09/23/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ?• . . VII. MINOR CHANGES: O.S.V. has asked for a change to tlieu origiual plaiis, but Mr. Zergott of the arclutectural review board has objected to it. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: ORD.97-73 Continued fioin the meeting of September 9, 1997. W. Tallon advised Ordinance 97-73 would create a new chapter titled Wireless Communication Towers. Mr. Conway explanied this ord'uiance provides provisions for placuig extensions on existing antennas as there is sensitivity to 125 or 150 feet. He noted uuder tlus ordinance, if a person had a 150 foot tower, a ten to fifteeu foot extensiou could be attached and a second location placed. The plaun.uig coDunission would have inore coutro] over these. towers due to the fact it becomes conditional use in the followiug zoning districts: One and Two Family Residence, Single Family Cluster, Multiple Residence (apartinent), Business and Office. Tle proposal at North Olmsted Recreation Center would uot have been considered a couditional use, even wlder this ordinance, as it is being proposed on govei-iuneut property. Mr. Conway advised if a couditional use is required plann'vig commission can deny the proposal because it is too close to anothei- tower etc. He believed this gives the city more control over these towers. Mr. Tallon stated that Nextel is claiming that they cannot go on the Aineritech tower Uecause the equipment is uot compatible. He wondered how the city can regulate the location of these towers if the equipment is uot compatible. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised it is difficult to couuter that statement as the planning commission does not have the expertise in this area. Mrs. Camerou-Alstou believed tliat plaiuvng commission needs a consultant in order to advise the cornunission about these towers. Mrs. O'Rourke advised the commission does uot eveu know for a fact that tlie Nextel equipnleiit will not work on the tower at Clague park. She wondered what will happeu if another company coines in requesting a new tower because theu equipment is uot compatible. The cominissiou was worried these towers will start popping up everywhere and it will soon becoine veiy difficult to regulate. NIr. Conway advised Ameritech has equipment at Victoria Plaza, wliich supports Nextel's argument about the distance between each tower. He believed a consultant was ueecled to review the city aud give the city some lnowledge of what is coining. Mi-. Tallou would lil:e to recommend the adoptiou of this ordinance as it is a good startuig point. W. Breiuiau advised the last section (1167.06) deals with the Removal of Abandoned Anteunas. He questioned the sentence wli.ich states "If such antenna or tower is not removed within said vinety (90) days, the city may, iu the iuanuer provided in the Oluo Revised Code, remove such antenna or tower at the ovaier's expense." The cominission wondered what would happeu if the ownier declared bankruptcy, as it appears the city would have to handle the cost of removal in this type of situatiou. Mr. Brennau questioned if the city can requu•e bonding _from these companies on a yearly basis to provide for the deinolition if they do go banluupt. Mr. Dubelko advised this is a possibility, however, he questioned how much demolition will cost. Mr. Conway advised the tower part would couie dovvil easy, however the removal of the base can get expensive. Mr. Dubellco explaiued tlus may cause a problem as the Clague Tower was permitted without this requu•ement. W. Brenuan advised he was talking about all towers whether or not they are on city property. Mr. Dubelko would lil:e the oppomuuty to review the city lease for Ameritech, in order to find out if there was a boud requirement iu that agreeinent. The coinmission would like a bond requuement to be included iu the ordinance. 1a -