Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFTC RAMS CROSSING WTE VERIZON - BDR180027 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - PROJECT NARRATIVELRK CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS Wireless-Telecommunications Equipment (Co-location) BDR Review: Site Identification Analysis FTC Rams Crossing located at 808 West Prospect Street, Parcel ID# 9714320001 OVERVIEW: As with all new projects, Verizon utilizes a thorough search and analysis of any area that requires new network improvements before moving forward with any one particular candidate. This area located southwest of the Colorado State University campus is no different. Verizon initially began noticing network issues back in 2015 and 2016. Subsequently, Verizon’s radio frequency engineers sought to curb these issues before they began to become more frequent and with higher degrees of failure. Any new developments, additional users, or patterns of increased data usage from existing customers would only exacerbate this issue further. It is typical for new projects to take anywhere between 18- 24 months to be leased, zoned, constructed, and operational, which means that new projects must take into account current issues as well as predicted future issues. SITE OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this new project is to improve capacity around the Sonny Lubick Field at Colorado State Stadium specifically between S Shields St and S Mason St, Hughes Way and Rolland Moore Dr. Some of the reasons this area was selected for a new project aside from the observed network issues discussed below is the natural growth and development that is occurring as the spill over investment from the University continues to mold this neighborhood. This includes major user influences like the new football stadium and new apartments geared towards university students. Our engineering data shows that this area is experiencing 4G data overloads. This is depicted below. The existing Verizon site known as FTC CSU East simply needs to have some of the area it covers moved onto another new site to allow it to keep performing well. This neighborhood does a great job of moving commercial traffic onto a more localized site, better able to serve the closest users. SITE IDENTIFICATION: For ease of discussion, a diagramed aerial and corresponding table has been provided to better understand what properties were considered and why they were not feasible to host a new facility. 1 APARTMENTS/ AREA PARTIALLY OWNED BY CSU Existing buildings not tall enough to provide line of sight thus not technically suitable for wireless equipment. Limited height with dense mature tree growth around buildings would have reduced performance greatly. Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. 2 PARKING LOT/ CSU OWNED No existing buildings or large enough structures to support co-location. Therefore, property would have resulted in a new, free standing facility. Lastly, property is owned by CSU. Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. 3 APARTMENTS/ CSU OWNED Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. Further, dense mature tree growth southeast of location would have been an issue for coverage due to line of sight limitations. 4 APARTMENTS Building height was acceptable. Mature trees around site especially to the northeast were challenging, but Verizon was willing to investigate further if owner showed interest. Letter of interest mailed to owner on 2/12/2017. No response from property owner. Followed up with email on 2/27/2017. No response received from this attempt either. 5 STADIUM/ PRACTICE FIELDS/ CSU OWNED Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. Before the freeze, Verizon and CSU had already agreed to co-location of antennas facing inside the stadium for event traffic only. Any exterior facing antennas would see too much of the surrounding area due to stadium's overall height. This ability to see too much would cause interference for other existing facilities so for technical reasons on top of leasing issues additional co-location of antennas at the stadium is not feasible. 6 CSU OWNED PROPERTIES Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. 7 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Co-location or a new, free standing structure on any one of these properties would not be suitable for Verizon and likely not acceptable by the city. 8 CHURCH Location was of interest to Verizon due to the height and size of the existing building, the overall visibility from this location to the surrounding area, and the flexibility of the lot to offer up multiple design options. Emailed letter of interest on 2/28/2017. No response of interest or disinterest was received. Several phone calls were attempted, but no contact made. Due to lack of interest from owner, Verizon moved on. 9 CHURCH Location was of interest to Verizon due to the openness of the lot and proximity to the center of the neighborhood that needed the improvements. Existing structures were not viable for co-location of equipment so any project would have resulted in an undetermined type of new freestanding structure. Emailed letter of interest on 2/28/2017. No response of interest or disinterest was received. Several phone calls were attempted, but no contact made. Due to lack of interest from owner, Verizon moved on. Letter of interest mailed to owners on 2/9/2017. No response was received. Sent 2nd follow up via email to church on 2/27/2017. Hal Chorpenning of Plymouth congregational united church of Christ emailed us back on 2/28/2017 noting that they had considered our project and decided it was not of interest to them. 10 APARTMENT Location was of interest to Verizon due to the openness of the lot and proximity to the center of the neighborhood that needed the improvements. Letter of interest mailed to owner on 2/10/2017. No response of interest or disinterest was received. Unfortunately, the existing structure was not viable for co-location of equipment so any project on the property would have resulted in an undetermined type of new freestanding structure. As such, it was determined that it would be more acceptable to continue on with one of the other potential properties that could actually support co-location of equipment. This along with the lack of a response from owner led to Verizon moving on from this location. 11 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Co-location or a new, free standing structure on any one of these properties would not be suitable for Verizon and likely not acceptable by the city. 12 APARTMENT Location was of interest to Verizon due to the openness of the lot, the existing building's height, and proximity to the center of the neighborhood that needed the improvements. Letter of interest emailed to owner on 2/28/2017. Received call from owner on 3/1/2017 with interest. Owner noted that property was being redeveloped. Existing buildings were to be demolished over the summer, break ground in fall, and hope to be completely built out by 2019. While timing of the completed buildings was a concern, the larger concern to Verizon was that the final height of the future buildings would be 5-stories. Rooftop equipment at this overall height would be hard to contain the signals from covering more than its intended coverage area. This is known as site interference or pollution. These concerns were explained to the owner, and the owner offered to introduce us to the owners of Apex, who they knew had a new building being constructed that was nearing completion and only 3-stories tall. As such, Verizon ultimately moved on from this location to consider the Apex property. 13 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Co-location or a new, free standing structure on any one of these properties would not be suitable for Verizon and likely not acceptable by the city. 14 CSU OWNED PROPERTIES Existing parking lots offered no existing structures for co-location so a new, free standing tower would be needed. Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. 15 APARTMENTS Existing buildings were tall enough, but were not constructed to accommodate co-location of wireless equipment based on architectural design and layouts. Mature tree growth surrounding this community was also a challenge to line of sight for signals coming from any potential rooftop equipment. Therefore, only a new, undetermined type of freestanding structure would have been feasible on the property. It was determined that it would be more acceptable for Verizon and the community in general to continue on with one of the other properties that offered existing co-location options instead. 16 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Co-location or a new, free standing structure on any one of these properties would not be suitable for Verizon and likely not acceptable by the city. 17 CSU OWNED PROPERTIES Per conversation with Brian Hood of CSURF in December 2016, CSU is not actively taking on any more wireless leases meaning these properties and any other CSU property in the area are not viable options. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. December 2016 conversation with Brian Hood. #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #14, & #17 On Map B. Notice of No Interest by Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, #9 On Map C. Emailed Letter of Interest to Islamic Center of Fort Collins, #8 On Map D. Delivery Confirmation of Letter of Interest to Rams Summit West LLC, #4 On Map E. Follow-Up Email for Letter of Interest to Rams Summit West LLC, #4 On Map F. Delivery Confirmation of Letter of Interest to Student Housing CSU LLC, #10 on Map Exhibit A: December 2016 conversation with Brian Hood. #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #14, & #17 On Map Exhibit B: Notice of No Interest by Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, #9 On Map Exhibit C: Emailed Letter of Interest to Islamic Center of Fort Collins, #8 On Map Exhibit D: Delivery Confirmation of Letter of Interest to Rams Summit West LLC, #4 On Map Exhibit E: Follow-Up Email for Letter of Interest to Rams Summit West LLC, #4 On Map Exhibit F: Delivery Confirmation of Letter of Interest to Student Housing CSU LLC, #10 on Map