The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCENTURY WITH ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - PDP - PDP170017 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - PROJECT NARRATIVE� • Supplementary Narrative — Century �;, �, Nov 13, 2017 '�; �$ �. Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services USA • INTERNATIONAL 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative — Proposed 55' Stealth Bell Tower 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 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. This facility will be 1,600 square feet and house a 55' bell-tower communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is working to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Southside Baptist Church of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado non-profit corporation Address: 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Applicant: Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Zonin : Low Density Residential District RL Coordinates: 40° 32' 19.44" N 105° 05' 13.69" W Lease Area: 1,600 Sq. ft. PROPOSALSUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a bell tower and housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a residential area where the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As 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 Visua/ Effect The proposed location is currently being used as a church and a Christian school. A three-sided bell tower communications facility will complement this existing use and will be unrecognizable as a telecommunications tower. The walls of the upper portion of the telecommunications facility will be made of RF transparent material that will completely mask telecommunications antennas that will be housed inside of the bell tower. A six-foot fence will surround the supporting ground equipment in the lease area. The portion of the fence facing Horsetooth will be made of brick that matches the existing building. A wooden fence will surround the other three sides of the lease area. • � Frepuencv 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 vary greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Averaqe Number Of Vehicles Visitinp 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 Averape 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 were 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 8 COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE ComArehensive 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 coveraqe and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emerqencv 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 qrowth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth wiil foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technoloqv 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 bell tower is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Facilrtv & 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. Federa/ 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. !, i Noise, Safetv. 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. Subiect to the re4uirements of paraqraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment mav be attached to or mounted on anv existinq buildinq or structure (or substantiallv similar replacement structure) located in anv zone district of the citv. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on anv residential buildinq containinq four (4) or fewer dwellinq 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 and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In orderto 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 is required to 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 adequate location, favorable zoning and use, and a willing Landlord. Exhibit 1 to this application is a satellite image with one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to land use. Exhibit 2 is a zoning map with a one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to preferential zoning. Though the commercial properties near the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields are zone preferentially, most lack adequate space for a telecommunications facility. The properties that do have adequate space were unwilling to engage in a telecommunications lease with Atlas. Exhibit 3 details Atlas's efforts to secure a lease in the area surrounding the original search ring. Because the search is fairly densely populated, going beyond a mile with the search could put the tower too close to another site—or another planned site—in Verizon's network. In addition to this, it could place the tower too far from intended users. The commercial properties located near College Avenue and Horsetooth are too far from the coverage objective and too close to another existing Verizon antenna. The proposed site is excellent when taking into account its location in relation to the residential and commercial properties that the tower will serve and the size and use of the proposed property. The proposed location is surrounded by residential properties, but the tower itself would not be close to any residential structures. The use of the proposed location would allow for a convincing stealth use that would minimize the visual effect of the proposed tower. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facilitv or equipment owner or lessee or emplovee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude anv other wireless telecommunication provider from usinq the same buildinq, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facilitv or epuipment owner or lessees or emplovees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in qood faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Anv application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless � �_I telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicanYs Qood 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 facilitv that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facilitv from the qropertv lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of heiqht. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topqle, this requirement can be waived bv the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the qround-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be qoverned bv the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed tower facility would be located 137ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 117ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural stvle of the surroundinq architectural environment (planned or existinq) considerinQ exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surroundinq natural environment considerinq land forms, topoQraphv and other natural features. If such facilitv is an accessory use to an existinq use, the facilitv 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 bell tower, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower to the untrained eye, and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which is a church building. The proposed facility would be surrounded with a brick fence on the south side and a wooden fence on the remaining sides. 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 church building. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Epuipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the buildinq or structure to which or on which such equiqment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth bell tower a beige color that matches the existing church building. All of the antennas on the stealth bell tower will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth bell tower and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the heiqht of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the heiqht of the buildinq. All wireless telecommunication equiqment shall be located as far from the edqe of the roof as possible. Even if the buildinq is constructed at or above the buildinQ heiqht limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new self-supporting bell tower, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a buildinq structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a confiQuration as flush to • i the wall as technically possible and shall not prolect 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 technoloqv will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the buildinq or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth bell tower will be mounted behind the paneling of the tower, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and qround mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened bv parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the buildinq's desiqn, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. Z-2 of the zoning drawings. A 6' brick and wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscapinq. Wireless telecommunication facilities and qround-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment mav need to be landscaped with landscapinq materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unipue nature of such facilities. Landscapinq mav therefore be repuired to achieve a total screeninq effect at the base of such facilities or e4uipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavv emphasis on coniferous plants for vear- round screeninq mav 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 facilitv or qround-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontaqe on a public street, street trees shall be planted alonq the roadwav in accordance with the policies of the Citv Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencinp. Chain link fencinq shall be unacceqtable to screen facilities. Fencinq materials shall consist of wood masonrv, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencinq shall not exceed six (6) feet in heiQht. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. Z-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6' brick and wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berminq. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screeninq device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowinq, irriqation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irriqation. Landscapinq and berminq shall be epuipped with automatic irriqation systems meetinq the water conservation standards of the citv. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas will install an automatic irrigation system for any required landscaping. (8) Co/or. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closelv as possible the color and texture of the wall, buildinq or surroundinp built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth bell tower, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. � � (9) Liqhtinq. The liqht source for securitv liphtinq shall be hiqh-qressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillaqe of illumination off-site. Liqht fixtures, whether freestandinq or tower-mounted shall not exceed twentv-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 suqportinq all of the emerqencv 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 Hoqbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibilitv for mitiqatinq visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facilitv or equipment and other appropriate qraphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the citv's foothills and hoqbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 6. (13) Airports and Fliqht Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and fliqht paths shall obtain the necessary apqrovals from the Federal Aviation Administration. 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 anv historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the citv's Landmark Preservation Commission as required bv Chapter 14 of the Citv 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) Stea/th Technoloqv. 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 bv which to mitiqate and/or camouflaqe visual impacts. Stealth technolo4v consists of, but is not limited to, the use Qrain 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 adiacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth bell tower 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 Findinqs. The followinq procedures and required findinqs shall applv to addition of permitted use determinations made bv the Director, PlanninQ and ZoninQ Board, and Citv Council resqectivelv: (1) Director Approval. In conlunction with an application for approval of an overall develoqment plan, a qroiect develoqment plan, or anv amendment of the foreqoinq (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section onlvl, for propertv not located in anv zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant mav applv for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined bv the Director. If the applicant does not applv for such an addition of qermitted use in conlunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion mav initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director mav add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the followin4 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 Residential District (R-L). Places of worship or assembly are allowed in the R-L district and the proposed telecommunications facility masked as a bell tower would conform to the current use in the R-L district while providing vital infrastructure. (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. (c) The location, size and desiqn of such use is compatible with and has minimal neqative impact on the use of nearbv 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 5, the location of the proposed tower is over 117 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 bell tower. 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 55 ft. bell tower on church property, the 55 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create anv more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, plare or other obiectionable influences or anv more traffic hazards, traffic qeneration or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on qublic health, safetv, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resultinq 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 tra�c 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 chanqe the qredominant character of the surroundinq area. Because the existing church building has been located at this location for around fifty years, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (fl 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 Residential District (R-L). The R-L District has "Places of worship or assembly" as an "Institutional/Civic/Public Uses" in Division 4.4, (B) Permitted Uses. (2), (b), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower would conform to the places of worship or assembly allowed use of the R-L District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with the Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses for the R-L district, which includes wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adiacent to an existinq residential neiqhborhood, shall be subiect to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have anV siqnificant neiqhborhood imqacts. The first neiqhborhood meetinq must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neiQhborhood meetinct 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. (h) Such use is not a medical mariivana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the Citv Code or a retail mariivana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the Citv 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 55' stealth bell tower at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. 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 Exhibit 1 � • i �`�:�' � --r'' � � � 9 ��,�,'a°"�"",'�� .;,",� ..� r� r�'�.��,� . ;�. r . , —� ' "' '��ii ✓ � �� .f�' �•, ', �� . y / " +� � ��ry �,�r �� r �.��m� t�;� ��T�T 1"1�"'y ,.� � �,�'`� ��:.s; MA .� �� . . �.� � _ . . w w �^ � �°�`' �"s h�' �� .. ,, �`�;*�„� e '�-}�,�j k . " . � �.I \" —,� . , /':� � ,., i P j 4 a ,,, 4 '�� yy ./ ±w .�' ',� k+4 Mr �"e'9a�;yfr"gdsm" c�� ..' r.. ��{�:: . � �, r i� : � y, 'L � uti �,.. �""'. , �.. :� � ♦�` _, ; yy , � �_�.,� ,� '. l. ;.�qt--r�__ . :;y * y � ,� i �"� '� m'�V�k••�`f S.Y �}.•,., ' r � i' � "��i �� ,' � :�� '�, �w �,�� A�in � � � i 7l �� ' 1 x' '� i � � _, x � -��£. .« � � ,, �� _ �'p�� ' ' ��.=, �:1.-r� r"_ - �,'t'..' ' r ' z ��.. I'r, r �3L+�� ". �� w_ � 9 • • Exhibit 2 . • • "`�t�1 FCMaps , .,.�, � , � _ _ t ��r� �� ,, � , .; �, , �T ,.. � � , : �.� s-- -� . �� `�a{t°t� � t t�. _ ,,;,� �:..� � ;,, ; �-«»...,..«.,� �:L . 1 � -- � ,, ,� � , � .. . � �, Y "'. � ,i I� "`�*r-. -ra �, � � .ii�uL�,` _ L.iiuii �ii� LI r -: E � C-:fe�.n�- . . = fl ', },' a t; un �.2 �, . t� tt.,. t = u:i� � ' ,,;,�t� �,,, .�.__ : : E�.�E� � � . �.?��iti�.� ..�_�,.. '��"1 Vk" ��3}�.�� .. .. � ., � 51[�� . . - � � : . I I ' i � I i �� r C �•4t F� p�-- t Sas� 't'�^x {M�I•J �Tit: - �ti f�va�f: ,_..__J . ..«� Ri�irn� -' � Lh,�� a t t ', �.l . t a �;;�; �"' ,Ay ` � ... 4 �i �`�:$�'L i! f '� �` �� ' . � r' , r # (.1. k � � � �._, � 1 � � �� oD - y� . . ;�$� ;:„ . . , ,-,��„ � �, � � - : ��. r� °., i�n I� - - ; ,. i� ��. � i. .. , . , �t � , �. " �. � �.._'.—' .. _. _ .. r�.:.. .._:. �,e. �G t q �r� a _ •✓��5 � � . «__„� � . 1 IF 1 . .. t.�i, i,, � � . . , n .-, �.-. � [ t � �it,�, „ I�..r t� � . i , _. ��, ��i� k;p, .��. ^ t,,�G.AEl11 k �+[ � c- ...�^"""<.x^� .�.„� , nd ity Zoning ' Communiry Cammerciel ' Communiry Commerelal North Colle ' Communl�y Commerclel Paudre RI� � Ganeral Commerdal ' Limiled Commercial ' Sarvice Commercial � �S� ' Downtown ' Employment � Hertnany Cortidor ] Industnal � Hlg� Denslry Mlxed-Uae Neighhorh� � Low �ensity Mixed-Use Neighbonc� '� Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighb � Neighborhoad Commerdal , NelghDorhootl Conservetlon Bulfer , Neighborhood Consarvation Low D� JNeighborhooC ConservaLon Metliui ! Pu61ic Open Lands ] Rivar Conservation � ' River powntown Redevelopment � Residantlal Foothllls ] Low �ensiry Realtlentlal ] Rural Lands Dlatrict ' Tranaitlon l urban Estace Lege C � 1 1 1 ' C i C C � C Ce C C 1 C t f / : �t��s � r�, � �. � � � � � Notes � �� pj �� t�u � L(9fl � _ _ ..__ _d¢ �."�.'._. 1:13,719 e , ��L� � LI III � �� @ � 86.0 0 1,143.00 2,286.0 Feet i5 1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fnrt Coilins FCM Intemet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on r of Fort Collins - GIS map may or may not be accurate, current, or othenvise relia W • • Exhibit 3 li �o � j� �� It g � �� .� � � � , � .�� 7} I 0. 3' f x�•y�'-1�_'.. ' f , ,�q� ; � t _ � y � � � ��. , , .��, �.,, �,. ' , �.�. �.. �.�., - n , ,� : _ , . �,.., ;� _ 1 , � �: . .» �y.� . ... 1) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 2) J/Jack C Sherman Worthington — Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in the fall of 2016 and the property owner was vehemently opposed to a lease on his property under any circumstances. 3) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 4) Southside Baptist Church - This is the location of the proposed telecommunications facility. Though the property is not zoned preferentially for a telecommunications facility, the land use works well for a telecommunications facility, there is sufficient space, and it is well situated among residential parcels in order to provide effective coverage to the surrounding area. 5) Various Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 6) The Southland Corporation — Though this property is preferentially zoned, it is not of sufficient size to house the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The proposed facility needs around 2,500 sq. ft. of ground space to house equipment. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. iz _ �� .� �_ . ��.� �, . � �-�-� ,�°��;=,.�� ,�;��-� �� _ - __ __ , � � � � � 7) PVP Property Owners Association — Though this property is preferentially zoned, there is not sufficient space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, spoke to the property owner in 2016 regarding leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Exhibit 3 Continued The property owner cited parking space requirements as the primary issue with leasing space to Atlas Tower for the proposed telecommunications facility. There is already an existing telecommunications tower on the property, which cannot house additional carriers. 8) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 9) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 10) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. Atlas Tower pursued a telecommunications facility on one of these properties but was strongly discouraged by Fort Collins Planning and Zoning from pursuing the location. Atlas then pursued other locations. 11) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 12) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 13) Associates Investments LLC — In 2016, Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, visited this location and spoke to representatives of the owners on multiple occasions in 2016. Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, also spoke with a representative of the owner on several occasions in 2016. In the end, the owner decided not to pursue a lease because of concerns with a possible future sale of the property. 14) JDS Properties LLC — There is not sufficient space for a telecommunication facility at this location. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 15) SLR LLC — Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland of Atlas Towers pursued a lease on � this location in 2016. The property owner was uninterested in a lease. There is no practical location on the property with sufficient space for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. 16) Bright Horizons Family Solutions — Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease on this property in 2016. The property is currently being used as a daycare facility. The property owner was strongly opposed to a telecommunications facility anywhere near the property. 17) Eyesite LLC — Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Mike Powers met with the property owner in person. After significant correspondence, the property owner determined that it was not interested in a telecommunications lease do to possible future expansion of their building. In addition, the property owner did not want to deal with the possible hassle of the telecommunications facility. 18) Harold J Santner— Mike Powers pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Because of parking requirements, there is not sufficient space to house a wireless telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in a lease. 19) Various Residential Properties — These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. I3 • • Exhibit 4 • � �i '�-�s. V�ff,�01'1 wrre�ess Network Engineering RF Documentation for proposed site at 620 W Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526 FTC Century 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 area in Fort Collins on Horsetooth Road, between College Avenue and Shields Street. 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 capaciry of the nefinrork surrounding the proposed location 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 multiple antennas and is near users with line-of-sight to much of the surrounding area. Line-of-Sight Requirements: In order to provide excellent service, which Verizon Wireless defines as —80 dBm, the telecommunications facility needs to have 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 much of 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 topography of the area surrounding the proposed bell tower communications facility is relatively flat and the proposed facility would be taller than the surrounding buildings and trees, the line-of- sight from the proposed facility would provide effective coverage to the surrounding residential area. With a proposed facility at 55ft, Verizon could install its antennas at 50ft on center and could have line-of-sight 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 residential area the proposed facility would cover surrounds the proposed location. The proposed location will provide effective coverage to this relatively dense residential area. I� • • Exhibit 4 Continued The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon's existing network on Horsetooth between Shields and College is currently not meeting Verizon's goals for excellent performance, or user expectations. In this area there are issues of both coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year 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 demanding increasing amounts of data. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because an increasing number of people are getting rid of their landlines, it is becoming increasingly 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. Chart Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: � Fon+�ard Data Volume in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity Trend line shows it further increasing as we get i!t!zoie �n/?o�e towards the end of the year. 16 °— ,n/zo,� �l,l'.on • Exhibit 4 Continued � � � Propagation Maps: The propagation map below is a computer simulation of Verizon's existing coverage near the proposed facility. for both Maps) '�:- t ♦� Q R�P' (�3 � •• •75 I � • -86 � �- � 18 0 � � Exhibit 4 Continued The propagation map below is a computer simulation of what Verizon's coverage near the proposed facility could be with the proposed facility. .� •ffi#379. � �iC�. ��"rrC.:4'�.a'�; � .. ... . � � � . . . � ``a �w �* � � M�t� �;4!i�P� * ?tie:'r i i ,: �.� � �,,� ��.,, � _ �,�_: . ;� � � � � ;�;, °�!r`� t��e�,G 'a� "� � a � . ,. . _.. yi �': v�e � ��. � � � � ' .. . _` . � , � � � :_ ` ... �q0��'II��S_i'��" '�� "" � �T� CENTURY �� . ,• U .. � �°,:`�^� � h��,�i � U��a�r�asae � ;��^ �,� . ,� � � �� . � � � � . _ ^� . .�. � ��. � , �� x� � 3 ,tia�darttsa�ti�yo � , �� ;qE I '�l' ?'4StITiCf� �, Sara c�iu,,, � ,. �� . Fld:l � .. �w�.' .. P. , �� V��. , Os�',�� , ' .. C`�v� �. , N �� 3h[��. Conclusion: Verizon needs to increase both its network coverage and capacity near Horsetooth Road, between Shields Street and College Avenue, for both current and future use. The proposed site at 620 W. Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526 is situated to provide effective coverage to both the residential and commercial users it is intended to serve. The topography of the proposed location allows line-of-site coverage to much of the surrounding area and its location places it among population it is intended to serve. The proposed site would greatly improve Verizon's network performance in the area. Sincerely, Ram Nandiraju RF Engineer Verizon Wireless � � � Exhibit 5 "` �' . ��1 ._.^.....,........_.,"._� _ �- ra. '�iwu+� . •=�- t ! � � �� , „ � , � �,.,,� � `�� „�� , � �� ii i� ii , � ii �� '�5' 4'TI4lTW 'OMf� � i � � i�'ti� , I J axn aau� ai++ +a�.it 1 1 npo II ae�ss�,s1[ N�o' 't" rwnr�+�'s21N ��r.�a� (n�a � � �---- - _..._ , , . � i� � � - � ; � � �. 8 �, i , � �R � .�..��.�. � �.� "°, , � �j � - ,� ,�...�r i �nr,.�r 1 I� '- ,,,,;. �- � � ; L�rea��a� �oao�� 1 '% � i ,� ` � �1��t�`�� K .�. ti�� , , � ' � � r +nwon an. 1 I n+e �ea _r.. ,` �o• � �o! 1 1, I � � � I i a a�wrr�c rsr. � w. � i� i � � ' � �''� � ,e.,M,• � i � � � f � �� l ( ! � � �_ � � ,�� ; i � � ' � � 4� � : . � � � � ! % � � i� � � rfncT / '� / u � � / r � �� s � � / � �I + / ' �/ � , i � uw�.� '� ✓ � � �� /` � ��'` �c a _ i � � r t� -. �`�\ i ; � � i i / ' � � i'� f/ i ' y I i � { � ^ ``. ,. � I N' iBfNJ'i t1M. ` '��MTKT �..�� .�.��1 .r�l�..._�T^_ ___��_��_ ��, �v.�c�.�._ . � �� .,.. � ti ,�y„ � � _ ._ � -.__�_ w _...s�--- w _ _ � a 4 ' �.._ ..e .� •- - _ .�...- -w _ �. ,� __ _ ._ � ' . .__.. .� � w w .._.,... � . n . ... _ . �"9N 97 3b6.�Y' rs - ._, .,A ..�,,.. .��„.r., . r � ' iMs�s +3� 9CMMcs7 . �. � '—'—""— �` .� _ ._ _....._. ,^.�.� }` � _ � �j • a• . a`.-t'-.—'._i -�--' • w . _- __ � '�., ` ' -r�' wrt raraNr+a'. +Ma, a � .. _ .. �' � �. . , .. � , . , M4. 6 i@M `�� . .____.�.�.....�..._�_ �t%h. fOHi'�� __�__�-R71 __'__,____ _ � n'___ ____ i� �oCC'ts �No V11"t Cs�e. _ _ �� •T tlMn. � _ _ IWII�I ILQY'. tJlr j /: � �. � 1J00' I"G�JIC 1t0.1I.) --- —— —— -— -— -— —eo'un,�.n�.�— -- — �, e� � � � � � 20