pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 8 | further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He had reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of sunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and barbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe that two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a particular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He believed the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed that a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone technology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree or a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy when technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an eyesore. With respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible for removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of the lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of diameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally between 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not been able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been done. President Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would be unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed; Recreation and Parks staff was concerned about fast-growing vines and the need for maintenance. A slow-growing species of plant was selected that would require minimum maintenance. American Tower would be obligated to maintain the facility. Mr. Lynch suggested that the technology should be examined in the future, because it affected the line-of-sight and other technical considerations. He suggested that the carrier submit an annual report addressing the condition of the pole, and to ensure the pole is painted. Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the height and visibility of the pole. Mr. Knopf replied that the photo simulation was shot down the fence line, and noted that the poles were located at the end of that line. He added that cell sites were low-power sites that must be located every half-mile or so to provide adequate coverage, and that they were line-of-sight repeaters; they are placed as low as possible to the ground. Regarding cost, he believed the City got the best deal possible with American Tower. He described the business mission and leasing policies of American Tower. He noted that this Planning Board Minutes Page 8 April 25,2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |