03/25/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?J qualified iminunity from local zoning codes and there are statutory provisions that allow the state to enter into a lease with an entity such as this to use state owned lands in this fashion. They therefore are covered by the same qualified immunity that the state has. It is not an absolute immunity. They are expected to make every effort to reasonably comply with the code. The city is not free to interpret its zoning code in an exclusionary fashion, to compel the agency to seek variances. They could even have difficulty if this was treated as a conditional use, but as Mr. Conway pointed out this parcel of land is claimed as right of way by the state. We do not have anything to suggest otherwise. We do not have any maps before us as to the potential for another ramp. The land is showing as separate permanent parcel numbers as opposed to having been attached to the I-480 proper. It is being viewed as right of way and therefore it is permitted. He said co-locating or anything of that nature does not come into play. The overlay district for towers of this kind contemplate locating towers within the right of way near to the highway. Mr. Spalding said he is assuming that the provisions for seasonal maintenance checks are conditions that will be incorporated into the proposal. Mr. Sindyla said they are conditions at all of their tower sites. They use general contractors for maintenance and also do monthly checks on their own. Ma-. Spalding asked about other T-Mobile sites. Mr. Sindyla said there is one on top of Victoria Plaza in North Olmsted, and a site co-located to the south of I-480 where the Grayton Road exit is. The closest site is co-located on an existing tower in Fairview Park. Mr. Spalding asked if they are contemplating any additional sites in North Olmsted. Mr. Sindyla indicated he cannot really speak to that but they do have North Olmsted covered fairly well. He introduced John McCloskey, their engineer. Mr. McCloskey indicated they do not have any current plans for additional sites. He said technology is always changing and if there is a need for another tower in the future, they would come before the board for permission, but he does not see anything in the foreseeable future to warrant that. Mr. Spalding asked for confirmation of the height of the tower. Mr. Sindyla reiterated that it will be 160 feet. He pointed out that is due to FAA restrictions. He said O.D.O.T. requires that they build a tower of 190 feet on its properties but because of FAA rules, they can only go to 160 feet. Mrs. O'Rourke asked if the fence will be locked. Mr. Sinclyla replied it will be locked and there are actually two fences, which will restrict access to the site. Mr. Spalding asked if any audience members have questions. There were no audience questions or comments. Mr. Conway indicated the Planning Commission should direct the proposal to the Architectural Review Board for the issues of landscaping and fencing. He asked if Mr. O'Malley has any objection to the board approving the proposal pending approval of the Architectural Review Board. He said he believes if the board has no further questions and the Architectural Review Board has no issues, the proposal could go on to the Board of Zoning and Development. Mr. O'Malley said if the Architectural Review Board raises issues that result in the proposal coming back to this board that is fine, but otherwise it can go to the Architectural Review Board and then Council. W. Spalding made a motion to recommenci the approval of the T-Mobile proposal with the conditions attached that the Engineering Department provided to the board, and that the matter go before the Architectural Review Board. The motion was seconded by J. Lasko and unanimously approved. Mrs. Kilbine announced that the Architectural Review Board will be meeting on April 16th at 5:30 and no further notices will be sent out. Mr. Spalding indicated the proposal would then go before the Board of Zoning and Development. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1. Lot Sqlit plat for pominic Ruccella, of 6691 Stearns Road The proposal is to split Permanent Parcel Number 234-23-010 (3.2413 acres) into two parcels. The first parcel will be 2.9864 acres, and the second parcel will be 0.2549 acre (or 11,103 sq. ft.). The location is on the east side of Stearns Road and approximately 500 feet south of Interstate I-4890. Zoning is B, Residence, Single. The existing parcel conforms to depth, frontage and area requirements of the Zoning Code. 2