HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN CREST HEALTHCARE, 4601 CORBETT DR., WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - PDP/FDP - 28-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - WTE / WTF INFORMATION4). Radio Frequency - The Neenan building is located within our designated search area. However,
the proposed light pole at Mountain Crest will provide a top of the antenna elevation of
approximately 62'. While we have not reviewed any building drawings of this site, the Cricket
team has visited the site. The building is three stories tall, and we generally estimate 12' per story,
so we are estimating that the building is 36' tall. In addition, the Fort Collins zoning code allows
for roof mounted facilities up to 15' over the roof line. So the highest elevation we could get from
this building for our antennas is approximately 51', or I I' less than Mountain Crest is providing.
Considering the building is brand new, it's much more likely that either the landlord or the City
would prefer/force us to mount to the existing 8' screening walls presently on the roof, meaning
we would have an elevation of approximately 44% or 17' less that what Mountain Crest is
providing. 1 also received the following Email from our RF manager, Tim Heine, in response to
the request to investigate this site from an RF perspective:
"I would like to reiterate EG's comments today regarding the building
mentioned below. The partnership is planning to build another 4-5 buildings
of similar height near the building in question. My fear is that upon
constructing the other buildings, the coverage will be reduced in the
northeast & east direction due to shadowing from those buildings. In a
previous market we could not understand why a site was performing poorly in
a certain direction and it was determined a new building was shadowing the
coverage. Ironically, this site had been drive tested several months earlier and there was
no degradation of coverage. Also, the drive test pictures showed the building
under construction! I will look at this site more thoroughly if/when EG gets a serious response
from the partnership "
To summarize our conclusions, we don't know if we can get a lease for this site and we don't know if the
site will meet our network objectives. Even if we could hurdle those obstacles, the timing of this proposal
would hurt us the most. If we abandoned the Mountain Crest proposal in favor of the Neenan building, the
Neenan site would not be approved, constructed, and on air until sometime in 2002. This would represent
an absolute failure in our efforts to provide coverage to this busy part of Fort Collins by the end of October
and would be unacceptable to Cricket Management. Please refer to the map titled "Cricket
Communications Proposed Telecom Site FNL 013B Coverage Prediction Without Site" in "Appendix Q"
of my original application packet. This map demonstrates the large hole we will have in our network if the
Mountain Crest site is not on air once we launch our network.
Consequently, we sincerely ask the City to focus on the documentation provided in the project development
plan application for the Mountain Crest site, including the drawings, the photo simulations, and the
narrative response. We have clearly demonstrated that we are in full compliance with your land use code.
The staff report produced by your professional staff, which includes a recommendation of approval,
indicates that staff thoroughly researched our application and agrees with our assessment that we are in full
compliance with your land use code. Consequently, we look forward to receiving an approval for our
proposed Mountain Crest site.
Thank you for giving us a chance to responds to this request. Please call me with any additional questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
' J
Andrew J. Dewhirst
C: Bob Barkeen
FNL 013B
c r i c etTM
communications
October 12, 2001
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Cameron:
Lucent Technologies
Bell Labs Innovations 0
c�9R�tir Fp
A
C�NN�NG
The following letter is a response to the Planning Departments request that we investigate the viability of
locating a roof or wall mounted wireless telecommunication facility at the Neenan building located at 2809
Harmony Road. This request was a direct result of the public input received at a public hearing on October
3 for the proposed Cricket light pole at 4601 Corbett Drive.
As I have covered in my written narrative description of the project, and as I have discussed at the public
hearings, there are four main categories that must be considered when investigating the viability of a
wireless telecommunication facility. I will address each of those categories in this letter.
1) Zoning — This is obviously a good candidate from a zoning perspective, in terms of the probability
of receiving approval from the City. However, the Cricket launch date (when the system is turned
on and we start offering phone service) is scheduled for the end of October. This site would take
at least two months in the zoning process. In addition, lease negotiations have not even started at
this site, which means it will probably be at least two months before zoning drawings are
produced. This site would not come close to meeting our launch date.
2). Construction — Because we are just beginning are due diligence for this site, construction has not
had a chance to complete a thorough analysis. If we were to receive positive confirmation that the
landlord was interested in entering into lease negotiations with us, we would review the building
drawings, determine a preliminary design for the site, and conduct a structural analysis. New
zoning and construction drawings would need to be ordered. We are reasonably confident that we
could produce a design at this building that would work.
3). Site Acquisition — Our site acquisition manager, EG Niese, contacted the owners (Neenan
Development Group) of the property on October 9, 2001. The initial response to our proposal
from the partner we spoke with was that they might be interested, but that other partners would
have to be contacted. As of today, we have not heard back from the owners. This is typical. It
will take 4 to 5 months to get a fully executed lease on this site. A variety of professional services
have to be ordered, including but not limited to: a title commitment; a land or boundary survey; a
phase I environmental assessment to ensure compliance with the National Environmental
Protection Act; and registration with the FAA. In addition, all lease terms will have to be
negotiated. All of these issues take time and all of them have the potential to "kill" the site. Most
importantly, this building was not in existence when we were canvassing the area back in April
and May of 2001. As we have documented and explained, we thoroughly researched this search
ring (or designated search area) to try and find an existing structure that would meet our network
objectives. No existing buildings or structures existed at that time that met our needs. If we were
forced to start all over with the owners of the Neenan building to secure another lease, it would
take months before we could execute the lease.
I;y�vl1(tIItI:3