03/01/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t t 3. A 200 ft. variance for rear yard set back (code requires 300 ft., applicant shows 100 ft. plus or minus), section (1151.05 C). 4. A 235 ft. variance for side yard set back (code requires 300 ft., applicant shows 65 ft. plus or minus), section (1151.05 C). 5. A variance for 5-car parking spaces reduction from original approved parking layout, section (1161.05). Note: Use permit heard by Planning Commission on 1/9/01 and Denied. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. The oath was administered to Nlr. Richards, for SprintCom, Mr. Ockner the attorney, Mr. Zawar, the engineer for SpintCom, Councilman, McKay, Councilman Miller, Mr. Paul Barker a concerned resident and the following neighbors; Mr. Farmer, Steve Fannin, Mr. & Mrs. Weir, Mr. Dolesh, Mr. & Mrs. Singleton, W. & Mrs. Hillman, Mr. VJiebusch, and Mr. & Mrs. Wright. Mr. Richards indicated that they would like a communication tower behind McCormick shopping center. The plans call for a 120 foot monopole with an equipment station attached to the bottom of the pole. The pole will be placed behind the video store. The location was chosen for the coverage area that they need in the Clague and Lorain intersection. It is the largest property in a one-mile radius in each direction that would buffer the monopole from the surrounding neighbors. Its being placed behind the video store and buffered from the street by a board on board fence which will go around the base of the pole and equipment cabinets to shield them from view. There is currently an earth mound that is 6 to 8 feet tall in the back of the shopping center that is topped with a board on board fence to buffer the coinmercial use from the residents. The reason for this location is that it fills the gap in coverage that Sprint has been experiencing. Which has resulted in loss calls and very spotty coverage in the Clague/Lorain Road intersection. IV1r. Konold questioned why the applicants were not using an existing pole. Mr. Richards suggested that they had looked at two other collocation opportunities, one, which was a inile to the east (behind Fairview Center), but is too far to the east and interferes with an existing antenna that Sprint has. The second collocation was the AT&T inonopole at Clague park and that was to far northwest. Mr. Barker questioned were the closest monopole to this site was located. Mr. Richard indicated that it was the Westlake Fire Departinent. Mr. Gareau questioned if it was Mr. Richards testimony that it is not possible for Sprint to collocate on Clague park pole. Mr. Zawar was asked to address engineering issues at this time. Mr. Zawar passed out packages to each of the board members. He indicated that the document that was passed out was a docuinent that will Dive the board an engineering prospective and why they need the tower at 1VIcCormick place. Mr. Zawar read allowed from the package (see attached document at the back of the minutes). Mr. Zawar reviewed definitions that are written in the packet. An erlangs is 60 minutes of use. There is a site at Bridlewood and it is carrying the load now and in sector 1 and 3 they are carrying 17 plus erlangs now and it was not designed for that. Mr. Koberna questioned if that was at peak hours. Mr. Zawar answered yes. Mr. Koberna suggested that that amount of traffic could be coming from car- phones on 480 during morrung and nightly rush hours and questioned if those readings were part of Sprints equations. Mr. Zawar indicated that Mr. Koberna was correct. Sprint is cui-rently exceedine, their limitations in the North Olmsted area. When their usage was calculated Sprint was a little conservative so they are off. There is a higher rate of drop off in North Olmsted, network busy and if relief is not provided the area will continue to worsen. Mi. Koberna questioned where sector 2 was located. Mr. Zawar indicated that that would be located at Bridlewood. Mr. Konold questioned whom Sprints competition was in the area. Mr. Zawar reviewed their competitors in the area. Mr. Konold indicated that the board is not against expanding their business but he is not for the current location. Mr. Gareau remarked that he had asked a question earlier and Mr. Zawar was asked to answer it and has yet to do so. He would like to know what consideration was given to collocating on the pole at Clague park and which Westlake Fire Station housed one of their antennas. Mr. Zawar 4