03/01/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

law. lY1i-. Ockner commented that they were not trying to accuse the City of any misconduct by giving Sprint a hard time. It is not easy for every one to grasp as their proposal is not clear enough. If the antenna is moved, a mile one-way or the other what would that do. Well Sprint has tried to explain why that is a problem. Why should the City only accommodate one carrier when they have gone to the work and efforts of enacting an overlay district. Well Sprint has tried to explain why that is a problein to us. No one, not the City, SprintCom or even Congress could understand or completely comprehend every conceivable scenario uncier which Congress mandated rapid deployment and expansion of wireless telecommunications could create in communities such as this. This is a proposal to have a telecommunications tower in a commercial area, which is near a residential district, and Sprint realizes that. They have not talked much about safety, as part of North Olmsted's regulations wisely contemplate issues of access. T'here will be 8 foot high fencing, so it will be such that children can not climb the tower. Sprint is going to comply to the Cities regulations as far as safety issues. SprintCom has created stealth towers, which are more expensive than their others, but it makes them look like something other than a monopole. If the City is concerned with the esthetics of the proposal, it can be dealt with. One of the down sides to stealth technology is it liinits the tower to only housing one antenna. The pole can not fall over, if something happens the pole collapses on itself. The monopole's have a no fall zone. SprintCom wants to be good neighbors. Mr. Ockner suggested that he could provide the residents with numerous documentation of appraisals conducted thoughout the area, which shows the impact on an area with monopole's increases the value of homes not decreasing. gie suggested that no studies have been published that shows monopole's decrease the value of homes near them. Mr. Koberna questioned if there were any engineering studies done on Clague towers. Mr. Richard indicated that the height of the buildings were estimated to be between 50 and 60 feet which is only half the height that they need for their signal. Mr. Koberna questioned again if a study was conducted. Mr. Richard stated he believes it is only a 5-story building and does not think there is more-then 10 or 11 feet, which would give you 60 feet tops. Mr. Koberna questioned if there had been a tope done as the area drops off 10 to 15 feet from Lorain Road. Mr. Richard indicated that he was not sure it could be a sliaht drop. Based on properties up and down the area this is the best area to place the tower. Mr. Ke11y questioned from an engineering feasibility what is the highest height they can go above the roofline economically on a building. Mr. Zawar suggested that from an engineering standpoint he believes that it is soinewhere between 20 and 40 feet maybe. Then it becomes as noticeable as a monopole and you have to build the equipment Uox on top of the building. Mr. Kelly indicated that that did not answer his question. If a building is 60 feet high and you needed an additional 60 feet for your height, how unfeasible is that. 1VIr. Zawar indicated that is froin a construction stand point and he could not answer that. Mr. Kelly then questioned what antenna heights N1r. Zawar has seen on top of buildings. Mr. Zawar suggested that he has seen 20 to 40 ieet lattice. Councilman Miller suggested that there was a 90 foot pole at Clague park that could be used. Mr. Richard indicated that they would build the 120- foot pole and place their antenna at 120 feet and carry two or three additional carriers on the pole below that. Mr. Koberna suggested that that contradict what they were saying all along. Mr. Maloney suggested that the board had heard enough discussion and asked for a motion. J. Maloney motioned to grant SprintCom / McCormick Place of 23200-23300 Lorain Rd. their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of constructing a monopole and that the following variances be granted: 1. A use variance for a 120' monopole in the General Retail Business District (code does not allow, section 1139.01). 2. A 70-ft. variance for height (code permits 50 ft., applicant shows 120 ft.), section (1139.04). 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). 8