Loading...
2010-04-07 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 04/07/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 7, 2010 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:36 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Weinstein Also present: Mr. Mike Howley, Insite Inc. Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. Bill Brimm, Village Manager Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the public hearing of February 17, 2010. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 17, 2010. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 3, 2010. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Ottenheimer, Teplinsky and Cohn abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Stark attended the Village Board meeting on March 8, 2010 where the board approved the ordinance amending a special use in the Industrial District for Kids & Company. Also the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance concerning child day care homes will be referred back to the Plan Commission. One of the issues was they felt we need more concrete criteria in terms of distance between in home day care facilities. They also approved re-authorization of a child day care home at 621 Harris Drive. They also approved the ordinance approving a special use for a child day care home at 47 Chestnut Terrace. Chairman Ottenheimer reported on the Village Board meeting on April 5, 2010 attended by Commissioner Weinstein who stated no matters involving the Plan Commission were brought up to report. Commissioner Myer stated she attended the Village Board meeting on March 22, 2010 and there was nothing referred to the Plan Commission. T-MOBILE, PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE BUFFALO GROVE GOLF COURSE, 48 RAUPP BOULEVARD-SPECIAL USE IN THE R-4 DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend to the Village Board approval of the petition for a special use in the R-4 District for a telecommunications antenna and tower at a height of 120 feet and a ground level equipment shelter pursuant to Chapter 17.34 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner requests the following variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. to allow the tower to exceed the building height standard of 35 feet in the R-4 District; Fence Code — Section 15.20.040 to allow fencing 8 feet in height to screen the communications equipment shelter and the refuse containers serving the restaurant and clubhouse pursuant to the proposed design using a rolling gate to screen the dumpsters at the present location and the proposed tower being a gray monopole structure installed by T-Mobile and designed to enable collocation by additional providers of cellular communication services, subject to: Petitioner's compliance with the requirements of Section 17.34.040 of the Village Zoning Ordinance Commissioner Cohn stated he is making a motion that the petitioner be asked to complete its application and the Plan Commission have an opportunity to review the entire application before the matter is referred to the Board, specifically addressing the entirety of ordinance 17.34.04 including the items after Item A which includes specific criteria that were established for cell phone tower proposals. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the motion is to continue the meeting and not make a referral tonight. He asked if there is a second. There was no second. Commissioner Cohn stated he feels very strongly about this because the Plan Commission spent a lot of time working on this ordinance and these are important matters such as the issue identified this evening by a member of the public relative to compatibility with adjacent buildings, structures and land use. All these matters put into the ordinance years ago were designed for the Plan Commission to view and if we just make it subject to this ordinance instead of considering these criteria in the ordinance itself we are abdicating our role as a Plan Commission which is to advise the Board instead of giving the Board the opportunity to do the entire thing without the Plan Commission evaluating the criteria ourselves. That is our role as a Plan Commission and he feels the entirety of all the criteria of the ordinance beyond just a special use criteria which are incorporated by provision A is the job of the Plan Commission who should be doing that and giving it to the Board to make a decision. He stated he feels more strongly about this than many things during his five years on the Commission. He urged the Commissioners to join him and support this motion to continue this matter one more time. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there was a second. Chairman Teplinsky seconded the motion. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he understood Commissioner Cohn's thoughts. However, he feels that the Plan Commission has certainly addressed many of the issues already. There are several things in this section of the zoning ordinance that are not in the Plan Commission's purview to consider but are subject to petitioner compliance. For example, providing a cash bond or letter of credit to the Village equivalent to 125 percent of the sum of the estimated cost of maintenance etc. He does not agree that the Plan Commission is abdicating its responsibilities at all by considering and voting on this recommendation. Commissioner Bocek asked if perhaps there are specific questions that could be asked of the petitioner that would make Commissioner Cohn feel better versus having it in a written application. Commissioner Cohn stated the issue he has is that there are specific criteria that require written documentation. He stated we are supposed to see written documentation identifying any adverse environmental effects before making a decision. We are supposed to see written documentation that the facility will not interfere with existing communication transmissions. Some of these criteria are beyond just asking questions. He noted he does feel many of these questions have been addressed in the workshops but the language here requiring written documentation was put in for us to have this information before we make a decision. He stated he does not want to short circuit the process here which requires providing written documentation before he makes a decision. Commissioner Cohn stated perhaps the applicant should submit the written documentation that is provided here to us and we can vote at the next regular meeting without a continuation of the hearing. That way the petitioner would not have the burden of presenting another oral presentation. He can just provide the written documentation to the Village and two weeks from now we can have a vote during our regular meeting. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he is not sure based on his reading of the zoning requirements of 17.34.040 that all of these things are within the purview of the Plan Commission's consideration. It says the requirement is to submit certain written documentation to the Village but it does not necessarily require that the Plan Commission review the written submissions. Therefore he is not even sure that is part of the deliberation for the Plan Commission. Commissioner Teplinsky noted his motion is subject to the petitioner complying with submitting the written documentation. Commissioner Cohn stated he wished to amend his motion by withdrawing his existing motion and amend it to asking the petitioner to submit the written documentation. One of these criteria clearly fits in with what typically the Plan Commission considers which is environmental facts. He amends his motion to be that instead of voting this evening on the referral we just ask that the written documentation be submitted and we vote in two weeks. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there was a second to that motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky. Mr. Raysa asked which motion is under consideration. Chairman Ottenheimer stated we are on Commissioner's Cohn's motion to amend his motion. Mr. Raysa stated he thought there was a main motion on the floor. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that was correct and Commissioner Cohn moved to amend that motion. Mr. Raysa stated Commissioner Cohn made an independent motion. If he had a motion to amend the main motion and it had a second and there was a vote called on the amendment then he could continue. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Commission had missed a step. Mr. Raysa stated Commissioner Cohn could move to amend the main motion; if he receives a second then it could proceed. He noted Commissioner Cohn had two subsequent motions on the floor that were out of order. Commissioner Cohn stated he wanted to amend the motion made by Commissioner Teplinsky as follows: Defer voting this evening and vote at the next scheduled meeting after the applicant has submitted the written documentation required under Section 17.34.04 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Raysa noted that was a motion to amend and if it receives a second and a vote and is in favor or the negative and receives a majority vote then the main motion is amended. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there has been a motion to amend the original main motion and asked for a second. There was no second and Chairman Ottenheimer stated the motion fails. Commissioner Bocek wanted to make a clarification on the enclosure that it accommodates all three carriers as designed with the gate. She stated that is a motion to amend the motion. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there has been a motion to amend the motion to include language regarding the capability of the enclosure having three carriers as well as the appropriate gate. Commissioner Myer seconded this motion. Commissioner Teplinsky noted the original motion was that the proposed tower would be a monopole structure and is designed to enable collocation by additional providers of cellular communication services. He stated he is not sure that changing the motion is necessary. Commissioner Bocek withdrew her motion to amend. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Teplinsky, Stark, Myer, Ottenheimer NAYS: Cohn ABSENT: Khan, Weinstein ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 6 to 1. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next regular meeting will be May 5, 2010. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Myer and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 04/07/2010 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 7, 2010 T-Mobile proposed telecommunications tower at the Buffalo Grove Golf Course, 48 Raupp Boulevard— Special use in the R-4 District Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Weinstein Also present: Mr. Mike Howley, Insite, Inc. Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Martin Sussman The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Propagation exhibit of existing state of coverage for T-Mobile Exhibit 2: Map of depicting improved RF coverage with proposed tower facility Exhibit 3: Map showing proximity of this site to nearest residential Group Exhibit 4: Photo simulations of proposed tower and surrounding sites Exhibit 5: Dumpster area at golf club Exhibit 6: Photo of second view of dumpster area Exhibit 7: Ground option of wood fence surrounding pole Exhibit 8: Site plan and tower elevations dated March 23, 2010 by W-T Communication Design Group Exhibit 9: Memo from Mr. Pfeil to Plan Commission dated April 2, 2010 Mr. Mike Howley stated that he represents T-Mobile regarding the special use request for the proposed 120 foot cell tower to the north of the Village Hall at the golf course facility. He reviewed some of the coverage maps showing a need for improved coverage for T-Mobile subscribers in this area. He noted there are more people relying on wireless phones for residential use, home use and office use and that is where T-Mobile is running into difficulties. He stated this site would be a win situation for the Village, T-Mobile and residents of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Howley reviewed a map showing the improvement of wireless service if this site is served by a 120 foot tower. He stated the nearest residential building is on the south side of Lake Cook Road at about 600 feet away from the proposed tower. The next nearest residential is northeast of the site and across a considerable amount of golf course property with a significant number of trees. He noted this is an excellent site from an aesthetic standpoint because of these factors. Mr. Howley stated they have two sets of site plans. The elevations pages are no different but they have the two different sets of ground depictions. One is with the rolling swing gate and the other is with the cedar corral around the dumpster. He noted T-Mobile's lease area in both Option 1 and Option 2 remains the same and depends on how the Village would like the area designed. Mr. Howley noted several issues that need to be addressed including the color of the tower. White and gray are the two most popular colors for towers since they tend to make the structure blend in with the surrounding area. The other that has been discussed relates to the proposed ground area next to the clubhouse. The type of screening for the dumpsters needs to be determined. Option 1 is a board-on-board fence 8 feet in height to enclose the T-Mobile lease area so that the ground equipment at the base of the tower would not be visible and provide a corral for the dumpters within this area. The potential concern is accommodating the ground equipment for a second wireless carrier on the tower. It is probable that the dumpsters would then have to be moved. Mr. Howley noted that Option 2 for the dumpster area is a rolling gate to screen the present location on the pavement west of the restaurant/clubhouse. Mr. Howley asked that the application for the special use be entered into the record. He noted the special use standards of the Zoning Ordinance have been addressed in the application and the narrative has answered each of the special use criteria. Commissioner Bocek asked the petitioner to review the phone service coverage maps. Mr. Howley did so. Commissioner Bocek noted there did not appear to be much difference from a service perspective between a 100 foot tower and a 120 foot tower. Mr. Howley stated that was correct. He stated T-Mobile would be happy with 100 feet in this area and the premier height would be 120 feet. The other factor was for the Village to maximize potential revenue with future collocators then 120 feet would be of greater benefit. Commissioner Bocek asked if the board on board fence would simply block the visibility of the dumpsters but it will not surround the base component of the tower. Mr. Howley stated the 13x26 foot lease area would be completely fenced in with an 8 foot board on board cedar fence which would include the tower base and the T-Mobile ground equipment. Commissioner Bocek asked what the wire fence was for then. Mr. Howley noted that was a suggestion by Village staff as an alternative to putting fencing around the existing dumpsters based upon operations at the clubhouse. Commissioner Bocek stated her only concern would be the operational efficiency for the club and restaurant. She noted there has to be easy access to the dumpsters and she is not sure if the aesthetic portion outweighs the operational portion of that. Mr. Howley noted that T-Mobile does not have a preference one way or another. He noted they are just trying to work with Village staff on what would provide the most attractive appearance for the ground area. He stated if the Commission does not favor chain link fence for the gate, wood could be used. However, if wood is used, the gate may need to be in two sections with a swing gate of approximately 15 to 18 feet. Commissioner Teplinsky asked which option would have the least impact on the refuse collector's ability to access the dumpsters. Mr. Pfeil said the option of keeping the dumpsters in the current location and using a gate is probably the best choice in terms of access for the refuse collector. The Director of Golf also prefers this design. Other options put the dumpsters farther away, and staff thinks the gate provides efficient access. Commissioner Teplinsky said he prefers the gate option. He asked what happens if another carrier collocates on the site. Mr. Howley noted he can envision T-Mobile putting up the fence and within months it would need to be ripped down when a collocator comes along. Commissioner Cohn stated the Village ordinance has other requirements besides the six criteria for a special use. He noted that Section 17.34.040 has a list of general requirements, one of which states the petitioner shall provide the Village with an inventory of existing towers, location heights, service coverage area and capacity. Another requirement is written documentation concerning the need for the facility at the proposed location and contribution to the service area. Also it requires written documentation about FCC regulations and environmental affects as well as written documentation that it will not interfere with any existing communication transmissions. He asked the petitioner if these were part of the application. Mr. Howley replied that the responses to the special use criteria in the zoning application were intended to cover these items. Commissioner Cohn asked if specific responses to these items need to be submitted for the zoning application to be complete, and can a decision regarding the special use be made before the application is complete. Mr. Raysa stated the Commission's recommendation concerning the special use can be made subject to submittal of any items in the application that are considered incomplete. Commissioner Cohn stated he feels we can go through the process of everything tonight but no recommendation should be made until these items are submitted. He noted there is a lot of information that should be provided as part of the application and be part of the deliberations. Mr. Martin Sussman asked if the proposal contained any kind of microwave technology. Mr. Howley stated no. Mr. Sussman noted there is a 130 foot tower adjacent to Village Hall, and he asked why it is now necessary to build a 120 foot tower about 150 feet away, as it seems the existing tower could be used. Mr. Howley stated that looking at the Village's tower, it is structurally inadequate to accommodate T-Mobile or any wireless carrier's antennas. There is a wind loading factor on the panel antennas used by wireless carriers and the type of equipment on this tower are just long whip antennas with very little wind loading effect. Mr. Sussman asked if the Village considered providing space for wireless carriers when the Village tower was designed. Mr. Pfeil commented that when T-Mobile first indicated interest in a site near the Village campus, staff did talk to the director of the Village Emergency Management Agency (EMA). Combining the Village's communication needs with private commercial carriers was determined to be infeasible. EMA needed to move ahead quickly since essential emergency communications had to be restored after failure of various equipment mounted on the roof of Village Hall. The Village tower is engineered to accommodate various antennas for emergency communications; it is not designed to handle commercial wireless carriers. Mr. Sussman inquired if the Village tower could be enhanced to accommodate T-Mobile's equipment. Mr. Pfeil commented that this would be cost-prohibitive. He noted that the Village made a substantial investment in the tower for emergency communications serving the Village and other agencies. Trustee Sussman referred back to the in building coverage map noting it would appear it was not as much coverage as originally without improvements. Mr. Howley stated he had asked his engineers to concentrate on the current UNITS coverage which is T-Mobile voice and data services provided on the smart phones. He had asked them to give him a more focused coverage map which is the UNITS map which is a truer and more accurate depiction of its wireless service. Commissioner Smith asked which residents received notice of this hearing. Mr. Pfeil replied that notice was sent to everyone adjacent to the east which included the Manchester Greens neighborhood, the neighborhoods directly south across Lake Cook Road, and the residential properties to the north along Old Checker Road. Property owners in the Buffalo Grove Business Park also received notice of the hearing. Commissioner Smith asked if there had been any responses. Mr. Pfeil said he has not received any calls or written communications of any kind. Chairman Ottenheimer asked the Commission if they have a preference for the enclosure. Commissioner Smith stated he likes the swing gate but asked if there could be a plan drawn for the eventuality of a collocator. Mr. Howley stated carriers generally request ample ground space. The dumpsters would have to be moved around somewhere and that would be an issue to be addressed at some point in the future. The third carrier on the tower would probably start to come close to impacting the swing gate area. He pointed out the area most likely to be impacted with a third carrier that would go beyond the swing gate and that would need to be worked out. Commissioner Stark asked for a review of the photo showing gates and how they would operate. Mr. Howley noted the third carrier would have to work closely with the Plan Commission and Village staff as to how to properly design the third carrier's lease area. Commissioner Teplinsky stated if we are going to approve a 120 foot tower it is because we have a desire to have more carriers locate on the tower. What we proposing seems to be for only T-Mobile and one other carrier which causes him to be somewhat conflicted. He noted we should probably be planning something consistent with the fact that we are building a 120 foot tower for more than just one or two carriers. Mr. Howley stated a third carrier does not need to be right next to the tower but he does not know what space is invaluable to the Village. There is a certain distance where the coaxial cable runs from the radios to the tower and they just become too long and it distorts the quality of the signal. In the area depicted a third carrier could place their equipment just about anywhere and they would just have an understanding that it would be a little longer than the first two carriers. Commissioner Bocek noted the site plan shows landscaping to be removed and new to be added and asked for information on that. Mr. Howley noted all new arborvitae all along the north side of the fence or any kind of vegetation the Village would prefer. He noted there would be a need to remove some of the high arborvitae plants near the tower and they would be replaced with the fencing and then the north side of the fence would be landscaped with new arborvitae. Commissioner Bocek noted from a practical perspective the swinging gate seems to be the most effective. However, she would prefer to figure out now how everything would be designed if there are three carriers. She stated the gate enclosure should be designed to accommodate all three carriers and a decision made for the dumpsters. Mr. Pfeil noted that the other carriers could place their equipment to the west of the T-Mobile equipment cabinet. Staff thinks the dumpsters can stay on the current paved area, and the swing gate would provide screening. Commissioner Cohn stated he is not ready to vote tonight. He further noted it might be nice to hear from the restaurant operator. He also feels it is necessary to make sure that the 120 foot tower is specifically designed to accommodate three carriers which he is not convinced of as yet. He further noted concern with the fact that the entirety of the ordinance requirements has not yet been addressed. Commissioner Ottenheimer noted that the color of the tower needs to be discussed. Commissioner Smith asked about the white tower and what kind of wear and tear a painted tower receives. Mr. Howley stated they typically hold up well; a painted tower may need to be re-painted within 5 to 10 years. Commissioner Stark stated he would prefer the gray. Commissioner Bocek concurred. Commissioner Teplinsky asked who is responsible to maintain the tower when repairs or other treatment is needed. Mr. Howley stated it would be the carrier's job. Mr. Raysa noted the written answers to the criteria for special use are in the package identified as Exhibit 7. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair