Loading...
2010-03-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/03/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 3, 2010 T-Mobile, proposed telecommunications tower at the Buffalo Grove Golf Course, 48 Raupp Boulevard— Special Use in the R-4 District Workshop #2 Village Zoning Map—Annual Review Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 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. Khan Mr. Stark Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Mike Howley, Insite, Inc. Mr. Sanjay Jaisingani, T-Mobile Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Villager Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on March 1, 2010 stating there were no referrals to the Plan Commission. However, the eSkape petition was approved by the board. T-MOBILE, PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE BUFFALO GROVE GOLF COURSE, 48 RAUPP BOULEVARD — SPECIAL USE IN THE R-4 DISTRICT — WORKSHOP 92 Mr. Howley noted there were some suggestions from the Commissioners at the last meeting that he followed up on. He reviewed the balloon test they were able to do to give a better sense of exactly what the height of the proposed tower would be at this particular location. He presented and reviewed various views of a 100 and 120 foot tower. Mr. Howley further stated he had taken some photos of the corral. There had been some discussion regarding the exposed dumpsters. He noted that directly west of the tower at T-Mobile's use area they propose a 13 X 26 foot space where they would put the dumpsters within a board on board fenced area. This would make the area look a lot cleaner. He further noted he felt the board wanted to go in the direction of trying to encourage getting additional carriers and therefore where the existing dumpsters are depicted to the west of the T-Mobile site would be a very good location for a second and even a third carrier's ground equipment. There is an area directly west where there are three parking spaces which could potentially be a location for the dumpsters. He stated it is somewhat too early in the process to decide as yet. Mr. Howley discussed the coverage maps and reviewed the coverage would be if the site was constructed at the 120 foot level and 100 foot level as well as the 75 foot level. Mr. Howley reviewed the drive test data which has a radio frequency monitoring device where they drive around the streets and it indicates the level of coverage. Directly south of the proposed site and a little bit to the residential area to the north and east, the coverage level is depicted and not very good. A good portion of the area around Lake-Cook Road and the residential area to the south is where T-Mobile subscribers will not have reliable coverage for home use. The meeting was taken over by Acting Chair Smith at this point. Commissioner Stark asked if the net profit to the Village would be the same for three carriers or one carrier. Mr. Howley noted at the Vernon Hills site has the Village receiving $2,000 per month with rent increasing annually by 3 percent. The way that deal is structured is that Vernon Hills owns that tower. In that particular case, anyone wishing to collocate on the tower after the tower is constructed would have to enter another lease agreement with the Village. T-Mobile is receiving rent abatement for those deals because of their construction costs associated with it and because they no longer own the tower. With the Village here what was discussed was either owning the tower by the Village or not in which case the Village could have the rights to any additional ground leases. In dealing with municipalities around Chicago he noted the more common situation is where a municipality chooses not to own the tower. In a case where they choose not to own the tower each additional collocator would have to enter a ground lease with the Village. Commissioner Stark noted asked about the different coverage affects on the maps. Mr. Jaisingani stated it is a phenomenon they refer to as tunneling. The signal is very much like any other wave it encounters and is severely attenuated. When there is an unimpeded view such as along Lake Cook Road and it goes on and on forever. Commissioner Bocek noted at the last meeting they had discussed the different heights as far as reception and amount of providers that could be collocators. She asked for an explanation in order to understand why 100 foot or 120 foot would be better with regard to those different options. Mr. Jaisingani stated the trade offs here are between coverage versus height. The taller the tower the further the waves can travel. When this site was conceived and looking at the existing area it was determined that 120 foot tower would be almost ideal to provide seamless and solid coverage in residential areas. Ideal coverage means there is just enough of an overlap with the coverage from the neighboring site so that when the signal gets weaker from one site it is handed over to the next site. That is why the 120 foot tower was chosen. Commissioner Bocek asked how the different heights affect the number of collocators who could share the tower. Mr. Jaisingani stated since this is almost a mature network you do not have to go that far. You are only looking at about a mile or a mile and a half for coverage. Therefore, going really tall has the effect that the users on the fringe of the coverage would have degraded service. Mr. Jaisingani stated this is a proposal for a stealth tower. In this situation collocation becomes a bit of a problem. It depends on what the first carrier on the tower uses in terms of hardware. There have to be coaxial cables that run from the bottom of the tower all the way up. The possibility of collocation goes down with a shorter tower. The height available for the next collocator may not work for them. In stealth towers you must reconcile space inside the tower and then the height inside the tower whereas in standard towers with everything is on platform level it is more convenient for collocation. In this instance T-Mobile will require two levels of antennas which will leave less room for the next person. Commissioner Bocek asked how many people could be on a 100, 110 and 120 foot tower. Mr. Jaisingani stated a 100 foot stealth tower really means 97 or 96 feet. If you use two levels then you will use everything from the top to about 80 feet for one carrier. The next person has to evaluate their coverage at about 75 feet. It then depends on the particular needs of a carrier. If they choose to go with two levels you are then pretty much down to 60 feet by the time they are done. Commissioner Bocek noted that there then is really only the possibility of one and maybe two carriers with a 100 foot stealth tower. Mr. Howley stated for purposes of a standard monopole versus a stealth pole you would be looking at generally each carrier taking up 20 feet. On a standard monopole you could have one carrier and then every the ability to get a carrier every 10 feet. Whereas, each carrier on a stealth pole has a likely need for two sets of antennas and will be taking up 20 feet each. Commissioner Bocek asked about the need for additional room for ground equipment. Mr. Howley stated each carrier needs to place its cabinets on the ground. Inside those outdoor cabinets are the radios that control the transmission of the antennas. From those radios you have thick coaxial cable that runs from where the ground equipment is up inside the tower up to where the antennas are. Mr. Howley noted the cabinets are usually enclosed by a board on board cedar fence with whatever type of landscaping is required by the jurisdiction. In this case there has also been discussion of building additional fencing gates and such. Commissioner Bocek noted she thought there would also be an appearance review as a part of this meeting. Mr. Pfeil stated he did not try to organize the appearance review for tonight's meeting. If it would go to public hearing he would get all the documentation from Mr. Howley for the ground level improvements. Then the appearance review could be done either at the hearing or at a separate meeting that night. The Commission appeared comfortable with the whole Commission handling the appearance review. Commissioner Stark asked if there is any kind of issue with a special kind of flag if we go with the stealth tower. Mr. Howley stated a flag would not interfere with the transmission. Commissioner Weinstein asked if the pad on the ground would not be adequate if there are collocators and would need to be expanded. Mr. Howley stated that is correct. What is currently proposed is a 13 X 25 foot T-Mobile lease area that includes T-Mobile's equipment and the tower. Immediately to the west of that are the dumpsters which are also in an area of approximately 13 X 26 feet which they were going to propose putting in the wood fence with a gate to shield them from view. If the board chooses and wants to pursue an additional carrier or two the best location for the next carrier's ground equipment would actually be where the current dumpsters are. In that case they could look to moving the current dumpsters and putting a fenced corral around whatever location is chosen. Commissioner Weinstein asked if all carriers will need a 15 X 25 area. Mr. Howley stated on average carriers could get by with about 200 square feet which is 10 X 20 feet. Commissioner Weinstein stated he is indifferent to a stealth pole and it does not seem to be of that much benefit to the site especially in terms of additional collocators. If we are going to look at collocators being a factor in this he would prefer the 100 foot monopole. Mr. Howley stated this site has a nice mature group of pine trees directly to the south of this area and there is a fair portion of the base of the tower and bottom part of the tower that will be completely shielded. Commissioner Myer stated she also supports a monopole. She noted it was her interpretation that going below 120 feet the opportunities for additional collocators is diminished. She stated if that statement is true then it would seem that a monopole at 120 feet would be most appropriate and asked for confirmation of that. Mr. Howley noted that if this Commission wanted to go with a stealth pole he would suggest 120 feet which would be more likely to bring in collocators. If you go with a monopole you could probably go with a 100 foot pole and get the same number of collocators. Mr. Jaisingani stated the challenge with the stealth poles is there are two things to contend with. You have antennas that may require two levels and co-axial cables that are sizeable inside the pole. Those coaxial cables are directly proportional to the capacity of the site. Also, the separation between the two antennas allows the signal coming into the tower from various customers to be combined and strengthened. That works when the antennas are on the same plane and not on different levels. Mr. Howley noted that Mr. Jaisingani basically stated that a second carrier would rather have a 100 foot standard monopole than a 120 foot stealth flag pole. Commissioner Myer stated she had originally thought a 120 monopole could have as many as 2-3 carriers. If you drop down to 100 feet then the potentially was more likely to be 2 carriers. Mr. Howley stated that was accurate. Commissioner Myer further noted the 120 foot ideal maximizes the coverage and the lower you go the coverage is not as great. Mr. Howley stated that is all conditioned on where other sites are in relation to that particular carrier's network. Commissioner Khan stated with two carriers the Village can probably realize a profit of about $70,000 per year and with three carriers it may be about $100,000 per years. He stated that is not a bad deal for this kind of economy. In terms of the proposed location he stated he is not as concerned with the difference between a 110 and 120 foot pole. He is more interested in what height will maximize the coverage and what height will bring more revenue to the Village. He stated he would not oppose a standard pole of 120 feet which may potentially house three carriers. Vice Chair Smith noted he did not think Mr. Howley felt three carriers on a standard monopole would be likely. Mr. Howley stated there would be a pretty good likelihood of that. Vice Chair Smith asked if there have been inquiries from other companies regarding collocation. Mr. Pfeil said that both Cricket and Clearwire have added antennas to existing towers. The Commission agreed to schedule a public hearing, including appearance review. Commissioner Weinstein stated if there is a big difference in the ability to collocate on a 120 foot monopole and a 100 foot monopole then he would vote for the 120 foot monopole. Commissioner Myer agreed that the 120 foot monopole due to the revenue maximization issues for the Village is something she would support. Commissioner Bocek noted she would like to know how tall the trees are. If it is not visible she would be alright with 120 feet. Commissioner Khan stated he is in favor of a 120 foot monopole. Commissioner Stark stated he feels the appearance of a 120 stealth flag pole will actually add something nice to the middle of the Village. Commissioner Myer noted flags are made to be replaced on an annual basis plus there are some additional concerns about lighting and expense. Trustee Grover asked if this would interfere with the yearly fireworks in any way. Mr. Pfeil said he would check with Mr. Molinaro, but so far no concerns have been noted. Trustee Glover noted she has been told by park district personnel that the District receives substantial lease revenue from the carriers using the tower at Busch Grove Park. Commissioner Weinstein stated that by having to consider the ability for other companies to come and collocate we are inherently being charged with considering the revenue issue. VILLAGE ZONING MAP—ANNUAL REVIEW Mr. Pfeil commented that there were not a lot of changes to the map as far as delineating the boundaries of the zoning districts. The Prairie House on Main street north of Route 22 was the only new zoning district added in 2010. The other map changes were special uses for child day care homes in residential districts and several recreation and outside storage uses in the Industrial District. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would probably be April 7. 2010. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried unanimously to adjourn. Vice Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Acting Chair