Loading...
2000-10-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 10/18/2000 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION October 18, 2000 VoiceStream Wireless, Proposed wireless communications tower (monopole of 140 feet) and equipment cabinet, the Cotey property, northeast corner of Milwaukee Avenue/Estonian Lane,Approval of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the B-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. Samuels Mr. Trilling Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn Also present: Ms. Charity Sullivan, VoiceStream Wireless Mr. Paul Bongaarts, VoiceStream Wireless Ms. Deborah Barrett, VoiceStream Wireless Mr. Aaron Knight, VoiceStream Wireless Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Cotey property monopole at 140 feet, initial proposal Exhibit 2: Cubby Bear Sprint pole at 95 feet Exhibit 3: 90 foot pole rejected due to coverage east of ring Exhibit 4: Cell One pole at 85 feet rejected due to height Exhibit 5: 130 pole rejected due to coverage east of ring Exhibit 6: Ameritech tower located at Milwaukee & Lake Cook Road with inadequate coverage of Milwaukee Avenue and northwest and northeast, rejected due to shadowing of one of the sectors Exhibit 7: Photograph of property east of subject looking west toward 140-foot monopole Exhibit 8: Photograph of property east of subject looking west Exhibit 9: Photograph of second house closest to Estonian Lane, backyard of Riverwoods residence, southeast of subject looking north Exhibit 10: Photograph of Riverwoods property southeast of subject looking northwest Exhibit 11: Photograph of property south of subject looking northeast Exhibit 12: Photograph of property north of subject looking southeast Exhibit 13: Site plan, including propagation maps, monopole tower elevation and detail of cabinet platform, dated September 25, 2000 Exhibit 14: Letter dated October 17, 2000 from William S. Kaplan, Mayor of Riverwoods to the Buffalo Grove Planning Commission Exhibit 15: Revised proposal of monopole at 100 feet Ms. Charity Sullivan stated VoiceStream is a leader in personal communication systems in the western United States. She stated they utilize the global systems for mobile communications which is a European technology. They are publicly traded on the Nasdaq and they recently purchased an FCC license to build their network in the Chicagoland area. She stated they worked closely with the Village to ensure that drainage and tree issues were addressed. Ms. Sullivan stated this is a 3.5 acre parcel and they will be building on a 50 x 50 foot leased area which will be surrounded by an 8 foot chain link fence and they will be adding a 12 x 149 foot long paved access road. Ms. Sullivan stated the engineers looked at this site to determine if it was adequate and fit into the rest of the network. This location is ideal because it covers the Milwaukee Avenue corridor, which is becoming a major commercial thoroughfare. She stated they looked at the Sprint tower in the Cubby Bear location. This would be adequate coverage for Milwaukee Avenue, however, they were unable to secure a ground lease for that area. The 90-foot pole just south of Aptakisic Road was rejected because they need to locate at 140 feet. This pole does not adequately cover the Milwaukee Avenue corridor. There is an 85-foot tower located at Milwaukee and Lake Cook Road, which was also rejected for the same reason. Another 130-foot pole was also rejected because it is too close and there is duplicate coverage to the south and does not have adequate coverage for Milwaukee Avenue and east of Milwaukee Avenue. Ms. Sullivan then reviewed photographs of the property with projected monopole. She noted she spoke with the gentleman at the property who was told they were taking pictures for a proposed monopole. She further noted the gentleman did not seem opposed in any way to a monopole. They had conversations with several residents who did not seem overly opposed to a monopole. Ms. Sullivan noted they have submitted an engineering plan to the Village Engineer and it addresses issues concerning the flood plain. They have accounted for the fact that this property is in the flood plain by locating all equipment 30 inches above the flood line, which is required by the ordinance. Ms. Sullivan reviewed the Special Use criteria noting as follows: 1. VoiceStream does adequately answer the issue of serving the public convenience at the proposed location. The establishment or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. Without this site there would be unreliable coverage. In addition other carriers or emergency equipment could be located on this tower so it would be utilized and reduce the need for other towers in the area. Milwaukee is a developing commercial corridor and this is a similar commercial development. It is maintained only once every few months and this would be between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. and is an unmanned site, which will not create additional traffic. 2. The proposed development will be located in a clearing on the property so it will only require the removal of a few trees, with nothing over 6 inches in diameter. 3. The site is located in a B-4 district and the developer meets the requirements of the transitional yard, 12 foot minimum buffer, 6 foot minimum fence and additionally there is no correlation between property values and wireless facilities as cited in a court case in Barrington. 4. The development will not impede, substantially hinder, or discourage the development and use of adjacent land and buildings as it is in compliance with the zoning and the surrounding area. Since the monopole is a vertical element, it will have very little visual impact. 5. Adequate utilities, access roads, etc. will be provided. There will be a 12 foot paved access road which meets the criteria of the ordinance. 6. Parking is not an issue as this is an unmanned site. Ms. Sullivan reviewed the variation requests, noting that the first variation is a height variance. Maximum height in this zone is 45 feet and they are requesting a 140-foot monopole. The second variance is a setback from a property line. The closest property line to the north is unincorporated Lake County which is 92 feet from the pole which is supposed to be 100 percent and they are therefore asking for a variance for that. Mr. Brian Meltzer, 2 Metawa Lane, Riverwoods, stated the Board of the Village of Riverwoods has authorized the residents of Meadowlake to speak on behalf of the Village on this issue. He read a letter from the Mayor of Riverwoods to the Buffalo Grove Planning Commission in opposition to the approval of the construction of a 140-foot monopole on the Cotey property. He further noted that most of the residents of Meadowlake oppose this monopole. The fact that these people did not object when someone took pictures of their yards means nothing at all. In addition, he felt that the pictures presented which superimposed the monopole were shown in the best light when in actuality it would be much more unattractive and overbearing. However, the greatest concern is the precedential effect of what is being asked for here. There is no need to allow this monopole adjacent to a residential subdivision. The next time a company comes along and wants to put up a monopole next to a residential subdivision in Buffalo Grove, they would have to contend with the argument that this has already been done. Mr. Matthew Eisenstein, 5 Metawa Lane, Riverwoods, stated he is a representative of the Meadowlake Homeowner's Association. He stated the pictures presented with the superimposed monopole are flattering pictures. The residents in this subdivision are vehemently opposed to the construction of this monopole. Allowing someone to take pictures of the subdivision does not construe approval of such construction. He asked what would prevent VoiceStream from putting up several cell towers along Milwaukee Avenue at a lower level to give them sufficient coverage rather than imposing a huge tower upon an entire subdivision which appears to benefit only the one person who owns the property and derives the income from same. Ms. Judy Lefferdink, 4 Metawa Lane, Riverwoods, stated she allowed the VoiceStream people to take pictures behind her house. This in no way endorsed approval for the proposed development. Ms. Sullivan stated the trees in the area are approximately 50-60 feet tall and they must be above the trees. Additionally, they decided to request 140 foot height because the ground elevation and height of the antennas need to be able to "talk" with the neighboring antennas and 140 feet was judged as adequate to be able to communicate with the surrounding area. Ms. Sullivan stated the propagation maps show this one tower will adequately cover Milwaukee Avenue as it ties in with the rest of the network. Additionally, there was a letter by the Village IT person stating that this tower could be beneficial to the Village if they could locate their radio emergency equipment on the tower. Ms. Sullivan stated this tower is also co-locatable so additional carriers could locate on the monopole and since it is a special use permit, it will be done on a case by case basis and anyone wishing to put up this kind of monopole, they would have to go through this process, Ms. Sullivan noted they are actually a third generation carrier and the older carriers are putting up shorter towers because they are doing infill of their networks and they have judged they do not need as high a monopole in their particular area. In this area VoiceStream needs a 140-foot monopole. Mr. Eisenstein stated he did not feel the response covered why VoiceStream could not do the same thing with a series of towers on Milwaukee Avenue at a lower level on existing poles. Would the same area coverage be achieved with a series of smaller towers as opposed to covering the same area with a single large tower. Mr. Paul Bongaarts of VoiceStream stated that when they design a cellular network they take an entire area and issue search rings. They then need to take their spectrum and divide it up into frequencies. These frequencies cannot overlap so they have a frequency reuse pattern which means there are three frequencies or more per search ring. When you get two sites in an area where you had only planned for three frequencies then you start getting problems with interference, etc. Mr. Eisenstein asked if there was a way to plan this development to avoid the need for a single 140-foot tower. Mr. Bongaarts reviewed the existing towers as presented previously by Ms. Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan stated he is basically trying to demonstrate that if they do locate at the candidates they had proposed, they were all rejected due to inadequate height. If they did locate on each one of these poles, it still would not give them adequate coverage. Mr. Bongaarts noted they want to provide the same quality of service whether it is in the car, sidewalk or in the house. Trustee Berman asked if the only reason the Cubby Bear site was rejected was because of insufficient ground area. Ms. Sullivan stated they have a letter stating the owner is unwilling to give VoiceStream the necessary ground space. Trustee Berman asked again if the only reason that 95-foot tower was rejected was due to the lack of ground space and if the height of 95 feet was sufficient for their needs. Ms. Sullivan noted there was some duplication at this site and the proposed Cotey property development has a lot less coverage. Trustee Berman noted Exhibit 2 states "site rejected due to inadequate ground space". He asked again if the coverage was sufficient on that tower at 95 feet for the needs of VoiceStream. Ms. Sullivan stated it is sufficient. Trustee Berman asked what it is about the Cotey property that requires it to be another 45 feet high when it is only 100-200 yards away. Ms. Sullivan stated they are actually requesting 140 feet for additional carriers as well and their ideal position on that tower is at 140 feet. Trustee Berman asked if there could be a co-locator if the tower was built at 100 feet. Ms. Sullivan stated that would depend on the carrier coming on. Trustee Berman asked if it was fair to assume that a 100-foot tower would be adequate to meet their needs. Mr. Bongaarts stated 100 feet would be adequate but no one could go below 100 feet as the trees are about 60 feet high in that area. As the antenna beam starts to get too close to the tree line, it interferes with the near field of the antenna, which causes problems with propagation in the far field. That is why 140 feet is requested as that would suit their needs best and allow additional carriers to co-locate at 130 or 100 feet. Mr. Raysa asked how many other carriers could co-locate at this tower. Ms. Sullivan stated two additional carriers could co-locate. Commissioner Samuels asked if the Village would need to amend the annexation agreement for the property or would it simply be a rezoning now that it is annexed. Mr. Raysa stated they would amend the annexation agreement. Commissioner Samuels asked if there had been negotiation with the Village of Riverwoods at the time of the entry into the annexation agreement. Mr. Pfeil stated he was not involved in that annexation, however, the previous plan was for a furniture store, which was not built for various reasons. The proposed plan is a substantial change from the approved plan, which is why it was considered appropriate to amend the annexation agreement. He noted that the preliminary plan approved in1987 is basically unbuildable at this point because of floodplain regulations. Commissioner Panitch asked if there were other sites looked into that are not currently present with towers. Ms. Sullivan noted that for this area those were the candidates that were within the search ring. Other landlords were spoken to, but these were the existing towers. Commissioner Panitch asked if there were other non-existing tower locations considered. Ms. Sullivan stated yes, although they were rejected for various reasons. Commissioner Trilling asked how many other voice data wireless carriers are there in the Chicagoland market. Ms. Deborah Barrett of VoiceStream stated they are the seventh carrier to this market. There are now carriers coming out with broad band wireless which is the wireless Internet service. In terms of allowing VoiceStream to build a structure that can accommodate more than just their own equipment, the Village could alleviate issuing two more special use permits in the future. The capacity issues in this market force the carriers to have to add sites. Ms. Barrett stated the reason they cannot build several smaller, shorter towers is because zoning is extremely restrictive in the Chicagoland market. The first site of choice for VoiceStream is an existing structure and their engineers try to design around whatever is existing at that time. Unfortunately, the sites they originally consider are not always available because they do not do all the due diligence that is required to determine if the site will really work for them. She further noted that building several small towers in the community would not solve the problem facing the residents because multiple towers will be a bigger impact on the community than one tower that can accommodate three carriers. In allowing them to build what they need and leaving preferable elevations you are reducing the proliferation of towers in this community. Commissioner Trilling asked if broad band technology allows for greater distancing between towers. Ms. Barrett stated it is hard to group all of the carriers together and say that they can all use the same elevations and distances between towers because it is like comparing apples to oranges. Some of the carriers who have built towers in or near this particular location are at lower elevations. The technology they are utilizing may not require that they be at a higher elevation or their surrounding sites may be at a lower elevation. She stated it is her understanding that broad band does have a little more flexibility in terms of distance. Mr. Bongaarts basically noted that the lower the frequency the fewer the towers. Commissioner Panitch asked how many additional carriers could be located on a 100-foot pole. Ms. Sullivan stated that would be up to each individual carrier. At a 100-foot tower VoiceStream would locate at the top and a 10-foot separation between antennas is required and they could locate below that. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if 1900 megahertz was the lowest frequency they could get or choose. Ms. Barrett stated the license was issued by the FCC and they actually picked up the C license in this market. A carrier had purchased that license on pocket communications. They have since gone bankrupt and the license was reoptioned so it was not their choice but rather something they were given by the government. Commissioner Feldgreber noted they are trying to figure out how all this would work by lowering the pole as low as possible to make everyone happy. Ms. Barrett noted that their standard separation with other carriers in this market is 10 foot tip to tip. Therefore, depending on the size of the carrier's antenna, that would be what the elevations would be. They could not tell tonight where exactly they could get people on the tower. However, it is safe to say that anything getting close to the tree line is going to be at risk and it is problematical if any carrier would accept that compromise elevation. Commissioner Smith asked for more details on the Barrington court case previously mentioned. Ms. Sullivan stated there was a case in Barrington where the residents sued the Village due to a tower being located there and they felt their property values would be lowered. Ms. Barrett noted some residents did file suit against the Village of Barrington where a tower was located at the North Barrington Village hall. The opinion came down in favor of the Village, however, they do not have a final determination or order on that case as yet. Commissioner Smith noted he is not certain that VoiceStream can meet the third criteria under the Special Use. Commissioner Smith asked how this proposal will serve the public convenience. Ms. Sullivan stated it would serve the public convenience because with VoiceStream phones you will be able to have reliable coverage driving up and down Milwaukee Avenue which is quickly developing into a commercial thoroughfare as well as the Village's expression of their interest in locating on the tower. Mr. Meltzer asked why the developer could not start out at 80 feet and move up as needed. Mr. Bongaarts stated each cell tower can hold a finite number of calls. If they did get to the point where they maxed out the capacity of the site, they could add additional cabinets. That is one of the reasons they have designed the site for 4 antennas instead of 2 antennas. Ms. Barrett stated in terms of the other carriers building out their capacity and their fill in sites, you do have more flexibility in terms of elevation when you are trying to do a capacity site. VoiceStream is in buildout mode for the infrastructure so they are trying to get coverage versus capacity. They therefore do not have as much flexibility because they are trying to tie all the sites together. When they come back to try to address capacity issues, they will still be going back to try using existing structures. Wherever they can do that, they do so. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if VoiceStream is absolutely married to the 140 feet. Ms. Barrett would like to have their engineer do a propagation model and find out what the impact would be at a lower elevation. She asked what the Commission was thinking in terms of so that they could come up with something that would be agreeable. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there seems to be a general consensus that there would be more support for a lower monopole. Ms. Barrett asked to be allowed to go back and do the engineering studies before she answers that question. Ms. Barrett asked if the Commission was absolutely married to the idea of three carriers on this tower. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that was a call for VoiceStream. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if they are requesting a deferral on the rest of the public hearing until they come back with a different proposal. Ms. Barrett stated yes. Mr. Eisenstein questioned the relevance of the green areas, which are in the forest preserve. Additionally, he asked exactly why some of the other sites were not suitable because the answer of "various reasons" leaves a lot of doors open. Once again he asked if VoiceStream has the ability to use the existing towers to create a patchwork through the Milwaukee corridor that does not require a new tower. He noted it may be more expensive to do so, but is it possible. Ms. Sullivan stated there were three candidates looked at to the south, which would all cover the same general area. Two towers were actually right next to each other along Milwaukee Avenue. They could not locate antennas on both of those towers. To the west there was another tower they looked and one to the north just south of Aptakisic Road was looked at. That northern tower is into another search ring and therefore has duplicate coverage. They would also still be avoiding direct coverage on Milwaukee Avenue, which is their goal for this site. Mr. Bongaarts stated they are limited by the FCC to a maximum EIRT, which means they cannot exceed a certain power coming out of their antennas. Therefore, they design their network based on that number set by the FCC. Mr. Aaron Knight of VoiceStream stated if they could have avoided coming to this hearing they certainly would have. They have been working with the Plan Commission for four months and they are also under a time crunch to launch their system. He noted they have a letter from the site acquisition agent for Sprint working with the landlord saying the landlord will not budge. They also have lease agreements in front of the landlord and he simply will not sign. Mr. Knight stated they are willing to make considerations on the tower and he would prefer not to suspend the public hearing. They do not have time to be suspended and come back to another hearing. They have time lines and forecasts they need to meet and they need to start construction on this pole, if indeed they are going to get a permit. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if they are then prepared tonight to modify the height. Mr. Knight stated yes. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 9:00 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: 10/18/2000 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION October 18, 2000 VoiceStream Wireless, Proposed wireless communications tower (monopole of 140 feet) and equipment cabinet, the Cotey property, northeast corner of Milwaukee Avenue/Estonian Lane,Approval of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the B-4 District Village of Buffalo Grove,Arboretum Golf Course, Proposed Clubhouse, maintenance facility and site improvements, 401 Half Day Road,Amendment of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the R-8 District—Workshop #1 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 9:20 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr.Trilling Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn Also present: Mr. William Brimm, CFO, Village of Buffalo Grove Mr. Evert Lindberg, Sente & Rubel Ms. Mary Abelmann, Sente & Rubel Mr. Don Jones, MTI Mr. Mark Harrison, Landscape Architect Mr. Frank Childers Mr. Carmen Molinaro, Buffalo Grove Golf District Mr. Rick Reed, Buffalo Grove Golf District Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 20, 2000. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer and Commissioner Feldgreber abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Samuels attended the Village Board meeting on October 16, 2000 and stated there were two items relevant to the Commission. The first was the Praedium development, which has apparently lost the larger tenant that they had sought at that property and are seeking to change the facade of the building. The Board found that to be a major change and it will be sent back to the Plan Commission for a recommendation. The second item was a referral to the Plan Commission regarding an amendment of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the R-1 District for construction of an addition at St. Mary's school. VOICESTREAM WIRELESS, PROPOSED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (MONOPOLE OF 140 FEET) AND EQUIPMENT CABINET, THE COTEY PROPERTY, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE/ESTONIAN LANE, APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-4 DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Trilling to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for a Special Use in the B-4 District for construction of a wireless communications monopole tower with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.44.050.G.2. (to allow a setback distance from a residential district boundary to be less than the height of the structure (92 feet to the north property line); Section 17.44.050.H. (to allow a structure to exceed the district maximum height standard of 45 feet), for construction of a monopole tower with a height of 140 and equipment cabinet for a wireless communications facility, pursuant to the evidence and exhibits produced at the public hearing and the testimony given in support thereof. Ms. Sullivan stated they would like to amend their petition to construction of a 100-foot monopole. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if he hears a motion based upon the amendment proposed by the petitioner. Commissioner Samuels stated he will restate the motion to reflect 100 feet in height in lieu of 140 feet. Commissioner Feldgreber asked to see a photograph and how the 40-foot reduction would look. Ms. Sullivan noted the total height of the antennas are six feet so that can be used to visually walk down the tower. Mr. Raysa suggested the motion to close the public hearing and reopen the public hearing in order to submit additional testimony. Ms. Sullivan noted the motion reads 92 feet away from the closest residential structure, however, it is actually 92 feet to the property line. Commissioner Trilling stated he understands the need for this facility and thinks the developer is addressing a need of residents and businesses in the community, and will therefore support this motion. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: Dunn ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 6 to 0. VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ARBORETUM GOLF COURSE, PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE, MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 401 HALF DAY ROAD, AMENDMENT OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE R-8 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 91 Mr. Brimm stated their goal is to complete this process both before the Plan Commission and the Village Board by this winter so that they can have a 2001 construction program with a grand reopening of the Arboretum club in 2002. Mr. Brimm stated they have removed a very intrusive wing on the ground level for cart storage. They are now presenting a single level building with a basement where cart storage, mechanical and other types of storage will be held. They have continued to maintain the direction they received from both the Plan Commission and Village Board on this project for enhanced design characteristics. The buildings exceed minimal distance requirements within the zoning ordinance from adjacent structures and property lines. There has been no compromise to the current golf course. The first tee in the ninth green and the approaches in those areas continue to be maintained as they were originally constructed. They have now completed the right sizing for the food service and they believe they are close to being able to announce a very high quality vendor to be running the food, banquet and daily service at the club. Mr. Lindberg stated they have explored a number of locations of the new clubhouse. They have moved the building so that it does not impinge upon the existing greens. The only thing that is modified on the existing course now is the putting green, which will be moved. He stated they have a single story structure that has a lower level under one wing for cart storage. The building itself has direct orientation toward the entry from the main entry drive. The handicapped parking surrounds that entry and the major central portion of the building is the lobby, pro shop with the restaurant portion, kitchen and service areas on the other grade level wing. In front of the building, with views toward the course and sheltered by the shape of the building, is a deck, which can be used for outside dining and outside viewing. Mr. Harrison reviewed the landscape plan noting the existing vegetation and few significant trees to be removed. To the west there is a lot of fir, spruce and white pine of which some are in very poor condition. He reviewed some of the trees to be removed and/or transplanted and those to be saved. He noted they are proposing to remove 37 trees at an average size of 14-inch caliper in total. To date they have only prepared the landscape plan for the west portion, which will be the first phase. Ms. Abelmann stated the main idea of the building is for maximum views out to the course area. The entrance in the lobby has a large fireplace with the pro shop immediately available and direct entry onto the golf course area. To the side are male and female locker rooms and changing rooms as well as a small conference room. Service and receiving areas will be toward the side of the building. Ms. Abelmann stated they are promoting the prairie style building, which they felt the Village was looking for. She noted they are looking for finishes, which would be similar and complement the maintenance shed. Commissioner Samuel's asked if the homeowners of adjoining properties had been notified of this workshop. Mr. Brim stated he sent the same correspondence out for this workshop as had been sent out for the maintenance building. Commissioner Samuel's asked if any stormwater detention is necessary for this project. Mr. Kuenkler stated the concept they discussed at the other workshops was a proposal for fee in lieu of detention, which would be permissible under the Lake County ordinance. They have not developed that ordinance yet but they will proceed and do so now that this project is going forward. Commissioner Samuels asked how tree replacement will be dealt with. Mr. Brimm stated they have a significant landscape budget for this project. Mr. Kuenkler noted there is a formula in the development ordinance for 2 to 1. Commissioner Samuels asked if the Village intends to replace trees 2 to 1 or to seek some monetary compensation in lieu. Mr. Brimm stated it is the Village's commitment to replace trees wherever possible. It is also a commitment to the residences adjacent to the course to continue to maintain landscaping in order to provide screening and amenities to the project. Commissioner Samuels asked why there is a gable on the south elevation. Ms. Abelmann stated the idea is to give a more inviting look to the south side facing the course. Commissioner Samuels asked what will happen to the parking lot in terms of detention and asked if there would be ponding, etc. Mr. Kuenkler stated the water will be collected and delivered to the existing detention system which is really spread throughout the golf course. Commissioner Panitch if there is any area set aside for hot dogs etc. after finishing nine holes. Mr. Brimm stated as golfers come off the ninth green there is a pass through window contemplated at the corner of the banquet hall. There will also be washrooms and the entrance will be outside off of the patio. He stated they also have the flexibility with the proposed vendor to deploy a portable gas grill. Commissioner Panitch noted it seemed somewhat out of the way. Mr. Brimm noted they did not want to spoil the vista from the banquet room, as it is a very important element. Mr. Molinaro stated it would be a different scenario if they were dealing with golfers who do a lot of walking. However, at this facility almost 99 percent of the people use carts. So people can just ride down the cart path, get to the cart turn around and then get to the service window and then back. The benefits of leaving the vista in that location far outweighed the little jog in a golf cart to get to the service window. Commissioner Panitch asked how the vehicle pattern at the golf drop off will work for larger golf outings. Mr. Molinaro stated they will set up a route through the parking lot and have people go to the east, around in a circle and back to park. He noted there is a concern about having Route 22 back up so they will have methods to get people into the property quickly and route them through the east lot, circle them around and through the drop off area and then into the west parking lot. Commissioner Panitch asked if the bar area will be on the far east side of the banquet area. Mr. Brimm stated that is where it is conceptually proposed. He noted the vendor has already talked about moving it around. He is, however, not bothered by it being in that area. There is some interior coordination that needs to be done between the vendor's architect and Sente and Rubel that needs to be done. The need for portable bars has also been discussed and the vendor has also stated he will have them in this facility. Commissioner Panitch asked about Mr. Molinaro's thoughts on the practice putting green. Mr. Molinaro stated they are now visualizing two smaller practice putting greens; one just to the west of the first tee and one to the west of the ninth green. That brings two putting surfaces that would be nice thing to have when outings are staged. Commissioner Panitch noted there are no entrances with vestibules except at the front. He asked if they would be necessary for air conditioning purposes. Mr. Brimm stated he did not believe so. Mr. Molinaro stated he requested the vestibule for the pro shop based on his experience with the existing pro shop. No matter how cold or hot it is you get continual traffic in and out of the pro shop and a vestibule will be a benefit for either heat of air conditioning. Commissioner Panitch stated the plan is visually appealing to him. Chairman Ottenheimer asked about the process of a typical Sunday golfer. Mr. Molinaro stated this will be similar to Kemper where there will be a bag drop area. Someone will be staffing that bag drop where you will drop off your bag, park your car, proceed through the building to the pro shop and your bag will reappear on the other side of the building on a cart ready to go. That is the kind of service level they are looking to go to with this building. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there will be designated parking areas for golfers as opposed to banquet traffic. Mr. Molinaro stated no. He stated that would be an operational issue in a case where there was a big golf outing at the same time a banquet was scheduled. He stated they may have the east lot designated for banquet parking on a day to day basis for a small banquet and the west lot for golfing, but not on a permanent basis. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the underground storage tanks will be moved at all. Mr. Brimm stated the fuel tanks are in the same place. Mr. Shannon of the Fire Department stated they meet all the standards and are sufficiently far aware from any dwelling. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is very impressed with the building. He further stated he would love to see more windows when you are dining etc. Mr. Brimm stated the perspective is off because you are looking at the plan on a single plane. However, the windows are about 20 feet high. Commissioner Trilling stated he would like the following items considered at the next workshop: 1. The practice green between the ninth green and the first tee will have shots coming in 2. The green to be located on the far west side would be amongst many trees and it is not a very large area 3. Driving range, if considered should be shown on the plan 4. Where will the barbeque go if there is to be one and how will it be operated. 5. There may be a bottleneck at the proposed cart turnaround and perhaps parking spaces for carts should be provided 6. What kind of screening will there be for parking on the ninth green 7. What about errant shots hitting the clubhouse itself 8. Not everyone may want to use the bag drop off services and a bag drop area might be a good idea 9. The pass through area for food and bar at the end of the clubhouse will essentially serve the same kind of food it presently serves or something different Mr. Brimm stated they anticipated the daily service will be similar to what exists now, but better. The food vendor has some concepts and ideas on how to conduct the daily business. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the concept of calling ahead to order food while on the ninth tee will be available. Mr. Molinaro stated the potential food vendor is highly in favor of that idea and it is something that can be accomplished. Commissioner Samuels stated the building is very nice looking and the whole idea works well with the possible exception of the entry. It seems like there will be a bottleneck. The overhang is very close to the point of entry and it also acts as the conjunction of the east and west parking lots. He stated he would like to see how the traffic routes through there because there is the potential for a lot of problems. He stated he would like to see the movements through here and what kind of stacking issues may present themselves. He further stated it will be necessary to have some serious signage or striping to make the required maneuver to the east when they come in off of Route 22. Commissioner Trilling stated the developer may want to consider moving the dumpster enclosure to the east side of the building instead of right up front. All Plan Commissioners felt this plan needed another workshop. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be November 1, 2000. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Feldgreber and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair