Loading...
2010-02-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/17/2010 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION February 17, 2010 Special use in the R-5A District for a Child Day Care Home 554 Patton Drive Vice Chairman Smith 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. Vice Chairman Smith 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: Vice Chairman Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Also present: Ms. Dorota Majewska Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Brian Sheehan, Village Health Inspector Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Memo from Mr. Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated February 12, 2010 Ms. Majewska stated she hopes to open a home day care for a maximum of eight children. She feels she may really not have more than five children. She stated she is waiting for her license now. She stated she is a teacher with 15 years of experience and still teaches in Buffalo Grove at a private Polish school. Vice Chairman Smith asked the petitioner to address the special use criteria. Ms. Majewska stated the only thing left for her is to finish the fence. Commissioner Bocek noted a neighbor requested that the day care be only on weekdays and not weekends and the hours of operation be limited to no later than 6:00 p.m. She asked if there was any obj ection to that. Ms. Majewska stated 6:00 p.m. is fine. Commissioner Bocek noted the application is not to exceed eight children so more than that would not be allowed. Ms. Majewska stated she understood that. Commissioner Teplinsky asked who would operate the day care center. Ms. Majewska stated she will operate the day care and if she gets more than five children she will get help from a neighbor. Commissioner Teplinsky asked about the petitioner still teaching in a private school. Ms. Majewska it is only on Saturday morning. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petitioner owns the home at 554 Patton Drive. Ms. Majewska stated yes, noting she has lived there for five years. Commissioner Teplinsky asked what the youngest age child would be cared for. Ms. Majewska stated she believes the youngest will be 12 months, Commissioner Teplinsky asked who else lives in the house. Ms. Majewska stated her husband lives there as well as her 21 year old son and another 12 year old son. Commissioner Teplinsky asked how many cars she has and where they are parked. Ms. Majewska stated they have three cars parked on the driveway and their garage holds two cars. Commissioner Myer noted she is concerned about traffic congestion on the street and asked how big the garage is and how many cars could be parked on the driveway. Ms. Majewska noted they could probably park at least five cars on the driveway because their garage is in the backyard. Commissioner Stark asked if the Fire Department's request for certain improvements in the house have been taken care of. Ms. Majewska stated yes and noted the fence will be finished very shortly. Commissioner Stark asked if the petitioner was watching any children now. Ms. Majewska stated no. Commissioner Myer asked about a dog in the home. Ms. Majewska stated yes they have a 4 pound dog in the home. Commissioner Myer asked if the pet will be contained during the time day services are provided. Ms. Majewska noted the day care will be on one level and the rest of the house will be private. Commissioner Weinstein asked what time the day care would open in the morning. Ms. Majewska stated she is not sure right now but does not believe it would be any earlier than 7:00 a.m. It will be depend somewhat on her clients. Commissioner Weinstein asked the petitioner if she would accept no earlier than 7:00 a.m. Ms. Majewska stated yes. Commissioner Weinstein asked if the neighbor who may help out would be driving over or walking over. Ms. Majewska stated she is three houses away and would walk over. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petitioner was familiar with the day care home at 365 Stillwell Drive. Ms. Majewska stated no. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if anyone had ever told the petitioner that there is a licensed day care home in the neighborhood. Ms. Majewska stated no. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petitioner has ever seen any cars dropping off or picking up children from there. Ms. Majewska stated she once saw a woman with two children but she thought it was just a visit to a grandmother or something like that. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the petitioner had spoken to her neighbors about this request. Ms. Majewska stated yes, although not to all the neighbors. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there had been any objections to this day care facility. Ms. Majewska stated no and they have said it is OK. Commissioner Stark noted the garage is detached and in the back of the house and asked how many cars could be housed on the driveway. Ms. Majewska stated she can park at least another two cars across the garage. Mr. Sheehan noted they will need to go back to do a final inspection. Commissioner Teplinsky asked Mr. Sheehan if he had any concerns about the garage and the driveway in the backyard where kids may potentially be playing. Mr. Sheehan stated the fence will go on the house side of the driveway and the fence blocks off the yard from the driveway. There is also a gate which will have a self latch so the kids will be contained. Vice Chairman Smith noted the six special use criteria and went over them with the petitioner. First, the special use will serve the public convenience at the location of the property or the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. Ms. Majewska stated that is true. Second, the location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with said special use, the size of the subject property in relation to this use, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the district in which it is located. Ms. Majewska stated it would be in harmony. Third, the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Ms. Majewska stated that was correct. Fourth, the nature, location and size of the buildings or structures involved with the establishment of the special use will not impede, hinder or discourage the development use of adjacent land and buildings. Ms. Majewska stated that was correct. Fifth, Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been provided. Vice Chairman Smith noted they already exist. Sixth, parking areas shall be of adequate size for the particular special use. Ms. Majewska stated yes. Mr. Jeff Littlefield, 435 Hawthorn Road, noted the house in question has already had a variance at the time the house was built since it was put in sideways. Consequently the distance between the subject home and his home is technically not in compliance with the minimum standard. He stated his main concern is that occasionally his neighbors have used the limited space between the two houses as a walkway to get into the yard as it is more convenient. He would like to make sure that this area is not used for access to the rear yard. He does not want people walking back and forth, dropping off their children or things of that nature. He would prefer that use of the back yard be through the home or via the driveway entrance. He noted he and his wife have no real concerns about the use of the home as a day care but would like to make sure it is done during normal business hours Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Sheehan noted the area in the side will be fenced off without a gate so there is no access. Commissioner Weinstein asked where the proposed gate is located. Mr. Sheehan stated the gate is actually over by the patio where there is a set of stairs going down. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Vice Chairman Smith closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Vice Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/17/2010 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION February 17, 2010 Child Day care home, 554 Patton Drive— Special use in the R-5A District Discussion of Village Code of Behavior and Conduct and Village Ethics Act T-Mobile, proposed telecommunications tower at the Buffalo Grove Golf Course, 48 Raupp Boulevard— Special use in the R-4 District—Workshop #1 Vice Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Vice Chairman Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Also present: Ms. Dorota Majewska Mr. Mike Howley, Insite, Inc. Mr. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Brian Sheehan, Village Health Officer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes of the public hearing of December 16, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek, Khan, Stark and Myer abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 16, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners, Bocek, Khan, Stark and Myer abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on February 1, 2010 stating one of the trustees had noted that since development delay of Land & Lakes there is still composting going on which concerns her with regards to the ground water being potentially contaminated and odors prevailing. Village staff did mention that the health department has approved the condition and the trustees have advised staff to obtain the IEPA testing results over the past few years to confirm there are no issues. Commissioner Bocek further noted there was a referral to the Plan Commission for a driveway installation that was permitted at 21 feet wide at the apron but was installed at 25 feet. The board would like the Plan Commission's opinion. Also the T-Mobile communication tower at the golf course was referred. There are also about 4-5 parcels totaling about 25 acres on Industrial Drive which the Village is considering annexing. However, the presentation was tabled because two of the property owners are not necessarily interested in being annexed at this point so there is no point in talking about annexation as there is no sense of urgency. Commissioner Bocek also noted the public hearing was extended for the special use to add dance parties at eSkape. SPECIAL USE IN THE R-5A DISTRICT FOR A CHILD DAY CARE HOME, 554 PATTON DRIVE Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to recommend approval to the Village Board of a special use to operate a child day care home at 554 Patton Drive, a single-family detached home zoned in the R-5A Single Family Dwelling District, subj ect to: 1. That it only be used as a day care facility between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from Monday through Friday only 2. Village verifying that all necessary work required on the home has been completed 3. DCFS approval Vice Chairman Smith called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Myer, Weinstein NAYS: None ABSENT: Ottenheimer ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. T-MOBILE, PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE BUFFALO GROVE GOLF COURSE, 48 RAUPP BOULEVARD — SPECIAL USE IN THE R-4 DISTRICT — WORKSHOP#1 Commissioner Bocek noted the Trustees at the February 1, 2010 board meeting had requested that the communication tower be made as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Howley stated the trustees were very clear about the aesthetics of this proposal. He stated he has been working with staff regarding a standard monopole with flush mounted antennas which is probably no longer up for consideration. Mr. Howley noted the current proposal, given the guidance from the board, is a stealth flagpole design pole. He reviewed pictures of the pole which, of course, is quite visible, but noted the stealth nature of the pole is that the antennas normally seen on a standard monopole with the large triangular platform are not visible as they are actually encased in canisters. He reviewed pictures of stealth flagpoles in various areas. Mr. Howley noted one of the considerations is how high the pole should be with some consideration given to aesthetics and the likelihood of collocation. He noted it is the height of the pole that would be an important aspect as to whether an additional carrier would want to go inside the pole. With a 120 foot stealth flagpole proposal the fir 15-18 feet of the top of the tower would be for T-Mobile to house their antennas. Then there is a certain element of vertical separation so that the next carrier who wishes to collocate the antennas needs to be a certain distance away, generally 10 feet. That is when the next carrier's antennas may be housed. As far as that goes, T-Mobile is hopeful for 120 feet here but they would probably accept 100 foot stealth flagpole. The likelihood of a second carrier going on a 100 foot flagpole would be lessened if you went in that direction. Mr. Howley noted the option of having a flag on top of the pole as some park districts have opted for. Mr. Howley noted the pole is proposed directly west of the clubhouse. One of the things Village staff had suggested is that if the proposal moves forward T-Mobile come up with some kind of fencing design and landscape plan to spruce up the areas. They are proposing the tower and T-Mobile's equipment area which will be closest immediately adjacent to the west of the clubhouse be a 13 X 26 foot area with a board on board fence and by moving an additional 13 X 26 feet west where the dumpsters are, those are to be housed in a fenced in corral and there would be added landscaping on the north side and any other enhancements the Commission or staff cares to recommend. Vice Chairman Smith asked what the reason was for the need for a new pole. Mr. Howley is seeking improvement in coverage in this area. The coverage area here is to improve wireless service along Lake Cook Road and Buffalo Grove Road and also to improve the residential area to the south. He noted that what T-Mobile and all the carriers are trying to achieve is in building coverage. Commissioner Bocek asked if the purpose of the Plan Commission is to say we can or cannot have this or is the purpose to make it as least ugly as possible. Mr. Pfeil commented that a special use is requested, so the Plan Commission is charged with conducting the workshops and public hearing to review the petition and provide the appropriate forum for public comment. The review process includes the design and appearance of the tower. At the public hearing stage, all the appearance and zoning issues would have been evaluated and the Commission would a make a recommendation based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. Commissioner Bocek asked why this has not been an issue for all of these years. Mr. Howley stated in some respects it has and then the other part of the answer would be due to the economy. At the time all options had been exhausted from the standpoint of a site acquisition. When areas of coverage need arose again he came out again to see if there had been any change of heart and that is how they came to this proposal. Commissioner Bocek asked if they would be comfortable with a tower height of 100 feet. Mr. Howley stated the higher height would be nice but in this location due to the location of some of the other towers and neighboring sites the 100 foot is the minimum height needed here. The 120 foot would be if the Village was perhaps interested in getting a second collocator from a revenue standpoint. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if these coverage maps change with technology because there did not appear to be the need for the location being proposed now a few years ago. Mr. Howley stated the need was there a few years ago but there was no viable site at the time. Commissioner Teplinsky as if this is an actual working flagpole. Mr. Howley stated yes. Commissioner Cohn noted there is an ordinance on height and it says the petitioner shall demonstrate the antenna height is the minimum required. He asked if 100 feet the minimum or can it go down to 75 feet. Mr. Howley stated at some point the coverage benefit versus the costs of building the site and other business factors makes it questionable. Commissioner Cohn asked about the color of the flagpole. Mr. Howley stated most of the time it is usually a matter of preference of the various elected or appointed boards. Commissioner Cohn asked what the best opportunity would be for collocation. Mr. Howley stated the tower could be constructed for collocation almost regardless of height. The likelihood of another carrier going on is just because of the height factor. Commissioner Stark asked why T-Mobile would want their competitors on the same pole. Mr. Howley stated there is a surprisingly high level of cooperation both because of costs and zoning reasons. Commissioner Stark asked if it would be safe to assume that you could get the same number of collocators on a 120 foot tower as you can get on a 100 foot tower. Mr. Howley stated it is easier to get collocators onto standard monopole towers with the triangular platform. In the stealth tower the antennas are so encased in the canister each carrier basically needs two sets of antennas to make it worth their while. A stealth facility like this costs the carrier almost double or more than a traditional cell site. Obviously when you are coming into a certain geographic area where there are some sensitivities the carriers realize that this may be their only shot of getting a site and improving service in that area. Commissioner Stark asked how high the tower is at Busch Grove Park. Mr. Pfeil indicated that the tower is 120 feet. He noted it was intended for collocation, and this has occurred. Commissioner Weinstein asked what the heights are of the T-Mobile towers on the coverage map. Mr. Howley stated he can provide specifics for the next meeting. To the north they are 120 feet and the site almost immediately to the south and east is over 100 feet and further east of south Lake Cook is also 120 feet. Commissioner Myer asked if there is a specific numerical difference between the numbers of carriers that can be a 100 foot tower versus a 120 foot tower. Mr. Howley stated general each carrier would take up 15-20 feet of the tower. On a 120 foot tower the next carrier could probably get on the tower at about the 100 foot level. If you go with the 100 foot tower the next carrier would go on 80 feet. From his experience the likelihood of a carrier going on is diminished. Commissioner Myer asked if 120 feet the typical recommended height. Mr. Howley stated T-Mobile just did two 120 foot standard towers in Vernon Hills. On average these days many of the sites have been 110-120 feet. In some cases the municipality has requested more from the likelihood of added collocator standpoint. Commissioner Myer asked if there is an average metric used on the coverage map in terms of determining the adjacencies of various towers. Mr. Howley stated that is based on the heights of surrounding towers. Commissioner Teplinsky asked who will get notice of the public hearing. Mr. Pfeil said that there are very few residential properties within the 250—foot area where notice is required. He commented that the residential areas to the east, Manchester Greens, and the residential area south of Lake Cook will receive mail notice even though the residences are more than 250 feet from the parcel where the tower would be located. Commissioner Cohn noted that this proposal is close to Village Hall where all of our residents come to handle their business. There is more of a personal connection for residents with the Village property. Even though our ordinance does not require it, he would like to step up the notice procedure to make the public more aware of this proposal. Vice Chairman Smith asked if Mr. Howley represents other companies besides T-Mobile. He asked if he would know for a fact that there are other companies that would like to collocate on this. Mr. Howley stated he could send out notices or letters to company representatives to let them know that this is under consideration and ask if this would be of interest. Vice Chairman Smith asked if there have been other companies who have requested locations. Mr. Pfeil noted that within the last two years Cricket Communications and Clearwire have added antennas to various existing towers in the Village. Clearwire has expanded greatly in this market. He is not sure they would find this location useful since they are already fairly close, but there do appear to be carriers that have not built out their networks in the area. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he feels the location is ideal and the flag pole is a great idea. The only issue is balancing the heights versus the hope of attracting more carriers. He stated he would personally not oppose a 120 foot pole if it meant that we would have less of them in the Village. Commissioner Myer stated she concurs with Commissioner Teplinsky noting she likes the 120 foot height simply because it allows us the ability to have additional carriers and she has no problem with the proposed location. Commissioner Bocek stated she would like to hear from the radio frequency expert. She noted she wants to understand the benefits between a lower or higher pole. She noted it might be possible to have a small ART meeting after a quick workshop or perhaps combine them together. Mr. Pfeil stated that may be a good way to go here. Mr. Howley stated that would be fine. He did, however, note they would have a T-Mobile radio frequency engineer there and there would not be other carriers to talk of their needs. He would comment on largely only T-Mobile's needs and requirements. Commissioner Weinstein asked if the type of pole affects the number of carriers you can have on it. Mr. Howley stated the interest seems to dramatically improve when you are dealing with a standard monopole. To use Busch Park as an example it was about one month after the pole went up that Mr. Rylko started getting calls from other carriers. Commissioner Weinstein noted that the 120 foot stealth pole would only get one extra carrier. Mr. Howley stated with the 120 feet there would at least be a likelihood of a second carrier and a possibility for a third carrier. A standard monopole would probably increase the odds for that third carrier fairly significantly. There is no doubt that a standard monopole increases the likelihood of carriers. Commissioner Weinstein noted it might be worth looking at a 100 foot standard monopole at 100 feet versus 120 feet. Mr. Howley stated there is a better likelihood of future carriers on a 100 foot standard monopole than a 120 foot flag pole design. Commissioner Cohn asked what kind of issues came up with the Vernon Hills towers. He stated he sees that as the best analogy to look to now. Mr. Howley stated there are a lot of similarities. He stated they did go with a 100 foot standard monopole design on the west side of their Village Hall. They already have one carrier for sure and are in negotiations with a second carrier. The public works facility is presently under construction and it is also a 120 foot standard monopole design. He noted the stealth design was never a true consideration because the Village of Vernon Hills was working on a communication network with their microwave hops from the different municipal buildings so they actually needed a triangular platform for one of their microwaves to be affixed to the tower. That may have taken the stealth consideration out. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE CODE OF BEHAVIOR AND CONDUCT AND VILLAGE ETHICS ACT Mr. Raysa stated the Village of Buffalo Grove enacted two new pieces of legislation on December 14, 2009. He reviewed events that led up to the State passage of the State Officials and Employee Ethics Act. Mr. Raysa reviewed the provisions of the new Act and the consequences attached to any wrongdoing. Vice Chairman Smith asked where issues went before this new commission was created. Mr. Raysa stated most likely it would have been referred to him for review and he would then have brought it to the Corporate Authorities who would then have referred it to the States Attorney's office. Vice Chairman Smith asked what the advantage was for adding another layer. Mr. Raysa noted that now there is a citizen's group that now will take the fact finding process out of the Corporate Authorities realm to make it more transparent. Vice Chairman Smith asked if this has ever happened. Mr. Raysa it has never occurred as long as he has been here. Commissioner Cohn added the second benefit is deterrence. He noted the way it works now is a resident has to bring an issue to the Village and if deemed meritorious would then get referred to the commission. Mr. Raysa stated yes. Commissioner Cohn asked if there is an alternative way to do that. Mr. Raysa stated no. Commissioner Cohn noted that some residents do not want to speak up. They do not want to draw attention to themselves but they want something looked at. Mr. Raysa stated an anonymous complaint can still be brought to the Corporate Authorities. Trustee Glover noted that anyone can file an ethics complaint against any member of the Village Board or any member of the Village staff or any of the commissions. But everyone has a right to face their accusers. She stated she would not forward a complaint to the ethics commission anonymously. Commissioner Weinstein noted the complaint has to be in writing and signed with your name and address and notarized. If something comes in anonymously it is not even a valid complaint under the ordinance as drafted. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT -None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2010. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT Mr. Pfeil said he attended a bicycle planning workshop that was focused on helping local communities to establish or enhance bikepath systems. He noted that there are residents in the Village who are very interested in working to improve the bike path system. The Plan Commission will have a prominent role if the Village decides to draft a formal bike path plan. NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Myer, seconded by Commissioner Cohn and carried unanimously to adjourn. Vice Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Acting Chair