(a)
The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, on behalf of the Grand
Junction Regional Communication Center (GJRCC), entered into an agreement
with CityScape Consultants in May, 2015 to develop a Countywide WMP.
CityScape used a three-step process to evaluate wireless coverage
and develop a plan.
(1)
Identify, assess, catalogue and map existing transmission equipment;
and
(2)
Design an engineered search radii template and apply it over the
jurisdictional boundary of the cities and County to evaluate theoretical
build-out conditions; and
(3)
Forecast future infrastructure needs based on the status of the existing
deployments, population trends, and network coverage gaps.
(b)
Nine study areas were identified across the County and detailed analysis
was completed for each area creating, in effect, nine mini WMPs which
are presented in this article. The nine study areas are shown in Figure
8 and defined and grouped as follows:
(1)
Study Area A includes the population centers and surrounding areas
of the County:
(i)
City of Grand Junction/Persigo 201 Boundary (City of Grand Junction,
Appleton, Horizon, Northwest, Orchard Mesa, Pear Park and Redlands);
(ii)
Lower Valley (City of Fruita, Fruita Buffer, Loma, Mack, and
Lower Valley);
(iii)
Palisade (Town of Palisade, Clifton, Palisade Buffer/East OM);
(iv)
DeBeque.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Countywide, CityScape identified 142 existing transmission equipment sites and 165 towers or base stations that either currently support PWSF installations (i.e., cellular services) or have the potential for supporting PWSF in the future. Some sites have more than one facility. The Wireless Infrastructure Inventory is included as an appendix to the Master Plan. CityScape recommends that the inventory be updated as facilities are added or modified.
Most of the current wireless infrastructure is located within
and around the more urban areas of the County; Grand Junction, Palisade,
Fruita and the Interstate corridor have the largest concentrations
of infrastructure because of the larger subscriber bases in those
areas. The more rural and undeveloped areas have minimal or no infrastructure.
Table 6 identifies the number of sites that are located within each
study area, plus sites within 1.5 miles outside (out) of the study
area that may also provide coverage. The “Projected Fill-In”
column indicates the number of additional sites that would be needed
in each study area to provide best-case coverage, while the “Estimated
Build-Out” column shows the number of sites that are more realistically
predicted to be built.
|
Table 6: Inventory Analysis by Study Area
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Area
|
Existing Sites
|
Projected Fill-In
(10-15 Years)
|
Estimated Build-Out
(Including Public Safety)
| |
|
In
|
Out
| |||
|
City of Grand Junction/201 Boundary
|
50
|
5
|
11 – 18
|
11 – 18
|
|
Lower Valley
|
10
|
11
|
7
|
4
|
|
Palisade
|
4
|
8
|
6
|
6
|
|
DeBeque
|
2
|
0
|
3
|
1 – 3
|
|
Glade Park
|
0
|
29
|
9
|
1 – 4
|
|
Gateway
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
|
Whitewater
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
2 – 4
|
|
Collbran
|
4
|
39
|
15
|
2 – 4
|
The current infrastructure inventory and theoretical coverage
mapping is provided for each study area in this article. Theoretical
composite propagation modeling was used to determine the potential
coverage of all existing antenna locations. Then, Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) mapping techniques were used to factor in terrain, vegetative
cover, and population density to create a more realistic coverage
model. Next, CityScape used current and projected population data
through 2030 (from the 2010 U.S. Census; Colorado State Demography
Office; Regional Transportation Planning Office; and Mesa County)
to illustrate the impact that future growth would have on network
coverage. Finally, by adding in projected changes related to technology
improvements and population growth, CityScape was able to estimate
future infrastructure needs for each study area over the next 10 to
15 years. The following pages include the “mini master plans”
for each study area.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Urban.
(b)
63.79 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 102,277.
(d)
2030 population estimate 137,145.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Given the checkerboard effect on the city limits created when
noncontiguous properties are annexed from the County into the City
of Grand Junction, the Persigo 201 Boundary area was selected as the
study area that best reflects the geographic area for the City. Throughout
this document, the Persigo 201 Boundary is used interchangeably with
the City of Grand Junction to identify the area generally corresponding
to the City of Grand Junction.
Figures 9 and 10 represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
 Figure 9: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 10: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
Figure 9 illustrates that six towers or base stations equally
distributed throughout the 201 Boundary would provide complete low
frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 10 illustrates
that 21 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency
coverage to the same geographic area.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Most of the 50 wireless transmission equipment sites considered
as part of the 201 Boundary study area are located south of I-70 and
north of I-70B and Highway 6. This corresponds with where most of
the commercial and industrial land use zones are located. Individual
and small clusters of towers and base stations are located outside
the triangular boundary created by the interstate and highway network
in areas of larger residential land use zones and generally at higher
ground elevations. Five of the sites are located just outside the
201 Boundary and are included in the study area because their signal
affects coverage within the 201 Boundary. Two sites contain both a
tower and a base station which explains why the number of towers is
two greater than the number of sites.
|
Table 7: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
17
|
3
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
2
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
2
|
1
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
3
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
3
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
1
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
11
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
9
|
0
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
2
|
1
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
35
|
5
|
Total
|
15
|
0
|
|
Site numbers in the 201 Boundary: 40 – 48, 50 –
59, 61 – 76, 78 – 85, 126, 127, 129
| |||||
|
Site numbers within 1.5 mile perimeter of the 201 Boundary:
60, 77, 86, 87, 128
| |||||
Figure 11 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
7 above and are represented as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
underlying zoning district.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
underlying zoning agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved and not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 11: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility, the more reliable the service. A subscriber further
from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber
gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 12 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they
had equipment on each site in the facility inventory. Figure 13 shows
how population growth and technology changes will affect the current
coverage model shown in Figure 12.
Both composite maps include the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 12 and 13 identify the location of the inventoried sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 12: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 13: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
In propagation mapping the gradation of colors from yellow to
blue indicates the level of propagation signal strength. The geographic
areas in yellow identify superior signal strength; green equates to
areas with average signal strength; shades of blue symbolize acceptable
signal strength; and gray shades show marginal or no signal strength.
Generally, the closer the proximity to the antenna the brighter
the shades of yellow within the geographic service area which means
the better quality of wireless communications between the elevated
antenna and the wireless handset. As distance increases between the
handset and the antenna, the green, blue, and gray shades appear,
indicating geographic service areas with average, acceptable, and
no signal strength respectively. Table 8 provides further explanation
of the color coding relative to propagation signals.
|
Table 8: Signal Strength
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
SIGNAL STRENGTH
| ||
|
COLOR
|
TITLE
|
DESCRIPTION
|
|
Yellow
|
Superior
|
Signal strength strong enough to receive signal in many buildings
|
|
Green
|
Average
|
Signal strength strong enough to receive signal in a car, but
not inside most buildings
|
|
Blue
|
Acceptable
|
Signal strength strong enough to receive signal outside for
many handsets, but no expectation of receiving a signal in a car or
building
|
|
Gray
|
No Service
|
Signal strength is marginal or no service
|
Figure 14 illustrates various levels of propagation signal coverage
including terrain, network capacity and environmental variables. While
the industry standards identify green and blue shades as “average”
and “acceptable” coverage, customers tend to find otherwise.
Most 21st century wireless subscribers demand superior signal strength
(yellow) in their residences, schools, offices, and places frequented
for shopping and entertainment. As consumers continue the trend of
terminating traditional landline phone services and using the wireless
handset as the primary mode of communication, having superior signal
strength inside buildings becomes paramount to meeting their expectations.
Therefore the industry’s “average” and “acceptable”
coverage variables do not meet customer demands and expectations.
Figure 14 shows that significant gaps in coverage can be expected
over the next 10 to 15 years with the existing infrastructure in the
Persigo 201 Boundary. More than 50 percent of the projected signal
coverage quality from existing infrastructure will be marginalized
or eliminated based on technology changes anticipated with 5G networks.
A significant amount of additional infrastructure will be needed to
improve the quality of network coverage shown in areas with hues of
green to blue and in all gray areas.
 Figure 14: Propagation Map
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the urban characteristics of the City of Grand Junction,
CityScape estimates that the largest number of new sites constructed
over the next 10 to 15 years will be built in and around the Persigo
201 Study Area. Approximately 11 to 19 new towers or base stations
will be needed to fill in the anticipated coverage gaps. These estimates
are based on the expected changes in population density, subscriber
base and usage, daily transient movement through the study area and
the number of calls a facility can service at any given time. The
projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband network objectives
and take into consideration terrain, population and proposed maximum
infrastructure height variables. The projection model that CityScape
designed assumes that all existing tower and base station locations
will be used for maximum co-location opportunities in an effort to
reduce the number of new towers and base stations required within
a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize the use
of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need to be
constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted that
even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within the study
area will still be underserved due to the terrain and rural characteristics
around the periphery of the study area.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station
construction, the community, represented by their local government
agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment
technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure
installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed
on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and
flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative
concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more
practical than other types. As the local government adopts preferred
products on publicly owned property, their application becomes the
standard for future tower sites developed on public and private land
within their zoning jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower
builders and tenant carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also
create new sources of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower
on public property results in an asset for the local government that
is available for emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment
use.
(b)
The City of Grand Junction has affirmed their interest in the use
of City owned properties within the Persigo 201 Boundary and has established
the following minimal criteria for each property:
(1)
The property shall be located within the Grand Junction Persigo 201
Boundary or can be included in the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary.
(2)
The property shall be one acre minimum in lot size.
(3)
The property shall have vehicular access to an improved public right-of-way.
(4)
The property shall have access to utilities.
(5)
The property shall be outside the 100-year floodplain.
(6)
The cellular facility shall meet all City development standards and
be subject to all regulations of the zoning code including but not
limited to, “in residential zoning districts and in mixed use
zoning districts that include residential uses, new concealed towers
shall not be permitted on lots where the primary use or principal
structure is single-family or two-family residential, group living,
day care, or a multifamily structure of fewer than three stories.
Examples of land uses/structure types in residential areas where the
site may include a concealed tower are: school, religious assembly,
fire station, stadium tower or stand, or other similar institutional/civic
uses/structures.”
(7)
Concealment is required and the owner of the property must identify
the type of concealment proposed with the understanding that if accepted
by the City, then any type of concealment aside from what is proposed
and accepted at the time of the Master Plan vetting process would
require a conditional use permit (CUP).
(c)
The City has reviewed and qualified a total of 15 of the 19 fill-in
locations. The City has identified site-specific concealment infrastructure
required on each property. These properties are referenced as public
priority site locations and if developed according to the recommendations
in Table 9 and the City’s zoning codes, are entitled to a streamlined
administrative approval process.
(d)
Additionally, the City invited private property owners to submit
their land as potential priority site locations; provided, that the
properties met the same criteria as the City-owned priority sites.
Private property owners seeking inclusion of their property as a priority
site in the Master Plan submitted an application to the City of Grand
Junction for review. The selected nonpublic priority sites, which
includes property that is not for profit, are also listed in Table
9. During the vetting process, the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District,
a public property land owner, requested that three of their properties
be reviewed and added to the public priority site list. All three
properties are included in Table 9 as sites Q, R and S. Additionally,
The Museum of Western Colorado vetted two properties and they are
listed as sites T and U in Table 9 under Non Public Priority heading.
(e)
Public properties not owned by the City of Grand Junction but which
could potentially be used as fill-in sites are listed in Table 9.
These properties have not been vetted since they are not owned by
the City of Grand Junction. However, as potential fill-in sites they
are listed in Table 9 with a not determined recommendation. Use of
these public fill-in sites is encouraged and promoted in the City’s
ordinance, but will require conditional use approval.
|
Table 9: Grand Junction Potential Fill-In Public and Nonpublic
Properties
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Priority Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
I1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
727 24 1/2 Road
|
2701-333-00-941
Zoned CRS
|
35.595
|
Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
|
|
I2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
728 24 Road
|
2701-333-00-942
Zoned CSR
|
39.741
|
Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
|
|
I4
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
730 24 Road
|
2701-333-00-948
Zoned CSR
|
36.793
|
Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
|
|
J1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
773 Old Orchard Street
|
2701-352-51-945
Zoned CSR
|
31.653
|
Saccomanno Park Slick Stick; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
|
|
J2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
822 Lanai Drive
|
2701-264-14-941
Zoned CSR
|
2.817
|
Paradise Hills Park Banner Pole
|
|
J3
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
731 27 Road
|
2701-354-00-949
Zoned CSR
|
12.643
|
Horizon Park Banner Pole
|
|
K1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
2155 Broadway
|
2947-231-17-944
Zoned CSR
|
3.269
|
Fire Station 5 Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
|
|
L
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
2400 Blue Heron Road
|
2945-093-00-945
Zoned CSR
|
46.519
|
Colorado Riverfront Trail Slick Stick; Banner Pole
|
|
N1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
405 Ridges Boulevard
|
2945-174-24-944
Zoned PD
|
1.926
|
Open Space Banner Pole
|
|
N2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
407 Saddle Court
|
2945-174-29-941
Zoned PD
|
28.041
|
Open Space Banner Pole
|
|
N3
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
406 Ridges Boulevard #F1
|
2945-212-13-944
Zoned PD
|
3.207
|
Open Space Banner Pole
|
|
N4
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
585 Hidden Valley Court
|
2945-212-14-944
Zoned PD
|
7.028
|
Open Space Banner Pole
|
|
Q
|
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID)
|
Mesa County
|
158 29 1/2 Road
|
2943-321-00-946
Zoned RSF-R
|
1.672
|
Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
|
|
R
|
USA c/o OMID
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
2962 A 1/2 Road
|
2943-321-00-913; 2943-321-00-175[1]
Zoned RSF-4
|
4.725
|
Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
|
|
S
|
USA c/o OMID
|
Mesa County
|
121 31 Road
|
2943-334-00-948
Zoned AFT
|
19.89
|
Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
|
|
Other Public Priority Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
H1
|
Mesa County
|
GJ 201 Boundary
|
651 Railhead Circle
|
2945-062-16-938
|
9.194
|
Not Determined
|
|
H2
|
State of Colorado
|
GJ 201 Boundary
|
Walter Walker Wildlife Area
|
2947-142-00-922
|
470.112
|
Not Determined
|
|
I3
|
Caprock Bldg Association
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
Caprock Elementary
|
2701-334-00-940
Zoned R-5
|
7.683
|
Not Determined
|
|
K2
|
District 51 Master Lease Association
|
GJ 201 Boundary
|
Redlands Middle School
|
2947-231-00-949
|
20.239
|
Not Determined
|
|
M
|
Colorado Game Fish and Parks Department
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
711 Independent Avenue
|
2945-104-00-922
|
9.88
|
Not Determined
|
|
O
|
State Highway Department
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
606 S 9th Street
|
2945-231-03-928
|
5.085
|
Not Determined
|
|
P
|
Mesa County
|
GJ 201 Boundary
|
275 1/2 Coulson Drive #B
|
2943-302-47-935
|
7.495
|
Not Determined
|
|
Nonpublic Priority Site ID*
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
T
|
Museum of Western Colorado
|
Grand Junction City Limits
|
462 Ute Avenue
|
2945-143-28-992
Zoned B-2
|
1.15
|
Concealed Base Station on Observation Station
|
|
U
|
Museum of Western Colorado
|
Mesa County
|
3065 Patterson Road
|
2943-091-00-993
Zoned RSF-4
|
22.34
|
Farm Entry; Art Feature; Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged
Pole
|
|
*Nonpublic also includes property that is not for
profit
|
|
Figure 15 illustrates the potential solutions that will need
to be considered to fill in the gaps identified in Figure 14. The
area colored with yellow to green gradients shows the theoretical
coverage from existing towers and base stations with PWSF. The areas
colored with light to dark shades of red gradients show the projected
theoretical coverage from existing towers and base stations without
current PWSF that could be utilized or upgraded for co-locations.
The areas colored with light to dark orange gradient would be filled
with new infrastructure that has already been submitted for review.
The areas colored with pink gradient represent areas where new fill-in
sites would need to be located to provide the required coverage.
|
 Figure 15: High Frequency Coverage with Future Fill-in
|
[1]
Editor's Note: The reference to parcel number 2943-321-00-914
has been updated to be to 2943-321-00-175.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Rural;
(b)
139.85 square miles;
(c)
2010 population estimate 18,437;
(d)
2030 population estimate 26,900.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 16 illustrates that 14 towers or base stations equally
distributed throughout the Lower Valley would provide complete low
frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 17 illustrates
that 40 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency
coverage to the same geographic area.
 Figure 16: Theoretical Low Frequency
|
 Figure 17: Theoretical High Frequency
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Almost half of the 21 total sites in and around the Lower Valley
are located within a 1.5 mile perimeter of the actual study area and
nine of those 10 sites are within the Persigo 201 Boundary. Of the
10 sites within the Lower Valley study area only four currently have
PWSF on them. Three of the sites (35, 36 and 37) are located parallel
to I-70 and two of the sites (39 and 131) are located in the eastern
half of the Lower Valley. Sites 136 through 139 all support wireless
Internet facilities. This pattern of deployment is very common for
the industry. The greatest concentration of towers and base stations
is closer to the urban area along the major transportation networks.
|
Table 10: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
4
|
3
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
2
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
6
|
2
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
2
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
1
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
10
|
8
|
Total
|
0
|
3
|
|
Site numbers in the Lower Valley: 34 – 39, 136 –
139
| |||||
|
Site numbers within 1.5 mile perimeter of the Lower Valley:
40, 41, 47, 50 – 55, 80, 131
| |||||
Figure 18 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
10 above and are represented as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 18: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 19 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they
had equipment on each site in the facility inventory. Figure 20 shows
how population growth and technology changes will affect the current
coverage model shown in Figure 19.
Both composite maps include the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 19 and 20 identify the location of the inventory sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 19: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 20: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the rural characteristics of the Lower Valley, CityScape
estimates that the largest number of new sites constructed over the
next 10 to 15 years will be built along the I-70 corridor. Approximately
seven new towers or base stations will be needed to fill in anticipated
coverage gaps. However, only four of the seven sites have been turned
on in the gap analysis map in Figure 20 because CityScape believes
it is unlikely that the industry will add all seven facilities over
the next 10 to 12 years.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection
model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and
base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities
in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations
required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize
the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need
to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted
that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within
the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and to
the rural characteristics of portions of the study area.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 21 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 11 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 11: Lower Valley Potential Fill-In Public Property
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
D
|
State of Colorado
|
Highline State Park
|
2691-053-00-922
|
325.442
|
Not Determined
| |
|
E1
|
Lower Valley Protection District
|
Loma
|
1341 13 Road
|
2691-334-04-498
|
0.79
|
Not Determined
|
|
E2
|
State Department of Highways
|
Loma
|
1346 13 3/10 Road
|
2691-342-00-924
|
9.762
|
Not Determined
|
|
F1
|
City of Fruita
|
Fruita
|
324 N Coulson Street
|
2697-172-00-940
|
1.398
|
Not Determined
|
|
F2
|
City of Fruita
|
Fruita
|
300 W Ottley Avenue
|
2697-172-00-946
|
6.04
|
Not Determined
|
|
F3
|
Lower Valley Protection District
|
Fruita
|
168 N Mesa Street
|
2697-172-53-944
|
0.675
|
Not Determined
|
|
F4
|
District 51
|
Fruita
|
Fruita Middle School
|
2697-172-28-942
|
12.725
|
Not Determined
|
|
F5
|
City of Fruita
|
Fruita
|
210 Frontage Road
|
2697-173-09-945
|
3.51
|
Not Determined
|
|
G
|
Mesa County
|
Fruita
|
916 19 1/2 Road
|
2697-224-00-939
|
5.281
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 21: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Rural;
(b)
35.21 square miles;
(c)
2010 population estimate 18,642;
(d)
2030 population estimate 24,247.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 22 illustrates that six towers or base stations equally distributed
throughout the Palisade area would provide complete low frequency
coverage to the defined study area. Figure 23 illustrates that 15
locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage
to the same geographic area.
 Figure 22: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 23: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
There are 12 transmission equipment facilities in and around
the Palisade Study Area. Two-thirds of these are located within a
1.5 mile perimeter of the actual study area. These outlying sites
are either in the 201 Persigo Boundary or along I-70, Highway 6 or
Highway 50. Three of the four sites within the Palisade Study Area
are near the western boundary in close proximity to the 201 Boundary.
Only one site (site 6) is not in either of these vicinities. This
pattern of deployment is very common for the industry. The greatest
concentration of towers and base stations are closer to the urban
area along the major transportation networks.
|
Table 12: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
3
|
5
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
1
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
4
|
6
|
Total
|
0
|
2
|
|
Site Numbers in the Palisade Study Area: 6, 60, 77, 128
| |||||
|
Site Numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Palisade Study
Area: 5, 48, 49, 59, 67, 68, 87, 132
| |||||
Figure 24 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
12 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 24: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 25 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had
equipment on each inventoried facility. Figure 26 shows how population
growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model
shown in Figure 25.
Both composite maps have included the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 25 and 26 identify the location of the inventory sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 25: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 26: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the rural characteristics of the Palisade Study Area,
CityScape estimates that about six new towers or base stations will
be needed over the next 10 to 15 years located along the corridors
of I-70, Highway 141 and Highway 50. The fill-in map, shown in Figure
27, includes the six new sites which will provide almost complete
coverage for the Palisade Study Area.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection
model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and
base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities
in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations
required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize
the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need
to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted
that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within
the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and to
the rural characteristics of portions of the study area.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application become the standard for future tower sites
developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 27 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 13 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 13: Palisade Potential Fill-In Public Properties
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
Q
|
Colorado Department of Highways
|
Palisade
|
816 35 8/10 Road
|
2937-063-00-924
|
10.241
|
Not Determined
|
|
R1
|
Town of Palisade
|
Palisade
|
175 E Third Street
|
2937-091-04-941
|
0.95
|
Not Determined
|
|
R2
|
Town of Palisade
|
Palisade
|
120 W Eighth Street
|
2937-093-36-941
|
2.476
|
Not Determined
|
|
R3
|
Town of Palisade
|
Palisade
|
571 W Fifth Street
|
2937-093-00-940
|
2.875
|
Not Determined
|
|
R4
|
Town of Palisade
|
Palisade
|
711 Iowa Avenue
|
2937-093-37-943
|
3.189
|
Not Determined
|
|
S
|
East Orchard Fire Protection District
|
Palisade
|
544 35 1/2 Road
|
2941-084-00-944
|
1.108
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 27: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Rural.
(b)
30.34 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 808.
(d)
2030 population estimate 1,096.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 28 illustrates that three towers or base stations equally distributed
throughout the DeBeque Study Area would provide complete low frequency
coverage to the defined study area. Figure 29 illustrates nine locations
would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the
same geographic area.
 Figure 28: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 29: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Of the three geographic regions included in Study Area A, the
DeBeque Study Area is the least populated. There are two equipment
communication facilities within the DeBeque Study Area and both of
the towers are equipped with PWSF. Both towers are located parallel
to I-70 with the intent of serving that corridor.
|
Table 14: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
2
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
2
|
0
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
|
Site Numbers in the DeBeque Study Area: 1, 2
| |||||
|
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the DeBeque Study
Area: None
| |||||
Figure 30 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
14 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 30: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 31 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they
had equipment on each facility. Figure 32 shows how population growth
and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown
in Figure 31.
Both composite maps have included the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 31 and 32 identify the location of the inventory sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 31: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 32: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the rural characteristics of the DeBeque Study Area,
CityScape estimates that approximately three new sites will be needed
in the next 10 to 15 years: one along the I-70 corridor, one in the
town of DeBeque and one in the northwest quadrant of the study area.
It is likely that the I-70 site will be constructed first, with the
other two sites possibly being added in the distant future. The fill-in
map in Figure 33 illustrates great improvement to the I-70 corridor
coverage with one new site and almost complete coverage for the study
area with the construction of all three sites.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection
model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and
base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities
in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations
required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize
the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need
to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted
that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within
the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and to
the rural characteristics of the study area.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 33 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 15 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 15: DeBeque Potential Fill-In Public Properties
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
A
|
Joint School District 49
|
DeBeque
|
2445-213-00-942
|
20.575
|
Not Determined
| |
|
B1
|
DeBeque Fire Protection District
|
DeBeque
|
4580 I70 Frontage Road
|
2445-274-00-944
|
5.86
|
Not Determined
|
|
B2
|
Town of DeBeque
|
DeBeque
|
414 Rouse Avenue
|
2445-272-00-943
|
61.767
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 33: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Undeveloped.
(b)
387.86 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 1,664.
(d)
2030 population estimate 1,956.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 34 illustrates that 26 towers or base stations equally
distributed throughout the Glade Park Study Area would provide complete
low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 35 illustrates
that 89 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency
coverage to the same geographic area.
 Figure 34: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 35: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
There are no towers or base stations within the Glade Park Study
Area. All 26 sites listed below are outside the study area and within
either the Persigo 201 Boundary or in a tower cluster located on Blackridge
above the Colorado National Monument. The low population density and
seasonal tourist and recreational visitors do not meet industry criteria
for additional infrastructure within the study area at this time.
|
Table 16: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
4
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
21
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
2
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
26
|
Total
|
0
|
3
|
|
Site numbers in the Glade Park Study Area: None
| |||||
|
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Glade Park
Study Area: 71 – 75, 81 – 85, 88 –
102, 141
| |||||
Figure 36 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
16 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 36: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 37 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had
equipment on each facility. Figure 38 shows how population growth
and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown
in Figure 37. There appears to be very little difference between Figures
37 and 38 due to the scale of the map and the height of the existing
tower.
Both composite maps have included the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 37 and 38 identify the location of the inventory sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 37: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 38: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
CityScape understands the residents’ and visitors’
desire to have service coverage in the Glade Park Study Area. A study
was recently completed to identify possible locations for additional
emergency services infrastructure. Three of these sites are located
in this study area and have been added to the fill-in map in Figure
39 and are identified by a red triangle. CityScape has identified
an additional six locations that would maximize the effectiveness
of new infrastructure but anticipates that only one of those facilities
(site T) may be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years. These fill-in
sites are shown with green and black triangles. The majority of the
population lives in the Northwest corner of the study area and services
for these residents could be improved by a facility in that area.
However, the sparsity of the subscribers and the division between
multiple providers makes this area too small of a footprint for most
major service providers to justify a new facility. Due to the unique
circumstances found in this study area, CityScape recommends that
residents and local government agencies work with the service providers
to create a coordinated effort to develop new sites.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection
model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and
base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities
in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations
required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize
the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need
to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted
that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within
the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and to
the rural characteristics of the study area.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 39 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 17 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 17: Glade Park Potential Fill-In Public Property
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
T
|
County of Mesa
|
Glade Park
|
16430 DS Road
|
2959-243-02-932
|
2.089
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 39: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Undeveloped.
(b)
3.69 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 142.
(d)
2030 population estimate 342.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 40 illustrates that two towers or base stations centrally
located in the Gateway Study Area would provide complete low frequency
coverage to the defined study area. Figure 41 illustrates that it
would take four locations to provide complete high frequency coverage
to the same geographic area.
 Figure 40: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 41: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The Gateway Study Area has no communication equipment within
the study boundary. There are three sites located to the west on Lee’s
Point which provide some service to Gateway and the Highway 141 corridor.
Gateway, a remote, rural community, has a minimal subscriber base
which explains the lack of wireless infrastructure in this region
of the County. There is a resort located in Gateway which is likely
the reason a PWSF was constructed on Lee’s Point.
|
Table 18: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
2
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
3
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
|
Site numbers in the Gateway Park Study Area: None
| |||||
|
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Gateway Park
Study Area: 133 – 135
| |||||
Figure 42 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
18 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 42: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 43 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage
for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency
assuming they have equipment on each facility. This composite map
includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current
population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation is assumed
to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height
is known or at 118 feet where unknown.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the undeveloped characteristics of the Gateway rural
community, CityScape estimates that only one to three new sites may
be built over the next 10 to 15 years. Any sites built will parallel
Highway 141. The most likely location for a new facility would be
in or near the town, which would improve wireless access for the citizens,
resort visitors and travelers on Highway 141.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables Should all three
projected structures be constructed, then all of the Gateway Study
Area would have wireless access.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 43 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 19 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 19: Gateway Potential Fill-In Public Property
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
X
|
Mesa County
|
Gateway
|
42700 Highway 141
|
3477-153-01-936
|
7.663
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 43: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Rural/Undeveloped.
(b)
49.49 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 1,864.
(d)
2030 population estimate 2,391.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 44 illustrates that five towers or base stations equally
distributed throughout the Whitewater Study Area would provide complete
low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 45 illustrates
that 14 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency
coverage to the same geographic area.
 Figure 44: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 45: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
There are five communication facilities within the Whitewater
Study Area located parallel to Highway 50. Only one of the three facilities
is equipped with a PWSF. One additional facility is located west of
the boundary area.
|
Table 20: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
1
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
1
|
1
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
3
|
0
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
5
|
1
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
|
Site numbers in the Whitewater Study Area: 87, 103, 104
| |||||
|
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Whitewater
Study Area: 86
| |||||
Figure 46 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
20 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 46: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 47 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service
provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had
equipment on each facility. Figure 48 shows how population growth
and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown
in Figure 47.
Both composite maps include the expected effects of terrain,
vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna
mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of
the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet
where unknown.
Figures 47 and 48 identify the location of the inventory sites
categorized as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 47: Current Potential Coverage
|
 Figure 48: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The three existing towers in the Whitewater Study Area, if occupied
by the same wireless service provider would offer very good service
coverage along the Highway 50 corridor. CityScape has identified the
need for four additional towers or base stations in this study area
by 2030. Figure 49 illustrates three of the four sites turned on.
In all likelihood, the first two sites added will be parallel to the
highway.
These estimates are based on the expected changes in population
density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout
the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any
given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband
network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population
and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection
model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and
base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities
in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations
required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize
the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need
to be constructed over this same time period.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 49 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 21 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 21: Whitewater Potential Fill-In Public Property
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
U1
|
Mesa County
|
Whitewater
|
527 Desert Road
|
2967-231-00-939
|
116.554
|
Not Determined
|
|
U2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
33129 Mill Tailing Road
|
2967-243-00-944
|
138.554
|
Not Determined
|
|
V1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
2080 Purdy Mesa Road
|
2969-251-00-944
|
216.145
|
Not Determined
|
|
V2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
7630 Reeder Mesa Road
|
2969-242-00-948
|
1333.34
|
Not Determined
|
|
V3
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
3330 Purdy Mesa Road
|
2971-363-00-941
|
47.659
|
Not Determined
|
|
W1
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
3280 Purdy Mesa Road
|
2971-361-00-940
|
1057.746
|
Not Determined
|
|
W2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
8570 Kannah Creek Road
|
3199-051-00-944
|
20.48
|
Not Determined
|
|
W3
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
9470 Kannah Creek Road
|
2937-334-00-941
|
26.649
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 49: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(a)
Rural/Undeveloped.
(b)
251.49 square miles.
(c)
2010 population estimate 2,359.
(d)
2030 population estimate 3,008.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally
distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a
perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider
that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density
considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates
the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle
represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.
Figure 50 illustrates that 19 towers or base stations equally
distributed throughout the Town of Collbran Study Area would provide
complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure
51 illustrates that 60 locations would be needed to provide complete
high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.
 Figure 50: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage
|
 Figure 51: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
A total of four transmission towers are located within the Town
of Collbran Study Area. Only one has PWSF installed. There are tower
clusters just west of the study area boundary at Land’s End
and Palisade Point. The clusters consist of 37 towers but only two
contain PWSF equipment. The majority of the cluster towers contain
either broadcast equipment for radio and television or microwave use.
Aside from Glade Park, the Town of Collbran Study Area contains the
most acreage with the lowest population density. For this reason,
the wireless industry has not deployed much infrastructure except
at the Powderhorn Ski Resort. This is very similar to the situation
in Gateway where the resort and the tourist traffic have provided
enough business incentive for the carriers to provide limited service.
|
Table 22: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Existing Total Number of Towers
|
In
|
Out
|
Existing Total Number of Base Stations
|
In
|
Out
|
|
Eligible Tower with PWSF
|
0
|
1
|
Eligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with PWSF
|
1
|
1
|
Noneligible Base Station with PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eligible Tower with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
Eligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF
|
3
|
37
|
Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF
|
0
|
0
|
|
Proposed Eligible Tower
|
0
|
0
|
Proposed Eligible Base Station
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
4
|
39
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
|
Site numbers in the Town of Collbran Study Area: 4, 33, 130,
142
| |||||
|
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Town of Collbran
Study Area: 7 – 30
| |||||
Figure 52 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table
22 above and are represented by:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the
appropriate local government agency.
|
|
•
|
Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning
infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the
appropriate local government agency).
|
|
•
|
Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either
been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time
of this publication.
|
 Figure 52: Existing Antenna Locations
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 53 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage
for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency
assuming they had equipment on each facility.
This map includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative
cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting
elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of the towers
and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.
Figure 53 identifies the location of the inventory sites categorized
as follows:
|
•
|
Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with
PWSF
|
|
★
|
Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations
without PWSF
|
 Figure 53: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
There are three concentrations in populations in the Town of
Collbran Study Area: Town of Collbran, Mesa Community and Powderhorn
Resort. The Town and County desire to have services to connect the
residents and vehicular activity between the three places. Recently,
a study was completed to identify possible locations for additional
emergency services infrastructure. Two of these sites are located
in this study area and one is located just east of the Town’s
limits. All three sites have been added to the map in Figure 54, identified
by red triangles. Temporary towers, often referred to as Cell On Wheels
(COW), have been used by the oil and gasoline industries in this region.
Unfortunately once a project is finished the COW is removed resulting
in a sudden loss of service. In order to provide long-term solutions
to network gaps CityScape has identified an additional 12 locations
that would provide a blanket of coverage along the Highway 330 corridor
and the Town of Collbran. But, CityScape anticipates that only two
of those facilities may be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years.
Due to the unique circumstances found in this study area, CityScape
recommends that residents and local government agencies work with
the service providers to create a coordinated effort to develop new
sites.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison
to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact
that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and
public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new
tower or base station construction, the community, represented by
their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for
tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties
are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent
for how future sites should be developed on both public and private
land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available
to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some
are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned
property, their application becomes the standard for future tower
sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction.
Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for
new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public
revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in
an asset for the local government that is available for emergency
services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figure 54 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit
with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned
properties. Table 23 identifies potential public property fill-in
sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 23: Town of Collbran Potential Fill-In Public Property
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
C
|
Town of Collbran
|
Town of Collbran
|
61416 E Hwy 330
|
2665-203-00-941
|
1.196
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 54: Coverage with Future Fill-In
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The third study area specified in the RFP for analysis is identified
as Corridors: I-70, Highway 50, Highway 330, Highway 60 and Highway
141. Due to the large geographic area covered by these corridors,
Study Area C has been divided into four sections. Since much of the
corridor analysis is included in the other study areas, the estimated
future antenna sites focus only on the projected fill-in analysis
shown in Figure 55, as insets 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength
modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band
frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted
areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be
available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.
Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite
modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable
after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration.
Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than
indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to
the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from
the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets
closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength
becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area
increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the
map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable
levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these
coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas
and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification
of buildings that would serve as base stations.
Figure 56 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage
for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency
assuming they had equipment on each inventoried facility. This map
includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current
population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation is assumed
to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height
is known or at 118 feet where unknown.
CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage, as shown
in Figures 57 through 60, in comparison to the location of publicly
owned properties and considered the impact that placing a tower on
those properties would have on network and public safety coverage.
When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station
construction, the community, represented by their local government
agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment
technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure
installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed
on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and
flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative
concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more
practical than other types.
As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly
owned property, their application becomes the standard for future
tower sites developed on public and private land within their zoning
jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant
carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources
of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property
results in an asset for the local government that is available for
emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.
Figures 57 through 60 indicate how certain geographic areas
would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of
the publicly owned properties. Table 24 identifies potential public
property fill-in sites that satisfy both corridor and study area coverage
gaps. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation
column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning
agency.
|
Table 24: Mesa County Potential Fill-In Public Properties
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Public Site ID
|
Owner
|
Location
|
Address
|
Parcel Number
|
Acreage
|
Site-Specific Recommendation
|
|
B1
|
DeBeque Fire Protection District
|
DeBeque
|
4580 I70 Frontage Road
|
2445-274-00-944
|
5.86
|
Not Determined
|
|
B2
|
Town of DeBeque
|
DeBeque
|
414 Rouse Avenue
|
2445-272-00-943
|
61.767
|
Not Determined
|
|
C
|
Town of Collbran
|
Town of Collbran
|
61416 E Hwy 330
|
2665-203-00-941
|
1.196
|
Not Determined
|
|
E1
|
Lower Valley Protection District
|
Lower Valley/Loma
|
1341 13 Road
|
2691-334-04-948
|
0.79
|
Not Determined
|
|
E2
|
State Department of Highways
|
Lower Valley/Loma
|
1346 13 3/10 Road
|
2691-342-00-924
|
9.762
|
Not Determined
|
|
G
|
Mesa County
|
Lower Valley
|
916 19 1/2 Road
|
2697-224-00-939
|
5.281
|
Not Determined
|
|
Q
|
Colorado Department of Highways
|
Palisade
|
816 35 8/10 Road
|
2937-063-00-924
|
10.241
|
Not Determined
|
|
U1
|
Mesa County
|
Whitewater
|
527 Desert Road
|
2967-231-00-939
|
116.554
|
Not Determined
|
|
U2
|
City of Grand Junction
|
Whitewater
|
33129 Mill Tailing Road
|
2967-243-00-944
|
138.554
|
Not Determined
|
|
X
|
Mesa County
|
Gateway
|
42700 Highway 141
|
3477-153-01-936
|
7.663
|
Not Determined
|
 Figure 55: Existing Antenna Locations
|
 Figure 56: Current Potential Coverage Including Future
Growth
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
CityScape estimates that six new towers or base stations will
be needed over the next 10 to 15 years along the I-70 corridor as
shown in Figure 57.
 Figure 57: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 1
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
CityScape estimates that, in addition to adding three proposed
emergency service facilities, eight new towers or base stations will
be needed over the next 10 to 15 years along the corridors shown in
Figure 58.
Approximately 15 new sites would be needed to provide complete
coverage. However, the sites along Highway 65 and Highway 330 will
likely not be a high priority for the industry and therefore, four
of the 15 sites have not been turned on.
 Figure 58: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 2
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Highway 330 from the Town of Collbran eastward to the County
line is a secondary highway and will not likely be a high priority
for the service providers over the next 10 to 15 years due to the
low subscriber base. CityScape has identified seven facilities to
fill in the coverage gaps along the highway but is only turning on
Site C (also in the Town of Collbran Study Area) and the three tower
locations identified as potential emergency management service facilities
shown in Figure 59.
 Figure 59: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 3
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Providing coverage along Highway 141 will be challenging due
to the topography of the area. It is not likely the industry will
provide near term coverage to this corridor because of the rural and
undeveloped nature of the area. CityScape included the use of seven
proposed emergency service facilities in the coverage map and forecasts
that seven additional towers or base stations would be needed to provide
full coverage along the corridors as shown in Figure 60. CityScape
anticipates that two of the seven proposed facilities may be built
south of the Highway 50 and Highway 141 intersection.
 Figure 60: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 4
|
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Wireless connectivity has become an increasingly important part
of our everyday lives. Wireless telecommunication technology has evolved
rapidly over the past 20 years providing capabilities that have resulted
in dramatically increased cellular phone and Internet use. Cellular
phones used to be just a way of making a phone call when you were
away from home or work. Now we use smartphones and tablets to shop,
find restaurants, compare prices, buy movie tickets, bank, navigate,
and to stay in touch through social media sites. First responders
throughout Mesa County rely more and more on cellular data communication
in the field, as do 911 callers in an emergency situation. The demand
for wireless Internet and data service coverage and capacity has strained
existing telecommunication network facilities and is causing cellular
service providers to plan for the construction of new infrastructure.
Due to the semi-remote location of Mesa County, wireless technologies
are critical for personal, business and emergency communication, and
are heavily relied upon by residents and visitors. The blend of urban
and undeveloped areas, year-round recreational activity, communication
needs, and canyons, valleys, plateaus and ridge lines all create difficult
coverage challenges for service providers. Wireless telecommunications
master planning is an approach taken by communities to determine wireless
service industry deployment patterns and to identify gaps in network
coverage. With this information communities can develop strategies
to fill in those gaps.
The benefits of a WMP are multi-faceted, addressing community,
economic development, and planning needs, as well as emergency service
provider requirements. A comprehensive approach to wireless development
will align the needs of personal wireless and broadband service providers
with optimal infrastructure solutions that will support government
and community objectives, allowing for infrastructure planning and
development that will accommodate multiple providers, improve public
safety and help to attract and retain residents and businesses.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
Due to the concentration of population and urban characteristics
of the City of Grand Junction, CityScape estimates that the largest
number of new sites constructed over the next 10 to 15 years will
be built in and around the Persigo 201 Study Area. Approximately 11
to 18 new towers or base stations will be needed to fill in the anticipated
coverage gaps. The projection model that CityScape designed assumes
that all existing tower and base station locations will be used for
maximum co-location and/or replacement opportunities in an effort
to reduce the number of new towers and base stations required within
a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize the use
of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need to be
constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted that
even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within the study
area will still be underserved due to the terrain and rural characteristics
around the periphery of the study area.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
CityScape estimates that five to eight co-locations, upgrades
or antenna modifications (in any combination) per year can be anticipated
over the next 10 years. Over the next 15 years, up to 40 new tower
or base station sites will be needed Countywide to fill coverage gaps
and/or increase capacity. The more populated areas of the County will
likely see the development of “small cell” sites that
consist of multiple concealed antennas located relatively close together
on shorter towers or existing support structures like light and utility
poles. Rural areas are more likely to be served by towers that can
provide coverage over larger geographic areas.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County will need to manage
the development of wireless telecommunication infrastructure in order
to maximize the use of existing towers and base stations and to minimize
the total number of new facilities needed to fill in coverage gaps.
The Wireless Master Plan recommends the following action items be
implemented to meet these goals:
(a)
Maintain the wireless facilities inventory, updating it as facilities
are added or modified, and make it available to the public online
through the City and County websites.
(b)
Prepare amendments to the City and County development codes that
update zoning requirements and review procedures for wireless telecommunications
facilities to make the codes compliant with current FCC regulations.
(1)
Update the development codes as needed when regulations change.
(c)
Maintain a priority site list of fill-in sites, identifying properties
that are both publicly and privately owned, that meet the criteria
established for preferred cellular facilities. Properties that are
on the priority site list may be eligible for expedited administrative
review of wireless facilities, provided the proposed facility meets
the concealment requirements identified at the time of inclusion on
the priority list, and all other applicable standards of the development
code. The criteria for priority sites are:
(1)
The property shall be located within the Grand Junction Persigo 201
Boundary or can be included in the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary.
(2)
The property shall be one acre minimum in lot size.
(3)
The property shall have vehicular access to an improved public right-of-way.
(4)
The property shall have access to utilities.
(5)
The property shall be outside the 100-year floodplain.
(6)
The cellular facility shall meet all City development standards and
be subject to all regulations of the zoning code.
(7)
Concealment is required and the owner of the property must identify
the type of concealment proposed, prior to inclusion on the priority
site list, with the understanding that if accepted by the City, then
any type of concealment aside from what is proposed and accepted at
the time of the Master Plan vetting process would require a conditional
use permit (CUP).
(d)
Seek out public/private partnerships to encourage the development
of wireless facilities in rural areas that are underserved and have
significant coverage gaps.
(e)
Where feasible, plan for the ability to co-locate private wireless
facilities on public safety communication infrastructure, in order
to fill coverage gaps and provide better service to residents.
(f)
Encourage the development of broadband infrastructure that will help
support the development of wireless infrastructure.
(g)
Work with economic development partners to seek out opportunities
to expand wireless telecommunication facilities to support business
development.
(h)
Maintain awareness of evolving concealment options so the design
and planning processes of new towers will blend visually within the
community they serve.
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)
