Laserfiche WebLink
existing towing company and the bollards were proposed to ensure vehicles being backed up <br />would not hit the shelter or damage trees, however if the city prefer them removed they will be <br />eliminated. Mr. O'Malley noted that the entire parcel was up for the Commission's review not <br />just the proposed area. <br />Mr. Rerko asked if the shelter would house additional mechanical units once the co-locators are <br />added and if all electrical lines would be run underground and housed in the tower. Mr. Sindyla <br />said the shelter area was sized to accommodate the additional equipment and the tower is <br />designed to have all lines ran internally. Mr. Rerko asked if the emergency propane generator <br />was sized for all equipment or just theirs. Mr. Sindyla said it was their backup only and if the <br />city preferred they could use a diesel generator and eliminate the propane use. Mr. Rerko <br />requested the propane tanks be limited in the shelter and asked how often maintenance runs <br />occurred. Mr. Sindyla said they are conducted once a month during normal business hours. <br />Mr. Malone felt the blue spruce trees were appropriate but should be planted 12 foot on center <br />for adequate spacing. He would prefer the bollards removed and would like to see a site plan of <br />the entire site. Mr. Bohlmann suggested the Commission require co-locators to place all wiring <br />in conduit if it can not be housed within the tower. He was concerned that residents of Stewart <br />Drive may see the top of the tower. Mr. Rerko asked if the new plans could show additional <br />landscaping along the site's entrance and requested a perspective be submitted to show what <br />would be seen from Lorain Road. <br />Councilman Gareau gave history regarding Council's implementation of the Wireless <br />Telecommunications District regulations, as well as T-Mobile's efforts to propose towers on City <br />property at North Olmsted Park and Fire Station 2. Council objected due to proximity to <br />residential lots. Mr. Gareau responded to the Metroparks' concerns as stated in their fax and said <br />they did not object when the tower was proposed at the Fire Station. He believes the impact on <br />the park versus the residential homes is far less and the proposed location is an appropriate site. <br />The split zoning allows the towing and storage business in the front and has the rear section of <br />land zoned residential. It is highly unlikely that the Metroparks would ever allow the residential <br />area developed. Council has also researched other areas due to the number of complaints they <br />receive regarding the lack of coverage and it was found that the proposed site is the best location. <br />Mr. Lasko read the communication from the Metroparks from Ms. Studniarz citing the parks <br />concerns. He felt that most of the issues raised in the fax were addressed. <br />Mr. Klimkowicz said he does not believe that there will be any impact to abutting properties <br />from the tower. He would like to see the T-Mobile request granted as an additional tower is <br />needed. <br />Councilwoman Jones said she has not received complaints or concerns regarding the condition of <br />the site. The rezoning of the split zoned lot is warranted and the proposed location of the tower <br />would create the least impact to the area and provide the needed services to Ward 3. Mr. Malone <br />said he was familiar with the site and did not see a need to address the front of the lot. Mrs. <br />Meredith felt that the rezoning should be approved with or without the tower as the split zoning <br />should be resolved. The location is a good area and the park has no structures in the location so <br />there should be no adverse impact. She noted at the site that the entrance did not appear to need <br />4