HomeMy WebLinkAboutKING SOOPERS (CEDARWOOD) WTE COLOCATION - BDR - 38-06/B - CORRESPONDENCE - (21)An Aspen - RE: Verizon site Page 3
> >as you are. The City will allow a 50-foot pole for the co -location so
>that
> >there is room for both facilities on the pole. I spoke to Chris
>Stryker at
> >our counter today and he said he would call you. He submitted their
>plans
> >for the 40-foot pole today but will modify the pole so that another
>10-foot
> >section can be added to the top of the pole. This will require you
>all to
> >do the visual analysis (two photosimulations) and the neighborhood
>meeting
> >to co -locate.
> >Let me know if you have questions.
> >Anne
> >Anne Aspen
> >City Planner
> >Current Planning Department
> >City of Fort Collins, CO
> >aaspen@fcgov.com
> >(970)221-6206
>FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo' buy and sell with
>people
>you know
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001 msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hot
mail_tagline_12/06
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/golmsnnkwme0020000001 msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-
m sn.com/messengerAau nch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagl ine
Anne Aspen - RE: Verizon site Page 2
>Anne Aspen
>City Planner
>Current Planning Department
>City of Fort Collins, CO
,>aaspen@fcgov.com
>(970)221-6206
> >>> "Kelly Harrison" <klharr@msn.com> 02/13/2007 10:11 AM >>>
>Hi Anne,
>I wanted to clarify a few things before presenting these issues to
>Verizon
>Wireless. I had called the City and reviewed the code prior to
>pursuing
>this site. Both indicated there are no separation requirements between
>towers as there are in some City Codes. Is there a section in the Code
>that
>states 'The City will not allow separate wireless facilities next to
>each
>other"? If we were willing to go at the front of the lot would the
>third
>tower then be allowed?
>You had indicated the hearing and neighborhood meeting for the Cingular
>site
>was very nasty. Won't we be subject to the same requirement and
>potentially
>face denial for the additional 10' of height? At the conceptual review
>meeting you argued that avoiding the meeting/hearing by placing two
>40-foot
>poles might be preferable. When did this change?
>Thank you, Kelly
> >From: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
> >To: <klharr@msn.com>
> >Subject: Verizon site
> >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 200716:45:42 -0700
> >Hi Kelly,
> >I got your fax. Your email bounced because our system rejects email
>from
> >big spam producers including msn.com. Sorry about that. I've added
>you to
> >my OK list so starting tomorrow, you should be able to get through to
>me
> >via email.
> >The City will not allow separate wireless facilities next to each
>other.
> >The two must co -locate. King Soopers is subject to the Land Use Code
>just
Anne Aspen - RE: Verizon site Page 1
From:
"Kelly Harrison" <klharr@msn.com>
To:
<AAspen@fcgov.com>
Date:
02/13/2007 12:42:37 PM
Subject:
RE: Verizon site
Thanks Anne - I appreciate the information. I am planning to hear back from
Chris once he speaks with T-Mobile. At that point I will get with you to
coordinate the submittal for the pole extension. Have a good day, Kelly
>From: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
>To: "Kelly Harrison" <klharr@msn.com>
>Subject: RE: Verizon site
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:52:14 -0700
>Kelly,
>Please refer to Section 3.8.13 (B) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
>In it, it is clear that the City of Fort Collins requires co -location to
>minimize the impacts of cell phone towers whenever possible. I am
>certain that in early phone calls with you, I refered to this division
>of the Land Use Code since it contains all the specific standards
>related to Wireless Telecommunications. After your conceptual review
>meeting, which is the first instance when I became aware of what you are
>proposing, I spoke with the hearing officer, who is the ultimate
>decision -maker on the project, to get a read on whether your proposal
>would be acceptable. As I told you in the conceptual review meeting, I
>have not been faced with a request for nearby poles before and did not
>know what the hearing officer would think about that vs. one taller
>tower in a neighborhood where residents were vocally opposed. You'll
>recall that I said it was "six of one, half dozen of the other". The
>hearing officer was very clear that co -location would be required.
>let you know in your conceptual review comment letter within a week of
>the meeting.
>I have spoken with Chris Stryker at T-Mobile and he is amenable to
>co4ocating and says he has worked with you before on co -location
>projects. His project is already in our system and has been through
>staff review. He is proposing a project that will not exceed 40 feet so
>he is not responsible for the visual analysis or neighborhood meeting.
>He agreed to modify the pole to accommodate the co -location.
>Your portion of the project will be over 40 feet so you will be
>responsible for the 2 special height requirements including the visual
>analysis and the neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting is ar
>opportunity to hear from neighbors about their concerns. The neighbors
>do not have veto power. If your project meets the code and has
>addressed neighborhood issues to the best of your ability, then the
>hearing officer will approve the project. The fact that you will
no -locate instead of building an additional tower is noteworthy - the
>hearing officer will look favorably on that, and in my staff report, the
>recommendation will be approval as a result, assuming it meets code.
>The neighborhood meeting may not be pretty if the same neighbors show
>up, but it is a requirement. The Cingular project got built even though
>they hosted a neighborhood meeting.
>Anne Aspen