MEMO. Planning Commission Jon Hoffman, Planner Date: June 22, Subject: East Lafayette Addition Replat A / Telecommunications

Transcription

1 To: From: Planning Commission Jon Hoffman, Planner Date: June 22, 2017 MEMO Subject: East Lafayette Addition Replat A / Telecommunications Applicant/Owner: Feed and Grain LLC / Atlas Tower Location: East Lafayette Addition Replat A (Lot 1, 2, 25, 26, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition). South side of Baseline Road, east of Foote Avenue, and north of E. Geneseo Street. Previously the Lafayette Feed and Grain Store (816 E. Baseline Road). Land Use Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: C1 (Regional Business) Total Area: Site: 31,073 square feet/0.713 Acres Cell Tower Area: 1,050 square feet Vicinity Map Background: The subject property is the former Lafayette Feed and Grain Store site located at 816 E Baseline Road. In May 2017, Planning Commission recommended approval of a vacation of right-of-

2 way, minor subdivision, site plan and architectural review, and planned unit development to vacate the existing alley between Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26, and combine the existing four (4) lots and vacated alley into one (1) lot and an outlot (Outlot B). The applicant is proposing a 4,032 square foot footprint two-story building on the newly created Lot. Some of the previous site improvements were constructed within the former railroad right-of-way, now the City s trail property. A lease agreement was in place for a portion of those improvements that are on the City trail property. Prior Agreements: On March 7, 2017 the City Council approved an agreement where the owner of the Lafayette Feed and Grain Store and the City site desired to clarify the ownership interest in their property as it relates to the City trail property and alley right-of-ways. The agreement contemplates the vacation of the alley right-of-way and the conveyance of the City s interest in a portion of the City property trail right-of-way to the property owner. Prior Cell Antenna Agreement: A telecommunications antenna is currently located on the exterior of the City owned Lafayette Feed and Grain elevator structure. The associated cell equipment is located on the Feed and Grain LLC Parcel. Per the March 7, 2017 agreement between the City and the adjacent property owner; the cell antenna appears to be owned by Sprint Spectrum L.P and appears to be in that location pursuant to an unrecorded lease agreement between Qwest Wireless, LLC and Feed and Grain LLC prior property owner. It is the City Attorney s opinion that the City s ownership interest in the elevator/silo parcel is superior to the interests associated with the cell antenna lease. The current Feed and Grain property owner does not agree with this. The property owner and City agreed that; for a period of 30 months commencing on the date of the agreement (March 7, 2017), and extensions granted thereto by Lafayette in its sole discretion, it will not initiate termination of the tenancy associated with the location of the Cell Antenna on the Lafayette Elevator structure, so long as the Cell Antenna does not impair the structural or aesthetic integrity of the Lafayette Elevator structure, as reasonably determined by Lafayette. Feed & Grain LLC shall take such steps as are necessary to remove the Cell Antenna from the Elevator/Silo Parcel, including any arrangements that must be made with the owner of the Cell Antenna, with the removal to be completed within such 30 month period. Removal of the Cell Antenna and any associated equipment shall be completed in a manner as to not cause any damage to the Lafayette Elevator structure. Feed & Grain LLC shall be entitled to retain all monies collected in conjunction with the existing telecommunication lease for so long as the Cell Antenna is located on the Lafayette Elevator structure in accordance with this paragraph Public Notification & Comments: A neighborhood meeting was held May 11, 2017 at the same time as the vacation of right-of-way, minor subdivision, site plan and architectural review, and planned unit development applications neighborhood meeting. Per the public notification requirements, letters to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property have been mailed, a public notice has been advertised in the Colorado Hometown News, and public hearing signs have been posted on the property. To date, staff has received phone calls both supportive from adjacent property owners regarding this proposal and property owners with concerns on the size of the tower and proximity to residential. Procedure: When considering a telecommunications application the Planning Commission is charged with approving the application as submitted, approving with conditions, denying the application based upon applicable code criteria, or referring the matter back to the applicant for further study. In approving any application the Commission may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the proposal satisfies the criteria set forth in this chapter. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 2 of 14

3 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Proposal: The purpose and intent of the Telecommunications Facility Application is to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The regulations are necessary in order to (1) facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (2) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; (3) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and (4) encourage and maximize the use of existing and approved towers, buildings and other structures to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. The applicant has submitted a Telecommunications Facilities Application request for the development of a 65-foot in height monopole communications cell tower located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The applicant proposes that the pine tree disguise of the tower will minimize adverse visual effects of the tower and blend into the neighborhood. Setbacks of the tower are proposed to be 19.5 feet to the west property line and approximately 25-feet from Geneseo Street. All ground mounted mechanical equipment and base of the tower will be screened by a 7- foot fence adjacent to the residential property to the west and Geneseo Street to the south. The ground equipment is part of the 1,050 square foot proposed lease area of the site. General Requirements: Code Section requires that all telecommunication facilities applications comply with the following general requirements. a. Federal Requirements; All towers and antennas must meet or exceed the current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If such standards and regulations are East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 3 of 14

4 changed, then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this Code shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within the time required by the controlling federal agency. Failure to bring a tower or antenna into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense. The applicant has stated in the narrative that they will ensure that the proposed tower meets or exceeds all federal guidelines and will require all of its tenants to adhere to federal guidelines. b. Radio Frequency Standards: All owners of telecommunication facilities shall comply with federal standards for radio frequency emissions. At the time of application for a tower, antenna or related telecommunication facilities, and thereafter at the request of the city upon complaint (but not more than annually), the owner shall submit a project implementation report that provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions of all antennas installed at the subject site, and that compares the results with established federal standards. If, upon review, the city finds that the facility does not meet federal standards, the city may require corrective action within a reasonable period of time, and if not corrected, may require removal of the telecommunication facilities at the owner's expense. Any reasonable costs incurred by the city, including reasonable consulting costs to verify compliance with these requirements, shall be paid by the owner. The applicant is the cell tower construction company and the property owner. Neither will operate the telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower but rather lease space of the tower to cellular providers. Usually a cellular service provider is the applicant and can provide this detailed information in regard to the FCC standards. The narrative states that the applicants will require that all tenants adhere to these guidelines. The applicant has provided an Optional Checklist for Local Government to Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded document. This document states that The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human exposure in excess of RF exposure guidelines. Operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine their compliance. Sprint is a current carrier that is operating on the Feed and Grain building. The Sprint Real Estate Manager submitted a letter supporting the relocation of the service and states that Sprint will comply with all FCC standards. The applicant has requested that the required project implementation reports that provides radio frequency emissions of antennas installed be a condition of approval with this application. Staff is uncomfortable in approving a telecommunications tower in immediate proximity to residential without this required information. Typically the carrier service is the applicant and provides this information as part of the submittal. c. Building Code; safety standards: To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a tower shall ensure that the tower is of sufficient structural strength to accommodate reasonable co- location, if required, and is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable city building codes, the applicable standards for towers that are published by the Electronic Industries Alliance, as amended from time to time, and all other applicable codes of the city. (1) In addition to any other applicable standards and requirements, the following shall apply to all towers and telecommunication facilities: (i) Sufficient anti-climbing measures must be incorporated into each facility to reduce potential for trespass and injury. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 4 of 14

5 (ii) No guy wires employed may be anchored within the area in front of any principal building or structure on a parcel. (iii) All telecommunication facilities shall comply with the power line clearance standards set forth by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. (iv) All telecommunication facilities must be structurally designed and physically sited so that they do not pose a potential hazard to nearby residences or surrounding properties or improvements. Any tower shall be designed and maintained to withstand without failure maximum forces expected from wind, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural occurrences, when the tower is fully loaded with antennas, transmitters, other telecommunication facilities and camouflaging. Initial demonstration of compliance with this requirement shall be provided via submission of a report to the city's building official prepared by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado describing the tower structure, specifying the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate, providing the basis for the calculations done, and documenting the actual calculations performed. Proof of ongoing compliance shall be provided upon request. (2) If, upon inspection, the city concludes that a telecommunication facility fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided to the owner of a telecommunication facility, the owner shall have thirty (30) days to bring such telecommunication facility into compliance with such standards. Upon good cause shown by the owner, the city's building official may extend such compliance period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails to bring such telecommunication facility into compliance within said time limit, the city may remove such telecommunication facility at the owner's expense. The proposal includes a 7-foot wood fence along the property lines on Geneseo Street and the immediate adjacent residential property to the west. This proposed 7-foot fence will match the 6-foot wood fence approval by Planning Commission last month for the Site Plan and Architectural Review application. The tower will have no guy wires and will not have any climbing limbs within reach from ground level. Structurally the facility will be designed with breakpoint technology in which a weak point is engineered into the tower so that in the very unlikely event of a structural failure, the proposed tower would break at the designated point and fall straight down rather than onto the adjacent properties. Overall the applicant states that the tower will be designed to withstand maximum forces expected from tornado, hurricanes, and other natural occurrences. The proposed 7-foot in height perimeter mechanical equipment screening fence exceed the Code maximum of 6-foot fence. This is addresses in the Site Plan and Architectural Review portion of the staff report. d. Order of preference. 1) Zone district; Applicants are encouraged to construct telecommunication facilities in commercial or industrial districts. An applicant requesting approval to construct a telecommunication facility in a residential district must demonstrate that location in a commercial or industrial district would not meet the applicant's service needs. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 5 of 14

6 2) Facility type. Wall or roof-mounted telecommunication facilities are generally preferred over freestanding telecommunication facilities. An applicant requesting approval to construct freestanding telecommunication facility must demonstrate that a wall-mounted or roof-mounted facility is not feasible or is inadequate to provide service. When appropriate, the city may require that an alternative telecommunication facility that reflects the character of surrounding property (developed or undeveloped) be employed. In reviewing Telecommunications applications the first order of preference is zone district. Telecommunication facilities are preferred to be constructed in Commercial or Industrial districts. The applicant is proposing the telecommunication facility at the Feed and Grain Site property that is zoned commercial (Regional Business) but is also immediately adjacent to and surrounded by an established residential area of Lafayette. The second order of preference is facility type. Wall or roof mounted facilities are preferred over freestanding facilities and the applicant must demonstrate that wall mounted or rood mounted facilities are not feasible or inadequate to provide service. The applicants provided a map as part of the narrative detailing options within a ¼ mile radius. The applicant states that the map helps concludes that there is not a viable options for roof or wall mounted facilities. The general requirements for review of this application for order of preference is zoning and facility type. Staff is not satisfied with the rational that since the Feed and Grain building had previously housed antennas and that no structure located with ¼ of mile (preferred radius for the service per applicant) has sufficient height, or is otherwise capable of housing wall-mounted or roof-mounted facility and that this is the only or best location that could work for a freestanding tower. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 6 of 14

7 e. Design standards. The guidelines set forth in this subsection (e) shall apply to the location of all telecommunication facilities governed by this Section ; provided, however, that the city may waive these requirements if it determines that the overall intent of this Section , as defined in section , is not served by the implementation of a particular guideline with respect to a particular telecommunication facility. The 65-foot tower will be designed to resemble a pine tree and is intended to blend in with the surrounding area. While this would the tallest tree or structure in the area, staff is supportive of this look and stealth option. Currently on the property there is no landscaping or trees but should the site plan and architectural review application approved by Planning Commission be built, the applicant will be installing landscaping onsite. There is existing mature landscaping in the East Lafayette Addition neighborhood and while there are a number of pine trees in the area there are none of this proposed height. The design criteria is further reviewed in the Site Plan and Architectural Review portion of the staff report. f. Co-location. (1) No building permit shall be granted to construct a new freestanding telecommunication facility unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's needs. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed telecommunication facility shall consist of one (1) or more of the following: East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 7 of 14

8 (i) No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage demands. (ii) Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's coverage demands and cannot be extended to such height. (iii) Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. (iv) The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antennas on the existing towers or structures, or the antennas on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna. (v) The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors, including but not limited to economic factors, that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. The proposed telecommunications facility would replace the existing facility of the Feed and Grain building. The applicant has stated that the nearest site available for co-location would not meet the coverage area need for the existing provider. The applicant has noted that with the density of the residential near this subject property that this site is necessary in order to provide coverage to this portion of Lafayette. Staff has heard from residents and business owners and agrees there is a need for coverage in the area and there does not appear to be a structure available for co-locating. The applicant describes how the proposed tower must be 65-foot in height to be taller than the grain elevator and silos. This additional feet in height may not leave room for other carriers to co-locate on the proposed tower. Staff is not advocating for a taller proposal but rather identifying that this property has encumbrances. Permitted Use: Generally a telecommunication facility is a permitted use in the applicable zone district as set forth in Table 26-A, and if it meets all requirement of Code Sections , and and the zone district regulations for permitted structures in the zone district in which they are located than the use is a permitted use. These regulations include the maximum height allowance for each zoning district. Uses Not Permitted By Right: All telecommunication facilities not treated as permitted uses shall require approval as provided in this section An applicant proposing a freestanding facility that exceeds the height limitations set by the zoning district in which such facility is proposed or a wall or roof-mounted facility that exceeds the height standards shall obtain approval pursuant to this, in lieu of a height variance. The applicant is requesting a 65-foot in height tower. The C1 Zoning designation allows for a maximum of 35-foot principle structure and 20-foot accessory structures. With the proposed Feed and Grain project, the telecommunications tower will be classified as the accessory use on the site and would not be able to exceed 20-foot in height. The applicants are requesting a Code modification of more than three times taller then what is allowed by Code. Section Information required. Each applicant requesting approval under this section shall submit documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate registered professionals, showing the location and dimensions of the proposed telecommunication facilities, including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping, adjacent uses, and all other information deemed by the community East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 8 of 14

9 development director to be necessary to assess compliance with this Section , including the information required by section of this chapter. The applicants have stated that they believe all information required has been provided in the submittal. Staff believes more information in regard to topography, radio frequency coverage, and the need for the 65-foot height of the tower request is needed. (d) Height. (1) An applicant proposing to construct a freestanding telecommunication facility that exceeds the height limitations set by the zone district in which such facility is proposed, or a roof or wall-mounted facility that exceeds the height limitations provided herein, shall provide a statement that justifies the need for the proposed facility and height requested. Such a statement shall include evidence that: (i) The facility is designed to be the minimum height necessary to provide service; and (ii) A greater number of facilities built at a lesser height would be inadequate to meet the applicant's service demands. (2) As a condition of approval to construct a freestanding telecommunication facility that exceeds the height limitation set by the zone district in which it is proposed, the owner of such facility shall accept all reasonable requests for co-location. As outlined in the applicant narrative; telecommunication towers work best when there is a lineof-sight for the users. The more buildings, structures, or landscaping that the signal must pass through the worst signal strength. The applicant is proposing that the 65-foot height is necessary because of the existing structures and mature landscaping in the area. The existing antennas on the Feed and Grain building are 48-foot. With the building, silos and existing trees in the area the applicants believes the 65-foot request is justified. The existing structure, approximately 55-foot in height, and silos, approximately 48-foot in height, will remain on the site. This along with the existing mature landscaping in the residential blocks of the Old Town area creates a situation where there are multiple impediments. But rather than using this as a justification to extend a tower 65-foot in height, staff believes this reiterates the idea that this may not an ideal location for a tower. The applicant has indicated that there are no other locations to place antennas in the area that this tower will serve and there is not a realistic opportunity for a greater number of facilities built at a lessor height. Staff has the obligation to review this application for this specific location and does not disagree that in the residential area of Old Town Lafayette it may be challenging to find an appropriate location for towers. However, staff also believes that there are large section of undeveloped open area immediately to the east and north of this area that appear that may be suitable. (e) Review factors. The following factors shall be considered in the review of an application for approval of a telecommunication facility under this section : (1) Demonstrated need for a freestanding facility that exceeds the height limitation for the zone district or a wall- or roof-mounted facility that exceeds the permitted height provided in section (b); (2) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries; East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 9 of 14

10 (3) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties; (4) Surrounding topography; (5) Surrounding vegetation and tree foliage, both with respect to its ability to camouflage the facility (ies), and its effect on radio frequency coverage; (6) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; (7) Proposed ingress and egress; (8) An evaluation of the applicant's plans for development of its telecommunication facilities within the city, as well as those plans on file from other telecommunication providers; (9) An evaluation of the criteria set forth in sections and ; (10) Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures as discussed in subsection (g); and (11) Any other information that the city deems reasonably necessary in connection with the review of the application. In looking at the first review factor; staff analysis is that the need for the 65-foot tower request is partially due to the existing factors on this particular property. If this proposal was for a property that was not encumbered by existing building and silos and proposed commercial building then many of the reasons for the height request would not be relevant. The second review factor is proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. The tower and equipment is immediately adjacent to an established residential area zoned Old Town Residential. The third review factors is nature of adjacent and nearby properties. Uses on all four sides of this property are residential. The fourth review factor is topography and fifth review factor is surrounding vegetation and foliage in. The site sits near a highpoint in the area in not such a topographical difference that would set it apart from other sites in the vicinity. The existing vegetation and foliage is more concentrated in in the adjacent residential properties than to the west. The sixth review factor is the design, staff is supportive of the pine tree disguise but has concerns. Review factors nine through eleven are discussed through the report. The review factors to approve a telecommunications facility that are not a use by right are what staff and the Planning Commission must use to approve or deny the application. Staff does not believe that these factors support the 65-foot freestanding tower at the proposed location and site. RECOMMENDATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS Staff finds that the proposed telecommunications application does not meet the criteria required in Code Section General Requirements (b) and (d) finding that without a cellular provider the radio frequency standards cannot provide the cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions, and the order of preference for the type of facility is not preferred by Code. Additionally the proposal is not supported by the review factors outlined in Code Section (e) in that the demonstrated need has not been proven, the proximity to residential properties, and the adjacent uses of the nearby properties. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 10 of 14

11 Site Plan and Architecture Review: New commercial structures and accessory structures require Site Plan and Architectural review. Examples of stealth pine trees; The applicant is proposing a 1,050 square foot area, 65-foot in height telecommunications cell tower and equipment located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The applicant proposes that the pine tree disguise of the tower will minimize adverse visual effects of the tower and blend into the neighborhood. Setbacks of the tower are proposed to be 19.5-feet to the west property line and approximately 25-feet from Geneseo Street. All ground mounted mechanical equipment and base of the tower will be screened by a 7-foot fence adjacent to the residential property to the west and Geneseo Street to the south. The ground equipment is part of the 1,050 square foot proposed lease area of the site. Overall staff is supportive of the pine tree disguise design but staff does have some concerns with the proposed plans. The proposed 7-foot in height fence is taller than allowed by Code. That height is proposed as needed to screen the ground cell equipment. Should the application be approved; staff recommends that the fence be reduced to 6-foot in height but all equipment must still be screened. The Code requires that all commercial uses maintain a 20-foot setback from residentially zoned properties. The ground mounted mechanical equipment is located immediately adjacent to the residentially zoned property to the west (813 E. Geneseo Street) and within the 20-foot setback. Should the application be approved; staff recommends that the cell tower and ground equipment be relocated to meet the 20-foot setback requirement outlined in Table 26B Dimensional Standards. The applicant has expressed their willingness to relocate the structure and equipment within the site. In reviewing the site plan/architectural review factors for commercial structures; staff is concerned that the scale is not appropriate for the location, there is not a harmonious transition in scale and East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 11 of 14

12 character of the proposed building and the surrounding neighborhood with the approximately 40-foot taller structure than the maximum height allowed for a principal structure on the adjacent residential property, and the overall design is not compatible. Developer s Ability: The City has no concerns with the developer s ability on this project. Atlas Tower specializes in building cell towers. Public Safety: Staff referred the plan to both the Building Official and Fire Marshall. The Building Official and Fire Marshall had no comments. RECOMMENDATION SITE PLAN / ARCHITECURAL The scale is not appropriate for the location, there is not a harmonious transition in scale and character of the proposed building and the surrounding neighborhood, the overall design is not compatible. Staff recommends denial of the application SUMMARY The applicant has submitted a Telecommunications Facilities Application request to the City for the development of a 65-foot in height monopole communications cell tower located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The applicant proposes that the pine tree disguise of the tower will minimize adverse visual effects of the tower and blend into the neighborhood. Setbacks of the tower are proposed to be 19.5 feet to the west property line and approximately 25-feet from Geneseo Street. All ground mounted mechanical equipment and base of the tower will be screened by a 7- foot fence adjacent to the residential property to the west and Geneseo Street to the south. The ground equipment is part of the 1,050 square foot proposed lease area of the site. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Telecommunications Page 12 of 14

13 MOTIONS: Telecommunications Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Telecommunications application, subject to the recommended conditions, finding that the plan complies with the criteria of Section , the review criteria of Section have been met, and the design is compatible with the location and proposed use. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission denies this application for the Telecommunications application finding the plan does not meet the criteria required in Code Section General Requirements (b) and (d) in that without a cellular provider the radio frequency standards cannot provide the cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions, and the order of preference for facility type and location is not supported by Code. The Planning Commission further finds the review factors in Code Section (e) are not supportive in that the demonstrated need has not been proven, the proximity to residential properties, and the adjacent uses of the nearby properties. Site Plan and Architectural Review Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request to City Council for Site Plan/Architectural Review, subject to the recommended conditions, finding that the plan complies with the criteria of Section , the submittal requirements of Section have been met, and the design is compatible with the location and proposed use. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request to City Council for Site Plan/Architectural Review finding that the plan does not comply with the criteria of Section , the submittal requirements of Section have not been met, and the design is incompatible with the location and proposed use. The telecommunication tower is incompatible in the location and proposed use. The scale is not appropriate for the location, there is not a harmonious transition in scale and character of the proposed building and the surrounding neighborhood, the overall design is not compatible. Attachments: 1. Applicant narrative 2. Plans 3. Photo Sims 4. Neighborhood Meeting

14 Design Narrative Lafayette East May 26, 2017 City of Lafayette Planning Division 1290 S. Public Rd. Lafayette, CO RE: Justification Letter Proposed 65 Monopine Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Atlas Towers is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications facility at 816 E Baseline Rd, Lafayette, CO This proposed telecommunications facility would be 1,050 square feet and house a 65 stealth communications tower that would accommodate up to three wireless carriers. This proposed telecommunications facility would bring quality voice and data services to a growing area lacking reliable coverage. Land Owner Feed & Grain, LLC PO Box 1663 Boulder, CO Applicant Atlas Tower 1, LLC Attn: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 100 Boulder, CO Phone: (303) ccrossland@atlastowers.com Site Details Parcel: Approximate Coordinates: Latitude: 39 59'57.75"N Longitude: 105 4'49.17"W Address: 816 E Baseline Rd Lafayette, CO Zoning: Regional Business (C1) Lease Area: 1,050 square feet Tower Design: 3-Carrier SPECIAL PROJECT FEATURES OR CHARACTERISTICS The telecommunications tower will be masked as a pine tree. The branches of the stealth pine tree will obscure the antennas. The tree will blend with the surrounding natural environment. EXPLANATION OF HOW THE PROJECT SATISFIES NECESSARY FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED SECTION TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sec Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this Section is to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The city council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to (1) facilitate the

15 provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city; (2) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; (3) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and (4) encourage and maximize the use of existing and approved towers, buildings and other structures to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. The proposed telecommunications facility fulfills the purpose and intent of Section for the following reasons: (1) The proposed telecommunications facility will allow for wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of Lafayette through its near proximity to the users it will serve and the facility s capacity to house multiple antennas for multiple carriers. (2) The pine-tree disguise of the tower will minimize adverse visual effects of the tower. (3) Though the tower is located near residential dwellings, it will employ breakpoint technology that will keep the proposed tower from doing damage to nearby residences in the very unlikely event of a structural failure. (4) The proposed telecommunications facility will reduce the number of other towers needed to serve the community thought its capacity to house multiple antennas for multiple carriers. The proposed facility would be a replacement to an existing facility on nearby silos. This facility would allow for the placement of multiple carriers on the tower, as opposed to the facility it would replace. Sec Definitions. No Response necessary. Sec General requirements. Unless otherwise provided by this Code or other applicable law, the following general requirements shall apply to all telecommunication facilities located within the City of Lafayette: (a) Federal requirements. All towers and antennas must meet or exceed the current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this Code shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within the time required by the controlling federal agency. Failure to bring a tower or antenna into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense. Atlas will ensure that the proposed tower meets or exceeds all federal guidelines and will require all of its tenants to adhere to federal guidelines. (b) Radio frequency standards. All owners of telecommunication facilities shall comply with federal standards for radio frequency emissions. At the time of application for a tower, antenna or related telecommunication facilities, and thereafter at the request of the city upon complaint (but not more than annually), the owner shall submit a project implementation report that provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions of all antennas installed at the subject site, and that compares the results with established federal standards. If, upon review, the city finds that the facility does not meet federal standards, the city may require corrective action within a reasonable period of time, and if not corrected, may require removal of the telecommunication facilities at the owner's expense. Any reasonable costs incurred by the city, including reasonable consulting costs to verify compliance with these requirements, shall be paid by the owner. Atlas will not operate telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower, but will require that all tenants adhere to federal guidelines regarding radio frequency emissions. Because this is only a proposed facility, it is impossible to provide field measurements of the proposed facility at the subject site, as the proposed antennas have not been installed at the proposed location. If this term were strictly enforced as written, it could be unreasonably difficult to place a new telecommunications facility in Lafayette. Exhibit 5 of this narrative is an FCC document called the Local Official s Guide to RF. On Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 2

16 the second page of this document there is an evaluation of factors that categorically exclude a telecommunications facility from having to routinely determine their compliance with the FCC RF exposure guidelines. This is because the proposed facility is so unlikely to exceed Federal guidelines. The proposed facility meets all of the criteria of number 16 of the categorical exclusion list, and would therefore be categorically excluded. This checklist is meant to guide local municipalities in determining which telecommunications facilities should be given special scrutiny. Sprint would be the initial tenant on the proposed tower. Exhibit 6 is a letter from a Christy Poulignot, the Colorado Real Estate Manager for Sprint, stating that Sprint will comply with all FCC regulations regarding RF emissions and will provide further RF information as requested prior to antenna installation. Atlas requests that any additional information on RF output be a condition of approval for the proposed telecommunications facility. (c) Building codes; safety standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a tower shall ensure that the tower is of sufficient structural strength to accommodate reasonable colocation, if required, and is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable city building codes, the applicable standards for towers that are published by the Electronic Industries Alliance, as amended from time to time, and all other applicable codes of the city. Atlas will build the proposed tower so that it can accommodate reasonable colocation and will maintain the tower in compliance with standards contained in applicable city building codes, applicable standards for towers published by the Electronic Industries Alliance, and all other applicable Lafayette codes. (1) In addition to any other applicable standards and requirements, the following shall apply to all towers and telecommunication facilities: (i) Sufficient anti-climbing measures must be incorporated into each facility to reduce potential for trespass and injury. The proposed tower will be surrounded by a six-foot fence and will be marked with signs prohibiting tower climbing. In addition to this, the proposed tower will not have climbing spikes within reach from ground level. (ii) No guy wires employed may be anchored within the area in front of any principal building or structure on a parcel. The proposed tower will not have guy wires. (iii) All telecommunication facilities shall comply with the power line clearance standards set forth by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The proposed tower will comply with the power line clearance standards set by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. (iv) All telecommunication facilities must be structurally designed and physically sited so that they do not pose a potential hazard to nearby residences or surrounding properties or improvements. Any tower shall be designed and maintained to withstand without failure maximum forces expected from wind, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural occurrences, when the tower is fully loaded with antennas, transmitters, other telecommunication facilities and camouflaging. Initial demonstration of compliance with this requirement shall be provided via submission of a report to the city's building official prepared by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado describing the tower structure, specifying the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate, providing the basis for the calculations done, and documenting the actual calculations performed. Proof of ongoing compliance shall be provided upon request. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 3

17 The proposed telecommunications facility will be structurally designed and physically sited so that it does not pose a potential hazard to nearby residences or surrounding properties or improvements. The proposed tower will be designed with breakpoint technology in which a weak point is engineered into the tower so that in the very unlikely event of a structural failure, the proposed tower would break at a designed point. This will keep the tower from toppling and hitting nearby structures. The proposed structure will be designed to withstand maximum forces expected from wind, tornados, hurricanes, and other natural occurrences. Atlas will submit drawings and calculations showing compliance with this section with its submission for a building permit with the city s building official. (2) If, upon inspection, the city concludes that a telecommunication facility fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided to the owner of a telecommunication facility, the owner shall have thirty (30) days to bring such telecommunication facility into compliance with such standards. Upon good cause shown by the owner, the city's building official may extend such compliance period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails to bring such telecommunication facility into compliance within said time limit, the city may remove such telecommunication facility at the owner's expense. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (d) Order of preference. (1) Zone district. Applicants are encouraged to construct telecommunication facilities in commercial or industrial districts. An applicant requesting approval to construct a telecommunication facility in a residential district must demonstrate that location in a commercial or industrial district would not meet the applicant's service needs. The parcel the proposed telecommunications facility would be located on is zoned Regional Business (C1). The proposed telecommunications facility would be located near the residential users it would serve, improving the performance of the proposed telecommunications facility. (2) Facility type. Wall- or roof-mounted telecommunication facilities are generally preferred over freestanding telecommunication facilities. An applicant requesting approval to construct freestanding telecommunication facility must demonstrate that a wall-mounted or roof-mounted facility is not feasible or is inadequate to provide service. When appropriate, the city may require that an alternative telecommunication facility that reflects the character of surrounding property (developed or undeveloped) be employed. The proposed telecommunications facility would house antennas that had previously been located on the grain processing facility to the east. This grain processing facility has been dedicated to the city as a historic property, and can no longer house the antennas. There are no structures within a quarter of a mile of the proposed structure (a reasonable search radius within a down-town area) that have sufficient height, or are otherwise capable of housing wireless a wall-mounted or roof-mounted facility. The proposed tower will be designed to match the character of the surrounding area. The proposed tower will be designed to resemble a pine tree, which will conform to the tall and mature trees in the surrounding area. (e) Design standards. The guidelines set forth in this subsection (e) shall apply to the location of all telecommunication facilities governed by this Section ; provided, however, that the city may waive these requirements if it determines that the overall intent of this Section , as defined in section , is not served by the implementation of a particular guideline with Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4

18 respect to a particular telecommunication facility. (1) The location and design of a telecommunication facility and any accessory equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the telecommunication facility to the surrounding natural setting and built environment. Accessory equipment in areas of high visibility shall, where possible, be sited below the ridge line or designed (e.g., placed underground, depressed, or located behind earth berms or structures) to minimize its profile. The proposed telecommunication facility and accessory equipment will be designed to resemble a pine tree, which will conform to the tall trees in the surrounding built area. At 65ft, the proposed telecommunications facility will not be significantly taller than the existing trees surrounding the proposed site. Exhibit 2 of this narrative shows the 65ft height of the proposed tower in relation to the existing foliage in the area. Atlas considered other design options, but no other design effectively blends to the surrounding natural setting. A canister design (a thick pole with antennas concealed within the pole) would not blend with the nearby historic properties or the residential character of the properties to the west. A canister design would not provide adequate space for the existing Sprint antennas being relocated from the silos. In addition to this, the canister design would not allow for collocation by additional carriers, and would create the need for additional towers to serve Lafayette. The proposed accessory equipment will be surrounded by a fence and will have a minimal profile. (2) Roof- and wall-mounted facilities shall be architecturally compatible with and colored to match the building or structure to which they are attached. Wall-mounted facilities shall be mounted as flush to the building wall as possible. A wall-mounted facility may encroach a maximum of thirty (30) inches into the required setback for the building to which it is attached, but shall not extend across the property line. Not applicable. (3) Freestanding telecommunication facilities shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental authority. If lighting is required, the city may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. Lighting must be shielded or directed to the greatest extent possible so as to minimize the amount of light falling onto nearby properties, particularly residences. The proposed facility will not be lighted, unless required by the FCC. Atlas does not anticipate that the FCC will require that the proposed telecommunications facility be lighted. (4) No portion of any antenna array may extend beyond the property line. No portion of the proposed telecommunications facility s antenna array will extend beyond the property line. (5) All applicants under this Section shall comply with the landscaping requirements and guidelines found in section of this Code. The proposed telecommunications facility will comply with Section of this code. (f) Co-location. (1) No building permit shall be granted to construct a new freestanding telecommunication facility unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's needs. Evidence submitted to Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 5

19 demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed telecommunication facility shall consist of one (1) or more of the following: (i) No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage demands. This proposed telecommunications facility would replace an existing facility on a historic grain silo at the site of the proposed facility. Because the existing silos will be designated a historic property, the existing Sprint antennas on them must be removed. According to the FCC, there are not telecommunications facilities within a mile of the proposed site. The nearest sites do not meet the Sprint s coverage objectives. Because this a relatively dense down-town area, and the proposed telecommunications facility will be replacing an existing facility, which is a key part of Sprint s existing network of towers, a quarter-mile search radius is a reasonably wide area in which to look for an alternative site. There are no other towers and no other structures of sufficient height within the quarter-mile search ring around the site. Exhibit 7 of this narrative shows the tallest structures within the quarter mile search area and why they are not sufficient for the proposed telecommunications facility. This site is necessary in order to provide coverage to this portion of Lafayette and to effectively take the place of the telecommunication facility located on the silos. (ii) Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's coverage demands and cannot be extended to such height. Not applicable to this situation. (iii) Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. Not applicable to this situation. (iv) The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antennas on the existing towers or structures, or the antennas on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna. Not applicable to this situation. (v) The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors, including but not limited to economic factors, that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. Not applicable to this situation. (2) No telecommunication facility owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a telecommunication competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by the city, the owner or operator shall provide evidence and a written statement to explain why colocation is not possible at a particular facility or site. Atlas s business model depends on collocation for profitability we welcome collocation. Atlas will not unreasonably exclude a telecommunication competitor from using the proposed telecommunications facility. (3) If a telecommunication competitor attempts to co-locate a telecommunication facility on an existing or approved telecommunication facility or location, and the parties cannot reach an agreement, the city may require a third-party technical study to be completed at the applicant's expense to determine the feasibility of co-location. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 6

20 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (g) Prohibited use. Advertising or communication of any visual messages from a tower or antenna is prohibited. The proposed telecommunications facility will not have visual advertisements or messages. (h) Abandonment; removal. The owner of any telecommunication facility located within the city shall notify the community development director when such telecommunication facility is no longer in operation. Upon such notification, or if the telecommunication facility is otherwise determined not to be in operation, the city shall consider the facility abandoned. The city, in its sole discretion, may thereafter require removal of the abandoned facility by the owner and shall notify the owner accordingly. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the city notifying the owner of an abandoned telecommunication facility, such owner shall remove the same. Upon removal the site shall be restored and/or revegetated to blend with the surrounding environment. If the antenna or tower is not removed within said ninety (90) days, the antenna or tower shall be considered as environmental blight, and at the city's discretion, may be removed in accordance with Section of the Lafayette Municipal Code. All city costs may be recovered on accordance with Section of said Code. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. Sec Permit and application requirements. (a) Building permit. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to construct or erect a telecommunication facility without first obtaining a building permit pursuant to section of this chapter. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (b) Information required. In addition to the information required under Section of this chapter, the following information shall be submitted with all telecommunication facility building permits: (1) The identity and legal status of the applicant, including any affiliates. Atlas has included this information in its application. (2) The name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the application. Atlas has included this information in its application. (3) Information sufficient to determine that the applicant has applied for and received any construction permit, operating license, or other approvals required by the FCC to provide telecommunication services or facilities within the city. Atlas will not be providing telecommunication services within the city of Lafayette. The proposed tower will be registered with the FCC after zoning approval and prior to construction. Registering the proposed telecommunication facility prior to zoning approval would be contrary to the intention of the FCC with regard to tower registration. Atlas will require all carriers installing on the tower to be registered to provide telecommunication services within the city of Lafayette and will provide proof of such registration with their application for antenna installation as required by the City of Lafayette. (4) An agreement (i) to consider co-location proposals from telecommunications competitors and other commercial radio providers with an interest in applicant's facility and (ii) not Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 7

21 unreasonably to exclude co-location by such entities, along with a statement explaining how the facility may be used for co-location. Atlas s business model depends on collocation for profitability. Atlas will consider all colocation proposals and will not unreasonably exclude a telecommunication competitor from using the proposed telecommunications facility. (5) A narrative and map description of the applicant's existing or then currently proposed telecommunication facilities within the city, and outside of the city within one (1) mile of its boundaries, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each tower. In addition, the applicant shall inform the city generally of the areas of the city in which it believes telecommunication facilities may need to be located within the next three (3) years. Atlas has no other towers or plans for other towers in the city of Lafayette or within a mile of its boundaries. Sprint, who would collocate on this proposed telecommunication facility, does not own any towers registered with the FCC within the city of Lafayette, or within one mile of its boundaries. Sprint does have equipment mounted on buildings and towers owned by other entities. Exhibit 1 shows the location of antenna facilities in Lafayette and within one mile of its boundaries. (i) This provision is not intended to be a requirement that the applicant submit its business plan, proprietary information, or make commitments regarding the location of facilities within the city. Rather, it is an attempt to provide a mechanism for the city and all applicants for telecommunication facilities to share general information, assisting in the city's comprehensive planning process, and promote co-location by identifying areas in which telecommunication facilities might be appropriately constructed for multiple users. No comment necessary. (ii) The community development department may share such information with other applicants applying for building permits to construct telecommunication facilities under this Section or other organizations seeking to locate antennas within the jurisdiction of the city, provided, however that the community development department is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable. No comment necessary. (6) Such other information as the city may reasonably require. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (c) Supplemental Information. After issuance of a building permit, each owner or operator of a telecommunication facility shall inform the city, within (60) days, of any change of the information set forth in subsection (b) above. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. Sec Fees. In addition to any other fees required by this Code or other applicable law, the applicant shall pay a telecommunication facility fee. Each application shall be submitted with the telecommunication facility fee established pursuant to resolution of the city council as adopted from time to time. Such fee schedule shall be reasonably related to the cost of administering this Section In addition, any reasonable costs incurred by the city, including reasonable costs to verify compliance with any requirements under this Section , shall be paid by the applicant. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 8

22 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. Sec Permitted uses. (a) Generally. Provided that a telecommunication facility is a permitted use in the applicable zone district as set forth in Table 26-A, and the use is described in subsection (b) hereof, approval of said facility shall not be subject to the procedure set forth in section Nevertheless, all such uses shall comply with sections and and the zone district regulations for permitted structures in the zone district in which they are located. No comment necessary. (b) Specific uses considered permitted uses. (1) Locating a wall- or roof-mounted facility that is within the height limit provided by section of this chapter, or, notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, locating a roofmounted facility that, when measured vertically from a point ten (10) feet directly above the midpoint of the nearest edge of any flat or mansard roof to the top of the antenna or ten (10) feet above the plane created by drawing a horizontal line from the highest point of any gable, gambrel, hip, shed or similar pitched roof to meet the plane created by drawing a vertical line upward from the nearest eave line, to the top of the antenna, would create an angle of 10 degrees or less, as illustrated below: Not applicable. (2) Locating a freestanding telecommunication facility either as the principal use on a site, or on a site where a principal use already exists, so long as all other requirements of the zoning district are met, including height limitations. In order for the proposed telecommunications facility to function effectively, the proposed telecommunications facility must exceed the height limitations of the C1 zoning district. (3) Installing an antenna on an existing tower so long as said additional antenna does not exceed the height limit for the zone district or adds no additional height to said existing tower, does not extend laterally a distance of more than twelve (12) feet, and is consistent with any applicable conditions of approval for that site that previously have been imposed by the city. Not applicable. (4) Installing an antenna on an existing alternative telecommunication facility, so long as said additional antenna does not exceed the height limit for the zone district or adds no additional height to said existing structure, is consistent with any applicable conditions of approval for that site that previously have been imposed by the city and does not negatively affect the aesthetic appearance of the facility such that it no longer acts to camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas or towers. Not applicable. (c) Design review and approval. Applications to construct telecommunication facilities that are permitted uses as provided in this section shall undergo site plan/architectural review by the community development director in accordance with sections and of this chapter. Not applicable. Sec Uses not permitted by right. (a) Generally. All telecommunication facilities not treated as permitted uses pursuant to section 26- Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 9

23 shall require approval as provided in this section An applicant proposing a freestanding facility that exceeds the height limitations set by the zoning district in which such facility is proposed or a wall- or roof-mounted facility that exceeds the height standards provided in section (b) of this Section , shall obtain approval pursuant to this section , in lieu of a height variance. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (b) Review and approval. For purposes of this Section 22.5, applications for approval of telecommunication facilities not permitted by right shall be processed according to the following procedure: (1) Preapplication conference. The applicant shall schedule an informal conference with the community development director prior to completing an application. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (2) Technical review. Upon receipt of a complete application, the community development director shall refer the application to the representatives of various departments and agencies assigned to the technical review committee. The community development director may require that the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of any legal or technical consultant fees incurred by the city in connection with reviewing the application. Within fifteen (15) days following the filing of the complete application, the technical review committee shall meet to review the application, or the community development department shall compile the written comments of the technical review committee. The applicant may attend the technical review meeting, if a formal meeting is scheduled. Based upon the comments of the technical review committee, the community development director shall then prepare a report and recommendations to the planning commission. If any deficiencies in the application warrant additional work by the applicant or require further discussion by the technical review committee and the applicant, or if additional information from the applicant is received too late to be adequately processed and reviewed, the community development director may defer sending the matter to the planning commission until the applicant has adequately addressed all issues, to enable the technical review committee adequately to review the application. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (3) Planning commission. The planning commission, at its next regular meeting, a minimum of thirty (30) days after the filing of the complete application, shall hold a public hearing on the application and consider the recommendations of the planning staff and the merits of the proposed application. At least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the community development director shall mail a notice of the hearing to all real property owners who own property located within the distance specified in subsection (a) of the subject property. Using the criteria set forth in this chapter, the planning commission may approve the application as submitted, approve it with modifications, deny the application, or refer the matter back to the applicant for further study. In approving any application, the planning commission may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the proposal satisfies the criteria set forth in this chapter. A written notice of the planning commission action shall be submitted to the city council. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (4) Appeal to city council. Decisions by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council by the applicant, any property owner entitled to notice, or three (3) council members. Any such appeal shall be filed, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the planning commission decision. For those matters appealed to the city council, the city council shall, after giving ten (10) days' written notice to applicant and appellant, review the request at a public hearing. Using criteria set forth in this chapter, the city council shall approve the application as submitted, approve it with modifications, or deny the application. In approving any application, the city council may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the proposal satisfies the criteria set forth in this chapter. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 10

24 Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (c) Information required. Each applicant requesting approval under this section shall submit documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate registered professionals, showing the location and dimensions of the proposed telecommunication facilities, including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping, adjacent uses, and all other information deemed by the community development director to be necessary to assess compliance with this Section , including the information required by section of this chapter. Atlas has included this information with its submission. (d) Height. (1) An applicant proposing to construct a freestanding telecommunication facility that exceeds the height limitations set by the zone district in which such facility is proposed, or a roof or wall-mounted facility that exceeds the height limitations provided herein, shall provide a statement that justifies the need for the proposed facility and height requested. Such a statement shall include evidence that: (i) and The facility is designed to be the minimum height necessary to provide service; Telecommunication facilities work best when they have line-of-sight to the users they are serving. As a signal passes though solid objects, including trees and buildings, the signal is degraded. The proposed telecommunications facility height of 65 is necessary in order to provide effective coverage at the proposed location because of the mature canopy in the area, which is around A height of 65 will allow the proposed telecommunications facility to see over much of the surrounding tree vegetation and to provide reliable wireless telecommunications coverage to the surrounding area. The photo simulations submitted with this application and Exhibit 2 show the tower height in relation to the existing foliage. Sprint s current telecommunication equipment located on the existing historical building on the lot and has a height of 48ft on center. The historic building on the lot is 60ft tall and the existing silos are 48ft tall. In order for the proposed tower to provide sufficient coverage to the surrounding area without the existing structures completely inhibiting the tower, the proposed tower would need to be at least 65ft tall. The photo simulations submitted with this application and Exhibit 2 show the tower height in relation to the existing structures. Exhibit 8 is a letter from Sprint s Colorado Real Estate Manager, Christy Poulignot, stating Sprint s need for the proposed height. (ii) A greater number of facilities built at a lesser height would be inadequate to meet the applicant's service demands. Because there are no other locations to place antennas in the residential area the proposed tower will serve, there is not a realistic opportunity for a greater number of facilities built at a lesser height. (2) As a condition of approval to construct a freestanding telecommunication facility that exceeds the height limitation set by the zone district in which it is proposed, the owner of such facility shall accept all reasonable requests for co-location. Atlas s business model depends on collocation for profitability. Atlas will not unreasonably exclude a telecommunication competitor from using the proposed telecommunications facility. (e) Review factors. The following factors shall be considered in the review of an application for approval of a telecommunication facility under this section : Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 11

25 (1) Demonstrated need for a freestanding facility that exceeds the height limitation for the zone district or a wall- or roof-mounted facility that exceeds the permitted height provided in section (b); Please see Atlas s answer to Sec (d)(1)(i) above, which outlines the need for the proposed height, which is greater than the permitted height. (2) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries; 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. (3) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties; The uses of the properties surrounding the proposed telecommunications facility are residential and agricultural. Please see the response to Section (e)(2) above outlining the need to be near residential users. (4) Surrounding topography; The topography of the proposed location will allow the proposed tower to be at the same height as the area it is designed to service. The elevation drops moving toward the east. (5) Surrounding vegetation and tree foliage, both with respect to its ability to camouflage the facility(ies), and its effect on radio frequency coverage; The vegetation and tree foliage surrounding the proposed telecommunication facility is mature and tall and will provide camouflage and screening for the proposed facility this is especially true considering that the proposed tower will be disguised as a pine tree. The tree canopy in the area is around The proposed 65 height of the tower will allow the antennas to see over much of the surrounding vegetation and will provide effective coverage to the surrounding users. Exhibit 2 shows how the proposed tower might look in relation to the surrounding vegetation and tree foliage. Exhibit 8 is a letter from Sprint s Colorado Real Estate Manager, Christy Poulignot, stating Sprint s need for the proposed height. (6) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; The proposed telecommunications facility will be disguised as a pine tree. The design of the proposed tower will eliminate visual obtrusiveness because it will blend with the surrounding tree foliage. Atlas has submitted photo simulations with this application. (7) Proposed ingress and egress; The proposed telecommunications facility will be located in a parking area and will have readily available ingress and egress. (8) An evaluation of the applicant's plans for development of its telecommunication facilities within the city, as well as those plans on file from other telecommunication providers; Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 12

26 Please reference Atlas s response to Sec (b)(5) in this application. (9) An evaluation of the criteria set forth in sections and ; Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (10) Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures as discussed in subsection (g); and This proposed telecommunications facility would replace an existing facility on a historic grain silo at the site of the proposed facility. Because the existing silos will be designated a historic property, the existing Sprint antennas on them must be removed. According to the FCC, there are not telecommunications facilities within a mile of the proposed site. The nearest sites do not meet the Sprint s coverage objectives. This site is necessary in order to provide coverage to this portion of Lafayette and to effectively take the place of the telecommunication facility located on the silos. (11) Any other information that the city deems reasonably necessary in connection with the review of the application. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (f) Additional provisions. The following additional provisions shall govern approval for telecommunication facilities not permitted by right: (1) In granting approval, the city may impose conditions to the extent it concludes such conditions are necessary to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed telecommunication facility on adjoining properties. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (2) Telecommunication facilities approved pursuant to this section shall not require a variance for any specific conditions approved as part of this approval process. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. (3) Any information of an engineering nature that the applicant submits, whether civil, mechanical, structural or electrical, shall be certified by a registered professional engineer, or a qualified radio frequency engineer. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. Sec Decision. The decision on whether to approve or deny an application to construct or erect a telecommunication facility shall be in writing, based upon evidence presented to the city. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this term. CONCLUSION This narrative seeks to provide the required information to obtain a building permit for a 65 communications tower that will be a functioning bell tower at 275 North Willow St., Jackson, WY 83001, and highlights the need and advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at the proposed location. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 13

27 Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC respectfully requests the approval of our Application For Conditional Use Permit. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO Cell (970) Office (303) Facsimile (303) Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 14

28 EXHIBIT 1 SPRINT TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN AND SURROUNDING LAFAYETTE WITH AN LTE COVERAGE OVERLAY Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 15

29 EXHIBIT 2 THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING VEGETATION. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 16

30 EXHIBIT 2 CONTINUED THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING VEGETATION. Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 17

31 EXHIBIT 3 EXAMPLES OF HIGH-QUALITY MONOPINES Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 18

32 EXHIBIT 3 CONTINUED EXAMPLES OF HIGH-QUALITY MONOPINES Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 19

33 EXHIBIT 4 (Monopines near residential houses/structures) Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 20

34 EXHIBIT 4 CONTINUED (Tower Under Construction) Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 21

35 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF Optional Checklist for Local Government To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded Purpose: The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of RF exposure guidelines. Operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine their compliance. These facilities are termed "categorically excluded." Section (b)(1) of the Commission's rules defines those categorically excluded facilities. This checklist will assist state and local government agencies in identifying those wireless facilities that are categorically excluded, and thus are highly unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC s guidelines. Provision of the information identified on this checklist may also assist FCC staff in evaluating any inquiry regarding a facility s compliance with the RF exposure guidelines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Facility Operator s Legal Name: 2. Facility Operator s Mailing Address: 3. Facility Operator s Contact Name/Title: 4. Facility Operator s Office Telephone: 5. Facility Operator s Fax: 6. Facility Name: 7. Facility Address: 8. Facility City/Community: 9. Facility State and Zip Code: 10. Latitude: 11. Longitude: continue

36 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF Optional Local Government Checklist (page 2) EVALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 12. Licensed Radio Service (see attached Table 1): 13. Structure Type (free-standing or building/roof-mounted): 14. Antenna Type [omnidirectional or directional (includes sectored)]: 15. Height above ground of the lowest point of the antenna (in meters): 16. Check if all of the following are true: (a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Part 74, Subpart I (see question 12). (b) This facility will not be mounted on a building (see question 13). (c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground (see question 15). If box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC s guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box 16 is not checked, continue to question Enter the power threshold for categorical exclusion for this service from the attached Table 1 in watts ERP or EIRP (note: EIRP = (1.64) X ERP): 18. Enter the total number of channels if this will be an omnidirectional antenna, or the maximum number of channels in any sector if this will be a sectored antenna: 19. Enter the ERP or EIRP per channel (using the same units as in question 17): 20. Multiply answer 18 by answer 19: 21. Is the answer to question 20 less than or equal to the value from question 17 (yes or no)? If the answer to question 21 is YES, this facility is categorically excluded. It is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC s guidelines. If the answer to question 21 is NO, this facility is not categorically excluded. Further investigation may be appropriate to verify whether the facility may cause exposure in excess of the FCC s guidelines. "ERP" means "effective radiated power" and "EIRP" means "effective isotropic radiated power

37 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF TABLE 1: TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Experimental Radio Services (part 5) power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP) Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart K of part 21) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E of part 22) Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP)

38 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Personal Communications Services (part 24) (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) (2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) Satellite Communications (part 25) all included General Wireless Communications Service (part 26) total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP Wireless Communications Service (part 27) total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP Radio Broadcast Services (part 73) all included

39 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Experimental, auxiliary, and special broadcast and other program distributional services (part 74) subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Stations in the Maritime Services (part 80) ship earth stations only Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (part 90) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized Mobile Radio (part 90) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP)

40 FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Amateur Radio Service (part 97) transmitter output power > levels specified in 97.13(c)(1) of this chapter Local Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart L of part 101) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP LMDS licensees are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in of this chapter.

41 EXHIBIT 6 Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 23

42 Exhibit 7

43 Exhibit 8 Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 25

44 SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: (E911 ADDRESS TBD) AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PRESENT OCCUPANCY TYPE: LAFAYETTE BREWERY FACILITY 65' MONOPINE TOWER 816 E BASELINE ROAD (BOULDER COUNTY) 1,023 ± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) PROJECT INFORMATION LOT LESS MIN BLK 1 LAFAYETTE EAST PARCEL #: ZONING: JURISDICTION: EXISTING BUILDING C1 - REGIONAL BUSINESS CITY OF LAFAYETTE SITE NAME: LAFAYETTE BREWERY 816 E BASELINE ROAD (BOULDER COUNTY) LATITUDE LONGITUDE SITE COORDINATES N 39 59' 57.80" (NAD '83) * W ' 49.05" (NAD '83) * GROUND ELEVATION 5191' (NAVD '88) * * INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING (800) EMERGENCY: CALL 911 LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2015 EDITION) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G CODE COMPLIANCE 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, CONSISTING OF ANTENNAS & ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES ON A PROPOSED MONOPINE TOWER, FENCED COMPOUND & SERVICE EQUIPMENT FOR FUTURE CARRIERS. NO WATER OR SEWER IS REQUIRED. 1. FACILITY DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE REGULATIONS. 2. THIS IS AN UNMANNED FACILITY WHICH WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY WATER OR SEWER FACILITIES. 3. TRAFFIC WILL CONSIST ONLY OF MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL, VISITING THE SITE APPROXIMATELY TWICE A MONTH. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & NOTES ZONING ZONING ZONING KES NMC SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) SITE APPLICANT: NAME: ATLAS ONE, LLC. ADDRESS: 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 CITY, STATE, ZIP: BOULDER, CO CONTACT: CALEB CROSSLAND PHONE: (303) ORIGINAL SURVEYOR: NAME: GEOSURV INC. ADDRESS: 520 STACY CT. CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: DAVID C. COSTMNER P.L.S. PHONE: (303) UTILITIES: POWER COMPANY: PHONE: METER # NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: XCEL ENERGY (800) CENTURYLINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (866) UNKNOWN SHEET DESCRIPTION REV T1 TITLE SHEET 2 N1 GENERAL NOTES 2 M1 VICINITY MAP 2 M2 PROPERTY OWNERS I 2 M3 PROPERTY OWNERS II 2 Z1 SITE PLAN 2 Z2 TOWER ELEVATON 2 Z3 COMPOUND DETAIL 2 Z4 FENCE DETAILS 2 ZONING REVIEW CIVIL ENGINEER: NAME: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS ADDRESS: 5545 W 56TH AVE, UNIT E CITY, STATE, ZIP: ARVADA, CO CONTACT: NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE, P.E. PHONE: (303) LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO GET ON I-25N. FOLLOW I-25N TO CO-7 W/ E BASELINE ROAD. TAKE EXIT 229 FOR CO-7 TOWARD LAFAYETTE/BRIGHTON. TURN LEFT ONTO CO-7 W/ E BASELINE ROAD. IN APPROXIMATELY 5.3 MILES TURN LEFT ONTO N FOOTE AVE. TURN LEFT ON E GENESEO ST. SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT AT THE END OF THE ROAD. N ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: NAME: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS ADDRESS: 326 TRYON ROAD CITY, STATE, ZIP: RALEIGH, NC CONTACT: GRAHAM M. ANDRES, P.E. PHONE: (919) PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: 816 EAST BASELINE TRUST 816 E BASELINE ROAD DRIVING DIRECTIONS CONTACT INFORMATION INDEX OF SHEETS T

45 GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: LAFAYETTE BREWERY ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING ZONING KES ARB GENERAL NOTES N

46 NOTES: VICINITY MAP N FOOTE AVE BASELINE ROAD GENESEO STREET E SIMPSON STREET BURLINGTON AVE BROOKS AVE DOUNCE STREET LAFAYETTE BREWERY ZONING ZONING ZONING KES NMC VICINITY MAP M ZONING REVIEW

47 NO. PARCEL NUMBER N/F PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY INFORMATION USE NO. PARCEL NUMBER N/F PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS USE LAFAYETTE BREWERY JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS LLC BELTING CHRISTOPHER J & ANN MARIE THULL ANNETTE & NICHOLAS ORTEGA ARTHUR A ORTEGA ARTHUR A ORTEGA ARTHUR A JR JAMESON SCOTT 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC RODMAN BARBARA S BROWN COREY B TEEGARDIN KENTON HULL & ANGELA ABSHSIRE TEEGARDIN KENTON HULL & ANGELA ABSHSIRE TEEGARDIN KENTON HULL & ANGELA ABSHSIRE VALENCIA YOLANDA C IVANKOVICH JESSIE D 811 EAST BASELINE RD 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 811 EAST BASELINE RD LLC 801 DOUNCE ST 803 DOUNCE ST 807 DOUNCE ST 809 DOUNCE ST 813 DOUNCE ST 815 DOUNCE ST 819 DOUNCE ST 821 DOUNCE ST 825 DOUNCE ST 827 DOUNCE ST 831 DOUNCE ST 833 DOUNCE ST 0 EXCELSIOR PL 702 DOUNCE ST 706 DOUNCE ST 708 DOUNCE ST 710 DOUNCE ST 800 DOUNCE ST 806 DOUNCE ST 811 E BASELINE RD 300 BROOKS RD 703 E BASELINE RD 705 E BASELINE RD A 707 E BASELINE RD A 709 E BASELINE RD A 713 E BASELINE RD B 711 E BASELINE RD A 5454 CONESTOGA CT BOULDER, CO IO CT 5454 CONESTOGA CT BOULDER, CO CONESTOGA CT BOULDER, CO CONESTOGA CT BOULDER, CO IO CT 1606 IO CT 1606 IO CT 1606 IO CT MARY ROSE GUTIERREZ ANTHONY R LEE FERNANDO MELGAR LINDA RADCLIFFE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CO OF BOULDER CHARLES D & LOIS J WANEKA 700 E BASELINE RD LLC ANDREA & PAUL OSTROY THOREN ROY CAL ET AL REDMOND ANJANETTE ET AL DONNA & DAVID GARCIA BOLYARD INVESTMENTS LLC BOLYARD COLLISION CENTER INC HILDIE ARGO HENDERSON WENDE K HOLMES MICHAEL & EMILY LOW MINERVA SHAUNNA & DANIEL BURNS MC GRATH SARAH TRIMMER & STEVEN HARROP PETER J & MARIA C SCHIMPF 813 E BASELINE RD FORDHAM ST LONGMONT, CO PO BOX E BASELINE RD SPC BASELINE RD SPC N BROADWAY BOULDER, CO E BASELINE RD 901 E BASELINE RD BASELINE RD 700 E BASELINE RD 702 E BASELINE RD 704 E BASELINE RD 708 E BASELINE RD 710 E BASELINE RD 714 E BASELINE RD A 716 E BASELINE RD 720 E BASELINE RD 722 E BASELINE RD N/A COMM. COMM LAFAYETTE COLORADO 802 E BASELINE RD A PROPERTY LLC 802 E BASELINE RD B EMILY LYN BOELE LAFAYETTE COLORADO 802 E BASELINE RD C PROPERTY LLC MORROW DEWITT 802 E BASELINE RD D INNOVATIONS LLC 802 E BASELINE RD E RICHARD NEAL BILLIET ROSALEE HARRIS & 802 E BASELINE RD F EDWARD THOMAS DAVID & BARBARA 806 E BASELINE RD BEUMEE ANGELIQUE LAYTON & 808 E BASELINE RD B JEFFREY ANDERSON STEPHEN PFETSCH & AMY 808 E BASELINE RD A WU DANIEL & CHRISTINA 810 E BASELINE RD B GARBE 810 E BASELINE RD A DANIEL CRONIN SACERDOTI FEDERICO 812 E BASELINE RD B DAVID ET AL SACERDOTI ALESSANDRO J 802 E BASELINE RD A ET AL 900 E BASELINE RD ROBERT D NIEMEYER EMMA ST NORTH LLC 1950 TUNNEL RD CLW 2 LLC WHEATLAND, WY WANEKA JAMES ANTHONY 901 EMMA ST & CHARLES NICHOLAS 202 FOOTE AVE GILLESPIE LIVING TRUST ZONING ZONING ZONING KES NMC PROPERTY OWNERS I M-2 ZONING REVIEW

48 NO PARCEL NUMBER N/F PROPERTY OWNER JODEE L BRADFORD ROD RICHARDSON ET AL RON RICHARDSON ET AL HELEN CRAVER TRUST JOE & BERNIED MONTOYA TRUSTEES JUDITH DIRKS & JIMMIE MILLER JR. KENNETH M LUM MARK BERGDOLT ET AL MARGARET BERGDOLT ET AL DEBRA LARSON & MICHELE BARNARD ROGER & MARY BARBEAU FEED GRAIN LLC 816 EAST BASELINE TRUST MARILYN & JORDAN MESSERSMITH STEVEN HUBER ROBYN REGAN MARILYN & JORDAN MESSERSMITH KAREN NORBACK STEPHANIE SCHMITT JOHN & HOLLY LIND TRACY SANCHEZ & SUSAN REGAN LINAE SANGER BETTY LOGAN TRUST JOSEPH CAMPANA PROPERTY ADDRESS 200 N FOOTE AVE 707 E GENESEO DR 715 E GENESEO DR 801 E GENESEO ST 803 E GENESEO ST 805 E GENESEO ST 807 E GENESEO ST 811 E GENESEO ST 813 E GENESEO ST 816 E BASELINE RD 813 E GENESEO ST 108 FOOTE AVE 104 FOOTE AVE 106 N FOOTE AVE 710 E GENESEO ST 800 E GENESEO ST 802 E GENESEO ST 804 E GENESEO ST 808 E GENESEO ST 810 E GENESEO ST 812 E GENESEO ST 816 E GENESEO ST USE N/A N/A LAFAYETTE COLORADO 802 E BASELINE RD A PROPERTY LLC 802 E BASELINE RD B EMILY LYN BOELE LAFAYETTE COLORADO 802 E BASELINE RD C PROPERTY LLC MORROW DEWITT 802 E BASELINE RD D INNOVATIONS LLC 802 E BASELINE RD E RICHARD NEAL BILLIET ROSALEE HARRIS & 802 E BASELINE RD F EDWARD THOMAS DAVID & BARBARA 806 E BASELINE RD BEUMEE PROPERTY INFORMATION NO PARCEL NUMBER N/F PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS ANGELIQUE LAYTON & 808 E BASELINE RD B JEFFREY ANDERSON 816 E GENESEO ST JOSEPH CAMPANA 704 E SIMPSON ST GLORIA OSBORN ROGER & MARY JO 706 E SIMPSON ST BARBEAU 708 E SIMPSON ST PAUL DOZORETZ 712 E SIMPSON ST HAL TOTTEN 714 E SIMPSON ST WARREN SILL CHRISTOPHER & SARAH HASSELL LEROY & GLADYS GUERRIERI NELSON LIVING TRUST CATHERINE BOYD SNIDER TERRY & MARLENE ARCHULETA HANS & JULIE JORGENSEN JOAN STANDEFER DONALD KINNEY JR BRENT & JENNIFER DEILEY JIMMIE HARDING JOAN FRIES JOE EARLY & KAREN PEREIRA RANDY SUTTON JEFFREY & JULIA JONES CHRIS RATHWEG & ROBYN CHURCHILL-RATHWEG WILLIAM SNIFF & AMY PETERSON COUNTY OF BOULDER 718 E SIMPSON ST 800 E SIMPSON ST 802 E SIMPSON ST 812 E SIMPSON ST 814 E SIMPSON ST 816 E SIMPSON ST 818 E SIMPSON ST 709 E CLEVELAND ST 719 E CLEVELAND ST 729 E CLEVELAND ST 801 E CLEVELAND ST 803 E CLEVELAND ST 805 E CLEVELAND ST 807 E CLEVELAND ST 809 E CLEVELAND ST 819 E CLEVELAND ST 821 E CLEVELAND ST USE JOSEPHINE COMMONS II 725 DOUNCE ST LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II 727 DOUNCE ST LLC JOSEPHINE COMMONS II 0 EXCELSIOR PL LLC 0 E SIMPSON ST COUNTY OF LAFAYETTE 707 E CLEVELAND ST BETTY SWANSON LAFAYETTE BREWERY ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING ZONING KES NMC PROPERTY OWNERS II M

49 WV LAFAYETTE BREWERY WV E BASELINE ROAD WV BASELINE ROAD LEGEND WV WV WV WV WV ALLEY S GM ZONING REVIEW NOTES: ZONING ZONING ZONING MJE NMC GENESEO STREET AVE BURLINGTON SITE PLAN SITE PLAN Z

50 LAFAYETTE BREWERY TOWER NOTES: ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING ZONING MJE NMC TOWER ELEVATION TOWER ELEVATION Z

51 LAFAYETTE BREWERY ZONING REVIEW ZONING ZONING ZONING MJE NMC GENESEO STREET COMPOUND DETAIL COMPOUND DETAIL Z

52 FENCE NOTE: WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET LAFAYETTE BREWERY DRAWING NOTES: 7' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS SIDE VIEW ZONING REVIEW GATE DETENT DETAIL ZONING ZONING ZONING JPE ARB FENCE DETAILS TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION COLUMN DETAIL GATE STOPPER DETAIL Z

53

54

55

56

57

58 From: Renzo Sent: Friday, May 12, :34 AM To: Jon Hoffman Subject: Feed & Grain Meeting Attachments: Results of neighborhood meeting MAy pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To: John H. City Planning Re: Neighborhood meeting for 816 East Baseline held May The applicant and a rep from Atlas Tower were on site for more than the hour long meeting. 5 comment note pads were available and parities were encourages to write comments. Included in one PDF are all sign in sheets and comments and a post card received my mail. Additional verbal concerns by neighbors are summarized below: On alley use, Neighbors requests included: Block access completely for more Kids use. Block access except for emergency equipment. Maintain access as the plan proposes. Restrict access to locals only. Sign alley for one way traffic. Gate access for locals only. Block and provide turnaround at east end. Applicant indicated that nearly any of these is acceptable, however it is up to the City s planners / engineers. On Genesco St access. It seems of those who voiced opinion, the propose plan to NOT allow access is preferred. On the proposed Telecom facility. We heard no opposition and many comments of encouragement. The photo realistic images of tower disguised like a tree was well received. Several people requested Verizon / T-Mobile to be included for greater coverage. A written comment asked about placement. Commercial use of the site: Several people voiced concern about potential noise created by outdoor seating spaces, and or a possible restaurant that served beer (Brew Pub), however, most felt a restaurant that didn t serve beer, or bakery or coffee shop or dentist office may be acceptable. Some objected to any commercial use. It was explained that the applicant is not proposing at this time, and the City not considering, use other than a vacant commercial building, and that uses by a future tenant will be considered in the future by City planning Staff with due process. Regards Renzo file:///department/...-17,%20pud%203-17,%20ar-9-17%20-%20feed%20&%20grain%20llc/ /feed%20%20grain%20meeting.txt[5/15/2017 9:51:22 AM]

59 Laurence Verbeck; Architect VERBECK DESIGN STUDIOS INC American Institute of Architects US Green Building Council, LEED AP P O Box 1663 Boulder, Co file:///department/...-17,%20pud%203-17,%20ar-9-17%20-%20feed%20&%20grain%20llc/ /feed%20%20grain%20meeting.txt[5/15/2017 9:51:22 AM]

60

61