Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.07.2008Exhibits (01/07/08) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibits (Verizon Wireless Facility on Glenwood Commercial, LLC Property) A 1 Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Staff Report E Application F Letter from Norma Hughes dated 12/14/07 G Minutes from 11/5/07 public hearing H Letter from Ann S. CIosser to the County dated 11/07/07 1 / J K s L M 1144 im ✓rte a-1 L,,,J �a r E 1 _ f? 1 i1 ' f , it 041 6,1,. in, C C ✓ 4 " 4r, •.n frog V.-,1-1 .4.F —4 All ---7) nen BOCC 01/07/20 EXHIBIT REQUEST Special Use Permit to allow "Communication Facility" APPLICANT / OWNER Verizon Wireless/David Hicks LOCATION 2550 Highway 82 WATER/SEWER N/A EXISTING ZONING Commercial General ADJACENT ZONING Commercial General PARCELNO. 218522300015 a I. REQUEST Verizon Wireless requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a "Communications Facility" on a property located on 2550 Highway 82. The Applicant proposes to build a new communications facility for voice and data transfer and will be built on the roof of the 4th building away from the highway. Royal Mini Storage Glenwood Commercial, LLC Colorado W est Upholstery Roaring Fork Plurnbing and Heating ioe-7 BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ II. PROJECT INFORMATION The proposed facility will be the furthest from the road of the four (4) buildings. (The subject building is in the construction process). The wireless facility will have 3 primary components: the antennas, equipment to support the antennas, and a back up generator to keep the facility running in the case of a power outage. There will be two sets of four (4) panel antennas. Each antenna will measure around one (1) foot wide and four (4) feet tall. One set of the four will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end. The other will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Some of these antennas will not be visible from the highway while others are minimally visible. The equipment to store the antennas will be located within the structure on the ground floor of the building. In addition to the electronics and support for the antennas, backup batteries will be installed in the event of a power failure. Additionally, backup diesel generators will be located outside the building adjacent to the equipment room. This generator will run once a week for 30 minutes as a maintained measure and in the event of a power failure. 111. PROPERTY & SURROUNDING ZONING This zoning map shows the subject property is located in the County's Commercial General Zone District. It is surrounded by Commercial General zoning (in the City) to the west: a four -lane State Highway, cemetery. and BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Commercial General zoning to the south; Commercial General zoning to the east and BLM to the north. While the property itself (and most of the adjoining properties are developed in a commercial nature) the properties to the east are predominantly residentially developed. See the photo below: IV. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and/or County Departments: City of Glenwood Springs The referral was sent on October 3rd, and in the response received by Building & Planning Staff from the Director of Community Development stated the following: "While the proposed antennas are relatively !ow profile, according to the view plane analysis included in the application, it would be preferable if they could be enclosed, screened from view or incorporated into the building's design. We appreciate the efforts made to co -locate this facility but understand that this was not BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ possible. Any efforts to reduce the visual impact of the antennae array would be in the City's best interests." V. REVIEW STANDARDS (Section 5.03 & 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution) 5.03 (A) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding This is an unmanned facility. Water and sewer services will not be required. 5.03 (B) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding Once the construction is complete, the site will be visited once or twice a month by a technician in a small truck for routine maintenance. Phone and electrical services will be required, and will come from existing services at the Glenwood Commercial property. Current street improvements are adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the operation of acommunication facility on the subject property. 5.03 (C) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Finding The proposed facility will be located approximately 420 feet from Highway 82 and will be minimally visible from the State Highway right-of-way. BOCC 01/07/2008 FI The antennas are shown graphically here as they are proposed on each end of the building: East End Elevation .010iii3 UM GOT Or MAW .•-1.1.674T-sr f West End Elevation It appears that the both sets of antennas will be virtually impossible to see from State Highway 82. The antennas on the Glenwood (west) end of the building are below roofline and will not skyline over the roof and blend against the end of the structure. The antennas on the Carbondale (southeast) end of the building will be visible from some of the residences east of the property as they are on top of the gable roof. It is important to note, this standard (5.03 (C)) equips the Board with the ability to require screening in order to "minimize impact on adjacent uses...in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character." It is important to point out that single-family dwellings are a "use -by -right" in the CG zoning whereas Communications Facilities require "special use Permits" that require a public hearing due to potential impacts and are not a use -by -right. For this specific visual impact to those few residences to the east, the Board should consider the possibility of requiring an enclosure around the antennas to minimize their visual impact. BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Section 5.03.13 [Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility] Pursuant to Section 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Communication Facilities requires that such facilities be approved by the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, where appropriate. In addition the following standards will be used in the review of application for a communication facility: (1) All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communication Commission and any facility in compliance cannot be denied. Staff Findin,S The Applicant has stated that "AM Verizon Wireless facilities comply with the FCC emission requirements" and has provided the Universal Licensing System (ULS) License held by Verizon Wireless to establish such systems in the State of Colorado. Should the Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests this standard be a continual condition of approval. (2) The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner / lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. Staff Finding As the Board is aware, this Application was denied previously on November 5, 2007, in part, due to the lack of information showing that there were no other locations that allowed co -location. Further, this new building upon which the antennas were to be erected constituted a new facility. The motion in the minutes from that meeting are included here (and attached in full) for the Board's reference: Commissioner McCown — f make a motion to approve the special use permit for a communications facility with conditions from staff deleting Condition No. four (4) and to emphasis and question No. five (5) by including run times will be conductive to area setting and that the generator will be outside, it will not be in an existing building but it will be in a concrete wall structure to also impede the sound and f believe that was testified to by the applicant. Chairman Martin — all right we have a motion, 111 second the motion and we'll have a discussion and go from there. Discussion: Chairman Martin — any words of wisdom. BOCC 01/07/2008 F4J Commissioner McCown - they answered pretty well all of my questions: all have been answered by the applicant, 1 know there's a lot of concerns by the citizens, I don't think that, well I know for a fact that this is not something you have to acknowledge to a person, its not something you have to tell someone that if you're selling the property that there is some type of a communication facility within x number of feet of your parcel and 1 guess the way the real estate market is in this area, I can't even envision that something as iniquitous as what's proposed here today would have any adverse effect four hundred and twenty (420) feet away from Highway 82 and barely visible and that's why I chose to remove the structure. 1 think the structures surrounding the antenna would have been more obnoxious than just the basic four (4) antennae that's proposed, I don't think you'll see the ones on the other end at all. But 1 cannot believe that it would hurt the sale of homes. if it were a large steel tower proposed with a flashing light on it because of the airport maybe. i don't know. but this one I don't think the average person would be able to find it if you were asked to locate it. That's why i made the motion to approve. Chairman Martin - and I seconded the motion. I find other issues that are there and that happens to be the number one (1); we've always encouraged to make sure that we brought telecommunications and towers and I think we were the first one in the area to go ahead and have rules and regulations in reference to that back in ninety six (96) ninety seven ('97). we also encourage extremely hard that we do co -locations and there are numerous areas that have co -locations and that's one of the reasons is because it's not acceptable in a lot of neighborhoods. We've done everything we could in reference to view shed. location to the neighbors, in and under federal regulations you can't deny because of health issues, uh but uh its not acceptable in the neighborhood. it may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood and those that live there and uh the building is not even built yet so its not an existing site, so it will be a new site. With all that 1'11 have to make a decision in the next thirty (30) seconds and we call for the question. All those in favor? In favor: McCown - aye Opposed: Martin - aye: Houpt - absent Chairman Martin - / opposed simply because I think it is new and we do have existing sites that are more acceptable to the neighborhoods because they are there and can be used by Verizon which they are using in other sites. I just want to see that we maximize our sites as we did in Carbondale and New Castle and in Rifle - 1'11 like to see that happen. I find it is a tied vote. at that point it is not a positive vote. and that it dies. Michael Howard - correct. Therefore we need a motion in the negative. BOCC 0110712008 FJ Chairman Martin — all right. You are correct on that one. And 171 probably get the same issue and that is 171 make a motion to deny because it is not in the best area, it is not a co -location site but it is a new site, that other sites are available within the area that would fit the use and that this site itself is not crucial to the operation of Verizon, that it still can function, it only is an enhancement to their service and therefore I say please use existing sites in the motion. Commissioner McCown — I will second for discussion. Chairman Martin — I knew you would. Commissioner McCown - and merely state that if the first tower was never allowed in Garfield County, there would never be co -locations and this is a tower and the facility owner has already said he would have no problem with co -locations so maybe it would only enhance future co -locations in the area as opposed to not allowing to exist anyway. Chairman Martin — in agreement 1 think Verizon is a company we all use; I have nothing against them f just think the location is a new site and we promised our citizens that we would limit those sites and use co -location sites and we try to encourage that and I've not heard any evidence saying that it is absolutely crucial that the service would end if this site was not approved. So therefore l say it is just an enhancement to the existing site and call for the question, all those in favor? In favor: Martin — aye Opposed: McCown — aye; Houpt - absent In response to these comments, the Applicant has provided additional information in the new application materials that specifically includes a map and supporting matrix that identifies 12 sites that Verizon considered but wouldn't work for various reasons that ranged from engineering challenges. owner agreement issues. and County height restrictions. The materials also point out 18 other FCC Registered Antenna Structures with no reason why those sites wouldn't work. As the standard points out, co -location is encouraged (not required). The Applicant has provided information about other sites, but it appears these are all virgin sites and not existing communications facilities that would meet the intent for co -location. As such, the Applicant has not demonstrated that co -location on existing sites is not possible. This standard has not been met primarily due to: 1) It is unclear if the 12 sites sought by Verizon were existing communications facilities (that would allow co -location) or virgin sites: and BOCC 01/0712008 FJ 2) There is not enough evidence provided in the application materials that demonstrates that there are not co -location opportunities with the 18 FCC Registered Antenna Structures. (3) A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable zone district unless an exception is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following: (a) Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural environment. (b) Design, materials and colors of antennas and their support structures, shall be compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip. (c) It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the same site. Response The proposed Communications Facility is not considered a free standing facility as it is proposed to be located on a proposed building in the CG zone district. The maximum allowed height in the CG Zone District is 35 feet. A strict reading of the building height calculation in Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended measures building height as "The distance, measured vertically, from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the mid -point between the front and rear walls of a building to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable. hip, shed or similar pitched roof. JW= UNE, EAST WE Cr h/JL7h:: BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Based on the original natural grade, as illustrated above, the measurement of the building height (based on the definition of height in the Zoning Resolution) begins at 24 feet where the natural grade of the site once existed. The highest point of the building terminates at 22 feet 3 inches from natural grade. The proposed antennas. which are a total of 3 feet 3 inches, terminate at 25 feet 6 inches from natural grade. This meets the strict interpretation of the Zoning Resolution and is below the maximum height of 35 feet in the CG zone district. In order to prove original natural grade, the Applicant provided an elevation showing natural grade and the wireless facilities stamped and signed by a surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. [As a practical matter, based on today's existing grade, the structure will terminate at 46 feet 3 inches at its highest point with the wireless facility terminating at 49 feet 6 inches.] Again, these antennas are not "free-standing" antennas as the standard envisions: rather, they are proposed to be located on a proposed commercial building that is a use -by -right in the zone district. Staff finds locating antennas on existing (or soon to be existing) structures such as this large commercial building to be preferable than erecting antennas on a free-standing tower requiring a new footprint dedicated solely to the facility. Additionally, by locating on a building. they can often be incorporated into the architectural style of the building making them less visibly intrusive. Staff continues to recommend (should the Board approve the Application) that the antennas be screened or incorporated architecturally into the structure because, while the antennas will not be visibly impacting to those traveling State Highway 82. they will be visible by the adjacent properties to the east that have been residentially improved. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete: however, not all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted. but all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order. prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The application has not met all of the requirements of Sections 5.03. 5.03.13, and 9.03) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. as amended. BOCC 01!07/2008 Fd VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At this time. Staff cannot recommend the Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" for Verizon Wireless on the property owned by Glenwood Commercial. LLC specifically finding that the following standard (5.03.13(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. as amended) has not been met for the following two reasons: 1) It is unclear if the 12 sites sought by Verizon were existing communications facilities (that would allow co -location) or virgin sites: and 2) There is not enough evidence provided in the application materials that demonstrates that there are not co -location opportunities with the 18 FCC Registered Antenna Structures. 5.03.13(2) The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner I lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. 12/12/07 Fred Jarmen Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 970-945-8212 Re: Verizon Wireless Special Use Permit Application for Glenwood Commercial Project located at 2550 Highway 82 (internal Reference: CO3 Valley View alt 6) Dear Mr. Jarmen, I've enclosed 10 copies of the zoning submittal package in preparation for the second BOCC hearing scheduled for 1/7/08. In addition to the application each package includes: 1) Authorization from the property owner 2) Assessors Map identifying the property. Ori this map I've also numbered all the properties within 200'. The numbers correspond to the numbers on the spreadsheet listing these property owners. 3) Property owners within 200' 4) Vicinity Map 5) Deed with legal description 6) Project narrative 7) Criteria 8) View Plane analysis 9) Full drawing set 10) Elevation drawing stamped by a surveyor which shows the original grade from which the building height is determined. 11) A map which identifies the 12 other properties Verizon Wireless considered in their search for a new site. This map also identifies the FCC registered antenna structures within a 5 mile radius. Included with this map is a key with information on each of the 12 properties and FCC structures. 12) Property Value Analysis. This study performed by a licensed real estate appraiser concluded that properties with a view of a communications tower did not lose value when compared to properties which weren't close to a communications tower. Worth noting, this study was performed for a relatively tall free standing tower. What we are proposing will be considerably less visible. The majority of this information was included in the previous submittal. The only new items are 2 and 11. I had included an Assessors map previously, but not one that identified the properties within 200'. Please email or call with questions, if you require any additional information. Sincerely, David A. Closser 303-554-5627 dclosser@aol.com EXHIBIT December 14, 2007 Dear County Commissioners, 1, Norma R. Hughes, own the property next to David Hicks property at 2558 State Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. 1 am opposed of having the towers of Verizon Wireless on top of the building next to my property because it is a rental and my concern would be health issues that 1 would have no control over. The noise level from the generator may not be tolerable by the tenants. The waves coming from the towers would beam right at the house on occasion. The towers, the generator and the waves are only five feet from the back of my property line. Having all the towers around may lower the value of m!property. So 1 ask that Verizon Wireless not be approved again in our residential area. 1 don't understand why Verizon Wireless can't put their towers on top of a mountain, away from residential areas. Sorry 1 am unable to attend this meeting. 1 ask again County Commissioners, PLEASE, PLEASE, take into consideration the feelings of the neighbors and deny this special use permit. Thank You, Cl(114, diotm,a tt digiyiu_4 utv Ann Closser Closser Consulting Limited Liability Company 4385 DDarley Avenue Boulder, CO 80305-6027 November 7, 2007 Christina Montalvo Garfield County Planning Department 108 81h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel. 3113.554.1432 \ k )bilk 303.819.34F 1 1'ax 3113.494.11826 I .m.u1:aclnsscr tr idcurm.c„rf RE: Verizon Wireless Special Use Application at 2550 Highway 82 (Internal project reference: CO3 Valley View, Alt. 6) Dear Ms. Montalvo: As you know, I am a land use consultant to Verizon Wireless and its related entities. My client has filed an application for special use review to construct a telecommunication facility at 2550 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, CO. A hearing was held on November 5 before two of the three Board of County Commissioner ("BOCC") members. I request a new hearing on the Verizon Wireless special use request with all three members of the BOCC present for that hearing. I understand that the posting of a sign, mailing of notice, and publication will be required for the new hearing. As soon as a hearing date is established, we will complete the required notice. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ann S. Closser Proposed and Existing Verizon Wireless Sites Identified Existing Venzon -IV/ire-less Site 4 •..dsprings Canyon si Red Flags - FCC Registered Antenna Structures Within a 5 Mile Radius of the Proposed Site *.. Blue Pins - 12 Properties Verizon Wireless Considered Which Didn't Work Out for Various Reasons %-rik migutp9r, • • • Closser Consulting LLC 12111/07 Property Properties Considered By Verizon Wireless Why it Didn't Work 1 Rising Sun Mechanical, 0172 Darrow Engineering determined we couldn't get enough height with limitations imposed by the FAA for the nearby airport 2 Kinder Morgan - 0096 CR 160 Engineering determined this location wouldn't provide adequate coverage with the Garfield County height limitations 3 Cardiff Mini Storage - 0068 CR 160 Engineering determined this location wouldn't provide adequate coverage with the Garfield County height limitations 4 Residential - 3650 Hwy 82 Engineering determined this location was too far up valley to provide adequate coverage. 5 Rodeo Grounds Engineering determined we couldn't get enough height with limitations imposed by the FAA for the nearby airport 6 Water Tank in Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Engineering determined tris location was too far away, was also too high. 7 Sunlight Mini Storage - 3441 S. Grand Ave. Environmental and soils conditions did not meet Verizon Wireless standards and those imposed by the FCC for new sites. 8 American Furniture - 3202 South Glen Ave. Engineering determined this site wouldn't provide adequate coverage 9 Grease Monkey - 3106 South Glen Ave. _ Property Owner not interested 10 Maltby - 3501 S. Grand Ave Unable to reach an equitable agreement with the property 'owner. 11 Wal -mart - 3010 Blake Ave. Engineering determined this site wouldn`t provide adequate coverage _ 12 Colorado West Upholstery Denied by Garfield County Closser Consulting LLC - 12/11/07 FCC Registered Antenna Structures 1 Qwest Corporation 2 Colorado RSA No. 3 Limited Partnership 3 'American Towers Inc 4 Colorado West Broadcasting Inc 5 Garfield County 6 Garfield County Regional Airport Authority 7 POW, Inc. 8 Educational Communications of Colorado Springs Inc 9 T -Mobile West Corporation 10 T -Mobile West Corporation 11 POW, Inc. 12 Professional Antenna, Tower and Translator Service 13 Colorado West Broadcasting Inc 14 POW, Inc. _ 1S POW, Inc. 16 POW, Inc. 17 POW, Inc. 18 Verizon Wireless Antennas Mounted to an existing building owned by others. Not a tower or tower site. EXHIBIT PUBLIC HEARINGS: (NOTE THIS IS IN TRANSCRIPT FORM BUT NOT A LEGAL TRANSCRIPT) VERIZON HAD REQUESTED IT PRIVSIOUSLY BUT NOW I UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE COMING BEFORE THE FULL BOARD,) Consider a Special Use Permit for a communications facility located at 2550 Highway 82. Applicant is Glenwood Comrnercial LLC, David Hicks — Christina Montalvo Fred Jarman sitting in for Christina Montalvo, Michael Howard and Ann Closser were present. Ann Closser. 4305 Dariey Avenue. Boulder answered the notification request. She is the spokesman for Verizon Wireless. Michael reviewed the noticing requirements for the public hearing and determined they were timely and accurate. He advised the Board they were entitled to proceed. Commissioner Chairman Martin accepted the notification. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Fred submitted the following exhibits: Exhibit A —Mail Receipts; Exhibit B - Proof of Publication; Exhibit C — Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D — Staff Report; Exhibit E — Application; Exhibit F—Entail from the applicant with site plan attachment dated 10-13-07; Exhibit G — Email from the applicant addressing Sections 3.08.08 and 5.03.13 dated 10-15-07; Exhibit H — Email from the applicant addressing height dated 10-17-07; Exhibit 1— Email from the applicant with "natural grade" attachment dated 10-19-07: Exhibit J — Email the applicant with attachment showing building appearance of antennas dated 10-25-07; Exhibit K — Email from the applicant with attachment showing site plan with topographic lines dated 10-24-07: Exhibit L — Email from the applicant with attachment illustrating appearance of antennas dated 10-25-07; Exhibit M Email from the applicant with attachments: survey, disturbance plan, and site slope plan dated 10-30-07 and Exhibit N — a new elevation showing_ the grade deferential signed and sampled by a surveyor David W. Canfield. a licensed surveyor dated 11-02-07. Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A — N into the record. REQUEST Fred Verizon Wireless requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a "Communications Facility" on a property located on 2550 Highway 82. The Applicant proposes to build a new communications facility for voice and data transfer and will be built on the roof of the 4th building away from the highway. And Mr. Chairman for the record this is defined in the Resolution of 1978 as amended as the following: "A non -inhabitable structure supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends in or receives radio frequency signals including television data pulsing through space by means of electromactic waves. Communications facilities include structures or towers.. accessory building not included personal direct to home satellite services." So that's the definition that's being requested, more specif"scally this is Verizon Wireless is requesting to erect eight (8) antennas, two(2) sets of four (4) — these would be about a foot across and then 4 feet tall in nature supported by pipe on basically the ends of a commercial yet to be built structure, The property owner in this case is David Hicks, this is the Glenwood Commercial Project in south Glenwood Springs right on the right as it slopes up the hill. The first couple buildings are built. You may recall that Verizon Wireless visited with you a couple of years ago, in fact in Jul) two thousand five 2005. asking fair the same set of antennas on the Colorado West Upholstry Building — that item was denied. The request before you today is the sane, appears to be the same set of antennas. on this structure which would he much further to the east and way up the hill effectively. In the staff report, page 3. it gives you the map of the tax assessor showing you the parcels that are in that area. that shows you where the Colorado West Upholstry structure was and if you look at the Glenwood Commercial. Property, this building would he towards the rear of that parcel up the hill as you notice the major slope behind that property. Also gives you the properties to the west and then bordered by State Hwy 82 directly to the south and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 10 the rear. The antennas themselves would be on the east and west end nithe structure, one on top of the gable, on top of the roof, the other more or less on the side of the end of the gable and that elevation. I have a rendering in the application that points that out. Other than that there is the support structure on top of the roof to help that stay where it is and then you've got the internal machine That helps it run the equipment that v,ould be located within the building itself and then they are proposing a diesel ;generator on the sale of the building that's for power backup in case you have a power failure. This is to be run once a week for 30 minutes to keep that in good maintenance. On the following page you've got a visibility profile and if you look to the far left there is a point on 82 with arrows moving up through the building to the top so if you're standing in the middle of 82 it looks like you'd be able to see the very tippy top of the antennas as they sit on top of the gable. That is the end closest to the up valley - let's call it and then the other end of the gable would the other four set of antenna which would be slightly below that — the pitch — and so that maybe. can't testify to it but it may be visible as you approach that from town. I know that there arc some developments that may he in the way of that but I can't speak to that specifically. We did refer this to the City of Glenwood Springs and they provided comments to you specifically talking about the request that these be enclosed or screened in some way from view perhaps even incorporated in to the design of the structure itself as it's not built yet, With the review standards. the more general standard. there are utilities adequate to provide water and waste water — this use doesn't require water or waste water. The road infrastructure is in place adequate to serve trips that would he generated by this facility, we'd say that's certainly true as we generate virtually no transportation impacts and finally the design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on it from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the property upper lot by the location of intensively utilized areas. access points, lighting. signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. This is commercial general property — the building height here is thirty five (35) feet. When I get to the height in a second. but this is in a literal read of the code is less than thirty five (35) feet. I'l1 share with you the building height definition however. These are relatively small in nature, they are about four hundred (450) feet above the highway up against the hillside and probably not going to ridge line that hill: they will most likely blend in particularly if you gave them a color that made sense — I don't see these as being a visually impacting use, however, in saying that there are ways to minimize what impact there is. There is a way to do that and we'll approach that later. What is not being proposed is mitigation presently. You'll recall from the Colby application upholstery building they had proposed a set of screening boxes over those antennas. that is not what is being proposed here but that may be a way to do it. On to the more specific criteria. Section 5.03.13 for hroadcasting studio and or communication facilities. there is a very specific set of criteria here, one "all facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communication Commission (Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and any facility in compliance cannot be denied". In this case the applicant is putting their application to you that they maintain a universal licensing system so that they can put these structures throughout the state of Colorado is my understanding of this. What 1 don't have and not sure we'd ever get is a license specifically from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) hut it's a question for the applicant. Second, the co -location of telecommunication facilities on the site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner or lesser of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locations and the response here was provided here was that, according to the applicant, the property owner would not have any interest in preventing other wireless carriers in locating at the site. So we may say locating on the structure. the structure is the building in this case. Three —"a free standing telecommunication facility including its tenants shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable one district unless an exception is appro\ ed by the Board of County Commissioners based on the applicants demonstrating the following things-. Now. to this end. if you look at Exhibit N. that was just passed out, this site is an interesting site. This site has been graded extensively and the grade that is up there now is not the natural grade. in fact the grade now is a lot lower than the natural grade was and it's been this way for a while. In any event. this is important. so hecause we have an artificial grade now but 1 want to read to you the building height definition. So this is distance measured vertically from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the mid -point between the front rear walls and building to the top, in this case to the midpoint between the lower eve and the pitch. That can't he taller than thirty five (35) feet according to your land use code. So let's come back to Exhibit N. this will show you the structure itself and then slightly above the base grade there is a dash line and that represents what the old grade was. And so in this case the literal definition of the building height. you only have to measure from that natural grade and that gives you twenty seven (27) feet to top of the antenna. Now if you do not do that and go to the bottom of the ground, you're up to thirty nine (39) feet just for what it's worth. It's an interesting factor— if you use the natural grade as to what it was they are well within thirty five (35) feet but if you use the way it would be built on the ground. then you're almost forty (40) feet. Again in this case you are back four hundred twenty (420) feet from Highway 82 and then there are a few residential structures around this but they are in the commercial/general zone district. They also enjoy the same height limits. So in this case we had originally recommended denial of this application because you didn't have anything that legitimized the grades that were put on there. So they have sent, on Friday, an email, Exhibit N. that shows you the signed and stamped survey of this grade. By literally reading this meets within the height of the commercial/general sone district. That being said, staff will change its recommendation froni denial to approval, so not to be different from our proposal last go round in two thousand five (2005), I want to pass around the same conditions of approval that we talked about then and I"II read these for the record. Suggested Conditions of approval submitted on 111-05-07 That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval. unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate building permits from the County Building and Planning Department. 3. All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)). 4. The applicant shall paint the proposed fiberglass screening surrounding the antennas to match the color of the proportion of the building on which they are located. In addition. the applicant shall install a roof feature at the same color as the screen to cover the antennas that has a roof pitch to match that of the building. (This is the design you all remember seeing from the Upholstry Building — now that building was already constructed, that was already there. these are boxes put on top. the idea is to blend then with the structure — in this case you have four (4) antenna on the up valley end on top of the pitch and then you have the other four (4) on the down valley end that is lower than the pitch — you will see in their application. So Number four (4) was to get and minimize the impact now — those antennas located on Highway 82 was more visible. these are a lot further away at least from the 82 prespective — that's one thing I'm talking about — there are other houses that don't share the same perspective so I should he careful there). And then the issue was of the generator at that point. 5. The proposed generator to be housed in this case would be outside the existing building on the southwest end to comply with the state statute regarding emission of noise. So these could be applicable. these are suggested to you as conditions if you choose to move this forward and then as you will. 1 have the application here that was held in two thousand five (2005). the Colby application. and there was a lot of testimony if you remember for reasons of impact to health. people who live around those antennas came in and it was continued, 1 know it was continued at least once. So a lot of the neighbors that came were concerned with the visual impacts. the height of the one on 82 and the health impacts — those were the primary reasons that the public had issue with. So with that HI answer any questions. Commissioner McCown — I guess on this type of land use application. Fred or Michael. could answer this, is health a consideration to he taken into this, possible health injury. possibly one of the consideration that we're given the luxury to look at? Michael Howard — well. from as I believe everyone is aware of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is taking over this area and our own Code says it cannot be denied if it is in compliance with their regulations and so it is not allowed for health wise to deny based upon the way the regulation is written. Chairman Martin — that`s a federal regulation. We'll turn to the applicant so you can give us information about the application and your request. Applicant: Ann Closser. yes sir I believe the gentlemen has described the proposal effectively and accurately and I support everything he said. I would like to talk about one of the conditions. also one of the suegested conditions, in addition. Item number three (3) of the suggested conditions sort of dovetail hack to some of the comments made by the County Attorney that it is upon the applicant to demonstrate that we meet the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standard and that's articulated in Condition Number three (3) and 1 have with me today, for the record a copy of a spread sheet in which the engineer and he is with me today. a frequency engineer Kenneth Varelas. he's the optimization engineer for this project so if this raises any additional questions. he is here to respond. In any event for the record. I have a chart which actually illustrates the number of antennas. the power levels. the height. relative to the standard established by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). And this is a standard throughout the industry that the engineer use as a predictive toot to indicate what the radio frequency emissions will he relative to the standards set by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and the stadostrade said at no point does the anticipated emissions exceed two percent (2%) of the standard. I would like to submit this to the record in satisfaction of Condition number three (3). This as an Exhibit 0, Fred entered the suggested list of conditions as Exhibit P. Chairman. Martin entered Exhibit 0 and Exhibit P into the record. Ann Closser — in addition to that I would like to comment on the suggested condition number four (4) —1. think Mr. Jarman. stated this was sort of pulled from .another application in two thousand five (2005) application which was physically a different set of circumstances and in this instance what we're proposing is two sets of external antennas, one set which will actually be on the west gable actually mounted flush to the gahle and the other set is east which is the up valley set which is upon the roof and we've discussed an elevation for that. We did initially propose in the application antennas actually on the roof and we proposed to have them both in a dormer type structure which is architecturally compatible with this proposed building. and because of the need to have separation between the antennas. the actual footprint of the dormer was ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet and the architectural landowner. Mr. Hicks, said we don't like the way that looks, it's too big and feel that these will blend in. they are far enough from the highway. these will blend in the background more than having ten (10) foot by ten (10) foot. it actually had a nice pitched roof and I can show you one of those earlier drawings which was not approved by the landowner so we didn't come forward to this Planning Department with that application for that reason. And so I would really encourage this Board to relax that condition amend it perhaps, we'll he happy to paint the antennas any suitable color and we can provide paint samples and have the Planning Department give us direction. given the build-in. environment. this building is not yet constructed hut given the materials and the hillside behind. we'll he happy to paint them a rust color or whatever is appropriate to maximize the extend to which they blend in — the antennas on the gable on the west side of the building certainly we will paint them to match the gable to which they are attached. And that is all that I have to add. Chairman Martin — questions of the applicant? Commissioner McCown — reading your chan and maybe you'd like your engineer to answer this. the percent of revised Federal Communication Commission (FCC)IANSI that is the percent of actual emission of the maximum allowed by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC t? You'll need to introduce yourself. Ken Varelas — and my business address is thirty one (II ) South Bond Way in Aurora. Colorado 80014. And yes sir these are the emission levels of specs as specified by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) as it states here it's live hundred eighty (580) microwatts per square centimeter and we're well below two (2%) percent of that level. And one other thing to keep in mind with this. to arrive at these numbers we would have to have every single channel in use at the facility which rarely happens unless there's some kind of a catastrophic event. Commissioner McCown — It looks like at nineteen t 19) and twenty (20) feet and then again at three hundred foot (300) is the highest percentage obtainable. Ken. Varelas — yes sir. that is due to the radiation pattern of the antennas. They tend to project outward. Commissioner McCown — that's ali I have. Chairman Martin — all right. As I recall in the pre% ie>us application there was another co-location that was suggested. does that still exist? Ann Dosser — I'm sorry I don't understand the question. Chairman Martin — there was another, the other application had another location, this was a secondary request. There was a present day location that had already hecn approved and this is a new one and we were looking at co-location and trying to keep everything in co-location spots instead of spreading them out everywhere and this one was on South Grand Avenue, which is directly across the road from here and 1 was just wondering if that is still available and if you still own that site. Ann Closser — I'm- Mr. Varelas would have to respond. I mean as far as Verizon Wireless installations in this area. I have a map which shows the two closest approximate sites. one's in Red Canyon and the other one is actually — where is this one? Ken Varelas — it's actually up on the hitt. I'm not sure the exact address. it's upon the mountain top here. Chairman Martin — Lookout Mountain. This one was right in. right next to Berthod Motors: there was a site that was approved by the City of Glenwood Springs fi,r that location for that application previously that was one of the considerations that we had because there was upresent day location and we cnoourugsoo-kmubnnn—thu'xwha wewere (ookn&m. And } didn't know ifyou had u/Uthat iccdun ��uppl�uinnuxvw�ndirection signal. Ann Closser — to be honest with you Mr, Martin I'm not aware of Otis location you're talking about, I know there twelve (12) different locations which were considered and I can tell you which each one of those was and why they were not pursued, but I'm not familiar with this particular one. [ apologize. Chairman Martin — that's all right. I'm just following up because we want to follow again what our Code says that we want to co -locate as much as possible and not have a plethora of locations for single applications that's all. So I'm asking that. All right, thank you. Those that took the oath and they will tell the truth and nothing hut the truth, we'Il go ahead and ideriiify themselves and give their testirnony. The applicant has the right to go ahcad and respond to those atter we've finished public information gathering and respond to thosc if they choose to. All right. Public Comment: I'm Ingrid Hawkins and lmanage the Glenwood Self Storage Center and 1 did have some qucslions on the generatur. it says it will run once a week for thirty (30) minutes — uh, what are the hours that that's going to happen. is that going to be business hours or Iwo (2), three (3) four (4) o'clock in the morning or? Chairman Martin — and we'll have an answer from the applicant when we finish public testimony. Thank you very much. and those are ihe questions you are posing. Ingrid Hawkins — okay. the other is the lighting on these antennas. lmean will there be any lighting? And my third (3m)question is how will i, uh affect the satellite TV. landline phones, cell phones that we use in our yard. etc. The interference wiih our own electrical faciliiies that we have, Chairman Martin — that's it. thank you. All right we'll get back to you with those answers. Jamie. give your name. Jamie Camp and 1 live at Iwo thousand five hundred fifty four (2554) Highway 82. 1 don't really have any questions. I just want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns again. I agree with all the concerns of my neig.hbors and my parents as far as property value. ours is just as important to us as it is to Mr. Hicks and Verizon is to them. Our neighborhood is zoned commercial residential as far as I know, And I feel you should take just as much into consideration for the residential zoning as the commercial. With the towers on MrHick's building. electronics will he shooting across my house and through my house. I'm assuming twcntv-four (24) hours a day which could greatly decrease the property value. Uh. hack to where you were asking about the sign heing posted. everyday 1 go through there at least twice a day and I never saw a sign posted. l saw the commercial thing. you know for rental and things like that hut I never saw a sign posted for you know the hearing or anything like that. Dh, ljust wanted to say. uh l think it should be taken into consideration uh. my property value like } said. isjustas imponant as theirs and especially ifits going 10 be shooling Lhrough my house and not just e few feet away from my door. I'm just sad that Mr. Hicks and Verizon didn't call a meeting to get the input of the people in the neighborhood you know before they decided to do this: l felt that being included would have made a difference by that { would have a better understanding of what he's trying 10 do. Thank you. Chairrnan Martin — all right. thank yuu. Questions ofJamie? My narne is Chris Lynch and we own the property at wo thousand five hundred flIiy four (2554) Highway 82 and on July two thousand five (2005) - we were here for the hearing with Verizon for a special pennit 10 he, to pul the anlennas in our neighhorhood and that was on a huilding righl nexi lo our home. Many of our residents were present at this hearing and voiced their concern as to why they strongly objected having the antennas in our neighborhood. We are also very grateful that you took time to listen to us and our sincere concerns as 10 why we did not want this in our neighborhood, We thank you that your decision was to turn down this permit. Now Verizon is back and wanted to put antennas on a building just a few doors up from the location that you turned down. At this location l feel that this will even affect our neighhorhood even more, We know that. or feel that this project will certainly bring down the value of our properties, uh as it has in other cities in other neighborhoods. ult if you do research on that you will see definitely that it has brought down the value of the properties. Sharon Stephenson who manages our rental property there wrote you a letter at the last hearing and } think you probably still have ocopy o[that letter stating that it would affect thc value ofour property. And the prohlem with trying 10 rent it. lknow that you cannot turn down this permit because u[health reasons however it does concern me personally because I do have: I am very sensitive to electromegnintics. I think that we may he; the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) says that you cannot turn this down because of health reasons but I think that we really do not know the affect it may have on resident's health in the future. A lot of times things are approved and further down the line they realize what. how it does affect the people. We. 1 think where the antennas are being placed on the buildings now, the emissions from the antennas will actually uh be covering our entire neighborhood. before when it was next to our home. where they were thinking about putting it on Mr. Colby's building, they had said the type of antennas they were putting up. and I think these are the same antenna they their planning on Mr. Hicksbuilding. that is wouldn't affect us that much because the rays would he going out like a flashlight opening up and we are more at the side of the building. These antennas will now he higher. a little higher up and it will be covering all of our neighborhood. I know that uh we don't have a lot of homes up there but there are some of the property owners there that 1 think plan on developing their properties. I feel that our neighborhood is growing and that we will have more people there rather than the neighborhood going down: and they're bull dozing everything down. Mr. Hicks' building plan on building four (4) buildings there, and there will be a lot of businesses there, and there will he, as I understand it. some apartments in there too, and I think Mese antennas will have an impact on a lot of people in that arca. 1 feel that there is land. uh. open land upon the mountain sides maybe upon the west side of the Roaring Fork River where antennas could he put there. it maybe would he more serviceable and we're hoping that you will take into consideration our concerns again and think of what we have to say and that you will not approve the decision for these antennas. Thank you very much for taking the time. Chairman Martin - questions of Ms. Lynch. Don. My name is Don Lynch and Em the husband of Chris Lynch who just spoke and you know I have the same concerns as she does wife, my daughter does arid all our neighbors do on the hill. They did move the antennas a little bit further up but now the) 're going to shoot directly into us instead of by the side. And uh our property values, you can say it's not going to make any difference to the property values but lt1 ell you Sharon Stephenson thinks so and she has rentals and I think she knows what she's talking about. And she says it's going to he harder 10 rent our property which we rent and she said our rental properly is going to go down: we 1,vorri he able to get the same rents that we're making and my wife and I. we live off of our social security and the income from our rental property. And you take away part of our livelihood and it's going to greatly affect us - I'm seventy nine (79) and my wife. is seventy four (74). hate to admit that but Chairman Martin - you should never tell them that Don. Just tell us you married a younger woman. Chris Lynch - thank you. Don Lynch - anyway. I really thanked you all very much two (2) years ago when you turned it down and I think the reasons that you turned it down before are still there ever present and Urn just wondering why when we have a lot of mountain tops around town. we've got a lot of open space over there on the west side of the fiver and they say well we've got to have this spot. well. Mr. Hicks is all for it because you know its going to be a lot of money in his pocket and 1 can understand. Why, he doesn't live there, he rents there. he rents his businesses and he'll. as far as he's concerned that's not his problem. it's our problem and now he's got. talking about apartments up there and he rents these businesses to people and I don't think they'll want to look out their doors and windows and see all those antennas and stuff an his building up there and I just hope you all turn this one down too and tell him to go put his antennas over there where they are not in somebody's back yard shooting their beams on twenty-four (24) hours a day. So I just. that's about all I have to say but I sure hope you all sure take some consideration all of the things that you did before when you tuned it down. Thank you very much. Chairman Martin Don - thank you very much. My name is Margarito Chavez and I live on two thousand five hundred sixty six (2566) Highway 82 and my house is right in front of this new building, that they, proposing to build and considering the decrease in the value of my house. rm concerned and I came to see what I can do to see if you can. you know. deal with my concerns. so its all that I have to say. the rest they've said it already and I'm with the rest of the people. Chairman Martin - okay thank you Mr. Chavez. Anyone else? My name is John Horch. I live two thousand five hundred sixty two (2562) Highway 82 and I'm another concerned resident here. In the past. I've just came into this neighborhood. in the past they turned this down and 1 don't see any reason why there's any difference about what's going on three hundred (300) or four hundred (400) yards up the hill. it still has the same impact and the same effect on everybody, just hope you take our concerns and considerations and do the right thing. But that's all I have to say. Chairman. Martin — All right sir. any question. Is that all, Ms. Lynch you had another comment. Chris Lynch — there were some other concerned citizens that had told me they would come today and I had explained to them last time that the meeting ran about two (2) hours and so they said they would try to come a little later so I'm sorry that I misinformed them and I'm happy the meeting hadn't lasted that long. but they wee planning to come. Mr. Colby was one that he had objected to the antennas being up there and some other people, hut. so that's why they're not here. thank you. Chairman Martin — anything from staff at this moment. Fred Jarman — none for us. Commissioner McCown — I guess I have a question of staff and those comments made that is was zoned commercial residential. I think this is commercial limited isn't it? Fred Jarman — it's actually commercial general. Commissioner McCown — okay commercial general. can you read the allowed uses in commercial general. Fred Jarman — I'm happy to it's a very long list. Commissioner McCown — that's fine. we've got all afternoon. Fred Jarman — so commercial general is any use by right — I'll do the uses by right first — CL zone district. Commissioner McCown — that's what's I'm looking for — uses by right that occur there without any hearing of any kind. Fred Jarman — sure. "lumber yard, motor freight depot storage, single family, two family. multi-family dwelling. accessory buildings including huildings For shelter and enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the that for residential purpose and fences, hedges, gardens. walls and similar landscape features: park: boarding house: hotel, motel lode: Church. community building. day nursery and school: auditorium. public building for administration. fraternal lodge art gallery. museum. library: hospital. clinic nursing or convalescent hone: group hoe for the elderly. Office for conduct of business or profession. studio for conduct of arts and crafts, provided all active is conducted within a building. a real long list of commercial establishments. wholesale and retail establishment including sale of food, beverages. dry goods. furniture, appliances. automotive and vehicular equipment, hardware, clothing. mobile homes. building materials feed. garden supply and plant materials. Personal service establishment. including hank, barber or beauty shop: Laundromat laundry or dry-cleaning plat sere ing individuals only: miniature golf course and accessory facilities, mortuary. photo studio. shoe repair, tailor shop restaurant, reading room. private club. theater and indoor recreation. General service establishment. including repair and service of automotive and vehicular equipment. vehicular rental, service and repair of appliance, shop for blacksmith. cabinetry. glazing. machining. min-storage units, printing. publishing . plumbing, sheet metal and contractor's yard, pipelines". Those are the uses by right. Commissioner McCown — particularly that's what I was wanting to hear because those are all things that could take place without the hearing like this occurring and any public comment taken, any of those uses and if I could of the applicant. a lot has been asserted today that these beams shooting through your house and things of this nature casue a depreciation in property value — do you have any historical data that alight allude to this and I guess of the engineer. if you could show us or if you have a presentation somewhere that could show us the patterns of emission from those antennas, if that would maybe give the public a little more comfort in what's going on here today and if you could also tell us why this particular area first down lower on Highway 82 and now further up on the hill is a chosen area specifically for the location of these towers to better service the users of Verizon as opposed to across the river. across 6 & 24. across Grand Avenue up on the hill. Ann Closser — If I might — I didn't write them down. Chairman Martin — that's a long list plus you can respond to any public comment. Ann Closser — Well. if I take the first item. property values and do I have any historical information or data about that. and actually I do. it is quite dated. I don't have anything more current than this but I do have studies done by licensed real estate appraisers and 1 don't have multiple copies hut I can submit them for the record. What I do have and in these instances the proximity of a tower actually and some a hundred (l00) foot tower in a neighborhood where there are their residences being sold and thcv diel all kinds of comparables and re-did the conclusions, and 1 can't give you each of the studies but I can will submit for the record these studies by licensed real estate appraisers and if you read. this was a report done in El Paso County. Colorado and after studying homes. this is relative to a steel milfoil one hundred (100) feet in height. This is another question that you had about other locations but this gentlemen concluded based on a study using studies in the Craigmore area in Colorado Springs where sales of single family homes with milfoil towers were compared to sales without use of milfoil towers, it was concluded that properties with tower views had no discernable negative or position influence on their value to the view of the towers. And rye got three separate reports and three geographic locations, one is in Arizona. one 1 believe, it's been a long time since rye looked at this, is in Edmonds. Washington. the state of Washington and I can certainly read these but I guess the point is I want to make these are studies done by professionals. factually either very different situations than really the primary visual component of' this installation of this installation is the up valley set of antennas. Uh, the down valley set of antennas is going to he mounted to the gable and il will not be discernable. 1 can show you an aerie' photograph of this property and these four buildings relative to some of these other properties that people have concern but if you just look at .the proximity of where this building is relatively to the topography and where they were, the only really visual concern would be this one up valley set of antennas. 1 think it's up valley I get confused. In any event 1.11 submit these for the record: I can cenainly read more .of the conclusion. H.ere's one sentence from the report in the Edmonds. Washington area and they again studied the effects of a cellular facility. again it was a hundred ( 100) foot milfoil and utility shed on the undeveloped corner of an existing church site in a residential neighborhood and this gentleman concluded from this data "it is apparent that there is no measurable sale pieces leading to the concluding that the proximity of a typical single family residence for a medium sized cellular transmission tower does not appear to have a positive or a negative influence on value"'. so I suggest the thought that these four (4) antennas will have a negativeeffect on property values in a commercial general zone district is further attenuated by the fact that the nature of this area and also the fact that we are talking about four (4) roof mounted antennas as opposed to a stand alone structure and I'll let my assistant Chairman Martin — remember all those questions Larry asked? Ann Closser — okay and the question. another question that you had sir was why not on the hill and 1 heard some of the members of the public why not across the valley, across the river and why not somewhere else. Just in a general concept and we can talk about some of t.he other locations that were considered. in a general concept if you're going on undeveloped ground. then you will have to 'build a tower, you will, because you can't run antennas to a tree and in some urban environments. Xcel used to let you mount them on light poles hut you have to have some vertical element in the sky and so it's always preferable. any ,jurisdiction around the state of Colorado and even Wyoming. if you go in and say we. want to put in a new tower _just with antennas. then they go eek, we don't want any more towers but if you've got an existing building and you can mount the antennas on the huilding that•s far preferable. so I think its compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area, finding an established building is always optimal as opposed to huilding a new tower. And then when you build on raw ground like that you've got access issues, 1 mean I've developed sites in rural Grand County and other places where you.' ve got to cut an access road and then not only concern the impact of the visual tovver but if there's no established access you're going to he cutting an access road and you'll he having a much bigger impact on the land than if you put your antennas on an existing building with parking. access and all of the infrastruce established. And we did. there was a tower being considered uh or proposed. there's a water tank that was considered. uh .there's different locations where they are others — like I said there are twelve (12) locations where were considered. one of which was of .course the upholstery shop which was denied in July of two thousand five (2005), there was a location near the Airport that was selected and uh the problem there was its proximity to the airport. And to get the flight trafficand things like that — it was not able to develop a tower there. so and 1 don't want to take your time going through all these different scenarios but I think you understand the general concept that mounting antennas to existing buildings with existing access and utilities is preferable for a lot of reasons. I think another one is that one of the questions by Ms. Hawkins was what would be the hours for that generator. And we can actually set that up at a time that's agreeable to the community. If the community wants that to he run at noon on a Tuesday every week for 3() minutes when the potential for disruption to the neighbors is the best time. we can certainly set that up. We are totally open to when the generator would be tested and yes in compliance with the last condition of the proposed condition number. five (5); we can produce evidence to demonstrate that the generator, any. noise generated from the generator will he compliance with state standards. The self contained generator, the actual containment unit. has certain sound attenu ated features developed as part of it and in addition to that it will be inside a CME wall. and uh which is consistent with other retaining wall that are to he constructed. so visually it will be screened very well and well within state standards and I can submit for the record. I don't have it with me, hut I can submit documentation to that effect. So 1 guess it's up to the community to say when they would like the generator tested. And when it's remote it means that it is on remotely when someone flips a switch and they are going to run it for 20 minutes. it's generally 20 minutes and the reason for the generator I might add iif there's a failure of commercial power in the area, let's say there's a flood or a terrible ice storm or something and Holy Cross Electric can't keep up with the demands, and so are a lot of people are out. the land lines are down. power lines are down, then there will actually be a mechanism of communicating and this mechanism will be kept viable by the generator. uh and so it's actually only the after the power is out for an extenuated amount alarm that the generator would run continuously. Lighting. Ms. Hawkins had a question about lighting and no the roof top antennas will not he lit in a fashion. Uh, her third (3'd) question was how will this affect other electronics like cell phones. cordless phones. satellite TV and thinks like that. And it's a condition of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) license that Verizon wireless not violate, that if the transmissions intercept a signal it must not interfere with any other user of the electroniegnintics. Ms. Campa, Jamie Campa. 1 'm sorry. she had a question about property values and hopefully we have addressed that. I don't really know. I think the other concerns were issues that I've already addressed but if I've missed something let me know. Chairman Martin — I'm writing as fast as I can — you've got a lot of them questioning. I'm waiting for the applicant to finish. Have you finished? Ann Closser — I believe so. okay, very good. Commissioner Chairman Martin - Now. Jamie. be sure you state your name again. Jamie Campa — two thousand five hundred fifty four (2554) Highway 82. uh. so the application. I was wanting to know. you were saying over by the airport you tried to get property there but it wasn't feasible. You couldn't get property there. Chairman Martin — she testified to that other than they had looked --- Jamie Campa — it wasn't acceptable. Chairman Marlin — I don't know. Jamie Campa — Well. I'm trying to figure this out because the way I understood it they tried to get property there but it wasn't acceptable because of interference. well if there's interference and it's shooting across there anyway. there's still going to be interference_ So I don't know. I could hear but I can't hear . ery well because of her back is me. so l might have misunderstood anyway. But I also want to say that we also have right across from me. Mountain Valley which is a home for the disabled. and the man from Verizon was talking about hospitals and you know all the zoning and all of this kind of stuff and everything, well Mountain. Valley is a home for disabled people and to me that's like a nursing home and if it's like a nursing home type deal. I mean 1 would think that would he in consideration too also if it should he put up near a hospital ora nursing home or something like that. It's funded by the State so 1 would ,just want that considered. Oh, and Mr. Colby is here. Chairman Martin — and he wishes to go ahead and raise his hand and say he promises to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. John Colby — yes. Chairman Martin — thank you. Now make sure you state your whole name. My name is John Colby and my address is two thousand five hundred fifty two (2552) State Highway 82. My concern is about valuation of property. After listening to her examples. I'ni not sold on that one bit. You're not goiq 10 sell Inc on properties in Garfield County that's not going to be affected. if someone wants to stick this wart of a facility like this next to them. 1 know 1 couldn't talk someone into buying my home if I spelled that out by being next door. So IYjust don't believe that at all and I've read articles in the Denver Post about neighhorhood, the commission voting down on a cell tower because it was in a neighborhood and the concerns were the evaluation of property and she sited some place in El Paso County, that's not Garfield County. Chairman Martin — okay. thank you. Anyone else that I might have missed? All right, applicant. Thank you. Ann Closser — Uh. i was not the real estate person for Verizon Wireless: in conjunction with the July two thousand five (2005) application on the upholstery shop. hut correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Colby had you entered into a lease agreement with Verizon Wireless at that time? Mr. Colby — no — inaudible. Chairman Martin - I need John to have a microphone if he's going to respond. My name is John Colby and my property is at two thousand five hundred fifty two (2552) State Highway 82 Chairman Martin - and the question was did you have a lease agreement in place with Verizon in two thousand five (2005)? John Colby - they wanted to sign one with me. I wanted to sign it however it wasn't even close to final. I never really knew: I was kind of in the background the whole time ii all went on, Two (2) years went by and I never knew what was going on. Chairman Martin - to the applicant again. another question. Ann Closser- yes. if I could respond please to Jamie Campa as to interference. The reason that the location was not identified. it was actually at the Rodeo grounds and in close proximity to the airport. And it was because of the heieht, flight path. not interference: it was because of airplanes coming in landing and taking off at the airport that Verizon was not able to secure that location because it couldn't get the elevation at the airport so it didn`t have to do with interference. And then in terms of the home for the disabled that is apparently in close proxirnit). Verizon wireless has antennas on hospitals all over. as a matter of fact it is common and I do a lot of installations in medical centers and we actually beef up the signal in our complexes and hospitals. medical centers, I mean it's really common not only for me to have adjacent cell I mean one that's in close proximity, antennas similar to what we have here but also to put one on the hospital itself because doctors and medical personnel use cell phones all of the time and these are experts in the field and they want these kinds of installations on hospitals so is there any risk associated with the adjacent home for the disabled persons, my answer to that is no. Chairman Martin - all right - any other questions. Ms. Lynch. Chris Lynch. thank you Chairman Martin - identify yourself again. May name is Christine Lynch and 1 own property at two thousand live hundred fifty four (2554) Highway 82 and you were asking if she had any documents saying that the property values do not go down. I have information here myself, it says what other towns are doing and it's a lot of different towns listed here and when they've been trying to put up antennas why the towns have turned it down and I have all this information I can give to you and you can see, Chairman Martin - what is that you are reading? Chris Lynch - the last time we had the hearing here it was Cedar Rose in Carbondale: she has gotten all this information together and it is in a report on electromactic radiation, microwave frequene> and cellular transmission towers but it's just a variety of information. it names the towns, it talks about the cellular towers that were trying to be put up and why the towns turn it down. The Commissioners tells you one town in Wisconsin. they were inappropriate for residential neighborhood is why the Commissioners turned it down. It would be not be pleasing for the towers, it would have an effect on the value of the properties in the neighborhood and the presence and use of the tower may create a health hazard and could pose uncertain health risk in the future. That is what they turned it down for. I have a lot of different information on what the towns are doing and then there's also here about propeny values and it says. and there's more on that, it says lawsuits are surfacing which allow property owners to sue for lost property value because thehelieve their property values are hurt by the fear of EM fields and radiation, regardless of whether the scientific information proves cause for that fear. Much of this focus has heen involving major electrical transmission lines hut currently the concern of EM radiation from cellular towers or of transmitters and so forth are impacting the real estate market.- I can give you copies of these if you'd like to have those. Chairman Martin - I think a copy of the Cedar Rose was submitted to us on the last year. Chris Lynch - yes. And there's quite a bit of pages of this. but I will give those to you. Chairman Martin - thank you. Chris Lynch - thank you. My name is John Horch. two thousand five hundred sixty three (2563) Highway 82 and you're speaking about the flight path of airports and anyway you want to look at it, depending upon which way the air is the wind blowing I believe it's depending upon which way they take off and they either land or take off and they are within a hundred (1001 feet of my house anyways so as to the interference with airplanes. I don't see where that would come into play really other than we have the same issues they do. Chairman Martin - I think they were talking lowers and the height of towers not the risk. I hope l -m correct on that. Anything in conclusion to the applicant, Ann Closser - 1 have nothing further. Chairman Maritn - Staff? Fred Jarman - Mr. Chairman. I just had one point or order. the application that 1 brought down with me was for the former version that you all looked at before: there was a question regarding Mr. Colby on his knowledge of his application and what I have and I can pass that around to you. its a letter between Verizon and Mr. Colby. actually it's the letter of authorization dated March 22, 20005 basically says Mr. Colby. says. Brad Johnson of Rutherford Enterprises has my consent to submit an application to Garfield County Planning and Zoning Department on behalf of Verizon Wireless for the proposed telecommunication facility to be Located at two thousand five hundred fifty two (2552) Highway 82, signed by John Colby on March 30, 2005 and tested and notarized by Beverly Zancanella. Chairman Martin - thank you very much. Anything councelor? Michael Howard - I'm available for questions but I have nothing at this time. Chairman Martin - thank you very much. If there are no other items then do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Commissioner McCown - so moved. Chairman Martin - second. All those in favor. McCown - aye Marlin aye Commissioner McCown - I make a motion to approve the special use permit for a communications facility with conditions from staff deleting Condition No. lour (4) and to emphasis and question No. five (5) by including run times will he conductive to area setting and that the generator will be outside, it will not he in an existing building but it will he in a concrete wall structure to also impede the sound and 1 believe that was testified to by the applicant. Chairman Martin - all right we have a motion, I'll second the motion and we'll have a discussion and go from there. Discussion: Chairman Martin - any words of wisdom. Commissioner McCown - they answered pretty well all of my questions: all have been answered by the applicant. I know there's a lot of concerns by the citizens. I don't think that. well I know fora fact. that this is not something you have to acknowledge to a person. its not something you have to tell someone that if you're selling the property that there is some type of a communication facility .within x number of feet of your parcel and I guess the way the real estate market is in this area. 1 can't even envision that something as iniquitous as what's proposed here today would have any adverse effect four hundred and twenty (42(1) feet away from Highway 82 and barely visible and that's why I chose to remove the structure. I think the structures surrounding the antenna would have been more obnoxious than. just the basic four (4) antennae that's proposed. 1 don't think you'll see the ones on the other end at all. But I cannot believe that it would hurt the sale of homes. if it were a large steel tower proposed with a flashing light on it because of the airport maybe. I don't know. but this one 1 don't think the average person would be able to find it if you were asked to locate it. That's why I made the motion 10 approve. Chairman Martin - and I seconded the motion. I find other issues that are there and that happens to be the number one (1); we've always encouraged to make sure that we brought telecommunications and towers and I think we were the first one in the area to go ahead and have rules and regulations in reference to that hack in ninety six ('96) ninety seven ('47): we also encourage extremely hard that we do co -locations and there are numerous areas that have co -locations and that's one of the reasons is because it's not acceptable in a lot of neighborhoods. We've done everything we could in reference to view shed. location to the neighbors. in and under federal regulations you can't. deny because of health issues. uh but uh it's not acceptable in the neighborhood. it may not be in the hest interest of the neighborhood and those that live there and uh the building is not even built yet so its not an existing site, so it will be a new site. With all that I'll have to make a decision in the next thirty (30) seconds and we call for i he q uest.ion. All those in favor? In favor: McCown - aye Opposed: Martin - aye; Houpt - absent Chairman Margin - I opposed simply because I think it is new and we do have existing sites that are more acceptable to the neighborhoods because they are there and can he used by Verizon which they are using in other sites. 1just want to see that we maximize our sites ,is we did in Carbondale and New Castle and in Rifle - I'll like to see that happen. I find it is a tied' me. at that point it is not a positive vote. and that it dies. Michael Howard - correct. Therefore we need a moi ii in in the negative. Chairman Martin — all right. You are correct on that one. And I'll probably get the same issue and that is Fil make a motion to deny because it is not in the hest area, it is not a co-location site but it is a new site, that other sites are available within the area that would fit the use and that this site itself is not crucial to the operation of Verizon. that it still can function. it only is an enhancement to their service and therefore I say please use existing sites in the motion. Commissioner McCown — I will second for discussion. Chairman Martin — 1 knew you would. Commissioner McCown - and merely state that if the first tower was never allowed in Garfield County. there would never be co-locations and this is a tower and the facility owner has already said he would have no problem with co-locations so maybe it would only enhance future co-locations in the area as opposed to not allowing to exist anyway. Chairman Martin — in agreement 1 think Verizon is a company we all use: I have nothing against them I just think the location is a new site and we promised our citizens that we would limit those sites and use co- location sites and we try to encourage that and I've not heard any evidence saying that it is absolutely crucial that the service would end if this site was not approved. So therefore 1 say it is just an enhancement to the existing site and call for the question. all those in favor? In favor: Martin — aye Opposed: McCown — aye: Houpt - absent GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile 970.384.3470 www.garfield-county.com Special Use Permit GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.) Street 1 Genera! Location of Property: Address 2 Sr bid h1,7,7 F/ 646A ALW(Dj 5 0 rr N 5 r Legal Description: �.rLa( _fr dX b t''` A- ar Til--. o 1-4a. ivc,1 v. Sw /y P lP o� 6 2 z, r,b s, 4 yq �-' f Existing Use & Size of Property in acres: V,4)-C1V,4)-C1 Acres/ Cor++►lLeet `�1 Propr y r Description of Special Use Requested: fere-too,- r'.,%l're-ftss w,,, ie( / 1c.iJ l--` 1i-4iiJ N. w; re les 5 Pk t: E € j 7 7 c a a..; (i1 ..,3 #- 4i'' C.(-3LiL 5---,),,..— 11il, L b../ "7 Y z . )!• Zone District: Cr - '.i.! Name of Property Owner (Applicant: (,r-JE►�wuo) Coftrmerf.411 ,LI -C- V x4 :.- ' G J Address: is -2.0 S. fr ra ,,1 /q-vr , Telephone: 9? - 9Yr- y..1-5, r City: ,-(a nr+.uv.0 1t r,- ^:i1 State: Eo Zip Code: ' /bot FAX: Name of Owner's Representative, if any (Attomey, Planner, etc): rs. Vi ik 6 ! user- (!»r (o,.,4„(i7 .,.) LLL Far Ve r,i ta.4 l✓V'irc (.1 s Address: ¥6L 0 G -or- for--,. Dr) Telephone: 303- Sf y- r6 2 7 City: (o s 1I • r- _ State: (O. Zip Code: '??030 r FAX: 3o 3 -s r V-ico 4 Doc. No.: STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: TC Date: r Planner: _ Hearing Date: August 21, 2007 Prince Creek Construction, Inc. P.4. Bax 700 Groom Simla. COE160% 970-945-4545 970-045444 FaR Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81 601 Attn: Fred Jarmen Re: Verizon Wireless Special Use Permit Application for Glenwood Commercial LLC Property Located at 2550 Highway 82. Dear Mr. Jarmen: I am a the manager for the Glenwood Commercial LLC property at 2550 Hwy 82. On behalf of Glenwood Commercial LLC, I authorize Closser Consulting, LLC to process any and all land use approvals to enable Verizon Wireless to construct and operate a wireless telecommunication facility on this property. I understand that a special use permit is required. This authorization extends to any and all approvals which may be required. This authorization encompasses all actions necessary to secure the requisite approvals. Please do not hesitate to phone with any questions you might have. I may be reached at: 970.945-4545. Thank you. Sincerely, David Hicks Portions of Garfield County Assessors Maps 2185-222 and 2185-223 12 1/JJJ1 -ul- 'eV /ir/etrii.". Rnsriao Crrrrffir msrrr liv 11.04 14 R a r' Numbered Properties Within 200" of Glenwood Commercial Parcel Glasser Consulting LLC - 12/12/07 All Properties Within 200' of the Glenwood Commercial Parcel Parcel q Owner/Address 1 218522300026 Nancy R. Byers 352 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO. 81657 2 218522300034 Universal United Corp. % Employees Retirement Plan of Hajoca CO 127 Coulter Ave. Ardmore, PA. 19003-2410 3 218522300028 John E. Colby 2552 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601-4301 4 218522300027 Christine G. & Don L. Lynch 26241 S. Lakemont Dr. Sun Lakes, AZ. 85248 5 218522300036 Hughes, David J., Trust, Dated February 23, 1994, David J. Hughes, Settlor AND* 21911 Road Grand Junction, CO. 81505 6 218.5.22300037 Margarito & Maria Eugenia 2566 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 7 218522300017 John Horch 2562 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 8 218522300018 Mountain Valley Developmental Services P.O. Box 338 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602-0338 9 218522300020 Michael & Jusith A. Wadyko 2560 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 10 2185222060018 Byers, Donald Craig, Trust 352A Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO. 81657 11 218522206013 Roaring Fork Market Place LLLP 1245 Mountain View Aspen, CO, 81611 12 218522100965 Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6&24 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 13 2185.22300011 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 0051 Service Center Drive Aspen, CO. 81621 14 218522300002 City of Glenwood Springs 806 Cooper Ave Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Closser Consulting LLC - 11/28/07 Print Page Print Legend Page 1 of 1 Close Window r'vkicn Local/0i— oredly, �t� !ewco/ a {J of lr/ChwVQ J ri‘ki 5 We ksi e, S Apws ,!J e0 h, /0 r M T plc./ S http://www.beyondgeo.comljsmapper/print map.php?image=A839EDOE-C18F-4079-AC9E-108DFC2A5E7F-CE6CA6CD-DD... 8/23/2007 1111111 11111 1111111 ILII IIIN 11111 11111 III VIII III 1111 Recorded the day of Reception 1 Recorder ft o'clock m. 1115 DEED, Rude this day of between DAVID K. HIE B UIT CLAIM DEED /5-1 70(11 Grantor, far the conelderation of d'a'd TER DOLLARS ARD OTHER GOOD NA VALUABLE CONSSDERATICaI "" in hand paid, hereby falls and qultcleimm to OLE/HOOD @C1M1lCIAL, LLC Grantee, shwa street address is 1317 amp AV11117i 01011 Qi.li11ND00 0111.130111, CO 61601 City of , County of GIALTIIZi.D , State of Colorado , the following reel property In the Comfy of 7 IlQ.D end State of Colorado, to wit: 811 MINIIIT site Arum= ffi1TO ASD NUDE A PAJT 8311120e, also Moen as West and number 2550 i111S 52. OL111RNOOD OPILT ltil. CO 81601 TOOEtRII wfth ell its appurtenances - The singular neer dal! include the plural, the plural the singular. mrd the ase of s7 gender shell be applicable to all senders. signed as of the dry and your first dime srittel_ State of Colorado ) 1 se. Carty of tTazffIII.D ) The foregoing inetnrent see sanOrtedged before est this day of %_j_ 6 •7 by moms #f. 1IC>ZI MycoWitness ss hard pndin official seal. r r My commission expiraa M! COMilialanE,OM 8601.21.2006 Neter/ Public When recorded return to: DAVID W. HICKS 1317 OfealiDAVEIRE 1101. GLE16004 SPRINGS. CO 61601 Form Re. OCD (Quit Claim Deed • 2/97) Car/44663 GiT7244663 1111111 Hlll 11111111111 11111 11111 11111 111 11111 1111 1111 686103 /2/38/2004 09:52 81651 P453 R AL SDORF 2 of 2 R 11.00 0 0.00 GARFIE. D awry CO EXHIBIT A PARCEL Ac A TRACT O7 LAND SITUATIO IN 71E NE1/48W1/4 81OTION 22, SOWNISIP 6 SOUTH. )1.1(31 89 1R8T Or TEN 6T1 PRINCIPAL MIRLDIAII. 140 11 PARTICULARLT D18CRIBED AB rOLLOWBs BESI11NING AT A POINT ON TEE NORTE LI1R OF SAID N11/48W1/4 WH. 1C1 TAM NORTHWEST CORNER Or SAID 1(11/48151/4 BRANS N 87 DEQIEEI 05' W 397.33 71ST SAID POINT ALSO BEING TSE 10RTHW11T CORE= Or 'TR1 AMEND D EDGERS SUBDIVISION RECORDED AS RBC. 6419357 Ill THE RECORDS 07 TEE QAR7IELD COUNTY CLXARB 017101, T11ENCE ALONG TE1 WESTERLY LINN Or SAID SUWDIVISI05, 8 15 DIGRESS 17' W 330.31 PENT TO A POINT ON T81 1RSTERL7 LINT Or SAID SUBDIVISION. PARC1L B; TNEi1C1 LEAVING SAID W1STIRLY LIEF 8 63 DEORREN 39'19' 15 68.06 FEET; TRIMS 8 26 DIMING 20'41" E 76.59 MEET TO A POINT SAID W19TERLY LIWL THINCE 8 13 131001.111 17'00• W 207.59 TEST TO A POINT ON THE WORTRERLY LINE Of THE RIGHT Or WAY Or COLORADO STAT1 HIGHWAY 82; TEEMS N 66 810111155 05' 15 31.36 MET ALONG TH1 NORTH LINE OF SAID RIGE'T OF WAY; TSElFC1 1 00 DEG711B 09' 15 615.15 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE N01'= LIEN Or SAID 11151/42151/4, THnl0E 8 87 ONGREIS 05' 1 199.33 711T *10110 TEE NORTE LIN1 Or BALD 1511/48151/4 TO THE POINT OF EDGINNING. PAR.CIL 8: A TRACT OF LAND BITUAT1m xN T81 8111/40W1/4 O7 91CT1011 22 TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 W;BS OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL 1RRIDIA), AND NONE PARTICULARLY DESCIIBID 1LB 7OLL0158 e 1ECIMING AT TH1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 101/48161/4, MEC/ 8 87 DEGREES 05. 1 191.00 FEST; TRa1CI 8 DO DEGREES 09' E 615.15 FENT NONE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LIE1 Or COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE N 66 DIGRESS 05' W 12.54 71117 ALONG SAID RIGHT OF MAY; TEINC1 CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT Or WAY N 62 DIGRESS 54' W 184.90 717x; TONICS CONTINU2N0 ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 60 D101112 1B'30' W 75.35 FEET TO THE 15185 LTNN 07 SAID 111/45151/4, THENCE ALONG SAID 151ST LINE 16 DO DZORESS 09' 15 96.18 7817 TO A POINT ON AN EXISTING 7ENCE 1.1141; TENNC1 ALONG- RAID FINCH L,IIR T11 FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES' 1. 8 88 DOQREES 31'43. 1 A DISTAMC1 Or 4.39 711x1 2. N 01 DEGREE8 24'35• W A DISTANCE Or 157.01 FEET; 3. N 05 810:1118 14'22. 15 A DISTANCE O7 148.97 FEET; 4. 1( 00 DEGREES 04'18' E A DISTANCE OF 22.40 VEST; 5. N 06 D1GRE1S 54'13' E A DIBTAi1CI OF 100.10 711T TO TSE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY Or GARFIELD STATE Or COLORADO Verizon Wireless Project Narrative Purpose Verizon Wireless would like to build a new wireless facility at the Glenwood Commercial property located at 2550 Highway 82. This new site will fill in a coverage gap in the network for Verizon Wireless customers in the southern portion of Glenwood Springs including those traveling along Highway 82. Description This facility will be located in the fourth building in the Glenwood Commercial project, furthest up the hill to the north, furthest from the highway. The facility will have 3 primary components, the antennas, the equipment to support the antennas, and a backup generator to keep the site on the air in the event of a power failure. There will be two sets of four panel antennas. Each antenna will measure around 1' wide by 4' tall. One set of four will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end. The other will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Some of these antennas will not be visible from the highway. Others will be just barely visible. The equipment to support these antennas will be located inside on the bottom floor of this building. in addition to the electronics to support the antennas, backup batteries will be installed in the event of a power failure. Finally, a backup diesel generator will be located outside the building, adjacent to the equipment room. This generator will run one a week for 30 minutes as a maintenance measure. Otherwise it will only run in the event of a power failure. Once construction is complete, the site will only be visited once or twice a month by a technician in a small truck for routine maintenance. No water or sewer services will be required. Phone and electrical services will be required, and will come from existing services at the Glenwood Commercial property. Closser Consulting LLC - 8/24/07 CRITERIA General Special Use Criteria 5,03.1— Utilities. N/A, no water or sewer will be required. 5.03.2 — Street Improvements. N/A. Once constructed, the site will only be visited once or twice a month by a technician is a small truck, 5.03.3 — Minimize Impact, The antennas will be barely visible if at all from surrounding public use areas. The equipment to support the antennas will be located inside the existing building. The backup generator will be hidden in an existing retaining wall. Use Specific Criteria —Broadcast Studio and/or Communication Facility 5.03.13.1 _ FCC Requirements. This facility will adhere to all FCC requirements. It cannot be turned on until these requirements are met. 5.03.13.2 — No technically feasible collocation opportunities were found. There will be no objections by Verizon Wireless or the property owner to collocation at this site. 5.03.13.3 — Freestanding facilities. N/A. This is not a freestanding facility. 1.0/17Z/8 — 011 6u!4insuo3 CD -0 CD 0 1 S]1 ca CD 1 NJ 0 CD Gry SI) [k3 0 CD C. LZ D 3 CD a. 0 CD' vertariwireless • CO3 VALLEY VIEW (ALT 6) 2550 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 CLIENT SOIL VERIZON WIRELESS CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 3131 VAUGHN WAY, SUITE 550 AURORA, COLORADO 80014 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: DALLAS KILAND PHONE: (303) 503-6700 FAX: (303) 873-8675 OWNER GLENWOOD SPRINGS LLC 2520 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE 4210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 ATTN.: DAVID HICKS PHONE: (970) 945-4545 ARCHITECT KDC ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS. P.C. 7442 SOUTH TUCSON WAY, SUITE 180 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 ATTN: STEVEN J. HAAG PHONE: (303)750-6999 FAX: (303)750-0236 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER KDC ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS, P.C. 7442 SOUTH TUCSON WAY, SUITE 180 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 ATTN: STEVEN K. WOODRUFF PHONE: (303)750-6999 FAX: (303)750-0236 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KDC ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS, P.C. 7442 SOUTH TUCSON WAY, SUITE 180 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 ATTN: GARRY CORNISH. P.E. PHONE: (303)750-6999 FAX: (303)750-0236 I'd ! A ENGINEER SURVEYOR CALVADA SURVEYING, INC 56 INVERNESS DRIVE EAST, SUITE 101 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112-500 ATTN.: JESSE LUGO PHONE: 720-488-1303 FAX: 720 488-1306 POWER COMPANY CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS PHONE: (970) 945-5491 TELEPHONE COMPANY QWEST COMMUNICATIONS PHONE: (800) 525-3557 MECHANICAL ENGINEER MEA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 13771 EAST RICE PLACE AURORA, COLORADO 80015 ATTN: MICHAEL E. AITKEN, P.E. PHONE: (720) 870-5630 FAX: (720) 941-1311 VICINITY MAP oRIvNo DIRECTIONS *62E6 OTEACE FTur OE YET17T1311F10E. TLE EAST E1Lifemni DYE. 31 !OSIS TO 1.75.. 1.25 67174 3.m OA TD E51 874 413. fYTT *An. 191 851 AYE 4.k IltES TO I-7. 54:4E 0410 1.74 X116 1413T. 1.71137 116.3' 111113 50 111T •118 1011405 CD -02 [ CIDID]J'I 17l3*,A5RJ1 .'3 31103. MINT CM or, 5164111 0516€ -6 ITI55. M1T51514311 ORM EC0E5 811 4443 51 131.11 05 61.1 AYE. TO TRW ASE. MOO C6 1114/3 47EA63.12 2.5 1111$ S0F 1111, PA.g5 &AM ASE AO 414Ia51N4E4 PW415 TO DIRT FOTO 04 113 PGrt1E15T SIDE ff 453 H131AT. lP 11E AMC TO 01O440 [ST LPU 51EF1T. INDEX OF oRawrxIs Zt TITLE SHEET LS1 DAVYY Z-1, StTE P%.46. BLAMED FOY PVH I.2, EMINENT Pt »I LAY[1JT, O€1Q FUN Z-3, EtEYATIO6 LEGAL DESORPTION SIZE RIMEL 6k 21m 22-1-0-415 511E WIC CO3 16117 71E4 MEER TO DP15EY. DRAWING SOLS ELEVI.T1DI N. 3 I MaHM 371 ELEYA'IW 0f1ATL Itiffil SFrT 'two Foi DETAIL ZCT IDI 611111 ?EFt6153€7+ FTP SECTIO+ 60ED 13175 ORAIHAE PA114 BULDINC1 DATA m.BCTAL. LLC 2521171171 11»0 A141.3 Tai IDIOM. woe W4TICTATiN., 12A3112 4l1O5 MOE, IMP 915-4545 WOAC,15 51'1 L?AT;O1. 49€1.1TI1 eDIE ESD 06165 €:L66 TM) 711-57/ 256! FEMUR 112 [1 Pm= 515:W66. C91, 1' O emit 0204140 (Belle** TFLECTINUEICATTO1 FACILITY [uJIP1E111 »TEAS, 17122 F7. 8 dM 90. FT. pw11 111410ED, 155 441T1L176 MOE+ IN1EFINT1111L 3'1L0113 CWF IIBCI PW IN%L B.ECTRIVL CIDE IFECI 2416 PROJECT SUMMARY. OEITTRACTO7 S NLL FF 'OCE ILL 641E716 s. L,LiA, T4S45. 51064I7TITKO1. - SIPE1 4I511l. ETC. TO FULL' E2ERITE 1173. IdN FEO4IFElE1IT5 Ali DETAILED 01 THE OMAIMA54S APO D'EC1 9CATIO6 A111 SWLL 1€;11041. BUT le E LIMITED TO. TT( €10.101114 lT36, SIZE 1:73 PO .= DIESEL ORIYErr STAND ETI GENOP147€ WITH DM HAMm DIEM_ F1E1. TAA 151 CAIO_'w PAL. PLACE1 WI ¢ ECull*fNF, AID ALL A5:4C1ATE0 PARTS. A' Q(U0 'lWR TF €7151116 AJILOII6. FI,AIMM CF TD3CT3146 4)1115 01 FDO. 31TE 03(3111 ELECRICAL 410 TEi,ErT(fE 3061MS 1 ETECT/ST EEM 6611.47 IID ALL 165DC1ATf4 PARTS O1 57511141 3,ILD110 PI6241 15 POT AFFECT® IT 111415 163TALIATAI- k.1 MIMED 137217 107 IFUIiA'.ED 111E11141113$ :$ A fl 4,115204 (1111646 szP+RCES 11.1. 0. xITY APPROVALS @INWs s1r71NT7 6 ATE EI+3IrEm7•s MATURE ,ATE PAGLECi IIUNkr,ER'S SIr i1TUc- DATE 5•e1'yr*rn Owen ..s.car1( Dorm, 54 611 70CIAn1s artscha1. Aly cRANA1 5115, CFPre1rJ N'J renul1 in meth t.4111 4(4 115 154!07 161.41131,011 70111.. 5�• •• amm, 5. tomIN= = r a 11111111• 1 1 .1111 MN 1 1 1 61511151 (11M1.•f NO fir A.1151f5. Wig •'15 f,u1w_ emir U111 MI 1511 115 (55.,91 c* V wireless t,1T.,k p•. .,. wv*aro rw.r Shl 1=11114= PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN 8Yt CHECKED BY; 1+ ©ATE: REVISIONS - 144 27 EVISIONS 3.27 0 'lIL+lT g"+I 5 A 16.21 or LIDIT TTEv151P1 Ill .27.17 troll TErrsiO4 DATE: ISSUED AS, el? TT£LINN0FI, WWI :MAIM PERMIT APFLICATiPi IP4IN3 4PPRJW 5 COk4TF11CTI0N PE►Y7T APPL'CATION 1551.410 FOR CGGTRICTICk As 3J TTReI 1 SET 6 MO 114•4S 14 re 6.116 1511atm 51 rnn 15.6 166'+11 11 54111 111, upq 11 4131515 1111414 Mu 11.1115 /1141515 11 40 1,111111. ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 6 ALPHA DESIGNATION CO3 VALLEY VIEW 2550 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 SHEET TITLE: TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER: 1. �asaR 2/107 MUM J5 up! APPRQVfl1 [J+ITI 1 ,5,F1p/p7 ALGID YfJK[ +Y4A e .. - CO3 \ .1LL,E;l /SW HICWAAY 62 afl.rno SAIL'S. 0 a, uetfoi,xua_u T()POI;H \7'1IIr` .IIVEY 1��y r '� "erl/ _rn wireless-- —..... , KDC . I I .. ■ 1 I' MEI 1 1 • •� ..1: CAL VADA we:. ,�.... .. up! APPRQVfl1 [J+ITI thr =newel's*, F .. - - Jr• 1 } 1 4 .`tt- — G 4 040 00 0 0 D, !I 2. I i 41-_ 16 S •,s a) 1 11 q! 1 l 1 A i9 1 is Zg R to Pl $ pg greqi AMU; 4 n Nbe V U y 9 5wwr! ; 8 $g az 8g 6 9. i N . !t �t= tib I ' DE +[3[nYi wm1MR3ld 0 13 ff� O z 33 4 m n z c m m zp ill! •i 1 1 1 Ala ■. 1 Ilii °= MI II 1 — 11 111 111 A P 0 m [n C m 0 U7 O m Q z Fi O 0 000. m •< a 04400004 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 a xA i 111 11 :1 r :109, EIZOi; i El ' FAY g! +a 2 t }81.h itiA5R g M ''' P '9g'pO 0 EI;I*kF* 11 0 33 z w i I - b' a El g 0 ; 4 d 4 9 1 53 r1 h vif4i 1111 ii.v. 5.k F 0 8 # — I' M 1 ■I - - A ■ fl LTAWN 14 R cfr 00 Q 000po 4 o, o o o c) o icso 4 c> 0 too 1 'I 1 i o '5 ,I1 1 11 II ' iii 4:_i3 - ;7 a F5 €ryiii is 9 i : �" �oi; i N. q `� � � i iii € .�� �' a. 11 i 0 i;;; ' i a !w .t,_. ' k qi k i '41 Fi o, R,, i 1 i fl NI 1 %''''1' ; RI r r g No, ,,,, .g , i i Ai iel„le... Li ,i! tt '11'1 1 ia:' a: R $ pj1g11 P I ::3 1 i ;! ig A 6 cal yg clg m 0 r ■■ ■ 1 1 i! ■■ 1 1 1 z mai. 1 1 41 -I '111 a 1 EXHIBIT A. VZW CO3 VALLEY VIEW 2550 HWY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO GARFIELD COUNTY j PROPOSED VZW ANTENNAS 4' 27" visp 9RIGINAL GRADE" GROUND LEVEL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CALVADA SURVEYING INC. REFERENCE TO THE "OLD ORIGINAL GRADE" IS BASED ON AERIAL MAPPING OF THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS PROVIDED BY CLIENT (KDC ARTCHITECTS. ENGINEERS PC). CALVADA SURVEYING, INC DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH INFORMATION. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUIt A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF Mk LESSOR'S PROPERTY. THIS DOES NOT REPRESEN T A MONUMEN TED SUR VEY. CAL MR SURVEYING, INC: SHEET 1 OF 1 56 Inverness ()tire East Suite 101 Englewood. CO 80112-1448 Phone: (720) 488-1303 Fox: (7202 468-1306 JOB NO. 07012 DATE: 1 1 /2/07 SCALE: 1 "=20' 6 ...I ..• river/ rts.3 LIl.fl1 �31Ul`t OCTOBER, i, 1995 WESTERN WIRELESS/ KANCH EXHIBIT #_._. RITZ 4.54. (_* )f'IJ'11 I V , [1I.1C nEnt ESTATE Ar rnA15AL...s Atli? CnHSIJt IAftr')ri tr•'nrli IIntrnr%er "-urtE r;tts= Srlurl1 - rnr Of 'Owl :I•niutl'i October 11, 1996 Mr. Peter McNally Koll Telecommunication Services 2323 Delgany St. Denver, CO 80216 I'•11 t+traI'll Rn•v17 . i Int -i;s n^ryri . r R?! 1 ti I!+1 RE: impact of Communications Tower on Residential Property Values in El Paso County, Colorado. Dear Mr. McNally: At your request, our firm has analyzed the probable effect of a communications tower on residential property values in the vicinity of 11630 Old Pueblo Road, Fountain, Colorado. 8ac.kgrQundi. It is assumed that the proposed tower will be a steel monopole around 100 feet in freight. The tower is to be erecters on the western Portion of the property located at 1 1630 Old Pueblo Road. The area where the subject is located is just outside the Fountain city limits in a rural residential setting mixed with nearby industrial properties. Most homes in the immediate area are older homes of average quality and condition. Within a mile of the subject property to the northeast, is a housing development with newer homes of above average quality. The industrialproperties are located just to the north and northwest of the subject site. Most of the properties to the west and south are larger acreage agricultural or rural residential horse properties. Since the view amenity is an important issue to this analysis, it is gerrnaine to discuss the surrounding area views. The area has a mix of open meadow and trees. Utility poles are above ground. There is a large industrial chimney on the ridge perhaps a mile to the southwest that is readily visible from ttiis area. The proposed ':crtAMEnr;1A1 % rtISrriEnr r lit! n r` 17. SI IA, communications tower will be located near Fountain Creek which has a significant stand of trees all along its banks. The industrial buildings w the north are readily visible from most of the area properties. The property on which the tovver is located is over 1,400 feet deep. If the tower were located 1,000 feet from Old Pueblo Road and was 100 feet tall, the tip of the tower would be a little under 6 degrees high on the horizon. For a person standing on Jordan Road, over 2,000 feet from the tower. the tip of the tower vvould be below 3 degrees. The property data for the interested nearby property owners is included in the Addendum to this letter. The El Paso County Building Department has indicated that no recent building permits have been pulled fur any of these properties. Analyi In order to determine the effect of a monopole tovver on residential property values, sales in an area where a tower is visible were analyzed. There are two monopole towers plus one structural tower located at 4625 Stanton Street in Colorado Springs. These towers are located on a ridge in Austin Bluffs Park above the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs campus in the north central portion of the city. The nearby residential area is called Cragmor. Due to the topography of the area, the towers are readily visible to only a few properties located on the north side of Cragmor, near Austin Bluffs Parkway_ Close to a hundred sales were reviewed from 1995 to the current date. Four sales were found in the area where the towers are readily visible. Eight other sales from Cragmor were found which did not have a significant tower view. All sales are listed in the Addendum to this letter. Sales #1 through #4 were in the area where the towers were visible. Sales #5 through #12 were in unimpacted locations. Analysis of these sales showed that the towers had no discernable influence on the value of the properties in the study. Two sales, Sales #3 and #4, both in vievv of the towers, were sold in the upper range of all home sales in the area. The analysis included comparing properties with tower views to sales of comparable properties without tower views and compensating for other differences in the properties. Sales #1 and #2 were compared to Sales #5, #6, #8, and #9. Sale #3 was compared to Sales #7, #1O, and #11. Sale #4. which had tower views, had no comparable sales in the area. With several of the comparisons it could be concluded that a premium was paid for properties with tower views, however, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the tower views contributed significantly to the PRITZ & COMPANY ie/g6 2 /Z- value of the properties either in a negative or a positive way. Conclusion Based on a study using sales in the Cragmor area in Colorado Springs, where sales of single family homes with views of monopole towers were compared to sales without views of monopole towers, rt was concluded that properties with tovver views had no discernable negative or positive influences on their value due to the view of the towers. //1 This is consistent with my experience with other structures which may. intrude on residential views such as water towers or tanks or high tension electric lines. in these cases property values are only affected when the property has a significant1 I portion of its view blocked by a structure; in other words, a property located right 14 next to a massive water tank is negatively influenced by the view blockage. However, the negative influence quickly disappears within a few blocks from the structure as the visual impact lessens. A single monopole tower has a low visual profile and even at 1,000 feet away is quite low on the horizon where views of the tower could easily be blocked by area vegetation. Additionally, the visual impact of a single telecommunications tower in this area would be further diminished by the mix of other structures and telephone poles already present. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you on this assignment and trust you will contact our office should you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully, RICHARD F. EGEB CHT, CREA Colorado Certified General Appraiser CG01313150 PRITZ & COMPANY 10196 3 1 Effect of a Monopole Communication Tower on Single Family Property Values 1995-1996 Sa!es in The Colorado Springs Cragmor Area Sale # Adores s Date of Sale Sale Price Tevoer View? Year Built Gross Livin, area Basement Area ppewc•• *rive * 1,1111Tes 1 1 2 1133 Mount View lane 1112J96 $119,500 3 1431 Acacia Drive 2114196 $131,500 4 1704 Columbine Raad 7124196 $170,000 5 909 Magnolla Street 8/26198 $119,900 6 3202 Templeton Gap Road 9/12196 $118,000 7 3812 Columbine Place 8(7/96 $130,000 8 2230 Westmoreland Road 3/19/96 5105,900 9 3485 Corbett Lane 6/13/96 $118,000 10 3126 Templeton Gap Road 10/9/96 $120,000 11 3580 Fir Way 7/31196 5109,500 12 1610 Columbine Place 2/29/96 5124,900 1 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No 1980 1955 1973 1967 1959 1963 1982 1959 1982 1982 1973 1,057 1,525 1,860 1,002 1,118 1,305 1,066 1,025 1,376 1,412 1,583 996 1,525 544 1,002 1,118 1,305 920 1,025 1,096 527 510 Fred Jarman From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Friday. January 04. 2008 2:18 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Verizon Wireless BOCC Info Attachments: 4 VZW Coverage Maps.pdf Fred, EXHIBIT After we spoke yesterday I asked a Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineer to put together some coverage maps for me, which I've attached. The area that we need to cover with this new site has been circled on all four maps. The first map shows the current Verizon Wireless coverage provided by the Cedar Crest, Glenwood Springs and Iron Mtn sites to the north and the Red Canyon site to the south. You'll notice a clear gap in coverage in the area circled. As you noted when we spoke yesterday, this doesn't necessarily mean there will be no coverage al all, but it will be weak, down to 1 or no bars on your phone. The second map has black hatching which shows the expected coverage of the new site at the Glenwood Commercial property. The third map has black hatching which shows expected coverage if we were to locate at the Lookout Mountain Park tower site. You'll notice that this location does not cover the intended coverage area and does substantially overlap the existing Verizon Wireless coverage. The last map is similar to the third, but shows expected coverage for a Verizon Wireless site on the hill with the cross. As we discussed, this location does cover the intended coverage area, but also overlaps the existing Verizon Wireless coverage area substantially. This is the only FCC registered antenna structure location that can cover the intended coverage area. However the overlap with the existing coverage is too great to make it an effective site. Two Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers will be at the BOCC hearing to explain this if necessary. My colleague Ann Closser will bring 10 copies of these 4 maps to the BOCC hearing on Monday. I'd like to reiterate a few of the points we discussed yesterday. I apologize if I'm being redundant. 1) The 12 Sites sought by Verizon Wireless. With the exception of the rodeo grounds site (;Y5 on my list) all of these locations were virgin sites. 2) The 18 FCC Registered Antenna Structures. None of these locations could be considered because they were too far from the desired coverage area. You'll notice that the 12 sites Verizon Wireless did consider are clumped fairly tightly around the Glenwood Commercial property. You'll see on the map that Verizon Wireless has 3 sites relatively close to the intersection of Hwy 82 and I-70. These sites are intended to cover both directions on 1-70 and the northern portion of Glenwood Springs. You'll also notice a Verzion Wireless site in the lower right hand corner of this map. This site covers Hwy 82 but is approximately 5 miles from the Glenwood Commercial property. The proposed site is intended to cover the southern portion of Glenwood Springs as well as Hwy 82 in this curve in the highway. To work effectively the new site needs to be close to the center of the intended coverage area, with antennas pointing in one direction towards Glenwood, and the other direction down Hwy 82 to the SE. FCC Antenna Structures 1.3.5.6 and 7 on my map clearly would not work because topography prevents the required line of sight to the coverage area (as shown on the attached map). FCC antenna structures 8 and 13 on my list have line of site (as shown on the attached map), but are too close to the existing Verizon Wireless sites to the north. We didn't discuss the visual impact, but you did mention this in your staff report. We had originally considered hiding the antennas in cupolas. However it was decided the cupolas would have more visual impact than the antennas. We could certainly take another look at this if need be. Thanks, 1/4/2008 Existing Verizon Wireless Coverage CEDAR CREST IRON MTN GLENWOOD SPG 82 1101 .1111/ Intended Coverage Area • • Existing VZW Coverage Pius Proposed Site Intended Coverage Are Existing VZW Coverage Plus FCC Tower #3 Proposed Site`: Existing. VZW Coverage Pius FCC Tower #8 e Intended Coverage Area C-= To: Garfield County Commissioner - Tresi Houpt Jan. 1, 2008 Regarding: David HicksNerizon Special Use Permit Hearing 1/07/08 Dear Ms. Houpt, My name is Chris Lynch and my husband's name is Don. We own the property located at 2554 Highway 82. We are sorry will not be able to attend this hearing because Don is recovering from surgery that he just recently had here in Phoenix. I am sorry that we are taking your time again regarding this matter, however, we feel it is very important for us to continue to remind you how and why we and all our neighbors (I have spoken with almost all of them this week) are still very concerned and why we all continue to object so strongly to Mr. Hicks and Verizon still wanting to put the antennas in our neighborhood. 1 am attaching the letters that my husband and 1 wrote to you for this same hearing that was held on Nov. 5, 2007 and I am also attaching the letter 1 wrote to you for the July 11, 2005 hearing as 1 feel some of that information also relates to this hearing. Will you please take time to read the letters again so you will remember some of our concerns. We the residents still feel we will take a loss in property values (as stated by Sharon Stephenson - property mgr. for Mason and Morse hearing 7/11/05), possible potential future health related conditions and also forced to live with RFR exposure 24 hours a day. We the residents feel there are still open spaces out there or maybe places where other antennas are that Verizon could find and use, if they would just look around more and not be so dead set on putting the antennas in our neighborhood. Please take into consideration all of our concerns for our neighborhood and our community. Again we ask you, our county commissioner, to please deny this request (as you have in the past) for a permit for these antennas to be installed at this location. Thank you so much again for taking time to listen to us. /414/144"00,4444:7 To. The Garfield County Commissioners On July 11, 2005 there was a hearing regarding a special use permit for Verizon to install antennas on the Colorado West Upholstery building owned by Mr. John Colby. Many of the residents were present at this hearing and voiced their concerns as to why they strongly objected having the antennas at this location. We were all so very grateful that you took the time to listened to us and all our sincere concerns as to why we did not want this in our neighborhood. We thank you that your decision was to reject this permit. Now Verizon is again wanting to put up the same antennas in almost the same location only on a different building owned by Mr. David Hicks. At this location the emissions will be spreading out across almost all the homes. Verizon had said at the previous hearing in July, 2005, they could not find any other place to put the antennas (which was proven not true by a citizen in the room) when a person in the audience representing Mr. Hicks spoke up and said you could put it on one of our buildings. I was told that a very short time after that Mr. Hicks and Verizon began talking and then working on a plan for putting the antennas on one of his buildings. It has taken Mr. Hicks a couple of years to finish the first twa buildings and he is now working on building 3 and starting on building 4 where Verizon wants to place the antennas. You suggested to Verizon it would be advantageous for them to start looking for other locations away from our neighborhood. I feel they have not really tried as they started working with Mr. Hicks right away. They have waited for 2 years for Mr. Hicks to start building his building. The owner of this building, Mr. Hicks, will make a significant amount of money monthly from this deal and Verizon will benefit greatly as the building will be there for them to place the antennas on while we the residents, will take a significant loss in property values, possible potential future health related conditions and forced to live with RFR exposure. We will pay with losses. As I said at the 2005 hearing, I know Verizon may need more antenna stations to give better service, but I feel they can find and should find an open space away from a residential area. It may cost them more money, but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. We put our trust in you before that you would look out for us and our community which you did and I hope you will do this again for us. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to go through. Attached is one of my letters to you from July, 2005 my concerns and also a letter from Sharon Stevenson (who was at that hearing) regarding property values. Thank you so much for taking time to read this and for you consideration on this matter. 6114i arreZ : li ,,,,;_,., Are 0,z, (20144dift *4444-,4 Alt . ter," el) vy?,,, ,),-77 444,..e.,e",,,,„ ,,,L., ,i,„ ;e.o.c" I shared with you at the June 13th meeting the great concern I have regarding this project because of my sensitivity to electromagnetic waves and how it affects me. You asked me to get a letter from doctors stating this which I have done. I faxed this info to them so they could see exactly what the plans are for this project and also how close it is to the home we own. According to the Drs. as you can see, they feel that I definitely should not live there. I also asked if they felt if it world be safe for me with the sensitivity I have to visit my daughter there and they said they felt it would not be. l/ Our daughter Jamie has lived in this home for 25 yrs. We bought it as a place for her to live and an investment for our retirement. I am very concerned about the effects it could have on her health with the home being so very close to this array of antennas. Standing in her driveway she will be about 10 feet from this building. Case studies and research continue to pour in and the extent of safe exposure is still in question. Our view of Mt. Sopris and the valley will be taken away from us and if they build higher as they plan to it will be like living in an alley. I have been informed that our rental will definitely suffer or if we were to try to sell this home (which we do not want to do) that the value of our property will go down. It will hurt the value of all our homes there. If you were looking to buy or rent a home would you want to buy ours - that close to all the antennas with the radiation warning signs posted or would you find another neighborhood. Would your want this is your neighborhood where your live now? I know Verizon needs more antenna stations to give better service, but I know they can find a place away from a residential area. It may cost them more money as they may have to buy land, build a building and a road but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. As citizens of Garfield county we voted for you and we put our trust in you that you will look out for what if best for us and our community. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to go through. 146 T54y .444$ '5',i i 0941414 -,/.la 0/ Existing Verizon Wireless Coverage ■ Intended Coverage Are 1 Existing VZW Coverage Plus Proposed Site Intended Coverage A Existing VZW Coverage Pius FCC Tower #3 cwor 43 u • Intended Coverage Are 1 1 Existing VZW Coverage Plus FCC Tower #8 11 r tee i i 11 intended Coverage Are 1 v 2' ai2 , 43, ‘L-t-6eXe tI a" ag-41-r°-1a-r-<21-240, c. 1--e3 ieelf 2hzsze__ , (-- a-2-'.,'Je,A-7'z' 7 , xdA 1 . -..q,Le, , - -7,7'-',-- ,t-fr"-r-J4-1.74€ • ee-' rrt,' 7 ce-wz, „d4,-,il.,4 - Zz Ave- / i f ,- I • ' - . , 4 - 1 , , .- 4 ja 1- led "--) , - - ("1/1 ,a,/ ,- /e&& 4'1,0-74 ralvi-t-P--- 7 ! rail ofie_„,?(Ied -) ie - ,i,711 --;ten 4&,z,Z,42. ,4,64ye&I 44.- ..2„-- /:i ct,i-vt, de- fcle-- 62- 4e, 'el ;/e_z / �. aw.wzyi xx,rte,./; aeZ-- t. � o7 6e, ,7?„5-16-2/- /477 JAN -03-2008 THU 01:03 PM MASON & MORSE GLENWOOD FA NO. 9709280977 masoniorse r SCIS"; rf'n. a_ E5 :.7_ January 2nd 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Don Lynch 602 Cowdin Drive Glenwood Spgs., Co 81601 RE: COMMENTS: ON NEW PROPOSED CELULAR TRhNSMISS1ON ANTENNA NEAR YOUR RENTAL PROPERTY LO2ATED AT 2554 STATE HWY 82, GLENWOOD SPGS., CO 81601 Dear Christine and Don: My concerns in 2005 regarding any effects of antennas placed on the roof of Colorado West Upholstery to your rental property behind the upholster shop rave changed somewhat due to the fact the antennas are not proposed to be in your "line of sight" of Mt. Sopris and other mountain v iews. However, the latest proposal doesn't change the fact that as your realtor, 1 have the obligations to disclose any information regarding your property to all tenan s and /or purchasers. Weather or not health issues or possible interference to other telecommunication equipment in the residence would propose any problems is a decision a tenant and/or purchaser must have the opportunity to investigate. Nor disclosing allows the possibility of an unhappy buyer or t:nant to seek legal action. You may prevail, however the time, energy and cost of litigation could be eliminated by disclosing up front. l don't know the percentages of people who care vs. people w ho don't care about electromagnetic radiation around their home. I can only surrn se it will limit the marketability of your home for rent or for sale. The pricing would stand a bett.r chance of higher numbers if electromagnetic radiation was not an issue. Fm sorry you are dealing with this again. Hopefully another ocation can be found that will not disrupt lives and futures. Sharon Stephenson Property Manager / Broker GRI cc: Garfield County Commissioners, Tresi Houpt, John Martht, Larry Mc Cown p. 970.928.9000 E. 888.840,0836 f. 970.928.0977 masonrnorsc.com /9X IP '0706- itriN/1;yof P. 02 mason morse real estate 1 1614 grand avenue 1 glenwood springs, co 81601 January 1, 2008 To the Garfield county Building & Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado Attention: Tresi Haupt We are, Mike and Judy Wadyko, homeowners at 2560 HWY 82. As such, we object to the proposed antennas on the property of Mr. David Hicks close to our home for two reasons: 1. The electro magnetic impulses from such antennas are likely to be somewhat damaging to the health of the residents in the area, including ourselves, over a period of time. 2. Since it is necessary to put up signs by the antennas saying Hazardous or Dangerous - Keep Off, this would tend to lower the value of our home and discourage buyers. We appreciate your consideration of the residents in the area and hope that the antennas could be built in a more commercial or industrial area. Mike Wadyko Judy Wadyko 1 VT.O. PROPOSED ANTENNA SCREEN ELEV 54'-7' 3 ALTA PROPOSED AN]F.NNAS ELEV: 4i'-6' ± .D. EDUSTINGIAING P607 Y TELEV. 4p'-3' • GROUND LENEL EAST •,ME DT DI.I.LO 1', • ELEV sD'-D' A. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION CII i^� 1 L J T.O. PROPOSED ANTENNA SCREEN V (LCV 54'-3- r T.0 PROPOSED ANTENNAS ELEV: 49"-13' • T.D. EXISTING RINLDNG ROOT V ELEV.: 46-5' VT.O.I TN . PROPOSETENNA SCREEN ELEV': f4'-6'. ATO PROPOSED 4NTENTEAS V die. 3S' - E' �T.0. D SSP G DUR00lM ROO, tilt- 34'-5' -. GROUIO LEVEL EAST UDE Of YDiirNG Lev la' -D` AGROUND LEVEL r1EST SIDE Or 9t1&DN0 V . -- ELEV. 0-6` 2 Cellular Rade Frequency+ Power Density at the Valley View cell site reca- d c Davrd Kennard ' :.:1,C. - 4 -terra Height 45.5eePP C'-er 25 ,vans bseaaurertert Ht 5 'eet 4,-ter2 ALP -9212-14 1 4Lrlcer r Rat -...:c -arne,s. 250 Distance From Tower (Feet) Adjusted Terrain Elevation (Feet) Angle Below Horizon (degrees) Antenna Vertical Pattern (dB) Distance From ' Antenna ' (Feet) Channels Power Density (uW/cm'21 % of Revised FCC/ANSI Standard 1530 uW)cm•'2; Comments: 0 0 90 0' -34 7 40.5 J 362'5' 0.06% 1 0 88 -34 7 40 5 0 36253 0.06% 2 0 37 2 -3d 5 40 5 3 37392 0.07% 3 0 35.5 -32.6 40 5 0.5851.3 0.10% fi _ 3 844 -319 _ 40.7 3.58452 0,12% 5 0 33.J -29 5 40 8 1133,4- r}.20'%, 6 0 615 -284 409 151.11` 0.26% 7 0 30 2 -27 5 41 '• ' 3,4850 0.32°% 5 0 76 3 -25 3 41 3 2 33779 0.49% 1- 9 0 77 2 -24.9 41 5 3 0'' : 0,57% _ 10 _ 3 73 1 -24.2 41 7 3.336 / 0,56% 11 0 74.3 -22.9 42.0 5 11320 0.88% 12 0 73.5 -222 3 42.2 5 79507 1.00% 13 0 72.2 -21.8 42.5 6 41232 1.11% 14 0 70.9 -20.9 42.9 7 77289 1.34% 15 0 _ 59.7 -20 5 43 2 3 39029 1.45% _ 160 68.4 -20.2 43.5 8 84338 1.52% i 17 , 0 67.2 -20.0 43.9 9 10176 1.57° 16 0 56.0 -19 8 x4 3 9.36089 1.61% 19 0 64.9 -19 5 44 7 9 32083 1.66% 20 0 63.7 -19 5 45.2 9 43693 1.63% 21 0 62.6 -19.8 45 6 8.83466 1.52% 22 .. 61,5 -200 46.1 826625 1.43% 23 0 60.4 -20.4 46.6 7.38252 1.27% 24 3 59.3 -20.9 47 1 5.44014 1.11% i 25 0' 58.3 -21 5 47 6 _5 48730_ 0.95% 35 0 0 49.2 42.0 -31 4 -18.3 53 5 660 5 0 44397 0.08% 7 08615 1.22% 445 55 0 364 -196 683 4.12704 0.71% 65 0 31.9 -33_3 76.6 0_14003 0,02% 75 0 28.4 -261 85.2 0.59329 0.10% 85 0 25.5 -19 9 94.2 2.02686 0.35% 95 0 23.1 -18.5 103 3 2.17042 0.37% 100 0 22.0 -18.9 107 9 1 94335 0.34% 110 0 20.2 -21 0 117.2 1 01512 0.18% 120 0 18.6 -27.3 126 7 0.20385 0.04% 130 0 17.3 -27-9 136 2 0.15360 0.03% 140 0 16.1 -22.4 145 7 0.47572 0.08%� 150 0 15.1 -17.8 155.4 1.20718 0.21% 200 0 11.4 ' -7.8 2041 6.99843 t21% 250 0 9 2 -4.9 253 3 8.85897 1.53% 300 0 7 7 -2 9 302 ' 9 827116 1.69% ---' Ip1r •itllo f- r 350 0 6.6 -2 1 352.3 8 72171 t50% 400 0 5 8 -1-4 402.0 7.86982 1.36% Assumptions: 1.) 880 MHz Transmit Frequency 2.) Channels Power Density is in the far-fiefd region 3.) Channels Power Density includes 100% reflected energy from the ground anc s;.:-,urdrng secrc-_ 4,) Calculations are worst casebased on the antenna pattern maxlmur^ d.reoly .,, f-ont of the antenna. Attenuation due to surrcurding structures Is ignored. E.R.C.( ANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER& it 1996 WESTERN WIRELESS/ KARCH EXHIBIT 4+ HUTZ. (&z. COMPANY, IJIJ( nFAI FSMITE ArrnAISAI_S Arin rut 1A11011 i^^ I!''r1T11 11A11''.( r r '7111TF f1111= ':f111111 • col f1ri n') ' T'rtlrtr;si rni (IVVAN) ae+ 5r"1 . t; fril Oct -ober 11, 1996 Mr. Peter McNally Koll Telecommunication Services 2323 Delgany St. Denver, CO 80216 .T; , n^nr1 FAX t.'5 run - RE: impact of Communications Tower on Residential Property Values in El Paso County, Colorado. Dear Mr. McNally: At your request, our firm has analyzed the probable effect of a cammuniications tower on residential property values in the vicinity of 11630 Old Pueblo Road, Fountain, Colorado. Bacicground It is assumed that the proposed tower will be a steel monopole around 100 feet in height. The tower is to be erected on the western portion of the property located at 11630 Old Pueblo Road. The area where the subject is located is just outside the Fountain city limits in a rural residential setting mixed with nearby industrial properties. Most homes in the immediate area are older homes of average quality and condition. Within a mile of the subject property to the northeast, is a housing development with nevver homes of above average quality. The industrial properties are located just to the north and northwest of the subject site. Most of the properties to the west and south are larger acreage agricultural or rural residential horse properties. Since the view amenity is an important issue to this analysis, it is germaine to discuss the surrounding area views. The area has a mix of open meadow and trees. Utility poles are above ground. There is a large industrial chimney on the ridge perhaps a mile to the southwest that is readily visible from this area. The proposed r.'C]r:1MF110Ar & fF.SlrlErl1 Al Rr"r'nn i s communications tower will be located near Fountain Creek which has a significant stand of trees all along its banks. The industrial buildings to the north are readily visible from most of the area properties. The property on which the tower is located is over 1 ,400 feet deep. If the tower were located 1,000 feet from Old Pueblo Road and was 100 feet tall, the tip of the tower would be a little under 6 degrees high on the horizon. For a person standing on Jordan Road, over 2,000 feet from the tower, the tip of the tower would be below 3 degrees. The property data for the interested nearby property owners is included in the Addendum to this letter. The El Paso County Building Department has indicated that no recent building permits have been pulled for any of these properties. Analysis In order to determine the effect of a monopole tower on residential property values, sales in an area where a tower is visible were analyzed. There are two monopole towers plus one structural tower located at 4625 Stanton Street in Colorado Springs. These towers are located on a ridge in Austin Bluffs Park above the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs campus in the north central portion of the city. The nearby residential area is called Cragmor. Due to the topography of the area, the towers are readily visible to only a few properties located on the north side of Cragmor, near Austin Bluffs Parkway. Close to a hundred sales were reviewed from 1995 to the current date. Four sales were found in the area where the towers are readily visible. Eight other sales from Cragmor were found which did not have a significant tower view. All sales are listed in the Addendum to this letter.. Sales #1 through #4 were in the area where the towers were visible. Sales #5 through #12 were in unimpacted locations. Analysis of these sales showed that the towers had no discernable influence on the value of the properties in the study. Two sales, Sales #3 and #4, both in view of the towers, were sold in the upper range of all home sales in the area. The analysis included comparing properties with tower views to sales of comparable properties without tower views and compensating for other differences in the properties. Sales #1 and #2 were compared to Sales #5, #6, #8, and #9. Sale #3 was compared to Sales #7, #10, and #11. Sale #4, which had tower views, had no comparable sales in the area. With several of the comparisons it could be concluded that a premium was paid For properties with tower views, however, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the tower views contributed significantly to the PRITZ & COMPANY rays 2 value of the properties either in a negative or a positive way. C__laCLu.siorl Based on a study using sales in the Cragmor area in Colorado Springs, where sales of single family homes with views of monopole towers were compared to sales without views of monopole towers, it was concluded that properties with tower views had no discernable negative or positive influences on their value due to the view of the towers. ! II This is consistent with my experience with other structures which may intrude on residential views such as water towers or tanks or high tension electric lutes. In these cases property values are only affected when the property has a significant portion of its view blocked by a structure; in other words, a property located right I l I next to a massive water tank is negatively influenced by the view blockage. However, the negative influence quickly disappears within a few blocks from the structure as the visual impact lessens. A single monopole tower has a low visual profile and even at 1,000 feet away is quite low on the horizon where views of the tower could easily be blocked by area vegetation. Additionally, the visual impact of a single telecommunications tower in this area would be further diminished by the mix of other structures and telephone poles already present. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you on this assignment and trust you will contact our office should you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully, 4//i./ RICHARD F. EGEB CHT, CREA Colorado Certified General Appraiser CG01 31 3150 PRITZ & COMPANY 10,96 3 Sale # Adcress Effect of a Monopole Communication Tower on Single Family Property Values 1995-1996 Sales in The Colorado Springs Cragmor Area Date of Sale Sale Price Tooker View? Year Built Gross Living area Basement Area 111 ' App evwod rnve 26 96 111,000 Yes 1973 1,114 669 2 1133 Mount View lane 1/12196 $119,500 Yes 1980 1,057 996 3 1431 Acacia Drive 2/14/96 $131,500 Yes 1955 1,525 1,525 4 1704 Columbine Road 7/24/96 $170,000 Yes 1973 1,860 544 5 909 Magnolia Street 8/26/96 $119,900 No 1967 1,002 1,002 6 3202 Templeton Gap Road 9/12/96 $118,000 No 1959 1,118 1,118 7 3812 Columbine Place 6/7/96 $130,000 No 1963 1,305 1,305 8 2230 Westmoreland Road 3/19/96 $105,900 No 1982 1,066 920 9 3485 Corbett Lane 6/13/96 $118,000 No 1959 1,025 1,025 10 3125 Templeton Gap Road 10/9/96 $120,000 No 1982 1,376 1,096 11 3580 Fir Way 7/31/96 $109,500 No 1982 1,412 527 12 1613 Columbine Place 2129/96 $124,900 No 1973 1,583 510 me -i6 PROXIMITY DAMAGE STUDY PERTAINING TO MISSION GORGE CELLULAR SITE 7189 NAVAJO ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92119 PREPARED FOR U 5 WEST CELLULAR 7480 CONVOY COURT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 AT THE REQUEST OF LAWRENCE R. DOHERTY REGIONAL REAL ESTATE MANAGER DATE OF STUDY AUGUST 10, 1994 PREPARED BY PETER N. ROBERTSON CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, #AG008859 7183 NAVAJO ROAD, SUITE G SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92119 (619) 466-4404 PETER N. ROBERTSON REAL ESTATE APPRAISER August 10, 1994 U S WEST CELLLTLAR 7480 Convoy Court San Diego, CA 92111 Attention: Subject: Lawrence R Doherty Regional Real Estate Manager Proximity Damage Study Mission Gorge Cellular Site 7189 Navajo Road San Diego, California 92119 7183 NAVAJO ROAD, SurrE G SAN DECO, CALIFORNIA 92119 Ta.: (619) 466-4404 FAX: (619)466-4410 Dear Mr. Doherty: At your request and authorization, I hereby submit my study concerning the above refer- enced property. U 5 West Cellular is currently processing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-0238) with the City of San Diego Planning Department for a cellular communication facility to be located in the rear yard of an office complex located at 7189 Navajo Road in the Navajo community of San Diego. The permit application proposes the construction of a 65 -foot high cellular antenna support structure in the most southwesterly corner of the CA (Area Shopping Center) zoned property, with associated electronic equipment located within existing office space. Adjoining the subject office building property to the south is a 179 -unit condominium development identified as The Woodlands. The site is comprised of 101 two-story town- house condominium units and 78 stacked units within four three-story tall buildings. The four three-story buildings are located in the northerly portion of the project and afford varying levels of view potential oriented north/northeasterly towards Cowles Mountain over the commercial -office developments fronting on Navajo Road. Residents within the condominium project have expressed concerns that construction of the cellular antenna support structure will measurably affect their existing view potential and hence, devalue their residential units, particularly those within the three-story building identified as 6876 Caminito Montanoso, which has the closest proximity to the proposed cellular communica- tions facility. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 1 This study has been prepared to determine whether any measurable diminution in value to the nearby residential condominium units will be created by construction of the cellular antenna structure within the boundaries of the commercial -office property in the location and manner proposed. The study has entailed researching other residential properties in close proximity to similar cellular antenna structures to determine whether the structure measurably obstructs view potential to the point of creating a stigma which negatively influences property values.. U 5 West NewVector Group and AirTouch (formerly PacTel) Cellular are the two cellular operators licensed by the FCC to service the San Diego metropolitan statistical area. Both companies have been actively acquiring cellular communication sites since the rnid 1980's. The cellular sites are typically ground leased and are primarily located in commercial and industrial business districts. Many antenna sites are found on top of buildings scattered throughout the County. As such, examples of cellular antenna sites within primarily resi- dential areas are limited. Seven cellular antenna structures within or nearby to residential developments were stud- ied in order to determine whether property values are affected by proximity to the struc- tures. Comparisons were able to be drawn on five of the sites, while the other twoproved n = . ack of sales data. The comparative study involved finTi ing sales of homes whose view potentia was +irect y impacted by the cellular antenna structures and comparing these with sales of similar type homes without the view impairments. It was important that the comparative properties have as close of comparability as possible to the impacted properties for comparative purposes. Considerations which were important to this study included the following: 1) Locations within the same subdivision or, for non -tract housing areas, locations in close proximity to the impaired property. 2) Finding comparable sales which sold in a similar time frame in order to avoid adjustments for the changing economic conditions which have resulted in declin- ing property values throughout San Diego County over the past four years. 3) For non -tract houses, comparability in age, number of bedrooms and bath- rooms, square footage of living area, etc. 4) For tract home developments, similar style models. Comparative information for each study area is discussed in the forthcoming pages. Photo- graphic views of the impacted and non -impacted sale properties have been included, along with generalized location maps. At the end of this study is a brief discussion of comparable sales within The Woodlands condominium project and conclusions as towards my findings. 9465 - Pmalmay Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 2 CARMEL VALLEY r ?et V Sale Sales f' living Year Impaired Address Date Price f BR BA Area (SF) Built View? 4486 Exbury Court 7/93 $307,600 4 3 2,163 1989 yes ' 13025 Callcott Way 11/93 S306,000 4 3 2,163 1989 no 4486 Exbury Court has impaired view potential created by the U S West monopole antenna located on the easterly portion of Torrey Pines High School as well as by SDG&E over- head transmission lines. The non -impaired property at 13025 Callcott Way, which is the same tract model as the Exbury Court property, actually sold for slightly less than the impaired property. Other homes on Exbury Court which share similar visual impairments couldnot be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 3 CARMEL VALLEY PHOTOGRAPHS 4486 EXBURY COURT 13025 CALLCOTT WAY 946 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 4 CL.AIREMON T` MESA 4.0 + (, ic5s Sale Sales ( Living Year Impaired Address Date Price OR BA Area (SF) Built View? 6446 Mt. Ackerman Dr. 2/90 $166,500 3 2 1,048 1961 yes 3872 Mt. Abraham Ave. 5/90 $168,000 3 1 1,008 1962 no 6446 Mt. Ackerman Drive has impaired view potential created by the Air Touch monopole antenna located on the commercial property fronting upon Mt. Ada Road, one street to the north. The property also has an alley to the rear. The non -impaired property at 3872 Mt. Abraham Avenue has similar square footage but one less bathroom and sold for slightly more. However, this property backs up to a small finger canyon so has privacy and view potential which the impaired parcel is not afforded. The results of this pairing are incon- clusive. Other homes on Mt. Ackerman Drive which share similar visual impairments could not be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 - Proem ty Damage Study - Muslim, Gorge Cellular Site • /94 5 PARADISE GARDENS Sal e Address Date 1523 Statton Court 7/93 1417 Jansen Court 6/93 Sales Living Year Impaired Price BR BA Area (SF) Built View' $157,500' 3 2 1,056 1985 yes 5155,000 3 2 1,056 1985 no 1523 Statton Court, within the Paradise Gardens subdivision of south San Diego, has impaired view potential created by the U S West Paradise Mesa monopole antenna located on a City of San Diego water tank site. Not only is this property subjected to a view of the monopole antenna, but also the water tank. The non -impaired property at 1417 Jansen Court has a similar cul-de-sac setting, is the same model tract home, and sold for a slighily lower purchase price within one month of the impaired property. 4465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 7 PARADISE GARDENS PHOTOGRAPHS 1523 STA1TON COURT 1417 JANSEN COURT 940 • Proximity D. ri gc Study - !Ammon Gorge C'cl[ul-1r Site • 8/9-1 GOLDEN HILL 1w�R wag ,t 4All IN SSE MIR al e-OADWAYlitM .151111 riraibmit .... -- •n:m midi wpm insminiumilie .E1 1* IIITIERO. mimeo Nue _ li Emma op •_-4 � its Sale Sales Living Year Impaired Address Date Price BR BA Area (SF) Built View? 3026 G Street 4/92 $100,000 3 1 1,058 1929 yes 1325 Fern Street 7/91 S95,000 3 1 1,396 1911 no 3030 8 Street 12/93 $105,000 3 1 1,431 1924 no 3076 K Street 11/93 $99,000 2 1 1,008 1929 no <p (64 69v tAA-0 v C Z- 3026 302+6 G Street has impaired view potential created by the Air Touch "30th Street" mono- pole antenna located directly to the north overlooking Highway 94. The non -impaired comparables involve sales of older single family residences sharingthe same Locational attributes as the impaired property. The non -impaired comparabes sold in July 1991, November 1993.and December 1993 while the impaired property sold in July 1992, so adjustments may be required for changing market conditions during this time period. Older homes such as these are also affected by the overall quality and condition at the time of sale, which can measurably influence the purchase price. Nevertheless, the comparable sales prices bracket the impaired property and support the conclusion that the visual im- pairment created by the monopole antenna did not measurably influence the price paid for this site. Other homes on G Street which share similar visual impairments could not be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study \fissi. n Gorge Cellular Stte - 5; 94 GOLDEN HU, PHOTOGRAPHS 3026 G STREET 1325 FERN STREET '445 Pruxsmity Darnagc Stull) - Mission Gorge Cc11ulai Site .8/9.1 10 GOLDEN HILL PHOTOGRAPHS 3030 B STREET 3076 K STREET 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Miuinn Gorge Celluler site - 6/94 it LINCOLN ACRES Sale Sales Living Year Impaired Address aslto Price BR BA Area (SF) Built View? 2705 Vista Way 6/92 $85,000 2 1 775 1949 yes, 2830 Prospect St. 7/93 $80,000 3 1 809 1944 no 2864 Prospect St. 6/93 $82,000 2 1 804 1940 no 2720 Vista Way 2/90 $90,000 3 1 962 1925 no 'cp1u( -fOv' MO VC, v O 3 2705 Vista Way is located in the unincorporated county island of Lincoln Acres adjoining National City and has impaired view potential created by the U S West Cellular monopole antenna located directly behind the property. As in the case of the preceding Golden Hill site, the non -impaired comparables involve sales of older single family residences sharing the same locational attributes as the impaired property. The properties sold in February 1990, June 1993 and July 1993 while the impaired property sold in June 1992, so adjust- ments may be required for changing market conditions during this time frame. The prices paid for older homes such as these can also be influenced by the overall quality and condi- tion at the time of sale. Nevertheless, the prices paid for the comparable sales bracket the impaired property and again support the conclusion that the visual impairment created by the monopole antenna did not influence the price paid for this property. 9445 - proximity Damage Study . MIsswn Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 12 THE WOODLANDS CONDOMINIUMS The three-story buildings within The Woodlands condominium project have been con- structed with "front -to -back" units which either face to the north or south. The north facing units have view potential oriented at Cowles Mountain over the intervening commercial - office buildings fronting along Navajo Road. The south -facing units have views oriented over the balance of the condominium project and the surrounding San Carlos community and have no potential for viewing Cowles Mountain. An additional study was undertaken in order to ascertain the view premium, if any, paid for north -facing units within The Woodlands three-story buildin&s with view potential oriented towards Cowles Mountain versus south -facing units lacking this view potential. The comparisons involve units which sold in the time frame from 1991 to date and are similar in size to those which will be exposed to the proposed cellular antenna structure. Sale Sales Living View Unit No. Floor Date Price BR BA Area (SF) Potential 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO #50 3rd 10/93 $112,500 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/93 $114,000 2 2 1,044 South #52 2nd 10/91 $125,900 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/91 $125,500 2 2 1,044 South 6877 CAMINITO MUNDO #43 1st 9/91 $123,000 2 2 1,044 North #42 3rd 7/91 $122,400 2 2 1,044 South #52 2nd 10/91 $125,900 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/91 $125,500 2 2 1,044 South The historic sales information leads to the conclusion that there has been no measurable view premium, ascribed to north -facing units with view potential at Cowles Mountain versus ..c south facing units which lack a mountain view. Although Cowles Mountain may be per- .....\-- ceived as an ascetically pleasing view shed, the negatives of proximity to the adjoining commercial -office uses and traffic noise from Navajo Road appear to offset this factor from a valuation standpoint. The historic sales information indicates that the south -facing units have historically commanded similar sales prices to the north -facing units in the three-story buildings within The Woodlands. 9465 -. Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular site - 8/94 15 PROPOSED CCULULAR ANTENNA SITE i Q i e21121022-•44112 t L14 i i" w ` as -coo -1422a 4su zl NAVAJO D. 674- 2 SHr.I W3 41"A ' 0 0 irzr THE WOODLANDS 401 JACKSON 4 946.5 Proximory Damage Study Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 17 Conclusion The presence of cellular antenna support structures and the visual impairment created by the structures does not appear to have created a stigma which has negatively affected property values in the study areas. The samplings presented herein are judged to be repre- sentative of cellular communication facilities throughout San Diego County. There is no ernpirical evidence to support visual degradation of view potential and hence, measurable diminutions in property values generated by the existence of cellular antenna support state - tures in proximity to residential properties. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, Rc3hertson Certified ener Appraiser State of California, # G008859 9465 - Proximity Damage Study Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 19 ATTACHMENTS QUALIFICATIONS OF PETER N. ROBERTSON GENERAL Native and current resident of San Diego, California Principal: PETER N. ROBERTSON, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 7183 Navajo Road, Suite G San Diego, California, 92119 Office: (619) 4664404 Fax: (619) 466-4410 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1981 to Present: 1977 to 1981: STATE LICENSING Independent fee appraiser. Subcontract appraisal assi is 's eats have also been performed in association with E. Alan s mstock, MAI, Dennis B. Cunningham, MAI, Alan M. Wilson, MAI, and David J. Yerke, MAL Associate Appraiser - Norman R. Robertson, Appraisals Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California (OREA Appraiser Identification Number AG008859) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Candidate for MAI designation, Appraisal Institute Member, International Right of Way Association FORMAL AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 1974 to 1975: 1976 to 1978: San Diego State University, Business Administration Grossmont Junior College San Diego Community College Course Principles of Real Estate Appraisal raisal Institute American Institute of Real E tat A iR rai ourses & - minar lA - Basic Appraisal Principles, Methods & Techniques 1BA - Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part A 1BB - Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part B SPP - Standards of Professional Practice 2-1 - Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation 2-2 - Report Writing and Valuation Analysis Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Appraising from Plans - Specifications Subdivision Analysis QUALIFICATIONS OF PETER N. ROBERTSON (continued) REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST' Governmental/Public Agencies Private Firms/Developers California State Coastal Conservancy California State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) City of San Diego County of San Diego Department of The Navy Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District General Services Administration Nature Conservancy San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority San Diego Unified School District San Diego Housing Commission San Diego Gas & Electric Company U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Helix Water District Institutional Lenders Bank of America Citicorp North America Metro Bank San Diego National Bank Seattle Trust Wells Fargo Bank Northern Trust Bank First Interstate Bank Trust Dept. 'Some in association with the following individuals and firms Norman R. Robertson. MAI David J. Yerkc. MAI Dennis C. Cunningham, MAI Alan M. Wilson, MAI Apollo Produce Distributors, Inc,. AVEC Atlantic Richfield Company The Baldwin Company Caritas Company Children's Hospital and Health Center Dempsey Construction Company William C. Doenges Trust Henry Avocados AirTouch (PacTel) Cellular Pardee Construction Company Rancho Pacific Engineering Corp. San Diego Christian Foundation San Diego Hebrew Day School Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Shell Oil Company U.S. West Cellular Attorneys/CPA16 Best, Best & Krieger Landels, Ripley & Diamond Lindley, Lazar & Scales Stevenson & Prairie Woolley & Day Schatz, Fletcher & Associates E. Alam Comstock, MAI REPRESENTATIVE APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT$ Commercial Buildings/Lots/Acreage Desert Lands Environmentally Sensitive Lands Industrial Buildings/Lots/Acreage Irrigated Lands Mountainous Lands Single Tenant Office Buildings Open Space/Park Lands Remnant Parcels Residential Subdivisions/Acreage Retail Centers Rural Acreage Partial Acquisitions: Communications Easements Lot Line Adjustments Open Space Easements Right -Of -Way (Easement & Fee) Slope & Drainage Easements Temporary Construction Easements Utility Easements Special Purpose Properties Telecommunication Sites Wetlands PROXIMITY DAMAGE STUDY PERTAINING TO MISSION GORGE CELLULAR SITE 7189 NAVAJO ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92119 PREPARED FOR U S WEST CELLULAR 7480 CONVOY COURT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 AT THE REQUEST OF LAWRENCE R. DOHERTY REGIONAL REAL ESTATE MANAGER DATE OF STUDY AUGUST 10, 1994 PREPARED BY PETER N. ROBERTSON CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, #AG008859 7183 NAVAJO ROAD, SUTTE G SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92119 (619) 466-4404 PETER N. ROBERTSON RFAL ESTATE APPRAISER 7183 NAVAMQ ROAD. SUrrE G SA*. DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92119 Ta: (619) 466-4404 FAx: (619)466-4410 August 10, 1994 U S WEST CELLULAR 7480 Convoy Court San Diego, CA 92111 Attention: Lawrence R. Doherty Regional Real Estate Manager Subject: Proximity Damage Study Mission Gorge Cellular Site 7189 Navajo Road San Diego, California 92119 Dear Mr. Doherty: At your request and authorization, I hereby submit my study concerning the above refer- enced property. U S West Cellular is currently processing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-0238) with the City of San Diego Planning Department for a cellular communication facility to be located in the rear yard of an office complex located at 7189 Navajo Road in the Navajo community of San Diego. The permit application proposes the construction of a 65 -foot high cellular antenna support structure in the most southwesterly corner of the CA (Area Shopping Center) zoned property, with associated electronic equipment located within existing office space. Adjoining the subject office building property to the south is a 179 -unit condominium development identified as The Woodlands. The site is comprised of 101 two-story town- house condominium units and 78 stacked units within four three-story tall buildings The four three-story buildings are located in the northerly portion of the project and afford varying levels of view potential oriented north/northeasterly towards Cowles Mountain over the commercial -office developments fronting on Navajo Road. Residents within the condominium project have expressed concerns that construction of the cellular antenna support structure will measurably affect their existing view potential and hence, devalue their residential units, particularly those within the three-story building identified as 6876 Caminito Montanoso, which has the closest proximity to the proposed cellular communica- tions facility. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 1 This study has been prepared to determine whether any measurable diminution in value to the nearby residential condominium units will be created by construction of the cellular antenna structure within the boundaries of the commercial -office property in the location and manner proposed. The study has entailed researching other residential properties in close proximity to similar cellular antenna structures to determine whether the structure measurably obstructs view potential to the point of creating a stigma which negatively influences property values. U S West. NewVector Group and AirTouch (formerly PacTel) Cellular are the two cellular operators licensed by the FCC to service the San Diego metropolitan statistical area. Both companies have been actively acquiring cellular communication sites since the mid 1980's. The cellular sites are typically ground leased and are primarily located in commercial and industrial business districts. Many antenna sites are found on top of buildings scattered throughout the County. As such, examples of cellular antenna sites within primarily resi- dential areas are limited. Seven cellular antenna structures within or nearby to residential developments were stud- ied in order to determine whether property values are affected by proximity to the struc- tures. Comparisons were able to be drawn on five of the sites, while the other two proved inconclusive due to a lack of sales data. The comparative study involved finding sales of homes whose view potential was directly impacted by the cellular antenna structures and comparing these with sales of similar type homes without the view impairments. It was important that the comparative properties have as close of comparability as possible to the impacted properties for comparative purposes. Considerations which were important to this study included the following: Locations within the same subdivision or, for non -tract housing areas, locations in close proximity to the impaired property. 2) Finding comparable sales which sold in a similar time frame in order to avoid adjustments for the changing economic conditions which have resulted in declin- ing property values throughout San Diego County over the past four years. 3) For non -tract houses, comparability in age, number of bedrooms and bath- rooms, square footage of living area, etc. 4) For tract home developments, similar style models. Comparative information for each study area is discussed in the forthcoming pages. Photo- graphic views of the impacted and non -impacted sale properties have been included, along with generalized location maps. At the end of this study is a brief discussion of comparable sales within The Woodlands condominium project and conclusions as towards my findings. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 2 CARMEL VALLEY R"BaINGS • FaitflORA. 2 W Pk 'COM PI GAATy061 GA 2 Ria/RUN P1. WEt,LSTIN jr ,Lf IDA PT VF046 F, •��. _ i i .5f�1I� l if 13—EAl1AA1 !— �µTAtH ►t' CELL SITE, C• TQRREY PTA/ FS HS HEIGHTS FE TACGtL L1 AJ. CT t.1isn L iA11 4.ft L 4'44141 • $1. Sale Sales Living Year Impaired Address Date Price BR BA Area (SF) Built View? 4486 Exbury Court 7/93 $307,600 4 3 2,163 1989 yes 13025 Callcott Way 11/93 $306,000 4 3 2,163 1989 no 4486 Exbury Court has impaired view potential created by the U S West monopole antenna located on the easterly portion of Torrey Pines High School as well as by SDG&E over- head transmission lines. The non -impaired property at 13025 Callcott Way, which is the same tract model as the Exbury Court property, actually sold for slightly less than the impaired property. Other homes on Exbury Court which share similar visual impairments could not be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 • Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 3 CARMEL VALLEY PHOTOGRAPHS 4486 EXBURY COURT 13025 CALLCOTT WAY 9465 - Proximity l7amagc Study - Mission Gorge Cellulae Siie - 8/94 4 CLAIFEMONT MESA Sale Sales Living Year impaired Address Date Price BR BA Area (SF) Built View? 6446 Mt. Ackerman Or. 2/90 $166,500 3 2 1,048 1961 yes 3872 Mt. Abraham Ave. 5/90 $168,000 3 1 1,008 1962 no 6446 Mt. Ackerman Drive has impaired view potential created by the Air Touch monopole antenna located on the commercial property fronting upon Mt. Ada Road, one street to the north. The property also has an alley to the rear. The non -impaired property at 3872 Mt. Abraham Avenue has similar square footage but one less bathroom and sold for slightly more. However, this property backs up to a small finger canyon so has privacy and view potential which the impaired parcel is not afforded. The results of this pairing are incon- clusive. Other homes on Mt. Ackerman Drive which share similar visual impairments could not be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 5 CLAIREMONT MESA PHOTOGRAPHS 6446 MT. ACKERMAN DRIVE 3872 NI T. ,AJ3RA AN! AVENUE 9465 - Proximity Damage Scurfy - Mlssioa Gorgc Cellular Sac - 8/94 6 PARADISE GARDENS Sale Address Date 1523 Statton Court 7/93 1417 Jansen Court 6/93 Sales Living Year Impaired Price BR BA Area (SF] Built View? $157,500 3 2 1,056 1985 yes $155,000 3 2 1,056 1985 no 1523 Statton Court, within the Paradise Gardens subdivision of south San Diego, has impaired view potential created by the U S West Paradise Mesa monopole antenna located on a City of San Diego water tank site. Not only is this property subjected to a view of the monopole antenna, but also the water tank, The non -impaired property at 1417 Jansen Court has a similar cul-de-sac setting, is the same model tract home, and sold for a slightly lower purchase price within one month of the impaired property. 9465 - Prox miry Damage Stwiy - Mesion Gorge Cellular Site - $j'94 7 PARADISE GARDENS PHOTOGRAPHS 1523 STATTON COURT 1417 JANSEN COURT 940 - Proxtmity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular St - 8/94 GOLDEN HILL Sale Sales Living Year Impaired Address Date Price BR 8A Area (SF) Built View? 3026 G Street 4/92 $100,000 3 1 1,058 1929 yes 1325 Fern Street 7/91 $95,000 3 1 1,396 1911 no 3030 B Street 12/93 $105,000 3 1 1,431 1924 no 3076 K Street 11/93 $99,000 2 1 1,008 1929 no 3026 G Street has impaired view potential created by the Air Touch "30th Street" mono- pole antenna located directly to the north overlooking Highway 94. The non -impaired comparables involve sales of older single family residences sharing the same locational attributes as the impaired property. The non -impaired comparables sold in July 1991, November 1993 and December 1993 while the impaired property sold in July 1992, so adjustments may be required for changing market conditions during this time period. Older homes such as these are also affected by the overall quality and condition at the time of sale, which can measurably influence the purchase price. Nevertheless, the comparable sales prices bracket the impaired property and support the conclusion that the visual im- pairment created by the monopole antenna did not measurably influence the price paid for this site. Other homes on G Street which share similar visual impairments could not be analyzed because there were no other recent sales transactions discovered. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 9 GOLDEN HILL PHOTOGRAPHS 3026 G STREET 1325 FERN STREET 9465 - Proximity Damage Study Missson Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 10 GOLDEN HILL PHOTOGRAPHS 3030 B STREET 3076 K STREET 9465 • Pruximit} Damage Study - Misstnn Gorge Cellular Site -Si 11 LINCOLN ACRES Sale Sales Living Year Impaired Address Date Price BR al Area ISF) Built View? 2705 Vista Way 6/92 $85,000 2 1 775 1949 yes 2830 Prospect St. 7/93 $80,000 3 1 809 1944 no 2864 Prospect St. 6/93 $82,000 2 1 804 1940 no 2720 Vista Way 2/90 $90,000 3 1 962 1925 no 2705 Vista Way is located in the unincorporated county island of Lincoln Acres adjoining. National City and has impaired view potential created by the U S West Cellular monopole antenna located directly behind the property. As in the case of the preceding Golden Hill site, the non -impaired comparables involve sales of older single family residences sharing the same locational attributes as the impaired property. The properties sold in February 1990, June 1993 and July 1993 while the impaired property sold in June 1992, so adjust- ments may be required for changing market conditions during this time frame. The prices paid for older homes such as these can also be influenced by the overall quality and condi- tion at the time of sale, Nevertheless, the prices paid for the comparable sales bracket the impaired property and again support the conclusion that the visual impairment created by the monopole antenna did not influence the price paid for this property. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - S/94 12 LINCOLN ACRES PHOTOGRAPHS 2705 VISTA WAY 2830 PROSPECT STREET 940 - Praximrty Damage Study - Mittiron Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 13 LINCOLN ACRES PHOTOGRAPHS 2864 PROSPECT STREET 2720 VISTA WAY 9445 - Pro►timity Damage Study • Mu un Gorge Cellular Site .8/94 THE WOODLANDS CONDOMINIUMS The three-story buildings within The Woodlands condominium project have been con- structed with "front -to -back" units which either face to the north or south. The north facing units have view potential oriented at Cowles Mountain over the intervening commercial - office buildings fronting along Navajo Road. The south -facing units have views oriented over the balance of the condominium project and the surrounding San Carlos community and have no potential for viewing Cowles Mountain. An additional study was undertaken in order to ascertain the viewremium, if any, paid for north -facing units within The Woodlands three-story buildings with view potential oriented towards Cowles Mountain versus south -facing units lacking this view potential. The comparisons involve units which sold in the time frame from 1991 to date and are similar in size to those which will be exposed to the proposed cellular antenna structure. Sale Sales Living View Unit No. Floor Date Price BR BA Area (SF) Potential 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO #50 3rd 10/93 $112,500 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/93 $114,000 2 2 1,044 South #52 2nd 10/91 $125,900 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/91 $125,500 2 2 1,044 South 6877 CAMINITO MUNDO #43 1st 9/91 $123,000 2 2 1,044 North #42 3rd 7/91 $122,400 2 2 1,044 South #52 2nd 10/91 $125,900 2 2 1,044 North #41 3rd 10/91 $125,500 2 2 1,044 South The historic sales information leads to the conclusion that there has been no measurable view premium ascribed to north -facing units with view potential at Cowles Mountain versus south facing units which lack a mountain view. Although Cowles Mountain may be per- ceived as an ascetically pleasing view shed, the negatives of proximity to the adjoining commercial -office uses and traffic noise from Navajo Road appear to offset this factor from a valuation standpoint. The historic sales information indicates that the south -facing units have historically commanded similar sales prices to the north -facing units in the three-story buildings within The Woodlands. 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site -13/91 15 THE WOODLANDS CONDOMiN1LJMS PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHWESTERLY AT THE WOODLANDS CONDOMINIUM BUILDING IDENTIFIED AS 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO SOUTHWESTERLY FROM 7189 NAVAJO ROAD ILLUSTRATING PROPOSED LOCATION OF CELLULAR ANTENNA STRUCTURE (IN LANDSCAPED AREA) IN COMPARISON TO THE WOODLANDS CONDOMINIUM BUILDING IDENTIFIED AS 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO 9446 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 1() PROPOSED CELLULAR ANTENNA SITE $NT 1 Okla CLAM= I J w A_H+a +xcrwsr I. CA•4w 4C+wwf OCL CLIMQ . AOC/r-ILtiMi TILE y.- 2Y 6 74 sFt r 10F 3 THE WOODLANDS 9465 - Proximity Damage. Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - 8/94 17 LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY FROM THIRD FLOOR OF EAST END OF 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO, SHOWING "MOCK -L P" OF PROPOSED CELLA LAR ANTENNA STRUCTL RE TO BE LOCATED AT 7189 \A\ JO ROAD LOOKING NORTHERLY FROM. THIRD FLOOR OF WEST END OF 6876 CAMINITO MONTANOSO SHOWING "MOCK-UP" OF PROPOSED CELLULAR ANTENNA STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT 7189 NAVAJO RO A.D h. • 1'1 f Not: 18 Conclusion The presence of cellular antenna support structures and the visual impairment created by the structures does not appear to have created a stigma which has negatively affected property values in the study areas. The samplings presented herein are judged to be repre- sentative of cellular communication facilities throughout San Diego County. There is no empirical evidence to support visual degradation of view potential and hence, measurable diminutions in property values generated by the existence of cellular antenna support struc- tures in proximity to residential properties. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, eter ertson Certified (finer Appraiser State of California, # G008859 9465 - Proximity Damage Study - Mission Gorge Cellular Site - f1/94 19 ATTACHMENTS QUALIFICATIONS OF PETER N. ROBERTSON GENERAL Native and current resident of San Diego, California Principal: PETER N. ROBERTSON, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 7183 Navajo Road, Suite G San Diego, California, 92119 Office: (619) 4664404 Fax: (619) 466-4410 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1981 to Present: Independent fee appraiser. Subcontract appraisal assi _ ents have also been performed in association with E. Alan • restock, MAI, Dennis B. Cunningham, MAI, Alan M. Wilson, MAI, and David J. Yerke, MAL 1977 to 1981: STATE LICENSING Associate Appraiser - Norman R. Robertson, Appraisals Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California (OREA Appraiser Identification Number A0008859) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Candidate for MAI designation, Appraisal Institute Member, International Right of Way Association FORMAL AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 1974 to 1975: San Diego State University, Business Administration 1976 to 1978: Grossmont Junior College San Diego Community College Course Principles of Real Estate Appraisal Appraisal Institute/American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Courses & Seminars 1A - Basic Appraisal Principles, Methods & Techniques 1BA - Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part A 1BB - Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part B SPP - Standards of Professional Practice 2-1- Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation 2-2 - Report Writing and Valuation Analysis Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Appraising from Plans - Specifications Subdivision Analysis QUALIFICATIONS OF PETER N. ROBERTSON (continued) REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST` Governmental/Public Agencies Private Firms/Developers California State Coastal Conservancy California State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) City of San Diego County of San Diego Department of The Navy Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District General Services Administration Nature Conservancy San. Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority San Diego Unified School District San Diego Housing Commission San Diego Gas & Electric Company U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Helix Water District. Institutional Lenders Bank of America Citicorp North America Metro Bank San Diego National Bank Seattle Trust Wells Fargo Bank Northern Trust Bank First Interstate Bank Trust Dept. 'Some in association with the following individuals and rums Norman R. Robertson, MAI David 1 Yctice, MAI Densis C Cunningham, MAI Alan M. Wilson, MAI Apollo Produce Distributors, Inc. APEC Atlantic Richfield Company The Baldwin Company Caritas Company Children's Hospital and Health Center Dempsey Construction Company William C. Doenges Trust Henry Avocados AirTouch (PacTel) Cellular Pardee Construction Company Rancho Pacific Engineering Corp. San Diego Christian Foundation San Diego Hebrew Day School Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Shell Oil Company U.S. West Cellular ttorrieys%CPA's Best, Best & Krieger Landels, Ripley & Diamond Lindley, Lazar & Scales Stevenson & Prairie Woolley & Day Schatz, Fletcher & Associates E. Alan Comstock. MAI REPRESENTATIVE APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS Commercial Buildings/Lots/Acreage Desert Lands Environmentally Sensitive Lands Industrial Buildings/Lots/Acreage Irrigated Lands Mountainous Lands Single Tenant Office Buildings Open Space/Park Lands Remnant Parcels Residential Subdivisions/Acreage Retail Centers Rural Acreage Partial Acquisitions: Communications Easements Lot Line Adjustments Open Space Easements Right -Of -Way (Easement & Fee) Slope & Drainage Easements Temporary Construction Easements Utility Easements Special Purpose Properties Telecommunication Sites Wetlands February 18, 1995 Mr. Allen Potter U.S. West Newvector Group 13701 Aurora Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98133 LAMB H ANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Professional Appraisers and Corrsulta.us RE FIELD OPS ti Fr'>=�►l�r� :2141-r 1 31995 A\ZI ECE1VED. 6 in:�e Re: Market study of residential sales surrounding proposed cellular tower facility located at 225th and 97th West, Edmonds, Washington. (Our Job No. S994-361) Dear Mr. Potter - As requested, we have completed a study of the potential impacts, if any, on residential property values related to property located in close proximity a cellular facility. As we discussed previously, this letter is not intended to be nor is it represented to be an appraisal of the adjacent properties. Instead, it is a study which consists of analyzing residential sales surrounding several existing cellular facilities to determine if there are any noticeable differences in sale prices and marketing time associated with houses located within 1-5 blocks of the facility versus similar single family residences located outside of this '''influence" area. (,..acz_nthis is a ar there is no measurable difference between the sale rices. ladingone to the conclusion that proximity of a typical single family residence to a medium size cellular transmission tower does not appear to have a positive or negative inf uence va ue. Furthermore, our analysis included extraction of marketing time from the multiple listing when available and/or confirmation with home owners or real estate agents. Here again, no measurable trends were detected. There was a relatively wide range of marketing time for ail the sales, ranging from a few weeks to several months. The proposed project includes placing a 100 foot mono -pole and utility shed on the undeveloped corner of an existing church site. The facility is to be somewhat insulated from view by planned landscaping and existing trees up to 85 feet in height. The immediate neighborhood is somewhat mature with single family residences of 30 to 40 years old and average single family residential sale prices of $130,000 to $175,000. Due to the age of these dwelling units, much of the landscaping consists of trees that are of significant size and height. The church building, parking lot and trees in addition to the cluster surrounding the proposed facility generally insulates the residential units to the east and north of the property. The topography of the land to the east of the proposed facility is such that none of the properties have any views to the west; thus the facility as proposed and existing trees will not be obstructive of views. Some of the residential units to the west of the proposed facility have partial views towards the west; thus the proposed facility will be to the rear, insulated from full view and not obtrusive of any Puget Sound and territorial views that homes may have towards the west. Mr.Potter 2118195 Page Two A preliminary survey of the area appears to indicate that only a limited number of residences would have partial view of the proposed facility. Those few in close proximity will Likely have a view of the base unit and "trunk" of the mono -pole while some of the houses further away will have a partial view of the top of the facility among tree tops. This is typical of the low to medium density residential areas in the northwest where there are an abundance of trees that block and partially block sight distance from houses and their yards. The locations we studied consists of several similar facilities. The scope of our study included identification of all single family residential sales located 1-5 blocks from an existing facility over the past 10-18 months, researching characteristics of these properties through public records, TRW data services, and local multiple listings. The second phase of our study included identifying similar houses that have sold within the same time frame that are located outside of the 1-5 block influence area (5-10+ blacks). In appraisal terminology, this is called a match -pair analysis where patterns of price range variations, if they existed, would become apparent, All recorded sales within the predominant pace range in the neighborhood are included regardless of physical characteristics for the first group. For the comparative group outside the influence area, those that are most similar in physical characteristics are chosen for analysis regardless of sale price. Our research covered multiple locations with facilities of various sizes and expanded search parameters with the objective of obtaining a "study population" of significant size; thereby increasing the reliability of results. This will allow a trend to emerge if it existed for a band of residential property types and locations. This method is much more desirable than restricting the analysis to one or two locations or sales where numerous other factors may cause sale prices to vary. These factors include: listing prices that are unrealistic, marketing techniques, condition of the property, unusual seller financing or incentives, and other non -arms length influences such as distress sales. A total of seven sites were studied: Four of these are classified as "primary" due to their overall similarity in residential setting and size of the facility while three are considered "supplemental" due to variations in size of facility and setting. These are tabulated, summarized and included with this letter along with location maps showing relative location of the facility and the neighborhood. For the primary sites, additional discussions are to follow. The principle unit of comparison is the average sales price of the group within the influence are as compared with the average sale price of the group outside the influence areas (see table). From this data, it is apparent that there is no measurable difference between the sale pnces, leading one to the conclusion that proximity of a typical single family residence to a medium size cellular transmission tower does not appear to have a positive or negative influence on value. Furthermore, our analysis included extraction of marketing time from the multiple listing when available and/or confirmation with home owners or real estate agents. Here again, no measurable trends were detected. There was a relatively wide range of marketing time for all the sates, ranging from a few weeks to several months. LAMB F{ANSON LAMB aPPRAISAL .ASSOCIATES. INC. Mr. Potter 2/18195 Page Three Site l-ccaticg Avondale -17401 198th Ave NE Marysville -1094 Ash St. SE Plateau -1616 228th Ave SE Redmond -10633 132nd Ave N Lynnwood -3303 196th PL SW Issaquah -205 Mtn. Park Blvd. Bothell -17324 Bothell Way AVONDALE; Influence group avg. price $132,025 $112,'929 $199.900 $168,983 $140,500 $149,350 $142,983 Non -influence avg. once $134,425 $110371 $206,958 $169,214 $137,850 $150,920 $141,350 This facility is very similar to the subject in size and is similarly located on a church property near Woodinville. Also similar to the subject is that there are some trees that partially obstruct views of the tower. It should be noted that the slightly lower average sale price of the influence group at $132,025 is due to the fact that these houses happen to be smaller in square footage that the group outside the influence area, at an average size of unaer 1,200 sf versus over 1,400 sf. Moreover, our conversation with the listing agent of the most recent sate located very close to Me tower (17430 198th Ave NE) indicates no negative Influence on marketing. When asked whether the property's proximity to the cellular tower caused any difficulty in marketing, the agent reported that "it was a non -issue" with the buyer and potential buyers. MARYSVILLE: Located in a residential area of Marysville, this site is less insulated from view by trees that the subject and the area suffers from some road noise (both groups of sales). Due to the lack of mature trees shielding the facility, any impact on value would likely be more evident should it be present. Since both groups of sate suffer equally from the freeway noise, it is not a factor that would skew the findings. Based on these sales, it appears that no measurable impact was noted. PLATEAU; The transmission antenna at this location is situated on top of an existing water tank near Pine Lake. It is surrounded by residential land uses and appears to be a good indicator of whether there is any influence on property values. Interview with an agent currently marketing residential lots one block to the south of the facility indicates that Cots and houses are selling well in the immediate neighborhood and that the water tower and antennas "were not a complaint of any of the potential buyers/builders" of her lots. The slight variation in average sate prices at under 3% is rather insignificant and may by partly attributable to three of the non -influence sales being larger houses of some 2,300 sf. LAMB E-iAtiSON LAMB APPR.AISA.L ,ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Potter 2/18/95 Page Four REDMOND: This facility is located next to an existing water tower rather than on it as is the case with the Plateau site. There are some trees and vegetation that shield the water tank from view but visibility of the transmission tower from neighborhood residences are comparable to the subject. Here again, neither the average sale prices nor the marketing time appears to be influenced by proximity to the facility. It should be noted that one of the sales located 3 blocks away took place within days of the listing and the agent reported no significant concerns by buyers. The supplemental study sites reinforces the conclusion that there is no impact of property values due to their proximity to a facility such as the one proposed. Further support may be found through our conversations with other knowledgeable Realtors, and review of several studies by other consultants, all concurring with our conclusions. The overall variation from the sale prices above is less than half of 1% with a total of over 60 residential sales. From an appraisal standpoint, the undersigned have over the years prepared and reviewed thousands of residential appraisals; and while appraiser frequently "adjust" for road nose, airport noise, poor access and numerous other factors that influence value, we do not recall a single incident where an appraiser adjusted value on a property for proximity to or being in a neighborhood where there is a cellular transmission tower similar to the one proposed. AN data gathered, some of which is included herein, has been retained in our files and is available for use if your should have the need. i trust that the foregoing is sufficient for your needs at this time. Please call if you should have any questions or require additional information. Very Truly Yours, mb Hansen Lamb Appraisal Associates Inc. A e. T. Chai Apprai •er and Consultant #270-11-CH-AI-"A-T4080Z cc: Mr. John Hend' ckson Mr. Timothy McFadden Mr. James Gibson ATClrnjlattachments LAMB HA\S0N LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. CERTIFICAT1ON We. the undersigned, do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report 1. We have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this study. 2. That we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this assignment nor to the parties involved. 3. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this letter, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are partially based, are true and correct. 4. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this report. 5. In arriving at the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate contained in this report, we consulted with other appraisers, and we hereby acknowledge their professional contribution to the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate set forth in the report. 6. Possession of this report, a copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By -Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser. Nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. a. This assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or conclusion. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. r L Alfred T. Chai Senior A•praiser and Consultant Lic #270-11-CH-AI-'AT4080Z mi es Gibson research Assistant i LAMB liANSOV LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Cansultanss LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 17401 198TH AVE. NE AVONDALE SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BRI ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SFI LOT II 1. 17524 199th Ave. NE 8-18-94 $127,500 1 sty 1,120 .232 3/1 2. 17805 197th Ave. NE 5-26-94 5126,900 1 sty 1,250 .217 3/1. 3. 17526 199th P1. NE 9-09-94 5136,750 1 sty 1,120 .152 3/1 4. 17430 198th Ave NE 11-22-94 5136,950 1 sty 1,120 .322 3/1 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 6 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BW ADDRESS QATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SFS Lal aThi 1. 15832 199th Ave. NE 9-27-94 5132,000 1 sty 1,030 .215 3/2 2. 20453 NE 133rd St. 8-24-94 5132.500 1 sty 1,460 .939 2/1 3. 15841 197th P1. NE 8-18-94 $137,500 1 sty 1,490 .203 4/1.5 4. 26318 NE 145th St. 7-08-94 5135, 700 1 + B 1,690 .275 3/1 LAMB H NSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Prnjessionaf Real Estate Appraisers and Consaliants 411 1 O r �1Brni 51 ir +0014 • NE \ I 1 • isc% "1 • 1 CC 'ICC 1 '+ r Uf 3 i Y —I 41.1'1645m n tI ,mss ,, -- •' ! x _ :i it 1 .t 415.+.0. b + 51 . �. ,�,I ,, 2f Y , _ 2lX '� i \ r E= { 1 }1'r �r is 4 -I• sT • , . 1 i ilii 1'1+1121l .1$1 t14 rf � 7 r, ' - `� i " r l ft i i i 4 +d ri t id>, _ 14S I'` _ir ., 040,4 i }S!I4 1 • : r:" .• i4 i i, 44 i }f i. -T / ~ le, 1 111 1• i r.-ev a •f IMM 5.1 T jj • f lip. s 51 "6" ' 'a l I . •,1 •Y, �M l r sv =ly 1 :C' r v.‘llI..r1 r St` . , w Wit thy.' •k E ,-HM ][ ” 1i rL4 4/414 +HIM Ara w -' ua �—se 7 =x f,q. I 111 11014 5T . L. I xyrafq II I51I. R +E 151N - 1 ;' -I + Vit+ ,• It S 1 1 t: Y ''sa!{M s I Z +f t C1 1 l!S14 1 w1• V3'.rt r Jus 007 • ++ ., .� !i al; yy i▪ P�+.. 1515 NE ISG MO 'ft. 4f /441111 I'1-1 r .1 :14114 f r L yk 414,4 `ur S ▪ r 5, 41 YI4 II 1 51 11214 „} .4 I13PRI r",-4.._._ ,1 � f p ST most - 01, UM _-� 5r t C k !7 s ,r11G � '� :/..'"1[:1': ' .7•Ay.O. I ,.,,.-,7,c0 !I r •, !/ 't% A- 011110 160 ti °T til F' +�� ';141+9,_1 \� r • = _ Ii ,I t • - Mlr+ • t• or • '4LP tl aglow 00,1 CAW . .be =T r CL / liad i N 0444 ■ 41 f I1 { wr^ rL 113.10 • LA. 1B HA SON L? -'4B s0001lcxr A CfY'1STCc �• •- LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 1094 ASH ST. SE MARYSVILLE SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE DATE SALE BR! YR. ADDRESS PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) BTH BUILT 1. 1016 Ash Ave 4-28-94 $140,000 1 sty 1,180 3/1 1928 2. 1029 Cedar St. 8-22-94 594,000 1 sty 744 2/1 1952 3. 1300 Ash Ave. 6-17-94 5104,000 1 sty 1,520 4/2 1940 4. 1228 8th 51 8-31-94 5111,000 1 sty 974 3/1 1936 5. 1325 Cedar St. 2-23-94 5104,000 1 sty 960 2/2 1977 6. 621 Beach Ave 1-9-95 5127,500 1.5 sty 1,693 4/1 1906 7. 1214 10th Street 11-17-94 5110,000 1 sty 968 2/1 1908 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR. ADDRESS DATE PRICE TYLE SIZE (SF] FEE BUILT 1. 8225 36th Ave. NE 6-22-94 5123,500 1 sty 1,126 3/1.75 1990 2. 8110 38th Or. NE 10-24-94 $110,000 2 sty 1,392 211.75 1976 3. 3902 80th St. NE 9-07-94 5106, 750 1 sty 1,136 3/1 1940 4. 1527 6th St. 6-10-94 5115,000 1 sty 1,120 211 1920 5. 1624 5th St. 7-06-93 $101,975 1 sty 1,112 2/1 1962 6. 1822 6th St. 11-23-94 5105.000 1 sty 548 211 1928 LAMS HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Prafessranud Real Estate Apprarsers and Consultants r 66TH • 83RO eI PL NE ife • N t7- 64T1-1 1 .-ST 81ST Pi NE >xt-A 80TH GRO E .;\ 75 5 - 1200: ST LLJ LL.1 82N0 PL NE ST NE MA FS 1— r -- ST LNE IT! oc -= • 81ST s7 Pir 80TH ST , NE "II, cu 0 77TH PC NE GROVE 1600 28 10M ;rr!LIBERif LN ›"‹ ST — PO 1800 1 9TH Sr 1600 8Th - HS < 111 ST 1800 72NDE Pi NE LIB MW 3 67TH ST 1 76TH Pl. NE •s. 75111 ST NE 175TH ST 'NE - 71RD ST NE • 1 72NOIDL NE ST ST 5STN NE (74. ^1* 3R0 2ND i '111ST f .c LJ 6Th ST tzl 5TH cc 64Th PVillf4.1 7 4471140 g -- JENNINGS PARK .0 4,TH TST NE g ST NE -ta 1• ST M. 3RD r S T Ei Laa 1:21 1 ST S 800 i . \ '41 1 = 1 ttoriVILLE LW I 241 CCII T. L., h" 7 TOWN CENTEM friALL 1 is.ct IMA RY il5D4 P (..at I CC LE LANIB FLANSOrti LAMB • rtnn ILC 3.-zrr-v-T ,7 -re 4 LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 3303 196TH PL SW LYNNWOOD SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BRI YR. ADDRESS QAATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SFSTF BUILT 1 19827 Poplar Way 6-16-93 $136,000 1 + 8 978/908 OF 2/1 1919 2. 19930 Poplar Way 11-5-93 $145,000 1 + B 1,222/420 UF 2/1 1952 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: SALE SALE BR/ YR. ADDRESS DATE PFIICE STYLES 5iZE (SF) 51d BUILT 1. 1990 28th Ave. W. 7-16-93 $160,000 2 sty 1,944 4/4.5 1986 2. 19225 28th Ave. W. 6-20-94 $130,000 1 sty 1,552 4/1 1955 3. 20312 28th Pl. W. 7-19-94 $124,950 1 sty 1,482 3/2.5 1959 4. 3304 202nd St. SW 9-27-94 $156,000 2 + 8 1,300/624 UF 3/2.5 1986 5. 3716 203rd P1. SW 5-13-94 $154,000 Tri-1ev 1,344/380 F 3/2.5 1989 6. 3513 200th PI. SW 3-18-93 $120,000 1 sty 1,365 3/1 1985 7. 19822 28th Ave W 12/21/94 $120,000 1 sty 1,391 3/1 1922 LAMB HANSONW LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Prrjestranuf Reel, Elate Appraerert and Cpntufrarnrt PAXs• ' 74 4r Ad r �r :s 21t 1724tH ` i: �Ir *� rx. I pt. S171 9i skt _ 17!14 Rw 1 176TH pL SY 177 173RD pt S1 rob 19174 ST ac Sat - 98Tle .4 g., i JGOO 17, its I Sw :51St sr Cy -A7*M a :92111 sr cye' 1915T Pt.' Sw 2m0 PL SW 79a.9c PO s�"sr s7r" ; 159TH S ST 73.61 7 0 170TH IX 57 ' .41 1 dL sw / ,• ti H i `' t>:7ST r 172ND' ' —.. ST sw 111. r7r r• ST Sw 1175_ H 57 sw d.z4 PL f n 5w 17 7- Raz • rn:xv� • PLAZA ST IfARR(D1T5 - SEIMENCE INN- Ill cr7i7A0 182ND ST ST 511 474I?LE J L,,_ 181ST :59rw s C': Y.1'. q,• ▪ a ALDERhCOD 44t4..' RD Sw FRED 'eEY57 •EMTs ++00 :' sl I 198TH 5T Sw ` 5w sti\I m at, FFL3EeR,'▪ 11177 - _ -•19br+r 19. -_r LA 511 204TH eh ST - 0Sh ▪ .. NIO 2054 sw 200TH ST Sw 199Th ST Sw .:r - 4t4"' Seers j39T4 "� 199TH pL sw' ST SJ 5:w - .. i..'. .. - -TOOTH PS. Sw , • 31:.:,:` ; n4 ST -_- } :2%—___-- 0Til s �;' - ram sr skr SM.. t r_ •,-. 2ax,o % 20ar11'c. 74 _ _ ' sr hi - r rmi 205e44i: pa ;. iw .. :rata ;2.i4S*M 57t p1 S 1 - r 205TH Pt Sw Tof ami As ZOirk so at -12TH� RLN ly 1 LAT H ST rr cc +aa PL Sw ' o ..�� J 1 209114 °L2 214144 sr .471 Sk 40, 21771i STrt " 71 it 2alT7 ar ^1 208TH ST`'. Sw 208TH PL -- Suy 4 2 '4 `m e'• 's—' '14-' AC4. 8RIEFT9 PA r WY SW 1 ; i1rr7L gi 2I1111 SY.. N =err PARK 2i2”. +17'4. �a 2- :1 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 1616 228TH AVE. SE 1SSAQUAH SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE LOT BRI YR. ADDINSS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SFA LACI BUILT 1. 22720 SE 17th St. 4-25-94 5148,000 1 sty 1.830 .35 2/1 1919 2. 22608 SE 18th St. 5-27-94 $202,500 2 sty 1,820 1.91 2/2 1978 3, 22710 SE 20th St. 5-12-94 5255,000 2 sty 1,970 1.17 5/2.75 1977 4. 1 109 228th Ave. SE 7-13-93 $190,000 1.5 sty 2,190 1.89 3/1 1915 5. 22716 SE 22nd Pt 12-5-94 $204.000 1 sty 1,960 .43 412.25 1978 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE. SALE SALE LOT BR/ YR. ADDRESS DATE PRICE � SIZE [SF1 (LACI Int ALT 1. 21411 SE 16th P1. 8-19-94 5244,900 2 sty 2.330 .82 4/2.25 1977 2. 21832 SE 16th P1. 2-01-94 $244,000 2sty 2,330 1.38 4/2.25 1979 3. 1923 218th Ln. SE 2-01-94 $237,000 1 sty 2,310 .93 3/1.5 1985 4. 21404 SE 19th St. 7-26-93 $199,950 2 sty 1,976 .49 3/2.5 1976 5. 1921 216th Ave. SE 9-23-94 $157,950 1 +13 1750/490 F .37 411.75 1968 6. 2223 219th Ln. SE 4-12-94 5157,900 1 sty 1,300 .35 3/1 1961 LAMB HANSON LA%IS APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Projesstonal Rea! Estate .4ppragsers and Cnnsnitarrs SE 3 T ST s 13 Pl 21 TH 0e0o t 5E 212 ' 45 s RPS P.1.' 6T 21ST ST ST tl'Ts1 sir SE 28m ST s^ s 1;7. y1M_�.rAr pst Term �.rllt'`J 7 i` 1 M}" :11'1 Lt +:,?0ti' J ♦ v, di <� .3 � " LY i Ir! Fsi I wili 0�� r.A SE= ]test Tin �"" + NIA. 1` 3TN0 1/ t Y SE t♦l� rt •=. Ir i Nw, ii 1. ySL }�y, „ q{y»r!w tr t .. '4 s..'r x x s�s.rm sr ,;i }, r- !SI Wig1 +15rm + w ns. $ a 3 T►1 yY.j yi� 1 f ,. mss._.. .- n w. F Ui.2 S. ! • W N y 4,..----.14- rr ' �• wt.4:'R t to rw'4, 1 rs,• i'rif pi ZI La 15i[ sc ASr = 4 rw 5t .l iMTN Cr f_ V!§ „ iirw K Sl 4;6 SE .« �1 niz r 21STr. SE lam 21 TH ZBT14 11100 0 22400 ST Dt SE "� l9rk Sr ti'r� ,r '5 Ir V '2S, 0r 100 IT X1{ 41 r.40 e444—(t — S E irAtOi 14C .r.craS CAKE 2NO ST P. 1 16 A.r LAMB HANSON LAMB APPR.a (SAL ASS OC LATES. INC. LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 10633 132ND AVE. NE REDMOND SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE ADDRESS DATE 1. 12920 NE 103RD PL. 11-3-94 2. 12817 NE 107TH PL. 6-22-94 3. 10425 134TH AVE. NE 1-13-95 SALE BR/ YR PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF1 STH BUILT 5193,250 2 sty 1.800 3/2.5 1989 $177,200 1 + 8 1,310/920 F 3/2.25 1976 $136,500 1 sty 1.310 3/1.0 1941 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 5 BLOCKS DISTANCE: ADDRESS SALE DATE 1. 10605 NE 107TH PL. 12-13-94 2. 12716 NE 94TH CT. 12-29-94 3. 14226 128TH AVE. N E 10-6-94 4. 11420 NE 112TH ST 8-09-94 5. 514 15TH AVE 12-20-94 6. 10020 134TH AVE NE8-01-94 7. 13615 NE 100TH ST 6-16-94 SALE PRICE STYLE SIZE fSFJ 5189.500 2 sty 1.930 $190,000 2 sty 1,890 $169,500 1 + 8 1,260/430 F $180,000 1 + B 1,330/650 F 5175,000 1 + B 1,220/680 F $148,500 1 sty 1.340 $132,000 '1 sty 1,200 BR/ YR BUILT 3/2.5 1991 3/2.5 1988 3/1.75 1974 3/1.75 1978 3/2.0 1979 3/1.0 1945 3/1.0 1941 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC_ Profession.,. Real Estate .appraisers' and Culls&shams if; gat k 5,3L.ir�1 t . -* _yam11*mak,, 61. .Www ti' 'rine 4 1.310 " 'T it 1«•sr • fl r411.,/ y1 - T - 4 P1 '1 ---.L. I .2111 31 ▪ 1 , .1 t? i s=S I; • .1..1 .6i i:, r. atm• ,r.. 1-11°1 za 11 '". y�i ti >It • rm •..i et isa .� i ▪ s k �, ,u,■. As_� paii gie •f L — el w r I - w S a ! r V q4 .17 El Mari 44 11 14 - 2111 4r :aTM , - , inn 1 -a X .'' '. • :y*w1. 4.1 .., .r r � •`.{ ter.,I i 4 ID Y 0,4zY` i x� r ■ ssl • .`01. .1 rte= I2afi sewwalf.� trift•-.* 1. [ R• iI �j,!.jZr ` •:1Y of 1.Z Is y 0.041i Tit; Ili REOMON`SL, I4A1 R �j IT ri 4fiTFl $sf S - • 43•11 yi rr n� ir=k %, w�+. ■4 •f i r i yI ;31 KINI .r1. r�* -1 w !.Y " _ r�•� v � y`rr_'+i1. •tort ..M. IT ri 1 41. = I Sew IY On A f' ! S>• • s r 11 E. 11a1r i f ---1 .rte+• s{5 _ 1' _ :•"5"ii iIl . w I.r • ire.,,, � _ . gi ae 1 a ..1 rh i . K .I Tr : :74. -i--.7.11- :TN tr.▪ "4 STW -444 TN 0 ON LOC Si �.3 • • ■i .r. + T • a.pi - e91 --+P':i-L";_. �e 1,- = v .1 MANN ,r .•' 4 / a LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Professional Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 205 MOUNTAIN PARK BLVD. ISSAQUAH SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BR/ ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE_(SF) LQIThi 1. 550 Mt. Logan Dr. 5-20-94 $148,900 1 sty 1,250 .30 3/1 2. 405 Mt. McKinley Dr. 8-30-94 $141,000 1 sty 1,200 .27 3/1 3. 35 Mt. Olympus Dr. 4-25-94 $143,000 1 sty 1,270 .22 3/1.75 4. 685 Mt. Fury Creek SW 12-7-94 $164,500 1 sty 1,560 .21 3/2 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 6 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BR/ ADDRESS DA E PRICE STYLE SIZE (SR LQI Bh 1. 325 SE Andrews St. 5-31-94 $130,000 1 sty 1,370 .16 2/1 2. 265 1st Ave. NE 1-19-94 $149,950 1 sty 1,290 .14 3/1 3. 4043 323rd Ave. SE 5-23-94 $139,950 1 sty 1,140 .316 3/1.75 4. 545 SE Evans 6/24-94 $149,000 1 sty 980 .430 3/1 5. 205 Mt. Pilchuck Ave 12-23-94 $185,700 2 w/bsmt 2,050 .28 4/2.25 LAMS KA.NSON LAMB APPRAISAL .ASSOCIATES. INC. Projesrtonul Rea! Endre .4pprasrerr and Consultartrr FRW - • ,1. $ AVM _:-air 4411 1.4111P'S� I 41444 • : t. ` ` 'l..' T.21N _ F fi`S.• �]I.i [le I { T2 N v $OUA!( Mf7UNTAIN `~Y !! S i OM S[ 9716 Si + 1 .I • . 1• r Y r{ 1 1 r 4-. s, r ••,l • 1 1 .r 1 1 \ 1 � 1 1 I I° fl T + B SE 11914 Cr 3,1 g. 11811, tiff STATE PARK NATURAL AREA 4 11 \ +.... u • ' NIfaws srur ! iiainald �d h 1 !T r -i f f {0 LAMB I- ANSON LAMB P PRAISAL. ASSOCIATES. !NC. LOCATION OF EXISTING TOWER 17324 BOTHELL WAY BOTHELL SALES OF RESIDENCES WITHIN 1-5 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BRI ADDRE$ DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) LOT DIE 1. 17815 93rd PI. 6-17-94 $149,000 1 + B 1,160 .32 4/2 2. 9322 NE 183rd St. 5-27-94 $140,000 1 + B 1,090 .20 3/2.5 3. 9211 NE 180th St, 3-31-94 $139,950 1 + B 1,320 .19 3/2.25 SALES OF RESIDENCES OVER 6 BLOCKS: SALE SALE BR/ ADDRESS DATE PRICE STYLE SIZE (SF) [LT 13TH 1. 15418 111th Ave. NE 6-22-94 $137,400 1 sty 1,130 .138 4/1.5 2. 20401 104th Ave. NE 7-05-94 $136,000 2 sty 1,680 .237 4/1 3. 14706 114th Ave. NE 10-18-94 $145,000 1 sty 1,300 .203 3/1.75 4. 14619 111th Ave. NE 3-17-94 $147,000 1 sty 1,520 ,302 4/1.75 LAME HANSON LA IB APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Projrssaonal Real Estate Appraasrrs and Cuniaahnnts LAMB HANSON LAMB APPFLABA . A55OCUTES. INC QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPEAIEE ALFRED T. CHAT P.O. BOX 8202 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 Mr, Chai is an independent fee appraiser and consultant for all types of real estate in Washington state. Formerly, he was a senior associate in charge of the south Puget Sound office of Lamb Hanson Lamb. He received his Masters degree in urban and regional planning with honors from Texas A & M University where he was also the president of the Transportation club and a member of the graduate scnool student advisory committee. Prior to joining Lamb Hanson Lamb in 1986 as a senior associate, Mr. Chai was associated with the international Engineering & Consulting firm Wilbur Smith & Associates where he participated in and managed several large scale airport, highway and transit projects. At Lamb Hanson Lamb, Mr. Chai has appraised numerous complex commercial and special use properties in the Puget Sound region. Furthermore, Mr. Chai's experience and effectiveness as a team manager has served the firm well through his successful leadership and expansion of the south end office. Mr. Chaff taught appraisal principles at Renton Technical College. is approved to prepare residential appraisals and reviews by most mainstream lenders in the country is bi-lingual, and has traveled extensively in Asia, Australia, and Europe. EDIUCATIQN; Texas A & M University - M.U.P in Transportation Planning/Engineering, 1985 Eastern Washington University - B.A. in Urban & Regional Planning, 1983 Appraisal Institute Courses - Basic Valuation; Principles; Standards; Capitalization A and B; Case Studies; Report Writing; numerous seminars and short courses. Various Real Estate and Real Estate Appraisal Courses, 1966 -Present M EMBgRSHI PSICOMMUNITY: Puget Power Citizen's Advisory Panel (1992) Advanced MAI Candidate - Appraisal Institute Phi Kappa Phi Tau Sigma Delta Letter of Commendation, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, Texas A & M University. Member of the Student Advisory Committee, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Texas A & M University (1983 - 1984) President of the Transportation Club, Texas A & M University (1983 - 1984) Volunteer instructor of English as a second language - Renton Technical College Columnist - R.E. Perspectives, a local real estate/mortgage trade journal Guest Speaker at numerous professional association meetings and mortgage company training sessions LAMB HANSON LAMA APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Professrortal Reil Enare Appraisers and Coruultanrs EXPERIENCE; Currently a Washington State Certified General Appraiser, a Washington State Licensed Real Estate Sales Person and an Instructor of Appraisal Principles at Renton Technical College. Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., 1990 - 1994: Senior Associate in charge of the South King County Regional Office - Review/Supervision and preparation of both Commercial and Residential appraisals, as well as full administrative responsibilities and customer service. Directed the branch office to triple the volume between 1990 - 1993, established reputation as one of the larger firms in the region that maintained excellent quality, with clients including banks, mortgage companies, all levels of government, attorneys, and private individuals. Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc., 1986 - Present: Senior Associate. Appraisal of various types of commercial and residential properties for financing, refinancing, litigation acquisition, disposal, leasing, just compensation, partial interests, and fair market value purposes, through the use of full narrative reports, short narratives, apartment forms 71A/71B, URAR, Consultation Letters. Feasibility studies for subdivisions and other proposed developments. Type of properties appraised include: single family residences, apartments, office buildings, retail buildings, warehouses, post offices, medical clinics. land, subdivisions, port properties, automobile service garages. nursing homes and other commerciaVindustrial properties. Areas served include the greater Seattle -Tacoma metropiex and Western Washington. Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc: Houston, Texas - 1985 - 1986. Wilbur Smith & Associates is an international engineenng and planning hrm specializing in transportation planning and economic feasibility studies. Participated in and managed vanous planning projects (see on following list). Public Policy Resources Laboratory, Texas A & M University, 1984 - 1985. Research Associate. A research organization supported by state government, communications media, and business organizations for the purpose of conducting public policy research on a variety of economic , social and civic issues. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Texas A & M University, 1983 - 1984. Research Assistant. Directed and managed various funded planning projects. MAJOR APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS AND TECHNICAL REPQRTSz Port of Tacoma, Puyallup Tribal land claims settlement Seattle's_ Sorrento Hotel, Partnership dissolution settlement Woodinville Highway Widening. row acquisitions - DOT aowntown Tacoma's Masonic Temple, Financing Pioneer Square Historic Building, Financing Drazoria_County Transoortation Plan, Texas; Lichliter - Jameson and Associates Mexia Comprehensive Plan, Mexia, Texas; Houston Lighting and Power/Northwestem Resources Rock Island Corridor Study, Dallas -Fort Worth, Texas; North Central Texas Council of Governments Belden Texas Poll Continuity Guide 1954-197g, Texas; Public Policy Resources Laboratory Regional Airport -Airspace System Plan; Houston - Galveston area, Houston - Galveston, Texas Laredo Transit Improvement Program, City of Laredo, Texas Clear Laky City Traffic Impact Study, Houston, Texas; Friendswood Development Company Brownsville CBD Parking Studti, Brownsville, Texas Festival Mark_etltace Parking Garage Feasibility Study, City of Dallas "Th? Manor' - A Special Use Facility, Estate and Tax Planning LAMB HA.,JSON LAM APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES. INC. Prajesstenat Rea/ Ewart .Appraisers and Cansufranrs To: Garfield County Commissioner - Tresi Houpt Jan. 1, 2008 Regarding: David HicksfVerizon Special Use Permit Hearing 1/07/08 Dear Ms. Haupt, My name is Chris Lynch and my husband's name is Don. We own the property located at 2554 Highway 82. We are sorry will not be able to attend this hearing because Don is recovering from surgery that he just recently had here in Phoenix. I am sorry that we are taking your time again regarding this matter, however, we feel it is very important for us to continue to remind you how and why we and all our neighbors (I have spoken with almost all of them this week) are still very concerned and why we all continue to object so strongly to Mr. Hicks and Verizon still wanting to put the antennas in our neighborhood. I am attaching the letters that my husband and I wrote to you for this same hearing that was held on Nov. 5, 2007 and I am also attaching the letter I wrote to you for the July 11, 2005 hearing as 1 feel some of that information also relates to this hearing. Will you please take time to read the letters again so you will remember some of our concerns. We the residents still feel we will take a loss in property values (as stated by Sharon Stephenson - property mgr. for Mason and Morse hearing 7111105), possible potential future health related conditions and also forced to live with RFR exposure 24 hours a day. We the residents feel there are still open spaces out there or maybe places where other antennas are that Verizon could find and use. if they would just look around more and not be so dead set on putting the antennas in our neighborhood. Please take into consideration all of our concerns for our neighborhood and our community. Again we ask you. our county commissioner, to please deny this request (as you have in the past) for a permit for these antennas to be installed at this location. Thank you so much again for taking time to listen to us. % -6e7 To: The Garfield County Commissioners On July 1 I, 2005 there was a hearing regarding a special use permit for Verizon to install antennas on the Colorado West Upholstery building owned by Mr. John Colby. Many of the residents were present at this hearing and voiced their concerns as to why they strongly objected having the antennas at this location. We were all so very grateful that you took the time to listened to us and all our sincere concerns as to why we did not want this in our neighborhood. We thank you that your decision was to reject this permit. Now Verizon is again wanting to put up the same antennas in almost the same location only on a different building owned by Mr. David Hicks. At this location the emissions will be spreading out across almost all the homes. Verizon had said at the previous hearing in July, 2005, they could not find any other place to put the antennas (which was proven not true by a citizen in the room) when a person in the audience representing Mr. Hicks spoke up and said you could put it on one of our buildings. I was told that a very short time after that Mr. Hicks and Verizon began talking and then working on a plan for putting the antennas on one of his buildings. It has taken Mr. Hicks a couple of years to finish the first two buildings and he is now working on building 3 and starting on building 4 where Verizon wants to place the antennas. You suggested to Verizon it would be advantageous for them to start looking for other locations away from our neighborhood. I feel they have not really tried as they started working with Mr. Hicks right away. They have waited for 2 years for Mr. Hicks to start building his building. The owner of this building, Mr. Hicks, will make a significant amount of money monthly from this deal and Verizon will benefit greatly as the building will be there for them to place the antennas on while we the residents, will take a significant loss in property values, possible potential future health related conditions and forced to live with RFR exposure. We will pay with losses. As I said at the 2005 hearing, I know Verizon may need more antenna stations to give better service, but I feel they can find and should find an open space away from a residential area. It may cost them more money, but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. We put our trust in you before that you would look out for us and our community which you did and I hope you will do this again for us. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to go through. Attached is one of my letters to you from July, 2005 my concerns and also a letter from Sharon Stevenson (who was at that hearing) regarding property values. Thank you so much for taking time to read this and for you consideration on this matter. i4 4 13121 40-/Je.4, ; ,a4cy ff 1/-zurn, : -Ale.. 1.r . 0,4 61.E ei7 .g4941,. - I shared with you at the June 13th meeting the great concern I have regarding this project because of my sensitivity to electromagnetic waves and how it affects me. You asked me to get a letter from doctors stating this which I have done. I faxed this info to them so they could see exactly what the plans are for this project and also how close it is to the home we own. According to the Drs. as you can see, they feel that I definitely should not live there. I also asked if they felt if it world be safe for me with the sensitivity I have to visit my daughter there and they said they felt it would not be. 14 202, Our daughter Jamie has lived in this home for 25 yrs. We bought it as a place for her to live and an investment for our retirement. I am very concerned about the effects it could have on her health with the home being so very close to this array of antennas. Standing in her driveway she will be about 10 feet from this building. Case studies and research continue to pour in and the extent of safe exposure is still in question. Our view of Mt. Sopris and the valley will be taken away from us and if they build higher as they plan to it will be like living in an alley. 1 have been informed that our rental will definitely suffer or if we were to try to sell this home (which we do not want to do) that the value of our property will go down. It will hurt the value of all our homes there. If you were looking to buy or rent a horse would you want to buy ours - - that close to all the antennas with the radiation warning signs posted or would you find another neighborhood. Would your want this is your neighborhood where your live now? I know Verizon needs more antenna stations to give better service, but I know they can find a place away from a residential area. It may cost them more money as they may have to buy land, build a building and a road but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. As citizens of Garfield county we voted for you and we put our trust in you that you will look out for what if best for us and our community. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to go through. pilaw/ S', 61ep-ilt-7:4/49 // P 0 ea,Jcv cam„ G"'rz.--ra div 2'1~ . d/z-6,7 0-721 ri rte' ( 6'51 z, � 4-47 a..1„/f die.7 e;- - . at,:e<2 c 17/ a) idE7Li_, i'V,11-7-7sto/ ‘d‘f70 s % ,g117(4,7." e7 cat, e/)„,4,Dele, eZz' y fo-9-e- t-, /(2 pv?,1 6:27-(77 a 6;_e hz-t-r4v, aZ- 57,/ex.20 a7z JAN -03-2008 THAI 01:03 Pik MASON & MORSE GLENWOOD masomorse Th, souRce FOP NEA_ Es -AT January 2" `� 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Don Lynch 602 Cowdin Drive Glenwood Spgs„ Co 81601 FF) NO. 9709280977 P. 02 RE: COMMENTS: ON NEW PROPOSED CELULARTRANSMISSION ANTENNA NEAR YOUR RENTAL PROPERTY LO2.ATED AT 2554 STATE HWY 82, GL1 NWOOD SPGS., CO 81601 Dear Christine and Don: My concerns in 2005 regarding any effects of antennas piaci:d on the roof of Colorado West Upholstery to your rental property behind the upholster shop rave changed somewhat due to the fact the antennas are not proposed to be in your "line of sight' of Mt. Sopris and other mountain views. However, the latest proposal doesn't change the fact that as your realtor, 1 have the obligations to disclose any information regarding your property to all tenan .s and /or purchasers. Weather or not health issues or possible :nterferonce to other telecommunication equipment in the residence would propose any problems is a decision a tenant and/or purchaser must have the opportunity to investigate. Not disclosing allows the possibility of an unhappy buyer or t:nant to seek legal action. You may prevail, however the time, energy and cost of litigation could be eliminated by disclosing up front. 1 don't know the percentages of people who care vs. people ho don't care about electromagnetic radiation around their home. 1 can only surra se it will limit the marketability of your home for rent or for sale. The pricing would stand a best sr chance of higher numbers if electromagnetic radiation was not an issue. Pm sorry you are dealing with this again. Hopefully another ocation can be found that will not disrupt lives and futures. Sincerely, 0 Sharon Stephenson Property Manager / Broker Grit ec: Garfield County Commissioners, Tresi Houpt, John Marti] p. 970.928, 9000 888.840.0836 f. 970.928.0977 masonmorse.com 9g�cs- 27ar Lar McCown 194X ZP6107'07 /MO /4" mAson morse real estate 1614 grand evenue glenwaod springs, co 8 } 601 January 1, 2008 To the Garfield county Building At Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado Attention: Tres+ Houpt We are, Mike and Judy Wadyko, homeowners at 2560 HWY 82. As such, we object to the proposed antennas on the properly of Mr. David Hicks close to our home for two reasons: 1. The electro magnetic impulses from such antennas are likely to be somewhat damaging to the health of the residents in the area, including ourselves, over a period of time. 2. Since it is necessary to put up signs by the antennas saying Hazardous or Dangerous - Keep Off, this would tend to lower the value of our home and discourage buyers. We appreciate your consideration of the residents in the area and hope that the antennas could be built in a more commercial or industrial area.. Mike Wadyko ; Judy Wadyko Itja d 1 January 1, 2008 To the Garfield county Building & Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado Attention: Larry McCown We are, Mike and Judy Wadyko, homeowners at 2560 HWY 82. As such, we object to the proposed antennas on the property of Mr. David Hicks close to our home for two reasons: 1. The electro magnetic impulses from such antennas are likely to be somewhat damaging to the health of the residents in the area, including ourselves, over a period of time. 2. Since it is necessary to put up signs by the antennas saying Hazardous or Dangerous - Keep Off, this would tend to lower the value of our home and discourage buyers. We appreciate your consideration of the residents in the area and hope that the antennas could be built in a more commercial or industrial area. Mike Wadyko `d'/d .-� Judy Wadyko ut4-6 l�, c .7:1011-7 CSG G -L rv�a i/ 'i e ei-(Lie? e -y '- ot�i �1 arc -e-6 �cJ- 2, -x'07 Vie. y, G 7f: -4c) ,z--;; liL 7 #a 72•;, 4f," 4-‘11 &Z- fiV/1 zze-zze fxri*p4e-,-i 6 G✓tea �i ad'r ur-r< l • / %- ,-/LGate7( e-!-/ CZ --ea/ .�, Z e/ e4c-e-a, 1(2 /2 -0 -r -A_. An/ 4.-71-e//-0-7 6k„kTile_ 711L Mz-72,047/‘ V 1` s �•' ill •�_, " �'� e 6/77z ,7;95 To: Garfield County Commissioner Larry McCown Jan. 1.2008 Regarding: David Hicks/Verizon Special Use Permit Hearing 1/07/08 Dear Mr. McCown, My name is Chris Lynch and my husband's name is Don. We own the property located at 2554 Highway 82. We are sorry will not be able to attend this hearing because Don is recovering from surgery that he just recently had here in Phoenix. lam sorry that we are taking your time again regarding this matter, however. we feel it is very important for us to continue to remind you how and why we and all our neighbors (1 have spoken with almost all of them this week) are still very concerned and why we all continue to object so strongly to Mr. Hicks and Verizon still wanting to put the antennas in our neighborhood. I am attaching the letters that my husband and I wrote to you for this same hearing that was held on Nov. 5, 2007 and I ant also attaching the letter I wrote to you for the July 11. 2005 hearing as I feel some of that information also relates to this hearing. Will you please take time to read the letters again so you will remember some of our concerns. We the residents still feel we will take a loss in property values (as stated by Sharon Stephenson - property mgr. for Mason and Morse hearing 7/11/05), possible potential future health related conditions and also forced to live with RFR exposure 24 hours a day. We the residents feel there are still open spaces out there or maybe places where other antennas are that Verizon could find and use, if they would just look around more and not be so dead set on putting the antennas in our neighborhood. Please take into consideration all of our concerns for our neighborhood and our community. Again we ask you, our county commissioner, to please deny this request for a permit for these antennas to be installed at this location. Thank you so much again for taking time to listen to us. 1 To: The Garfield County Commissioners On July I I, 2005 there was a hearing regarding a special use permit for Verizon to install antennas on the Colorado West Upholstery building owned by Mr. John Colby. Many of the residents were present at this hearing and voiced their concerns as to why they strongly objected having the antennas at this location. We were all so very grateful that you took the time to listened to us and all our sincere concerns as to why we did not want this in our neighborhood. We thank you that your decision was to reject this permit. Now Verizon is again wanting to put up the same antennas in almost the same location only on a different building owned by Mr. David Hicks. At this location the emissions will be spreading out across almost all the homes. Verizon had said at the previous hearing in July, 2005, they could not find any other place to put the antennas (which was proven not true by a citizen in the room) when a person in the audience representing Mr. Hicks spoke up and said you could put it on one of our buildings. I was told that a very short time after that Mr. Hicks and Verizon began talking and then working on a plan for putting the antennas on one of his buildings. It has taken Mr. Hicks a couple of years to finish the first two buildings and he is now working on building 3 and starting on building 4 where Verizon wants to place the antennas. You suggested to Verizon it would be advantageous for them to start looking for other locations away from our neighborhood. I feel they have not really tried as they started working with Mr. Hicks right away. They have waited for 2 years for Mr. Hicks to start building his building. The owner of this building, Mr. Hicks, will make a significant amount of money monthly from this deal and Verizon will benefit greatly as the building will be there for them to place the antennas on while we the residents, will take a significant loss in property values, possible potential future health related conditions and forced to live with RFR exposure. We will pay with losses. As I said at the 2005 hearing, I know Verizon may need more antenna stations to give better service, but I feel they can find and should find an open space away from a residential area. It may cost them more money, but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. We put our trust in you before that you would look out for us and our community which you did and I hope you will do this again for us. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to go through. Attached is one of my letters to you from July, 2005 my concerns and also a letter from Sharon Stevenson (who was at that hearing) regarding property values. Thank you so much for taking time to read this and for you consideration on this matter. 40d �a47,ziw744, CJS if/ .goof yils aeg7,.,-- I shared with you at the June 13th meeting the great concern I have regarding this project because of my sensitivity to electromagnetic waves and how it affects me. You asked me to get a letter from doctors stating this which I have done. I faxed this info to them so they could see exactly what the plans are for this project and also how close it is to the home we own. According to the Drs. as you can see, they feel that I definitely should not live there. I also asked if they felt if it world be safe for me with the sensitivity I have to visit my daughter there and they said they felt it would not be. Our daughter Jamie has lived in this home for 25 yrs. We bought it as a place for her to live and an investment for our retirement. I am very concerned about the effects it could have on her health with the home being so very close to this array of antennas. Standing in her driveway she will be about 10 feet from this building. Case studies and research continue to pour in and the extent of safe exposure is still in question. Our view of Mt. Sopris and the valley will be taken away from us and if they build higher as they plan to it will be like living in an alley. I have been informed that our rental will definitely suffer or if we were to try to sell this home (which we do not want to do) that the value of our property will go down. It will hurt the value of all our homes there. If you were looking to buy or rent a home would you want to buy ours - - that close to all the antennas with the radiation warning signs posted or would you find another neighborhood. Would your want this is your neighborhood where your live now? I know Verizon needs more antenna stations to give better service, but I know they can find a place away from a residential area. It may cost them more money as they may have to buy land, build a building and a road but please don't let them take our neighborhood here and make us pay the price for them to give better service. As citizens of Garfield county we voted for you and we put our trust in you that you will look out for what if best for us and our community. This is very important to me and I ask you to please make a decision not to allow this project to. go through. . - 076:i14/ y 5/-1