Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 TURNBERRY RD WTF - PDP160018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONSupplementary Narrative – Long Pond March 7, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 60’ Stealth Silo Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524. This facility will be 2,500 square feet and house a 60’ silo communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This request is made in an effort to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Kenneth E. Forbes Jeanette L Forbes Address: 2008 Turnberry Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant: Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 36' 51.50" N 105° 02' 14.96” W Zoning: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Lease Area: 2,500 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a silo and housed within a 2,500 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a developing residential area where there is very spotty coverage and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As there area develops, and the existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the- ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect We strive to design our facilities and locate parcels that create the least amount of community disturbance. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped farmland and residential properties of medium density. The proposed site was previously used for agricultural purposes with multiple agricultural structures. The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a silo and blend with the surrounding area and the aesthetics of the proposed parcel. 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could very greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there was one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Facility & Traffic This site is unmanned and only occasionally visited by maintenance personnel. Therefore, it does not require public facilities or services greater than presently available. Given the limited visits to the facility, approximately 1-6 annually, there is no distinguishable impact on existing infrastructure or pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. 3 Noise, Safety, and Public Health Our proposed uses will not cause any measurable increase in noise levels in the surrounding area, any detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity, and will not create any reasonable public health concerns. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility should be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had favorable zoning and cable of addressing the growing coverage need and demand of the area. Exhibit 2 to this application shows the ring where Verizon would ideally place a tower. Exhibit 3 shows an expanded search area around Verizon’s ideal location that Atlas has considered for a possible lease. This expanded search ring is based on nearness to the population to which the proposed telecommunications facility will provide coverage, and nearness to Verizon’s ideal location. Atlas’s expanded search ring is about one mile from Verizon’s ideal location, while as near as possible to the medium dense residential areas to the southwest of Verizon’s ideal location. The proposed site is just south of Verizon’s ideal search ring. Properties to the east of the proposed site are undesirable because they are not near the population that the tower will serve. In order for a telecommunications facility to function effectively, it needs to be near the population it will serve. The Industrial zoned properties to the east are over a mile from the center of the residential areas that the proposed telecommunications facility would serve, and therefore are undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. In addition to being located too far away from the coverage objective, the Industrial zoned properties to the east of the search area are also undesirable because they are significantly lower in elevation than the desired coverage area. In order for towers to work effectively, they need line of site with each other and with most of the area to which they will provide coverage. Properties to the east and northeast of the proposed site have a drop in elevation of 30ft – 50ft as shown in Exhibit 4. This 30ft – 50ft elevation drop makes the Industrial zoned properties to the east undesirable for the proposed telecommunications facility. The proposed site is ideal when taking into account likely future development in the area. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the area to the west of the proposed site is a medium dense residential area. To the north and south of the proposed site are new residential developments that are in the process of development. Directly to the east of the proposed site is the site of a future high school. As depicted on, the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility is zoned LMN or UE. Both the LMN and UE zones are designed to support residential housing. If the proposed telecommunications facility is not developed at the proposed site, as the area continues to be developed with residential properties, the portion of northern Fort Collins from just east of College to what will be Timberline will be almost exclusively residential properties. This would be an almost two-mile wide area among 4 which it would be very difficult to develop a telecommunications facility, especially one of sufficient height. The proposed telecommunications faculty is within what will be a residential area and will allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to northeastern Fort Collins with almost no negative visual effect. Atlas was unable to secure a lease on other properties within the search area depicted on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is an image of the zoning in the search area with notes concerning Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease. Atlas and Verizon were unable to secure a lease on the property to the northeast of the proposed site owned by State of Colorado Land Commissioners or the property to the east owned by Anheuser-Busch. Neither of these properties indicated interest in a lease of any price. The Fort Collins Country Club to the west of the proposed site was also not interested in a lease for a cell tower at a reasonable rate. Exhibit 7 is a letter from Greg DiBona, a contactor for Verizon, stating that after about a year of work, he was unable to secure a lease on a preferentially zoned property that meets Verizon’s coverage objectives. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed telecommunications facility would be located 136ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 118.5ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a silo, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which includes small residential farming properties and larger working farms, among other medium dense residential properties. We are proposing a wooden fence, as depicted in page C-2 of the Zoning Drawings enclosed with this application. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing farm buildings and residence. 5 (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth silo a beige color that matches the existing buildings on the property. All of the antennas on the stealth silo will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth silo and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new stealth silo, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth silo will be mounted behind the paneling of the silo, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. C-2 of the enclosed drawings. A 6’ wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year- round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 6 Fencing detail can be seen on pg. C-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. As designed, the telecommunications facility does not have vegetation and therefore would not need automatic irrigation systems. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth silo, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Current access roads are via paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 8. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. 7 Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. Atlas does not believe that the proposed site is located on any designated historic site or structure. NEPA and Phase I environmental studies are currently being performed at the site and will confirm the lack of any historical significance at the site location. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth silo in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a communications tower. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. According to Division 4.5, (A) Purpose: the L-M-N District 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 proposed telecommunications facility would be a supporting land use to the neighborhood because it would provide a vital utility to the surrounding area. The L-M-N District lists “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. In addition, because the area surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility has been, or is currently, used for agricultural purposes, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would not look out of place. (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. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. 8 (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 6, the location of the proposed tower is over 110 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth silo. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 60 ft. silo on farm property, the proposed 60 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a silo is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on 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 zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the surrounding area is a mix of newer residential properties and older rural properties, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. The L-M-N District has “Urban Agriculture” as an “Accessory/Miscellaneous Use” in Division 4.5, (B) Permitted Uses. (1), (a), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a silo would conform to the Urban Agriculture allowed use of the L-M-N District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with other permitted uses for the L-M-N district which include small scale and medium scale solar energy systems and wireless telecommunication equipment. (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. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. 9 (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 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. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 60’ stealth silo tower at 2008 Turnberry Road, Fort Collins, CO 80524. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Network Engineering RF Documentation for Proposed Long Pond Site at 2008 Turnberry Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview: Verizon Wireless strives to provide excellent wireless service for our users with a network of telecommunications facilities that allows our users to reliably place and receive mobile-phone calls and utilize data services. Verizon is working to improve its network in the residential areas in northeast Fort Collins, centered near Long Pond. The performance of a network consists mainly of two factors: coverage and capacity. Coverage can be thought of as the strength of a wireless signal in a given area. Capacity can be thought of as the ability of the wireless network to handle the amount of voice and data demands placed upon it. Neither the coverage nor the capacity of the network in northeastern Fort Collins meet Verizon’s performance goals or user expectations. Increasing coverage and capacity in the area requires the development of a new telecommunications facility that can house up to twelve antennas, near users, with line-of-site to much of the surrounding area. Line of Site Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as –80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to provide a line of sight to the roads, offices, and homes where users work and reside. One of the challenges of providing excellent coverage is providing strong in-building coverage to users. Strong in-building coverage is often difficult to attain because of the degradation of the Radio Frequency (RF) signal when it travels through solid obstacles such as tree foliage or buildings. A tower height that is greater than the existing tree and building clutter increases in-building coverage because it decreases the number of solid objects, such as trees and buildings, that a cellular signal must pass though in order to reach a user. Because the proposed facility would be located on ground that is relatively high and the stealth silo would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of-site from the proposed facility would be ideal for providing coverage to the surrounding residential area. With the proposed facility at 60ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 55ft on center and could have line-of-site coverage to most of the users that Verizon seeks to serve with the proposed facility. Location Requirements: Early cellular network designs placed tall telecommunications facility towers (often in excess of 200ft) on top of hills. This provided cellular providers the ability to cover the most area possible with very few telecommunications facilities. As cell-phone users have increased, these tall, hill top facilities have been forced to provide service to an increasing number of users in a given area. In addition to there being more users, the average user is utilizing applications on their phones and tablets that require more data than ever before. With more people using cell phones and most cell-phone users requiring more data, existing structures are no longer able to handle the capacity load placed upon them. Cellular design has evolved so that multiple shorter cell sites, located near high traffic or high population areas, are now favored. These smaller sites near population centers can provide fast and reliable service to a more focused geographic area. This ultimately results in fewer dropped calls and access failures for users. The proposed location directly abuts the residential area the proposed facility would cover. The proposed location is ideal for providing fast and reliable coverage to much of the residential area of northeastern Fort Collins. Exhibit 1 11 The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network in northeastern Fort Collins (north of Vine and east of College) is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations. Verizon has received multiple complaints from users of dropped and degraded calls and slow data speeds. In this area there are both issues of coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year in order to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non- functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are requiring more and more data. In addition to this, Fort Collins is growing quickly and there is planned development in northeastern Fort Collins. As more homes and schools are built, the existing infrastructure will become less and less able to meet demand. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because more and more people are no longer utilizing landlines, it is becoming more and more common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Charts Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Average users in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. Exhibit 1 Continued 12 Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon’s existing coverage in northeastern Fort Collins. Map Legend: (Same for both Maps) Exhibit 1 Continued 13 The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon’s coverage in northeastern Fort Collins could be with the proposed facility. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity in northeastern Fort Collins for both current and future use. The proposed site at 2008 Turnberry Road it ideally situated with regard to both topography and with regard to its proximity to the residential users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding residential area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site’s topography and location is ideal for Verizon’s purposed and will allow it to greatly improve wireless performance in northeastern Fort Collins. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless FTC_LongPond Exhibit 1 Continued 14 Exhibit 2 15 Exhibit 3 16 Exhibit 4 17 Exhibit 5 18 Lat40 , Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SITE PLAN ATLAS TOWER: FORBES Exhibit 6 19 Exhibit 7 20 Exhibit 8 Photo Simulation #1 21 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #2 22 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #3 23 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #4 24 Exhibit 8 Continued Photo Simulation #5