07/08/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cafnmission Questians aretl C<omtraehts: Mr. Hreha asked if the triangular piece on the south side of I-480 was considered as a possible location. Mr. Block said they probably looked at the infield for two reasons. One was the triangular section on the south side possibly having a more severe elevation. In this case, they have a bigger area to put the site and also by putting the drive on the onramp as shown now, the traffic acceleration is at a minimum. At the other site, a concern would be the elevation change between the onramp and the highway. Mr. Hreha said there is more of a buffer of trees over there and the entrance could still be on an onramp. He pointed out they would not be pulling in semi-trucks to the site. Mr. Block said a crane would be involved with construction of the site. Mr. Hreha inquired about the maintenance vehicles. He said that beyond the initial construction the grade is really insignificant. Mr. Block said it may not be a build- able site and would not allow them the flexibility of the infield site. AttdiEnGE QLIGSPiRF2S aktll COFt1ments: Mr. O'Grady commented on Mr. O'Malley's remarks and said the entire I-480 stretch owned by O.D.O.T. is an area that was identified as acceptable for towers but it is not the big question. He said Mr. O'Malley was also correct when he asked if the city can say no to O.D.O.T. for a permitted use on their property. He said he believes we cannot, however, he thinks O.D.O.T. would care if this body and Council felt there was an undo impact on our residents. He said he believes that should be the focus of the discussion. He asked if there is a location that serves the applicant's purpose that does not have such a direct and severe impact on residents. There are no trees around this thing and small trees will be put in with a 190 foot pole. There is no way to hide this thing and people cannot get away from it. There has to be a different location and he would think Cingular would care if the board and Council felt there is an undo and negative impact on the residents. He would encourage the consideration of alternate locations. Mr. Jett asked if Cingular has considered the south side of I-480 right in the same area. He said he feels his property would definitely be affected if they considered that area. He expressed concern about the height of the tower and the possibility of it falling and hitting properties on Hastings. He said he has landlocked property and it would not cost them much money. Other people with property there would not have a big price either because they can't use it. He thinks they ought to get something in there that utilizes the properties on the south better. If the tower goes up at the proposed site, it will make their land more undesirable than it is already. Mr. Hreha asked where the nearest AT&T tower is located. Mr. Kovitch replied it is at Site 63 and 184 to the north, to the best of his knowledge. They reviewed other tower locations in the area. Mr. Hreha said that towers are not the only answer. He comes from some base of experience as he spent 27 years working for Ameritech. He added that he bought cellular service from Ameritech before it became Cingular. He said he lives in the "white area" without service and he has complained to Cingular repeatedly. He drives out Hastings every day so this is his neighborhood. He has complained over and over because his cell phone does not ring in his house. He lives within 7/10 of a mile from where they plan to put the tower. The service is something less than what he desired. He cancelled it and went with AT&T and his phone rings in his home. He said that is why he asked where the AT&T towers are. He said in the "white area" where Cingular says they cannot provide service without a tower, AT&T can provide it. He said to go back to the drawing board and find another solution because it is out there. W. Kovitch said the AT&T towers are 190 foot monopoles with other carriers on there. He said they are at 120 feet on one of them and 170 feet on the other. He pointed out that the higher up a carrier is, the farther a signal will carry and that is why they are proposing this location. They don't have the advantage to have the height that AT&T does. He said the company on top is going to get the farthest coverage. Mr. Hreha said he can understand that but he is empathetic to the people that will walk out their front doors staring at a 190 foot pole. Mr. Block said he believes AT&T is on one of the high-tension towers that they don't show on the coverage map because it is not a co-locatable site. Mr. Hreha said his point is he does not care where AT&T is. He lives in the area where Cingular is saying they cannot provide service without a tower in residents' front yards and yet AT&T can provide that service. He suggested the applicant give them a call to see how they are doing it. Mrs. Bea Sidaway came forward to ask if any other site had been considered. She said the applicant mentioned the tower in Olmsted Falls on school property. She suggested using 6