HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 TURNBERRY RD APU DEC 19 2017 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - PDP160018 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGAgenda Item 22
• Concern about radio frequency emissions
• The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods
• A 60-foot tower is too tall and obtrusive
• Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower
• Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home
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
approved, will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this
requirement.
F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(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 after the submittal of
an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review
Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on
March 30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood
meeting on May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review.
H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of
the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code
The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion
In addition to these criteria, Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) also requires Addition of Permitted Use applications to not
be detrimental to the public good, comply with the standards in Section 3.5.1, and not be specifically listed as a
prohibited use in the zone district. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not detrimental to the
public good. As mentioned earlier, Section 3.5.1 applies to buildings. Wireless telecommunications facilities do
meet the definition of a building and so this standard is not applicable. The LMN zone district does not have
any uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard.
BOARD I 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:
Item # 22 Page 5
Agenda Item 22
currently used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two-story, single-family
detached home with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm
prior to the area developing.
The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures
exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000's with the
development in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No
structure nearby exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the
agricultural activities beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would
harken back to the agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and
located properly. The current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site.
Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins.
Both silos are 30-40 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement
and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on
the development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to
be construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not
appear integral to the operation of the site.
Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process
1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet.
2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear
integral to the site.
These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better
meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of
the facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus
minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co -location in
accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co -location
opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of
the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with
the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby.
D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or
attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi -public facilities, utilities
or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of
development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone
district to which it is added
Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other
objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi -public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public
health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the
other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the cell tower be
designed and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have
no greater impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located
near agricultural outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this
criterion.
E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area
The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the
two silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the
character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be
Item # 22 Page 4
Agenda Item 22
other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite
residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District
shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood."
As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN
zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other
uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are
developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless
telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a 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/lnBev'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
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 fill. 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 shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since a
wireless telecommunications facility does not meet the definition of a building. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) requires
stealth technology for all wireless facilities and equipment. This addresses compatibility issues by requiring
wireless projects to blend into their surroundings.
Compliance with APU Criteria
In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land
Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows:
A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added
Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment
is defined as, "... equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or
contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an
existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose," per the definitions found in Article 5 of the
Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment which facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed
citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a
freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two
uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the LMN zone district.
B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the
other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added
Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, "... to be a setting for a
predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a
neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a
neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in
neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and
conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and
Item # 22 Page 2
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
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2017, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use
Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018.
The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Long Pond
Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (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.
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