Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 TURNBERRY RD WTF - PDP160018 - CORRESPONDENCE - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONPage 6 of 6 11/2/17 Parcel 9 Anheuser-Bush This site is located within the preferential zoning of the City of Fort Collins. Verizon provided a letter discussing the Anheuser-Bush property along with a description that it is 70' lower in elevation and 2 miles southeast of the Verizon search ring. Parcel 9 is currently owned by Anheuser-Bush. The NW corner of parcel 9 is 30' lower than the proposed site and is only 0.3 miles outside of the Verizon search ring. This is actually 0.3 miles closer than the proposed site to the Verizon search ring. Further consideration and evaluation is justified for this parcel. Verizon made the following statement in the application materials: The location of the Anheuser-Busch property would not allow for the effective coverage of the northeastern portion of Fort Collins around Richard's Lake Park neighborhood that Verizon is working to serve. Richard's Lake Park (and other park space) Based on the Verizon letter this location is obviously a target of improved coverage for Verizon. This park sits approximately 45' higher in elevation than the proposed site at Turnberry Rd. It also is near the center of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. There is also open space / park at the NE corner of Richards Lake Road and Turnberry Road that is the same elevation as the proposed site and also is within the Verizon search ring that warrants evaluation. We find the application materials for these three items to be incomplete and the documentation that has been provided does not justify this facility at this time. Before we can make a final recommendation to the City on this application these items must be addressed. Should the applicant be willing to provide additional application material, we strongly recommend a conference call with the applicant's individual(s) that will be providing the information to review the items needed in order to assure that the next submittal is complete and contains all of the information needed for the city to make an informed decision on this application. Please contact Bob Naumann at (402) 850-3424 if you have any questions. Ily, hard Comi CMS Cc: Robert A. Naumann CMS (via e-mail) 6 Page 5 of 6 11/2/17 Data required for each scenario are as follows. Scenario 1: Sector or sectors currently at or over capacity. (Data needed for the past busy season) • Data collected over 5 (five) consecutive days for minutes of use for the bouncing busy hour (i.e., highest use hour for each of the 5 days), • Convert the use data to Erlangs; • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be each in sector(s), • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage. Scenario 2: Sector or sectors anticipated to be at or over capacity during the next busy season • Data for the past 2 (two) year's busy seasons to establish a trend of use following the same guidelines as under Scenario 1 (i.e., 5 consecutive days bouncing busy use for each of the last 2 busy seasons) The trend should be straight line. • Convert the use data to Erlangs. • Determine the maximum number of channels/voice radios that could be in each sector(s) • Determine the capacity of the sector in Erlangs. (2%) blockage Propagation Projections Propagation projections must be provided depicting existing and proposed coverage at —95dBm in vehicle or —85dBm in building coverage, or for 700 d/B/m service at-95d/B/m for city/suburban in - building coverage and state whether the applicant is designing for in -vehicle or in -building coverage, and how the proposed coverage will overlap existing coverage to relieve existing or projected capacity issues. The maps must indicate the output power level used at the antenna height requested. On a tower, the applicant must show the minimum height necessary to achieve the required capacity relief, i.e. below which the facility will not provide any capacity relief. Capacity Summary Narrative Present the narrative summary and conclusion for need with reference to the capacity use studies to be presented. The supporting technical data requested shall be accompanied by a written explanation of why a new facility/site is needed is, i.e. why additional capacity can not be added to the existing facility. 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant's search ring Supporting documents for alternative sites evaluated by the applicant have not been provided including communications / proposals related to the Fort Collins Country Club. It should be noted that the proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road is approximately 0.6 miles south of the Verizon search ring shown in Exhibit 2. Other potential sites are discussed below and warrant evaluation. All of these sites are closer to the Verizon search ring than the proposed facility or within the Verizon search ring. Fort Collins Country Club (Maintenance Building) Supporting documents for this alternative site evaluated by the applicant and Verizon should be provided to document the commercial impracticability. This location sits approximately 25' higher in elevation than the proposed site and is on the fringe of the Verizon search ring. A facility at this location has the potential to be shorter with improved coverage compared to the proposed site. Page 4 of 6 11/2/17 The demonstration of need for capacity relief requires the presentation of the data requirements identified below with a narrative. The narrative should present the summary results of the supporting studies and documentation. To further clarify, an analysis of current and projected usage for each adjacent or adjoining site will be required, by sector, for each existing sector of each/all sites in need of capacity relief, and a description of specifically how the proposed site will relieve current and projected capacity issues in each sector requiring relief. Data must include a description of the capacity design for each sector requiring relief (usage capacity) to include the transmitting base station equipment specifications (cut sheets) in use or proposed for the upgrade and indicating how the equipment in use or as proposed relates to the maximum possible usage capacity for each sector affected by a need for capacity relief. Usage data should utilize a bouncing busy hour and should be over a period of five L5J consecutive days. The report should show the average bottom -line numbers for those five consecutive days. The documentation required to support an application for a capacity increase falls into one of two scenarios: 1. A situation in which a sector or sectors are over capacity at the present time, or 2. A situation in which a sector or sectors are anticipated to be over capacity during for the next busy season. The following site information is required for each scenario: a. What is at capacity, i.e. voice or data? b. Which sector at each site is at capacity? c. What are the number of voice carriers and data carriers per sector at each site? d. How many voice carriers and how many data carriers' are there in each necessitating this application? e. Can the number of voice or data carriers be reallocated (to voice or data) to address the capacity issue/need? If not, why not? f. The number of channels/voice radios installed per each affected sector; g. Minimum acceptable Bit Rate; h. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that can be installed. Radio that can be put at each current site divided by the number of radios per sector. i. The maximum number of channels (amount of capacity) for the affected sectors that are installed. j. All calculations that are related to the capacity of the voice or data capacity of the affected sectors, e.g. minutes of use. Erlangs, Bit Error Rate, number of data customers per busy hour data. k. Number of anticipated voice users and data users for each type of use per site; I. Any other data that provides documentation as regards the need for increased voice or data capacity relief, such being the obligation of the applicant to provide to enable verification of the need. (This may include a customer limit, design thru put data rates or other criteria prescribed in internal technical documents.) ' The number of paths or circuits used for voice or data 4 Page 3 of 6 11/2/17 Based on this statement it appears that Verizon is stating the purpose of a new site in this area is both to improve coverage and to increase capacity. The data typically required to document these issues are different. We will first look at coverage. Verizon provided a propagation map for the existing coverage in Northeastern Fort Collins. This existing coverage map has multiple deficiencies: 1. It appears to have included three color codes; green -75 dBm, yellow -85 dBm, and grey -95 dBm. Verizon implies that in order to provide excellent in building coverage requires -80 dBm. Verizon typically uses -95 dBm (700 MHz and 2100 MHz frequencies) for in building services in cities, suburban and dense residential communities. Verizon prepared a coverage map for this location using -75 dBm which is not consistent and conflicts with Verizon's in building requirements for other communities. 2. It does not state what frequency band was utilized to generate the map? Is it the 700 MHz band or the 2100 MHz band? The coverage gaps will be significantly different based on the frequency band. 3. Verizon has not provided adjacent site information, such as location, operating power (ERP), losses, elevations, etc. 4. Verizon did not provide drive test data to document the model is correct and properly reflects the actual gap in coverage. 5. Verizon did not include a scale or street labels to assist in defining the areas where coverage is an issue. Verizon also submitted a propagation map of what coverage "could be" with Verizon located at the 55' elevation of the proposed facility. This "conceptual" coverage map also has multiple deficiencies. In addition to all the deficiencies for the existing coverage, additional deficiencies include: 1. The location of the proposed analyzed facility appears to be different than the proposed location at 2008 Turnberry Rd. It appears the analyzed location and conceptual coverage map is for a facility located at a maintenance facility on the Fort Collins County Club located approximately 1 mile to the North/Northwest. This location adjustment would obviously impact the conceptual coverage map. 2. The proposed coverage maps should be provided using the 700 MHz frequency at the proposed elevation and at 10' lower elevations along with a narrative explaining the loss in coverage at the lower elevation in order to justify the need for the proposed height of this structure. Information required to address Verizon's capacity concern also has not been provided. Verizon provided one chart with no supporting documentation or information. (Copy of chart below) Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: 200 — ISO V Q ID 300 Q SO- 0— 1 t 1 ,r1/2015 10/112015 1n2M6 4/1W6 711WG 1"/2016 Trend Line Capacity Azeraae users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it fiuther umcreasina as we aet towards the end cf the year. 3 Page 2 of 6 11/2/17 Of particular note in this review is the "Applicant" is not a provider of personal wireless services covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but is an infrastructure provider desiring to construct a silo that could potentially support up to three service providers. While Verizon has included a document "Exhibit V titled RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80524, Verizon is not listed as a co -applicant and does not appear to be committed or integrated into this application. This is confirmed in the Attachment 2 document which includes the following statement by Atlas Tower. 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 Based on this information the Proposal Summary section (copied below) is incorrect. The second sentence states "This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area." This statement is incorrect. This facility will provide a support structure for wireless service providers who in the future may attach and install antennas / equipment that will provide wireless coverage to the surrounding area, is a more correct statement. 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. The reason this wording is important is that without a commitment and installation of a service provider's equipment, no improvement in wireless coverage will occur as a result of the construction of this project. It also makes it clear that this application is not for a provider of personal wireless services and therefore is not a protected class under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For the purpose of providing the City of Fort Collins and the applicant as much information as possible based on the documentation the applicant has provided to date, the balance of this report will be written as if the applicant is a service provider or that Verizon has committed to the project and will install wireless equipment as a co -applicant. 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site In order to have a proper understanding of the existing and proposed coverage a significant amount of supplemental and additional information is required. First, we will address the deficiencies of the submitted information which was included in Exhibit I Verizon provided the following statement: 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 2 TriE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE ROAD 518439-3079 GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX: 518478-0909 November 2, 2017 Clay Frickey Fort Collins Planning 281 North College, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (via regular mail and e-mail) Re: Fort Collins CO Atlas Tower 2008 Turnberry Road Dear Mr. Frickey; ECEIVE NOV 0 7 2017 Br We have reviewed all of the materials submitted by the applicant for the above referenced application relating to the conditions of the approval of a Special Use Permit. This includes the following three documents: City of Fort Collins Development Review: Application Form dated 5/25/16 PDF Attachment 2: Atlas Tower Supplementary Narrative - Long Pond dated August 22, 2017 PDF Attachment 3: Atlas Tower Zoning Construction Drawings Rev I dated 6/30/17. Brief description / project overview: Applicant: Atlas Tower Proposed Project: Construct a 60' silo at 2008 Turnberry Rd with capabilities to enclose 3 wireless carriers. Scope of Review: 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996 2. Analysis of existing cell phone coverage for Verizon Wireless near the development site 3. Determination of other viable sites for a cell tower within the applicant's search ring 1. Assess development application for completeness/compliance with Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is taken from the April 23, 1996 Federal Communications Commission FACT SHEET. "Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act") governs federal, state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The 1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and placement of facilities such as towers for cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) transmitters: - • The new law preserves local zoning authority, but clarifies when the exercise of local zoning authority may be preempted by the FCC. • Section 704 prohibits any action that would discriminate between different providers of personal wireless services, such as cellular, wide -area SMR and broadband PCS. It also prohibits any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a particular area."