03/01/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

suggested he did not know. Mr. Gareau questioned if it would be Mr. Zawar's testimony that if the tower is at Columbia Road Fire Station the coverage would be covering all of North Olmsted, as he suggested they only have one antenna in North Olmsted. Mr. Zawar indicated that, that was correct as the only pole they currently have is at Bridlewood. Mr. Gareau questioned what the engineering problem was by having an antenna in Clague park, as the distance is not that different from the fire station. The F'ire Station antenna covers 3 miles and Mr. Zawar suggested that the Clague tower can not do that, why? Mr. Zawar suggested that when the Bridlewood site starts getting more users the efficiency of the coverage starts going down. During the rush hour, there will be missed calls, dropped calls and busy network messages. To answer the Westlake Fire Station question, if Sprint collocates on that site the biggest problem is that they will be very close to their existing site, which causes overlap. Mr. Gareau reviewed that the applicant was saying that to put an antenna at Clague park would be to close and cause interference with the existing Westlake antenna, which is 3 miles away. However, to put a inonopole antenna 1 to 1'/z iniles away from Bridlewood would not cause a problein. Mr. Zawar indicated that the radios for a site for a suburban cell is about 1 mile. After the 1 inile service gets poorer and poorer. That is why they need something in North Olmsted. Mr. Koberna indicated that he understood what the applicant was trying to do as he was familiar with their work. If what the applicant is suggesting is true, then not to far in the future there is going to be antennas every half-mile. The applicant is saying that the FCC is mandating this. The City of North Olmsted has an existing overlay district that the applicants can use. Mr. Gareau questioned if the applicants reviewed the overlay district in North Olmsted. Mr. Richards suggested that they had reviewed the overlay district and the closest permitted site is the AT&T monopole and because of the coverage whole and capacity that needs to be filled the engineers do not believe it would fulfill their needs. Mr. Koberna questioned that the applicants were saying 1/2 mile difference would not fit their needs. He questioned if the applicant was Iooking to handle traffic along I-480 or just a one-mile area. Mr. Zawar indicated that was correct Bridlewood is carrying Lorain and I-480 now and this will relieve that area. Mr. Koberna questioned how long the expected use of the proposed celI was. The way the applicant is talking now they will be back here requesting another site 50 feet down the road in another year from now. Mr. Zawar indicated that Mr. Koberna's comment was good as they can do overlays, which has been done already on Bridlewood. That means that they have a second carrier on their pole a,nd once vve have another site, we can do that again. That will balance out the traffic that we are forecasting for the future. Mr. Koberna again questioned the need for the proposed monopole as the applicant was contradicting their needs it seemed. Mr. Zawar showed a map showing McCormick place and Bridlewood, to show why the pole is needed. He indicated that the inap was done at the same zoom level and reviewed why they felt the antenna was needed. Mr. Gareau questioned if the maps were to scale. Mr. Zawar was not sure if it was to scale or not. Mr. Koberna suggested that he measured between the two sites and they are only about a 1/2 mile difference. Mr. Koberna and Mr. Gareau both felt that the maps were not correct in the distances. Mr. Zawar suggested that as they have to apply to the FCC they could not be wrong. Mr. Ockner indicated that the locations were exacti as they use a global positioning satellite. Mr. Gareau asked for the exact distance. Mr. Zawar indicated that he did not have the exact distance but could get it. He questioned if the board agreed that AT&T was closer to their existing site. Mr. Koberna remarked that he did not agree that it was closer. Mr. Koberna questioned why the applicants could not upgrade their hardware on the existing poles to handle the increased load. W. Zawar indicated that they were preparing to do that as they are on a second carrier now that is why we want this here and then we can add a second carrier to this site. Mr. Ockner indicated that he did not feel that lus clients answered the Law Directors question as completely as they should. He believes the cities question is why they can not put an antenna on 1 or 2 existing monopole's that are within 1 to 1'/2 miles from this site. The board needs to understand that SprintCom's philosophy is a business and is governed by business imperatives. One of those imperatives is to take the path of least resistance, which has 5