A proposed cellphone tower in the Animas Valley comes with two promises: improved mobile phone reception, and to some, a blight that threatens historical surroundings.
La Plata County officials expect to receive a Class II land-use permit application within a few months for a 120-foot, unlit monopole cellphone tower on Trimble Lane. The proposal would advance a conceptual idea that has floated for about four years.
On Tuesday, county commissioners unanimously approved a letter to the Federal Communications Commission stating concerns that the tower could degrade historical interests. The county commission’s move was a result of recommendations from the county Historic Preservation Review Commission.
Before the project goes before the county, AT&T must obtain licensing through the FCC, which is required under the 1966 Historic Preservation Act to evaluate prospective projects’ impacts to historical resources.
The proposed tower, about the height of an 11-story building, would be at 619 Trimble Lane within the Sandco gravel pit property.
But the Historic Preservation Review Commission opines the half-mile visual area, or Area of Potential Effect, should be expanded to include consideration of impacts to the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad. The railroad was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1961.
The commission also said the tower should not be visible from the Radar House on East Animas Road (County Road 250), a Victorian-era structure on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties.
Tower Engineering Professionals, a Raleigh, North Carolina-based engineering company overseeing the project, noted in a visual assessment of the property that large evergreens and vegetation would obstruct any view of the tower from the house.
The home, built in 1884, is owned by Jeff and Jenny Vierling. In an email, Jenny Vierling said she could not comment without seeing designs or plans, but was assured that the tower would not exceed the height of the gravel facility.
But Andrew Gulliford, a Fort Lewis College history professor and head of the Historic Preservation Review Commission, said the proposed tower is an example of why historical preservation is a critical component of the county’s comprehensive land-use plan, which is under review.
“On the one hand, we need to understand the view and historical nature of the valley. On the other hand, I’m sure there are those who want the tower,” he said. “The past is bumping up against the future.”
Gulliford also questioned how a cell tower might affect the experience for train passengers, though Al Harper, who owns the railroad, said he doubts the tower would degrade the ride.
“It’s over in the gravel pit area, and a pretty good distance from the railroad. I don’t know the details about the site, but I’m not sure it will have a huge impact on us,” Harper said. “I doubt we would get much comment from typical passengers.”
Engineers have not submitted an application for a permit or made any other formal proposal to the county, though planning staff will have a preliminary meeting with the applicants.
Cell towers have been a controversial topic in years past. In 2011, a proposal for a 195-foot tower just below Hermosa Cliffs on U.S. Highway 550 provoked an uproar among locals. The project was abandoned after the pushback, and it inspired the county to review height limitations and location policy for cell towers.
