The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008 TURNBERRY RD APU JAN 16 2018 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - PDP160018 - REPORTS - SECOND READINGupon 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 19th day of December, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of January, A.D. 2018. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of January, A.D. 2018. ATTEST: City Clerk -4- Mayor (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. (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, the conditions of approval set forth in above Section 3, the testimony and evidence presented at the December 19, 2017, APU hearing, and the P&Z recommendation and hearing record. Unless otherwise specified as a condition of approval of the APU, any changes to the use or to its location, size, and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact -3- WHEREAS, the APU was originally scheduled for October 17, 2017, but Council continued the hearing on October 17 to November 21 to allow City staff time to evaluate the issues raised in a letter from legal counsel for Verizon Wireless; and WHEREAS, at the request of the APU applicant Atlas Tower, Council further continued the hearing on November 13 to December 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 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 December 19, 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. (2) To satisfy the requirement set forth in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1), the wireless telecommunications facility shall: (a) Be 45 feet or less in height; and (b) Be located further north than proposed in order to be closer to the existing outbuildings on the Parcel and such location shall not be changed without an approved amendment to PDP#160018 and approval of a new addition of permitted use pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(F) if required pursuant to Section 1.3.4(F). Section 4. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, and in consideration of the conditions of approval imposed in above Section 3, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: -2- 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 Tumberry 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 -1- • Non -conforming uses expire after 24 months of inactivity • Land Use Code section 1.5.3 Staff recommends removal after 6 months of inactivity t of -.00VOWM1 • Building code wind loading requirement • 100 miles per hour (161 kph) Vasd or 129 miles per hour (208 kph) Vult. • Current code requirements sufficient Staff recommends using existing wind loading standard t Collins • Change design when surrounding area develops • Practical considerations • Vested rights • Metric/timing • Compliance with Telecommunications Act Staff recommends not pursuing Condition #1 Fort Collins 1/16/18 cp Adow ►4 . !.. f f Long Pond APU Clay Frickey I don't know if there is an opportunity for you to reconsider the height, but I hope you will put doing "the right thing" over making a few people angry about "seeing" a cell tower! Thank you! Jenni Sifuentes, Richard's Lake Sent from my Whone From: Delynn Coldiron To: Jenni White Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 3:10:34 PM Dear Ms. White - 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 that was conducted on December 19, 2017. 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. At the end of the hearing on the 19th, the Council voted to adopt an ordinance on first reading that would approve the Addition of a Permitted Use, with conditions, and requested that staff suggest conditions to address three specific concerns noted by Council in its discussion. The conditions relate to: 1) the standards applicable to the structure to make it safe in windy conditions; 2) a possible requirement that the structure be removed if it becomes obsolete; and 3) a possible requirement that the structure be modified in the future to remain compatible with surrounding land uses. The ordinance will be considered on second reading at the Council meeting on tonight, January 2nd. At that time, the Council will consider a request to continue second reading of the ordinance to its January 16, 2018 meeting. If second reading of this ordinance is continued, at its meeting on January 16, 2018 Council may reopen the hearing to receive evidence and comment related specifically to the conditions the Council discussed at the hearing on December 19. If the hearing is reopened, your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item and considered to the extent it relates to the conditions under consideration. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: Jenni White [mailto jennil whitela�h, otma Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:21 AM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower Good morning, I attended the Council meeting last night and stayed until 10:40 when the cell issue was over. I have 1 question for you all! What about all of us who don't have Verizon? With only approving a 45 foot tower all the rest of us will still have the same safety concerns that you said were important! We went away from Verizon because they are too expensive! I feel like this is another example of systematic discrimination. Those that can afford the expensive cell provider in this city can have service, but others can't..... This is not right! family room, office. Only by standing in the front doorway of my home, which faces South, can I reliably make or receive calls on my cell phone. Many families have opted to drop their land line service in favor of having only cell service. This is not a safe option if cell service in our area is not consistent and reliable. Thank you, Nancy Terry Nancy Terry 970-266-1690 Apply Now Bold Guarantee IN ® IN e ® ®; http://www.pmglending.com/uploads/contenVSignaturesNancyTerry. j pg U From: Detyno colalmn To: Tem, Nancy Ca: 1Detynn GpIdiron Subject: RE: Long Pond cell tower Deft: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 3:12:41 PM Dear Ms. Terry: 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 that was conducted on December 19, 2017. 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. At the end of the hearing on the 19th, the Council voted to adopt an ordinance on first reading that would approve the Addition of a Permitted Use, with conditions, and requested that staff suggest conditions to address three specific concerns noted by Council in its discussion. The conditions relate to: 1) the standards applicable to the structure to make it safe in windy conditions; 2) a possible requirement that the structure be removed if it becomes obsolete; and 3) a possible requirement that the structure be modified in the future to remain compatible with surrounding land uses. The ordinance will be considered on second reading at the Council meeting on Tuesday, January 2nd. At thal time, the Council will consider a request to continue second reading of the ordinance to its January 16, 2018 meeting. If second reading of this ordinance is continued, at its meeting on January 16, 2018 Council may reopen the hearing to receive evidence and comment related specifically to the conditions the Council discussed at the hearing on December 19. If the hearing is reopened, your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item and considered to the extent it relates to the conditions under consideration. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter DeCynn CoWiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldi ron®.ffcyov.com From: Terry, Nancy [maiIto: nterry@pmglending.comj Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:51 AM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Subject: Long Pond cell tower Dear City Staff/Council members: I'm writing to say I am in favor of the proposed 60' cell tower in North Fort Collins (Long Pond area). I live in Eagle Lake. My cell service is through Verizon. Over the last several months my cell coverage has deteriorated significantly! I no longer get cell coverage in rooms of my home on the north side of our home — kitchen, Hi, I am in support of a cell tower in the northeast corridor of Fort Collins off of Turnberry. Cell coverage in the area is abysmal, resulting in dropped calls. This could potentially lead to a serious emergency situation. The recommendation to reduce the height of the tower is not acceptable. This would reduce the carriers that could use the tower for service, limiting the scope of the tower in the future. As a result, additional towers will need to be considered in the future. The visual impact of the tower is less of a concern than life and death situations. Additionally, this agricultural area is nearby the brewery which certainly has structures more than 60 feet tall. The structures of the brewery, and the impending development between the brewery and the proposed cell tower site, are more relevant to consider than two silos on Vine Drive. Please support the original 60 foot cell tower off of Turnberry. Sincerely, Julia Sharp From: Delvnn Coldiron To: Julia Sharp Cc: Delvnn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell tower silo Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 3:20:52 PM Dear Ms. Sharp: 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 that was conducted on December 19, 2017. 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. At the end of the hearing on the 19th, the Council voted to adopt an ordinance on first reading that would approve the Addition of a Permitted Use, with conditions, and requested that staff suggest conditions to address three specific concerns noted by Council in its discussion. The conditions relate to: 1) the standards applicable to the structure to make it safe in windy conditions; 2) a possible requirement that the structure be removed if it becomes obsolete; and 3) a possible requirement that the structure be modified in the future to remain compatible with surrounding land uses. The ordinance will be considered on second reading at the Council meeting on Tuesday, January 2nd At that time, the Council will consider a request to continue second reading of the ordinance to its January 16, 2018 meeting. If second reading of this ordinance is continued, at its meeting on January 16, 2018 Council may reopen the hearing to receive evidence and comment related specifically to the conditions the Council discussed at the hearing on December 19. If the hearing is reopened, your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item and considered to the extent it relates to the conditions under consideration. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter DeCynn CoUtron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldi ron (cYcgov.com From: Julia Sharp <juliasmileno v_ahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:19:21 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell tower silo Raju Jairam Raju@MBI.Com (970)691-6244(cell) From: Delynn Coldiron To: Raiu Jairam Cc: Delynn Coldiron Subject; RE: Cell Tower by the country club Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 3:16:45 PM Dear Mr. Jairam 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 that was conducted on December 19, 2017. 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 Councilrembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. At the end of the hearing on the 19th, the Council voted to adopt an ordinance on first reading that would approve the Addition of a Permitted Use, with conditions, and requested that staff suggest conditions to address three specific concerns noted by Council in its discussion. The conditions relate to: 1) the standards applicable to the structure to make it safe in windy conditions; 2) a possible requirement that the structure be removed if it becomes obsolete; and 3) a possible requirement that the structure be modified in the future to remain compatible with surrounding land uses. The ordinance will be considered on second reading at the Council meeting on Tuesday, January 2nd. At that time, the Council will consider a request to continue second reading of the ordinance to its January 16, 2018 meeting. If second reading of this ordinance is continued, at its meeting on January 16, 2018 Council may reopen the hearing to receive evidence and comment related specifically to the conditions the Council discussed at the hearing on December 19. If the hearing is reopened, your email will be included in the Council's packet regarding this item and considered to the extent it relates to the conditions under consideration. 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: Raju Jairam [mailto:Rai�uQMRI.Com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 3:08 PM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Subject: Cell Tower by the country club Whom it may concern: I am writing on behalf of the cell tower issue. I Live in the area and support having a cell tower to boost the reception in that area. It is currently lacking. The tower should accommodate at least three or more carriers so that there is competition. Keeping the tower at 45 feet reduces it to only one viable operator and therefore limits its use. It needs to be usable by most, if not all, customers who have other carriers. Thank you for your assistance in addressing this problem. You may contact me for any additional information. ATTACHMENT Resident Comments Provided to Council since December 19, 2017 Received as of 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 10, 2018 (Any comments received between Wednesday, January 10 and 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 16 will be included in Council's read -before packet.) 1 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Any other comments? If not, do we have a motion? 2 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I'll make a motion. Chairman Hansen, I would move that the Fort 3 Collins Planning and Zoning Board have a recommendation of denial to the City Council for the Long 4 Pond Wireless Telecommunication Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, based on the information and 5 testimony that we have heard this evening. 6 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Are you happy with that motion? 7 MR. YATABE: I think that's fine; I would generally recommend that ... more rationale for a 8 denial... recommendation of denial or approval be added to that, because there was a number of [sic] 9 views expressed both ways. 10 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Then I would like to amend that motion if possible. I would like to 11 say that ... that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend denial of the Long Pond Wireless 12 Telecommunication Facility and Addition of Permitted Use on the basis of the fact that the use would not 13 conform to the basic characteristics of the zone district and that the location, size, and design of it is not 14 compatible and would have negative impacts on the use of the nearby properties. 15 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: We have a motion; do we have a second? 16 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Second. 17 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Any other comments before we ... ahight, Cindy, can we 18 have a roll call? 19 MS. COSMAS: Hobbs? 20 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes. 21 MS. COSMAS: Rollins? 22 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes. 23 MS. COSMAS: Whitley? 24 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Yes. 25 MS. COSMAS: Carpenter? 26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 27 MS. COSMAS: Hansen? 28 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: No. Okay, with that, that item does not receive a recommendation for 29 City Council. 25 1 for now ... but how long is it going to work? That's my concern. And, are we going to end up, then, with 2 a silo in the middle of just a regular neighborhood. This is not going to stay fanning for much longer, so 3 I'm concerned about that. I don't know ... I'm still really on the fence about it. The 60-foot tower I think 4 is incredibly obtrusive, and that one doesn't work for me. But, the compromise of a 45-foot tower in a 5 little different location ... I just am going back and forth between ... I think that might be able to work for 6 me now. I just think that we're being very short-sighted in how long that's going to work. So, I'm still 7 thinking. 8 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: I'm really struggling with this one also. I really took to heart 9 Tanya's comment about the fact that we don't have some kind of outside RF engineer. I think of all of 10 our other utilities ... you know, we send something to stormwater, or we send it to transportation, and 11 we've got a group of experts that can add to the conversation and go, okay, well, we can't do it this way, 12 but we could do it this way, or ... you know, you've got a team of people with all these other utilities. And 13 yet, we're ... you know, we just don't happen to have this here. And so, that gives me a level of 14 discomfort because I, you know, normally we have a number of people in the room that work for the City 15 that are experts in whatever type of utility that we're talking about, so I'm really struggling with this also. 16 I just ... it would be nice if we had somebody that could speak to this. And I realize that the applicant's 17 done a tremendous amount of work, but I also don't like that we don't ... you know, the City said no, 18 we're not going to have it on our property. So, I think I would be most likely recommending to City 19 Council denial. 20 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Sounds like I'm in a minority here. I think there's certainly a need for 21 additional cellular service in the area ... that's been clearly communicated. The ... the projected coverage 22 maps that we saw on various tower heights... it seemed pretty obvious that there's an advantage to having 23 a tower that's over 50 feet tall, you know, with an antenna, you know approaching... with the antenna at 24 50 feet I think was your optimum one. I think if we were to ... and in fact, there's such a significant 25 decrease in the coverage that we're likely, in a very short time, going to see a need for another tower to 26 the north of a similar height. And if the objection is to having too many of these silos around, then 27 compromising with a 45-foot tower is not going to solve that problem. I think we'll make better headway 28 with a taller tower. I think the use of a silo is a very innovative way to make this type of facility fit in this 29 area of town. And, grain silos are enough of a history of this town that they get saved, you know ... when 30 roads are put in, they ... rather than the towers just going away ... or the silos going away, they are 31 relocated. So, there's a value on that as a symbol of this community. So, I think it's very appropriate for 32 that to be used as a camouflaging device. I would like to see it disguised a little better to make it not look 33 like a new tower, or new silo, but something that's more historic. I would be in support of this project 34 with it's full height with the condition that it has some additional camouflaging done to the fiberglass 35 panels that are used on it. 36 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I still find myself conflicted, even though I like the idea visually 37 of a 45-foot tower, I think a 60-foot tower is out of scale. Although the 60-foot tower is going to work a 38 lot better functionally than the 45-foot tower. So, I'm really on the fence on this. 39 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I want to add that, with some of the photos that we looked at, I did 40 some photo measuring techniques that I use in the work that I do, and also did some looking on the 41 internet. And, I think that an average, normal farm silo is more in the range of 30 to 35 feet, and that this 42 is approaching twice that. And I think that it's not going to be something that blends in with a farm, and 43 disguises itself as a farm setting. 24 I the north of this site, directly north to the site, is zoned either low -density, mixed -use neighborhood or 2 urban estate. And so, would not have zoning that would permit a wireless telecommunications facility 3 without an addition of permitted use. 4 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: But that's County zoning? 5 MR. FRICKEY: And even to the ... so the County zoning... where this gets a little different is 6 County zoning, they allow wireless facilities in every zone, but it is subject to what's called Special 7 Review. And, if a use that is subject to Special Review goes to the ... or, basically what that means is it 8 would go to the Board of Commissioners, which is sort of your counterpart at the County. If there is 9 contiguity with City limits, the County would likely require that parcel to annex into the City as a result 10 of that development application. The other challenging issue here is that for a lot of these areas in the 11 County ... I mean, yes, they have zoning that would allow it in the County, but the issue is, it's a lot of 12 smaller parcels with single-family detached homes on them. So, in terms of having an ideal candidate for 13 a site, they really aren't the best fit, per se, and that's why staff focused their energies on the Fort Collins 14 Country Club, analyzing that parcel in particular, since not only A, would it have zoning appropriate in 15 both the City and the County, it also acts as a little bit more of an appropriate site for a cell tower in 16 general since it is a large swath of land. And so, a cell tower would fit in a little bit more than if it were a 17 large tower in the backyard of a single-family detached home. 18 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Thank you. 19 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Do we have any other questions? Are you ready to ... I'm sorry; we're 20 done with citizen participation ("Secretary's Note: Some inaudible comments here). You guys can talk 21 after the meeting. I guess we're ready to have some deliberation on the Board. Any comments? 22 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I have to say, I can't see any problem with the silo in an area that 23 looks like there should be silos there. I mean, all the photographs I see, other than the scale, look okay in 24 terms of a farm area, the areas on Vine with existing silos, I mean ... maybe I'm ... even if I lived in the 25 area, I would probably think the same thing. And I've driven by there quite a lot ... I just don't see a 26 problem with a 45-foot silo. 27 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I am a long way from feeling that this proposal meets these 28 compliance conditions that were outlined. I don't think that it is ... that I've been convinced ... I have not 29 been convinced that it's use is compatible and would have a minimal negative impact. I don't think that 30 it's... although this isn't a specific one of these compliance things, I don't think it's something that's 31 worth bending the rules for for the better good of the community. I understand that we have a cell phone 32 coverage problem there; I don't think it's this Board's purview to solve that problem. And I haven't 33 heard that we have explored the existing technologies let alone some of the new ones that are coming on 34 line and are having community discussions about that could solve this in other ways. I'm not convinced 35 that this couldn't be solved with a similar -sized tower to the north. What I am convinced of is that several 36 of the parties that have been involved, the Country Club, has, to me it sounds like decided it is 37 incompatible with their neighborhood. I think that, from what I've heard, the City of Fort Collins, for its 38 public lands has decided that this is an incompatible use for our own publicly -owned lands. And, I think 39 that should speak volumes to us; it does to me. And so, I'm not in support of this. 40 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I have to say that I'm concerned as well, Michael. I ... cell 41 service is important to all of us, I know. But, I am going back and forth between the silo seems to work 23 1 MR. NANDIRAJU: And then I want to add one more point ... in terms of why this tower, you 2 know, and generally we've seen about 73% or prospective buyers who are looking for houses where they 3 do have wireless coverage. When it comes to millennials, about 83% of them prefer having wireless 4 service and do prefer to buy a house where they have good wireless coverage. In terms of safety, a 5 question that was raised earlier... whenever we go through the process of setting up a site, a wireless 6 facility, we do have to go through various checkpoints before we even get close to putting the site on air. 7 So, we do take MP compliance very seriously. As an RF engineer, I've done tons of them. And, for 8 every site, each and every site, with exact confidence of what goes on the tower, at what power do we 9 output, we need to do the tower compliance and P levels. And the tool pretty much tells us whether it's a 10 pass or fail. And then we can ... if, you know, once it passes, we then submit to our regulatory team. We 11 have regulatory team in-house; we have regulatory team at our HQ. So, it goes through various 12 checkpoints; there is no way we can operate a site that's not compliant. And not only that, in future, if 13 there's got to be any modifications done ... if you touch the site in terms of an antenna modification ... let's 14 say the antenna goes bad, we need to change it, we still have to go through it again. So, you replace the 15 antenna and we still have to run the regulatory again and make sure everything is compliant. So, it's a 16 serious job and we do take it seriously, and we make sure it's compliant before we can put it on air, 17 so... ("Secretary's Note: Some inaudible comments here). 18 Yes, absolutely, I'll be outside once we're all done, and I'll be more than happy to answer your 19 questions. 20 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, does the Board have any other ... oh, yeah, yeah. 21 MR. FRICKEY: I have the zoning map pulled up, so if you'd like to guide me on what you'd like 22 to look at, I'd be happy to help out. 23 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Well, I guess with the map up, I'd like to you show us where the 24 closest zones are that do allow this tower without modification or APU. 25 MR. FRICKEY: So, the closest one would be the Anheuser-Busch InBev site, and so that's 26 this ... I'm color blind, so I apologize ... I think the purplish color on the map is the Anheuser-Busch InBev 27 site that's within the search ring. And then there's also property further to the south and to the east that 28 has community commercial and medium -density, mixed -use neighborhood ... well, community 29 commercial zoning would allow it and then the employment zone would allow it, and then the industrial, 30 the I, that's the pink color ... those areas would also allow a cell tower. 31 I think another thing... just for posterity's sake, I'm going to pull up a picture I took when I did 32 one of these site visits, if it's on here. But, the grade drops off significantly as you get further east, and so 33 that's another thing to consider is that... if it operates on a line of sight basis, then the tower needs to be 34 taller in order to see above a hill, so... 35 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: That's why I'm asking particularly about the areas to the north. 36 What can you tell us about those areas, Clay? 37 MR. FRICKEY: So, to the north...where this gets complicated is this blue line is the growth 38 management area boundary for the City, so that is actually the edge of the City limits, and beyond that, if 39 the City were to try and, say expand that, we would have to negotiate with Larimer County and adjacent 40 municipalities in order to add that to the growth management area. So, basically all of the land that's to 22 1 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I have a follow-up with that. Clay, I think it would really help if we 2 had a zoomed -out view so we could see some more of the zoning in this area. Do you have that at your 3 disposal by chance? 4 MR. FRICKEY: What I can do is I can pull up our maps application online and do that, if that 5 would be okay with the Board? 6 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah. That would be very helpful. 7 MR. FRICKEY: So, you'll just have to bear with me. 8 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: While you're doing that, could I ... have a question for the RF 9 engineer please. 10 MR. RAM NANDIRAJU: Good evening, my name is Ram Nandiraju, RF engineer with Verizon 11 Wireless. Thank you for the opportunity. There were some great questions raised today, so I'd love to 12 answer them. 13 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: So, my question is, if...what is the possibility that service to this 14 shadowed area in Fort Collins, in northeast Fort Collins and in the County, could be covered by tall 15 towers, or perhaps taller towers, farther to the north or east from this particular area. What is the 16 maximum radius of coverage that you can have from a 60 or 75-foot cell tower? 17 MR. NANDIRAJU: Sure, so coverage is basically determined by radius factors. Height, 18 obviously the taller it is, the more area it covers. What also plays a role is, you know, trees in the area, 19 clutter, terrain, elevation. If you go dense urban, for example, you know, the buildings and stuff, they 20 block our signal. Out in the rural world, usually it's pretty flat. But, Fort Collins, we do have some 21 heavy clutter. And, so the signal attenuates as it goes through the trees, which is why we usually ask for a 22 higher rad so we can go above the tree line and still be able to cover the neighborhoods we want to. So, 23 in this case, if there was a facility available north of where we are right now, we would love to consider it. 24 But, you know, considering the situation and all the work Atlas has already done with no other options 25 left, you know, this is pretty much the only facility that we could consider at this point. 26 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: But, what I'm asking is, let's say for a fairly uncluttered area like 27 this, what is the maximum diameter that you can service with a 60 or 75-foot cell tower? 28 MR. NANDIRAJU: Usually cell towers have ... they all have a radius. This particular cell tower 29 in this case would cover about a mile each direction, depending on which way we put our antennas 30 pointed towards. So, in general, we point antennas, you know, in three directions. Usually it's standard, 31 let's say zero, 120, 240 being the azimuth. And they generally cover those areas. If we were to put a 32 tower here, we would like to, you know, ideally point antennas towards, you know, north, where we don't 33 have coverage there, towards Douglas, and then Country Club, where the terrain goes up. You know, we 34 barely have any signal there, with one bar. So, and then towards the east again, so ... typically about, you 35 know, 0.5 to 1-mile radius is what we cover. Again, it all depends on clutter, terrain, various factors. I 36 hope I answered your question. 37 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes, that you. 21 1 more ambiguous response which was, yeah, we could be interested in that. And, because of that, Mr. 2 Frickey asked us to go back and, basically show, that we had made good faith effort and some to get that 3 done. So, I went back to the golf course folks. First, I talked to the facilities manager, because I was 4 quite confused why suddenly after all this failed negotiation, he was saying they were interested. I 5 eventually was able to speak to the ... I guess his title is the CEO, or the President. And we entered into a 6 brief conversation. Some of the specifics of the past conversations were sort of re -treaded, so to speak. 7 And then I got an email about a week later, which was forwarded to staff, from the President stating they 8 were not interested in continuing the conversation; they weren't interested in the project. I mean, I can 9 speculate why. I think there were multiple components for the reason why they weren't interested in it, 10 but I can tell you emphatically that we worked very hard to create that as a possible location, and we did 11 not fail for lack of effort. And we can't make landlords work with us if they don't want to. So, to those 12 specific parcels, that's the best narrative I can give you at this time. 13 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: That's exactly what I wanted to hear, thank you. It sounds like it 14 did not involve negotiating breaking down because of money, it sounds like it broke down because of lack 15 of interest, or negative interest, on their parts. 16 Now, is it fair to assume that ... what I heard you say was that Anheuser-Busch never got back to 17 you and you never spoke with anyone there? 18 MR. POWERS: Yeah, they very clearly received information from us in an attempt to start a 19 conversation, and I never received a response. It was a wall of silence; they were not interested. 20 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Thank you very much. 21 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Ruth, do you have a question? 22 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: So, Clay, in this whole northeast area, is everything up there 23 going to be zoned residential? I mean, are we going to be facing this fact period? 24 MR. FRICKEY: By enlarge... that's what that ... I'll go back to that zoning map from earlier. So, 25 I showed a map during the presentation that is a simplified version of our Structure Plan map, because a 26 lot of the property in northeast Fort Collins is still in the County. So, most of the property that is west of 27 Turnberry is still in the County. And so, our Structure Plan map is a component of City Plan, and it 28 identifies the proposed zoning that those pieces of property would have upon annexation into the City. 29 Now, the properties that are already in the City, virtually all of them have zoning that wouldn't allow this 30 use at all. So, the only thing that's in the City right now that would allow this use that was within the area 31 that the applicant was looking for a lease is the Anheuser-Busch InBev site, and so that's what's 32 highlighted in that red square, or rectangle. 33 Then, basically everything else that is on this map is either zoned low -density, mixed -use 34 neighborhood, which doesn't allow a cell tower ... it's either zoned that or urban estate, which also would 35 not allow a freestanding tower. And virtually all of the land, with the exception of the Fort Collins 36 Country Club, would come in to the City with those zoning designations as well, and thus would not 37 allow a cell tower either. 38 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Thank you. Pill I BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. 2 BOARDMEMBER MICHAEL HOBBS: I have a follow-up on that. What's the zoning on that 3 City property? 4 MR. FRICKEY: It's ... right now I believe it's low -density, mixed -use neighborhood. It's a site 5 for a park, and our parks are usually zoned public open land, and so it would likely be zoned public open 6 land upon becoming a park. 7 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Any other questions or...? 8 BOARDMEMBER WILLIAM WHITLEY: I'd like to know why negotiations fell through with 9 Fort Collins Country Club and with Anheuser-Busch? 10 MR. MICHAEL POWERS: Good evening, my name is Michael Powers and I also work for Atlas 11 Tower. There's also another gentleman here who works with Centerline Solutions, Greg DeBona, and 12 we, collectively, and a few others as well, have negotiated, or attempted to negotiate leases for this 13 particular known deficit for the network for probably starting... going back as far as 2014. So, I can speak 14 specifically to conversations that I've had with specific land owners. I think Greg could also speak 15 specifically on certain land owners as well. But I can say in all honesty, we have left no stone unturned. 16 And so, specifically, I think your question was related to the golf course and also to Anheuser- 17 Busch. Anheuser-Busch has received written communications from us in terms of proposals sent by 18 FedEx with return receipt mailings, which were returned undelivered. We have made very many phone 19 calls. I have tried to actually meet in person with individuals there. We have contacted the headquarters. 20 This is an effort that's been ongoing for a really long time. And so, all I can say is we tried very hard to 21 work with that land owner, and we have failed. It is not by lack of effort did we not enter into any kind of 22 negotiations. They simply don't want to talk to us, and that was crystal clear after more than a year of 23 attempts to try to work with them. 24 With the Country Club, the dynamic was a little bit different. Back in 2014 when I started 25 looking at this site, I was told emphatically, and literally laughed at, at the possibility of building a tower 26 in that area. And, I think the practical assumption was that it would never get approved, it would be 27 viewed negatively by not only the golf course but also the homeowners that had purchased parcels which 28 are somewhat intermingled in terms of their co -existence, if you will. And I was never able to actually 29 get to the table, so to speak, to even consider a negotiation of any sort. It was pretty much like, you 30 know, when you're trying to knock on a door to sell a homeowner something and the door is slammed in 31 your face. Fast forward a bit to, maybe 2016, Greg DeBona who's here with Centerline Solutions ... I 32 know he initiated some discussions with the golf course staff. And ... executive team, I'm not sure how to 33 refer to them. There were some ongoing discussions, but they were never able to reach an agreement 34 about where, what, how, how much ... I was not a first person party to those conversations, but there were 35 many meetings, conversations, telephone calls, and emails, and they weren't able to reach an agreement. 36 We ... Atlas, simultaneous, sort of, to Centerline's attempts to get a lease with the golf 37 course... because we had failed and moved on, Atlas. We started talking to the existing landlord that 38 we're talking about now. And I know that when we submitted our application, your planning staff 39 reached out to try to confirm what we were saying was true. And I believe planning staff contacted a 40 facilities manager, and I can't recall his name right now, but I could look it up for you. And he gave a 19 1 MR. BRADTKE: I'm not sure if our particular lease has this in there, but Atlas, I'm assuming, 2 would bear the responsibility of dismantling and repairing the ground to its condition as it existed before, 3 reasonable wear and tear excepted. 4 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: So, that would be a term in the lease agreement as opposed to 5 something in the approved use? Is that correct? 6 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, I mean, I think that's maybe a question for Clay. I know some 7 municipalities have that specifically in their code, that if it's deemed abandoned, within so many days we 8 have to remove it. I don't know if that's in Fort Collins' Code, but typically it's the tower company's 9 responsibility. 10 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: My guess it would be more likely in City ordinance rather than a Land 11 Use Code item. 12 MR. FRICKEY: So, the Code is silent on that. 13 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay. 14 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, it could be a condition of approval also. 15 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay. There was a question about the timing of construction. 16 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, so we would basically go through the rest of the development process, 17 the building permit review, and then, you know, start construction pretty much immediately thereafter. 18 So, probably early 2018 would be my guess to get through all that stuff. 19 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, and the last one I have is in regard to security about the ... your 20 facilities specifically. You've mentioned a fence. Clay talked about it being ... it sounded like your 21 primary concern was screening the equipment around the tower. Does it have a security function as well? 22 . MR. BRADTKE: Typically, we do a security fence. I don't think that's allowed in Fort Collins, 23 to have the sort of barbed wiring, so it would just be the fence and then a lock on the gate. There's 24 different... there's anti -climbing device on there too. 25 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you. I think that's all the questions I was able to capture 26 from the citizen participation. Does the Board have any other questions? 27 BOARDMEMBER RUTH ROLLINS: So, Clay, I have a question. The City owns property 28 directly to the east of this, and why can a cell tower not be located on that? 29 MR. FRICKEY: It's an administrative policy; the City is not allowing new leases on any City- 30 owned property. And that was included in the materials, I believe, as one of the attachments. 31 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And why is that? 32 MR. FRICKEY: It was mainly due to a ... it was a specific proposal in southeast Fort Collins 33 where there was a lot of backlash for a proposed cell tower, and so the City instated that policy as a 34 response. 18 1 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: I have a couple other questions I was able to capture and write down. 2 Are there any other residential areas with telecommunications facilities? 3 MR. FRICKEY: So, this map is a map that I made that has all of the cell towers that have been 4 approved by the City of Fort Collins since 1996. Now, this doesn't have zoning on it. I can tell you that 5 the vast majority of these facilities are in commercial areas or public open lands, places like that. I 6 personally am not aware of any cell towers in a residential zone, but that's something that I would have 7 to ... I'd have to make a new map to make 100% certain. But, this would be the first Addition of 8 Permitted Use that has ... this is actually the first Addition of Permitted Use that has gone through the new 9 Addition of Permitted Use process. And so, from that perspective, this is the first application that the City 10 has received for a cell tower in a residential zone. But, would it be the only one in the city? I couldn't 11 say for certain right now 12 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you Clay. Does the City do any third -party consulting on 13 review of the ... I know you provided some data that you had done some research on coverage, but is there 14 any other consulting done to consider the height and placement of the tower specifically? 15 MR. FRICKEY: So, there are third parties that do these sorts of services for municipalities. I 16 personally contacted one of these, the Center for Municipal Solutions, and we had some discussions with 17 them, but haven't come to an agreement or anything like there, and there's no deal imminent to work with 18 that group for analyzing cell tower proposals. There's a lot of things that that particular outfit does, I 19 mean they actually provide code for the City to implement and then they actually analyze the applications 20 for the City. And so, they tend to want to use the code that they have in place so that way they can 21 actually analyze the applications. 22 Now, in terms of monitoring the RF after the fact, that's also something that the City has looked 23 into to see what the cost would be. So, there's a little over a hundred cell facilities throughout the city of 24 Fort Collins right now. And we contacted a third party to see what it would cost to monitor all of these 25 towers once to see what the one-off cost would be to see how much RF these facilities are putting out, and 26 it would be over $100,000, one-time fee, to do that. So, on an on -going basis, it would be expensive. 27 But, it's something that we have discussed internally, but we haven't put forth a budget offer or anything 28 like that for those services yet. 29 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thank you Clay. A couple more questions I think that haven't 30 been addressed yet that might be better addressed by Ken, or your team ... the applicant team. What 31 considerations were made for the specific location on the site? You have a spot you've picked. You 32 talked about a location on the north that didn't work out because of retention ponds and that sort of thing, 33 and there's discussion about placing it closer to buildings... what kind of drove... driving factors to 34 locate...now? 35 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, several things. We want to make sure we can meet the required setbacks 36 from property lines. We like to be far away from road frontages and landlord preference. And so, you 37 know, there is aesthetic considerations that go into that too, but, you know, those are usually the items we 38 look at when we're siting. 39 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: If the tower were to become not needed or abandoned in the future, 40 what would be the status of that? What would happen to it? 17 r 1 We ... I just believe that Dallas, or excuse me, Atlas Tower has done their due diligence. And, as 2 far as setting precedence, I believe precedence is set ... I mean, this is a variance. So, it's a case by case 3 review. Is that not correct? Clay? 4 MR. FRICKEY: We'll address that after all the comments. 5 MR. FORBES: And, as far as due diligence, they have done an extremely good job of showing 6 what the silo is going to look like on the property, where it's going to sit, the coverage, and what not. 7 So ... and I'd just like to conclude by saying this: this site really does work quite well. And, on a farm, the 8 silo is actually going to be right behind the potato bam. It'll be fairly close to the other barn, and so it 9 will look just exactly like they want it to, and that's going to be a silo. 10 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you sir. Any other citizens who would like to provide testimony 11 on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the citizen participation part of this item. Does staff or the applicant 12 have any responses to the questions posed by the citizens? 13 MR. FRICKEY: Sure, I'll try and address some of the questions that were raised by some of the 14 community members. So, to talk about due diligence and leasing, and you know, did Atlas Tower contact 15 these property owners or do their due diligence to find a lease elsewhere. Staff did come into direct 16 contact with Fort Collins Country Club and discussed this with them, and received an email from the 17 Country Club saying that there were negotiations for a lease, but they fell apart. And that was included as 18 part of the Planning and Zoning Board packet and materials. Anheuser-Busch InBev ... I never did get a 19 response from Anheuser-Busch InBev. I did exchange emails with a couple of folks in facilities, but it's 20 unclear as to who is making decisions on behalf of Anheuser-Busch InBev, so that was an open question 21 for staff. 22 To talk a little bit more about ... let's see here ... we'll talk about the precedent issue because that 23 was brought up by several folks. I mean, from a legal perspective, sure, it's not setting a precedent, 24 because, yes, each Addition of Permitted Use application is a unique case, and so, therefore, the decision 25 is made on a case -by -case basis. You know, I'd have to ask the folks in the audience to clarify further 26 what they meant by precedent, but I would imagine what it means is that, you know, is this going to color 27 the decision making of this Board or City Council in the future, and I think that was the concern. But, 28 from a legal perspective, no, it is a case -by -case basis for Addition of Permitted Use applications. 29 With respect to the shot clock, I believe the legislation works that once an application is 30 complete, then the City has 90 days to make a decision based on that application, and this application was 31 just recently complete, and we got it to the next Planning and Zoning Board hearing that we could. 32 And then, to talk a little bit about the working farm issue, I think the issue that we're running into 33 here is that we have to analyze the facts as they exist and analyze the context as it exists now. It's 34 difficult to look into a crystal ball and understand, what is the city going to look like in 20 years. I mean, 35 it's tough to say. And so, I think that, with any of these applications, it's challenging because we have an 36 existing context that we have to analyze, and so that is what formed the basis of staff s recommendations 37 and the staff report presented to the Board this evening. 38 I think that sums up my responses, but I may have missed something so please feel free to ask any 39 questions for further clarification. 16 1 staying within regulations. And, as far as I know, if they don't decide to check, there's nobody else doing 2 it. So, that's the questions that I have, is, how do we know that they're doing what they're supposed to do 3 so that we are within the safety guidelines that the federal government has set? Thank you. 4 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you sir. We have one person left, or two? Go ahead sir. 5 MR. TED WOLFE: Ted Wolfe, 2120 Sherwood Forest Court. And, Jennifer, you asked the 6 question. I can answer part of that. In the two years since this process started, we had 78 new homes go 7 in just to the east side of us, and I can drive a golf ball from my deck to this tower. That's my concern. I 8 think there are better locations. I think Atlas refused to accept that because of cost. This is a high -valued 9 location, you can set right up on top of a hill there. They would have to go someplace else lower and 10 build a higher tower, and they don't want to do that. That's the bottom line. At our last meeting, Atlas 11 flat out told us, it's going in, you can't stop it, so eat it. As a resident in the area, excuse my French, but 12 I'm a little ticked off about that. I think you people are making the decision... and City staff did a great 13 job of putting this together, but they don't live there. They don't have to go out in the morning and eat 14 breakfast and look at this stupid tower on a piece of property that is not an operating farm. It is nothing 15 more than a beautiful home, and they have a beautiful home there, and the rest of the place is a bunch of 16 junk. I'm sorry, but it is. Putting a tower in there is not going to address that and make it any better than 17 anything else. And I understand, and I realize, we need to have more telecommunications. There's no 18 question about that. I have Verizon and I have excellent service. And, as I said, I can hit a golf ball from 19 my deck to this tower, and I have excellent service. However, I understand people to the north do not 20 have that. But, by the same token, I think there comes a point at which you have to realize, as a 21 homeowner, I have a land line as a primary consideration because of my age. I think that if I need to have 22 communications, I have a land line for that purpose. I've had Verizon as a carrier for my internet service, 23 and quite frankly, they stink, that's why I don't have them anymore. And I don't think putting a tower in 24 is going to engulf that any better for communications. I think they could find a better spot and a better 25 location for it. 26 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you sir. Go ahead. 27 MR. KEVIN FORBES: My name is Kevin Forbes; I'm the son of ... my parents own the property 28 where the cell tower is going to go up. And, briefly, since this has already been brought up ... we've been 29 contacted by many people, many neighbors from the Maple Hill subdivision as well as the Richard's Lake 30 subdivision that have voiced concerns that they can't get good cell reception. I think that's pretty much 31 been established. From our balcony, we've seen people pull over on Turnberry to finish their calls before 32 they pull into the Richard's Lake subdivision, just so it doesn't get dropped. 33 To answer, I believe your question, about the buildings, the outbuildings ... they're all being used, 34 they're all maintained. It is ... and I should state this, because I don't think it's been brought up, this is a 35 single-family, single -dwelling unit on 8 acres. It's not low -density residential. That was instigated on 36 this property, not with the permission of my parents. They bought it; it was estate home at that time. And 37 then, since then, it was rezoned to low -density residential. A lot of people have said that it's not a 38 working farm, but it has been in the past, and it can be again. In fact, the reason that Tanya is allowed to 39 use her ... and I should say that this ... her piece of property was my parent's property at first. And, when 40 they sold it to her, she was allowed to use the property for large animals only because of the farm that my 41 parents had ... also have that same use. 15 I Michigan, in the woods of northern Michigan. And, at the time, we got frustrated with all the robo-calls 2 and the telemarketers and everything, so we ended up cutting the cord. One of the enablers for being able 3 to cut the cord was the fact that my cell phone would work in the woods of northern Michigan. So, 4 imagine my chagrin when I moved in to my house here in Fort Collins, and on the day of move in, I pick 5 up my phone to make a call ... I can't make a call. I can make a call, then it drops. Then I have people ... I 6 can't hear you, you're breaking up, you're blah, blah, blah. So, I go to my friendly Verizon store, I say, 7 hey, what the heck is wrong with my phone? It worked fine in Michigan... maybe you've got to 8 reprogram it or something. They said, well, where do you live? I said, well, I live in northeast Fort 9 Collins, Hearthfire sub. Oh, well, that's the problem. We've got crappy cell phone reception out there. 10 We can solve the problem for you; we're going to sell you a little cell phone signal booster. And so, 11 that's what I've lived with now for the last couple of years. 12 My point of telling this story is this: we moved out here ... this community is a very progressive, 13 forward -thinking community. We've got a major university, we've got major hospitals, a huge city 14 government, police and fire, a hundred and sixty some thousand people, and we're talking about putting 15 in a cell tower? Now I know you folks don't provide the infrastructure; that's Verizon, AT&T, and 16 everybody else. But, I have to say, for such a progressive city ... and by the way, northeast Fort Collins is 17 probably the fastest growing part of the city. And, as we talk about build out within the next ten years, 18 that's probably going to be where most of the development is going to come. As a matter of fact, you 19 know, we have Water's Edge going in up there, we have another development at the comer of Douglas 20 and Tumberry. And so, this residential farm land community that these folks are describing is a picture 21 that exists today, but that's not going to exist in five years. And so, by the way, we just announced the 22 iPhone X... ten years the iPhone has been out. And so, the whole moral of the discussion here from my 23 perspective is this: we've got to keep pace with the technology as it's developing, and not stymy it. And, 24 yes, we're going to have development. And yes, people are going to want to use their cell phones. And, 25 yes, they're going to want to use more data. We've got to support that. In order to make our city ... meet 26 our city's objectives that's been outlined in the City Plan. So, I strongly support ... we put this thing in, 27 and I'm kind of disappointed it's only going to be 45 feet; I wish it was 60. Thank you. 28 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you sir. This side? Thank you. 29 MR. DON EASON: Good evening, my name is Don Eason; I live at 1909 Tumberry Road, which 30 is right across the street from the property where the cell tower is going to be going, so within a few 31 hundred feet of the facility. Frankly, the concern of a lot of us, and you can't address it, and we 32 understand that, is safety. The federal government has set limits that said, okay, as long as the radiated 33 power is below a certain level, we think it's safe. And so, you can't do anything about it. So, my 34 concerns, and unfortunately not directly related to Planning and Zoning, but related to the RF engineering 35 questions that we couldn't get answered before, have to do with the allowed use and the safety of the 36 allowed ... I'm sorry, yeah, the safety of the...how do I put this ... as long as a facility is broadcasting, 37 transmitting within federal guidelines, how is ... how are those guidelines being enforced? How is the 38 facility being tuned, set up, checked? What do the power densities mean? Are they measured at the 39 tower? Are they measured at all points that the tower covers? Are they cumulative? If you put in three 40 carriers, is it this much wattage allowed for each carver or is it totaled? How is that checked? Who 41 enforces it, et cetera? How can we be assured that this facility, or any other facility in Fort Collins ... l 42 think this is a broad question that the entire city should be concerned about. How do we know that these 43 facilities are complying with the federal rules? As far as I know, the City doesn't check. I'm certain the 44 FCC doesn't check. It's basically up to the cell tower companies and providers to assure that they are 14 I VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you, mam. Next speaker? 2 MS. MARILYN ANDERSON: I'm Marilyn Anderson; I live at 1935 Sherell Drive, it's within a 3 quarter mile of the proposed cell tower location. I've lived there for 28 years. I would like to say I am 4 opposed to that location for this cell tower. I think the silo is a huge, monstrous design that will 5 overpower the neighborhood which is residential, open, country feel. The property that it's on has not 6 been a working farm; it doesn't really have outbuildings like a barn. There's a small low building that has 7 been renovated and looks very nice actually, but if you were driving past ... if I were driving past, I would 8 not identify this as a farm at all. Therefore, I think it's not necessary to move the cell tower closer to the 9 quote outbuildings, because the outbuildings don't really look like a farm to begin with. I think it would 10 be better for the residents of the neighborhoods close by to have the tower, if it's going to be there, to 11 have it be as far away from the road as possible. 12 Secondly, I'd like to say I feel this use is not in character with the neighborhood. I feel it will 13 decrease our property values. I know that may not be something you are allowed to consider, but I bring 14 it up because zoning... people buy their houses based on the zoning and what's going to be happening 15 there, and what kind of businesses may be there, and what kind of use there is. And, the zoning affects 16 our property values. I believe this project will affect the property values, negatively, and that hurts me a 17 lot. I'm a senior citizen and I depend on my house as my major asset. I also just do not think it's ... this 18 large silo building and cell tower proposal is in agreement with the use of the neighborhood and the 19 character of the neighborhood. 20 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Mam... ? 21 MS. DEBBIE COREY: My name is Debbie Corey and I also live within a quarter mile of where 22 the site is, and I have questions for Atlas that I'd like to have answered. The first one I'd like to know is 23 who's responsible to disassemble the tower if it should become obsolete in the future? I also would like 24 to know, if this is approved, do you have any idea of when this tower will be built? In the event ... in the 25 adverse health efforts that we've linked to cell tower radiation, in the future, certainly what we saw in the 26 tobacco industry, would there be liability ... the carriers, the tower company, or the property owners in this 27 event? Also, why does the telecom industry refer to the possibility of increasing liability issues in its 28 statements to their stockholders? 29 I also would like to add a personal note. I have grandchildren that love going across the street to 30 Tanya's farm, the working farm that is located near this site. The site is not a farm, but next door to it, 31 there is a working farm, and children are invited over there often to come and pet the llamas and see the 32 chickens, and my grandchildren love going over there, it's safe. My concern, because so many children 33 love going over to Tanya's fame is if we put up a silo and we put up outbuildings that resemble a farm 34 that is not in that location, will our children... will we need to worry? Will there need to be signage 35 saying this is a dangerous area? Children should not come over here. That is my concern as a 36 grandmother, especially since this has been established area with Tanya's farm being very children- 37 friendly. 38 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Sir? 39 MR. JIM MILES: Good evening ladies and gentlemen; my name is Jim Miles. I'm a resident of 40 the Hearthfire subdivision which is to the northeast of the proposed cell tower location. My wife and I 41 moved here just a little over two years ago from a very small community of 5,000 people in northern 13 1 could automatically become possible in other similar zones. So, we therefore strongly urge the Board to 2 not recommend this APU and to not approve this project due to the precedent it will set for the rest of the 3 city. 4 I've already had a show of hands of those who support this statement, and I know there are many 5 others; we'll hope to have more at the City Council meeting. We understand it is your role to interpret 6 and make judgements on the Fort Collins Land Use Code; therefore, we're trying to keep our statements 7 to that point. However, in the packet there are some other questions and concerns listed for your perusal 8 later if you wish. I do have one question for City staff regarding criteria [sic] four. I'm just going to 9 quote part of it; it states that such use does not create adverse effect on public health, and I think safety is 10 the next word. But the question I have is, federal law precludes the City from evaluating the health 11 effects of RF emissions, and that's no fault of the City; that's a federal law. We personally would like to 12 see a note added to the documentation that indicates that that part of the Code's requirement was not... or 13 was omitted with respect to RF radiation health effects. I hope that's making sense to you. In other 14 words, the criteria says that public health was looked at; we believe this one aspect of it was not ... you 15 couldn't, and we would just like that clarified. 16 That really concludes my statements. I think my husband is going to talk... going to raise some 17 RF questions... apologize for doing that at this meeting, but because the RF engineer was not provided 18 earlier, we feel we need to do that tonight, so I'm song to have to take your time with that. Thank you. 19 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Could we have the next...? Mam? 20 MS. TANYA ANDREAS: I'm not signed in yet ... okay. I'm Tanya Andreas; I live on the 21 actually working farm immediately south of the property where this tower is proposed. And I feel like, in 22 terms of distance, in terms of visibility, all of that sort of thing, my property is probably the most affected. 23 And I guess ... I certainly agree with what Nancy had to say, and we have sent in our comments. There's 24 just a couple of things that I would like to say that may or may not be in the purview of this Board, but 25 one is, I understand that in this process that a tower goes through with the City, there's a 90-day clock, 26 and maybe this is a City Planner question —there's a 90-day clock from the time the completed 27 application comes in until the approval or disapproval by the City Council. However, I would like to say 28 that a process that's already been going on 18 months or more is really, really arduous and difficult for 29 people in the neighborhood to be dealing with. It's exhausting, it's wearing, it's worrisome, it's ... how do 30 I look at what do I do with my property because I don't know? And I think it's reasonable to assume that 31 from, maybe the first meeting, there might be a certain period of time until the second meeting, and then a 32 certain period of time until the Planning and Zoning meeting where we are, and then a certain period of 33 time before the City Council makes their decision. This is going to be an almost two year process, and 34 it's really difficult for neighbors to deal with. 35 The second thing that I would like to expand on a bit, from what Nancy said, is that, like 36 statistics, there's many, many, many ways to present information. And, I would really feel better about 37 this project if I had third -party, not employed by Verizon or Atlas, but third -party RF engineers speaking 38 to the location, the height, the necessity for this, could this be done in a different way and provide the 39 coverage. I would feel much better about that, and I know that there are companies that provide that, and 40 I would really like to encourage the City to consider contracting or engaging those companies in this, 41 because I think the potential for much better decisions to be made that would still provide the coverage 42 that everyone needs and wants, could be better facilitated. Thank you; with that, I will cease and desist. 12 1 MS. EASON: Again, thank you to the Board and the City staff for your work. I have particularly 2 been pleased ... or all of us ... with the work of the planner, Clay Frickey, and his responsiveness and his 3 professionalism on this issue. So, we appreciate that. Again, I'm speaking on behalf of a group of 4 neighbors who live within a quarter mile of this proposed tower. We understand that cell reception is 5 terrible in our part of town; that's not an exaggeration. It is very bad; the need is great. So, we are not 6 here to oppose or deny coverage to anyone. We all have cell phones and use them. But ... is to question 7 some aspects of the APU process and whether or not this is the best location, or an appropriate location. 8 Our first concern is that this project, if approved ... if this cell tower is approved, it would set a precedent 9 for the city. To my knowledge, there are no cell towers currently in residential zones. So, this would be 10 the first time that this would be allowed. I believe that's correct, Clay? ("Secretary's Note: Some 11 inaudible comments here) Maybe he can clarify, but that is my understanding. 12 So, if that's true, the Board needs to think carefully about what you do in this case, because you 13 could be setting a precedent for other neighborhoods. And as you are well aware, whenever a cell tower 14 is proposed for a neighborhood, there's usually a lot of protest. Do we want to open this can of worms to 15 other areas of the city? And, also, in setting this precedent, its very important that we need to make sure 16 that due process... well, let me say that differently... that Atlas Tower and Verizon have proven that they 17 use due diligence in looking at all the possible sites. 18 Which brings me to point two. During the neighborhood review meetings, there was a lot of 19 descent; it was not pleasant. A lot of questions asked of Atlas and Verizon and many of those questions 20 were not answered to our satisfaction. We asked for an RF engineer to be present; I understand there is 21 one tonight, but they were not there at those other meetings. So, we weren't able to get those questions 22 answered. I understand that you do not rule on that kind of...you know, you're here just to look at the 23 Land Use Code. I'm just giving you some history as to why we pose this. And to show that we don't feel 24 due diligence was done. 25 Also ... when Atlas would talk to us about the possible land owners, they said we could not find a 26 lease with anyone else, no one else was willing. But then, when we talked to some of those land owners 27 privately, we found that there was a little different spin on it. So, we're not sure what the straight story is 28 on some of that. 29 Number three, the City... as you know there's a micro tower issue being worked on, because 30 that's kind of the way of the future with wireless. And, it's unfortunate that the placement of these towers 31 is not treated more like a public utility, because that's really what it should be. However, we're all stuck 32 with this awkward process so that we in the public do not always understand why a tower or an antenna is 33 going where it goes. And it causes a lot of upset, as I mentioned earlier. So what we're urging is that the 34 City, before using the APU process to approve a tower in a neighborhood where it's never been done 35 before, a zone where it's never been done before, that the City make sure it has a really clearly thought 36 out policy regarding its future build out of this infrastructure. We believe that outside help, expert help, 37 from consultants would be helpful in this case ... possibly someone like Center for Municipal Solutions, 38 and there may be other organizations like this that could serve the City and help them make sure they're 39 really thinking about all the implications when placing these facilities. 40 We believe that allowing the erection of cell towers in established residential neighborhoods 41 creates a hardship for those who live nearby because they may not have chosen to live there if they'd 42 known a tower could go up in that neighborhood. With current zoning, there is no worries [sic], we're 43 fine. We all understand that such facilities are not allowed. But if this APU is approved, such projects 11 1 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thanks. Any other questions from the Board for staff or the 2 applicant? Okay... 3 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BRAD YATABE: Mr. Chair, before you go into public 4 comment, I did want to just remind the Board, for the Board's sake and for the public, that the Federal 5 Telecommunications Act, Section 332(C)(7)(b)(iv) states that the City is prohibited from regulating the 6 placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the 7 environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the 8 Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In essence, what that's saying is you're precluded 9 from taking into account the potential health effects of radio frequencies that may or may not come from 10 the proposed tower, so long as it complies with the Commission's regulations regarding those emissions. 11 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Brad; yeah, something to remind the Board to keep in 12 mind ... I think we're ready to hear from the citizen input. Can I get a show of hands of how many people 13 may want to be providing testimony? That's not too many. Let's give you each three minutes a piece. 14 Would like to make this go as quickly as possible, so if you can form two lines at each podium, sign in on 15 the paper that's on there, and state your name and address before you begin to speak. 16 MS. NANCY EASON: It takes a while to sign in. 17 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah, that's part of why we suggest the two lines, you can have one 18 person signing in while somebody is speaking. 19 MS. EASON: Okay ... I actually... well, first of all, my name is Nancy Eason, and I live at 1909 20 Tumberry Road, which is right across the street. So, I'm actually in the County. And I represent a group 21 of people, a number of neighbors in my neighborhood, and I was wondering if I could have more than 22 three minutes? Would that be possible? 23 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: How many people do you think you're representing? 24 MS. EASON: Could we have a show of hands of the people that —and I have a mailing list of 35, 25 so, if that matters. 26 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, do you think you can fit your presentation into ten minutes? 27 MS. EASON: Yes. 28 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay. 29 MS. EASON: I do have a statement that I'd like to give you. 30 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, you can give that to Clay and he'll get it ... make sure we see it. 31 Okay. Can you give ... make sure she has ten minutes? 32 MS. EASON: Thank you. 33 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Yeah, thank you. 10 I BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, it would come in with an ODP, or whatever with that in it 2 that changes would have to be made, or not? 3 MR. FRICKEY: I think that staff would have to approach it at that time; I mean, it's tough to say 4 since we don't have an application in front of us, but that's something that staff would have to consider 5 then. 6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you 7 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Jeff ...I'm sorry, Mike? 8 BOARDMEMBER MICHAEL HOBBS: A follow-up question to that ... what's the status of the 9 land, or the farm, that this is being proposed on? Is it owned by Atlas? Is it owner -occupied and being 10 potentially leased to Atlas? Are the buildings occupied and used, including the out buildings? Are they 11 maintained and is there any reason to think that they will be maintained? 12 MR. FRICKEY: So, it is an owner -occupied parcel. The owners, I believe, are in the room. So, 13 I'll defer to them to answer questions about how the property is used. But, yes, Atlas Tower is leasing a 14 portion of the property from the owner. 15 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: I have a couple questions. Was there any comparisons done ... we've 16 seen a visualization of the tower ... that's representing a 60-foot tower? Or, 60-foot silo, I assume. Is 17 that ... we saw a slide that showed potentially what this would look like. That was representing the 60- 18 foot silo? Is that correct? 19 MR. FRICKEY: Correct. 20 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, do we have anything that shows it at 45-feet as staff... 21 MR. FRICKEY: Staff does not have that, no. 22 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, thanks. And, do we know what the material on the outside of the 23 silo is going to be? It kind of looked bright and shiny as opposed to old and weathered like the other silos 24 in the area. Yeah, can you come to the microphone? 25 MR. BRADTKE: It's a fiberglass material sheathing that they use, but they can ... they can 26 actually go up to an existing silo and, you know, make it look exactly like another silo that's on, you 27 know, that exists in the area. So, they kind of paint it, and checker it, and do all that kind of design. They 28 can make faux brick, you know, they do chimneys and all that kind of stuff. So, we can, you know, 29 basically make it look how it needs to look. 30 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, and the fiberglass is used because it's transparent to the signal? 31 MR. BRADTKE: It doesn't affect the signal, yeah, exactly. 32 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay, but there is the ability to camouflage it to look more like an older 33 silo, correct? 34 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, you can paint it and stuff, yeah. P1 1 residential feel of the area; just as the other silos along Vine don't define the character of those areas 2 either, neither will this cell tower. So, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion five. 3 Criterion six deals with the compatibility of the use with the other listed permitted uses in the 4 zone district. Since wireless telecommunications equipment is allowed, staff finds that this use is similar 5 from a use perspective. Again, it comes down to design. So, as long as the conditions of approval are 6 met, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion number six. 7 Criterion seven deals with the two neighborhood meeting requirement since it's in a residential 8 zone district. So, staff held the first neighborhood meeting March 30'h, 2016, and this was before the 9 applicant had formally submitted a development application with the City, which is in accordance with 10 the standard. And then the second neighborhood meeting for this Code standard also had to be held after 11 at least one round of review for a project development plan, and so staff held the second neighborhood 12 meeting May 17' of 2017, and this was after the first round of review. So, staff finds that the proposal 13 meets criterion seven. 14 And then criterion eight just says that such use cannot be a medical marijuana business or a retail 15 marijuana business, and this is not either one of those uses, so staff finds that the proposal meets criterion 16 eight as well. 17 And so, the Article III standards deal mainly with design and screening and access. And so, by 18 providing the six-foot privacy fence, the applicant is screening all of the ground equipment in accordance 19 with the standard. The design, from staffs perspective, as long as the conditions of approval are met, 20 then the design would meet the standards found in Article III. And the applicant is also proposing access 21 that is in accordance with the standard as well. 22 So, staff finds that, so long as the conditions of approval are met in Section 1.3.4 of the Code, that 23 the proposal complies with Article I of the Land Use Code and that the proposal also complies with all 24 relevant standards in Articles II, III, and IV, so long as these conditions of approval are met. And so, staff 25 recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the Long Pond 26 Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use subject to the following condition: 27 that the applicant reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications to 45 feet or less, and 28 that it be moved further north to be closer to other out buildings and appear more integral to the site. And 29 that concludes staff s presentation. 30 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Clay. Does the Board have any questions for... clarifying 31 questions for the staff or the applicant? Jennifer? 32 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: On criterion five, Clay, which makes sense to me 33 that it needs to fit in with the area. What happens when this piece redevelops? Because it is in kind of a 34 prime redevelopment place, and at some point, we're going to have a silo in the middle of a neighborhood 35 rather than by a farm ... by farm buildings. Do they have to change it at that point, or what happens? 36 MR. FRICKEY: Potentially, they would have to change it at that point. Well, it would depend on 37 the approval made by the Board, and that's up to the Board to decide. Because, potentially, you are right, 38 it could redevelop at some point and there would be a silo next to a neighborhood. And so, that's 39 something for the Board to consider when making a motion for approval or denial, or whatever the 40 motion the Planning and Zoning Board makes. 1 would allow a wireless tower based on their zoning in yellow. And so, the two property owners that are 2 right either in the applicant's search area that was provided as part of the project narrative are A-B InBev 3 and Fort Collins Country Club. And again, the applicant was unable to secure a lease on either of those 4 sites. 5 So, then to talk a little bit more about the context, you know, what is the context of this section of 6 Fort Collins? It's predominantly neighborhoods, mainly one and two-story buildings, and there are a 7 couple legacy farm properties in the area as well. So, these are just a couple of Google Earth images that 8 show, generally speaking, what the neighborhood looks like. So, this is from the south of the site looking 9 northeast. So, that's the Maple Hill neighborhood at the top of your image there. And then looking the 10 other direction, the Storybook neighborhood is to the south, and then there's various County subdivisions 11 across Tumberry to the west, on the west side of the road. And then this is a picture of the property in 12 question, basically right in front of the Maple Hill neighborhoods. This is looking south, and then this is 13 looking northwest from the Storybook neighborhood as to what the property would look like from the 14 neighbor's perspective. 15 So, the cell tower ... the applicant is proposing to place this tower towards the south end of the 16 site, and there will be a fenced off area that would screen all the ground equipment, and then in the center 17 would be the 60-foot tall silo, as proposed by the applicant. So, this is a ... an elevation of the proposed 18 tower and what it might look like; it's obviously not in color, but would likely be a gray color. And these 19 are the photo sims supplied to the City as part of their application. So, what staff did, is we took a look at, 20 you know, where are there other silos around this part of town? What do they look like? Where are the 21 sited? Because one of the criterion for the APU, but also too ... the criterion in the Land Use Code in the 22 wireless telecommunications section of the Code, deals with stealth technology, that all of these towers 23 have to employ stealth technology to basically make the tower look less like a cell tower and look more 24 like some other structure that you would find in a city. And so, what staff is looking to find is, you know, 25 how could a silo ... how could this tower look more like a silo? So, this is a site, actually, on Vine Drive 26 almost to I-25; it's by the Water Glen neighborhood, it's on the south side of Vine. This silo is between 27 about 42 and 45 feet based off of our measurements. And there's another silo, actually... this is, I believe, 28 between Timberline and Lemay on Vine, on the north side of Vine. And it's a similarly tall silo as well; 29 it's probably between, you know, 40 and 50 feet. But something that staff would like to draw your 30 attention to is that these ... these silos are next to other out buildings. You know, these silos would need to 31 be next to other out buildings in order for the farmer to process whatever they are putting in the silo. And 32 so, really a key component of the silo meeting the stealth technology requirements is that it appears 33 integral to the site. And so, that's why staff is recommending the two conditions of approval of a 45-foot 34 tall silo, and that it be located closer to other out buildings further north on the site. This would make the 35 silo appear more like the other silos in this part of the city, and also, too, would make the silo appear 36 integral to the site. And so, staff is recommending those two conditions of approval as part of this 37 addition of permitted use criterion. 38 So, won't repeat this slide, but this is the criterion that deals with minimizing negative impacts. 39 So, the proposed silo would have no greater impact than a lot of the other permitted uses in the zone 40 district. It's not going to produce any excessive noise. Really the main consideration is the design which 41 is covered by the other criteria, so staff finds that the proposal meets criterion four. 42 Criterion five talks about whether or not the use will change the predominant character of the 43 surrounding area. It's important to keep in mind that this one silo probably won't change the overall 1 support services that serve the neighborhood. And again, since wireless telecommunications equipment is 2 allowed, it's sort of acting as a support service as well for the neighborhoods, and I think most folks in 3 Fort Collins expect cell service at their homes and in the neighborhoods. And so, really the consideration 4 then, is how can this facility be designed in order to fit into the neighborhood. And so, staff finds that the 5 proposal satisfies criterion two as well, but that's based on the conditions of approval that staff will 6 discuss here in a few minutes. 7 So, criterion three is where I want to spend most of the time on the presentation, and that's 8 discussing the location, size, and design of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. So, to 9 further clarify and to provide some more context and background, cities must permit cell phone towers 10 per the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a federal law that supersedes local law. What this piece 11 of legislation does is it allows communities to use zoning to control the location and design of cell towers, 12 but not to de facto ban cell towers based on zoning essentially. And so, cities must provide cell phone 13 service. So, with that background, staff asked the applicant to provide coverage maps to prove that 14 there's a need for this sort of facility. So, this is a coverage map that the applicant provided staff and is 15 part of the project narrative and is part of the materials presented to the Board. And, just to further 16 clarify, green is where there's good coverage, yellow is so-so coverage, gray is pretty spotty coverage, 17 white, there's no coverage. And so, I'm going to hover the cursor over the Power Point slide. This is the 18 Maple Hill neighborhood that's just north of the proposed cell tower site. And so, as you can see, the 19 coverage to the north is not very good, per the maps supplied to the City by the applicant. To corroborate 20 that data, staff actually found two open source utilities that uses cell phone data from users to provide 21 coverage maps based on their experiences, and so those can change from time to time because the 22 coverage is dependent on the other users in the area. So, for example, if it's 2:00 in the morning, nobody 23 else is using their cell phone, you'll probably have better ability to connect to the intemet than, you know, 24 at 3:00 in the afternoon. So, it's important to keep that in mind when viewing these maps ... they do 25 provide some indication as to what the general level of service is for cell phones in the vicinity. So, the 26 greener the color, the better, in terms of the signal. The more red the color, the worse. And so, a lot of 27 the Maple Hill area and the further you get north, the more red the map is, which indicates a poor signal 28 strength and poor coverage. And then it's a similar story, and that was using a utility called Open 29 Signal ... the next one was using a utility called Sensorly, and it's the same sort of story. There's less data 30 from this particular utility, but essentially it is painting a similar picture that the further north you get, the 31 worse coverage is. 32 So, the other issue here is that there are few parcels within this part of the city that would allow a 33 wireless telecommunications facility. So, staff asked the applicant to provide proof that they could not 34 get a lease on any of these sites that have appropriate zoning. So, the two big parcels that would be able 35 to accommodate a cell tower that would have appropriate zoning are the Fort Collins Country Club and 36 then land owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev. Another important thing to note is that the City has an 37 administrative policy where we will not provide new leases to cell phone towers ... that was part of the 38 materials. And then also, too, Poudre School District is not interested in new leases either. They don't 39 have a policy since their policy has to come from the Department of Education, but I did speak to the 40 planner at Poudre School District this morning and confirmed that they have an informal policy... won't 41 call it policy, but they have a practice of not allowing new cell tower leases on their sites. And the City 42 and Poudre School District both own parcels immediately to the east of this site. So, just to make this a 43 little bit more clear... made a map that shows all of the parcels and if they have zoning that would allow a 44 cell tower. Not all of the gray parcels on this map would be parcels that would not allow a cell tower 45 based on City zoning expected, if it's not in the City already. And then also too, then, I showed areas that 1 location that would work and kind of avoid those issues, and that's why we went to the south. The staff 2 report mentions being located to outpost buildings. I think there is a barn and other buildings, you know, 3 right in front of where the structure would be located now. We're able to meet all the setbacks and all 4 that kind of stuff, so ... not to mention, you know, all the design elements and different tests we've done at 5 this location too. So, we would also push to keep the location where it is, where we've been developing it 6 for over a year and have had, you know, meetings and all that kind of stuff. So, I guess with that, I will 7 end my presentation. 8 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Ken. We have a staff response and analysis of the 9 proposal? 10 MR. FRICKEY: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. So, I would like to begin by discussing the addition 11 of permitted use process in particular. So, the addition of permitted use process is a process identified in 12 the Land Use Code when an applicant is seeking to provide a use that's not allowed in the zone district 13 but is allowed in other zone districts within the city. So, there are eight specific criteria identified in 14 Section 1.3.4(c)(1) of the Land Use Code, which I'm going to go over here over the next couple of 15 minutes. In residential zone districts, specifically, of which the low -density mixed -use neighborhood 16 zone district is a residential zone district, City Council is actually the final decision maker on the project, 17 and that's more for the edification of all of the folks in the room that are here to participate from the 18 neighborhood. So, the Planning and Zoning Board will provide a recommendation and City Council will 19 actually be the final decision maker on these sorts of projects. And so, to briefly go through the APU 20 criteria... I'll repeat these on the slides as well once we go through each individual criteria [sic], but I just 21 wanted to outline them at the beginning so we're clear what we're discussing and what staff is going over. 22 So, the first criteria [sic] is that the use is appropriate in the zone district to which it's added. The 23 second is that it conforms to the basic characteristics of the underlying zoning. The third, that the 24 location, size, and design of the use is compatible with other uses within the neighborhood and has a 25 minimal negative impact on the neighborhoods. The fourth criteria... criterion, rather, is that the use 26 doesn't create any sort of more offensive noise, vibration, dust, traffic, glare ... it doesn't affect the public 27 health, safety, morals, aesthetics of the community. Basically, it's not harming the public good is what 28 the fourth criterion deals with. Criterion five states that such use will not change the predominant 29 character of the surrounding area. Criterion six, that the use is compatible to the other listed uses in the 30 zone district. Criterion seven is that if the APU application is for a use in a residential zone that there will 31 be two neighborhood meetings, and then the last criterion, criterion eight is that such use is not a 32 marijuana related use. 33 So, to talk about the criteria in more detail ... we'll start with criterion number one, that the use is 34 appropriate in the zone district. So, to be clear, wireless telecommunications equipment, which is defined 35 in the Land Use Code as antennas that are mounted on an existing structure... those are allowed in this 36 zone district. And so, really, the fundamental issue is ... comes down to design between wireless 37 telecommunications facility and equipment. And so, since the function is consistent with a use that is 38 allowed in the zone district, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion number one. 39 Moving on to criterion number two, that the use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone 40 district. For this analysis, staff consulted the purpose statement of low -density mixed -use neighborhood 41 zone district. And the purpose statement of that zone district is to provide a predominance of low -density 42 residential uses with supporting uses in the zone as well. So that typically comes in the form of what's 43 called the neighborhood center. So that's more neighborhood -serving commercial and other sorts of I design ... well, that didn't come out exactly right, but basically, I think you guys have in your packet too, 2 the designs are all pretty standard. Like I said, it's a 50 by 50 facility, fenced with a wooden fence, 6-foot 3 perimeter fence. Inside, in the center would be the silo tower, and then also inside, around that are 4 equipment pads and shelters for carver equipment and all that kind of stuff. That's just, again, that didn't 5 come out great, sorry for that, but that's just a side view of what the silo structure would look like. And 6 so, Clay, you can just kind of click through these at your will, but these are just some of the photo 7 simulations that are included in your packet... wanted to just include them as part of the presentation. 8 Okay, and then ... so now I'll move to the height. We were approved... or we got a 9 recommendation of approval on our application for 45 feet even though we applied for 60. And so I just 10 wanted to talk a little bit about height and why it's so important. So, communications towers, they do 11 work via line of sight, so obviously the taller the better. We understand that there's, you know, certain 12 reasons why you can't have a 200-foot structure everywhere you want to put a tower, but it is important 13 not only for them to be able to provide, you know, coverage, but they also need to be able to 14 communicate with other existing nodes in the network, so being able to see and talk with each other is 15 another important thing. And so, kind of going back to ... or giving a little bit more detail as it's kind of a 16 paradoxical nature ... as the technology has gotten better and we're able to, you know, get faster data and 17 all that kind of stuff, the search rings have actually shrunk, and that's just because there's a physical 18 limitation to how much information you can move over the air. So, whereas one big, tall tower used to be 19 able to cover a lot of people when we were just doing voice, you know, now we're starting to see a lot 20 more densification of the network needing towers in more locations, sometimes just to cover one 21 intersection. So, you know, it is important to not only have good locations, but also tall enough structures 22 so you can limit the need for future structures, and that's really what we're hoping for today. I think at 45 23 feet, you know, there will be some degradation for Verizon, which I'll show in just a second, but also it 24 will limit our ability to attract co -location. And like I said, you know, we strive to provide co -locatable 25 sites, and so, you know, whereas a foot or two, or five feet or ten feet, you know, is negligible on this type 26 of structure as you're viewing it from the ground, for... from an RF perspective, it's a huge deal, so, you 27 know, we would like to still press for 60 feet with a minimum of 55 feet. We think that would give 28 us ... still allow us to provide the coverage that Verizon needs while also, you know, really giving us a 29 better chance at providing co -location ability and having, you know, the second provider come on and 30 also be able to, you know, really fill a coverage gap or capacity issue that they have. 31 So this is ... one of the radio frequency engineers is actually here tonight from Verizon. He 32 provided what the plots would look like at different heights, so, this is what the tower would look like at a 33 55-foot rad center. You can see that it, you know, expands well into the north, providing good coverage. 34 And as we move down, so this is a 50-foot tower with a 45-foot rad center. You can see there's still 35 pretty decent coverage, we're still hitting some of the north, but there is some degradation. And then as 36 you move down to a 45-foot tower with a 40-foot rad, you can see how much coverage is actually lost to 37 the north. So, we're not really hitting all those communities, all those, you know, growing residential 38 areas. And so, you know, we're still able to provide coverage, but it's definitely not ideal. And we'll see, 39 you know, similar sort of degradation in quality as we move, you know, to the next tenant. So, we did 40 want to push, kind of stress that... stress the need for height. 41 And the last thing is, in our recommendation we're also asked to move the location of the tower 42 facility. And we actually... when we originally presented our project over a year ago, we had a location 43 that was further to the north, but there were some issues with stormwater drainage and that kind of stuff, 44 so we actually, you know, from my understanding, worked with the City diligently to actually find a I the benefits of working with an independent tower company, or I like to think, is that we design all of our 2 sites with co -location in mind. Sort of, you know, we're not really beholden to one client; we want to 3 provide a great structure for not just our anchor tenant but future tenants as well. I'll touch a little bit 4 more on that, but I think that is a benefit of an independent tower company. 5 So, origins of the site, why this location was chosen. So, basically, carriers are granted spectrum 6 by the FCC; they're mandated to optimize the use of that spectrum. And so, in order to do that, they 7 hire ... they have a lot of employees that are radio frequency engineers and they study, basically how their 8 network is performing. They look at where they might have coverage gaps, they look at population 9 growth, demographics, all that kind of stuff ...to ultimately decide where they need to locate a facility. 10 Once we ... once they kind of, you know, pick, you know, identify coverage gaps and capacity issues, 11 then, you know, it goes down to the real estate level, and then we're tasked with finding, you know, a site 12 that will basically meet their coverage needs as far as height and location as well as being able to pass 13 certain zoning criteria, et cetera. 14 So, as far as this site, there is a coverage gap; there's poor coverage in the area. And I like to ... 1 15 have that up there just to make a distinction between coverage and capacity. So, coverage is, you know, 16 literally you can't get a signal, you can't make a call, you can't use your high-speed wireless intemet, 17 whereas capacity is, you know, you might be able to make a phone call today, but with, you know, more 18 and more users, more and more devices being connected every day, more and more applications requiring 19 high speed data, you might not have coverage tomorrow. And so, I think we have both of those here; we 20 have a coverage and capacity issue, but, you know, coverage... having a coverage gap is really a main 21 concern and so that's what we're trying to address here today. Not only that, so, another thing in addition 22 to, you know, more users, there's also local demand, so the demand from people wanting to actually, you 23 know, have better quality service. Just quickly speak on... Verizon did a text campaign, so they basically 24 sent a text message out to all their subscribers in the 80524 billing zip code, and you know, you were 25 basically asked to ... reply if you're interested or if you support the communications tower at this address. 26 They received 428 affirmative text responses indicating support of the facility and 9 respondents opposed. 27 Some of the benefits I like to touch on, too, of the communication towers. There's obvious social 28 benefits of being able to communicate with your friends and family and all that kind of stuff ...being able 29 to take advantage of some of the benefits, you know, recreationally I guess, that are there with high-speed 30 internet, but also, you know, there's people that work from home that, you know, want to make 31 conference calls, that kind of stuff, so there's an economic benefit there too for local businesses as well as 32 more and more companies and people cut the cord. And also, you know, the biggest component is 33 obviously reliable safety communications. The FCC has stated that over 70% of all 911 calls come via 34 mobile device, so having a reliable wireless communication is more important every day. And there was 35 actually an article in the Coloradoan back in August, kind of...and it opens up with, you know, a pretty 36 tragic story of someone in this exact neighborhood not being able to ... or of a man tragically passing 37 because... well, not because, but people weren't able to make 911 calls and that caused, you know, some 38 extra frenzy I guess. So, safety and reliable communications is usually key, and, you know, why these 39 carriers... one of the reasons why the carriers are looking to fill their coverage gaps and remedy any 40 capacity issues. 41 So, I'll move into some of the details of the location and design of the project. So, you guys are 42 probably already familiar with that, but just wanted to touch on it. Obviously, where the dot is on the 43 map, that's where our tower is currently being proposed. That's a little bit closer view and where, 44 approximately, the blue square shows where we're proposing to put our facility. And so, facility 1 VICE CHAIR JEFF HANSEN: The next item on our discussion agenda is item number 6, which 2 is the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use. Clay, can we 3 have an overview? 4 BOARDMEMBER EMILY HEINZ: Just before you do, I have a conflict on the WTF so I have 5 to go. Thanks. 6 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: And Cindy, I should ask if there's been any additional items received 7 since the worksession? 8 MS. CINDY COSMAS: Yes, we've received one email in support of this project, and three 9 emails with concerns related to livability, property resale, granting zoning variances, and potential safety 10 issues. 11 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you. Clay, do you have a staff overview? 12 MR. CLAY FRICKEY: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning 13 Board. Again, my name is Clay Frickey, staff planner on the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications 14 Facility and Addition of Permitted Use. So, the proposal before you this evening is for a 60-foot tall 15 wireless telecommunications facility, which is a freestanding cell phone tower. The proposal calls for the 16 tower to be disguised as a silo. The site is located in the low -density mixed -use neighborhood zone 17 district in which wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use, which is why this proposal 18 is subject to the addition of permitted use process which staff will cover after the applicant's presentation. 19 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Thank you Clay. Does the applicant have an application... or have a 20 presentation? 21 MR. FRICKEY: Yes. 22 VICE CHAIR HANSEN: Okay ... is the applicant here? Oh, yeah, go ahead sir. You 23 can...yeah... come front and center. It's a little easier for everybody to see you. 24 MR. KEN BRADTKE: Okay. First, I'd like to say thanks to the Boardmembers and staff for 25 being here tonight... appreciate it. My name is Ken Bradtke; I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Atlas 26 Tower. So, Clay kind of covered...you know, the application is for a 60-foot silo communications tower 27 accompanied with a 50 by 50 fenced compound and facility to house all of the carrier equipment, et 28 cetera. And so, do you have the slide? Just click it ... or ... ? 29 Okay, so this is just a brief overview of the presentation ... I just want to give a little bit of 30 background about Atlas Tower, who we are, move into the origins of the site, why this location was 31 chosen, why this particular design was chosen, we'll go over some of the design elements of the 32 project... and then lastly, we'll want to focus on the staff approval and the recommendation we received 33 from staff. 34 So, Atlas Tower ... we are a Boulder based, independently owned communications infrastructure 35 company. We're pretty small; we have about five full-time employees. We're not a carver; by that, I 36 mean you can't sign up for Atlas Tower service, but we do build, own, operate, and maintain 37 communications infrastructure for all the major carriers: AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. One of 01 ATTACHMENT 2 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held September 14, 2017 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, September 14, 2017 Board Members Present: Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Emily Heinz (recused herself from this item) Michael Hobbs Jennifer Carpenter Ruth Rollins William Whitley Staff Members Present: Cameron Gloss Clay Frickey Brad Yatabe Cindy Cosmas Agenda Item 22 • 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 attachments provided to Planning and Zoning Board, September 14, 2017 (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 14, 2017 (PDF) 3. Center for Municipal Solutions Report, November 2, 2017 (PDF) 4. Response Narrative from Atlas Tower, November 28, 2017 (PDF) 5. Sherman and Howard Letter, November 30, 2017 (PDF) 6. Center for Municipal Solutions Supplemental Report, December 6, 2017 (PDF) 7. Revised Coverage Maps from Verizon Wireless, November 28, 2017 (PDF) 8. Resident Comments received by 12:00 p.m., December 13, 2017 (PDF) 9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Item # 22 Page 6 Agenda Item 22 F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(0 -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 afterthe 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 secondneighborhood 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(Cx3)(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 • A 60-foot tower is too tall and obtrusive Item # 22 Page 5 Agenda Item 22 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. 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 ,anymore 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 firm 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. Item # 22 Page 4 Agenda Item 22 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 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/[nBev'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 Item # 22 Page 3 Agenda Item 22 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. Based on direction received from Council at the October 3, 2017 hearing for this item, City staff retained a consultant, Center for Municipal Solutions, to review this submittal for compliance with the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996. Center for Municipal Solutions provided the City with its initial report on November 2, 2017. Based on this report, Atlas Tower provided the City and Center for Municipal Solutions with additional information regarding the coverage gaps this facility expects to fills. Center for Municipal Solutions provided a supplemental report based on this additional information on December 5, 2017. 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 smelter. 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 Item # 22 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 22 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 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 (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP160018. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the iLow 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 move the facility 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. Item # 22 Page 1 Agenda Item 19 redevelopment of surrounding parcels, staff puts forward the following practical issues for Council's consideration: What specifically triggers a redesign? What should a redesigned facility look like? What process would a redesigned facility go through? In consideration of these practical issues, staff does not recommend imposition of this condition of approval regarding redevelopment of surrounding parcels. For condition 2, the City adopted a wind loading standard as part of the 2015 International Building Code. While the International Building Code does not have a specific wind loading requirement for the Fort Collins area since the City is located in a special wind zone, Colorado State University data for the area has been utilized to calculate wind loading requirements for all structures. All structures must meet this requirement, including taller structures that are more susceptible to high wind events. Section 5-27(70) of the Municipal Code requires all structures to withstand wind loads of 100 miles per hour (161 kph) Vasd or 129 miles per hour (208 kph) Vult. Staff finds this wind loading requirement is sufficient and recommends not imposing this condition of approval. For condition 3, obsolescence could be defined in this context as inactivity. Non -conforming uses expire after being inactive for a 24-month period per Land Use Code Section 1.5.3. Staff recommends the imposition of this condition to require the removal of the tower if it is inactive for a period of 180 continuous days to ensure timely removal of the structure. Such a condition could be added to the listed conditions already included in Section 3 of the Ordinance as follows: (3) If, after construction of the wireless telecommunications facilities is completed, such facilities are not operated for any reason for a continuous period of 180-consecutive days, the facilities and the structure in which they are housed shall be removed from the Parcel in accordance with all requirements of the City Code and Land Use Code. For purposes of this condition, any failure to continuously operate resulting from forces beyond the reasonable control of the owner, other than financial inability to operate, shall not be counted against the 180-consecutive day period. Additionally, the wireless facilities use added by the APU process pursuant to Ordinance No. 136, 2017, shall terminate and shall thereafter be null and void. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, December 19, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board Verbatim Transcript, September 14, 2017 (PDF) 3. Resident Comments received since December 19, 2017 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 5. Ordinance No. 136, 2017 (PDF) Item # 19 Page 2 Agenda Item 19 STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2017, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2017 approves with conditions, the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP160018. The APU would allow 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. On First Reading, three conditions of approval were adopted: one condition making the APU validity contingent upon subsequent Planning and Zoning Board approval of the associated PDP, one that reduced the height of the facility to 45 feet or less, and one requiring that the facility be located further north so it is closer to existing outbuildings. The City Council directed staff to research three additional conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading with the addition of a condition of approval related to removal of the tower if it becomes obsolete. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council directed staff to research three additional conditions of approval contemplated at First Reading. These conditions of approval are: 1. The tower's design be changed upon redevelopment of the parcel or the surrounding areas; 2. The tower must exceed current City structural requirements for cell towers, primarily with respect to wind loads; and 3. The tower must be removed when it becomes obsolete Staff has been in communication with the applicant to discuss specific verbiage associated with the three additional conditions. With regards to above proposed condition 1, no other cell tower has been subject to a condition such as this. No other cell tower, however, has been subject to the Addition of Permitted Use process. Redevelopment of the site upon which the tower is located would not necessarily require a condition of approval requiring the re- design of the tower. Any development submittal for the subject property would have to meet the Land Use Code standards at the time of development. Since a development submittal would have to account for the cell tower, this obviates the need of a condition of approval for re -development of the subject parcel and, therefore, staff does not recommend imposing a condition of approval related to re -development of the property. For Item # 19 Page 1