Planning Commission tables new cell tower

A new cell tower was discussed by the City of Kimball Planning Commission at their meeting Monday, April 21, where the proposal became a subject of, at times, heated debate.

The proposal for a 75 foot cell tower that would sit at 3948 Road 34 North in Kimball was submitted to the commission via an application for a conditional use permit by Henry Jacobsen of Northeast Colorado Cellular speaking on behalf of Viaero Wireless.

According to Jacobsen, the need for the cell tower on the west side of Kimball would be to accommodate the growing demand for fourth generation services (4G) and to alleviate issues of congestion that the company has faced since the launch of the 4G services.

“The issue that we have for us as a company is that Kimball is one of the 4 areas in 4 states that we have a big congestion problem with the connection of fourth generation of services we call 4G. We’re getting no dial tone, slow dial tone, and it’s fundamentally an issue because we only have the one tower situated several miles north of town behind the elevators,” Jacobsen said.

Jacobsen also stated that the location of the proposed tower, which will sit a few hundred feet from surrounding residential properties, is one of the only ones suited to accommodate the increased demand for 4G services due both the complexity and sensitivity of the 4G, high speed data signal.

“If you can imagine, someone that speaks five times as fast as normal, they either have to speak louder or come in closer. And the reality that we’re facing across the entire industry, not just Kimball but in all large towns and small towns, is that higher speed services like we’re offering are creating a demand for short towers to provide not coverage, cause they all get signal, but capacity. If we move a quarter mile or a half mile from the areas we serve, there’s a significant drop off to the quality of service that people will see,” Jacobsen said.

However, though the location is ideal from the company’s standpoint, local residents such as Mitch Brown were less enthused about the location as the proposed tower would sit approximately 200 feet from his door step, and he wondered about the possible dangers to his family’s health that would result from being in such close proximity to the tower.

“I was kind of worried, since the cell towers about 200 feet from the front door of my house what sort of health concern that is. I mean I got little kids and nobody’s made available any studies or what sort of gamma rays or x-rays or whatever rays are coming off this cell tower into my house, threatening my kids right outside the front door,” Brown said.

In response, Jacobsen asked to give a presentation on the health concerns that he had prepared for the commission to which Chairman Bob Jenner gave approval.

Jacobsen began by telling the commission and the public present the type of frequencies and waves involved with the cell tower, stating that the potential radiation exposure form the tower was very minimal.

“The nature of the frequencies we use, which are in the microwave region, about two gigahertz, they are very rapidly absorbed by the atmosphere. We measure radio frequency exposure in terms of watts per square meter, and watts is a familiar term as the 100 watt light bulb or something like that. Microwave ovens work between 1,200 and 2,000 watts in productivity. If you stand at the base of a tower and trust me there’s been a lot of studies, World Health Organization, FCC, American Cancer Society, etc., the radiation exposure at the base of a tower is .0000001 of watts per square meter,” Jacobsen said.

However, the information on the health concerns failed to satisfy the concerns of the landowners present as they also brought up the possible effect that the location of the tower would have on property values with Mike Winstrom, who owns a few lots in that location speaking of the impact that it would have on future developments.

“I own the lots right in front of there as well so any future property or anything you’re going to do with that, you’re never going to build anything there with a tower right there. Unfortunately, I realize we all need a tower. I do get all the process to that. But who’s going to buy one that’s going to be five feet in your backyard or ten feet in your backyard?” Winstrom said

Mark Davies, who owns a lot near the proposed location of the tower, took the argument a step further stating that the tower location was in violation of City of Kimball Comprehensive plan dated June 2002, specifically on page 57, where it states in the Future Development Plan that to “ensure that land use conflicts are minimized as much as possible for the benefit of both existing and future developments”.

“Mike pointed out that he owns three, I own one and Stahla owns four. It lies on that north side. I agree with Mike, you just ruin them as far as potential development sites and that’s what the comprehensive plan tries to avoid. If you put this thing down in the commercial district where it recommends that it be from an aesthetic standpoint, then you’re not shutting off future development on those plots,” Davies said.

In response to the concerns over property value and development, Jacobsen cited studies that show that the tower being located in close proximity to residential properties would have virtually no effect on property values.

“There’s been studies I have one here called ‘The Impact of Communications on Residential Property Values’. The conclusions generally reached are that the effect on the property value is very site specific and generally the only time you really find an impact on tower where it relates to value is when you have very high end properties where the view associated with the property represents a substantial part of the property value,” Jacobsen said. “And this one report, which is specifically commissioned for residential values and it’s several years old, the methodology employed indicated that the presence of a communication tower had essentially no impact on values in price range of $70,000 to $150,000, which was the average sales price of single-family dwellings.”

Jacobsen also stated that a lack of coverage due to the minimal presence of wireless towers could serve more harmful to property value as many families and perspective buyers tend nowadays to look for areas with decent coverage.

“I’ve had this question posed to me many times. This question was raised about property value and there was a lady there in the meeting who was a realtor who was there attending a different agenda item, but she volunteered to stand up and say that she lost a sale three days ago to a young couple because they did not have what they considered to be adequate wireless coverage,” Jacobsen said.

However, the size of the tower was also a cause for concern at the meeting as the zoning rules and regulations seemingly prohibit a tower exceeding 60 feet in height.

“One thing about the C-5 commercial district here is that it says in the by-laws that we have it says ‘not exceeding 60 feet in height. Television radio receiving transmission equipment, satellite dishes subject to setback provisions in section 11-805 may not exceed 60 feet in height,” Winstrom said.

Jacobsen explained that the reason for the height of the tower is to compensate for the dip in the ground at the specified location and to minimize the effect on the signal due to foliage in the area.

However, the height of the tower along with its placement also affects the aesthetic elements of the surrounding properties, Brown argued.

“Well with it being set down at now 60 or 75 feet, that’s my view outside of my house. Walk out, cell tower. Boom, right there,” Brown said.

Keeping on the subject, Davies once again cited the comprehensive plan, stating that again the tower was in violation.

“In 11- 602 number 2c there is a statement in the application that the proposal is consistent with the Kimball Comprehensive Plan done in 2002. Let me read you two places out of that comprehensive plan. One is page 52. It says, ‘Heavy commercial, or less desirable forms of commercial development from an aesthetic viewpoint should be directed to the north-west commercial area of the community.’ That’s right out of your own paper,” Davies said.

In addressing the aesthetic concerns and protests over the location, Jacobsen explained that he had spent the better part of six months searching for locations around Kimball for the tower, being left with very few options.

“I only found one plot we could actually use and that was a seller who was unwilling to sell. The comprehensive plan which I read very carefully does not address in any place that I could find a need for a utility infrastructure except for gas and electricity. There is no mention in the plan for the need of communications. But I think we can imply from the intent of developing the city and its infrastructure and to encourage business and education and such that communications are a requirement of that in that master plan. I made mention of this in my application trying to comply with the master plan,” Jacobsen said.

Jacobsen also stated that another reason for the height of the tower is to keep an option of collocation with other wireless carriers in the future.

“One of the reasons we’re going to 75 feet is that we have a little bit of space below our antennas for possible collocate with another carrier. Mr. Ortiz and I have discussed the reluctance to proliferate towers and by going an extra few feet up higher because we have to stack these with a safety zoning between, I think we could accommodate a collocate. We’re trying to work with the city in anticipating future developments,” Jacobsen said.

It was after this comment that frustrations and concerns piqued with Davies citing concern over Ortiz seemingly over involvement in the process of getting the tower put up.

“Well, I’m sitting here becoming a little concerned that the city manager kind of being in bed on this deal. You didn’t answer the question on the two areas of the comprehensive plan,” Davies said.

Jacobsen was quick to deny the conclusion of Davies’ comment.

“I’m somewhat concerned that you might have suggested that Mr. Ortiz was in bed with us. He’s not. He’s been very particular about explaining to us the actual ordinances. He showed us the zoning that exists in the city and what we could and could not look for a site. I’ve never considered Mr. Ortiz’s input to us to show any kind of favoritism or bias. He’s been a great source of information as the city manager should be,” Jacobsen said.

After which, Davies withdrew his comment.

The discussion quickly turned to flaws with the application with Davies citing the minimal requirements for a conditional use permit in zoning ordinance 11- 603 which states, in part, that a conditional use permit shall not be granted unless specific findings of fact directly based upon the particularly evidence presented supports that the proposed conditional use at this specific location will not adversely affect the welfare or the convenience of the public.

“I assume that to mean the public being tax creditor, voters. Welfare is defined by Webster as the condition of health, happiness, prosperity and well-being. Sitting on my deck in the summer looking at a 75 foot cell tower 250 feet away would not do much to improve my welfare,” Davies said.

Davies also brought up the fact that no written proof of Jacobsen’s claims on the safety of the tower had been submitted as is required by the commission’s rules and regulations.

However, Jacobsen pointed out the difficulty of providing written proof via studies conducted as the introduction of shorter cell towers to accommodate the needs of the 4G services is a new issue faced by wireless companies, and therefore, findings on the matter would be few and far between.

“I will say again this issue of introducing shorter towers into these towns is a new problem for us. We can introduce studies like I passed forward. I can say that the internet is full of studies. There are organization which are anti-tower organizations that post their own studies. It is one of the most difficult things for us to prove. To ask us to prove that beyond any doubt would essentially a requirement to not have us build a tower,” Jacobsen said.

However, commission member Brian Williams made a motion to uphold the rules and regulations regarding the application and table the discussion until written proof can be provided to the commission.

“We say time and time again. We are not here to stand in the way of progress. We’re all for it. We know we need it. But at the same time, we have rules that we need to follow. If it does actually state that in our rules that we need that. Perhaps the rules need to be looked at too,” Williams said.

Jenner echoed Williams sentiment while also keeping in mind the difficulty that Jacobsen might face in finding studies to support his argument for the tower.

“At least an attempt needs to be made. I know that studies can be really costly, but you could certainly research to see if there aren’t communities that have had that and what happened as far as the property values as far as welfare and so forth. You’ve addressed some of that, but we do need to have that in writing,” Jenner said.

The commission unanimously approved a motion to table the discussion until Jacobsen could return with findings submitted in writing with the application as required under zoning ordinance 11-603, the minimum requirements for a conditional use permit, specifically section two and three which state that the proposed use with not “adversely affect the welfare of convenience of the public” and “will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is to be located.”