Loading...
2005-04-06 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 04/06/2005 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 6, 2005 Jacobs Homes —Proposed Whispering Lake Estates development South side of Aptakisic Road west of the JCYS facility 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. John Green, Groundworks, Ltd. Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Concept Site Plan B dated December 28, 2004 Exhibit 2: Concept Site Plan C dated January 3, 2005 Exhibit 3: Preliminary Site Plan, revised February 22, 2005 Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan dated March 30, 2005 Exhibit 5: Engineering Plan, revised dated March 11, 2005 Exhibit 6: Floor Elevations of Hidden Lake Estates, Units A, B and C Exhibit 7: Memo from Robert Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated April 1, 2005 Mr. Lawrence Freedman stated Jacobs Homes is the contract purchaser of the subject property which is approximately 8 '/z acres on the south side of Aptakisic Road west of the JCYS. Mr. John Green stated they have had two previous workshops on this proposal. In the course of those workshops a number of elements have been changed, modified or adjusted within the plan. He noted they are presenting a proposal for 8 '/z acres of which approximately an additional .4 or .5 acres will need to be dedicated in order to create the appropriate right of way into the future for Aptakisic Road. Mr. Green stated they are presenting a straight R-4, single family development in accordance with the R-4 single family zoning ordinances and regulations. The proposal is for 23 lots. The property is an isolated island within an area of development. Currently it is vacant except for three radio transmission towers. Because the property surrounding the site has been developed in the past there are no other provisions or options that exist for connection to or through other neighborhoods or other properties. Therefore all of this development needed to be created in fashion that will allow the site to service and serve for its own needs and purposes and yet at the same time create an appropriate R-4 zoning and an appropriate neighborhood that fits into the scheme and programs of the Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Green stated they have been in contact with Lake County who is in control of Aptakisic Road will permit only one access and entrance. He stated the street they show on the plan is approximately 675 feet in length and it would meet the standards for cul-de-sac widths for the cul de sac size for the turnaround. He noted they had been asked to look at a pedestrian connection of this development into the community. Mr. Green stated the proposed plan eliminates the flag lot that used to at lots 5, 6 and 7. They have also taken a 60 foot right of way off to the east. While there is nothing to the east right now that can utilize that right of way, it means that if anytime in the future there is a chance to provide any additional connections, the right of way will exist. Mr. Green stated the plan meets the lot standards. The minimum lot standard is 70 feet wide and the minimum lot standard is 8, 750 square feet. The average lot size shown is 10, 366 square feet which is significantly in excess of the minimum standard for R-4 development. All the lots have been developed in order to provide for a building footprint of 55 feet by 55 feet. As a result of the needs of the single access onto Aptakisic Road they are looking at a couple of variations. Mr. Green stated the first variation from Section 16.50.060.B.1.c. to allow a dead-end watermain exceeding 600 feet. That is because the length of the cul de sac exceeds 600 feet and it is important to the Fire Department to have a fire connection at the end of cul de sac. Also, Section 16.30.050.A.4 to allow a cul de sac length exceeding 500 feet is necessary due to this single access. Mr. Green noted they have made some modifications to mitigate that length. When you enter the site there is a paved divider for about 150 feet. That is separated opposite lots 1 and 23 so that any driveway conditions can still allow those cars to flow through. What it does is effectively reduce the overall length of the cul de sac by about 150 feet because if there is a problem on one side coming in, then the other side is still open and available. At Lots 5, 6 and 7 they have created a partial cul de sac bulb which allows them to flare out the street and to create a passing opportunity or another safety net in the flow in the site. That means that the horizontal length of the east to west length of the remaining portion is now below 500 feet. By creating those two conditions on the site they believe they have met the intent of the ordinances and provided the necessary safety. Mr. Green stated the other variations being sought are Section 16.50.050.D.7 to allow a reduction in the minimum depth of the sanitary sewer line to be 5 feet instead of 6 feet. When you get to the end of sanitary sewer line runs you are often dealing with the fact that it is getting closer and closer to the surface. That is the reason for the request for a variation. It does not have effect upon the operation of sewer or upon the drainage or capacity of the sewer. Finally they have requested a variation on lot 1 to allow 25 foot outside sideyard setback instead of 30 feet. That is the lot that abuts Aptakisic Road. Because of what they have endeavored to do with lots 5, 6 and 7 to open those up, get rid of the flag lot and create the bulb at the inside corner, they have had to squeeze lot 1 a little narrower than they would have liked. The 87 feet means that one lot would be narrower in its buildable area than the other lots. They are asking for consideration on that so that all of the lots can have the same product and they can have a consistency in the design of the architecture throughout the community. Mr. Robert Sklare, 1533 Madison Ct. N., asked where the three wetland areas exist and what will be done to prevent flooding for the residents adjacent to them. Mr. Green stated these are low quality wetlands that are small in scale and size. There is one approximately at the north end of lot 8 and another approximately at the north end of lot 12 and one where the retention pond is currently located. Each of them is at different elevations. They have already had the wetland report done which indicates these wetlands are not quality wetlands and they will need to create the compensatory storage for depressional areas which they have included in their retention site. Mr. Sklare noted that the plan calls for 35 foot setbacks whereas the adjacent property is a 40 foot setback. Would it not be better for the yards to be the same size? Mr. Freedman stated that Mr. Sklare should just state his opinion rather than ask Mr. Green why. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that Mr. Freedman was technically correct. These are questions in the nature of cross-examination rather than comments or other questions. However, he will allow the questions to be taken. Mr. Green noted that lots 7 through 14 have been made deeper than the minimum standard of 125 feet and lots 2 through 5 have also been made deeper than the standard 125 feet so they have taken that potential impact into consideration. Mr. Pfeil commented that the site plan shows a 40-foot setback line, which is the R-4 minimum rear yard setback standard. Mr. Sklare asked how much money Mr. Jacobs was saving by having the sewer line at five feet in depth instead of six feet. Mr. Green stated Mr. Jacobs did not make the choice to do that. He noted he had indicated before that as you approach the end of the sanitary sewer line system it is getting closer and closer to the surface so they are requesting the five feet because they are getting to the end of that line. It was not a decision to try to do anything other than to recognize that sewers have to flow by gravity. Mr. Sklare asked if there is water flow study on file with the Village. Mr. Green noted that preliminary engineering has been done and it requires that all water be directed to the detention area to be held and released at a reduced rate. Preliminary grading has been in order to ensure that that is indeed what happens. Those have been submitted to the Village Engineer and reviewed by him. Mr. Sklare asked if the preliminary grading was the dumping of the fill that took place about two years ago on the site at 6:30 a.m. Mr. Green noted that Mr. Jacobs was not the contract purchaser two years ago. Mr. Sklare asked if Mr. Jacobs will clean that site up and make sure there were no chemicals in the fill that was dumped. Mr. Green noted that would be a responsibility of the seller because the seller cannot close on the property unless the seller has demonstrated that it is a clean site. Mr. Scott Wagman, 260 Stanton Ct. E., asked if the developer plans on putting in a light at the entrance so that people can get in and out during rush hour. Mr. Green stated the intersection will not meet the warrants for a traffic signal. However, Lake County has indicated they will require a left turn lane on westbound vehicles and that is planned to be included. Since there are two lanes moving eastbound, it meets the warrants for this development with 23 lots. Mr. Wagman asked for a further explanation of the variance of 25 feet instead of 30 feet on lot 1. Mr. Green stated that when they tried to get rid of the flag lots at lots 5, 6 and 7 and created the larger bulb at that 90 degree turn, it pushed the lot lines between 5 and 2 further north by about five feet. Mr. Jeff Horwitz, 1535 Madison Dr., stated one of his concerns is that there are almost three houses that will butt up to the back of his property. As it is with no houses there, his back yard is flooded and his concern is that with grading for the new houses the water will run off and create a lake in the back. Further he does not understand why this development can't be zoned R-3 just like the other properties surrounding the proposed development. By zoning it R-3 it would probably correct a lot of the problems that a number of the residents have issues with. Mr. Green noted there is a little hill in back of lot 6 and 7 which directs some of the water to the south and the east and the west so that Mr. Horwitz gets some of the flow now. He stated they are required to create a swale to take the land down below the level of Mr. Horwitz's land and then bring it back up to meet that level of land so that the uncontrolled runoff that is now going toward that direction will be captured and collected and moved to the retention facility. Mr. Green stated the R-3 and R-4 standards do not differ on yards. The difference is the lot size and the side yard. Since they are impacting the rearyard he suggests that the total difference in side yard is 1 foot. It would have no differential in any of the development at all. He stated they have also indicated that the property abuts Aptakisic Road, the property to the north is R-4 and the property immediately to the north of Aptakisic opposite this is scheduled in the Comprehensive Plan for more intense uses. Mr. Horwitz noted that one foot difference makes a huge difference. There are developments in Buffalo Grove where the houses are very close together and it is almost like living in Chicago and that is what he is concerned about. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:30 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: 04/06/2005 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 6, 2005 Village Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, Consideration of amendments concerning motor vehicle sales, Leasing and rentals in Business Districts Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 8:45 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Memo to the Plan Commission from Mr. Pfeil dated April 1, 2005 Mr. Pfeil noted that the issue of zoning control for automotive sales and leasing facilities is being considered to address petitions on small properties such as the current Prestige Leasing proposal at 88 Dundee Road. The Prestige site is a parcel of slightly larger than one acre which is zoned B-3. The current structure of the Zoning Ordinance requires automotive sales to be located in a B-4 District which is "highway commercial" zoning. On a staff basis and in discussions with elected officials, the Village has determined that the level of zoning control should be greater for smaller scale automotive sales and leasing facilities Mr. Pfeil stated the proposal is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a special use in the B-2 District which would be carried forward into the B-3 District. The amendment would require sales, lease and rental of new vehicles to be a special use. The Plan Commission would be able to recommend appropriate conditions for each special use, and the conditions would be captured in the ordinance approving the particular special use. Staff believes this level of zoning control is appropriate for this type of smaller scale operation. Future re-use of a property would better be controlled and regulated by the Village with this type of zoning in place. Mr. Pfeil stated he surveyed other communities that have a substantial amount of automotive uses, mainly Schaumburg, Gurnee and Libertyville. Although all three villages have highway commercial districts for motor vehicle sales, he noted that leasing and rental of vehicles are allowed as special uses in the general business districts. He noted that the proposed amendment is consistent with the zoning controls used by other communities with extensive automotive uses. Commissioner Smith asked if Prestige Leasing has been notified about this change and, if so, what was their reaction. Mr. Pfeil stated that Prestige Leasing has been notified of the proposed amendment. John Schiess, who represents Prestige concerning its petition for zoning and plan approval, has indicated that the property owner will submit a letter amending the petition to request a special use in the B-3 District in place of the original request for rezoning to the B-4 District. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 04/06/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 6, 2005 Jacobs Homes, 16249-16349 Aptakisic Road (west of the JCYS facility) Proposed Whispering Lake Estates subdivision Annexation with R-4 zoning and approval Of a Preliminary Plan for 23 single-family homes Village Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, Consideration of amendments concerning motor vehicle sale, Leasing and rentals in Business Districts U.S. Cellular, south side of Aptakisic Road east of Buffalo Grove Road (Commonwealth Edison property)— Special Use in the R-1 District for a cellular communications antenna tower— Workshop #1 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:40 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Ms. Roslyn Schaefer, U.S. Cellular Mr. Andre Termanowski, U.S. Cellular Ms. Angelica Garcia, W-T Communication Design Group Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the special meeting minutes of January 12, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commission Khan to approve the minutes of the public hearing of February 16, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 16, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Stark stated he attended the April 4, 2005 Village Board meeting where they continued the public hearing for Glenbrook properties on Weiland and Pauline. There was also a referral to the Plan Commission for Jacobs Homes proposed Villas at Hidden Lake for 12 single family homes on the northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Deerfield Parkway. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he attended the March 21, 2005 Village Board meeting where there was a referral of U.S. Cellular for a cellular communications antenna tower. JACOBS HOMES, 16249-16349 APTAKISIC ROAD (WEST OF THE JCYS FACILITY) — ANNEXATION WITH R-4 ZONING AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR 23 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village of a petition for annexation with zoning in the R-4 One-Family Dwelling District and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations pursuant to the proposed Preliminary Plans: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow an outside corner side yard of 25 feet instead of 30 feet on Lot #1); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE — Section 16.30.050.A.4. TO ALLOW A CUL DE SAC LENGTH EXCEEDING 500 FEET); Section 16.50.050.D.7. (to allow a reduction in the minimum depth of the sanitary sewer line from the required 6-foot depth to 5 feet); Section 16.50.060.B.1.c. (to allow a dead-end watermain exceeding 600 feet), so that the petitioner may construction 23 new single-family detached houses. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he likes the plan but his only concern is the single entry and the cul-de-sac. Since there is no possibility for cars to be parked around the cul-de-sac, he is not terribly concerned with access for school buses and emergency vehicles. With respect to the variances request, he believes the petitioner has demonstrated a need for the variances and he will vote positively. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she is very pleased with the plan and the way it has been modified and is particularly happy to see that the petitioner was able to put the sidewalk in on the east side of the property. Commissioner Bocek stated the use on this property is exactly what the Village had planned and it works very well. Commissioner Cohn stated he struggled with the inter-connectivity of this property. He stated he strongly feels neighborhoods have to be integrated. He stated he does appreciate the sidewalk on the eastern side which will help. In the future he would like to find a better way to take these types of properties and work them into the community. Commissioner Stark stated his biggest issue is the flooding issue. The petitioner, however, satisfied what he was looking for in stormwater management; the water now and making it clear how additional water will be sent to the retention pond. Commissioner Teplinsky stated the petitioner has shown why R-4 is appropriate for this parcel. There appear to be 15 R-3 old farm lots abutting 14 R-4 lots in the proposed subdivision and, in fact, this will actually be less dense for the neighbors in Old Farm than the Old Farm subdivision is to the proposed development. Mr. Raysa stated the site plan shows 30 feet against Aptakisic Road for Lot 1 but the petitioner apparently wants 25 feet. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that was correct. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky to provide for Findings of Fact. The motion passed unanimously. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS CONCERNING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES, LEASING AND RENTALS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky to recommend approval to the Village Board of the proposed ordinance. There was no discussion. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. U.S. CELLULAR, SOUTH SIDE OF APTAKISIC ROAD EAST OF BUFFALO GROVE ROAD (COMMONWEALTH EDISON PROPERTY)— SPECIAL USE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWER—WORKSHOP#1 Ms. Roslyn Schaefer stated they are requesting a special use petition for the placement of a cellular antenna on an existing Com Ed lattice tower of 131 feet and a setback variance to accommodate that attachment. Ms. Schaefer noted this is a proposal they had made almost two years ago which was approved at the time and a special use was not required. The tower proposed at that time was 17 feet shorter. At that height it came to their attention that the radio waves would be shooting through the adjacent metal tower which causes problems with the radio waves and was therefore not an acceptable application. Subsequent to that they also made a proposal to build a cell tower at that location of 150 feet that was rejected. Therefore they are back to their original proposal with a slight bit of additional height to accommodate the antennas. Chairman Ottenheimer asked the petitioner to address the need for this tower, why this location is appropriate and why the proposed height is appropriate. Mr. Termanowski noted the propagation maps which show the areas they are experiencing problems and where they need to place a cell to rectify the problem. He stated the placement of this tower would help in their coverage objectives. The extra height is to avoid shooting radio signals into the adjacent Com Ed tower which is relatively close and is made of steel and would distort their signal. The tower they are mounting on is actually lower than the adjacent tower and they are trying to compensate for the difference in height and have their antennas just over the height of that adjacent tower so they are not shooting directly into it. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how many feet higher than the Com Ed tower is the cellular antenna. Mr. Termanowski stated the antennas will be 12 feet higher than the adjacent tower. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if it was possible to reduce that additional height to 6 feet or is 12 feet actually necessary. Mr. Termanowski stated their rule is to have 1 foot of rise for every 5 feet of distance. They are still a little lower than they could be but there was a recommendation from Com Ed to stay at that height for construction reasons. Chairman Ottenheimer asked why the petitioner believes there is a need for this tower at this location. Mr. Termanowski stated customers in this area are experiencing problems with receiving and maintaining calls, dropping calls, not being able to initiate calls within their homes and shopping areas. With customer complaints and collection of data from their existing network they can target the coverage trouble areas. He noted they need to provide a certain grade of service to their customers. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what area this cell tower will actually serve. Mr. Termanowski stated their average coverage is a 2 mile radius but a meaningful and good coverage is a 1 mile radius. Commissioner Smith asked if the majority of complaints are from Buffalo Grove. Mr. Termanowski stated when customers call their center they may not necessarily be residents of Buffalo Grove but they do specify at which locations they are experiencing trouble and they must provide contiguous coverage or contiguous grade of coverage between cell sites. Commissioner Smith asked if there was any room for co-location on this tower. Ms. Angelica Garcia noted that on the type of application they are doing where they are extending the tower there would not be any co-location. However, any other co-locators could go on the physical tower and do a transmount where they are on the actual tower instead of extending the tower height as U.S. Cellular is doing. Commissioner Bocek noted there are many factors that affect cellular service and asked if there is documentation of the complaints of service such as number of calls that have come in. Mr. Termanowski stated they have this information but it is not purely based on just the complaints. It is a combination of running their computer simulations, collecting live network data and customer complaints. Sometimes they have to foresee these things happening and when they know the signal is not where it should be, the level of coverage is not where it should be. If they continue at that rate, complaints will increase. Commissioner Bocek stated it would helpful for the petitioner to provide whatever complaint logs or documentation is available to convince her that the need is there. Mr. Termanowski stated when a trouble area is defined customer complaints is just an additional way of notifying them of problems. They are looking at how the network is performing. By designing these extra cells sites they are foreseeing that as more users come on the level of service degrades. They already know the coverage is bad there and customer complaints will increase even more. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what materials the building will be made out of and what kind of landscaping and fencing will be used. Ms. Schaefer stated the proposal up to this point meets with the requirements as stated in the Village code. They have put a pitched roof on the top. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated the Commission will need to know what materials the building is made out of and size and dimensions as well as exterior lighting and landscaping. This sits on a piece of property where residents already look out on the Com Ed towers and if they are going to look out on a building underneath the towers, it needs to be as attractive as possible. Mr. Pfeil stated an ART meeting is needed and after tonight that will be the next step and a more formal review of the building appearance and landscaping will be done. Commissioner Teplinsky asked about the setback variation request. Ms. Schaefer stated none of the tower there meets the setback requirements. However, this is the only tower in the area that Com Ed has approved for U.S. Cellular to use. The other towers were ruled out by Com Ed for a variety of reasons. Commissioner Stark asked who will economically benefit here. Ms. Schaefer stated that would be Com Ed. Mr. Raysa asked the petitioner to look at tab C which states the requirement of the Village in Section 17.34.040 is that the petitioner provides written documentation concerning the need. The answer was that engineers at U.S. Cellular have identified the need. He noted he does not make the decision, but his initial comment is that the propagation maps have not shown the need. He suggested that more information be provided. He noted the need must be proven to this commission and to the Village of Buffalo Grove. He also noted that the propagation maps provided are not very clear or understandable. Ms. Schaefer stated that is a valid point and a lay person would not have a clear understanding of what is referred to on the maps. Mr. Raysa noted there is also no backup material to justify the maps and there is nothing that tells how the map is prepared and more detail will be necessary. The Commission agreed another workshop is necessary. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the following items were needed for the next meeting: 1. Data specifically regarding the number of complaints registered which justifies the need for the cell tower at this specific location. 2. Building materials 3. Basis and rationale for the requested variances 4. Evidence that will meet all of the requirements and standards necessary in order to establish a special use. 5. Redone coverage maps showing the meaning of the maps both visually and written and how maps were prepared and what they were based on Commissioner Cohn stated he would add something on stealth and camouflage techniques and how they apply and how they were considered here. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be April 20, 2005. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT -None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair