Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/17/2017 - CONSIDERATION OF THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNAgenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Consideration of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2017, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018. OR B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2017, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018. The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (the “APU”) being made in conjunction with PDP160018. The APU requests the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“LMN”) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the LMN. PDP160018 proposes a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use request subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PDP160018 proposes the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility at 2008 Turnberry Road. The applicant proposes to disguise the facility as a silo. 2008 Turnberry Road is 4.512 acres in size and contains a single-family detached home with a series of outbuildings. The Maple Hill and Story Book neighborhoods are north and south of the site, with County subdivisions located on the west side of Turnberry Road. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s land extends to the east property line of 2008 Turnberry Road. Wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the zone in which this project is located. Ordinance No. 080, 2015, amended the Land Use Code to require City Council approval for Addition of Permitted Use applications in eight residential zone districts. One of the zone districts in this list is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 2 Regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also apply to wireless telecommunication facility applications. The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains regulations that limit how municipalities can regulate wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities may not ban wireless telecommunication facilities or zone their city in such a way to de facto ban wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities also may not deny applications for wireless telecommunication facilities based on health impacts. Northeast Fort Collins contains few parcels that have zoning that allow wireless telecommunications facilities. The applicant has been unable to obtain a lease with property owners that have properly zoned land. Historically, staff has not invoked section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code dealing with architectural compatibility for wireless telecommunication facilities. Building is a defined term in the Land Use Code. The definition of a building is as follows: Building shall mean any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind, which is governed by the following characteristics: (1) is permanently affixed to the land; (2) has one (1) or more floors and a roof; and (3) is bounded by either open space or the lot lines of a lot. Wireless telecommunications facilities do not provide shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since a wireless telecommunications facility does not meet the definition of a building. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) requires stealth technology for all wireless facilities and equipment. This addresses compatibility issues by requiring wireless projects to blend into their surroundings. Compliance with APU Criteria In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment which facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the LMN zone district. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 3 developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of this AIS. C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the City. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim. In the portion of the City where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have zoning that would allow wireless telecommunications facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser-Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s parcels do not make good candidates for a wireless tower to serve the neighborhoods the provider is looking to serve per the applicant’s project narrative. None of the other parcels in the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one. The property that would enter the City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the applicant’s request for a lease. The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower. Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park, Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District (PSD), the future Northeast Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor PSD allow leases for cell towers on their property. The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd., including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate a site as any in the applicant’s search ring. Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, townhomes, and single-family detached homes on large lots. PSD owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two-story, single-family detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area developing. The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 4 structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site. Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins. Both silos are 30-40 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear integral to the operation of the site. Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process: 1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet. 2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral to the site. These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co-location opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the cell tower be designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement. Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 5 F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. In addition to these criteria, Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) also requires Addition of Permitted Use applications to not be detrimental to the public good, comply with the standards in Section 3.5.1, and not be specifically listed as a prohibited use in the zone district. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not detrimental to the public good. As mentioned earlier, Section 3.5.1 applies to buildings. Wireless telecommunications facilities do meet the definition of a building and so this standard is not applicable. The LMN zone district does not have any uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the application. The Board found the application does not meet the APU criteria in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1). More specifically, the Board found the proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood and does not conform with the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district. PUBLIC OUTREACH Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings:  Concern about radio frequency emissions  The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 6  A 60-foot tower is too tall and obtrusive  Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower  Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report and Materials Provided to Planning & Zoning Board (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 14, 2017 (draft) (PDF) 3. Resident Comments received as of 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2017 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) MEETING DATE Sep. 14, 2017 STAFF Clay Frickey PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNERS: Forbes Kenneth E Jeanette L 2008 Turnberry Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 60 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the LMN zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve, subject to one condition, the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 2  The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met.  The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.  The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards.  The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). COMMENTS: 1. Background The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club East Annexation on September 6, 1983. In 1989, the property owner subdivided property to create the existing lot pattern that exists today. The site has been used as a farm property and contains buildings dating from 1900 to 1950. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Single-family detached residential East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Vacant West County Residential (R) Single-family detached residential 2. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code – General Provisions The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not allowed in the LMN zone. For proposals where a use is not allowed in the zone district but is allowed elsewhere in the City, an applicant may apply for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). An APU will allow the proposed use on this parcel only. In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 3 Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN) zone district. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 4 needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of this staff report. C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the city. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). In the portion of the city where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have zoning that would allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser- Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s parcels do not make good candidates for a wireless tower to serve the neighborhoods the provider is looking to serve per the applicant’s project narrative. None of the other parcels in the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one (attachment 6). The property that would enter the City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the applicant’s request for a lease (attachment 7). The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower. Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 5 Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park, Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District, the future Northeast Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor Poudre School District allow leases for cell towers on their property (attachment 8). The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd., including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate of a site as any in the applicant’s search ring. Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.1.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, townhomes, and single-family detached homes on large lots. Poudre School District (PSD) owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two- story, single-family detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area developing. The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site. Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 6 Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins (attachment 9). Both silos are around 30 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear integral to the operation of the site. Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process: 1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet. 2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral to the site. These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co- location opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 7 cell tower be designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 8 May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review. Section 5 of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.6.6 – Emergency Access The applicant proposes a 20-foot-wide gravel path in an emergency access easement with a turnaround to provide emergency access to the tower. This path will allow emergency vehicles to access the site and provide fire and emergency services pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. B. Section 3.8.13(C)(1) – Setbacks Facilities must be setback from the property one foot for every one foot in the facility’s height. The applicant may also demonstrate the facility is designed to collapse rather than topple to meet this requirement. The proposed facility is 121 feet away from the nearest property line, which meets this requirement. If the conditions of approval for 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the new location of the facility to also satisfy this requirement. C. Section 3.8.13(C)(2) – Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 9 be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. As discussed previously in this staff report, the proposed silo is consistent with the agricultural character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed material, fiberglass, is equal to or better than the materials used on the house and outbuildings located on the development site. D. Section 3.8.13(C)(5) – Fencing Fencing material shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six feet in height. The proposed fence is made of wood and will not exceed six feet in height in accordance with this standard. E. Section 3.8.13(C)(8) – Color Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed color will be a muted green to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods and agricultural uses in accordance with this standard. F. Section 3.8.13(C)(11) – Access Roadways The proposed access roadways meet the requirements for emergency access per Section 3.6.6, satisfying this standard. G. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) – Stealth Technology Applicants must use stealth technology to the extent reasonably feasible to minimize the visual impact of the facility. Silos are included in the list of permissible structures per this section so long as the structure has a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Given the agricultural heritage of northeast Fort Collins, a silo generally provides this contextual relationship. To better satisfy this code section, staff recommends a condition of approval related to Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) that reduces the Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 10 height of the silo to 45 feet and locates the proposed facility closer to existing outbuildings. This will make the silo better integrated into the existing site and mitigate the visual impact of the tower. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.5(B)(1) – Permitted Uses The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not permitted in the LMN zone. For this application to be approved, the applicant must satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. By approving the project with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, this project would achieve an APU and would thus come into compliance with this section of the code. 5. Public Outreach Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings:  Concern about radio frequency emissions  The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods  A 60 foot tower is too tall and obtrusive  Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower  Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 11 In evaluating the request for proposed Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions if the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) are met. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards if the plan is modified consistent with the requested conditions of approval. D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 – Districts if the development meets the conditions of approval for Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Narrative 3. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations) 4. Coverage maps from Open Signal and Sensorly 5. Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 6. City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map for northeast Fort Collins Staff Report – Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP160018 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 09-14-2017 Page 12 7. Letter from Fort Collins Country Club 8. Administrative policy disallowing new wireless equipment and facilities on property owned by the City of Fort Collins 9. Photos of nearby grain silos LMN Proposed (mountain Vista Site) Maple Hill Park E Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Sunbury Ln Marshfield Ln Forecastle Dr Lake View Dr Nedrah Dr Frontage Rd Lind e n La k e R d S h e r e l l D r Chesapeake Dr Summerpark Ln Cott o nwoo d P o i n t D r Cambria Ln Adriel Dr Muir Ln Milton Ln D a yto n D r Friar Tuck Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct E l i m C t Ashland Ln Supplementary Narrative – Long Pond August 22, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524. This facility will be 2,500 square feet and house a 60’ silo communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This request is made in an effort to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Kenneth E. Forbes Jeanette L Forbes Address: 2008 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant: Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 36' 51.50" N 105° 02' 14.96” W Zoning: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Lease Area: 2,500 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a silo and housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a developing residential area where there is very spotty coverage and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As there area develops, and the existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the- ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect We strive to design our facilities and locate parcels that create the least amount of community disturbance. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped farmland and residential properties of medium density. The proposed site was previously used for agricultural purposes with multiple agricultural structures. The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a silo and blend with the surrounding area and the aesthetics of the proposed parcel. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could vary on occassion. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could vary depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. Generators are used in rare instances for backup emergency power, and for very limited run times, if needed. The generator would create very minimal noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 3 attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had favorable zoning and cable of addressing the growing coverage need and demand of the area. Exhibit 2 to this application shows the ring where Verizon would ideally place a tower. Exhibit 3 shows an expanded search area around Verizon’s ideal location that Atlas has considered for a possible lease, though not all of these locations would necessarily be effective for housing a WTF or meeting the coverage objectives planned for this WTF. This expanded search ring is based on nearness to the population to which the proposed telecommunications facility will provide coverage, and nearness to Verizon’s ideal location. Atlas’s expanded search ring is about one mile from Verizon’s ideal location, while as near as possible to the medium dense residential areas to the southwest of Verizon’s ideal location. The proposed site is just south of Verizon’s ideal search ring. Properties to the east of the proposed site are undesirable because they are not near the population that the tower will serve. In order for a telecommunications facility to function effectively, it needs to be near the population it will serve. The Industrial zoned properties to the east are over a mile from the center of the residential areas that the proposed telecommunications facility would serve, and therefore are undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. In addition to being located too far away from the coverage objective, the Industrial zoned properties to the east of the search area are also undesirable because they are significantly lower in elevation than the desired coverage area. In order for towers to work effectively, they need line of site with each other and with most of the area to which they will provide coverage. Properties to the east and northeast of the proposed site have a drop in elevation of 30ft – 50ft as shown in Exhibit 4. This 30ft – 50ft elevation drop makes the Industrial zoned properties to the east undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. The proposed site is ideal when taking into account likely future development in the area. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the area to the west of the proposed site is a medium dense residential area. To the north and south of the proposed site are new residential developments that are in the process of development. Directly to the east of the proposed site is the site of a future high school. As depicted on Exhibit 5, the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility is zoned LMN or UE. Both the LMN and UE zones are designed to support residential housing. If the proposed telecommunications facility is not developed at the proposed site, as the area continues to be developed with residential properties, the portion of northern Fort Collins from just east of College to what will be Timberline will be almost exclusively residential properties. This would be an almost two- mile wide area among which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a telecommunications facility, especially one of sufficient height. The proposed telecommunications faculty is within what will be a residential area and will allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to northeastern Fort Collins with almost no negative visual effect. Atlas was unable to secure a lease on other properties within the search area depicted on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is an image of the zoning in the search area with notes concerning Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease. Atlas and Verizon were unable to secure a lease on the property to the northeast of the proposed site owned by State of Colorado Land Commissioners or the property to the east owned by Anheuser-Busch. Neither of these properties indicated interest in a lease of any price. The Fort Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 4 Collins Country Club to the west of the proposed site was also not interested in a lease for a cell tower at a reasonable rate. Exhibit 7 is a letter from Greg DiBona, a contactor for Verizon, stating that after about a year of work, he was unable to secure a lease on a preferentially zoned property that meets Verizon’s coverage objectives and was acceptable to the Fort Collins Planning department. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed telecommunications facility would be located 136ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 118.5ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a silo, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which includes small residential farming properties and larger working farms, among other medium dense residential properties. We are proposing a wooden fence, as depicted in page C-2 of the Zoning Drawings enclosed with this application. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing farm buildings and residence. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth silo a beige color that matches the existing buildings on the property. All of the antennas on the stealth silo will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth silo and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 5 Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new stealth silo, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth silo will be mounted behind the paneling of the silo, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. C-2 of the enclosed drawings. A 6’ wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. C-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 6 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. As designed, the telecommunications facility does not have vegetation and therefore would not need automatic irrigation systems. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth silo, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Existing access roads are paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. Extension of the access roads will be made of gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 8. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 7 The proposed site is not located on any designated historic site or structure. Atlas has obtained NEPA and Phase I environmental studies for the proposed site. The studies have determined that the site will not negatively impact any nearby historically significant sites. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth silo in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a WTF. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. According to Division 4.5, (A) Purpose: the L-M-N District is “to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood.” The proposed telecommunications facility would be a supporting land use to the neighborhood because it would provide a vital utility to the surrounding area. The L-M-N District lists “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. In addition, because the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility has been, or is currently, used for agricultural purposes, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would not look out of place. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 6, the location of the proposed tower is over 110 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 8 location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth silo. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 60 ft. silo on farm property, the proposed 60 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Exhibit 8 to this narrative includes photo simulations showing what the proposed WTF would look like at the proposed site. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the surrounding area is a mix of newer residential properties and older rural properties, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. The L-M-N District has “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with other permitted uses for the L-M-N district which include small scale and medium scale solar energy systems and wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 9 The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 60’ stealth silo tower at 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Ken Bradtke Atlas Tower 1, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative Network Engineering RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview: Verizon Wireless strives to provide excellent wireless service for our users with a network of telecommunications facilities that allows our users to reliably place and receive mobile-phone calls and utilize data services. Verizon is working to improve its network in the residential areas in northeast Fort Collins, centered near Long Pond. The performance of a network consists mainly of two factors: coverage and capacity. Coverage can be thought of as the strength of a wireless signal in a given area. Capacity can be thought of as the ability of the wireless network to handle the amount of voice and data demands placed upon it. Neither the coverage nor the capacity of the network in northeastern Fort Collins meet Verizon’s performance goals or user expectations. Increasing coverage and capacity in the area requires the development of a new telecommunications facility that can house up to twelve antennas, near users, with line-of-site to much of the surrounding area. Line of Site Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as –80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to provide a line of sight to the roads, offices, and homes where users work and reside. One of the challenges of providing excellent coverage is providing strong in-building coverage to users. Strong in-building coverage is often difficult to attain because of the degradation of the Radio Frequency (RF) signal when it travels through solid obstacles such as tree foliage or buildings. A tower height that is greater than the existing tree and building clutter increases in-building coverage because it decreases the number of solid objects, such as trees and buildings, that a cellular signal must pass though in order to reach a user. Because the proposed facility would be located on ground that is relatively high and the stealth silo would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of-site from the proposed facility would be ideal for providing coverage to the surrounding residential area. With the proposed facility at 60ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 55ft on center and could have line-of-site coverage to most of the users that Verizon seeks to serve with the proposed facility. Location Requirements: Early cellular network designs placed tall telecommunications facility towers (often in excess of 200ft) on top of hills. This provided cellular providers the ability to cover the most area possible with very few telecommunications facilities. As cell-phone users have increased, these tall, hill top facilities have been forced to provide service to an increasing number of users in a given area. In addition to there being more users, the average user is utilizing applications on their phones and tablets that require more data than ever before. With more people using cell phones and most cell-phone users requiring more data, existing structures are no longer able to handle the capacity load placed upon them. Cellular design has evolved so that multiple shorter cell sites, located near high traffic or high population areas, are now favored. These smaller sites near population centers can provide fast and reliable service to a more focused geographic area. This ultimately results in fewer dropped calls and access failures for users. The proposed location directly abuts the residential area the proposed facility would cover. The proposed location is ideal for providing fast and reliable coverage to much of the residential area of northeastern Fort Collins. Exhibit 1 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 11 The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network in northeastern Fort Collins (north of Vine and east of College) is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations. Verizon has received multiple complaints from users of dropped and degraded calls and slow data speeds. In this area there are both issues of coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year in order to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non- functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are requiring more and more data. In addition to this, Fort Collins is growing quickly and there is planned development in northeastern Fort Collins. As more homes and schools are built, the existing infrastructure will become less and less able to meet demand. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because more and more people are no longer utilizing landlines, it is becoming more and more common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Average users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 12 Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon’s existing coverage in northeastern Fort Collins. Map Legend: (Same for both Maps) Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 13 The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon’s coverage in northeastern Fort Collins could be with the proposed facility. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity in northeastern Fort Collins for both current and future use. The proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road it ideally situated with regard to both topography and with regard to its proximity to the residential users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding residential area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site’s topography and location is ideal for Verizon’s purposed and will allow it to greatly improve wireless performance in northeastern Fort Collins. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless FTC_LongPond Exhibit 1 Continued Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 14 Exhibit 2 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 15 Exhibit 3 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 16 Exhibit 4 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 17 Exhibit 5 1 -- Ridnour Wesley P/Gerldine J – In addition to being located too far away from the search ring and coverage area and having insufficient elevation, Atlas inquired about leasing on this parcel with the landlord in the fall of 2015, and was unable to secure a lease. The property owner was un-interested in a lease. 2 – Colorado Board of Land Commissioners – Atlas Tower reached out to multiple contacts regarding a lease on this property and was informed that the owners and occupiers of the property were not interested in leasing for a WTF. Additionally, this location is largely too far from the search ring center and is too low in elevation for the proposed tower to function effectively. 3 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Atlas made multiple rounds of calls to the Landlord with no response. Additionally, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future. 4 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 5 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 6 – Undeveloped Residential Zoned Properties – Calls to Landlord were unsuccessful in getting a response. Furthermore, this location is not zoned preferentially and undeveloped parcels are generally undesirable for locating a telecommunications facility because it is not clear how the parcel will be used in the future and how to site the tower location. Our parcel and siting location has established agricultural residences that allow for a stealth structure that fits the character of the existing development, while still providing the much needed coverage. Text Text Lease Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 18 Exhibit 5 Continued 7 – Fort Collins Country Club – In the summer of 2015, Greg Dibona, approached the Fort Collins Country Club, but was unsuccessful in securing a lease. Additionally, Atlas employee, Mike Powers approached the Fort Collins country club, but they were completely uninterested in a telecommunications lease. Atlas discussed a lease with the Fort Collins County Club again, at the request of the City, as recently as August of 2017, and after providing the details of the project the golf course indicated they were not interested in pursuing a lease. An email from the General Manager, John Stebbins, is included with this submittal indicating the course's decision not to pursue a lease. 8 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 9 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – Verizon contractors reached out to Budweiser in the fall of 2015, and Budweiser never responded to Greg’s inquiries. Atlas additionally reached out to local and corporate Budweiser contacts regarding cell tower leasing options, and received no interest or response. Additionally, as stated by Verizon RF engineer, Ram Nandiraju, in Exhibit 9, the Anheuser-Busch property is too far from Verizon’s desired search ring to provide effective coverage to the target area. In fact, the Anheuser-Busch property falls within another search ring being pursued by Verizon and would not be suitable for the desired coverage of this search ring. 10 – Poudre R-1 School District – This parcel is undeveloped and not a better location for the proposed telecommunications facility as it has the same zoning as the proposed site and is lower in elevation than the proposed site. Additionally, this is the planned area of a new school development. With the uncertainty in development and the type of planned development, this is not a suitable candidate for communications tower siting or leasing. 11 – Existing Residential Properties – These parcels are not zoned preferentially and are too small for the placement of a telecommunications facility. 12 – Anheuser-Busch Foundation – See response to #9 above. This property is too far away to provide the intended service to the desired coverage area. Additionally, multiple leasing efforts have failed.. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 21 Lat40 , Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SITE PLAN ATLAS TOWER: FORBES Exhibit 6 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 22 Exhibit 7 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 23 Exhibit 7 Continued Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 24 Exhibit 8 Photo Simulation #1 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 25 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #1 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 26 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 27 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 28 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 29 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 30 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 31 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 32 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 33 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5 Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 1 of 5 Sample Text Messages of Support 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins Yes yes! I fully support a cell tower. I need better cell service at my home. Having cell service in this growing part of town is long overdue! I definitely support this! We need service badly. Disguised or not, we need service. I support a wireless facility. I support improving service at this area! I support the new tower it is a matter of public safety!! I support to have cell tower In maple hill , turnberry rd , country club rd I support. I would vote 500 times yes for this &: Service around here is really bad! We can't even use our cell phones at the house without having dropped calls. We need a wireless facility disguised as a silo. We need that cell phone tower badly. We support And need it YES - improved wireless coverage in North Fort Collins is sorely needed and long overdue. Yes - the present service is intolerable. YES , I support a wireless facikity disvuised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd. Yes !! We need this cell tower. Our coverage is very poor here. Yes a cell tower is needed at turnberry. Yes a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry would be great and Verizon customers would greatly appreciate it. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 2 of 5 YES absolutely! Service is terrible many dropped calls! Build it NOW! YES because I'm tired of having no cell reception at home YES City of Fort Collins please allow a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road for better Verizon wireless service. Yes I live in Adriel Hills and the Verizon service is marginal at best. I would be thrilled to have my cell service improved YES I support the cell tower on Turnberry road! Yes I supporte this because reception in this area is terrible YES I was not able to receive an emergency call from family due to poor cell service. It is a danger to the community as it currently exists. Yes I would be in support of a wireless tower to in prove the service thank you yes I would like the cell tower so hopefully we get better cellphone service Yes my service needs to be improved at home off Douglas and Highland YES Please get this done, silo disguise or not. Yes please HWY 1 Fort Collins Yes services needs to improve Yes to plan for wireless Verizon tower on Turnberry! Badly needed. Yes tower is ok with me Yes we approve the cell tower proposed YES we need a new tower! We have very bad reception! Yes we support this initiative Yes Yes I support the new cell tower. We have zero cellphone service at my house in Serramonte. YES YES YES! YES YES YES. It's a matter of life and death. We cannot call 911 from our house. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 3 of 5 Yes- we support tower Yes-I have to drive to Wellington or Ft. Collins library to do research because the connection is so poor! Thank you! Yes, we need the cell tower Yes, and need better service in Wellington Greens area as well. Yes, calls either dropped or bad connection for over 12 years. Yes, I am a strong supporter of a new cell tower on Turnberry Rd. Yes, I support a new Verizon wireless service disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd. Yes, I support a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road. YES, I support the installation of a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2800 Turnberry Road. Yes, more wireless coverage is better all around Yes, please approve the site at 2008 Turnberry. Yes, please improve cell service out near turnberry and country club. Yes, silo! Yes, we support a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry Road YES, we support a wireless facility disguised as a silo - this is NEEDED in our area!! Yes, we support the enhanced Verizon cell service. Turnberry road is an excellent location. Yes! I definitely support wireless service as a silo on Turnberry road. We have little if any cell phone service in the Chesapeake subdivision. Yes! I support a tower at 2008 Turnberry Rd. YES! I support this tower. It's for everyone's safety! In an emergency, calls would not go through. This is unacceptable! We are not in rural Colorado. Yes! We need it. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 4 of 5 Yes! And to the city - my husband I both greatly wish for better service so we completely support a tower disguised as a silo. Yes! My call dropped during an emergency, we need service!!! Yes! We are in a hole with little or no service! YES! We need the tower very badly! Yes! Yes! Yes! YES! Yes. Yes Yes!! I support a wireless facility disguised as a silo at 2008 rubbery road. Not rubbery! Turnberry! Stupid spell check!! Yes!! Yes!! We defiantly need this tower so we have decent service!! Yes. And I hope this will improve our service in the Hearthfire neighborhood. Yes. Am constantly getting disconnected or service won't go thru. Di Yes. Please do this Yes. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! YES. 100% support. Long overdue. Appreciate the silo design. Cell service is sub par north Fort Collins. YES. Disguising as a silo or other feature preferred. Yes. I absolutely support the new wireless facility on turnberry. yES. I am very interested in improving cell service. I have health issues that require I have reliable communication. Thank you! YES. I routinely miss calls due to the lack of cell service in the area. Yes. I support a wireless facility at 2008 Turnberry. Yes. I support the silo facility. Yes. Reception at our house is terrible! Thank you. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative 5 of 5 Yes....I support a tower on Turnberry Rd YES...I support s new cell tower at Turnberry and Country Club Road. Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative Feb 10, 2017 Attn: Clay Frickey Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Noise and traffic generated by the proposed WTF at 2008 Turnberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could very greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. Please feel free to contact me with follow-up question or concerns. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Project Manager Atlas Tower 1, LLC (303) 448-8896 ccrossand@atlastowers.com Attachment 2 to staff report to P&Z Project Narrative PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 2008 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS C-2 TOWER ELEVATION C TURNBERRY KES NMC A 04-27-16 ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS C 07-27-16 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET T-1 PROPOSED TELE- COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 60' SILO TURNBERRY ZONING JURISDICTION: ZONING: TBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 5545 W. 56TH AVE., UNIT E ARVADA, CO 80002 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” GENERAL NOTES N-1 GENERAL NOTES H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations NOTES: LEGEND SITE COORDINATES TURNBERRY ROAD TURNBERRY ROAD IMPERMEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETIAL C-1 SITE PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 COMPOUND DETAIL Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations EROSION NOTES: PUBLIC ROAD NOTES: CONSTRUCTION NOTES: “ ” “ ” “ ” EROSION & DRIVEWAY PLANS C-2 SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 SILT FENCE DETAILS STANDARD ROAD SEC. (POOR SUBGRADE) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STANDARD ROAD SEC. (GOOD SUBGRADE) FIRE ACCESS ROAD SIGNS SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations TURNBERRY ROAD CODES TESTING GUARANTEE CO-ORDINATION: EXAMINATION OF SITE CUTTING, PATCHING AND EXCAVATION: SCOPE: ELECTRICAL NOTES: CONDUCTORS GROUNDING PENETRATIONS: EXTERIOR CONDUIT: EQUIPMENT: RACEWAYS ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND MATERIALS POWER NOTES: UTILITY PLAN SCHEDULE H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-1 ELECTRICAL NOTES & UTILITY COORDINATION ELECTRICAL NOTES UTILITY COORDINATION Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations NOTES: FRONT VIEW REAR VIEW POWER PANEL SCHEDULE NOTES: VZW SERVICE RACK (FRONT AND BACK) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (FRONT) ATLAS SERVICE RACK (BACK) ONE LINE DIAGRAM NOTES: NOTES: NOTES: DRAWING NOTES: H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 E-2 ELECTRICAL DETAILS SERVICE RACK DETAILS ONE LINE ELEVATION ONE LINE DETAIL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT(S) TRENCH DETAIL POWER AND TELCO PLAN Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FIXED GENERATOR GROUNDING NOTES DRAWING NOTES: NOTES: SINGLE CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT GROUND BARS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT STEEL OBJECTS SINGLE CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS BACK TO BACK CONNECTOR AT METALLIC/STEEL OBJECTS GROUNDING DETAILS E-3 ELECTRICAL DETAIL H TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 H 06-30-17 CADWELD GROUNDING DETAIL TOWER GROUNDING ISOLATED GROUND BAR COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD TOWER GROUNDING MOUNTING DETAIL COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXTERNAL CIGBE - BOTTOM TYPE 1 GROUND BAR TYPE 2 GROUND BAR COAX ISOLATED GROUND BAR EXT. CIGBE - TOP & INTERMEDIATE GROUNDING PLAN GROUNDING AT GATE POST TRENCH DETAIL INSPECTION WELL DETAIL CONNECTOR AND HARDWARE DETAIL Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations Attachment 4 to staff report to P&Z Coverage maps from Open Signal and Sensorly Attachment 4 to staff report to P&Z Coverage maps from Open Signal and Sensorly 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 Attachment 5 to staff report to P&Z Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 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 Attachment 5 to staff report to P&Z Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 City Structure Plan Printed: August 30, 2017 Fort Collins GMA City Limits Zones that do not allow wireless towers Zones that allow wireless towers © Adopted: February 18, 1997 Amended: January 6, 2015 CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT COLLINS INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These and were map not products designed and or all intended underlying for general data are use developed by members for use of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in labeling thereon. or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of the by any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or may not be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Zones that will allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Long Pond Lindenmeier Lake Mountain Vista Rd. Turnberry Rd. Giddings Rd. Richards Lake Rd. Douglas Rd. Applicant's Search Area Site Attachment 6 to staff report to P&Z City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map for northeast Fort Collins From: John Stebbins <johns@fcgolf.org> Date: August 17, 2017 at 6:15:45 PM MDT To: Mike Powers <mpowers@atlastowers.com> Subject: Tower Mike the Board of Directors turned down the offer to discuss the Cell tower. Thank you for educating me on the project. John John Stebbins General Manager Fort Collins Country Club Attachment 7 to staff report to P&Z Letter from Fort Collins Country Club City of Fort Collins Administrative Policies 90 C. Any donation valued under $5,000 may be accepted by a department. The appropriate department shall prepare and furnish a quarterly report to the City Manager and Accounting containing a listing of the donations accepted including information designated in B.1. above. Upon acceptance of the donation, the department shall furnish the donor with a receipt acknowledging the donation, if requested by the donor. Any individual donations received in connection with a specific fundraising program or project of a department shall be included in the quarterly report above, but may be reported in summary form indicating the total amount received in connection with the program or project and the information designated in B.1. above regarding the overall program or project (each individual donation need not be separately reported). 4.8 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Owned Property A. Purpose and Scope The potential for location of wireless telecommunication facilities, including transmission towers, antennae, and signal repeaters, on lands open for public recreation has created concern in the community. In order to uphold community values and investments in such lands, this policy exercises the City’s discretion as a property owner to prohibit the issuance of any license, permit, or other consent, for third parties to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City parkland, golf course, cemetery, public facility, or open space (“public land”). B. General Conditions and Restrictions 1. This administrative policy prohibits granting to third parties, pursuant to a license, permit, easement, lease, or other form of consent, any property interest to locate wireless telecommunication facilities on any City-owned public land, including park land, city golf courses, cemeteries, city facilities, or open space. 2. This policy does not affect development rights otherwise available under applicable land use and zoning regulations, with regard to location of such facilities on private property. 3. Wireless telecommunication facilities existing on public land in City Park at the time of this policy’s adoption may remain in place, and co-location of equipment by multiple carriers may be encouraged. 4. Exceptions to the strict application of this policy may be made at the discretion of the City Manager. Attachment 8 to staff report to P&Z City Administrative Policy Attachment 9 to staff report to P&Z Photos of nearby grain silos Attachment 9 to staff report to P&Z Photos of nearby grain silos Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 5 concern with parking or traffic as the PDP is proposed. Members Carpenter and Heinz will also support this project. Member Hobbs asked for clarification regarding the garage modification; Planner Frickey confirmed that this is now a moot point from a LUC perspective. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 4406 Seneca Street Group Home PDP170024, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Heinz seconded. Yatabe suggested that the staff findings related to the modification be excluded; Member Hobbs amended his motion to reflect this exception. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a recess at 7:02pm; they reconvened at 7:28pm. Assistant Attorney City Yatabe stated that there were a number of people who were in attendance earlier in the hearing that did not understand the consent versus discussion process of approving hearing items. Because those citizens came to testify on several items but did not take advantage of this opportunity, he recommended that the P&Z Board reconsider those items at a later date. Those agenda items include the Hansen Farm ODP and the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP. Assistant Attorney City Yatabe described the prescribed solution to the Board members. Member Carpenter expressed concerned that continuing those two items will strain the Applicant’s time frame for project development. Both Planner Frickey and Senior Planner Wray confirmed that continuing these items should not present a hardship to the Applicants. Member Whitley made a motion to reconsider the vote on the consent agenda; Member Hobbs. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to adopt the original Consent agenda, excluding the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP and the Hansen Farm ODP and moving those items to the Discussion agenda; Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. The previous motion is still in good standing regarding adopting the Consent agenda; vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to continue St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP to the October 19,, 2017, P&Z Hearing; Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs made a motion to continue the Hansen Farm ODP to the October 19, 2017, P&Z Hearing; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Project: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 60 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on- the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) is not an allowed use in the LMN zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. ATTACHMENT 2 Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 6 Recommendation: Approval Member Heinz excused herself due to a conflict of interest at 7:39pm. Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 email has been received in support of this project, and 3 emails were received with concerns related to livability, property resale, granting zoning variances, and potential safety issues. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of the project proposal. Ken Bradtke, Operations Manager with Atlas Tower, gave a detailed presentation, including some background of his company, wireless signal coverage needs and gaps in the north end of Fort Collins, zoning criteria, and some design elements of the project. He provided justification for the location, citing coverage gaps in the area and the importance of emergency calls being reliable. He showed some visual slides of what the project would look like and the view from surrounding areas. He provided some explanation of the requirements of communications towers, including restrictions on tower height, communication coverage, etc. Staff Analysis and Board Questions Planner Frickey discussed the APU process for an Applicant who is seeking a use that is not currently allowed in that particular zone. He reviewed each of the uses of the criterion in question, explaining that the City Council will make the final determination for this project. He stated that the fundamental issue for this project relates to design; therefore, since the function is consistent with the use, Staff finds the design meets the stated criterion 1. He reviewed each successive criterion:  2 – Conforming to basic characteristics of the zone district (relating to zoning use).  3 – Location size and design of the proposed facility. Explanation: based on a federal law requiring cities to permit cell towers, the Applicant has provided a coverage map to justify location selected. Planner Frickey has investigated other surrounding area, but they are not available (due to schools or other companies). He also showed some images from Google Earth that depict adjacent neighborhoods. Staff had requested the Applicant to provide proof that they could not get a lease on any of the sites that had appropriate zoning and could accommodate a cell tower (Fort Collins Country Club (FCCC) and Anheiser-Busch). He went on to explain the difficulties that had arisen while conducting this investigation. From a design standpoint, he feels that the cell tower silo proposed meets the stealth technology requirement if the two conditions of approval are approved.  4 – Minimizing negative impacts.  5 – Use will not change character of neighborhood.  6 – Is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district.  7 – Staff held two neighborhood meetings.  8 – Is not a marijuana-related business. He also discussed the standards 1-4 of the Land Use Code as long as the conditions of approval are met:  Applicant reduce the height of the proposed WTF to 45 feet or less, and  Location of WTF be moved further north to be closer to outbuildings. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 7 Member Carpenter asked about future redevelopment of this area and how this silo will fit in with the neighborhood; Planner Frickey responded that any subsequent changes would need a new review. Member Hobbs asked who owns the land this WTF will be located on; Planner Frickey stated that the parcel is an owner-occupied parcel, and the company will be leasing the land from them. Vice Chair Hansen asked if there are any visual comparisons available to illustrate the silo at 45 feet in height; Planner Frickey does not have a visual depiction of that. Mr. Bradtke stated that the external material on the silo will be a fiberglass material, but there are many design options. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe reminded the group that, per the Federal Telecommunications Act section 332(C)(7)(b)iv, the City is prohibited from regulating the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions, which includes precluding any consideration of potential health effects of frequency emissions. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Nancy Eason, 1909 Turnberry Road, asked for additional minutes to present the comments that represent at least 35 neighbors. Vice Chair Hansen granted her 10 minutes. Ms. Eason gave a written statement to the Board to be entered into the record. She stated her concern that approving this project will set a dangerous precedent for other residential communities. She did not feel that the resident questions were properly answered during the neighborhood meetings, so she doesn’t feel that due diligence was performed. She isn’t convinced that the Applicant contacted all available adjacent areas to investigate the possibility of placing the WTF in another location. She urged the City to make sure the future buildout of infrastructure has been done before approving this, and she suggested hiring experts in this case. She is concerned with approving this APU, because similar projects could continue in other zones. She questioned the conformance with criterion 4, in that adverse effects on public health and safety could occur; she requested a note be added to the documentation that that part of the code requirement was intentionally omitted because of the Federal regulation. Tanya Andreas, 1900 Turnberry Road, has a concern that the development process is difficult to navigate for residents, adding that almost 2 years have elapsed since the beginning of this process. She also requested that a third party of radiofrequency (RF) engineers evaluate this proposal, and she encouraged the City to investigate this option. Marilyn Anderson, 1935 Sherell Drive, is opposed to this cell tower proposal, saying she would like the proposed WTF to be as far away from the road as possible. She feels that this use is not in character with the neighborhood and is concerned that it could ultimately decrease property values. Debbie Corey, 2000 Rangeview Drive, is opposed to this proposal. She questioned who would have the responsibility of disassembling the WTF if it becomes obsolete in the future and who would assume liability. She also suggested that proper signage be installed if the WTF is built, since this area is frequented by neighbors and their children. Jim Miles, 3403 Apiatan Court, is a resident of Hearthfire subdivision; he acknowledged that, while the cell phone service in this area is inadequate, Fort Collins should continue to keep pace with development. Therefore, he supports this project. Don Eason, 1909 Turnberry Road, has safety concerns related to the RF engineering and emissions. He is aware that the P&Z Board does not have purview over this, but he questioned how the federal guidelines will be enforced and checked to maintain safety. Ted Wolf, 2120 Sherwood Forest Court, stated that 78 new homes have been built in the last 2 years, adding that he feels the developer did not do a good job of identifying better locations because of cost. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 8 He doesn’t feel that putting a tower on this location will enhance the area. Kevin Forbes, 2908 Turnberry Road, is related to the property owners, and he is aware of the poor cell phone service. He explained that the outbuildings are being used and maintained, and this parcel is a single-family dwelling on 8 acres. He believes that due diligence was properly performed and that this site works well. Applicant/Staff Response and Board Questions Planner Frickey addressed several of the citizen questions regarding due diligence performed and investigation of alternate locations. Regarding the precedent issues, he explained that such projects are evaluated as unique cases, so precedents are rarely set. Regarding the development process, the complete application was just recently received, and Staff scheduled it for P&Z review as early as possible. Regarding the “working farm” issue, he feels that this application should be analyzed as it is at present. He continued by saying he is not aware of any cell towers in any residential zones in Fort Collins since 1996 – this project would be the first APU of its type. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether the third party consulting suggestion is viable; Planning Frickey stated he had contacted the Center for Municipal Solutions, but no agreement was made to analyze cell tower proposals. There are approximately 100 WTFs within Fort Collins, and the cost to monitor these facilities by a third party would cost more than $100,000 (one-time fee). Vice Chair Hansen also asked what considerations were made for the specific location on this site and the consequences if it were abandoned. Mr. Bradtke responded by saying that they considered the setback requirements, and his company would take responsibility of dismantling and disposal of the WTF. He stated that construction would start in early 2018. He also gave some detail of how security would be maintained, including a security fence and a lock on the gate. Member Rollins asked if locating the WTF on the city-owned property to the east was considered; Planner Frickey stated that there is an administrative City policy that won’t allow new leases on their property, mainly due to prior back-lash in response to a proposed cell tower. Member Hobbs asked what the zoning is on that city property; Planner Frickey responded that it is low-density, mixed-use neighborhood, which is public open land and can be zoned for a park. Member Whitley asked why the negotiations failed with FCCC and Anheiser-Busch; Michael Powers, Director of Legal Affairs with Atlas Towers, stated that negotiations were attempted over several years. Anheiser- Busch was completely unresponsive, even after letters and phone calls were used to reach them. They also contacted the FCCC, but they would not even allow a discussion of their proposal. Member Rollins asked if this entire area is a residential zone; Planner Frickey showed the Board a simplified version of the structure plan map, which includes City Plan annexations and some areas that wouldn’t allow this use. Member Hobbs also asked what the possibility would be for this area to be covered by other cell towers; Ram Nandiraju, an RF Engineer with Verizon Wireless, explained how coverage works, based on the height of towers farther away and the maximum coverage by higher towers. He added that the main factors that influence service include cell tower radius, height, and terrain. The maximum diameter for service is generally one mile in each direction, adding that a most “millennials” want wireless coverage in neighborhoods, so they are not averse to having WTFs in their neighborhoods. He stressed that his company is serious about compliance with regulations. Member Hobbs asked for a larger view of the zone district to identify the most likely zones that would allow WTFs; Planner Frickey pointed out several adjacent zones that would require negotiation with Larimer County. Board Deliberation Member Whitley does not see specific issues with this proposal. Member Hobbs doesn’t feel that the proposal meets the compliance conditions, saying he doesn’t feel its use is compatible and could have negative impacts, so he will not support this proposal. Member Carpenter is also concerned with the Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2017 Page 9 future implications, so she isn’t sure she will support it. Member Rollins is also struggling with this proposal, and she would like to have an outside RF engineer review it first, so she won’t support it. Vice Chair Hansen supports this proposal, based on the need for cell service needs and the fact that grain silos are an appropriate vehicle for a camouflaging device. Member Whitley also stated that a 60-foot tower would reach a greater number of users. Member Hobbs stated that his research indicated that an average silo is about 30-35 feet in height, so the proposed silo of 45 feet in height may not blend in with the farm. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend denial to the City Council for the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, on the basis that the use would not conform to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the location, size, and design would not be compatible and could have negative impacts on the use of nearby properties; Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 4:1. Other Business 2018 Annual Work Plan Member Carpenter moved to approve the 2018 P&Z Annual Work Plan as presented; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Vice Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:21pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair Resident Comments Received as of 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2017 Comments received between 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 11 and 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 17, will be provided to City Council in its read‐before packet. ATTACHMENT 3 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Brent Bartlett" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:17:07 PM Good evening Mr. Bartlett - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Brent Bartlett [mailto:casabartlett@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:16 AM To: City Leaders Subject: We support the cell tower proposal on Turnberry Rod. Please don't let a a few load voices influence a practical decision over the many who need the coverage. Sent from Outlook From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Becca Bramhall" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Towers Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:17:47 PM Good evening Ms. Bramhall - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Becca Bramhall [mailto:beccabram@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:24 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Towers Hello, I am writing this email as a resident of Northwest Fort Collins. My family and I are having a very difficult time understanding why our area of town cannot have reliable cell service. We used to. I am told by my cell phone carrier (who has always been Verizon) that the increase of dropped calls and the inability to even make a call may be due to the increased number of people in the area. I have learned that this area is now rated as a highly problematic area according to their data. I learned all this while making the call sitting on the curb outside of my home because that is where I have the best chance of completing a call. Last Fall my husband had a series of serious health issues which landed him in the hospital a couple of times and necessitated many calls with doctors, our home health care nurse, our pharmacy, not to mention trying to communicate with my husband while he was in the hospital to check in with him while I was not by his side. The frustration and angst and tears that resulted from continuous dropped calls or the inability to even get a call through was deeply troubling and, at times, scary. My husband had colon cancer and many complications from surgery to get rid of it. He was suffering from life-endangering circumstances. It seems to me that homes that neighbor Budweiser do not have a leg to stand on by using the concern of aesthetics to try and stop a cell tower from being built near them. I have not heard of health issues concerning cell towers but, 1) would like to hear about those issues if they exist and, 2) feel that with all of the open space still nearby there would be a spot that would not pose health concerns. Just yesterday I was trying to call my 91 year old mother who had been feeling under the weather and my call was dropped three times, which was confusing and disturbing to my mother and maddening to me. Please vote on behalf of the majority of families and elderly who live in this area and rely on their cell phones as necessary and even vital tools to their security and to the quality of their life. Thank you very much for your time and your service, Becca Bramhall 2516 Greenmont Drive From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Sandra Brooks" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Turnberry Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:46:30 PM Hi Sandra – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Sandra Brooks [mailto:sraebrooks@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:28 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower at Turnberry Thank you for serving on the City Council If I were to have a stroke tomorrow, fall, or have any kind of an emergency, I may not be able to call 911 simply because I don't have good cell service in my area. Last night I was talking on the phone, took two steps to my left and lost service. I understand two families on Turnberry are concerned about the health effects of emissions of the cell tower. Since Federal law says this cannot be taken into account, I believe that one life lost to inability to contact 911 is one life to many. Please vote YES on this issue. Thank you for listening. Sandra Brooks 1905 Kedron Circle -- Sandra Brooks 303-808-3633 The test we must set for ourselves is not to march alone but to march in such a way that others wish to join us. From: Delynn Coldiron To: "kcgftfun@msn.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower #private DND Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:23:42 PM Good evening Karen and Frank - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: KG Campanella-Green <kcgftfun@msn.com> Date: October 2, 2017 at 11:33:09 AM CDT To: "boverbeck@fcgov.com" <boverbeck@fcgov.com> Cc: KG Campanella-Green <kcgftfun@msn.com> Subject: Cell Tower Hello Bob. We live in the Maple Hill subdivision. This morning I read the Coloradoan Silver Pen editorial written by Sandra Brooks. My husband and I are often frustrated by the meager cell connections in this NE area. A cell tower would mean that our communications, which of course are our life lines in more ways than one, would be greatly improved and enhanced. We wholeheartedly endorse a cell tower for NE Fort Collins. We would appreciate your vote in favor of the cell tower. Karen and Frank Campanella-Green 2426 Ballard Ln; 80524 970-37703682 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "nee@naturalverities.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Re Lond Pond/Turnberry Road Cell Tower Date: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:42:59 PM Good afternoon Ms.Eason - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Nancy Eason [mailto:neeason@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:35 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Re Lond Pond/Turnberry Road Cell Tower Dear Councilmembers, I am writing today to urge you to not approve the APU for the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project. Although cell service in our area of town is bad, there are good reasons that this particular project should not be approved. According to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, cell towers are not a permitted use in residential zones such as the LMN zone where this tower would be constructed if approved. Large stand-alone towers such as this 60' tall stealth silo are out of scale in residential zones, but particularly so on this property with its small outbuildings. The Planning & Zoning Board made the correct recommendation to Council in voting against it 4-1 on Sept. 14. Such large installations cannot be properly disguised in residential settings as we've all seen with funky trees in other areas. It makes sense to stick with the current zoning and keep larger collector-type cell towers outside of residential zones. We do not believe the applicant, Atlas Tower, has demonstrated due diligence in vetting other locations for a cell tower in our area. This became clear to us when we contacted nearby landowners. There are hundreds of industrial and commercially zoned acres to the east and north where cell towers are an allowed use. Before granting this waiver, thus possibly making it easier to erect cell towers in other residential zones, shouldn't Council at least be certain no other options exist? Our city, like many local communities around the nation, lacks expertise in wireless technology infrasturcture. Therefore, city staff and city residents end up having to take the telecommunications industry's word on how the infrastructure build-out should occur. This seems rather convenient for the telecom industry. At the very least, we would like to see the city consulting with third party experts and/or hiring such expertise before waiving zoning regulations to allow cell towers to be built within residential areas. I appreciate your hard work and willingness to engage issues like this for the good of our community. I believe a solution can be found that will vastly improve our cell service while keeping these large towers where they belong as currently zoned. I encourage you to take a quick drive out here to see where it would be located (2008 Turnberry Road) as photos do not always give a proper sense of scale. Thank you, Nancy Eason 1909 Turnberry Road, FC 970-493-7588 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Sam" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:19:13 PM Good evening Kendall and Margaret - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:sam.glover20@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:37 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell tower Dear Mayor and City Council, Thank you for giving your time and energy to make our city a better place to live. You do a wonderful job. We would appreciate cell service in our area very much. Please vote to approve a cell tower in the Turnberry area. The one on Shields that looks like a tree might make everyone happy. There are many elderly residents in this area and cell service is critical for their lives. We appreciate your dedication and service to the people of this community. Sincerely, Kendall and Margaret Glover Sent from my iPad . From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Pam Hawley" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: northeast cell tower needed!! Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:16:23 PM Good evening Ms. Hawley - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Pam Hawley [mailto:prhawley@frii.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:59 AM To: City Leaders Subject: northeast cell tower needed!! Hello- I live in Adriel Hills in the Northeast part of Fort Collins (not in the City Limits). Adriel Hills is a condominium association at the corner of Turnberry Rd and Mountain Vista Road. There are 177 residences in this association alone. Large neighborhoods surround us. In this age of advanced technology, I am required to continue having a landline because my cell phone only works the best when I stand by my living room window and cannot be depended on in the case of emergency or for that matter, in any case for trusted communication. This is unacceptable as I work from home and live in a neighborhood where this issue of very poor cell service is prevalent. I understand that the recent cell tower controversy along Turnberry Road will have varying opinions. I also realize there are zoning issues to consider. However, as more people are living in this area and with cell phones being the technology we use, we MUST have a cell tower that serves this area. I need to pay for a landline because I cannot trust the cell service. This is costly to me to simply have this as a backup plan and this area must move forward with technology to serve the many residents in this quadrant of the County. Your research and continues consideration of how to get a cell phone tower to this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Pam Hawley From: Rita Knoll To: "donnhopkins@comcast.net" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Road proposed cell tower Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:03:30 AM Donn, The hearing regarding the Addition of a Permitted Use for the Long Pond Cell Tower has been postponed, and tentatively rescheduled for October 17. I will make sure that your original email is included in agenda materials for whatever meeting date the items lands on. Rita From: donnhopkins@comcast.net [mailto:donnhopkins@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 7:56 AM To: Rita Knoll Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: Re: Turnberry Road proposed cell tower Hello Rita, Thank you for the reply and explanation of the process. Unfortunately I can not attend the 10/3/2017 because of my limited mobility. Sincerely, Donn Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Rita Knoll <RKNOLL@fcgov.com> wrote: Donn, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com ********************** Dear Mayor Troxell, and Council Members Overbeck, Martinez, Horak, I live 3 blocks from the proposed cell phone tower on Turnberry (see message string below). My wife Linda and I have Verizon service for our land line and cell phones. Phone service in our area is not reliable, 2 bars most days. Recently our land line went down, no service, for 3 weeks. I complained to Verizon many times until it was restored. My personal health now requires me to use a wheel chair or walker (progressive MS). I'm constantly concerned about falls and other health related maladies. Without reliable phone service I feel at risk in my own home. Reliable cell/phone service is a real public safety need in the neighborhoods along Turnberry Road. I'm aware of a story in our neighborhood (not personally verified) that a man was mowing his lawn in the Maple Hill neighborhood this summer. He suffered a heart attack and needed emergency medical assistance. Several neighbors tried to use their cell phones and had no service. I understand while a person gave aid to the man another person ran door to door until they contacted someone who had a land line that worked to call 911. The story is that the man died. There is a swimming pool in this neighborhood and residents report weak or no cell service there. There are several small neighborhood parks in the area too. Without reliable cell service there is a potential risk to anyone engaging recreational activity and assuming they can get help if needed. I urge the Council to allow this cell tower on Turnberry for the safety of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Donn Hopkins 1809 Rangeview Drive From: Rita Knoll To: "donnhopkins@comcast.net" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: Turnberry Road proposed cell tower Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 6:56:02 PM Donn, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com ********************** Dear Mayor Troxell, and Council Members Overbeck, Martinez, Horak, I live 3 blocks from the proposed cell phone tower on Turnberry (see message string below). My wife Linda and I have Verizon service for our land line and cell phones. Phone service in our area is not reliable, 2 bars most days. Recently our land line went down, no service, for 3 weeks. I complained to Verizon many times until it was restored. My personal health now requires me to use a wheel chair or walker (progressive MS). I'm constantly concerned about falls and other health related maladies. Without reliable phone service I feel at risk in my own home. Reliable cell/phone service is a real public safety need in the neighborhoods along Turnberry Road. I'm aware of a story in our neighborhood (not personally verified) that a man was mowing his lawn in the Maple Hill neighborhood this summer. He suffered a heart attack and needed emergency medical assistance. Several neighbors tried to use their cell phones and had no service. I understand while a person gave aid to the man another person ran door to door until they contacted someone who had a land line that worked to call 911. The story is that the man died. There is a swimming pool in this neighborhood and residents report weak or no cell service there. There are several small neighborhood parks in the area too. Without reliable cell service there is a potential risk to anyone engaging recreational activity and assuming they can get help if needed. I urge the Council to allow this cell tower on Turnberry for the safety of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Donn Hopkins 1809 Rangeview Drive From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Joseph Horan" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry cell tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:25:32 PM Good evening Dr. and Mrs. Horan - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Joseph Horan [mailto:joho7218@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:43 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry cell tower I am writing to request that the proposed cell tower on Turnberry Road be approved. We live in the Hearthfire subdivision and have dreadful cell service. Fortunately we can afford a land line, but without it we would often need to leave home to make a phone call! I am amazed that the City is investigating Internet service for the whole city while many of us don't even have cell service in our homes. This is a safety issue for sure, and I would hope that the city council will place the safety of all residents at the highest priority, and approve the cell tower. Respectfully, Dr. and Mrs. J. Joseph Horan 3209 Town Center Ct. 80524 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "lesliem01@comcast.net" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell tower off Turnberry Road Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:14:20 PM Good evening Ms. Knaup - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: lesliem01@comcast.net [mailto:lesliem01@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 5:55 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell tower off Turnberry Road I am in favor of the cell tower on Turnberry Rd. People have access to cell towers all over the city. Why can't we have a cell tower? Our cell phone access at this end of town is terrible. I have heard that people have health concerns. I am not aware of this issue but I haven't heard of anyone dying from a cell phone any place else in Ft. Collins. The city is developing extensive property along Turnberry Rd. Are we barring all of these people from having cell phones?. Come on, get with it. The cell phone is here. It is 2017. Leslie Knaup 3333 Hearthfire Dr. Ft. Collins From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Dominique Knudson" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:39:08 PM Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com "Tell us about our service, we want to know!" From: Rita Knoll Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 5:10 PM To: 'Dominique Knudson' Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com From: Dominique Knudson [mailto:dknudson4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:45 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower To Whom it may concern, My husband and I are Fort Collins residents writing in regards to voice a concern about the proposed cell tower in the Long Pond area. We live in the area and would not like to see it in the proposed location and do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. My wish is that there would be another location further from the residential neighborhoods. Thank you for hearing my voice on the matter and wish you a great day. Sincerely, Dominique & Eric Knudson From: Rita Knoll To: "Dominique Knudson" Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 5:10:19 PM Dear Dominique, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 3. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing next Tuesday. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA KNOLL Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6516 office rknoll@fcgov.com From: Dominique Knudson [mailto:dknudson4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:45 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower To Whom it may concern, My husband and I are Fort Collins residents writing in regards to voice a concern about the proposed cell tower in the Long Pond area. We live in the area and would not like to see it in the proposed location and do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. My wish is that there would be another location further from the residential neighborhoods. Thank you for hearing my voice on the matter and wish you a great day. Sincerely, Dominique & Eric Knudson From: Rita Knoll To: "Jon Mendenhall" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower on Turnberry Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:27:41 PM Jon, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. From: Jon Mendenhall [mailto:jon@jonnanco.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:07 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower on Turnberry Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am urging you to vote against allowing the cell tower to be built on Turnberry since they are not a permitted use in residential zones. A 60 foot tower, even if disguised as a silo, is out of character for our neighborhood. Silos in Fort Collins and surrounding areas are normally only 30 or 40 feet tall. I am convinced property values will be adversely affected if this tower is allowed to be built on this site, Also the Atlas Tower folk have not convinced me that this is the only, or even the best, location for a tower in our area. Please, don’t allow a zoning change or exemption for this cell tower. Budweiser has apparently agreed to have the tower there, which fits in much better in a commercial area. Even if it has to be a little taller there it would reach the same area and not be out of character there. Thank you, Jon L. Mendenhall 2150 Sherwood Forest Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-229-1947 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Jim Moore" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: cell tower on turnberry Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:27:12 PM Good evening Mr. and Mrs. Moore - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Jim Moore [mailto:jjmoore1121@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 2:13 PM To: City Leaders Subject: cell tower on turnberry please vote for cell tower on turnberry we really need better service i also havehealth issus please vote yes we need your help if you lived in our area you would understand. thank you jim and judy moore From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Brenda Olander" Cc: Delynn Coldiron; Rita Knoll Subject: RE: Cell Tower Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:08:12 AM Good Morning Ms. Olander - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Brenda Olander [mailto:brenda.olander@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:56 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower Please do not approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Project because stand alone cell towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. Regards, Brenda Olander Sent from my iPhone From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Susan Pankey" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Approve Turnberry Cell Phone Tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:24:36 PM Good evening Ms. Pankey - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Pankey [mailto:slpankey@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 10:53 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Approve Turnberry Cell Phone Tower I understand that you will be making a final decision regarding the cell phone tower at Turnberry road tomorrow. I want to strongly encourage you to support approval of the tower. The tower is needed to improve the terrible service. I own 2 rental properties and my tenants constantly complain about the service. They are elderly and afraid they could die if they can't medical help. The board needs to think of the needs of the whole community and approve this tower as well as other towers as soon as possible. Aesthetic should not be a major concern as most residents can't even tell you where existing towers in the community are located. It's just the old syndrome "not in my backyard." I ask you to be proactive in taking care of the needs of the community. Regards - Susan Pankey From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Adriel Hills" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:05:52 AM Good morning Mr. Pankey – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Adriel Hills [mailto:adrielhills@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 8:58 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower Good Morning, I am the full-time Manager at Adriel Hills which is located on the corner of Mountain Vista and Turnberry. I understand you will have the final say on the Verizon Cell tower at your meeting on October 3. The cell service at Adriel Hills is sporadic at best. I understand that there are concerns about the aesthetics. Is that a reason not to build the tower? Adriel Hills has a high percentage of elderly people who may have a need to call 911. Please vote yes on this issue. Ralph Pankey, Property Manager Adriel Hills Condominium Association 1900 Kedron Circle Ft. Collins, CO 80524 970-484-3098 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Jeff Snowden" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:34:40 PM Dear Mr. Snowden – Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your emails will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com "Tell us about our service, we want to know!" From: Jeff Snowden [mailto:troop97@frii.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:12 AM To: Ray Martinez Cc: CCSL Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area I found the city-owned property just east of us. It's a little east of Timberline & north of Vine immediately north of the BNSF tracks & south of A-B land. It doesn't have a zoning label on the city's zoning map, which makes it look like it's in the county. From: Jeff Snowden [mailto:troop97@frii.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:55 AM To: 'Ray Martinez' Cc: 'CCSL' Subject: RE: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Hi Ray, Thanks for such a quick reply. There are several non-residential areas around us: · Fort Collins Country Club (in the county) · other county areas just north of Richards Lake Rd · there is a "CC" zone (Community Commercial district) just east of us (this may be the city property I referred to) · there are a couple of "MMN" zones (Medium-density Mixed-use) just east & southeast of us (not sure if that zoning allows cell towers or not) · there is a good-sized area of county land just east of Timberline Rd & north of Vine Dr · there is a very large "E" zone (Employment district) immediately east of us · the A-B Brewery is in an I (Industrial) zone I would think in particular that the north end of the "E" tract, or the A-B Brewery site, or the county land just north of Richards Lake Rd would be good potential sites. The Country Club would also be a good location. I think Atlas has found a land owner willing to lease a 50x50 foot plot for a relatively low price, so they are not anxious to make the extra effort to contact the brewery or other land owners where their time and cost might be somewhat higher. Thanks for following through on this! Jeff From: Ray Martinez [mailto:raymartinez@fcgov.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:26 AM To: Jeff Snowden Cc: CCSL Subject: Re: Upcoming October 2 Council Vote on Cell Tower in Residential Zoned Area Jeff, thank you for taking the time to write me. While I don't know all the nuances of recent legislation that indicates we may not have a lot of say and what's allowable. I'll ask our city manager to respond to this with more specifics. You mentioned that there are better options to improve cell reception without impacting neighborhoods whose property owners thought they were protected by our zoning against such actions. I would like to know what are some of the better options you may have in mind. On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Jeff Snowden <troop97@frii.com> wrote: Hi Bob, Mayor Troxell, and City Council, Cell phone towers are prohibited in residentially zoned areas of Fort Collins. In addition, neither the city itself nor the Poudre School District currently allow cell towers on their properties. However, Atlas Tower is attempting to get an exemption to build a cell tower that is literally a stone's throw from our neighborhood (Storybook) and from other houses on Turnberry Rd. While we all want better cell service, there are better options to improve cell reception without impacting neighborhoods whose property owners thought they were protected by our zoning against such actions. We checked both the zoning and the city's "long-range" plan before we built here. While we understand that Federal law prevents the city from considering potential health effects of a nearby cell tower, the presence of such a tower nevertheless will negatively impact our property values. In addition, there are other nearby locations with zoning that allows cell towers, such as the A-B Brewery and even a small city parcel just east of our neighborhood. Finally, if this exemption is passed, it opens up the possibility of cell towers in other residential areas of the city, which largely defeats the value of having zoning. At their September 14 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 to 1 to recommend AGAINST the cell tower in our residentially zoned area. We urge you to support their recommendation by maintaining the value of residential zoning in the city. Thanks, Jeff & Twila Snowden 2151 Friar Tuck Ct Ray Martinez, Councilman District-2 raymartinez@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com | twitter @raymartinez31 970.690.3686 With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA. From: Delynn Coldiron To: "thorntondoyle@gmail.com" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:20:29 PM Good evening Mr. Thornton - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Julie Ellis Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:56 AM To: Delynn Coldiron Subject: FW: Turnberry Cell Tower From: Doyle Thornton [mailto:thorntondoyle@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:38 AM To: City Clerk Office Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower City Counsel, This is in regards to the approval of the cell tower off Turnberry Rd in Fort Collins, CO. I live on the north side at 700 Knollwood Circle in Fort Collins, CO and my cell provider is Verizon and we have always had great service up until the last couple of years and I don’t know why but it has gotten really bad and we loose our service all the time and if this tower can fix that I am all for it. The reason I am writing this is because what I have been reading in the paper, please pass this along to the city counsel and have them vote in favor of said cell tower. The paper said it would be on the agenda at tomorrow’s counsel meeting. If that’s true I would like to attend, but I did not see this on the agenda. Can you confirm this and let me know. Sincerely Doyle Thornton 970-218-0514 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Delynn Coldiron To: "Cheryl Vieira" Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Turnberry Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:16:55 AM Good morning Ms. Vieira - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Cheryl Vieira [mailto:cmvieira34@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:47 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Turnberry Cell Tower The cell tower needs to go in as planned!!! The city is in the business of providing emergency services and a North Fort Collins resident's inability to call 911 due to no cell service if this project is voted down just opens the city up for legal implications. There are no proven health affects for having a cell tower nearby so that argument is non-existent. A viable plan is proposed - let's support it and give the homeowners what they are entitled to in the Turnberry area by providing a way for them to use their cell phones - for personal use or emergency services. Cheryl Vieira 1221 Bateleur Lane Hearthfire subdivsion 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:47 PM To: Kenneth.Watkins@ColoState.EDU Cc: Sarah Kane; Delynn Coldiron; Rita Knoll Subject: RE: proposed tower Good evening Mr. Watkins - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Watkins,Kenneth Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:41 PM To: boverbeck@fcgov.com Subject: proposed tower Dear Councilman The proposed tower is out of character with our residential neighborhood. We have a beautiful neighborhood and the tower would be an eyesore and detract from the value of our homes. I never understood how the tower could have ever been considered for this place they have chosen. Aren't there zoning laws. As councilmen isn't it your responsibility to protect your citizens from harmful impacts. Please vote against the tower location. It should not be permitted in a residential neighborhood. 2 Sincerely Ken W. Watkins 2109 Sherwood Forest Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 From: Rita Knoll To: "poogleway" Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:36:37 AM Peter, Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of your project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter next week in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. From: poogleway [mailto:poogleway@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 6:40 AM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower I'm opposed to granting a waiver of the residential zoning for a cell tower on Turnberry. This would become a precedent for other home owners who want to make money leasing out their land, while reducing the property values around them. Peter Way Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk Cards received from residents and response provided by City Clerk 10/17/17 Long Pond WTF & APU Clay Frickey ATTACHMENT 4 Overview • 60’ tall wireless telecommunications facility • Disguised as silo • Located in Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone • Not an allowed use 2 Addition of Permitted Use (APU) • Process for uses not allowed in a zone district • Must be an allowed use in another zone • 8 criteria – 1.3.4(C)(1) • City Council decision maker • Only in residential zones 3 4 Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Cities must permit cell towers • May use zoning to control location • May not consider environmental/health impacts • Zoning may not result in de facto ban on cell towers 5 6 APU Criterion 1 Criterion 1 - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless equipment allowed in LMN • Facility vs. equipment • Design, not function Staff finds proposal meets criterion 1 7 APU Criterion 2 Criterion 2 - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • LMN purpose statement • Integrated neighborhoods • Neighborhood services • Must be designed to fit into neighborhood Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion 2 based on conditions of approval 8 APU Criterion 3 Criterion 3 - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties 9 APU Criterion 3 • Few parcels with appropriate zoning • Unable to obtain lease on properly zoned properties • Fort Collins Country Club • Anheuser-Busch/InBev • City property not eligible • Poudre School District does not allow leases 10 11 AB/ InBev FCCC City of Fort Collins 12 13 14 15 16 APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings • Can meet criterion with two conditions • 45’ height limit • Located closer to out buildings 17 APU Criterion 4 Criterion 4 - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added 18 APU Criterion 4 • No greater impact than other permitted uses Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4. 19 APU Criterion 5 Criterion 5 - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area • Will not change character of neighborhood Staff finds proposal meets criterion 5. 20 APU Criterion 6 Criterion 6 - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless Telecommunications Equipment allowed • Design compatible if conditions of approval are met Staff finds proposal meets criterion 6 21 APU Criterion 7 Criterion 7 - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review 22 APU Criterion 7 • Held two neighborhood meetings • March 30, 2016 (pre-submittal) • May 17, 2017 (after one round of review) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 7. 23 APU Criterion 8 Criterion 8 - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code • Use is not marijuana related Staff finds proposal meets criterion 8 24 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP160018 subject to the following condition: The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or less and the facility be moved further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority. 25 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 136, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #160018 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #160018 (“PDP#160018”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district (“L-M-N zone”) on the parcel located at 2008 Turnberry Road, parcel number 8832005002 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the L-M-N zone; and WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#160018 for the addition of wireless telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board (“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary application, PDP#160018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on May 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such requirement, the proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the L-M-N zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the L-M-N zone; and WHEREAS, at its September 14, 2017, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council not approve the APU; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied in order for Council to approve the APU; and -2- WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, Council held a public hearing on the APU at which the APU applicant, members of the public, and City staff presented Council with evidence, testimony and argument. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on October 17, 2017, at which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and argument, and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU, hereby approves the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the L-M-N zone. Section 3. That the Council imposes the following condition or conditions of approval: (1) The addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on the Parcel is conditional upon the approval of PDP#160018. Upon a final decision to deny PDP#160018 and the conclusion of any related appeals and subsequent action, if PDP#160018 is ultimately denied, the approval of the APU granted herein shall automatically terminate and shall thereafter be null and void. 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, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) The APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (a) Such use is appropriate in the L-M-N zone. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the L-M-N zone and the other permitted uses in the L-M-N zone. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the L-M-N zone. -3- (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the L-M-N zone district. (g) The LUC requirement for two neighborhood meetings regarding the APU was fulfilled with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on May 25, 2017. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. (2) The APU is not detrimental to the public good; (3) The APU is in compliance with the applicable requirements and criteria contained in LUC Section 3.5.1; and (4) The APU is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the L-M-N zone. Section 5. That the Council’s approval of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the development proposal described in PDP#160018 and the associated APU request. 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 17th day of October, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -4- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -1- ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DENYING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #160018 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #160018 (“PDP#160018”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district (“L-M-N zone”) on the parcel located at 2008 Turnberry Road, parcel number 8832005002 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the L-M-N zone; and WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#160018 for the addition of wireless telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board (“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary application, PDP#160018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on May 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such requirement, the proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the L-M-N zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the L-M-N zone; and WHEREAS, at its September 14, 2017, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council not approve the APU; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied in order for Council to approve the APU; and -2- WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, Council held a public hearing on the APU at which the APU applicant, members of the public, and City staff presented Council with evidence, testimony and argument. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on October 17, 2017, at which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and argument, and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU, hereby denies the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the L-M-N zone. Section 3. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) The APU fails to satisfy the following requirement or requirements set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (a) Such use is not appropriate in the L-M-N zone. (b) Such use does not conform to the basic characteristics of the L-M-N zone and the other permitted uses in the L-M-N zone. (c) The location, size and design of such use is not compatible with and has more than minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (d) Such use creates more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the L-M-N zone. (e) Such use will change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is not compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the L-M-N zone. (2) The APU is detrimental to the public good; (3) The APU is not in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in LUC Section 3.5.1. -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of October, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk LAT40 INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV G TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW B 07-08-16 C 12-15-16 ZONING D 12-22-16 ZONING E 02-17-17 ZONING F 02-24-17 ZONING G 03-03-17 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL SITE NAME: TURNBERRY UTILITY PLANS Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations LAT40, INC. 6250 W 10TH ST, UNIT 2 GREELEY, CO 80634 BRIAN T. BRINKMAN, P.L.S. (970) 515-5294 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 60.9 MILES. TAKE EXIT 271 FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN LEFT ONTO E CO RD 50/ MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. TURN RIGHT ONTO COUNTY ROAD 11/ TURNBERRY ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: TURNBERRY LATITUDE: W 105° 02' 14.96" N 40° 36' 51.50" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION FOUND IN A SURVEY DATED MARCH 24, 2016. KENNETH & JEANETTE FORBES 2008 TURNBERRY ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 395-9493 UNKNOWN FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV I TURNBERRY KES NMC ZONING ZONING REVIEW ZONING PLANNING DRAWINGS ZONING D 12-14-16 ZONING E 12-22-16 ZONING F 02-17-17 ZONING G 02-24-17 H 03-03-17 I 06-30-17 PARCEL NUMBER: 8832005002 GROUND ELEVATION: 5052' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, FORBES MINOR SUB, FTC (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 2500± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PLANNING DRAWINGS Attachment 3 to staff report to P&Z Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations R a ng e v ie w Dr Maid Marian Ct Rainbow Dr Hi l lsid e D r S View Dr Sherwood Forest Ct K e dr o n Dr M iram on t D r Banbury Ln Middlebury Ln Waterbury Ln Adri e l Cir Adriel Way Simsbury Ct Shelburne Ct Barrington Ct Westover Ct Kalmar Ct Clarion Ln Kedron Ct Milton Ln Rangeview Dr Maple Hill Dr Thoreau Dr Bar Harbor Dr Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd Mountain Vista Dr N Timberline Rd © Long Pond and Wireless Addition Telecommunications of Permitted Use Facility 1 inch = 667 feet Zoning & Site Vicinity Map Site ATTACHMENT 1