factor is apparently triggered in the body from excessive sugar and various environmental toxins — most notably microwave radiation from wireless signals. I’d like to note that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible carcinogen – are these chances we want to take in our community? With our children? I'd like to note that I was very disappointed in our neighborhood's turnout for this meeting. After speaking with some neighbors, many received the letter just a few days prior to the meeting and could not rearrange schedules, or did not receive it at all. University Acres had time to rally, research, organize - and even fly in presenters to support their concerns. Please don't take the small showing as indication that all is well with our neighbors. Many are outraged. It is my hope that the church will see the light and the impact this can have on so many lives. Please do the right thing and protect our health, especially the health of our children. According to the New Testament, this week would be the week that Jesus threw the merchants and the money changers out of the temple. Let’s follow his lead! Respectfully, Nikki Higgins 7/3/18 Century WTF & APU Clay Frickey ATTACHMENT 4 Overview • 55’ tall wireless telecommunications facility • Disguised as bell tower • Located in Low Density Residential (RL) 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 APU Criteria a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. 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. 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 zone district to which it is added. 4 APU Criteria 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 zone district to which it is added. 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. 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. 5 APU Criterion 1 Criterion 1 - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless equipment allowed in RL • Facility vs. equipment • Design, not function Staff finds proposal meets criterion 1 6 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 • RL purpose statement • Existing single-family neighborhoods • Must be designed to fit into neighborhood Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion 2 7 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 8 Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Cities must permit cell towers • May use zoning to control location • Zoning may not result in de facto ban on cell towers 9 10 11 12 APU Criterion 3 • Few parcels with appropriate zoning • Unable to obtain lease on properly zoned properties • Commercial properties at Horsetooth and Shields 13 APU Criterion 3 - Context • Neighborhoods • 1- and 2-story buildings • Mainly single-family homes • Mix of apartments and small multi-family • Commercial centers • 1- and 2-story buildings 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Criterion 3 Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approx. 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. NCL 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) 26 APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings Location • Middle of site • Minimizes impact Size • 55’ tall • In range of other bell towers and steeples Design • Bell tower • Explicitly listed in 3.8.13(C)(15) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 3 27 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 28 APU Criterion 4 • No greater impact than other permitted uses Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4. 29 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. 30 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 • Compatibility dependent on design • Staff found proposal meets criterion 3 Staff finds proposal meets criterion 6 31 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 32 APU Criterion 7 • Held two neighborhood meetings • March 23, 2017 (pre-submittal) • January 31, 2018 (after one round of review) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 7. 33 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 34 Staff Findings • Complies with APU criteria in Section 1.3.4 • Complies with relevant standards in Article 2 35 Planning & Zoning Board Recommendation • May 17 meeting • Recommended approval with a condition • Reduce tower height to 45’ •4-1 vote 36 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. 37 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 089, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTURY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #170017 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #170017 (“PDP#170017”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Residential zone district (“R-L zone”) on the parcel located at 620 W. Horsetooth Road, parcel number 9726379901 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the R-L 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#170017 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#170017; 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 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018; 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 City Code Section 15-452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603; 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 R-L zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, at its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council approve the APU with a condition limiting the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to a maximum 45-foot height; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied for Council to approve the APU. -2- 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 July 3, 2018, 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 and the record of the P&Z hearing, hereby approves the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the R-L zone. Section 3. That the Council imposes the following condition or conditions of approval: [ADD CONDITIONS IF ANY ARE IMPOSED: If Council wishes to add the Planning and Zoning Board recommended condition that height be limited to 45 feet, such condition must be added here.] Section 4. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, [and in consideration of the conditions of approval imposed in above Section 3,] makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) The APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (1) Such use is appropriate in the R-L zone. (2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the R-L zone and the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. (3) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (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 R-L zone. (5) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L zone. -3- (7) 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 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018. (8) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in City Code Section 15- 452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603. (b) The APU is not detrimental to the public good; (c) The APU complies with the applicable requirements and criteria contained in LUC Section 3.5.1; and (d) The APU is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the R-L zone. Section 5. That the Council’s approval of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the development proposal described in PDP#170017 and the associated APU request, [the conditions of approval set forth in above Section 3,] the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing, and the P&Z recommendation and hearing record. Unless otherwise specified as a condition of approval of the APU, any changes to the use or to its location, size, and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use under the LUC. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -1- ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DENYING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTURY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #170017 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #170017 (“PDP#170017”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Residential zone district (“R-L zone”) on the parcel located at 620 W. Horsetooth Road, parcel number 9726379901 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the R-L 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#170017 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#170017; 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 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018; 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 City Code Section 15-452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603; 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 R-L zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, at its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council approve the APU with a condition limiting the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to a maximum 45-foot height; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied for Council to approve the APU. -2- 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 July 3, 2018, 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 and the record of the P&Z hearing, hereby denies the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the R-L 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: [SELECT THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA] (1) The APU fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (1) Such use is not appropriate in the R-L zone. (2) Such use does not conform to the basic characteristics of the R-L zone and the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. (3) The location, size and design of such use is not compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) Such use creates 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 R-L zone. (5) Such use will change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) Such use is not compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L zone. (b) The APU is detrimental to the public good. Section 4. That the Council’s denial of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the development proposal described in PDP#170017 and the associated APU request, the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing, the P&Z hearing record, and consideration of the P&Z recommendation. -3- Section 5. That Council hereby finds, based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing and the May 17, 2018, P&Z hearing record that: [SELECT THE BELOW APPLICABLE CRITERIA] 1. The applicant has failed to establish that a significant gap in coverage exists necessitating the requested wireless telecommunications facility because [ADD ANY FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION]. 2. The applicant has failed to establish that the requested wireless telecommunications facility is the least intrusive means of addressing the existing significant gap in coverage because [ADD ANY FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION]. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. 1740 EAGLEBRIDGE BLVD, STE 140 PUEBLO, CO 81008 NATHANIEL J. MAESTAS, P.L.S. (719) 582-1270 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-A 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, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE) 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 62.7 MILES. TAKE EXIT 265 ONTO HARMONY ROAD, TURN WEST AND FOLLOW FOR 1.5 MILES. TURN RIGHT ONTO ZIEGLER ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 1 MILE. AT THE TRAFFIC CIRLCE, TAKE THE 3RD EXIT ONTO EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 3.1 MILES TO SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. SITE LOCATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 620 HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: CENTURY (DECEMBER 2017) LATITUDE: W 105° 05' 13.689" N 40° 32' 19.442" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. IN THE FORM OF A 1-A CERTIFICATION DATED MARCH 3, 2017. SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 496-8581 TBD FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 97263-79-901 GROUND ELEVATION: 5061.8' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 1600± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL JURISDICTION: CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT OCCUPANCY: SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH Warre n Farm Dr B a le D r Haven Ct W o r t h i n g t o n A v e Gr a n i t e C t R ep u blic D r Stre a m C t Placer St Mayflower Ct Plowman Way M o s s Creek Dr Longhorn Ct Elmhurst Dr Bluebird Ct Omaha Ct Sun Disk Ct Riva Ridge Ln Pl an t e r W a y Fairplay Ct Robin Ct Homestead Ct Bobolink Ct Dennison Ct Dahlia Ct Ensenada Ct Canosa Ct Tiller Ct Colony Ct Citation Ct Tradition Ct Colony Dr Meadowlark Ave Wabash St Manhattan Ave Mcclelland Dr Windmill Dr Rich m o n d D r W Horsetooth Rd Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility © and Addition of Permitted Use Zoning & Vicinity Map 1 inch = 500 feet Site steeples. As stated earlier, Section 3.8.13(C)(15) states bell towers are an appropriate way to meet the stealth technology requirement. Bell towers are common on church properties so the design is appropriate. The applicant has also proposed a location on the site to minimize the impact of this tower on abutting properties. This proposed tower will also not impact the use of adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff finds the proposal meets Criterion C.