HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2021-03-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
7:00 p.m.
Board Room – 170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of
Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and
provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for quasi-judicial
virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town Administrator
Machalek on May 8, 2020 and outlined below.
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
Options for the Public to Provide Public Input:
1.By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a
specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, March 23, 2021. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the
agenda item and added to the final packet.
2.By Telephone Message: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a
specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-4777. The calls must be received by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday,
March 23, 2021. All calls will be transcribed and provided to the Board for consideration during the
agenda item and added to the final packet.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
If you are joining the Zoom meeting and are experiencing technical difficulties, staff will be
available for assistance from 6:30-6:50 p.m. by calling 970-577-4777.
Options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom
Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):
Dial public participation phone number, 877-853-5257 (toll-free)
Enter the Meeting ID: 982 1690 2040 followed by the pound sign (#). The meeting will be
available beginning at 6:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please call into the meeting prior to
7:00 p.m., if possible. You can also find this information for participating by phone on the
website at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting
Participation”.
Request to Speak: For public comment, the Mayor will ask attendees to indicate if they
would like to speak – phone participants will need to press *9 to “raise hand”. Staff will be
moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the
Board.
Once you are announced by phone:
•State your name and address for the record.
•DO NOT watch/stream the meeting at the same time due to streaming delay and
possible audio interference.
Prepared 03-12-2021
*Revised
Page 1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE):
Individuals who wish to address the Board via virtual public participation can do so through
Zoom Webinar at https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 – Zoom Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040. The
Zoom Webinar link and instructions are also available at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings
by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Individuals participating in the
Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the website, due
to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
Start Time: The Zoom Webinar will be available beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the day of the
meeting. Participants wanting to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to
the start of the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Request to Speak: For public comments, the Mayor will ask attendees to click the “Raise
Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board.
•You will experience a short delay prior to re-connecting with the ability to speak.
•State your name and address for the record.
In order to participate, you must:
•Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
o Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience.
•Join the Zoom Webinar.
o The link can be found above.
•Click “Participate Virtually in the Regular Town Board Meeting of the Board of
Trustees”.
•DO NOT watch/stream the meeting via the website at the same time due to delays and
possible feedback issues.
WATCH THE MEETING:
The Town Board meetings will be livestreamed at www.estes.org/videos and will be posted within 48
hours of the meeting at the same location.
Documents to Share: If individuals wish to present a document or presentation to the
Board, material must be emailed by Monday, March 22, 2021 by 8:00 a.m. to the Town
Clerk’s office at townclerk@estes.org.
Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
(Quasi-Judicial items will be marked as such)
Written Testimony
Must be submitted by mail to Town Clerk, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 or by
completing the Public Comment form at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment.
Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by
calling (970) 577-4777. All calls must be received by 8:00 a.m., Monday, March 22, 2021. All
comments received will be provided to the Board and included in the final packet material.
Oral Testimony
To ensure your ability to provide comments during the meeting, you must register by emailing
townclerk@estes.org or calling (970) 577-4777 by Monday, March 22, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
During the meeting, any individual who did not register to speak on a quasi-judicial item may
join public participation by following either the Call-In or Online option previously mentioned.
Individuals who do not register prior to the meeting risk being unable to testify due to
administrative/technical difficulty during the meeting.
Written presentation materials or exhibits must be delivered to townclerk@estes.org by 8:00
a.m. Monday, March 22, 2021 in order to be presented during the meeting. No other written
presentations or exhibits will be accepted during oral testimony by any member of the public.
Packet Material
The packet material can be accessed through the following link: Town Board Packet or under
the Town Board section at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings or you may request a paper
packet by emailing townclerk@estes.org or calling (970) 577-4777.
Page 2
AGENDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION - 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ESTES PARK TRAIL GAZETTE.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Bills (Click on link to view).
2.Town Board Minutes dated March 9, 2021 and Special Town Board Minutes dated
March 15, 2021.
3.Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes and Estes Park Planning Commission
Study Session Minutes dated February 16, 2021 (acknowledgment only).
4.Community and Family Advisory Board Minutes dated February 4, 2021
(acknowledgment only).
5.Appointment of Janene Centurione to the Estes Park Planning Commission to
complete the term of Steve Murphree expiring March 31, 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
2.ACTION ITEMS:
A. RESOLUTION 17-21 SPECIAL REVIEW, “STEALTH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY,” 1575 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, VERIZON
WIRELESS, APPLICANT, POWDER RIVER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC,
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP,
PROPERTY OWNER. Planner Woeber.
S1 special review for monopine wireless communication facility, continued from
February 23, 2021 Town Board hearing.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.ORDINANCE 04-21 AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC. Manager Solesbee.
Establishes procedures to immobilize and/or impound vehicles violating parking
regulations. Clarifies criteria for free parking for persons with disabilities, disabled
veterans, and motorcycles.
ADJOURN.
Prepared 03-12-2021
*Revised
Page 3
Page 4
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 9, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in
said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of March, 2021.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Barbara MacAlpine
Scott Webermeier
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Martchink) to approve the Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Planning Commissioner Comstock requested the Town Board hold a joint meeting with
the Estes Park Planning Commission to discuss alignment as the Town prepares for the
development of the new Comprehensive Plan.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Bangs commented the Estes Park Restorative Justice has been developing a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the Library. The Transportation
Advisory Board determined priorities for 2021 and continues to focus on multi-modal
transportation planning which aligns with the Town Board’s strategic plan.
Trustee Younglund stated the Community and Family Advisory Board received a
presentation from Christy Crosser/Grant Specialist related to the funding for the Safer
Routes to School program. The Police Auxiliary are working on a video to assist its
members in becoming familiar with the staffing in the Police Department.
Trustee Webermeier informed the Board the Visit Estes Park Board (Local Marketing
District) would interview CEO candidates.
Mayor Koenig stated Platte River Power Authority elected officers with Mayor Wade
Troxell to continue to serve as Chair until the April election.
Mayor Pro Tem Martchink confirmed his interest in meeting with the Estes Park Planning
Commission as requested by Planning Commissioner Comstock.
Trustee MacAlpine stated she was impressed with the professionalism of the Town’s fifth
grade class and the quality of their questions directed at astronaut Shannon Walker
during their visit with the International Space Station. She further stated appreciation to
the local hand radio club for their assistance.
Trustee Cenac confirmed the CEO candidate interviews would be held March 17, 2021. DRAFTPage 5
Board of Trustees – March 9, 2021 – Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Machalek presented his policy governance report for policies 3.0, 3.1,
3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11. He reported full compliance with the exception of
3.4.1 Expend more funds than are available. The Medical Insurance Fund experienced
significant claims during the last few months of the year that were not projected with the
final budget amendments for 2020. The budget could not be amended after the end of
the year; therefore, more funds were expended than budgeted. The Town’s Medical
Insurance fund contained the necessary funds to cover the costs. The Town maintains a
fund balance of unexpended premiums collected through the partially self-insured model
that absorbs costs from high claim years to address this very situation. Staff anticipates
budgeting excess expenditures in future years to address the issue moving forward.
He requested the scheduling of the Vacation Home regulations from the Development
Code to the Municipal Code and address enforcement issues at the study session on
April 28,, 2021. Broader policy changes would not be coming forward with these changes.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Bills.
2.Town Board Minutes dated February 23, 2021 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated February 23, 2021.
3.Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 6, 2020 (acknowledgment only).
4.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 21, 2021 (acknowledgement only).
5.Transportation Advisory Board minutes dated January 20, 2021
(acknowledgement only).
6. Resolution 21-21 Setting Public Hearing date of April 13, 2021, for a New
Fermented Malt Beverage Off-Premise Liquor License filed by Mini Mart Inc. dba
Loaf N' Jug, 561 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
7.Revised Policy 305 Benefits.
8. Resolution 22-21 Approving a Memorandum of Understanding and Amendment 1
with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, City and County of
Broomfield, Cities of Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont and Loveland for
Water Quality Monitoring of Compounds of Emerging Concern in Northern
Colorado, for an amount not to exceed $3,000.00, Budgeted.
9.Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report.
10. Local Marketing District Board Appointment of Suzanne Blackhurst to complete
the term of Tonya Humiston expiring December 31, 2022.
It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Younglund) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1.CONSENT ITEMS:
A.RESOLUTION 17-21 APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW, “STEALTH
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY,” 1575 S. SAINT VRAIN
AVENUE, VERIZON WIRELESS, APPLICANT, POWDER RIVER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE,
MOUNTAIN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER. Staff
requested the item be continued to the March 23, 2021 Town Board meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Cenac) to approve the
continuation to the March 23, 2021 meeting, and it passed unanimously.DRAFTPage 6
Board of Trustees – March 9, 2021 – Page 3
3.ACTION ITEMS:
1.RESOLUTION 23-21 ESTABLISHING BYLAWS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Director Hunt reviewed the proposed bylaws for
the newly formed Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to identify meeting
schedule, membership, quorum, etc. The committee was proposed to consist of
eleven (11) voting members and an indefinite number of non-voting stakeholders
appointed by the Town Board. The membership would be a diverse and widely
inclusive group of stakeholders, including members of the Estes Park Planning
Commission and residents of the Estes Valley Planning Area. Member terms
would be for the life of the committee and end with the adoption of the new
comprehensive plan.
Board discussion was heard and summarized: requested the advertisement for the
committee be in both English and Spanish; questioned if eleven (11) members
would be sufficient to ensure the committee contains representation from each of
the areas identified by staff; discussion of a membership of up to fifteen (15)
members be considered; non-voting members could provide further diversity and
bring additional viewpoints to the process; and questioned if a scoring matrix could
be used to identify the applicant’s inclusion in the categories outlined in the bylaws.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Martchink/Webermeier) to
approve Resolution 23-21, and it passed unanimously.
2.INTERVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Younglund) to appointment
Mayor Koenig and Trustee MacAlpine to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee (CompPac) interview panel, and it passed unanimously.
3.RESOLUTION 24-21 DECLARING THE TOWN’S INTENT TO ACQUIRE
AND/OR SECURE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE TOWN’S WATER SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS,
PURCHASE, QUIET TITLE, AND THE EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POWERS
OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. Utilities Coordinator
Rusch stated the proposed resolution would allow the Town to provide reliable
water service at a reasonable cost to approximately 135 homes previously served
by the bankrupt Prospect Mountain Water Company by reconstructing the water
system to current Town and Fire District standards, including construction of a new
storage tank and service road. Attorney White provided background on the
Prospect Mountain Water Company, a private water company serving Koral
Heights, Venner Ranch Estates, and Little Prospect Acres. By the mid-2000s, the
infrastructure of the company required significant capital improvements and failed
to form a local improvement district capable of raising the funds for capital
improvements. The Town began providing potable water to the area in 2012 after
the Bureau of Reclamation terminated the company’s raw water tap agreement.
The company filed chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Town has worked with the
bankruptcy trustee to secure the ownership of the company under the Voluntary
Water System Transfer Agreement to move forward with the reconstruction on the
system utilizing USDA awarded funding of $6.5 million grant and a $4.5 million
loan. In order to move forward with bidding the project, the USDA requires the
Town have all 68 easements secured. Three remaining easements are needed
for the construction and access of the new water storage tank, and negotiations
with the property owners, including the Estes Valley Land Trust, over the past year
have not been successful. Further the USDA funding requires the project to be
completed within five (5) years of award, September 2023. Staff reviewed three
alternative locations, all requiring condemnation of conservation easements, for
the siting of the water tank and found the preferred location meets the minimum
elevation required to produce 20 psi under fire flow conditions while minimizing the
cost of construction of the project to the homeowners.DRAFTPage 7
Board of Trustees – March 9, 2021 – Page 4
Jeffrey Boring/Estes Valley Land Trust Director read a prepared letter stating the
Land Trust objects to the condemnation of the conservation easement due to the
violation of perpetual nature of the easement to provide public conservation values
of open space and wildlife habitat.
Board questions and comments were heard and summarized: the addition of water
and fire hydrant service in the area would aid in additional development and
reduced insurance costs for the current residents; questioned the number of
additional homes that could be built in the area; the three additional easements
would be secured through condemnation with the approval of the resolution; and
questioned how often the tank would be visited once constructed. Staff stated they
intend to work further with the individual property owners and only use
condemnation if necessary, with the Board’s approval of the resolution. The tank
would be visited by staff approximately six (6) times a year to address routine
maintenance.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Martchink) to
approve Resolution 24-21, and it passed unanimously.
4.RESOLUTION 25-21 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT AND A FOURTH MODIFICATION TO THE REIMBURSABLE
AGREEMENT WITH CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OF
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
PROJECT FUNDING OF THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP. Director Muhonen
reviewed the proposed resolution to amend the existing Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) and the Reimbursable Agreement (RA) with Central Federal
Lands Highway Division for the design and construction of the Downtown Estes
Loop. In early 2020, the Town requested revisions to the MOA and RA to clarify
refinements to the project scope, costs, schedule, funding responsibility, and the
insertion of a clause for the purposes of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR)
which was not included in the original agreements. The proposed resolution would
address these issues. The termination of the contract by the Town could only be
accomplished with an irrevocable pledge of existing funds by the Town, prior to
undertaking the financial obligations associated with early termination, as
constitutionally required. The amendments do not increase the Town’s financial
contribution to the project. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Martchink)
to approve Resolution 25-21, and it passed unanimously.
4.REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.CURRENT STATE OF CHILDCARE IN THE ESTES VALLEY. Assistant Town
Administrator Damweber stated the Town Board requested an update on the
current state of childcare in the valley. The original consultant on the 2017 report
acknowledged the cost, time, and uncertainty due to COVID in preparing an
update, therefore, the Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) completed
an update report on the needs and gaps within the community. Chair Laurie Dale
Marshall, John Bryant, and Christy DeLorme provided a review of the updated
report which was completed to aligned with the original needs assessment. The
CFAB identified several successes since the initial report, including the
development by the Town of grant funding and guidelines for distributing the funds
to assist with childcare in the valley; proactive steps to increase the number of
quality in-home providers and retain exiting providers; and collaborative
networking for education and outreach related to the benefits of early childcare,
education, and the economic impacts. The Town awarded $5,000 to Mountaintop
Preschool to assist infrastructure improvements needed to increase preschool
spots by 20; ten (10) 12-24 month old children and ten (10) spots for two (2) to
three (3) year old children. The increase provided the first center-based care for
infants and increased the under two (2) from six (6) to 16. EVICS has developed
a cohort group to support individuals interested in beginning a new childcare
business or becoming licensed. Town staff continues to participate in regional
partnership meetings, and supported the establishment of the Estes ValleyDRAFT
Page 8
Board of Trustees – March 9, 2021 – Page 5
Childcare Collaborative to support increased communication. This group has
since been folded into the CFAB. The Early Childhood Council of Larimer County
and United Way of Larimer County have begun an effort to develop a Larimer
County Early Childhood Funding Initiative Committee. The report established
enrollment in the school district down 3% for the year, with kindergarten enrollment
down significantly and impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Town has seen
a decline in birth rate in Estes Park over the last three years. A review of current
offerings including both in-home care to center based care. The United Way of
Larimer County has committed to providing after school care for the next three
years. Discussion was heard on the need for additional infant care in the valley,
including those 6 weeks to 12 months because of the stringent licensing
requirements and how to determine the need for additional care in the valley.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTPage 9
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 15, 2021
Minutes of a Joint meeting of the ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD,
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION, AND VISIT ESTES PARK (VEP)
BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day
of March 2021.
Town Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, Younglund and Webermeier
County Commission: Chair Kefalas, Commissioners Shadduck-McNally and
Stephens
Visit Estes Park Board: Chairperson Gibson and Vice Chairperson Jurgens
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, County Manager Hoffmann,
County Assistant Manager Volker and VEP Interim CEO
Huebner and Deputy Town Clerk Beers
Absent:None.
Introductions were conducted for both elected bodies, the Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board
and staff. Interim CEO Huebner reviewed a presentation outlining an overview of VEP
operations. Highlights included: The formation of VEP and lodging tax funding, how
VEP funding supports the tourism industry in the valley, VEP marketing strategies and
programs including Athlete in Residence and Estes Park in your backyard Campout and
an overview of VEP’s Official Visitor Guide. Comments were heard from the Town
Board, County Commissioners and VEP, and have been summarized: a request was
made for an update on filling the vacant CEO position; direction was requested
regarding the method and content for updates to the elected bodies, and the importance
of regular reporting to the elected bodies. The Boards requested Town Administrator
Machalek and County Manager Hoffmann provide options for holding quarterly
meetings with VEP’s Board, alternating quarters between the Town Board and County
Commissioners.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRAFTPage 10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 16, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 16 day of
February 2021.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins,
Commissioner Hanson, Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner
Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning Technician
Charlie Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town
Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine
Absent: Commissioner Elkins left the meeting at 2:06 p.m.
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 4-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 4-0.
CODE AMENDMENT: Wireless Telecom Facilities
This item was continued from the January 19, 2021 meeting
Senior Planner Woeber requested that this Code Amendment be withdrawn without
prejudice. There are two different use categories for cell towers: Micro-cell and
Towers. The majority of requirements in the Estes Park Development Code refer to the
Larimer County Land Use Codes. Those Codes went through a complete rewrite a few
years ago so the EPDC no longer matches. A special counsel has written a new
chapter on Wireless Facilities for the Town of Estes Park, which will make its way to the
Planning Commission in the near future. (April or May)
Page 11
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to Withdraw Without Prejudice this
Code Amendment to a date uncertain. The motion passed 4-0.
OTHER:
•Director Hunt discussed Downtown Building Height and reasons for postponing
the Code Amendment's advancement for the time being. There have been
several public comments received, all of which have been against the proposed
Amendment. Also affecting the decision are impacts of the Loop project,
floodplain issues and downtown parking. He asked for the Commission's input.
Commissioner responses: (summarized)
Commissioner Elkins: we need to take this on, and it needs to be addressed
sooner rather than later.
Vice-Chair Heiser: there will be no engagement if it is not actively being pursued.
Preference is to continue working on it and advancing the needs of the
community. Where does the Town Board stand on this? Data collection is
always changing. Does not see the benefit in postponement and wants to see it
move forward.
Chair Comstock: it is on the Planning Commission to address the Downtown
Plan/building height. Will the new Comp Plan lift the recommendations from the
existing Downtown Plan? Not opposed to getting more information if it helps
make a better decision. Doesn't want this to drag out.
Commissioner Hanson: more discussion and information is needed. No reason
to take it off the table. In favor of getting critical data if that is missing. Would like
a parcel by parcel high-definition map showing exactly what properties would be
included. Is topographic customization possible?
Heiser suggested that an overlay of the Downtown zoning district with a
topographical map would give a good idea of height difference, specifically the
difference between the residential and commercial zones.
Hunt noted that for a 48-foot height proposal, a Special Review with criteria for
design characteristics would be needed.
Trustee MacAlpine noted that the Town Board has not had any discussion on
this.
It was decided to keep this on the agenda as a discussion item, with code
language available to review in March.
Page 12
•Attorney Kramer clarified that if three or more Planning Commission members
were appointed to a group, a quorum would not pose a problem.
•The Town Board will be interviewing a Planning Commission applicant in March
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 13
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 16, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on Google Meet.
Commission: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe
Elkins, Howard Hanson
Attending: Comstock, Heiser, Hanson
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex
Bergeron, Trustee Barbara MacAlpine, Planning Technician Charlie
Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner Elkins
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. This study session was held virtually via
ZOOM and was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel.
Comstock explained that the purpose of this Study Session was to cover the processes and
procedures for the new Comprehensive Plan.
Director Hunt began the conversation by stating that the next step in the process is appointing a
selection committee to pick the consultant. There was an informational meeting for consulting firms
on February 11, and over 20 firms were in attendance. The proposals are due at 2:00 p.m. on
February 25. From February 26 to March 11, the applications will be reviewed by the selection
committee. The interviews will be recorded (but not live-streamed) and available to view after they
have all been completed. This retains the transparency of the process. If any of the Planning
Commission members want to see the candidate's proposal, there is time between March 11 and
April 12. The Town Board will vote on the proposal at their April 13 meeting. Sample Comp Plans
from four communities will be posted on the website for review (www.estes.org/comprehensiveplan).
The advisory committee will focus on the policy direction and has a life span that will last through the
entire rewrite process.
Hunt stressed that Comp Plans should not rely only on the opinions and views of residents but
include visitors and other stakeholder groups.
Vice-Chair Heiser preferred that the Planning Commission have a stronger voice in the advisory
committee over the selection committee.
Highlights of the RFP
•Will set the stage for Corridor plans, which will be one of the steps after the comp plan so that
each corridor can have its own plan.
•NOT looking for Neighborhood Plans
•Analyzing build-out data and infrastructure needs
•Bang the Table, a public engagement consultant, has been retained as the on-line public
engagement platform facilitator ($11,000 for the first year)
•Refine Community Vision: ideas refined into goals, objectives and implementation strategy:Page 14
Planning Commission Study Session January 19, 2021 –Page 2
things that need to be called out in the Development Code
•Code rewrite will be the first step after the Comp Plan and be very extensive. Code rewrite 16-
18 months after Comp Plan completion (Fall of 2024)
•Background Infrastructure research (i.e., water system)
•Analytical, informational graphics (not just text)
•Summary of the plan on a poster
•Climate Change
•Wildfires, Flooding and other natural hazards
•Additional Zoning district (open space?)
•Larimer County involvement, along with input from Boulder County, National Park Service and
US Forest Service
•Larimer County will be part of the selection committee and will work with the consulting firm to
adopt a parallel plan
•Thorough list of stakeholders, affirmative outreach
•Proposed completion date of December 31, 2022
•Budget of $164,000 (65% of the $300,000 total minus the Bang the Table budget)
Comments on what role the Planning Commission should have in the process:
•PC heavily involved in the whole process
•How many members of the PC?
•Eleven members seem big. 7-9 is a better working number
•Representation from the entire Estes Valley
•Not too heavy on town-government, need outside involvement
•Clarification on how the quorum rule will work
Vice-Chair Heiser adjourned the study session at 1:03 p.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
_____________________________________
Matt Comstock, Chair
Page 15
Page 16
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 4, 2021
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Community and Family Advisory Board of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on Zoom, on the 4th day
of February 4, 2021.
Present: Laurie Dale Marshall
Jodi Roman
Nancy Almond
Sue Strom
John Bryant
Christy DeLorme
Rachel Balduzzi
Absent: Michael Moon
Chris Douglas
Also Present: Cindy Younglund, Town Board Liaison
Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Suzanna Simpson, Executive Assistant
Guests: Claire Bouchard, United Way of Larimer County
Chair Dale Marshall called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
TRUSTEE LIAISON UPDATE:
None
APPROVAL OF JANUARY MEETING MINUTES:
It was moved and seconded (Roman/Almond) to approve the January meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION: GUEST QUINN BRETT:
Guest Quinn Brett’s discussion centered on her perspective as a person with a mobility
disability living in Estes Park. Some challenges mentioned were parking lots, as many
are privately owned and the pavement is only painted without placing signs, adding to
visibility concerns when it snows and paint is covered. Another concern mentioned was
ensuring that snow is cleared from all crosswalks and sidewalks. She expressed
Page 17
Community and Family Advisory Board – February 4, 2021 – Page 2
appreciation for the thoughtfulness given to connecting trails around town and
encourages the continuation of connecting trails. It was recommended to share some of
these concerns with the Transportation Advisory Board. Board members asked Quinn
about specific challenges with buildings and other facilities around town, as well as
recommendations for improving accessibility overall. She encouraged anyone with a
website to look out for pages or forms that time out after a few seconds or minutes, and
to ensure that emergency warnings are duplicated so that they are conducted using
both sound and visual methods.
REPORT ON TOWN BOARD PRESENTATION OF FOCUS AREAS:
Chair Dale Marshall thanked Vice Chair Balduzzi for assisting with the presentation to the
Town Board. Both focus areas for 2021 were unanimously accepted by trustees. Chair
Dale Marshall thanked Trustee Younglund for her help and support.
SUB COMMITTEE REPORT ON CURRENT CHILDCARE NEEDS & GAPS
Member Almond provided an update on the data gathered so far. She has used the
Childcare Needs Assessment from 2017 to guide the work. She provided an update on
some of the current areas of interest, including the lack of data on children in the
community under age 5, low Kindergarten enrollment, which is a statewide trend likely
due to COVID-19, and the need for the birth count from the hospital. The board further
discussed some changes from the time of the Needs Assessment in 2017, including a
reduction in licensed home providers (2 closed), which reduces capacity from 104 to 92,
leaving just 4 licensed home care providers, Mountaintop has taken the YMCA Bennett
Preschool, increasing capacity and for the first time having center-based care for children
under 2.5 years old. Member Bryant shared that the Boys & Girls Club is offering after
school care for students at the elementary school and they are doing a spring break
program.
Chair Dale Marshall asked how the board could align with this assessment and determine
recommendations for the Town Board as to how the Town can contribute to the effort,
based on the current state versus the state of the original assessment in 2017. Member
DeLorme requested to review the recommendations that the Workforce Housing and
Childcare Task Force presented. Executive Assistant Simpson will send that information
to the board. The board will discuss the findings of the task force assessment at the March
meeting and make recommendations at the March Study Session.
Page 18
Community and Family Advisory Board – February 4, 2021 – Page 3
TOWN’S COMMUNITY RESOURCES WEBPAGE UPDATE:
Executive Assistant Simpson provided an update on revisions that will be made to the
Town’s Community Resources webpage – www.estes.org/communityresources. Member
Roman asked about translation features on the website. Executive Assistant Simpson will
confirm the changes that were made when the website was updated in early 2020. Chair
Dale Marshall announced that the Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center will take over
updating the Family Advisory Board Community Resource Guide. They currently manage
a similar list and this will help with consistency.
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Almond announced on behalf of Claire Bouchard that United Way has committed
to supporting the Boys & Girls Club at $75k per year for 3 years (year-round).
Chair Dale Marshall met Julian with the school district who is managing the Immigrant
Family Program. She will share his information with the board.
Seeing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, March
4, 2021. The format will be virtual through the Town’s Zoom account.
Suzanna Simpson, Recording Secretary
Page 19
Page 20
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 23, 2021
RE: Appointment of Janene Centurione to the Estes Park Planning
Commission to complete a term expiring March, 31 2022.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To consider the appointment recommended by the interview committee for the Estes
Park Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The Town Clerk’s Office advertised for a position on the Commission to complete the term
of Steve Murphree expiring March 31, 2022. One application was received and the
interview committee consisting of Trustees MacAlpine and Webermeier conducted an
interview on March 15, 2021.
Proposal:
The interview committee recommends the appointment of Janene Centurion to
complete the term vacated by Steve Murphree expiring March 31, 2022.
Janene has lived in Estes Park for four years and currently works as an independent
consultant with academic institutions, non-profits, and small business to create and
execute strategic plans for new programs and initiatives. Additionally, Janene has
become active in the community creating connections through the Estes Park Economic
Development Corp and Estes Park Newcomers
Advantages:
Filling the position would complete the five-member Commission.
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could
be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Page 21
Action Recommended:
Appoint Janene Centurione to the Estes Park Planning Commission to complete a term
expiring March 31, 2022.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Janene Centurione to the Estes Park
Planning Commission to complete a term expiring March 31, 2022.
Attachments:
None.
Page 22
PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development
Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision
1.MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION ITEM 1.A, RESOLUTION 17-21 SPECIAL REVIEW, “STEALTH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY,” 1575 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, VERIZON
WIRELESS, APPLICANT, POWDER RIVER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC,
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP,
PROPERTY OWNER.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the
Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the
application.
Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this
application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2.STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report.
3.APPLICANT.
The applicant makes their presentation.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
5.REBUTTAL.
Page 23
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to
statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may
be submitted.
6.MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
application.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
7.SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8.DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9.VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
Page 24
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: March 23, 2021
RE: Resolution 17-21 Special Review, Stealth Wireless Communication Facility, 1575
S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Verizon Wireless, Applicant, Powder River Development
Services, LLC, Applicant’s Representative, Mountain View Bible Fellowship,
Property Owner. (Continued from February 23, 2021 Town Board Hearing)
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Applicant requests approval of an S1 Special Review to allow a “Wireless Telecommunication
Facility,” “Concealed (Stealth) Antenna,” in an A (Accommodations) Zoning District.
Applicant’s letter of request and application submittal materials are attached as Attachment 3
- 9.
The entire submittal is also available for review online as pdf documents, through the following
link: www.estes.org/currentapplications
Present Situation:
CONTINUANCE
This Special Review application was heard by the Town Board at their hearing on February 23,
2021. After a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant, public comment, and
discussion, a motion was made to approve the application by approval of Resolution No.17-21.
That motion to approve failed, by a vote of 4 – 2. Upon further consideration and discussion
with the Town Attorney, the Town Board determined that further action would be needed to
finalize and close the hearing. The Town Board then continued the hearing on the application,
and directed staff to publish notice and notify adjacent property owners. In order to meet the
minimum 15-day notice requirements in the EPDC, the hearing was continued to March 23,
2021. Please note: Staff recommends the Town Board reopen the public hearing for this
application on March 23.
Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Page 25
The staff report and recommendation below is largely the same as what was presented to the
Town Board in their February 23, 2021 Memo. Staff has added some detail to the discussion
of the EPDC’s requirement for compliance with the Larimer County Code’s Wireless
Communications Facilities (WCF) chapter. Staff has also expanded the Sample Motions.
DISCUSSION
Cell phone coverage in mountain areas, including the Estes Valley, has greatly improved over
the last several years. However, there are areas where service is weak or nonexistent,
including areas generally in the southern part of Estes Park. The service provider/applicant,
Verizon Wireless, has determined that a new cell tower/antenna is necessary to improve
service in this area. Materials submitted by the applicant, attached, include an Engineering
Necessity Case which details the deficiencies in coverage and the basis for needing a new
WCF at the proposed location. Health, safety and welfare factors into cell coverage, with many
people now relying solely on cell phones. Cellphones are also utilized by various emergency
service agencies.
Proposal:
The site is located at 1575 South Saint Vrain Avenue (State Highway 7), located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of South Saint Vrain Avenue and Peak View Drive. See
vicinity maps on page 1 of the applicant’s plan set (Attachment 5). The applicant has made
arrangements to lease a 576 square foot area within a 4.32± acre parcel. This parcel is the
location of the Mountain View Bible Fellowship church. Larimer County Assessor’s records
show the church was established at this location in 1982.
The 18 x 32 foot WCF area would be fenced, and contain equipment cabinets and the tower,
which will be disguised as a pine tree (“Monopine”), 75 feet in height. The applicant has
included an access easement for the WCF site in the lease agreement. Access would be via
the existing church access and parking lot. The application submittal materials, attached,
provide extensive, detailed descriptions of the WCF, along with a photo simulation of the
Monopine.
REVIEW PROCESS
An S1 use requires “Board Action,” (Town Board) per Section 3.2 of the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC).
The “Wireless Telecommunication Facility” is identified as a use allowed in the A
(Accommodations) Zoning, subject to the Additional Regulations in Section 5.1.T. of the
EPDC. Section 5.1.T., under the EPDC’s Chapter 5 Use Regulations, contains Specific Use
Standards for “Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.”
A Code interpretation was made previously by staff and legal counsel, in a meeting held in
December 2018. At that time, it was determined that the appropriate review and approval
process for this concealed antenna is an S1 Special Review, per the EPDC Section 5.1.T. For
consistency, staff is following precedent for the application review process established with
that previous WCF/monopine Special Review. The previous application was processed in
Page 26
early 2019, for a monopine WCF at the YMCA of the Rockies. Both that WCF proposal, and
the current Verizon application applied the “order of preference” that are defined in the Larimer
County Code, Section 16 “Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities.” This is per
the EPDC, Subsection 5.1.T.3. This “order of preference” is as follows:
16.1.2. - Where allowed.
A.Zoning. CMRS facilities are allowed as a principal or underlying use on a property
as follows:
B.Preferred CMRS facilities. The order of preference for new permanent CMRS
facilities is (from most-preferred to least-preferred and based on technical feasibility):
1. Co-location on existing CMRS or broadcast antenna towers.
2. Attached antennas.
3. Concealed antennas.
4. Microcell antenna towers.
5. Antenna towers.
New CMRS facilities must use the most preferred facility type where technically
feasible. A lesser preferred facility type is allowed only if the applicant presents
substantial evidence to show it will have a lesser visual impact than the use of more
preferred facilities and that the applicant's desired geographic area cannot be served
by using more preferred facilities.
It has been determined that Nos. 1 and 2 above, co-location, or an attached antenna, are not
adequate or technically feasible to provide coverage in this area, and No. 3, a concealed
antenna is needed (see Engineering Necessity Case in Attachment 8.)
Staff notes this application is being reviewed, per EPDC requirements, for compliance with the
Larimer County Code Section 16 that was in place with adoption of the EPDC in 2000. Larimer
County has since rewritten their WCF regulations, with new regulations approved and adopted
by the County in October 2019. Estes Park Planning staff are currently processing a code
amendment, to replace the existing WCF regulations in the EPDC with entirely new
regulations. Staff anticipates bringing this code amendment to the Planning Commission and
Town Board in the next few months.
SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA
The following is from the EPDC, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.5
Special Review Uses:
A.Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a
special review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth
in §3.2 of this Chapter. Uses that require a Special Review and are subject to the
regulations of this section are stated in Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential
Zoning Districts and Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Special Review Uses shall be reviewed through an S1 or S2 procedure. Those uses
that have a wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the S2
procedure. Both review procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there
are minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measure to address
Page 27
identified concerns, or to deny the use if findings establish that concerns cannot be
resolved.
Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning
district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site.
Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be
deemed appropriate by the Decision Making Body.
B.Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate
compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use
Regulations," of this Code.
Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how
the proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In
order to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special
Review Use may be conditioned based upon information provided in the narrative and
staff findings.
For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as
applicable:
1. The proposed use and its operations;
2. Traffic generation including a Traffic Impact Study if determined necessary by the
Decision Making Body;
3. Existing zoning compatibility;
4. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage,
landscaping, and surfacing;
5. Effect on off-site parking;
6. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;
7. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur;
8. Exterior lighting;
9. Effects on air and water quality;
10. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as;
a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding;
b. Noise; and
c. Dust;
11. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;
12. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation
and maintenance; and
13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and
preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage
areas, historic resources, cultural resources, or other significant natural resources.
Page 28
The applicant’s submittal includes a narrative describing and addressing Nos. 1 – 13
(Attachment 6).
COMPLIANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY CODE
As mentioned, the EPDC Section 5.1.T., requires “Compliance with Larimer County
Wireless Facilities Siting Regulations,” which has been addressed in the applicant’s
submittal. Staff has reviewed the application and the applicant’s comments regarding
compliance with these Larimer County Siting Regulations. Staff notes these are County
regulations that were in effect upon adoption of the EVDC (now EPDC). This is Larimer
County Code Section 16.0 Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities, specifically
Section 16.1.3. Requirements and Performance Standards and Section 16.1.4. Application.
At the February 23, 2021 Town Board presentation, staff discussed Sections 16.1.3. and
16.1.4. in detail, and emphasized the analysis and explanation that the applicant provided in
their application. This presentation provided a solid overview of the WCF’s compatibility
and overall impact.
The applicant’s comments addressing Section 16.1.3 and 16.1.4. are attached, as
Attachment 7. Staff finds the WCF application meets the Requirements and Performance
Standards and Application Requirements.
REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS
This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.
No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff. Staff notes no water or
wastewater service is needed for this proposed use, and there is existing access to the WCF
site.
The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department emailed comments for the project, including
requirements for stormwater and erosion control management. Public Works finds the existing
church infrastructure to be acceptable for construction and operation of the WCF.
The Estes Valley Fire District has reviewed the proposed antenna and facility, and provided
comments to the applicant regarding posting emergency contact information at the site, and
requiring a permit for construction activities involving “hot work” such as welding or blasting.
The Town of Estes Park Utilities has “no objections” to this project.
Applicant understands and is aware of agency requirements. Staff will monitor and ensure
compliance when permitting and construction are underway.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY MEETING
In accordance with the requirements in Section 3.2 of the EPDC, the applicant held a
Neighborhood and Community Meeting on December 15, 2020. Several people attended the
online meeting, where the applicant presented the project and answered general questions.
Page 29
Advantage:
•Provides for more efficient and effective wireless/cell coverage in the Town of Estes Park
and the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
•Although concealed as an evergreen tree, it is not evident that the WCF’s height is truly a
“stealth” facility, compared to the topography and surrounding topography and natural
features.
•It is not clear how the visual impact of the WCF is altered by the new multifamily
development adjacent to the proposed location.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Review application, with the following finding:
1.Staff finds that the proposed Wireless Communication Facility use would meet all
applicable and procedures, standards, and criteria as required within the Estes Park
Development Code.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
High. Two adjacent property owners spoke at the February 23, 2021 Town Board hearing.
Both were opposed to the proposed WCF. There have been comments submitted via email
available at the following link: www.estes.org/currentapplications
Sample Motions:
I move that the Town Board approve Resolution 17-21.
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Resolution 17-21A.
I move to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for
continuance.)
Attachments:
1.Resolution 17-21
a.Resolution 17-21A
2.Application
3.Statement of Intent
4.Verizon WCF Plan Set
5.Special Review Narrative
6.Larimer County Code Performance Standards Narrative
7.Engineering Necessity for WCF
8.Photo Simulation
Page 30
RESOLUTION 17-21
APPROVING AN S1 SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A STEALTH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 1575 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for an S1 Special Review for a “Wireless
Telecommunication Facility,” “Concealed (Stealth) Antenna” was filed by Verizon
Wireless (applicant); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is a 576 square foot leased area on a property
located at 1575 South Saint Vrain Avenue (State Highway 7), located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of South Saint Vrain Avenue and Peak View Drive; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within an A (Accommodations) Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the wireless communication facility (WCF) involves a leased area, 18
x 32 feet in size which will be fenced, and contain equipment cabinets and the tower,
which will be disguised as a pine tree (“Monopine”), 75 feet in height; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, preceded by proper public notice, was held by the
Board of Trustees on February 23, 2021 and at said hearing all those who desired to be
heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees finds the Wireless Communication Facility use
would meet all applicable and procedures, standards, and criteria as required within the
Estes Park Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The S1 Special Review for a “Wireless Telecommunication Facility,” “Concealed
(Stealth) Antenna,” is hereby approved.
Attachment 1
Page 31
DATED this day of , 2021.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 32
RESOLUTION 17-21A
DENYING AN APPLICATION ON S1 SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A STEALTH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 1575 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for an S1 Special Review for a “Wireless
Telecommunication Facility,” “Concealed (Stealth) Antenna” was filed by Verizon
Wireless (applicant); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is a 576 square foot leased area on a property
located at 1575 South Saint Vrain Avenue (State Highway 7), located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of South Saint Vrain Avenue and Peak View Drive; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within an A (Accommodations) Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, The wireless communication facility (WCF) involves a leased area, 18
x 32 feet in size which will be fenced, and contain equipment cabinets and the tower,
which will be disguised as a pine tree (“Monopine”), 75 feet in height; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, preceded by proper public notice, was held by the
Board of Trustees on February 23, 2021 and at said hearing all those who desired to be
heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees finds the Wireless Communication Facility use
would not meet all applicable and procedures, standards, and criteria as required within
the Estes Park Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
concerning a stealth wireless communication facility at 1575 S. Saint Vrain Avenue.
The application on S1 Special Review for a “Wireless Telecommunication Facility,”
“Concealed (Stealth) Antenna,” is hereby denied.
Attachment 1a
Page 33
DATED this day of , 2021.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 34
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR A STEALTH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 1575 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park received an
application at its meeting of February 23, 2021 for a stealth wireless communication
facility at 1575 S. St. Vrain Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the applicants submitting the application were Verizon Wireless and
Powder River Development Services, LLC; and
WHEREAS, the Board thereupon conducted a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all competent evidence presented and
incorporated into the public record.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Trustees makes the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law:
1.The application proposes a 75-foot tower for the purposes of facilitating
cellphone communications at 1575 S. St. Vrain Avenue. The tower was proposed to be
disguised as a pine tree, and ancillary facilities would include equipment cabinets and
fencing.
2.No concerns regarding the adequacy of public notice regarding the
application have been raised, and the application process has complied with all
notification requirements.
3.The applicant had the opportunity to present evidence in support of its
application, orally and in writing. The applicant had the opportunity to rebut all evidence
presented in opposition to the application.
4.Mr. Anthony Goddard testified in opposition to the application. He stated
that he resides at 1062 Tranquil Lane. He explained that his residence neighbors the
proposed tower, and the tower would impact the amenity and property value of his
residence. He refuted the applicant’s photographic simulations of the tower as failing to
represent the current situation, as more development has occurred in the viewshed and
the simulations do not illustrate the view from the adjacent property, which would be the
most significantly impacted. He noted that the tower would be completely surrounded by
residents in close proximity.
5.Mr. Joe Croteau testified in opposition to the application. He stated that he
resides at 1070 Tranquil Lane. He testified that the tower would harm property values,
and would scare people away from purchasing neighboring property. He explained that
Page 35
at least six or seven homes were located within 1000 feet of the proposed tower location,
and that this was too close. He noted that a 26-unit apartment complex was being
developed immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
6.The applicant responded that it was common to have such towers so close
to residences, and that residents appreciate the improvement in cellphone service from
such adjacent towers. The applicant claimed that the new adjacent development would
assist in shielding the tower from view.
7.The Board finds the testimony of Messrs. Goddard and Croteau to be
credible and compelling. The tower will loom over the view of a number of residences in
the immediate vicinity, creating significant aesthetic concerns that will impair the use and
enjoyment of the residences. These aesthetic concerns are likely to impair the property
values of these residences, thereby reduce investment in the neighborhood, and
detrimentally impact the flourishing of the neighborhood as a whole. Messrs. Goddard
and Croteau, as residents of the neighborhood, are best situated to understand these
concerns and impacts.
8.The applicant did not effectively rebut these concerns. The applicant
provided no evidence other than vague assertion that towers immediately adjacent to
residences actually enhance the quality of life of the residents, and Messrs. Goddard and
Croteau, as residents of the neighborhood, effectively established the opposite to be the
case. Furthermore, any shielding of the view of the tower from certain vantages would
come at the expense of the views from the new development immediately adjacent to the
proposed tower, and would still be insufficient to preserve the benefits of views from other
nearby residences.
9.The Board interprets the Town’s development code to require the denial of
a use by special review where certain concerns cannot be resolved. § 3.5(A), E.P.D.C.
The set of concerns which must be resolved is set forth in the code, and includes “[h]eight,
size, setback, and location of buildings and activities.” § 3.5(B)(11), E.P.D.C.
10.The Board finds that the tower is too high, too large, and too close to
neighboring residences to be compatible with those residences and the neighborhood as
a whole. Accordingly, the application fails to meet the criterion for approval set forth in
section 3.5(B)(11) of the development code, and must be denied.
11.The Board interprets the Town’s development code, section 5.1(T)(3), to
require this application to comply with section 16.1.3(C)(1) of the Larimer County Land
Use Code, in effect at the time of adoption of section 5.1(T), requiring “screening and
landscaping appropriate to the context of the site and in harmony with the character of
the surrounding environment.” The applicant acknowledges this requirement in its
narrative document, “Compliance with Larimer County Performance Standards,” in the
record before the Board. As explained by Messrs. Goddard and Croteau, the screening
and landscaping mitigation provided are far insufficient to protect the surrounding
residences from significant viewshed impacts. The disguise of the tower as a tree is
Page 36
insufficient to prevent these impacts. The camouflage is not consistent with other existing
natural or manmade features in or near the location where the tower would be located.
The camouflage would not hide the facility, as asserted by the applicant, because at 75
feet in height, it far exceeds the height and character of surrounding features. The tower
also far exceeds the height of the fencing, which would not shield it. While other trees
are situated nearby, the tower would not match the surrounding foliage, as shown in the
applicant’s own photo simulation. The tower would not be architecturally compatible with
the surrounding areas, and would not be sensitive to the residential character of the
surrounding properties. For these reasons, the tower would therefore be out of harmony
with the character of the surrounding environment. Accordingly, under the applicable
Larimer County Performance Standards which have been adopted by the Town, the
application must be denied.1
12.The Board heard concerns regarding the effects of radio frequency
emissions. However, the Board was advised that federal law prohibits it from taking such
concerns into consideration. The Board does not base any of its findings or conclusions
on any alleged effects of radio frequency emissions.
13.Accordingly, the Town Board denies this application, as required under the
Estes Park Development Code.
1 Larimer County has since amended its standards under Title 16 of the County’s Land Use Code, and
these amended standards have not yet been adopted by the Town. For the reasons set forth above, the
application would fail these amended standards as well.
Page 37
Revised 20
Condominium Map
Preliminary Map
Final Map
Development Plan
Special Review
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Final Subdivision Plat
Minor Subdivision Plat
Amended Plat
Project Description
Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres
Proposed Land Use
Town Well None
Town Well None
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic
Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No
Existing Gas Service Other None
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Are there wetlands on the site?Yes No
Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete?Yes No
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address
Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer
Existing Land Use
Existing Water Service
Attachments
Proposed Water Service
Site Access (if not on public street)
Please review the Estes Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which
may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report,
wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information.
Project Address
Parcel ID #
Legal Description
General Information
Boundary Line Adjustment
ROW or Easement Vacation
Street Name Change Time
Other: Please specify
Project Name
Supplemental Map
ESTES
APPLICATION
Type of Application
Submittal Date:
Site Information
Application fee
Statement of intent
copies (folded) of plat or plan
11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan
Xcel
Primary Contact Information
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment
Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to
planning@estes.org
A (no change)
COM AT CTR 1/4 COR OF SEC 35-5-72; ALSO BEG AT CTR 1/4 COR OF 31-5-72
September 15, 2020
FTC Pinewood
Jen Daniels
.01329 ACRES
Church with Telecom Tower
188,179
1575 S. Saint Vrain Ave
Verizon Wireless 75' Monopine Telecommunications Tower
PO Box 1006 Crested Butte CO 81224
Church
2531305931
A
n/a
Peak View Dr
Attachment 2
Page 38
Revised 20
Consultant/Engineer
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
DateApplicant
Record Owner
Applicant
Fax
Names:
Email
Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews,
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface
estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application
for development and meet the statutory requirements.
Phone
Cell Phone
Mailing Address
Applicant
Fax
Phone
Email
Contact Information
Phone
Cell Phone
Cell Phone
Mailing Address
Mailing Address
Record Owner(s)
Email
Signatures:
Fax
I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met.
MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION
APPLICATION FEES
For development within the Estes Town limits See the fee schedule included in your
application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
www.estes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf
All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Record Owner
rcandpc@lpbroadband.net
Mountain View Bible Fellowship , Archie Taylor VP
(970) 214-0913
Verizon Wireless
Mountain View Bible Fellowship
Archie R.Taylor
Verizon Wireless, Debbie Essert, Senior Real Estate Manager - Network
303-550-4820
9/14/2020
(970) 586-3395 (Main)
PO Box 1006 Crested Butte CO 81224
9/15/2020
1575 S Saint Vrain Ave, Estes Park CO 80517
Jen Daniels
9656 South Prosperity Road, West Jordan, Utah 84088
jen.daniels@powderriverdev.com
brandon.kiser3@verizonwireless.com
Page 39
Revised 20
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
Date
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the E DC.
http://www.estes.org/ComDev/DevCode
Record Owner
Applicant
Signatures:
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to
my property during the review of this application.
I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet
the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and
void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void.
I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
Record Owner
Applicant
I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
Names:
In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes
Development Code (E DC).
I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the E DC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Development Code is available online at:
Mountain View Bible Fellowship , Archie Taylor VP
Verizon Wireless, Debbie Essert, Senior Real Estate Manager - Network
9/14/2020Archie R. Taylor
Page 40
Oct 18th 2020
Town of Estes Park
Department of Community Development
Attn: Mr. Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Special Review Application- Proposed Wireless Communication Facility
Dear Mr. Woeber,
I am providing this letter to request the special review approval of proposed wireless
communication facility located on property owned by the Mountain View Bible Fellowship at 1575
S Saint Vrain Ave. Verizon Wireless proposes to construct a 75' stealth wireless communication
facility off of S St Vrain Ave. This facility will allow the expansion of Verizon wireless’ coverage in
the area and improve service for the community.
Enclosed you will find the following:
1)Completed original copy of the Town of Estes Park Development application
2)Check in the amount of $4520 for the application deposit, sign cost and application fee
3)2 sets of zoning drawings including site plan and survey, 1 11”x17” reduced copy, 1 electronic
copy
4)Narrative addressing compliance with the Town's special review requirements
5)Narrative addressing compliance with Larimer County's wireless communication facility
requirements
6)Exhibits
a. Maintenance Agreement (Exhibit A)
b. FAA Determination (Exhibit B)
c. Colocation Statement (Exhibit C)
d. Photo simulations (Exhibit D)
e. RF propagation maps and letter of explanation (Exhibit E)
f. Abandonment Statement (Exhibit F)
7)Copy of Community Meeting Attendance List and Discussion Points (will be emailed after
meeting on Oct 22nd)
8)Memory Stick containing electronic copies of application materials
Construction drawings and Tower design will be provided after zoning has been approved before
seeking building permits.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach me on my cell at (303)550-4820.
I look forward to working with you on this application.
Respectfully,
Jen Daniels
Site Acquisition Project Manager
Powder River Development Services, LLC
(303)550-4820 Cell
jen.daniels@powderriverdev.com
Powder River Development Services, LLC
408 S Eagle Road, Suite 200
Eagle, ID 83616
(208) 938-8844 office
(208) 938-8855 fax
www.powderriverdev.com
Attachment 3
Page 41
FTC PINEWOOD 1575 S SAINT VRAIN AVE.ESTES PARK, CO 80517 ALTURA LAND CONSULTING6551 S. REVERE PKWY., SUITE 165ENGLEWOOD, CO 90111CONTACT: JESSE LUGOOFFICE: (720)-888-1303EMAIL: jesse@alturaland.comVERIZON3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS16360 TABLE MOUNTAIN PARKWAYGOLDEN, CO 80403CONTACT: JEN DANIELSOFFICE: (303) 993-3239 X1216EMAIL: jdaniels@centerlinesolutions.comSHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGTITLE SHEETPROJECT DESCRIPTION:APPLICANT:PROPERTY CONTACT:NAME: FRED HESSPHONE: (970) 672-7399LEGAL DESCRIPTIONSEE SURVEYSITE ADDRESS:SITE PARCEL NUMBER:2531305931JURISDICTION:TOWN OF ESTES PARKLATITUDE AND LONGITUDE:PROPERTY OWNER:ZONING:A - ACCOMODATIONS 1:MOUNTAIN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIPPOWER COMPANY:TBDTELEPHONE COMPANY:TBDEXISTING USE:PROPOSED USE:UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITYSTARTING FROM 3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAY,AURORA, CO 80014:1. HEAD WEST ON S VAUGHN WAY2. TURN LEFT TO MERGE ONTO CO-83 N3. MERGE ONTO CO-83 N4. USE THE RIGHT 3 LANES TO TAKE THE INTERSTATE 225 N EXIT5. MERGE ONTO I-225 N6. USE THE LEFT 3 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 12A TO MERGE ONTO I-70 W TOWARD DENVER7. KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK TO CONTINUE ON I-270 W, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR FORT COLLINS/BOULDER8. CONTINUE ONTO US-36 W9. KEEP LEFT TO STAY ON US-36 W10. USE ANY LANE TO TURN LEFT TO STAY ON US-36 W11. TURN RIGHT ONTO US-36 W/5TH AVE/W MAIN ST12. CONTINUE TO FOLLOW US-36 W13. TURN LEFT ONTO 4TH ST14. TURN LEFT ONTO S ST VRAIN AVE15. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHTSITE INFORMATIONCONTACT INFORMATIONDRIVING DIRECTIONSVICINITY MAPSHEETDESCRIPTIONSHEET INDEXCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING LOCATIONS, CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE & SHALLIMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THEWORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAMENNOT TO SCALEHANDICAP REQUIREMENTS:FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION,HANDICAP ACCESS REQUIREMENT(S) DO NOT APPLYAPPROVALSAPPROVALSIGNATUREDATEVERIZON REPRESENTATIVEVERIZONRF ENGINEERSITE ACQUISITIONVERIZON CONSTRUCTIONMANAGERSITE OWNERLOCAL MAPNNOT TO SCALEKnow what'sbelow.CALLbefore you dig.CALL AT LEAST TWO WORKINGDAYS BEFORE YOU DIGUSANorthDIG ALERTTHE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIREDFOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECTON DRAINAGE; NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NOCOMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS NEW.GENERAL NOTESDO NOT SCALE DRAWINGSGENERAL PROJECT NOTESCODE COMPLIANCE1. PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF/HERSELF WITH THE SCOPE OF WORK AND ALL CONDITIONS AFFECTING THEPROPOSED PROJECT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF THEJOB SITE AND CONFIRM THAT WORK AS INDICATED ON THESE CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AS SHOWN PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFANY WORK.3. ALL FIELD MODIFICATION BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEAPPROVED IN WRITING BY A VERIZON REPRESENTATIVE.4. INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS PER THE MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS, U.N.O.5. NOTIFY VERIZON, IN WRITING, OF MAJOR DISCREPANCIES REGARDING THECONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND DESIGN INTENT. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING CLARIFICATIONS FROM AVERIZON REPRESENTATIVE AND ADJUSTING THE BID ACCORDINGLY.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS,METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PROCEDURES OF THE WORK UNDERTHE CONTRACT.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND FINISHESTHAT ARE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE THAT MAYOCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF A VERIZONREPRESENTATIVE.8. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RED-LINING THE CONSTRUCTION PLANSTO ILLUSTRATE THE AS-BUILT CONDITION OF THE SITE. FOLLOWING THE FINALINSPECTION BY VERIZON. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE VERIZON WITH ONECOPY OF ALL THE RED-LINED DRAWINGS.9. VERIFY ALL FINAL EQUIPMENT WITH VERIZON REPRESENTATIVE. ALL EQUIPMENTLAYOUT, SPECS, PERFORMANCE INSTALLATION AND THEIR FINAL LOCATION ARETO BE APPROVED BY VERIZON. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCOORDINATING HIS/HER WORK WITH THE WORK AND CLEARANCES REQUIRED BYOTHERS RELATED TO SAID INSTALLATIONS.ENGINEER:SITE ACQUISITION:SURVEYOR:PROJECT MANAGER:TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES EC, INC7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND, SUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121CONTACT: MIKE STRANDOFFICE: (801) 663-6441EMAIL:michael.strand@taec.netRF ENGINEER:VERIZON3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014CONTACT: RAM NANDIRAJUSITEx(1) PROPOSED MONOPINE (INSTALLED BY POLE MANUFACTURER)x(2) PROPOSED COLLAR MOUNTS (INSTALLED BY POLE MANUFACTURER)x(3) PROPOSED ANTENNA SECTOR MOUNTS (INSTALLED BY POLE MANUFACTURER)xINSTALL (1) PROPOSED CONCRETE MAT FOUNDATION FOR MONOPINE PER POLE MANUFACTURERxINSTALL (12) PROPOSED VZ PANEL ANTENNAS (4 PER SECTOR)xINSTALL (12) PROPOSED VZ RRUS (4 PER SECTOR)xINSTALL (3) PROPOSED VZ HYBRID CABLE(S)xINSTALL (2) PROPOSED VZ OVP NEAR ANTENNASxINSTALL (2) PROPOSED VZ CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PADSxINSTALL (2) PROPOSED VZ EQUIPMENT CABINETSxINSTALL (2) PROPOSED VZ RAYCAP IN EQUIPMENT CABINETxINSTALL (1) PROPOSED VZ GENERATORxINSTALL (1) PROPOSED VZ GPS ANTENNAxINSTALL PROPOSED VZ CANOPY OVER EQUIPMENTxINSTALL PROPOSED UTILITY H-FRAMExINSTALL PROPOSED UTILITIES-METER, ILC, SAFETY BOX, AND TELCO BOXxINSTALL PROPOSED CEDAR FENCExINSTALL PROPOSED VZ UTILITY TRENCHING FROM P.O.C. TO EQUIPMENT AREAxINSTALL 6' HIGH CEDAR FENCE WITH (1) DOUBLE SWING GATExINSTALL (1) PROPOSED VZ MICROWAVExINSTALL (2) PROPOSED VZ ODUSTECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES EC, INC7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVE, SUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121CONTACT: JOEL R. HARTMANOFFICE: (801) 463-1020 X 2107EMAIL:joel.hartman@taec.netT-1TITLE SHEETA-1A-2A-3SITE PLANELEVATIONSA-4ENLARGED SITE PLANEQUIPMENT PLANRF-1 ANTENNA PLANT-1UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITYCOLORADO STATE CODE COMPLIANCE:ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCALGOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TOPERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES:- 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE- 2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE- 2015 INTERNATIONAL TITLE 24- 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE- 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE- 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE- 2014 NFPA 70: NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE- 2012 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE- ANSI/TIA-222-G OR LATEST EDITION- LOCAL CODES AND AMENDMENTSFCC NOTE:THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FORRADIO FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 ANDSUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE ORFEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES.1575 S SAINT VRAIN AVE.ESTES PARK, CO 80517COUNTY:LARIMER COUNTYSITELS1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYT-2SPECIFICATION & PHOTO SHEETLS2TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLS3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYAttachment 4Page 42
SHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGSPECIFICATION& PHOTO SHEETCONTROL OR DATUM POINTTOP OF WALL1639.00SPOT ELEVATIONT.C. 1638.33F.L. 1631.00KEYED NOTEEQUIPMENT ORFIXTURE NUMBERSHEET WHERE DRAWNSECTION LETTERSHEET WHERE TAKENSHEET WHERE TAKENSHEET WHERE DRAWNREFERENCE LETTEROR NUMBERSCALE:SECTION OR DETAILSHEET WHERE DRAWNDETAIL NUMBERSHEET WHERE TAKENCENTERLINECLROUND/DIAMETERࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱࡱAPPROXIMATELYdPENNY16311631NEW CONTOUREXISTING CONTOURPROPERTY LINELEGEND OF SYMBOLS:COAX PORT NOTES:1. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL COAX PORTS TO BE ADDED AS NEED BY CONTRACTOR.2. ANY ADDITIONAL COAX PORTS TO BE INSTALLED BELOW THE EXISTING, WHERE POSSIBLE.3. CONTRACTOR TO INVESTIGATE INTERIOR OF SHLETER/ EQUIPMENT ROOM FOR CLEARESTPENETRATION POINT.4. ADDITIONAL COAX PORTS TO BE INSTALLED PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS.1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ERECTING TEMPORARY BARRICADES AND/OR FENCING TOPROTECT THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLREMOVE ALL TEMPORARY BARRIERS AND REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON THE SITECAUSED BY THIS CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF REPAIR IS THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY.2. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERALREQUIREMENTS.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL MEASUREMENTS AT THESITE PRIOR TO ORDERING ANY MATERIALS OR CONDUCTING ANY WORK.4. EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY THIS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REMOVEDFROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO GRADING ELEVATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSUREA SITE FREE OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE A CONSTRUCTION LAYDOWN AREA WITH THE PROPERTYOWNER. CONSTRUCTION LAYDOWN AREA SHALL BE FENCED-IN WITH TEMPORARY (45 DAY)CONSTRUCTION FENCE. THE TEMPORARY FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 6' HIGH CHAINLINK FABRIC AND IS TO BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION. LAYDOWN AREA ISTO BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AFTER FENCE REMOVAL.7. SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS CREATED FROM RECORD INFORMATION AND DOES NOTCONSTITUTE A LEGAL BOUNDARY SURVEY.8. THESE PLANS DO NOT ADDRESS THE SAFETY AND STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE. DURINGASSEMBLY AND ERECTION, WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ERECTOR. BASED ON THEMEANS AND METHODS CHOSEN BY THE ERECTOR.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETE PROJECT SCOPE OF WORKDEFINE UNDER THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR THIS PROJECT AND ALL ASSOCIATEATTACHMENTS AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED.THE RFP AND ALL ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS SHALL DEFINE THE COMPLETE PROJECT SCOPEOF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DOCUMENTSAND IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK.ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROJECT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ARE REQUIREDFOR THE COMPLETE PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR ALL WORK (EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, INSTALLATION, TESTING, ETC.) INDICATED IN ALLDOCUMENTS. THE RFP, VERIZON WIRELESS NETWORK STANDARDS AND PROJECT ADDEMDUMSAND CLARIFICATIONS ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO EACH OTHER. THE FORMAT OF THESPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWING NUMBERING PER DISCIPLINE IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPLYSEGREGATION OF SUB CONTRACTOR WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSIGN ALL SUBCONTRACTOR WORK AND VERIZON WIRELESS WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY CHANGE ORDERS FORINTERNAL CONTRACTOR WORK ASSIGNMENTS.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTING ALL RFP DOCUMENTS TO THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS. ALL RFP DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO INDICATE THE PROJECT SCOPE OFWORK. PARTIAL SUB CONTRACTOR DOCUMENT PACKAGES ARE HIGHLY DISCOURAGED.IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, REFERENCEDSTANDARDS. VERIZON WIRELESS STANDARDS, OR AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE PROVIDED THE DETAILED ANDEXTENSIVE INTERPRETATION. ANY WORK INSTALLED IN CONFLICT WITH THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER INTERPRETATIONS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO EXPENSE TOVERIZON WIRELESS.2. ALL ANTENNAS MUST BE PIM TESTED WITH IN 48 HOURS OF THEM BEING RECIVED BY THEINSTALLATION CONTRACTOR. THOSE RESULTS MUST BE SENT BACK TO THE VERIZONWIRELESS CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER AND EQUIPMENT ENGINEER WITHIN THE SAME 48 HOURS.IF YOU MISS THE 48 HR TIMELINE AND THE ANTENNAS DO NOT PASS UPON INSTALLATION,YOUR COMPANY WILL BE CHARGE FOR THE COST OF THE ANTENNAS FOR REPLACEMENT.3. ALL LOADS MUST BE SECURED PROPERLY TO THE VEHICLE OR TRAILER, VERIZON WIRELESSWILL PASS ALONG THE COST OF ANT REPLACEMENTS DUE TO DAMAGE OR LOSS WHETHER IT ISNEW OR USED.1. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ANTENNAS, MOUNTS AND TOWER HARDWARE PERMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS (OR AS REQUIRED BY THE OWNER/ PROVIDER).2. ALL BOLTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED PER AISC REQUIREMENTS.3. ANY GALVANIZED SURFACES THAT ARE DAMAGED BY ABRASION, CUTS, DRILLING OR FIELDWELDING DURING SHIPPING OR ERECTION SHALL BE TOUCH-UP WITH TWO COATS OF COLDGALVANIZING COMPOUND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A780.4. ANTENNA MOUNTS SHALL NOT BE USED AS A CLIMBING DEVICE. WORKER SHALL ALWAYS TIEOFF TO AN APPROVED CLIMBING POINT.5. SEE ALSO GENERAL ANTENNA NOTES ON SHEET RF1 (IF APPLICABLE).1. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL MAIN OVP, SECTOR BOXES, REMOTE RADIO HEADS, TOWERMOUNTED AMPLIFIERS, AND/ OR DIPLEXERS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.2. ALL BOLTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED PER AISC REQUIREMENTS.3. ANY GALVANIZED SURFACES THAT ARE DAMAGED BY ABRASION, CUTS, DRILLING OR FIELDWELDING DURING SHIPPING OR ERECTION SHALL BE TOUCH-UP WITH TWO COATS OF COLDGALVANIZING COMPOUND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A780.GENERAL PROJECT NOTES:GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES:ANTENNA MOUNTS & HARDWARE INSTALLATION NOTES:MAIN OVP, SECTOR BOX, RRH, TMA, & DIPLEXER INSTALLATION NOTES:VIEW OF PROPOSED SITE(LOOKING NORTH)VZW EXISTING EASEMENTVZW LEASE AREAVZW ACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENTVZW HYBRID CABLES/COAXVZW RRHSVZW DC POWERVZW FIBERVZW ANTENNASVZW PENETRATIONSVZW NEW WORK/UTILITY EASEMENTVZW WALL HATCHVZW EXISTINGVERIZON WIRELESS COLOR CODINGT-2Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTING PAVEDPARKING LOTEXISTING RESIDENCESHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGOVERALLSITE PLANOVERALL SITE PLAN1PROPOSED VZ EQUIPMENT& ANTENNA AREA, FORENLARGED SITE PLAN SEE:1A-22A-41A-4NPARCEL BOUNDARY LINEPA
R
C
E
L
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
L
I
N
E20'-0"PROPOSED VZACCESS EASEMENTEXISTING PAVED PARKING LOT& PROPOSED VZ 20' WIDEACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENTA-1PEAK VIEW DRS
S
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
EEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEPARCEL BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL BOUNDARY LINEPA
R
C
E
L
BO
U
N
D
A
R
Y
L
I
N
E
PARCEL BOUNDARY LINEEXISTING SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAYEXISTING UTILITY POLEW/ TRANSFORMEREXISTING OVERHEAD LINESEXISTING UTILITY POLEPROPOSED VZ POWER &TELCO DEMARCATION15'-0"SIDESETBACKEXISTING UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL LINESEXISTING UNDERGROUNDWATER MAIN
25'-0"FRONTSETBACK1
5
'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
25'-0"
FRONT
SETBACK 15'-0"SIDESETBACK15'-0"SIDESETBACKPROPOSED VZ 4" FIBER & 3" POWERCONDUITS IN U/G TRENCH TO BE3/$&('%<9(5,=21
PROPOSED VZ 3' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT3'-0"PROPOSED VZUTILITY EASEMENTEXISTING TREES/SHRUBS/LANDSCAPING (TYP.)3
5
'
-
4
"93'-7"Page 47
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTSHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGENLARGEDSITE PLAN1ENLARGED SITE PLANNA-2NEW VZW ANTENNA AREA,SEE ANTENNA PLAN :1RF-1NEW VZW EQUIPMENT AREA,SEE EQUIPMENT PLAN:1A-3EXISTING PAVEDPARKING LOTEXISTING UNDERGROUNDTELCO LINESEXISTING OVERHEADTRANSMISSION LINESEXISTING DIRT AREAEXISTING PINE TREESPARCEL BOUNDARY LINE1
5
'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K15'-0" SETBACK LINE32'-0"PROPOSED VZ LEASE AREA18'-0"PROPO
S
E
D
V
Z
L
E
A
S
E
A
R
E
A
20'-0"PROPO
S
E
D
V
Z
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T PROPOSED VZ 4" FIBER & 3" POWERCONDUITS IN U/G TRENCH TO BE3/$&('%<9(5,=21
PROPOSED VZ 3' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT3'-0"PROPOSED VZUTILITY EASEMENTEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING PINE TREESEXISTING PINE TREESEXISTING PINE TREEEXISTING PAVEDPARKING LOT
1'-0"
TYP.
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT1'-0"
TYP
.EXISTING UTILITY POLEPROPOSED VZ POWER &TELCO DEMARCATIONEXISTING EDGEOF PAVEMENTEXISTING UNDERGROUNDPOWER & TELCO LINES
Page 48
PROPOSED VZ 4" FIBER & 3" POWERCONDUITS IN U/G TRENCH TO BE3/$&('%<9(5,=21
PROPOSED VZW EQUIPMENTCABINET W/ PLINTH (3 TOTAL)PROPOSED VZW RAYCAP INEQUIPMENT CABINET, 3 TOTAL)PROPOSED VZWSAFETY BOXPROPOSED VZ 20' WIDEACCESS EASEMENTSHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGEQUIPMENTPLANNOTE:1. VZ SHALL VERIFY & APPROVE ALL EQUIPMENT& CABINET LOCATIONS PRIOR TO THEIR INSTALLATION.2. CANOPY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.A-31EQUIPMENT PLANPROPOSED VZWGENERATORPROPOSED VZWTELCO BOXPROPOSED VZW METER &DISCONNECT SWITCHATTACHED TO H-FRAMEPROPOSED VZWACCESS GATEPROPOSED VZW CEDAR FENCEPROPOSED VZW ILC BOXDOUBLE STACKED BELOWN352326('9=:,&(%5,'*(
9'-0"18'-0"PROPOSED VZW LEASE AREA & PROPOSED VZW FENCEPROPOSED VZW GPS ANTENNAMOUNTED ON ICE BRIDGE POSTPROPOSED VZW UTILITY+)5$0(
:,'(PROPOSED VZW CONCRETEEQUIPMENT PAD, TYP.PROPOSED VZ 3' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT3'-0
"PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
V
Z
UTI
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T9'-0"32'-0"PROPOSED VZW LEASE AREA & PROPOSED VZW FENCEPROPOSED 70'-0" HIGHMONOPINE, OVERALLHEIGHT 75' (DESIGNED BYPOLE MANUFACTURER)PROPOSED VZWACCESS GATE4'-0"PROPOSED VZW EQUIPMENTCABINET W/ PLINTH (3 TOTAL)11'-0"PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD9'-4 1/2"10'-0"PROPOSED CANOPY18'-0"
PROPOS
E
D
V
Z
W
L
E
A
S
E
A
R
E
A
&
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
V
Z
W
F
E
N
C
E
17'-6"PROPO
S
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
D
11'-4 1/2"2'-10", TYP.PROPOSED VZWSERVICE LIGHTPROPOSED VZW GENERATORREMOTE MANUAL STOPDOUBLE STACKED ABOVE11'-0"
PROPOS
E
D
C
A
N
O
P
Y
3"
3"Page 49
PROPOSED VZWCEDAR FENCEPROPOSED VZW GPSANTENNA MOUNTEDTO ICE BRIDGE POSTSHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGELEVATIONSA-4PROPOSED VZW GPSANTENNA MOUNTEDTO ICE BRIDGE POSTFINISH SURFACEELEV. 0'-0" REFFINISH SURFACEELEV. 0'-0" REFNOTE:1. MONOPINE: PANEL ANTENNAS AND APPURTENANCESTO BE PAINTED GREEN TO MATCH PINE FOLIAGE.2. ANTENNA SOCKS WILL BE ADDED TO FURTHERSTEALTH THE FACILITY.PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONPROPOSED WEST ELEVATION21CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED VZW ANTENNAS AND MICROWAVEELEV. 60'-0" AGLTOP OF PROPOSED VZW ANTENNASELEV. 64'-0" AGLTOP OF PROPOSED MONOPINEELEV. 70'-0" AGLPROPOSED VZW RRUS (4 PERSECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)PROPOSED 70'-0" HIGHMONOPINE, OVERALLHEIGHT 75' (DESIGNED BYPOLE MANUFACTURER)PROPOSED MONOPINEFOLIAGE (DESIGNED BYPOLE MANUFACTURER)PROPOSED VZW RRUS (4 PERSECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)PROPOSED MONOPINEFOLIAGE (DESIGNED BYPOLE MANUFACTURER)CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED VZW ANTENNAS AND MICROWAVEELEV. 60'-0" AGLTOP OF PROPOSED VZW ANTENNASELEV. 64'-0" AGLTOP OF PROPOSED MONOPINEELEV. 70'-0" AGLPROPOSED VZWCEDAR FENCEPROPOSED VZW CANOPYOVER EQUIPMENTOVERALL HEIGHTELEV. 75'-0" AGLOVERALL HEIGHTELEV. 75'-0" AGLPROPOSED COLLAR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 2)PROPOSED VZW OVP ONMONOPOLE, 2 TOTALPROPOSED SECTOR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 3)PROPOSED VZW OVP ONMONOPOLE, 2 TOTALPROPOSED COLLAR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 2)PROPOSED SECTOR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 3)PROPOSED VZW CANOPYOVER EQUIPMENTPROPOSED VZ ANTENNA ONDUAL MOUNT BRACKET (4 PERSECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)PROPOSED VZ ANTENNA ONDUAL MOUNT BRACKET (4 PERSECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)PROPOSED 70'-0" HIGHMONOPINE, OVERALLHEIGHT 75' (DESIGNED BYPOLE MANUFACTURER)PROPOSED VZ 2' MICROWAVE(RFS SC2-190CB) AND (2) ODUS(AVIAT ODU600) (1 TOTAL)PROPOSED VZ 2' MICROWAVE(RFS SC2-190CB) AND (2) ODUS(AVIAT ODU600) (1 TOTAL)Page 50
SHEET TITLESHEET NUMBERUNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.UTAH MARKET OFFICE7896 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVESUITE 200COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT 84121REVDESCRIPTIONDATEBYREVDESCRIPTIONDATEBY3131 SOUTH VAUGHN WAYAURORA, CO 80014PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONAISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW05/14/2018RKSBISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/07/2018RKSCISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW09/27/2018RKSDISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW10/18/2018RKSEISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW01/07/2020CMBFISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW02/21/2020CMBGISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW04/14/2020RKSHISSUED FOR ZD REVIEW12/21/2020RGANTENNAPLANPROPOSED ANTENNA PLAN1A1A2B1B2G1G2A3A4B3B4G3G4RF-1PROPOSED VZ ANTENNA ON DUAL MOUNT BRACKET(4 PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)N BNG
N A
PROPOSED VZW RRUS (4 PERSECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 12 TOTAL)PROPOSED DRIP LINE (TYP.)PROPOSED VZW OVP ON MONOPOLE,2 TOTALPROPOSED COLLAR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 3)PROPOSED SECTOR MOUNT(INSTALLED BY POLEMANUFACTURER) (TYP. OF 3)PROPOSED VZW DUAL ANTENNA MOUNTINGBRACKET COMMSCOPE BSAMNT-SBS-2-2(2 PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS, 6 TOTAL)8'-6"TYP.5'-8"TYP.PROPOSED 70'-0" HIGH MONOPINE,OVERALL HEIGHT 75' (DESIGNEDBY POLE MANUFACTURER)PROPOSED VZ 2' MICROWAVE(RFS SC2-190CB) AND (2) ODUS(AVIAT ODU600) (1 TOTAL)Page 51
PROPOSED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY- SPECIAL REVIEW NARRATIVE
For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable:
1.The proposed use and its operations;
Response:
Verizon proposed to site and construct a 75’ stealth wireless communication facility on property
owner by Mountain View Bible Fellowship. The facility will be located off S Saint Vrain Ave and will be
disguised as a pine tree. The facility will be secured by a 18’x32’ six foot cedar fence. The
facility will also contain Verizon’s ground equipment and antennas on the tower. This facility will
allow the expansion of Verizon’s wireless coverage to the area. Additionally, the tower will be
structurally designed to accommodate other wireless carriers such as AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile in
the future. The site will be unoccupied and only require routine maintenance site visits whose
typical frequency is once monthly.
2.Traffic generation including a traffic impact study if determined necessary by the Decision-
Making Body;
Response:
As noted above, once the site has been constructed and installed, it will only require routine
maintenance visits. These involve a truck or small van visiting the site, on average, once a month.
This will not generate any significant traffic.
3.Existing zoning compatibility;
Response:
Verizon and the MVBF have agreed upon a location that is buffered from any significant
development and is towards the back of the churches overall property.
Additionally, it has been designed as a pine tree and located among an existing tree stand to blend
into its surroundings. It is a permitted uses at a height of 30’ or less, however, to allow Verizon’s coverage
goals and minimize the potential for new towers in the area in the future, the site is being proposed
for a height that requires a special review process.
Attachment 5
Page 52
4.Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and
surfacing;
Response:
The Church has parking and turnaround at the facility for the tower.
No landscaping has been proposed for two reasons. Firstly, the facility’s base will be screened by an
opaque wooden fence, thereby minimizing views of the ground equipment. Secondly, the facility’s
location is amongst existing trees which already provide a natural buffer and screen from surrounding
viewpoints.
5.Effect on off-site parking;
Response:
Due to the fact that this shall be an unoccupied facility it will have no impact on off-site parking.
6.Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;
Response:
As noted above, Verizon will be utilizing an existing road (S Saint Vrain Ave and Peak View Drive ) to access the
property. property.
7.Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur;
Response:
The facility will be operational 24 hours a day. However, it will be unoccupied and therefore
generate negligible traffic. The only traffic will be for routine maintenance
8.Exterior lighting;
Response:
The tower requires no lighting and therefore will generate no glare or light.
Page 53
9.Effects on air and water quality;
Response
The tower generates no effluent or air emissions. Therefore, it will have no effect on either air or
water quality.
10. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as;
a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding;
b. Noise; and
c. Dust;
Response:
The proposed facility requires no lighting and will be disguised as a pine tree. Therefore, it will emit
no glare. The nature of the use also confirms that it will generate no noise or dust. Consequently, it
will have no negative impact or disturbance to neighboring property owners.
10.Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;
Response:
The stealth pine tree will be 75’ in height. It has been set 16’7" from the nearest property lines and
will be enclosed within a 6’ wooden fence. Verizon’s equipment will be contained within the proposed
fenced compound.
11.Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and
maintenance; and
Response:
No dikes, berms or landscaping are being proposed as part of this project. However, the overall
maintenance of the facility will be covered on a regular basis by Verizon. A copy of the proposed
maintenance plan has been included for disclosure purposes.
Page 54
13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of
existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, cultural
resources, or other significant natural resources.
Response:
Verizon commits to minimal intrusion to the existing landscape as part of this project. Only trees and
vegetation located at the compound shall be removed. The facility will have no impact on water
resources as it requires none for its operation and the small footprint of the facility will not negatively
impact any drainage areas.
Additionally, a copy of Verizon's Phase I has been included with this application. The applicant is also
required to comply with all State and Federal requirements in order to operate the facility including
historic, cultural and natural resources.
Page 55
COMPLIANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
As required under Chapter 5.1 T (3) of the Town of Estes Park Development Code, all proposed wireless
telecommunications facilities shall comply with the purpose and standards set forth in the Larimer
County Land Use Code “Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities” except as where noted. Any
exceptions shall be detailed.
Below are the performance standards of Larimer County and confirmation as to how the proposed
Verizon facility shall comply.
16.1.3. - Requirements and performance standards.
A.Antenna tower and equipment setbacks.
1.Attached antennas. Attached antennas and other appurtenances may encroach up to two feet
into the minimum building setbacks in the underlying zoning district but must not extend over
property lines.
Response
N/A- Proposed project is a stealth tower.
2.Concealed antennas, microcell antenna towers and temporary antenna towers. Minimum
setbacks for concealed antennas, microcell antenna towers and temporary antenna towers are
the same as the minimum building setbacks in the underlying zoning district.
Response:
The proposed concealed antenna is 75’ in height and meets the minimum building setback
in the A zone district of ten feet from the side yard and ten feet from the rear yard
3.Antenna towers, other than concealed antennas, microcell antenna towers and temporary
antenna towers. Minimum setbacks for antenna towers, other than concealed antennas,
microcell antenna towers and temporary antenna towers, are as follows:
a.From property lines of properties in the B, C, I, and I-1 zones: 30 percent of tower height but
not less than minimum building setbacks in the underlying zoning district.
b.From property lines of properties in the E, E-1, RE, RE-1, R, R-1, R-2, FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1, M,
M-1, A, T, O, PD and AP zones: 100 percent of tower height but not less than minimum
building setbacks in the underlying zoning district.
Response:
The proposed 75’ stealth tower is a concealed antenna and therefore this is n/a
Attachment 6
Page 56
4.Guy wires and equipment buildings and cabinets. Minimum setbacks for guy wires and
equipment buildings and cabinets are the same as minimum building setbacks in the underlying
zoning district.
Response:
Verizon’s equipment cabinet shall meet building setbacks. Therefore, this requirement has
been satisfied.
B.Equipment design.
1.Attached antennas on a roof may extend up to 15 feet over the height of the building or structure
and may exceed the underlying zoning district height limitation. Attached antennas mounted on
a building or structure wall must be as flush to the wall as technically possible and must not
project above the top of the wall. Attached antennas must be located, painted and/or screened
to be architecturally and visually compatible with the building it is attached to.
Response:
Due to the nature of the proposed facility, this section is not applicable.
2.Microcell and temporary antenna towers may contain up to three whip or panel antennas. Panel
antennas may project up to one foot beyond the edge of the tower structure. Microcell and
temporary antenna tower structures may be up to one foot wide. Use of wood poles is
encouraged.
Response:
Due to the nature of the proposed facility, this section is not applicable.
3.Antenna towers must be painted or coated in a color that blends with the surrounding building
and natural environment, unless state or federal regulations require different colors.
Response:
The proposed facility will be a stealth pine tree, including branches and body color that are
consistent with other trees. This will blend into the natural landscape. Therefore, this
requirement has been satisfied.
4.Antenna towers must not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other state or
federal agency. If safety lighting is required, the use of red beacons is preferred to flashing strobe
lights. Security lighting on the site may be mounted up to 20 feet high and must be directed
toward the ground to reduce light pollution, prevent offsite light spillage and avoid illuminating
the tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the facility, light fixtures used to
illuminate sports fields, parking lots or similar areas may be included in the facility.
Page 57
Response:
Verizon’s proposed facility will not be artificially lit. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
5.Equipment buildings must be compatible with the architectural style of the surrounding building
environment with consideration given to exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture
and character. Equipment buildings must be constructed with materials that are equal to or
better than the materials of the principal use. Equipment cabinets must be located, painted
and/or screened to be architecturally and visually compatible with the surrounding building and
natural environment.
Response:
The proposed facility’s anchor tenant, Verizon, will be using equipment cabinets. They will be
located within an opaque fenced compound. Additionally, this facility will be locating amongst
existing trees that buffer it from surrounding property owners. The cabinet’s color will be a neutral
color that is visually compatible with the natural environment. Therefore this requirement has been
satisfied.
6.Equipment must not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. However, this does not
apply to generators used in emergency situations where the regular power supply for a facility is
temporarily interrupted. It also does not apply to air conditioners or noise made during regular
maintenance and upkeep of the facility and site.
Response:
The proposed facility will not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. The tower
will generate no noise and Verizon’s equipment cabinets are such that they generate negligible
noise. The generator proposed will only be used for emergency purposes and will produce minimal
noise. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
C.Site design.
1.Screening and landscaping appropriate to the context of the site and in harmony with the
character of the surrounding environment is required when any part of the facility is visible from
a public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Natural materials must normally be used for
screening and fencing; however, wire fencing is permitted when the fencing cannot be seen from
the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Fencing may be up to six feet high. If a facility
fronts on a public street, street trees must be planted along the roadway to provide additional
screening.
Response:
Verizon is not proposing additional landscaping at the facility due to several factors. Firstly, it has
sited the stealth pine tree amongst existing trees in the back of the parcel. Additionally, the use
of a stealth facility instead of a traditional monopole,
Page 58
will hide the site’s use from surrounding views. Also important to note, it has employed an
opaque wood fence which blends well with the natural surroundings and will provide
screening of the compound interior from surrounding views.
2. Existing vegetation and grades on the site must be preserved as much as possible.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges and will comply with this requirement.
3.Signage at the site is limited to nonilluminated warning and equipment identification signs. This
does not apply to concealed antennas incorporated into freestanding signs.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges and will comply with this requirement.
4.CMRS facilities, except those in the B, C, I, and I-1 zones, must not include manned offices,
longterm vehicle storage or other outdoor storage, or other uses not needed to send, receive or
relay transmissions.
Response:
This will be an unoccupied facility that employs no vehicle storage or other outdoor storage
other than for the carrier’s required ground equipment cabinet. It will be visited only for
routine maintenance. Verizon acknowledges and will comply with this requirement.
D.Co-location on antenna towers.
1.CMRS providers must not exclude other providers from co-locating on the same tower when co-
location is structurally, technically or otherwise possible.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges this requirement and has provided a written statement committing to
allow future colocation. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
Page 59
2.In addition to equipment proposed for the applicant's use, proposed antenna towers (excepting
concealed antennas) and sites must be designed to accommodate co-location of one additional
CMRS provider for every 40-foot segment of tower height over 40 feet.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges this requirement and will be constructing the tower to allow future
colocation by carriers such as AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Please refer to the proposed tower
designs confirming that the tower will be designed to accommodate multiple tenants.
Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
3. The county commissioners may reduce the required shared capacity if an antenna tower
necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and adversely alters the area's visual character.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges this requirement but is committed to allowing future tenants to collocate on the
site.
4.The county commissioners may revoke a tower building permit or other administrative approvals
if conditions for approval of an antenna tower include co-location but:
a.The tower owner is not willing to provide space for other carriers at a fair market rate when
it would not impair the structural integrity of the tower or cause interference; or
b.The tower owner modifies the structure in a way to make co-location impractical or
impossible. If approval is revoked, the facility must be removed at the owners' expense.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges this requirement.
5.Addition of equipment for co-location of additional CMRS providers or for existing CMRS
providers on existing antenna towers and sites does not require the special review process if the
tower height remains unchanged. Addition of equipment for co-location of additional CMRS
providers or for existing CMRS providers on existing legal, nonconforming antenna towers is not
considered a nonconforming use expansion and is exempt from subsection 4.8 (nonconformities),
if the tower height remains unchanged. Appropriate permits are required for the addition of any
equipment.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges this statement.
Page 60
E.Abandonment. CMRS facilities are considered abandoned if they are unused by all providers at the
facility for a period of 180 days. The planning director will determine if a CMRS facility has been
abandoned. The planning director has the right to request documentation from the facility owner
regarding tower or antenna usage. Upon abandonment, the facility owner has 90 days to:
1.Reuse the facility or transfer the facility to another owner who will reuse it; or
2.Dismantle the facility. If the facility is not removed within 90 days of abandonment, the county
may pursue enforcement subject to the provisions of section 21, Enforcement. If the facility is
removed, county approval of the facility is null and void.
Response:
Verizon acknowledges and will comply with this requirement.
16.1.4. - Application.
A.Application contents. Applications for administrative or special review approval of proposed CMRS
facilities, and additions or modifications to existing facilities, must include the following:
1.A site plan showing the location and legal description of the site; on-site land uses and zoning;
adjacent roadways; parking and access; areas of vegetation and landscaping to be added,
retained, replaced or removed; setbacks from property lines; and the location of the facility,
including all related improvements and equipment.
Response:
Please refer zoning drawing for site plan identification of the location, legal description of the site, on
site land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways including access. Area of vegetation are also included.
The setbacks from property lines are noted as well as the facility’s location. Therefore, this
requirement has been satisfied.
2.A vicinity map showing adjacent properties, general land uses, zoning and roadways:
a.Within 100 feet of a proposed attached antenna site;
b.Within a distance of (tower height × five) of a proposed concealed antenna, temporary
antenna tower or microcell antenna tower site; and
c.Within a distance of (tower height × ten) of a proposed antenna tower site.
Response:
The vicinity map can be found in the zoning drawings and additional attached map in the
electronic submission detailing the adjacent properties including land uses, zoning and
roadways. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
Page 61
3.Elevation drawings of the proposed facility showing all antennas, towers, structures, equipment
buildings and cabinets, fencing, screening, landscaping, lighting and other improvements related
to the facility, showing specific materials, placement and colors.
Response:
Elevation drawings including antennas, structures, cabinets, fencing and other improvements
can be found in the zoning drawings. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
4.Photo-realistic renderings (photosyms) of the site after construction, demonstrating the true
impact of the facility on the surrounding visual environment. The planning director may request
photo-realistic renderings of the site from specific vantage points. This requirement does not
apply to facilities permitted under the administrative review process unless the planning director
requests such information.
Response:
Verizon has included a photosim. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
5.A report describing the facility and the technical, economic (if deemed necessary by the planning
director) and other reasons for its design and location; the need for the facility and its role in the
network; and the capacity of the structure, including the number and type of antennas it can
accommodate.
Response:
Verizon has provided RF propagation maps and an engineering necessity case(Exhibit E) detailing the lack of coverage to the area as
well as the proposed increase in coverage. The primary objective of this project is to improve service quality and provide new
coverage in south eastern portions Estes Park along Highway 7 and Park View Drive.
The existing server site “1435 Prospect Mountain Drive” is obstructed by terrain / foliage. This is causing the signal to be shadowed
along Highway 7 and Peak View Drive.
This proposed site (PINEWOOD) at 75 feet will fill the coverage hole on Highway 7 and Peak View Drive with better quality signal in
this area. Detail is provided supporting these issues in slides 8-13.
Our engineering data shows that this area is experiencing 4G data overloads (See slide 13). The existing serving sector at “1435
Prospect Mountain Drive” beta sector has a huge footprint as denoted in slide 12. The proposed site will provide offload to that
sector and also improve coverage in that area as shown in slides 8-13.
FTC Pinewood is being designed to accommodate 12 antennas for their use. Verizon is also committed to allowing colocation on
the proposed tower to accommodate multiple wireless tenants.
FTC Pinewood was originally proposed on the golf course, however this design was rejected by the city. We then re-located it to where
is it because we were looking at locating at the highest elevation in the desired RF location that met the zoning criteria. Within RFs
search ring criteria with a concealed design we are permitted to locate in Accomodations, residential, Estate or Commercial zones. 1575
Provided the most height and most concealed location. If we were to drop down into the Commercial heavy zone to the south we
lose 70ft in elevation, severely lessening the effectiveness of the tower. All other surrounding parcels are residential/estates, leaving
the church as the best suitable location. Initially we proposed a rooftop design, however this was not permissible from the LL which is
why we moved to the monopine design. For the location and area this is provides the most height, and is most shielded from view
from the road and neighborhood.
6.The FAA response to the notice of proposed construction or alteration (FAA Form 7460-1 or
equivalent), if the facility is located near an airport or a flight path.
Response:
Verizon has included a copy of the FAA determination letter, documenting that the tower will
not require lighting and poses no threat to aviation. Therefore this requirement has been
satisfied.
Page 62
7.An agreement detailing responsibility for landscaping, screening and site maintenance and the
replacement of dead landscaping.
Response:
Verizon has included a copy of the overall site maintenance agreement under Exhibit B.
Therefore this requirement has been satisfied.
8. A schedule for the installation of landscaping and screening, if applicable.
Response:
Due to the proposal’s particulars, including location, stealth design, and existing natural
buffer Verizon is not proposing landscaping.
9.A letter of intent to allow co-location on the antenna tower as provided in subsection 16.1.3.D
(co-location), if the antenna tower is over 40 feet.
Response:
Verizon has included a notarized statement confirming that it will allow colocation as
provided in subsection 16.1.3.D since the proposed facility is over 40 feet.
Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
10.A letter of intent to remove the facility at the expense of the facility and/or property owner if it
is abandoned, as provided in subsection 16.1.3.E (abandonment). The planning director may
request additional copies of any submittal item for review by other agencies.
Response:
Verizon shall assume all financial responsibility to remove the site if it becomes
abandoned as provided in subsection 16.1.3.E. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
B.Facility inventory. The first application in a calendar year (January through December) for a proposed
CMRS facility by a provider must include a detailed inventory of all the provider's existing and
approved facilities within Larimer County, all incorporated areas within the county, and one mile
beyond the county border, including Wyoming.
Response:
Verizon has included a detailed inventory of all any facilities in Larimer County, including one
mile beyond the border. Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.
Page 63
Verizon Wireless
Communications Facility
Engineering Necessity Case –PINEWOOD
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Prepared by: Bryan Eicens
October 13, 2020
Insert Photosim or Site Photo
Rev. 1/18
Attachment 7
Page 64
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Project Need Overview:
The primary object of this project is to improve service quality and provide new coverage in
southeastern portions Estes Park along Highway 7 and Park View Drive.
The existing server site “1435 Prospect Mountain Drive” is obstructed by terrain / foliage. This is
causing the signal is shadowed along Highway 7 and Peak View Drive. This proposed site
(PINEWOOD) at 75 feet will fill the coverage hole on Highway 7 and Park View Drive with better
quality signal in this area. Detail is provided supporting these issues in slides 8-13.
Our engineering data shows that this area is experiencing 4G data overloads (See slide 13). The
existing serving sector at “1435 Prospect Mountain Drive” beta sector has a huge footprint as denoted
in slide 12. The proposed site will provide offload to that sector and also improve coverage in that area
as shown in slides 8-1 3.
Additional details and explanations follow in this presentation.
Page 65
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Introduction:
Coverage and/or capacity deficiencies are the two main drivers that prompt the need for a new
wireless communications facility (WCF). Most WCF provide a mixture of both capacity and coverage
for the benefit of the end user.
Coverage describes the existence or lack of wireless service in an area. The request for improved
service often comes from our customers or emergency services personnel that have no service or
poor service. Coverage used to refer to the ability to make or place a call in vehicles, however, as
usage patterns have shifted, coverage is now determined based on whether or not sufficient WCF
exist to provide a reliable signal inside of buildings and residential areas, as well. Historically, when
wireless was still in its infancy, coverage was the primary means to measure the effectiveness of the
network in a given area.
Capacity is the metric used to determine if sufficient wireless resources exist and is now the primary
means to measure how a community’s wireless needs are being addressed. “Five bars” no longer
means guaranteed coverage and capacity because each WCF has a limited amount of resources to
handle voice calls, data connections and data volume. When these limits are reached and the WCF
becomes overloaded (meaning there is more demand than signal to service it), the user experience
quickly degrades preventing customers from making/receiving calls or getting applications to run. A
WCF short on capacity could also make internet connections time out or delay information to
emergency response personnel.
Page 66
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Coverage is best shown via coverage maps. RF engineers use tools that take into
account terrain, vegetation, building types, and WCF specifics to model the existing
coverage and prediction what we expect to see with the addition of a proposed WCF.
Coverage also changes depending on which frequencies are used. Most phones today
use 3G at 800 MHZ or 4G at 700 MHz spectrum which are considered low frequencies.
Low frequencies can travel further distances than then the higher 1900 MHz and 2100
MHz frequencies now being employed due to increased capacity demands. Operating at
higher frequencies makes it necessary for carriers to install substantially more wireless
facilities to achieve the same coverage as one tower operating on the lower frequencies.
Explanation of Wireless Coverage
Page 67
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Capacity is the amount of resources that a WCF has to service customer demand.
Verizon utilizes sophisticated programs and customer feedback to monitor current usage
trends and to forecast future needs. Because it takes an average of 2 -3 years to complete
a WCF, we have to start the process of adding a new WCF several years in advance of
when the WCF will be needed.
Location, Location, Location. A good capacity WCF needs to be in the center of a user
population which insures that traffic is evenly distributed around the WCF. A typical WCF
is configured into three sectors (like a pie cut into three pieces), with each slice (sector)
having 33% of the WCF resources. If one sector is under-utilized, it’s resources can not
necessarily be diverted to another sector. Therefore, optimal performance is only
obtained when all three sectors have an even traffic distribution.
Explanation of Wireless Capacity
Page 68
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Wireless Data Growth
Each year Verizon sees large increases in how much data its customers need. As the resolution of the pictures we
send increases, the quality of the video we watch improves and the complexity of the applications grow, we
commonly see tremendous growth year-over-year. [Insert latest growth info from COMET web page and citing the
source]
Machine to Machine communications will also increase the data burden on wireless networks, as over the next five
(5) years more and more services that improve our safety and make our lives easier will be available over the
wireless infrastructure , such as:
-Cars that notify 911 when an airbag deploys.
-“Driverless” cars needing traffic data and maps to reach your destination as quickly as possible.
-Medical monitors that will alert us should a loved one neglect taking their prescription drugs.
-Home alarms that notify you when your child arrives home from school.
-Smart street lights that notify the city when they are not working.
-City garbage cans that let people know when they need to be emptied.
-Tracking watches will aid in finding lost Alzheimer patients.
Explanation of Wireless Data Growth
Page 69
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
A common question received is “Are the radio emissions safe?”
Verizon goes to great effort to ensure that all of its projects meet the standards established by the FCC to ensure
safety of the public and its employees.The links below are to three reputable organizations that have performed
extensive reviews of the science available on this subject and have good educational articles on the results of their
research.
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/peh -emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
America Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone -towers
FCC Radio Frequency Safety
https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency -safety -0
Radio Emission Safety…
Page 70
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE AWS1 -Existing Coverage without proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 71
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE AWS1 -End of 2020 Coverage without proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 72
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE AWS1 -Proposed Coverage with proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 73
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE 700 -Existing Coverage without proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 74
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE 700 -End of 2020 Coverage without proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 75
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
LTE 700 -Proposed Coverage with proposed site
Proposed Site
Future Site
Page 76
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
The proposed will improve both capacity and coverage in the highlighted area in red. The plots above show the areas that each s ite / sector areas of
service in a different color. The left map shows what existing coverage with the overloaded sector showing in pink. The right map shows the area this
new site will cover encircled in red. This project will improve service by providing necessary capacity to support the growth we are seeing in 4G data
traffic. The Yellow, red, and gray areas around the proposed site will see much better service
Serving Sector Maps:
Best Server with proposed siteBest Server without proposed site
Proposed SiteCurrent server for this area
Page 77
Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distributi on of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.
Summary:”SHINING” site is located at 1425 Prospect Mountain Drive. The beta sector of this site that we are trying to offload has been
a triggering sector during the summer months and exceeds capacity. This sector covers a large area as shown in slide 14 (it is the sector
denoted by the red color in the map). The proposed site (PINEWOOD) will offload traffic at “SHINING” site.
Detail below :
The graph above shows ASEU (Average Eligible Users per TTI) which is a measurement of the customer data usage that this sector
currently serves. The green line shows the daily data use on this sector of the wireless facility site. The red line is the limit where the
sector becomes exhausted and service starts to degrade. The point in time where we see the blue line go above the red line is when we
will start seeing service begin to degrade. Service will quickly degrade after that point as usage continues to grow.
Capacity Projection for Surrounding Sectors
1425 Prospect Mountain Drive (Sector 2)
Exhaustion Threshold:
Projected use:
Actual use:
Page 78
Page 79
EXISTING SITE
AERIAL LOCATION
PHOTO SIMULATION - 75’ MONOPOLE
FTC Pinewood
VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
MACRO SITE - MONOPINE NORTH
View From Peak View Dr
Drawn By: Dakota Hawks
Salt Lake City Office
Drawn For: Mountain View Bible Fellowship
Fred Hess
Corporate
3115 Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-765-5275
Salt Lake Office
7896 South Highland Dr
Cottonwood Hieghts, UT 84123
801-463-1020
Attachment 8
Page 80
EXISTING SITE
AERIAL LOCATION
PHOTO SIMULATION - 75’ MONOPOLE
FTC Pinewood
VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
MACRO SITE - MONOPINE W
View From Country Club Dr
Drawn By: Dakota Hawks
Salt Lake City Office
Drawn For: Mountain View Bible Fellowship
Fred Hess
Corporate
3115 Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-765-5275
Salt Lake Office
7896 South Highland Dr
Cottonwood Hieghts, UT 84123
801-463-1020 Page 81
EXISTING SITE
AERIAL LOCATION
PHOTO SIMULATION - 75’ MONOPOLE
FTC Pinewood
VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
MACRO SITE - MONOPINE NE
View From residenses near Axminster Lane
Drawn By: Dakota Hawks
Salt Lake City Office
Drawn For: Mountain View Bible Fellowship
Fred Hess
Corporate
3115 Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-765-5275
Salt Lake Office
7896 South Highland Dr
Cottonwood Hieghts, UT 84123
801-463-1020 Page 82
Fwd: Cell Tower
Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:27 PM
I recently received a notice from you about another vote on the building of a cell tower near a property
I own.
I was under the impression a vote had been taken at the last meeting and the tower was not going to
be built at this location.
I am writing to let you know I am not in favor of the building of the tower at this location. If you are
taking a poll of what the Estes Park citizens feel about this issue put me down for a "NO" vote.
Cliff Baker
Owner of property at 1062 Tranquil Ln.
Cell Tower
Deb Callahan <drc0429@gmail.com> Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:19 PM
Hi,
I wish to express my support for the new cell tower proposed by Verizon. I have Verizon as a carrier
and anything that improves cell service in Estes Park would be a great improvement! I have several
friends who live in that area and they are constantly experiencing dropped calls. During the
evacuation they had almost no cell service at all, couldn’t make or receive calls, and it was a real
safety issue. I work in the Carriage Hills area and most times only have 1 bar for service reception. I
look forward to anything that would improve cell coverage in this town!
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan
1364 Deer Path Ct
Estes Park
Sent from my iPhone
Public Comment Received by 03-17-2021
Page 83
March 15, 2021 (for the March 23 Town Board meeting)
To the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park:
We were notified recently that there have been public hearings already held relating to the proposal to construct
additional cell towers in Estes Park. My understanding is that the first macro tower location is proposed for 1575 S. St.
Vrain Avenue in Estes. Apparently, there was a public hearing recently where a small number of residents spoke against
the placement of additional towers.
I must present the opposite case, from the perspective of community health support and timely healthcare services.
Cell communication in the town of Estes Park suffers from poor coverage in many areas, and suffers from poor signal
strength in those same, and other, areas. This often leads to delays in communication to physicians and other
healthcare on-call staff (lab, radiology, surgery, other). The opportunity to upgrade should be accepted with construction
as soon as possible to address some of these shortcomings.
Connectivity through broadband, through radio, through traditional land-line phones, and through mobile devices is
tremendously important to the work of Estes Park Health. Often the importance is critical and emergent. Every day,
every night, we have substantial communication traffic related to patient care, safety, wellness.
We’ve made great progress on broadband in the Estes Valley, with Trailblazer. As part of this, and of great importance
for its redundancy, great progress has been made providing alternate fiber paths into/out of Estes. This helps to provide
failover options in the event of loss of one connection. These safety nets are critically important to EPH, and I believe
to the Town of EP, the school system, the Y, and most of our businesses.
We need to bring the same urgency and attention to our cell service. Every one of our physicians, every one of our
leaders, and all of our staff members, rely on cell phones and other mobile devices for communication with EPH, other
providers, our ambulance service, and much more.
We have struggled for years to have the appropriate coverage and signal strength in Estes to serve our healthcare
communication needs. We have had to resort to time-wasting and less effective technologies to supplement poor cell
service. Obviously, this can result in patient safety challenges and becomes a matter of life or death in some
circumstances.
I could provide many examples of the great value to EPH of strong cell signal throughout the Town of EP. Suffice to
say that it’s of the highest importance to our work and to patient care to have strong cell strength and coverage
everywhere in town.
Please let me know if there are other questions that I can answer to help support this cause. We certainly will plan to
attend the public hearing on March 23. Please consider this our earnest and strong comment in favor of this additional
tower, and others as Verizon determines necessary to provide proper coverage up here. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary M. Hall
CIO / COO: Estes Park Health Phone: 970-577-4443 Cell: 970-744-9052 Email: ghall@eph.org
Page 84
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_
3/18/2021 10:03 PM Resolution 17-21.Nathan Wilke For
Dear Board of Trustees
As we are now well into the 21st century, and cell coverage is as part of our lives as is electricity delivers via overhead lines/poles, I
wholeheartedly support Verizon’s cell tower just off St. Vrain. These tree camouflaged cell towers are very low key. And provide a valuable and
desired service.
Sincerely
Nate Wilke
2630 Fish Creek
3/18/2021 6:19 PM Resolution 17-21.Larry E Leaming For
Public Comment, Resolution 17-21, Stealth Wireless Communication Facility.
My name is Larry Leaming and I live at 2181 Larkspur Avenue. I retired as the Chief Executive Officer of Estes Park Health in February of 2020
and I would like to encourage your support for the Stealth Wireless Communication Facility to be located at 1575 S. Saint Vrain Avenue
(Resolution 17-21).
During my tenure at CEO at Estes Park Health we experience significant gaps in cellular phone coverage within the Estes Valley. These gaps in
coverage frequently interfered with our ability to communicate with on-call physicians and medical personnel. These delays in communication
with critical medical personnel put patients at risk.
I would strongly encourage you to support resolution 17-21 and any expansion of the cellular network in the Estes Valley that improves
coverage.
Thank you.
3/18/2021 5:13 PM Resolution 17-21.Catherine Cornell For
Cell communications in the Estes Valley are poor and spotty. This is a safety risk. It is not about being able to talk while driving. It IS about being
able to place a cell call in an emergency. I fully support having these stealth towers ALL OVER the Estes Valley to ensure adequate
communications at all times in all places in the Estes Valley.
Catherine Cornell
I cannot find out what the action item is in order to be FOR AGAINST or NEUTRAL. If it is required that I make a choice, then what I'm voting for
should be easy to find. I cannot find the historical resolution and therefor I can't know what to vote for. MY VOTE **FOR** IS A VOTE IN
SUPPORT OF STEALTH TOWERS. If I have guessed wrong and a vote for really means a vote against stealth towers, then my vote should change
accordingly. Going forward, please be clear as to what I'm supposed to vote for.
3/18/2021 2:58 PM Resolution 17-21.Julian Eisner For It sure would be convenient to eliminate this dead spot in cell phone reception.
3/18/2021 2:07 PM Resolution 17-21.Karen Thompson For
I am in favor of placing a cell phone tower at Mountain View Church as proposed. Living in Carriage Hills, EVERY time I pass through the area
around Peak View Drive while connected to a phone call, either the call is dropped or I have to quickly instruct the person on the other end to
hang on while I go through this dead zone. I’m sure I am not the only person this happens to. Also, several people living on the southeast side of
Prospect Mountain are not able to receive cell phone calls for the same reason – the Peak View Dead Zone.
With the new housing development, the need for adequate cell coverage in that area will obviously increase, and I strongly believe the benefit
outweighs the detriment. Land lines are becoming obsolete, and it is important that both residents and visitors alike have adequate cell coverage
when traveling through populated areas such as Estes Park.
I am also opposed to the 1000 character limit on public comment. I don't understand how Town government can
Public Comment Received by March 19, 2021
Page 85
Public Comment - Cell Tower at Mountain View Church
KAREN THOMPSON <SKKSTHOMP@msn.com> Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:41 PM
To All Town Board Trustees:
Please accept this as my public comment regarding the proposed cell tower near the intersection of Peak View Drive
and Highway 7, and include it in the board packets for the meeting on March 23, 2021.
I am in favor of placing a cell phone tower at Mountain View Church as proposed. Living in Carriage Hills, EVERY
time I pass through the area around Peak View Drive while connected to a phone call, either the call is dropped or I
have to quickly instruct the person on the other end to hang on while I go through this dead zone. I’m sure I am not
the only person this happens to. Also, several people living on the southeast side of Prospect Mountain are not able to
receive cell phone calls for the same reason – the Peak View Dead Zone.
With the new housing development, the need for adequate cell coverage in that area will obviously increase, and I
strongly believe the benefit outweighs the detriment. Land lines are becoming obsolete, and it is important that both
residents and visitors alike have adequate cell coverage when traveling through populated areas such as Estes Park.
Karen Thompson
Public Comment - Cell tower proposal
Sarah Metz <sarah@estesparkhome.com> Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:47 PM
To All Town Board Trustees:
Please accept this as my public comment regarding the proposed cell tower near the intersection of Peak View Drive
and Highway 7, and include it in the board packets for the meeting on March 23, 2021.
I am in favor of placing a cell phone tower at Mountain View Church as proposed. Living in Carriage Hills, EVERY
time I pass through the area around Peak View Drive while connected to a phone call, either the call is dropped or I
have to quickly instruct the person on the other end to hang on while I go through this dead zone. I’m sure I am not
the only person this happens to. Also, several people living on the southeast side of Prospect Mountain are not able to
receive cell phone calls for the same reason – the Peak View Dead Zone.
With the new housing development, the need for adequate cell coverage in that area will obviously increase, and I
strongly believe the benefit outweighs the detriment. Land lines are becoming obsolete, and it is important that both
residents and visitors alike have adequate cell coverage when traveling through populated areas such as Estes Park.
Sarah F. Metz
Verizon cell tower @ Mtn View Church
Bob Most <bobmost@rmi.net> Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:37 AM
I support the installation of this cell tower at this location. A person never appreciates having a good cell phone signal
until you don’t have one in an emergency. If for no other reason, this proposal should be approved as a matter of
public safety. The cost of a cell tower is so expensive that Verizon would not have proposed it if it wasn’t
necessary. Installing it will not bring them a single new customer. Please consider voting “FOR” approval.
Bob Most
2001 Cherokee Drive
Page 86
Fwd: Support for Stealth Towers
Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:57 AM
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:15 PM Catherine Cornell <mccornell3@gmail.com> wrote:
Cell communications in the Estes Valley are poor and spotty. This is a safety risk. It is not about being able to talk
while driving. It IS about being able to place a cell call in an emergency. I fully support having these stealth towers
ALL OVER the Estes Valley to ensure adequate communications at all times in all places in the Estes Valley.
Catherine Cornell
Page 87
633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-3622
Telephone: 303.297.2900 Fax: 303.298.0940 www.shermanhoward.com
53071616.1
Melissa Kerin Reagan
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Direct Dial Number: 303.299.8310
E-mail: mreagan@shermanhoward.com
March 19, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Resolution 17-21 - VZW / FTC Pinewood – S1 Special Review Permit for
Wireless Facility
Dear Board of Trustees:
Our firm is counsel to Verizon Wireless (VZW). VZW submitted its application for a S1
Special Review for a permit (“Application”) for a concealed wireless facility located 1575 S. Saint
Vrain Ave., Estes Park, CO (“Facility”). On February 23, 2021, the Board of Trustees held a
hearing on the Application (“Feb. 23 Hearing”) and, on March 9, 2021, the Board of Trustees
continued the hearing until March 23, 2021. VZW submits this letter in support of its Application,
which outlines its compliance with federal, state, and local law and addresses certain issues raised
during the Feb. 23 Hearing. VZW respectfully requests the Board of Trustees approve the
Application on March 23, 2021 as it meets all requirements under federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
This letter includes the following: a) Background on wireless services, b) Analysis of
VZW’s Application and compliance with the Town of Estes Park’s Development Code (“Code”),
c) Analysis showing the Application’s approval is required under federal law, d) Analysis showing
VZW appropriately addressed concerns raised at the Feb. 23 Hearing, and e) Community support
for the Application.
Page 88
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 2
2
53071616.1
1. Background on Wireless Services
VZW is in the communications industry and provides personal wireless services to the
public pursuant to licenses issued to it by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”); it
also provides infrastructure for the provision of personal wireless services in the State of Colorado
in the form of personal wireless services facilities (“Facilities”). VZW’s customers include
governmental agencies, emergency services providers, members of the public (citizens and
tourists), and businesses — all of whom rely on a stable network to provide seamless services.
VZW’s customers communicate and transmit massive amounts of data through smart
phones, tablets, and other mobile devices via a network of Facilities. The provision of personal
wireless services is only possible through the installation of numerous overlapping and
interconnected wireless Facilities that, when combined, create a wireless network. Each wireless
Facility services a specific geographic area, the exact radius of which is dependent upon the details
of corresponding “hand-off” sites.
Typically, a wireless Facility consists of several flat panel antennas, which may be mounted
on existing tall structures or attached to a tower, monopole, or stealth tower (as in this case; a
“stealth” telecommunications facility is one disguised as a tree or other façade that makes the
facility less intrusive), along with other associated equipment necessary for the operation of that
facility.
Generally, the siting of Facilities is fairly inflexible, as in any given search area there will
be a limited number of feasible locations from which a wireless facility can provide adequate
service to the target area. For the system to function without capacity or coverage “gaps”, there
must be Facilities that are properly located, installed and operational. If there are gaps in capacity
or coverage between Facilities, VZW customers or other users who travel into the area will
experience an unacceptable level of service, including failed attempts, busy signals, dropped calls,
and an inability to access or download data (i.e. emails, maps, websites, and the like).
VZW provides best in class wireless service to its customers and others using its network.
To do so, it is continuously testing, improving, and expanding its infrastructure; and because of
the exponentially expanding use of data (such as downloading business files and emails from
university and company networks, medical records, streaming music and videos, movies, and
sportscasts, and other such uses), VZW constantly must add more communications facilities to
address capacity issues created by the ever-increasing data usage.
Existing gaps in personal wireless service capacity and, therefore, coverage, and increasing
demand for wireless and data services by the public, mandate the installation of additional wireless
Facilities by VZW across the State of Colorado, and specifically in and around the Town of Estes
Park. This includes the Facility at issue here, which is designed to ensure: (1) the continued
provision of wireless and data services with the requisite capacity and coverage needed for reliable
voice, data and other services for use by the public on a daily basis; (2) residents and travelers have
Page 89
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 3
3
53071616.1
the ability to access emergency service providers, particularly in the Town and in close proximity
to Rocky Mountain National Park; and (3) the wireless services are tailored to meet the evolving
needs of mobile devices used by the public, especially with the increasing prevalence of 5G
devices.
The significance of providing adequate wireless and data service (i.e., capacity and
coverage) is important considering the increased reliance on mobile devices for access to
emergency services. Many emergency personnel and first responders rely upon wireless networks
not only for secure encrypted wireless communications, but also for use of mobile equipment
which has become commonplace in emergency vehicles and for the transmission of data services.
VZW is legally required to provide seamless coverage in the areas it is licensed to serve.1
Accordingly, under federal law, local governments like the Town may not prohibit the deployment
of wireless facilities if the applicant demonstrates there is a gap in capacity/coverage and the
proposed site is the least intrusive available means by which to address the gap. Where, as here,
data traffic creates capacity impacts and ultimately overloads existing sites, coverage gaps arise.
VZW must add new Facilities in between those sites to off-load traffic and ensure adequate
capacity and, therefore, coverage throughout its network. Based on the circumstances underlying
this Application, the failure to allow this Facility results in a gap in capacity and, therefore,
coverage, which VZW is required to remedy in order to fulfill its requirement to serve under its
FCC licenses. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 332.
2.VZW’s Application Meets the Town’s Code Requirements
VZW’s Application meets all the Town’s Code criteria for a S1 Special Review and Exhibit
B in the Town’s application form for issuance of the permit for placement and construction of the
Facility. This is confirmed by the Town’s Planning Staff Report prepared for the February 23,
2021 Board of Trustees meeting. Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner for the Town of Estes Park, did
not identify any deficiencies in the Application and recommended its approval. The packet
includes a memorandum prepared by Mr. Woeber in which he noted that (1) “no significant issues
or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff,” (2) “Public Works finds the existing church
infrastructure to be acceptable for construction and operation of the WCF,” and (3) “the Town of
Estes Park has ‘no objections’ to this project.” Mr. Woeber “recommend[ed] approval of the
Special Review Application, with the following finding: 1. Staff finds that the proposed Wireless
Communication Facility would meet all applicable and [sic] procedures, standards, and criteria as
required within the Estes Park Development Code.”
1 The FCC’s granting of licenses to VZW as a wireless carrier constitutes a finding that the public interests will be
served by the wireless services sought to be deployed, consistent with the public policy, as formulated by Congress,
“to make available so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide
wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of national
defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.”
47 U.S.C. § 151.
Page 90
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 4
4
53071616.1
3.VZW’s Application Should Be Approved under Federal Law
a.The Town’s decision to deny VZW’s Application will effectively prohibit the
deployment of wireless services and, thus, violate Federal law.
The Federal Telecommunications Act (the “Act”) preempts any local regulation that has
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. See 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) expressly states, “the regulation of the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local
government or instrumentality thereof- shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.”
The Application was formally submitted in September 2020 and, thus, after the FCC’s
2018 Order designating the test for “effective prohibition” under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) as
to whether the action by a local jurisdiction will “materially inhibit” the provision of services as
outlined in the Order. As of the 2018 FCC Order, the new standard to assess whether a permit
denial is improper under 332(c)(7) is whether it “materially inhibits” a provider’s ability to
“compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment” or improve its wireless service.
If so, then there is an effective prohibition under 332. Improving wireless service is broadly defined
and includes not only “filling a coverage gap” but also “densifying a wireless network, introducing
new services or otherwise improving service capabilities.” By the FCC’s 2018 Order, a legal
requirement need not be insurmountable to materially inhibit the provision of wireless service.
i.VZW demonstrated a significant gap in wireless services and that the
Facility also will densify its wireless network.
VZW’S radio frequency (“RF”) engineers conduct detailed technical analyses, including
the use of drive test data and accepted industry standard predictive modeling tools, to determine
where wireless Facilities must be installed in order to provide the reliable coverage needed to
address the topographical and technological limitations involved in the provision of its wireless
services in an area. Here, such testing and analysis were conducted in the area of the Site, which
encompasses a highly traveled and densely populated Town that sits next to Rocky Mountain
National Park and local roads, residences and businesses. A copy of VZW’s RF propagation maps
and letter of explanation were included as Exhibit E to the Application. At the Feb. 23 Hearing,
VZW’S RF Engineer, Bryan Eicens, provided testimony regarding Exhibit E and explained the
gap in wireless services and how this Facility will densify VZW’S network and provide new
services. It is undisputed that, if the Town denies the Application, it will materially inhibit VZW’s
ability to improve its wireless services and, thus, it will be an effective prohibition under Section
332 of the Act.
Page 91
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 5
5
53071616.1
ii.VZW’s Site is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in wireless services.
Once capacity/coverage issues are identified in an area (and thus a coverage gap is deemed
to exist or be imminent), VZW reviews the existing sites and possible areas in between them to
install a new network capacity-enhancing site. First, it locates the small area in which such a site
can be located based on detailed RF analysis (the “Site Ring”). This considers distance,
topography, interference, existing structures, and many other factors. Then, it looks at the zoning
of the properties within the Site Ring to determine potential candidates for the location of a
telecommunications facility (as such Facilities are not allowed in all zoned districts). This further
and significantly narrows the possible locations within the Site Ring. Next, VZW ranks the
feasibility of the remaining sites for the one which best serves the public. Finally, VZW reaches
out to owners of the potential sites to gauge their interest in entering a long-term lease for the
construction and maintenance of a telecommunications facility on their property. At each step of
the process, locations that were being considered are eliminated as not feasible or unavailable.
Through this process, VZW considers many properties in an area and narrows the possible
alternatives, usually resulting in only a few alternatives, or as here, only one feasible alternative
which offers the least intrusive means to address the significant gap.
VZW engaged in such a process and determined that the “FTC Pinewood” (the “Site”)
presents the only viable option and the least intrusive means to fill the established capacity and,
therefore, coverage gap to provide essential wireless services to the area. Other than the proposed
Site, no other suitable options were available within the Site Ring, in part because they will not
provide the coverage VZW seeks, they do not meet the Code requirements, they do not have
adequate access to utilities or physical access to the site, or there is not a willing landlord. Further,
the Estes Valley golf course is not within the Site Ring that was identified and submitted with the
Application and, thus, is not a viable alternative.1 Given these considerations, and as demonstrated,
VZW made a comprehensive search, and considered alternative possibilities between the affected
existing sites that might work. The Site was the best and least intrusive — and indeed, the only —
presently feasible option for filling the coverage/capacity gap.
b.The Town cannot deny VZW’s Application based on RF Emissions.
Pursuant to the Act, local jurisdictions cannot deny applications for wireless facilities if
they comply with RF emissions standards as set by the FCC. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (“No
state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s
regulations concerning such emissions.”). VZW must comply with the FCC standards in order to
utilize its spectrum license.. VZW submitted a letter from its RF Engineer, Bryan Eicens, that
1 VZW previously considered the golf course in 2017. However, since that time, VZW constructed another facility
near the Estes Valley golf course. Thus, the golf course is no longer within the Site Ring for this proposed Facility.
And, the golf course would be too close in proximity to the other facility and likely would result in significant
interference and not service the areas covered in this Site Ring.
Page 92
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 6
6
53071616.1
stated “The Verizon Wireless communications facility will comply with all Federal standards for
radio frequency standards and all current Federal Communication Commission’s guidelines.” See
Application, VZW Signal Interference and RF Emissions letter dated Oct. Oct. 21, 2020. Thus, as
VZW will comply with the RF emissions standards set by the FCC as well as all other Code
requirements, there is no basis for the Town to deny the Application, based on RF emissions
considerations.
4.VZW’s Application and Information at the Hearing Properly Addressed Issues
Raised
a.VZW’s Facility Complies with the Town’s Noise Regulations
The VZW Facility complies with the Town’s noise requirements set forth in the Town’s
building code. Further, the generator that is part of the Facility typically only cycles on in instances
when power is lost and for routine testing which is performed every other week on average. VZW
is happy to schedule the routine testing at times that work best for the citizens and businesses in
the area if possible.
b.Property Values Will Not Be Adversely Affected
VZW is not required by the Code, state law, or the Act to provide any evidence of property
values in support of the Facility, and the law does not require it. Federal courts considering this
issue, including the Tenth Circuit, have held that there is no affirmative requirement that a wireless
provider present evidence that a proposed facility does not have a negative impact on property
values. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC v. Village of Corrales, 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 890 (10th Cir.
2016); Bell Atlantic Mobile of Rochester L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 848 F.Supp.2d 391, 401
(W.D.N.Y. 2012).
Contrary to the unsubstantiated statements at the Feb. 23 Hearing, the value and impact of
wireless facilities in residential communities has changed dramatically over the last ten years and,
even more so, during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Wireless service has emerged as a critical
factor in home-buying decisions. A copy of VZW’s Educational Handout is enclosed and
information regarding property values are included on page 4. National studies demonstrate that
most home buyers value good cell service over many other factors including school district when
buying homes. More than 75% of prospective home buyers said a good cellular connection was
important to them. Money, “The Surprising Thing Home Buyers Care About More than Schools”,
June 2, 2015. The same study showed that 83% of millennials (those born from 1982 – 2004) said
cell service was the most important factor in purchasing a home. Id. More than 90% of U.S.
households use wireless service, and more than half of U.S. households are completely wireless
(meaning they have no landlines). Citizens need to be able to access 911 and reverse 911 and
wireless may be that only connection. CTIA Facts and Infographics, June 2015. This information
demonstrates that the Facility will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the area.
Page 93
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 7
7
53071616.1
c.The Estes Valley Golf Course Is Not a Viable Alternative Site.
As set forth above in Section 3.a.ii, the Estes Valley Golf Course is not a viable alternative
site because it is located outside of the Site Ring. Further, at the Feb. 23 Hearing, the Town
Administrator indicated that the Town was not interested in having the Facility on its property. At
the Feb. 23 Hearing, VZW also represented that the network’s needs had changed since 2017 and
the construction of other wireless facilities in the area.
d.The Town Cannot Consider Effects of RF Emissions in Deciding Whether to
Approve the Application.
As set forth above in Section 3.b, the Facility will comply with FCC RF emissions
standards and, thus, the Town cannot deny VZW’s Application based on any real or perceived
health effects related to RF emissions. This includes arguments that the property values will
decline because of perceived health and safety effects related to the Facility and RF emissions.
Finally, and most importantly, not only does the Facility comply with the Code and federal
law, it will provide a significant benefit to the citizens of Estes Park and its thousands of visitors.
Adding this facility will greatly decrease connection latency and increase data throughput. In
practical terms, this means phone calls, email, web pages, file uploads and downloads, navigation,
business lookup and reviews, audio and video streaming, and any other connected features of
phones, tablets, laptops, portable Wi-Fi hotspots, smart watches, and other 4G- and 5G-connected
devices will all be faster, higher quality, and fail less often. All of this is necessary and desirable
and will contribute to the general well-being of the Town.
5.Community Support for the Application
VZW encloses the “Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers” from Gary
Hall with Estes Park Health published in the Estes Park-Trail Gazette. Here are relevant excerpts
from the article:
We need to bring the same urgency and attention to our cell service. Every one of
our physicians, every one of our leaders, and all our staff members, rely on cell
phones and other mobile devices for communication with EPH, other providers,
our ambulance service, healthcare services outside of Estes, and others.
We’ve struggled for years to have appropriate coverage and signal strength in Estes
to serve our healthcare communication needs. We have had to resort to time-
wasting and less effective technologies to supplement poor cell service. Obviously,
this can result in patient safety challenges and becomes a matter of life or death
in some circumstances.
***
Page 94
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees
March 19, 2021
Page 8
8
53071616.1
Please consider this our earnest and strong comment in favor of this additional
tower, and others as Verizon determines necessary to provide proper coverage up
here.
VZW’s Application meets all of the Town’s Code requirements and federal law. For these
reasons, VZW respectfully requests Town of Estes Park’s Board of Trustees approve VZW’s
Application.
Sincerely,
Melissa Kerin Reagan
cc: Ms. Laura Alms
Ms. Debbie Essert
Page 95
|
March 16, 2021 at 9:50
a.m.
Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers
LATEST HEADLINES
Page 1 of 4Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers – Estes Park Trail-Gazette
3/18/2021https://www.eptrail.com/2021/03/16/special-letter-to-the-editor-in-support-of-cell-towers/
Page 96
To the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park:
We were notified recently that there have been public hearings relating to the
proposal to construct additional cell towers in Estes Park. My understanding is
that the first macro tower location is proposed for 1575 S. St. Vrain Avenue in
Estes. Apparently, there was a public hearing recently where a small number
of residents spoke against the placement of additional towers.
I must present the opposite case, from the perspective of community health
support and timely healthcare services. Cell communication in the town of
Estes Park suffers from poor coverage in many areas, and suffers from poor
signal strength in those same, and other, areas. This often leads to delays in
communication to physicians and other healthcare staff (lab, radiology,
surgery, emergency department, others). The opportunity to upgrade should
be accepted eagerly, and construction should occur as soon as possible to
address some of these shortcomings.
Connectivity through broadband, through radio, through traditional land-line
phones, and through mobile devices is tremendously important to the work of
Estes Park Health. Often, the need is critical and emergent. Every day, every
night, we have substantial in-town communication traffic related to patient care,
safety, wellness.
In recent years and months, we’ve made forward progress on broadband in the
Estes Valley. As part of this, and of high importance for its redundancy, great
progress has been made providing alternate fiber paths into and out of Estes.
This helps to provide failover options in the event of loss of one connection.
These safety nets are critically important to EPH, and I believe to the Town of
EP, the school system, the Y and most of our businesses.
We need to bring the same urgency and attention to our cell service. Every one
of our physicians, every one of our leaders, and all our staff members, rely on
cell phones and other mobile devices for communication with EPH, other
providers, our ambulance service, healthcare services outside of Estes, and
others.
We’ve struggled for years to have appropriate coverage and signal strength in
Estes to serve our healthcare communication needs. We have had to resort to
time-wasting and less effective technologies to supplement poor cell service.
Obviously, this can result in patient safety challenges and becomes a matter of
life or death in some circumstances.
Page 2 of 4Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers – Estes Park Trail-Gazette
3/18/2021https://www.eptrail.com/2021/03/16/special-letter-to-the-editor-in-support-of-cell-towers/
Page 97
Brought to you by Prairie Mountain Publishing
I could provide many examples of the great value to EPH of strong cell signal
throughout the Town of EP. Suffice to say that it’s of the highest importance to
our work and to safe and high-quality patient care to have strong cell strength
and coverage everywhere in town.
Please let me know if there are other questions that I can answer to help
support this cause. We certainly will plan to attend the public hearing on March
23. Please consider this our earnest and strong comment in favor of this
additional tower, and others as Verizon determines necessary to provide
proper coverage up here. Thanks for your consideration.
Gary Hall
Estes Park Health
oxygen throughout your...
many as...
Page 3 of 4Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers – Estes Park Trail-Gazette
3/18/2021https://www.eptrail.com/2021/03/16/special-letter-to-the-editor-in-support-of-cell-towers/
Page 98
Miracle Method...
Northern Colorado. Families...
news: The Shores at McIntosh...
Page 4 of 4Special Letter to the Editor: In support of cell towers – Estes Park Trail-Gazette
3/18/2021https://www.eptrail.com/2021/03/16/special-letter-to-the-editor-in-support-of-cell-towers/
Page 99
Connecting
our homes,
businesses &
communities.
Page 100
Why are we
expanding the
wireless network?
More people than ever before rely on wireless connections to manage their lives and businesses.
Mobile data traffic
per smartphone
will rise from 7 GB
per month in 2018
to 39 GB per
month in 2024.1
of data per month are now wireless billion devices
61.3% of adults
(nearly 154 million) and
70.3% of children
(approximately 51 million)
lived in households
that did not have a
landline telephon
but did have at
lease one wireless
telephone.2
It is projected that
there will be 31
billion connected
devices by 2023.3
Verizon is expanding its wireless network to meet
the growing demands of today and tomorrow.
But it takes time.
1. Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2019
2. CDC's 2019 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December
3. CTIA Infographics, January 2020
What it takes to
keep families
and businesses
connected.
How does wireless service work?
Radio frequencies can carry signals from radios
and televisions, to baby monitors, garage door
openers,home Wi-Fi service, and cordless phones.
Cell service uses these radio frequencies to
wirelesslyconnect a mobile device with the nearest
antenna. That antenna may be hidden in a church
steeple, sitting on a rooftop, attached to a building
façade or mounted on a freestanding tower
structure. All are known generically as cell sites.
From the cell site, the call or data session then
travels through a high-speed connection to a
network switching center where it is then directed
to the recipient.
This all happens in fractions of a second.
The many types of wireless technologies
include cellular and fixed wireless, or Wi-Fi.
Cell site High-speed
connection
Switching
center
Recipient
39GB 61%31
Page 101
Different locations
require different
solutions.
Verizon uses a balanced approach to engineering the best possible network given the local community’s needs.
Traditional, or macro cell sites, are most often
the best choice for meeting coverage and
capacity needs. Macro sites are traditional
cell sites or towers that provide coverage to a
broad area, up to several miles.
Small cells are just like the name implies –
short range cell sites used to complement
macro cell towers in a smaller geographic area
ranging from a few hundred feet to upwards
of 1,000 feet. These lower power antennas
enhance capacity in high traffic areas, dense
urban areas, suburban neighborhoods, and
more. Small cells use small radios and a single
antenna placed on existing structures including
utility poles and street lights.
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) are a group
of antennas in outdoor or indoor locations
that connect to a base station. DAS systems
are typically used in large venues including
stadiums and shopping centers.
Staying ahead
of demand.
A wireless network is like a highway system…
More wireless traffic needs more wireless
facilities just like more vehicle traffic needs
more lanes.
•Many wireless users share each cell site and
congestion may result when too many try to
use it at the same time.
•Wireless coverage may already exist in an
area, but with data usage growth increasing
exponentially each year, more capacity
is needed.
•To meet capacity demands, we need to add
more wireless antennas closer to users
and closer to other cell sites to provide the
reliable service customers have come to
expect from Verizon.
In the United States, mobile data traffic will
reach 5.7 exabytes per month by 2022 (the
equivalent of 1 billion DVDs), up from 1.2
exabytes per month in 2017.*
*Cisco VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights
https://www.cisco.com/c/m/en_us/solutions/service-provider/forecast-highlights-mobile.html#
Page 102
Finding the
right location.
To meet customer needs and expectations, wireless providers need the ability to expand and enhance their networks where users live, work, travel and play.
Verizon gathers information from many sources
including customer feedback, results of our
own exhaustive network testing, and data from
third parties.
When an area for improvement is identified,
utilizing our existing network is always our first
effort. If that is not possible, we then look at
adding a new site.
Steps to finding a new site
Our engineers analyze the areas
that need improvement to figure
out the ideal location based on
customer needs, terrain and
modeling results.
Using existing structures
is considered first.
Network teams perform
exhaustive searches in the
area needing improvement to
find a location that will meet our
technical needs. We also look
at interest from property owners.
We pick a location that has the
highest likelihood of meeting
technical needs and works for
the community.
Guidelines for new sites
We comply fully with all
requirements for community
notification and review, zoning
and permitting.
Potential antenna locations
must meet all local, state
and federal regulations.
Verizon holds Federal
Communications Commission
(FCC) licenses for the
frequencies utilized and we
strictly follow their regulations.
Wireless facilities
and property values.
Cell service in and around the home has emerged as a critical factor in home-buying decisions.
National studies demonstrate that most home
buyers value good cell service over many other
factors including the proximity of schools when
purchasing a home.
More than 75%
of prospective
home buyers said
a good cellular
connection was
important
to them.1
75%83%90%
The same study
showed that 83%
of Millennials
(those born
between 1982
and 2004) said
cell service
was the most
important fact
in purchasing
a home.
90% of U.S.
households use
wireless service.
Citizens need
access to 911
and reverse 911
and wireless
may be their only
connection.2
1. RootMetrics/Money, The Surprising Thing Home Buyers Care About More than Schools, June 2, 2015
2. CTIA, June 2015
Page 103
Health and safety
background.
Health and safety organizations worldwide have studied potential health effects of RF emissions for decades, and studies continue.
According to the FCC, measurements made
near a typical 40 foot cell site have shown that
groundlevel power densities are 100’s of times
less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure.The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) guidelines for operating wireless
networks are based on the recommendations
of federal health and safety agencies including:
•The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
•The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH)
•The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
•The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE)
•The National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements (NCRP)
Wireless technology, equipment and network
operations are highly regulated.
For more information go to:
Federal Communications Commission: fcc.gov
Food and Drug Administration: fda.gov
World Health Organization: who.int
American Cancer Society: cancer.org
Hundreds
of times less
Page 104
Building a wireless
network you can
rely on in a crisis.
The reliability of your cell phone is never more important than when crisis strikes. That’s when a simple call or text message can make the difference between life and death.
We build reliability into every aspect of our
wireless network to keep customers connected
when you need it most. Reliability starts when
we choose the safest, most secure locations
for our wireless equipment. The likelihood of
earthquakes, and risk from wildfires, mudslides,
floods, hurricanes and more are all considered.
When disaster strikes, we coordinate with first
responders and can mobilize charging stations,
special equipment, emergency vehicles and
more to support local, state and federal
agencies in all 50 states.
1. National Emergency Number Association, About and FAQ
2. EMS World, April 24, 2014
Wireless connectivity
is critical in schools
and communities.
Wireless is a critical component in schools and for today’s students.
learning apps are
available for iPads.
of iTunes top selling educational
apps are designed for preschool
and elementary students.
school districts replaced text
books with tablets in classrooms.
of parents think tablets
are beneficial to kids.
of school administrators feel digital
content increases student engagement.
of teens use cellphones
to help with homework.
Source: CTIA’s Infographics Today’s Wireless Family, October, 2017
80% of 911 calls originate
from a cell phone.180%
240
20k
72%
600 +
77%
74%
70%
240 million 911 calls are made
annually. In many areas, 80% or
more are from wireless devices.1
Page 105
Wireless is a critical
component in today’s
medical fields.
Smart pill bottles and cases can help patients and
their care-givers track medication usage, ensuring
medications are taken on time and correctly. This
supports increased medical compliance, provides
more consistent care, and enables preventative
care, keeping patients in their homes longer and
reducing the number of emergency visits to the
doctor’s office or hospital.
Wireless connected glucose monitors, blood-
pressure cuffs, and EKGs can track a patient’s
vital signs and catch an issue before it turns into
an emergency.
Pace makers and sleep apnea monitors can
be tracked remotely.
Routine eye exams can be conducted with a
wireless device connected to a smart phone,
bringing solutions and services to low-income
and remote areas that would otherwise
go unsupported.
Source: Verizon Innovation Center, February. 2018
Wireless is a critical
component in today’s
communities.
Wireless smart city solutions are being used to
track available parking and minimize pollution
and wasted time.
These same solutions are being used to track
pedestrian and bike traffic to help planning and
minimize accidents.
Smart, wireless connected lighting enables cities
to control lighting remotely, saving energy and
reducing energy costs by 20%.
4G technology is utilized to track and plan vehicle
deliveries to minimize travel, maximize efficiency,
and minimize carbon footprint.
4G technology is also used to monitor building
power usage down to the circuit level remotely,
preventing energy waste and supporting predictive
maintenance on machines and equipment.
Wireless sensors placed in shipments are being
used to track temperature-sensitive medications,
equipment, and food. This is important for
preventing the spread of food-borne diseases
that kill 3,000 Americans each year.
Source: Verizon Innovation Center, February. 2018
Page 106
Verizon is part of
your community.
Because we live and work there too.
We believe technology can help solve our
biggest social problems. We’re working with
innovators, community leaders, non-profits,
universities and our peers to address some of
the unmet challenges in education, healthcare
and energy management.
Learn more about our corporate social
responsibility at www.verizon.com.
Page 107
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_
3/22/2021 2:18 PM Resolution 17-21. Michelle Fanucchi For
As a resident of Prospect Estates off of Peak View, I support the addition of the cell phone
tower on the property at the corner of Peak View and Hwy 7. This side of the valley needs
3/21/2021 7:25 PM Resolution 17-21. Sarah Smith For
I am writing with my support for the new cell tower to be placed near Peakview/Hwy 7. It is
near impossible to make/receive calls when driving on Peakview. Living right near the dead
3/21/2021 3:57 PM Resolution 17-21. Steve Soliday For
The area to be served by this tower has been in dire need of improved cell communications.
It was noted at the last meeting that coverage is horrible through much of Carriage Hills.
The catastrophic potential of this situation was made real to me during a first-aid
emergency. I was in the neighborhood to be served by this cell tower (within two blocks of
3/20/2021 5:32 PM Resolution 17-21. Jeff Robbins For
Dear Madam Mayor & Honorable Trustees,
I urge to to approve the addition of the Verizon communication facility. Cellular reception in
Public Comment Received by 03-22-2021
Page 108
Fwd: Monopine Public Comment
Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:35 PM
To whom it may concern,
Please find attached my written public comment for consideration at next Tuesday's town board meeting with respect
to the proposed Monopine cell tower development. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Best Regards,
Anthony Goddard
Fwd: Verizon Stealth Cell Tower Support Comments.
Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:20 PM
Hi Randy and Jeff,
After some discussion with Randy over the Verizon Tower at the corner of Peakview Dr. and Hwy 7, I would like to
make the following comments;
The Water Division would like to request positive support for the proposed Verizon Tower located in the vicinity of
Hwy 7 and Peakview Dr. The Division would benefit from the installation of this tower in significant ways.
First and foremost, we are getting ready to replace aging and outdated communication equipment in our
SCADA system, the main redundancy in the system is cellular backup, this new tower location would improve the
reliability of this system.
Secondly, we have poor reception in many areas of the new Water Division facility at 1360 Brook Drive, this proposed
tower should improve our communications at this location.
Please let me know if you have questions or concerns.
Chris Eshelman
Water Superintendent, Town of Estes Park
970-577-3630
ceshelman@estes.org
Letter to Town Board re: Action Item on March 23 - from Johanna Darden
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu> Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:05 PM
To: Mayor Koenig and Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
In re: Resolution 17-21 Special Review, "stealthy wireless communication facility"
I listened to the presentation for this cell tower at the February 23, town board meeting. I could not believe the Town
would approve placement of such a tower near so many homes. If the Town would not approve putting a cell tower
on the golf course a few years ago, why approve the present requested location? At the last meeting it was
mentioned that the people in Carriage Hills would benefit greatly from the presently considered location. If Carriage
Hills residents would benefit, why cannot the cell tower go on the upper portion of the Carriage Hills property? It's
just a bad idea to put a cell tower close to homes! I ask that you not approve this action item.
Page 109
cell towers should not be put where people will be exposed
wildlands <wildlands3@gmail.com> Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:56 PM
Dear Town Clerk:
Can you please put this in the packet so Mayor and Town Trustees will see. Thank you.
I do NOT support cell towers where people will be exposed.
Susan Wolf
Fwd: Additional Public comment re: monopine proposal.
Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:24 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 'Anthony Goddard' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:07 PM
Additional Comment re: Proposed Monopine tower under consideration. (cc/ Gary Hall, Estes Park Health)
Subsequent to my prior comments, and in light of additional public comments made around this proposal, I would like
to also add the following comment for consideration.
1. Estes Park Health has written a letter to the editor in support of cell infrastructure in Estes, and they are right to do
so. Cell infrastructure (particularly it seems Verizon’s) is lacking in areas of Estes Park. Three concerned citizens who
live in the vicinity of Moreau Ln also provided their support of upgrading the infrastructure. The supplied Verizon
documentation specifically shows that this tower will have no impact to their service. Moreau Ln is well served by
AT&T, and if additional capacity is needed there, there are abundant locations on that side of town, in non-residential
areas. The question is not whether Cell Service needs to be improved, it’s simply whether it needs to be done so in a
manner that both adds insult to injury for value and amenity of properties who have already experienced the
significant negative effects of the new housing development and which also simply foists the inconveniences
associated onto lower income, high density residents who cannot yet even speak for themselves. Both facts can be
true - better cell reception is needed, and it is wrong to pursue construction of this project as it stands today.
2. In 2017, the town already acknowledged concerns similar to those Mr. Hall raised in his special letter to the editor.
On Town Letterhead and on Behalf of the Town of Estes Park, Mr Landkamer of the Town’s Public Works Department
wrote “Some of our local emergency services use Verizon service for access to mobile data terminals in emergency
response vehicles and better coverage in the Estes Valley is needed to improve this ability for adequate mobile
communication”. In the same letter, Mr Landkamer, on behalf of the Town of Estes Park, that “we are in agreement
with EPMGA and EVRPD, that this option [construction of a monopine cell tower] is not acceptable for our pristine
golf course”.
Why are we not simply re-considering the golf course, or any other location not in such close proximity to high density,
lower income residents? Why is the “pristine nature of our golf course” more important than the vulnerable members
of our community, be that our lower income neighbors, or those who need access to emergency services and cannot
get it?
To be crystal clear, when Mr. Landkamer stated that the town is “in agreement” with the EPMGA, he was agreeing
with EPMGA’s assertion that, to quote from their letter to the town: “A cell phone tower will drastically detract from the
beauty of the golf course” and “If the tower is not properly grounded to dissipate lightning strike energy, the higher
frequency energy will travel on the surface of the earth for considerable distances as it spreads out. Such a tower or
attached guy wire supports that are located within a few hundred feet of private or public property can represent a
very serious personnel safety hazard. Patrons of the new barbecue restaurant walking across the parking lot could
Page 110
get barbecued themselves!”. Why was the bar so low for the town to say “Not in my back yard” in 2017? How does the
town justify that the (surely fictional) “risk” of “barbecuing” patrons of the golf course is somehow more important than
our residents, emergency services and those seeking connections with critically important healthcare providers?
3. Verizon today (3/22) sent a mass text message to their subscribers in Estes Park, stating:
”Verizon Msg: To help us improve wireless voice and data service in your area, reply ‘YES’ to this message to show
your support for a new wireless facility in southeast Estes Park near Highway 7 and Park View Drive. You may also
add an optional message describing your support to town officials.”
This mass-communication caused some degree of concern to residents over whether it was a legitimate
communication or a scam. I’m unclear on what constitutes acceptable public comment in town meetings, and I’m not
sure what utility this feedback has to Verizon in this application process. Verizon’s application states that “Verizon is
part of your community. Because we live and work there too”. Well if they live here, they might know that the location
specified in this text doesn’t exist in our town. There is no “Park View Drive”, however “Parkview Lane” is close to the
area described by residents of Moreau Ln. Is this a typo, or an effort to gain wider support? On social media, some
residents believe this to be a question about better cell service at the Y. The town only sends notices to residents
within a certain range of the application, and when we’re asking questions about the abuse of the balance of power
with the new housing authority residents unable to speak for themselves, what more egregious example is there than
Verizon mass-communicating with residents who are nowhere near the site simply because they have the power to do
so?
Mr. Hall and EPH are right, as are the concerned residents of Moreau Ln. Verizon can and should build additional
capacity if it wants to retain those customers, and there are few greater reasons than the need for our emergency
responders and healthcare providers to have access to reliable communication. There are plentiful locations in Estes
Park for them to build additional capacity. Directly adjacent to the new high-density residential apartment complex on
questionably “accommodations” zoned land is not the place for this, it will not solve the concerns of many of the
residents who have voiced their dissatisfaction with cell service, and it sets an awful precedent in light of the Town’s
former “Not in my backyard” response to the golf course location.
Respectfully,
Anthony
Page 111
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_
3/23/2021 10:46 AM Resolution 17-21. Jacquelyn Reed Neutral
The Town encourages Verizon other cell phone companies to place antennas on the existing tower located at the
YMCA of the Rockies. There was an instance yesterday at Windcliff Estates where an ambulance was not able to
locate the correct location of an emergency most likely do to lack of signal. I feel the west side of Town isn't as
much of a concern as the center of Town
3/22/2021 2:18 PM Resolution 17-21. Michelle Fanucchi For
As a resident of Prospect Estates off of Peak View, I support the addition of the cell phone tower on the property
at the corner of Peak View and Hwy 7. This side of the valley needs additional cell phone coverage support. Many
people rely on cell phones exclusively, and during the summer months, we often cannot even send text messages
because of the large number of tourists using the capacity.
Public Comment received by 12pm 03-23-2021
Page 112
Fwd: Special review: Monopine cell tower
Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:33 AM
From: Dave Thomas <mexdavet@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:50 PM
Subject: Special review: Monopine cell tower
To: <planning@estes.org>
To the Town Board of Trustees:
I am writing to express my personal objection to the "monopine" cell tower (fake tree) that is proposed by Powder
River Development Services, LLC, to be constructed on property owned by Mountain View Bible Fellowship at 1575
South St. Vrain Avenue. My wife and I own our home at 1560 Axminster Lane, located directly west of the church
property.
As if it weren't enough to have the massive construction of 26 new workforce housing apartments on property near
our home (a project that we support, given the tremendous need for workforce housing in our community), we are now
faced with the view of a grotesque 75-foot tall cellular tower, masquerading as a fake pine tree. This monstrosity will
be visible from our backyard, from our rear deck, from our kitchen window, from the sliding glass door into our dining
room, from our master bathroom, and from one of our guest bedrooms. It will also be visible from the downstairs
apartment which is occupied by a year-round renter. The unavoidable visibility is one issue, and we don't even know
yet how it will affect our existing cellular phone service.
I urge the Town Board to reject this proposal, on the grounds that such a gargantuan structure has no place in a
residential neighborhood. Surely there are other potential locations for such a tower elsewhere in the Estes Park
area. Each individual Trustee should ask himself/herself how they would like to have such an eyesore in their
backyard.
David Thomas
1560 Axminster Lane
Page 113
533 Big Thompson Ave., Suite 103, Mail to: PO Box 2376, Estes Park, CO 80517
As the voice of business in the Estes Valley, when the town asks
for the Chamber’s opinion on any subject concerning business,
our role is to poll member businesses and report the results. We
surveyed members on March 17 concerning the cell phone tower
conversation and 26 members responded with 96.2% in favor of
the addition of more cell sites based on Gary Hall’s appeal.
Verbatim feedback to follow:
Cell phone towers are NOT the visual plague they are made out to
be. Once we "see them" we tend to NOT see them.
There's nothing wrong with a stick in the air!
Reliable cell reception is important for many reasons, some of the most important being stated in
the letter from EP Health, which impacts both locals and visitors. There are many ways to
camouflage towers now so that they do not detract from our natural scenery. In the interest of
public service and better safety/emergency services it is a good idea.
We need more coverage, especially since we are a tourist town and have visitors from around the
world. Tourist do amazing and crazy things; and they need to be able to use their phones to call
for help. I do know that just a few miles down 34 there is NO coverage.
If they are a fake tree or on an existing commercial building
There is poor cell coverage in numerous locations around town, and specifically along highway 7.
Loads on the existing cell towers during the busy summer season often result in an inability to
connect.
The Town's capacity is stretched think during tourist season.
I agree wholeheartedly with the points brought out in the letter.
I agree wholeheartedly with the points Mr Hall brings up in his letter. I would point out that
robust cell coverage, or lack there of, is an important consideration when potential visitors decide
where to spend their vacation.
Cell service is spotty downtown. Many guests complain about it and it is inconvenient for
business as well
Page 114
Thank you for the notification of the forthcoming town meeting and opportunity to provide
additional comment regarding the proposed cell tower among our homes here on Tranquil
Lane. I understand that written comments may be more suitable for the purposes of the
additional actions the town has to undertake with respect to the planning process, so I’m
thankful for the opportunity to provide comments and concerns in writing here. I trust that my
previous comments (such as the well studied effect of cell tower proximity to property amenity/
value) made on the record during the first public hearing are still part of the record and as such
I will not restate those here.
1. Misleading Application: The supplied “photosim” the town, is expected to use to judge the
impact of the project is, as was stated in the last meeting, inaccurate and misleading in
critically important ways:
a)Since the photo sim was produced, the two large, high density residential buildings have
been built on the site, placing the tower right amongst them:
Outdated satellite image from public
comment package, appearing to show a
rather empty field
Recent Google Earth image showing
(approx) location next to new development
(shaded red)
Same site March 2021Photosim from town public comment
package
Page 115
b) The photosim is also misleading in that it hides a substantial part of the structure, making it
appear more like a tree than the cell tower it is:
Photosim supplied in town public hearing package
Page 116
c) Here is a google image search showing a full “monopine” cell tower. It’s hard to
know what the tower proposed among our homes will look like, it’s hard to know because half
of it is literally missing from the application:
d) Even if the proposed tower has more “fake tree” on it, then we can look to existing images of
mono pine structures in our county. At a distance, these might look somewhat(?) like trees.
Clearly to those nearby, they are just cell towers. This disguise is probably a great idea on a
mountainside, but not next to homes.
Coloradoan, Feb 10, 2019
Page 117
2.Noise Without public information specifying the exact location, estimating the distance from
the tower to the new apartment buildings puts it at approximately 35ft from the residents.
During the previous hearing, it was mentioned that the tower could constantly emit a
“conversational level of noise”. I’m quite certain if someone was constantly having a
conversation 35ft from my house, I would be able to hear it, and it would quickly become a
nuisance.
3. Cell Performance
It was mentioned during the discussion that Carriage Hills has poor reception. We shouldn’t
conflate the need for cell reception with the need for this location. The applicant stated that the
elevation of the golf course isn’t suitable now due to a 100ft elevation drop, but was suitable in
2017. The golf course elevation hasn’t changed since 2017. We don’t need a tower
constructed outside each home in order to give us reliable cell reception, and we are lucky to
live amongst hills with such a significant number of potential sites. If 100ft higher or lower are
the tolerances required for these structures, there are plenty of hills to pick the exact elevation
needed, without having to resort to a residential neighborhood. It was also mentioned that
people prefer having great cell reception and therefore would be happy to have a cell tower
next to their house, but again this conflates the two issues. Seen in this below screenshot, we
get incredible cell performance from AT&T without having a cell tower next to our house. The
Average US LTE data speed is between 17 and 30Mbps, as you can see we get between 5x
and 9x this performance, better than many broadband internet services. Over 6x the FCC
definition for broadband download speed. The AT&T tower is nowhere near our homes.
4. Incorrect Zoning
My understanding is that the Code of Ordinances does not permit a non-concealed cell tower
in residential zoned land, nor does it permit a concealed tower above 60ft. The proposed tower
is 75ft. The application in question is a MS (minor special review). This applies to concealed
cell towers below 80ft in ACCOMMODATIONS zoned property. The application states that this
site is their only feasible location because “All other surrounding parcels are residential/estates,
leaving the church as the best suitable location.”.
It appears on the surface that this application is exploiting an incorrectly zoned property.
The definition of “Accommodations” zoned property describes the following, none of which
cover the church location:
1.Bed and Breakfast
2.Boarding/Rooming house
3.Hotel/Motel
4.RV park/campground
5.Resort Lodge/resort cabins
6.Short term rental
(For perspective, Mary’s Lake lodge is zoned Accommodations)
Page 118
Judging by the town’s GIS map, the surrounding area is among the highest density residentially
zoned land on this side of town, notwithstanding the much higher density residential
apartments being built directly adjacent to the tower. ‘Accommodations’ zoning at this site by
definition is clearly inaccurate, and that inaccuracy shouldn’t be exploited to build this
structure. If it is less desirable to build this tower on “residential/estates” zoned land, I don’t
understand how this site could be anything but the least desirable location, owing to the
significant residential density.
5. Housing Authority Development
The location, timing and exploitation of the zoning issue all present what appears to be an
effort to construct this tower without the consent of the very residents who will be most
affected by this construction, the residents of the new housing development. When the town
invites public comment on a development like this, it seems utterly unfair that those most
affected will never have the opportunity to comment. They haven’t yet moved in - and very
likely haven’t even been notified in any way of this development.
According to the EPHA’s website: “The Estes Park Housing Authority provides a variety of
housing options and services for qualified low-to-moderate-income households.”. By the very
definition of this development, these are our residents who have the least choice when it
comes to housing options in Estes, and it’s reprehensible that the town would allow these
residents to be exploited by allowing a construction right on their doorstep to which they
cannot object - either by their lack of alternative housing options or by the literal fact they are
not part of this conversation. Those who hold the levers of power should ensure their power is
not misused to exploit those without. If the town approves this proposal, that exploitation is
precisely what will happen.
Page 119
1 of 3
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Ave, Bldg. D
Irvine, CA 92618
March 23, 2021
Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: 242 Supporters for Verizon Wireless’ Proposed Facility
Estes Park
Dear Board of Trustees:
I am a Manager in Verizon’s Consumer Sales Operations Group, and I oversee the network-
related messages that are sent to Verizon Wireless customers. In connection with its proposed
facility, Verizon Wireless arranged for a text message to be sent to customers with billing
addresses within ZIP code 80517 in the Estes Park area. The entire text message sent reads as
follows:
Verizon Msg: To help us improve wireless voice and data service in your
area, reply "Yes" to this message to show your support for a new wireless
facility in southeast Estes Park near Highway 7 and Park* View Drive.
You may also add an optional message describing your support to town
officials.
The text message above was sent on March 22, 2021. As of March 23, 2021, we have received
242 affirmative text message responses indicating support for the proposed facility and 2
respondents opposed. Text messages received confirm the need to provide improved Verizon
Wireless service in Estes Park. Samples of the text messages received from Verizon Wireless
customers appear on the attached page.
I am available to verify the above information as you may require.
Attachment
Public Comment received by 5pm on 03-23-2021
Page 120
2 of 3
*The text message erroneously referred to the street name as Park View Drive instead of Peak
View Drive. However, there is no Park View Drive that intersects with Highway 7 in southeast
Estes Park. There is a Parkview Lane which intersects Stanley Circle farther north in Estes
Park. We, nevertheless, believe that recipients understood the text message and that support
exists for a Verizon Wireless macro facility in southeast Estes Park as proposed in the text
message sent to certain residents of the Town of Estes Park yesterday.
Sample Text Message Responses for
Verizon Wireless’ Proposed Facility Estes Park
Yes. Let's enter the modern world
Yes. This would be very beneficial for my wife and I. We both work full time on a remote basis
for nationwide companies
Yes. Absolutely needed.
No
Yes. Yes! Yes!! We lived on Tranquil Lane until about a year ago
Yes. Hopefully this will give us additional bandwidth to deal with the summer overload.
Yes, please make sure it covers The Windcliff subdivision near the Ymca
Yes, I support the new Verizon wireless facility in southeast Estes Park near highway 7
Yes, especially if this will help with reception in the ymca, windcliff area which has lots of dead
area
Yes!!!!!!!!!
Yes!!! This would be very, very helpful.
Yes!!! I live off MLR and need that coverage.
YES! We need more coverage in Estes Park
YES! This is an important need in our town!
Yes yes yes yes yes yes
Nooooooo!!!! Nooooooo tower close to people....
Page 121
3 of 3
Yes Those of us in the 'Shadow' of Prospect really need a better cell signal. I need it for a pace
maker home monitoring device.
Yes please! Our data threshold is often reached during peak summer times, making it impossible
to use the data we pay for.
Yes My area on the west side of Estes Park has signal problems often too. We need cell
infrastructure on both sides of town, not just the SE.
YES I live at 2327 St. Hwy. 66. My home is a dead zone. No cell coverage at all. It is like living
in a 3rd world country.
Page 122
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1.MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 1.
ORDINANCE 04-21 AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the item.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2.STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3.PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the item which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Request Board consider a motion.
7.SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
Page 123
8.DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9.VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
*NOTE: Resolutions are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required
to do so by State Statute.
Page 124
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Vanessa Solesbee, CAPP, Parking & Transit Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 23, 2021
RE: Ordinance 04-21 Amending Title 10 of the Estes Park Municipal Code on
Vehicles and Traffic
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER:
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Ordinance 04-21 amends Title 10 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) pertaining
to the enforcement of parking regulations in public parking lots and street rights of way.
Present Situation:
At the Town Board Study Session on February 9, 2021, Public Works staff proposed the
following amendments to Chapter 10 of the EPMC:
1.Provide the Town’s Parking Division (and/or its designated independent
contractor) with the authority to immobilize vehicles;
2.Provide the Town’s Parking Division (and/or its designated independent
contractor) with the authority to tow vehicles;
3.Codify the informal courtesy/practice of providing unrestricted free parking to
persons with disabilities and Disabled Veterans who display valid placards; and
4.Provide accommodation for free motorcycle parking in designated motorcycle
parking spaces within the seasonal paid parking areas.
These amendments were developed in partnership with the Town’s professional parking
operator, The Car Park, Town Attorney’s office and the Estes Park Police Department.
Proposal:
The attached ordinance amends Title 10 of the EPMC on Vehicles and Traffic.
Page 125
Advantages:
•The proposed code updates will provide staff with additional tools to effectively
manage the Town’s limited public parking assets, while also providing better
access to parking areas for a greater number of parking customers.
•Additional penalties for repeated parking offenses, including temporary loss of
the use of one’s vehicle, will likely encourage payment of outstanding citations
and/or changes in behavior.
Disadvantages:
•More visible parking enforcement strategies (e.g., immobilization) can contribute
to negative perceptions about community; however, staff contend that any short-
term negative impact would be outweighed by the resulting positive change in
behavior.
•Parking enforcement is often seen as negative and punitive; however, it is a
necessary regulatory function to manage a limited asset that has direct impact on
the economic vitality of the downtown business district.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff recommend adoption of Ordinance 04-21 amending Title 10 of the
Estes Park Municipal Code on Vehicles and Traffic.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Funds for implementing use of immobilization are estimated to be approximately $2,720
in year one (2021) with ongoing annual costs of $420. The authority to tow will require
signage on all lots with contact information for the selected tow company. The estimated
cost for signage is $1,500-$3,000 in year one with minimal ongoing
maintenance/replacement costs.
In total, Public Works staff estimate additional expenses of $4,220 – 5,720 in year one
(2021) with ongoing annual expense of $420. The expenses would be covered within
the existing Parking Fund budget. No additional budget allocation or General Fund
support is requested.
Level of Public Interest
Staff expects a moderate to high level of public interest in any item related to the
parking. Staff presented the recommendations included in this Report to the
Transportation Advisory Board at their January 18, 2021 meeting.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 04-21.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 04-21 Amending Title 10 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC)
Page 126
ORDINANCE NO. 04-21
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
ON VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Estes
Park Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Sections 10.20.030, 10.20.040, 10.20.050, and 10.20.060 are hereby
added to the Estes Park Municipal Code, to read as follows:
10.20.030 - Multiple Overdue Parking Citation List
(a)As frequently as practicable, the Parking and Transit Manager or designee
(“Manager”) shall prepare and update a list consisting of vehicles involved in
three or more overdue parking citations. An overdue parking citation is a
citation for a parking violation that has not been paid within 15 days of the
issuance of the citation. This list shall be known as the multiple overdue list.
(b)The Manager shall give notice by first class mail to the registered owner of each
vehicle on the multiple overdue list (a “multiple overdue notice”), stating that
the vehicle is on the multiple overdue list and:
(1)The date and the nature of each citation overdue and the amount due
on each;
(2)The total amount currently due;
(3)A specific deadline for response, no less than ten days after the date of
mailing;
(4)That the owner shall, by said deadline, respond to the notice. Response
shall be by paying the total amount due or by arranging with the Manager
for contesting the charges, fees and amounts due as described in
section 10.20.060;
(5)That if the vehicle owner fails to respond within the prescribed time
period, the listed vehicle will be subject to immediate immobilization or
impoundment.
(6)That an immobilization or impoundment fee, if any is applicable, may be
imposed upon the vehicle immobilized or impounded to cover
administrative costs;
(7)That if the vehicle is impounded, the owner will also be required to pay
the costs of towing and storage.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 127
(c)This notice is sufficient if mailed to the address provided by a government
vehicle registration office. If the Manager is unable, after exercising due
diligence, to discover any mailing address, then notice is sufficient if it is
published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town, posted on
the vehicle, personally served on the vehicle owner or driver, or provided by
any other means that provides due process.
(d)If the date for response to the multiple overdue notice specified above passes
without payment of the fines and fees, and without proper request to contest
the inclusion of the vehicle on the multiple overdue list as described in section
10.20.060, such vehicle may be immobilized.
(e)If the owner or an agent of the owner pays the fines and fees, including any
administrative costs and any towing and storage charges assessed, the
Manager shall remove such vehicle from the multiple overdue list and release
it from immobilization or impoundment. If any parking citation not included on
the multiple overdue list for the vehicle becomes overdue before the owner or
agent pays the assessed amounts, such subsequent citations shall also be paid
before the vehicle is removed from the multiple overdue list or released from
immobilization or impoundment.
(f)This section does not apply to bicycles.
10.20.040 - Immobilization
(a)At the discretion of the Manager, any vehicle on the multiple overdue list may
be immobilized by means of an immobilization device, including but not limited
to a device known as a Barnacle which obscures the windshield of the vehicle.
(b)The person installing the immobilization device shall attach to such vehicle a
notice advising the owner that such vehicle has been immobilized by the Town
for failure to pay or contest multiple overdue parking citations, that release of
the device may be obtained by paying the fines and fees due, that unless such
payments are made, the vehicle will be impounded, and that it is unlawful for
any person to remove or attempt to remove the device, to damage the device
or to move the vehicle with the device attached. The notice or the device itself
shall instruct the owner as to how to properly pay all amounts due, remove the
device thereupon, and return the device, as applicable.
(c)The Town or its agents or contractors may assess a fee to cover the
administrative costs of the immobilization.
(d)It is unlawful for any person to:
Page 128
(1)remove or attempt to remove the device, except after full payment and
pursuant to instructions in the notice or on the device;
(2)damage the device;
(3)fail to return the device as instructed upon its removal; or
(4)move the vehicle with the device attached, except to impound the
vehicle as directed by the Town.
(e)No parking restriction otherwise applicable to the vehicle applies while the
vehicle is immobilized under the provisions of this section.
10.20.050 - Impoundment
The Manager may request the Police Department direct the prompt towing
and impoundment of any vehicle immobilized under this chapter that is subject to
impoundment under applicable law. Such vehicles shall include, but not be limited
to, those which have been left unattended on public property, including any portion
of a highway right-of-way, within the limits of the town, for a period of forty-eight
hours or longer. Such vehicles may be towed, impounded and disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of state law. Neither the Town nor its employees
or agents shall be liable for any damage to such vehicle occasioned by such
removal.
10.20.060 - Hearing to contest immobilization or impoundment
(a)The owner of a vehicle subject to immobilization, and subsequent
impoundment, under the provisions of this chapter, shall be entitled to contest
the vehicle’s inclusion on the multiple overdue list at an administrative hearing.
The owner must request such a hearing in the form and manner described in
the multiple overdue notice.
(b)If the owner requests a hearing, the Manager or the Manager’s designee, or,
should the Manager so decide, the Municipal Judge, shall act as the hearing
officer, and shall conduct the hearing in a manner that comports with due
process.
(c)At the hearing, the hearing officer shall determine whether the vehicle was
properly placed on the multiple overdue list and subject to immobilization and
impoundment, as applicable. The owner may dispute any of the underlying
parking citations that have not reached judgment or default judgment in a court
of competent jurisdiction. The owner may dispute that notice of any of the
underlying parking citations was properly given.
(d)This hearing is available to an owner prior to or subsequent to immobilization
or impoundment. The hearing officer need not re-adjudicate any issue resolved
Page 129
at a previous hearing involving the vehicle, or which could have been resolved
at such a hearing that previously occurred, but shall make determinations as to
any new issues which have arisen under this chapter.
(e)If the hearing officer finds that the vehicle was properly included on the multiple
overdue list, all applicable fees shall apply against the owner in order to release
the vehicle from immobilization or impoundment, and the vehicle shall remain
subject to immobilization and impoundment. If the hearing officer does not so
find, the hearing officer shall order the vehicle released immediately to the
person entitled to possession and the Town shall bear the costs of
immobilization and impoundment; provided that fines and fees may still apply
for the underlying parking violations, and any unpaid violations may yet give
rise to the vehicle’s future inclusion on the multiple overdue list.
Section 2: Section 10.06.020 of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby
amended by the addition of underlined material and the deletion of stricken material as
follows:
10.06.20 - Restriction on parking in paid parking areas.
(a)No person may park a vehicle in any parking space designated by the Town as
a paid parking space without first paying the required fees for the amount of
time the vehicle will be parked. Payment of fees must be made in the manner
designated by the Manager.
(b)Vehicles displaying valid Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) placards or
Disabled Veterans (DV) license plates are exempt from paying fees for parking
in paid parking spaces designated under this section.
(c)Motorcycles parking in marked motorcycle parking spaces are exempt from
fees for paid parking. Motorcycles parking in any other paid parking space are
required to pay the fees designated under this chapter.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2021.
Page 130
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day
of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 131
Page 132