Chad Blunt, OV resident and applicant, presented coverage locations and went on to state that the Town made it clear that the antennas needed to be placed in a canister and there are some limitations. AT&T believes this site provides the least impact to the neighborhood. AT&T has struggled with vaults and it’s a safety hazard for the cell techs. Landscape plans that were submitted have been improved to help provide screening on La Canada and the neighborhood. Mr. Blunt believes this is the least obtrusive location to provide coverage to customers.
Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented the following:
- Location Map
- Zoning Map
- Project Location - Aerial View
- Slope and Topography
- Equipment Compound Detail
- Pole Detail
- Existing and Proposed Pole
- Summary
- Public Comments & Questions
Paul Keesler, OV Permitting Division Manager, said if they were to slide it south, it would be in the slope of the basin and that would eat up some of the available volume of the basin. The basin would need to be re-graded to mitigate the loss of volume. Per Town requirements, there needs to be a zero loss in volume. Another issue the applicant would have is access to their equipment. The equipment would be located on the side of the slope. These are engineering issues that can be resolved. The Town’s standpoint regarding the basin is whatever volume currently exists needs to remain once completed.
Member Ottley asked if any thought had been given to placing an oak tree between the structure and the homeowners in order to mitigate the noise.
Mr. Michels said when discussing this issue with the applicant and neighbors, one of the initial concerns was the view from the adjacent residents. One of the issues was not creating any view impediments and it was the option of the folks involved that having any vegetation that would have a mature height significantly higher than the proposed equipment compound would be undesirable.
Member Ottley commented that he thought the backyards would not be visually impaired.
Member Luckett said from a design perspective baffles could be placed inside this enclosure or moving it further south may help the neighbors. Member Luckett presented some pictures that he took of the site and went onto say the last time Mr. Blunt was here there was mention that the vault could not be placed in a detention basin. Mr. Blunt said that his client has concerns regarding placing a vault in the retention area.
Member Luckett commented that you can water proof vaults. Mr. Blunt said you can but there are problems associated with doing so.
Member Luckett commented that there is new technology associated with placing equipment in a vault.
Mr. Blunt said he can’t argue that point, but a retention pond is designed to percolate water, reduce the water flow into the ground table, and control water flow from the rain storms. If we had a retention pond that was designed to contain water within itself and a vault designed to keep the water out it could be done.
Chairman Schoeppach asked Mr. Keesler to provide more information on moving the location to the south and what it would entail. Mr. Keesler said depending on how far south it is moved parallel to the TEP pole, that location would be clearly inside of the basin. That would bring up two issues. The Town would lose the volume in the basin which would need to be replaced. If moved even further south, at the absolute bottom of the common area you’re essentially out of the basin.
Chair Schoeppach asked what technical issues are involved in moving the building.
Mr. Blunt said they were trying to stay far away from the retention area.
Chair Schoeppach asked if the only issue was the curb cuts. Mr. Blunt said the south end was not considered for that reason.
Chairman Schoeppach asked if there was another potential solution.
Mr. Blunt said he was open to any suggestions.
Chairman Schoeppach asked for a time frame.
Mr. Keesler said the applicant will need to demonstrate there are no drainage impacts if moved further south. If so, they will need to mitigate drainage impacts. Mr. Andrews, OV Attorney, said they have a couple of choices. You can amend your motion to move something to that corner and let it go forward or you can continue this for another meeting.
Chairman Schoeppach said rather than push anybody into a decision he would prefer a motion to continue so the applicant and the Town can consider this possibility and come back with another proposal.
Mr. Williams said in consideration of projects moving forward and minimizing delays, if the board prefers the southern location, a motion can be made to approve contingent that it be worked out.
Member Ottley made the comment that it needs to be moved forward and asking the applicant to go to a vault is unrealistic.
Charles Black, OV resident, said he had a petition from fifteen other residents opposing the current site. Anther site location might be on Tangerine and Musset which is away from houses. Seven of the twenty cell sites in OV belong to AT&T.
Scott Maxwell, OV resident, said he lives in the same cul-de-sac as Mr. Black. Sound is only a guideline and there are materials that can dampen sound. The specifications that Mr. Blunt keeps bringing up appear to be changing.
Sam Silverstein, OV resident, said he is a neighbor of Mr. Black and Mr. Maxwell and is happy to hear that the site is be moved. Mr. Silverstein asked if it has to be a part of the HOA and where is the money going.
Chairman Schoeppach said that would be a question he would need to ask the HOA.
MOTION: A motion was made by and seconded by to
Member Ottley commented that changes have taken place and there is a need for additional capacity in the cellular network. It might behoove the Town to look at the future planning of cell sites because they are going to increase. There needs to be a plan in place for orderly cell phone equipment growth.
Member Luckett said he has been an AT&T customer since they first came to Tucson and agrees with Member Ottley’s comment. He urges the applicant to shield or change the architecture to make this building look appropriate.
MOTION carried, 4-0
Mr. Williams commented that the next DRB meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 has only one item on the agenda. The normally scheduled Art Review Commission meeting is Tuesday, October 19, 2010. The normally scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting has been moved from Election Day to Monday, November 8, 2010.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Luckett and seconded by Member Wowk adjourn at 6:57 p.m.