2018-07-09 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2018 at 7:30 PM
Fifty Raupp Blvd
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100
Phone: 847-459-2500
I. Call to Order
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 14 Chestnut Court (Trustee
Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
2. Consider a Variaition for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 1403 Westchester Road
(Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
3. Public Hearing- Small Wireless Facility Regulations (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jun 20, 2018 7:30 PM
C. Chairman's Report
D. Committee and Liaison Reports
E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
F. Public Comments and Questions
IV. Adjournment
The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the
agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of
matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m.
The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that
persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or
participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilitie s,
contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable
accommodations for those persons.
Updated: 7/5/2018 11:17 AM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side
Yard at 14 Chestnut Court
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid dog ear wood fence that encroaches into the thirty
(30) foot required corner side yard setback. This fence is proposed to be installed ten (10) feet from the
property line and eleven (11) feet from the sidewalk along Chestnut Terrace. Additionall y, the petitioner is
proposing to install a five (5) foot solid dog ear wood fence on the property line adjoining the property on
the north at 16 Chestnut Ct W which meets code.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Stein Chris Stilling, Community Development
Monday, July 9, 2018
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 9, 2018
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 14 Chestnut Ct W
PETITIONER: Jie Chen
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Planner
REQUEST: A variation to install a fence that would be located within the
corner side yard setback area.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R4.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid dog ear wood fence that encroaches into the
thirty (30) foot required corner side yard setback. This fence is proposed to be installed ten (10) feet
from the property line and eleven (11) feet from the sidewalk along Chestnut Terrace. Additionally, the
petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid dog ear wood fence on the property line adjoining
the property on the north at 16 Chestnut Ct W which meets code.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The Petitioner is proposing a five (5) foot solid
dog ear wood fence which would extend into
the corner side yard setback.
The fence would run along the property line
parallel to the sidewalk maintaining an eleven
(11) foot separation from the sidewalk and ten
(10) foot setback from the property line along
Chestnut Terrace. The second segment would
extend up to the mid portion of the building
edge parallel to Chestnut Ct W.
The proposed fence will run along same line as
the five (5) foot convex neighbors fence located
at 12 Chestnut Ct E, maintaining ten (10) feet
from the property line along Chestnut Terrace.
Chestnut Terrace
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
t
W
Proposed Fence
Neighbor’s Fence
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
Variations requested
A corner side yard variation from Section 15.20.040.B from the Buffalo Grove fence code which states
that Fences may be erected placed and maintained on corner lots to a height not to exceed six feet above
ground level. No such fence shall be located nearer to any street than the building setback line.
The following is a list of recently approved setback variations for fences:
Address Fence Height/Type Setback from sidewalk
1271 Radcliffe 4’ high chain-link (open) 2.5’ from the sidewalk
2123 Sheridan 5’ high wrought-iron (open) 3’ from the sidewalk
1309 Madison 4’ high open picket fence 17’ from the sidewalk
1239 Devonshire 5’ high shadow box 5’ from the sidewalk
2299 Avalon Dr 4’ high solid scalloped fence 2’ from the sidewalk
1295 Euclid Ave 5’ high shadowbox fence 5’ from the sidewalk
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed fence location and
does not have any engineering or line of sight concerns or objections
with the proposed location of this fence.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village
has received three calls inquiring about the proposed fence, however no objections were expressed.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
interest in the property; and,
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Petitioners Response to the Variation Standards:
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in this
packet.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff recommends approval for this variation subject to the following conditions:
1) The fence must be a dog ear solid wood fence, five (5) foot tall and setback a distance of ten (10)
feet from the property line in accordance with the documents submitted as part of this petition.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
The material and style of the proposed fence
Fence Solutions will provide all labor and material to install approx. 152' of 5'H solid dog ear wood fencing including 1-5'W gate.
Fence to utilize premium grade western red cedar, powder coated gate hardware and all stainless steel nails an fasterners.
Posts to be set in wet soaked concrete footings per code.
Lastly, in the plat of survey please specify whether the proposed fence at the rear of the
property is located on the easement drainage line or rear property line?
We’ll simply use the neighbor of 12 Chestnut’s fence on the east side. So there will be no additional fence at the rear to be built.
The existing fence is no the east side of the easement drainage line.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
During your testimony at the public Hearing you need to testify and present your case for the
variance being requested. During your testimony you need to af firmatively address the four (4)
standards listed below. I have completed the first one for you since it is not applicable. I have
left you room to write down your statements in advance of the meeting.
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations to the regulations of the
Fence Code based upon findings of fact which are made based upon evidence presented at the
hearing that:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
Your Evidentiary Statement:
N/A
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
Your Evidentiary Statement:
I strongly believe the fence I’m trying to build will not impact the neighborhood around me.
East: My neighbor 12 Chestnut on the east side next to me has successfully applied the variance
and built the fence already. I’m going to leverage one side of their fence bars – the adjoin of
their backyard and my backyard, and ensure consistency on the corner and the sides.
West: The west of my house is the public road and the fence’s west side goes to the mid of my
dwelling so there will be zero impact to the sidewalk or the road.
North: My neighbor on the north side has planted the row of trees which have already been
playing the function as a fence. The fence I’m going to build will be purely on my side and leave
the trees to my neighbors without any disturbance. The nei ghbor can also benefit from our
fence for their pets just like what they’re having right now from other surrounding neighbors.
Same as the south side, it will be perfectly consistent with 12 Chestnut on the corner and the
north side.
South: The south of my house is the public road the fence’s south edge goes to the middle
between my dwelling and sidewalk, leaving > 10’ distance to the sidewalk so that we could
ensure enough room for pedestrian or pet walk.
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of
this Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person
presently having an interest in the property; and,
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
Your Evidentiary Statement:
Size: I purchased the property in Jul.2017 that’s being used as a home for my family including
the young kid. I intend to fence it for the safety and se curity of my child when playing on the
grass ground as it’s open to road alongside. However, I discovered that the current buildable
line for the property is very near the dwelling leaving very limited room for access and
activities.
Landscaping and gardening: If I strictly followed the property line, the plants would have to be
left outside of the fence. Building the proposed fence with the plants inside will make the
gardening and maintenance of plants much easier than excluding them outside. For the tree
right on the boarder of the fence, a rectangle will be built around it inside so that the fence
wouldn’t exceed the planned line. Please find the plan chart below for your reference.
Appearance: The variance will allow consistency with my neighbors at 12 Chestnut, which
ensures the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Your Evidentiary Statement:
The proposed fence leaves the required space between my dwelling and sidewalk for
pedestrians, pet walking, kids’ playing round and bicycles.
It doesn’t occupy any room or place obstacles for the driving way.
The professional fence supplier Fence Solution s is hired for providing materials and the
installing project.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
7
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C
o
u
r
t
)
Updated: 7/5/2018 11:22 AM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variaition for a Fence in the Corner Side
Yard at 1403 Westchester Road
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid privacy wood fence that encroaches into the thirty
(30) foot required corner side yard setback. This fence is proposed to be installed eight (8) feet and two
(2) inches from the property line and nine (9) feet and two (2) inches from the sidewalk along Thompson
Blvd. Additionally, the petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid privacy fence on the property
line adjoining the property on the west at 1401 Westchester Rd which meets code and the second
segment of the fence turns to meet the building corner.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Ottenheimer Chris Stilling, Community Development
Monday, July 9, 2018
2.2
Packet Pg. 12
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 9, 2018
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 1403 Westchester Rd
PETITIONER: Greg Morand
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Planner
REQUEST: A variation to install a fence that would be located within the
corner side yard setback area.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R3.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid privacy wood fence that encroaches into the
thirty (30) foot required corner side yard setback. This fence is proposed to be installed eight (8) feet
and two (2) inches from the property line and nine (9) feet and two (2) inches from the sidewalk along
Thompson Blvd. Additionally, the petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot solid privacy fence on
the property line adjoining the property on the west at 1401 Westchester Rd which meets code and the
second segment of the fence turns to meet the building corner.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The Petitioner is proposing a five (5) foot
solid privacy fence which would extend into
the corner side yard setback.
The fence would run along the property line
parallel to the sidewalk maintaining a nine
(9) feet and two (2) inches from the
sidewalk and eight (8) feet and two (2)
inches setback from the property line. The
second segment would extend up to the
mid portion of the building edge parallel to
Westchester Rd.
The proposed fence will run along same line
as the four (4) foot solid privacy neighbor’s
fence located at 1314 Whitney Ln,
maintaining eight (8) feet and two (2) inches
from the property line along Thompson Blvd.
Proposed Fence
Neighbor’s Fence
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
Variations requested
A corner side yard variation from Section 15.20.040.B from the Buffalo Grove fence code which states
that Fences may be erected placed and maintained on corner lots to a height not to exceed six feet above
ground level. No such fence shall be located nearer to any street than the building setback line.
The following is a list of recently approved setback variations for fences:
Address Fence Height/Type Setback from sidewalk
1271 Radcliffe 4’ high chain-link (open) 2.5’ from the sidewalk
2123 Sheridan 5’ high wrought-iron (open) 3’ from the sidewalk
1309 Madison 4’ high open picket fence 17’ from the sidewalk
1239 Devonshire 5’ high shadow box 5’ from the sidewalk
2299 Avalon Dr 4’ high solid scalloped fence 2’ from the sidewalk
1295 Euclid Ave 5’ high shadowbox fence 5’ from the sidewalk
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed fence location and
does not have any engineering or line of sight concerns or objections
with the proposed location of this fence.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village
has received no calls inquiring about the proposed fence.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
interest in the property; and,
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Petitioners Response to the Variation Standards:
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in this
packet.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff recommends approval for this variation subject to the following conditions:
1) The fence must be a solid privacy fence, five (5) feet tall and setback a distance of (8) feet and
two (2) inches from the property line in accordance with the documents submitted as part of
this petition.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
2
3
7
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
1
4
0
3
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Updated: 7/5/2018 11:10 AM Page 1
Action Item : Public Hearing- Small Wireless Facility Regulations
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval
On April 12, 2018, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1451 (P.A. 100-0585), the Small Wireless Facilities
Deployment Act (Act). This Act provides the regulations and process for permitting and deploying small
cell wireless facilities throughout Illinois. The new Act restricts the regulatory authority of Illinois
municipalities (including home rule municipalities with the exception of Chicag o) over small wireless
facilities. The Act will go into effect on June 1, 2018. Municipalities have two months from the effective
date to adopt application fees through an ordinance or a written schedule of permit fees. Staff discussed
the matter with the Village Board at their May 4th Committee of the Whole. The proposed regulations will
require amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a result, a public hearing is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff memo 7.5.18 (DOCX)
Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Ottenheimer Chris Stilling, Community Development
Monday, July 9, 2018
2.3
Packet Pg. 20
Page 1 of 2
VILLAGE OF
BUFFALO GROVE
DATE: July 5, 2018
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Stilling Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Small Wireless Facility Regulations
Background
On April 12, 2018, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1451 (P.A. 100-0585), the Small Wireless
Facilities Deployment Act (Act). This Act provides the regulations and process for permitting and
deploying small cell wireless facilities throughout Illinois. The new Act restricts the regulatory
authority of Illinois municipalities (including home rule municipalities with the exception of Chicago)
over small wireless facilities. The Act will go into effect on June 1, 2018. Municipalities have two
months from the effective date to adopt application fees through an ordinance or a written schedule
of permit fees. Staff discussed the matter with the Village Board at their May 4th Committee of the
Whole. The proposed regulations will require amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a
result, a public hearing is required.
The following is a summary of a few key restrictions on municipal regulatory authority over small
wireless facilities:
1. The law prohibits municipalities from banning, regulating, or charging for the co -location of
small wireless facilities in a manner which is inconsistent with the law.
2. It also provides that small wireless facilities are considered "permitted uses" for zoning
purposes.
3. It further states that small wireless facilities are not subject to zoning review or approval if
they are either (a) co-located in rights of way in any zone or (b) are located outside of rights
of way in commercial or industrial zones. However, a municipality can limit the maximum
height of a small wireless facility to 10 feet above the utility pole or support structure with a
few exceptions.
4. Municipalities may require permits for co-location of a small wireless facility, and can apply
generally applicable standards regarding underground requirements, construction standards
for rights of way installations, design standards, and other regulations. However, the
municipality cannot require as a condition to permitting that the applicant to perform
services unrelated to the co-location (i.e., in-kind contributions, reservation of fiber, etc). The
municipality also must process applications within the statutory time period (30 days to
determine if the application is complete; if there is no decision within 120 days, the
application will be deemed approved). The law mandates approval of an application unless it
fails to comply with the requirements of the new law.
2.3.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
m
e
m
o
7
.
5
.
1
8
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
Page 2 of 2
5. Municipalities can reserve space on utility poles for public safety uses or electric utility uses,
but that reservation cannot preclude the co-location of small wireless facilities.
6. Municipalities cannot require the placement of facilities on specific utility poles, or impose
minimum horizontal separation distances unless the facility will interfere with public safety
communications.
7. Municipalities may charge an application fee, but it cannot exceed $650.00 for the first co -
located facility, and $350 for each additional co-located facility. For small wireless facilities
that will include the installation of a new utility, the fee can be $1,000.
8. The law limits the amount of “rent” or “license fees” which a municipality can collect for
providing space on its own utility poles to $200 per year.
Draft Ordinance
As discussed at the June 20, 2018 PZC meeting, both staff and Attorney Raysa have been working
with Illinois Municipal League (IML) who has been tasked with creating a “model” ordinance for
communities to follow. The Village Attorney has prepared the attached final draft Ordinance
addressing the matter. The following is a summary of the draft Ordinance:
The draft Ordinance creates a new Chapter in the Village Code pertaining specifically to
small wireless facilities.
The draft ordinance is consistent with the regulations summarized above and restricts the
height to be no more than 10’ above the pole. The size regulations are also consist with state
statute (maximum of 6 cubic feet)
This new Chapter supersedes other sections within the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains only
to small wireless facilities established by the new State Statute. Essentially, the Village will
still maintain our ability to regulate telecommunication structures (towers, antennas, etc)
“as is” through our zoning powers.
The Village will also still have the ability to regulate small wireless facilitates that are not
subject to the new Chapter through our current zoning regulations.
If an applicant seeks a height variation to the new Chapter of Code, this request would have
to go through the PZC public hearing process and require Village Board approval.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance.
2.3.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
m
e
m
o
7
.
5
.
1
8
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
Underlined = additions
July 3, 2018
DM#718065
ND#4810-8933-3100 v.1
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-________
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF AND APPLICATION
FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove (“Village”) is a home rule municipality as provided
in Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, 1970, and may pursuant to said
authority undertake any action and adopt any ordinance relating to its governance and affairs; and
WHEREAS, the Illinois General Assembly has recently enacted Public Act 100-0585,
known as the Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act (“Act”), which became effective on June
1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Village is authorized to regulate under existing State and federal law, to
enact appropriate regulations and restrictions relative to small wireless facilities, distributed
antenna systems, and other personal wireless telecommunication facility installations in the
public right-of-way and in areas outside of public right-of-way, as long as it does not conflict
with State and federal law; and
WHEREAS, the Act sets forth the requirements for the collocation of small wireless
facilities by local authorities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES of the Village of Buffalo Grove, Cook and Lake Counties, Illinois, as follows:
SECTION 1: The foregoing findings and recitals, and each of them, are hereby adopted as
Section 1 of this Ordinance and are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2
SECTION 2: The Buffalo Grove Municipal Code, as amended, is further amended by
adding thereto Chapter 12.06, Regulation of and Application For Small Wireless Facilities as
follows:
Chapter 12.06
REGULATION OF AND APPLICATION FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
Sections:
12.06.010. Purpose and Scope
12.06.02. Definitions
12.06.030 Small Wireless Facilities
12.06.040 Dispute Resolution
12.06.050 Indemnification
12.06.060 Insurance
12.06.070 Severability
12.06.010 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations, standards and
procedures for the siting and collocation of small wireless facilities on rights -of-way within the
Village’s jurisdiction, in a manner that is consistent the Act.
B. Conflicts with Other Ordinances. This Chapter supersedes all Ordinances or parts of
Ordinances adopted prior hereto, including but not by way of limitation Chapter 12.04
(Construction and Use of Public Ways) and Chapter 17.34 (Telecommunication Facilities) that
are in conflict herewith, to the extent of such conflict.
C. Conflicts with State and Federal Laws. In the event that applicable federal or State laws
or regulations conflict with the requirements of this Chapter, the wireless provider shall comply
with the requirements of this Chapter to the maximum extent possible without violating federal
or State laws or regulations.
12.06.020 DEFINITIONS.
A. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
1. Antenna – communications equipment that transmits or receives electromagnetic
radio frequency signals used in the provision of wireless services.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
3
2. Applicable codes – uniform building, fire, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical
codes adopted by a recognized national code organization or local amendments to those
codes, including the National Electric Safety Code.
3. Applicant – any person who submits an application and is a wireless provider.
4. Application – a request submitted by an applicant to an authority for a permit to
collocate small wireless facilities, and a request that includes the installation of a new
utility pole for such collocation, as well as any applicable fee for the review of such
application.
5. Collocate or collocation – to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace
wireless facilities on or adjacent to a wireless support structure or utility pole.
6. Communications service – cable service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 522(6), as
amended; information service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(24), as amended;
telecommunications service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(53), as amended; mobile
service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(53), as amended; or wireless service other than
mobile service.
7. Communications service provider – a cable operator, as defined in 47 U.S.C.
522(5), as amended; a provider of information service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(24),
as amended; a telecommunications carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(51), as amended;
or a wireless provider.
8. FCC – the Federal Communications Commission of the United States.
9. Fee – a one-time charge.
10. Historic district or historic landmark – a building, property, or site, or group of
buildings, properties, or sites that are either (i) listed in the National Register of Historic
Places or formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register,
the individual who has been delegated the authority by the federal agency to list
properties and determine their eligibility for the National Register, in accordance with
Section VI.D.1.a.i through Section VI.D.1.a.v of the Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement codified at 47 CFR Part 1, Appendix C; or (ii) designated as a locally
landmarked building, property, site, or historic district by an ordinance adopted by the
Village pursuant to a preservation program that meets the requirements of the Certified
Local Government Program of the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office or where
such certification of the preservation program by the Illinois State Historic Preservation
Office is pending.
11. Law – a federal or State statute, common law, code, rule, regulation, order, or
local ordinance or resolution.
12. Micro wireless facility – a small wireless facility that is not larger in dimension
than 24 inches in length, 15 inches in width, and 12 inches in height and that has an
exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
4
13. Municipal utility pole – a utility pole owned or operated by the Village in public
rights-of-way.
14. Permit – a written authorization required by the Village to perform an action or
initiate, continue, or complete a project.
15. Person – an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership,
association, trust, or other entity or organization.
16. Public safety agency – the functional division of the federal government, the
State, a unit of local government, or a special purpose district located in whole or in part
within this State, that provides or has authority to provide firefighting, police, ambulance,
medical, or other emergency services to respond to and manage emergency incidents.
17. Rate – a recurring charge.
18. Right-of-way – the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street,
public sidewalk, alley, or utility easement dedicated for compatible use. Right-of-way
does not include Village-owned aerial lines.
19. Small wireless facility – a wireless facility that meets both of the following
qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than 6 cubic feet
in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of
its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than 6 cubic
feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment attached directly to a utility pole associated
with the facility is cumulatively no more than 25 cubic feet in volume. The following
types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment
volume: electric meter, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation box,
ground-based enclosures, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, cut-off switch,
and vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
20. Utility pole – a pole or similar structure that is used in whole or in part by a
communications service provider or for electric distribution, lighting, traffic control, or a
similar function.
21. Wireless facility – equipment at a fixed location that enables wireless
communications between user equipment and a communications network, including: (i)
equipment associated with wireless communications; and (ii) radio transceivers,
antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and
comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration. Wireless facility
includes small wireless facilities. Wireless facility does not include: (i) the structure or
improvements on, under, or within which the equipment is collocated; or (ii) wireline
backhaul facilities, coaxial or fiber optic cable that is between wireless support structures
or utility poles or coaxial, or fiber optic cable that is otherwise not immediately adjacent
to or directly associated with an antenna.
22. Wireless infrastructure provider – any person authorized to provide
telecommunications service in the State that builds or installs wireless communication
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
5
transmission equipment, wireless facilities, wireless support structures, or utility poles
and that is not a wireless services provider but is acting as an agent or a contractor for a
wireless services provider for the application submitted to the Village.
23. Wireless provider – a wireless infrastructure provider or a wireless services
provider.
24. Wireless services – any services provided to the general public, including a
particular class of customers, and made available on a nondiscriminatory basis using
licensed or unlicensed spectrum, whether at a fixed location or mobile, provided using
wireless facilities.
25. Wireless services provider – a person who provides wireless services.
26. Wireless support structure – a freestanding structure, such as a monopole; tower,
either guyed or self-supporting; billboard; or other existing or proposed structure
designed to support or capable of supporting wireless facilities. Wireless support
structure does not include a utility pole.
12.06.030 SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES.
A. Permitted Use. Small wireless facilities shall be classified as permitted uses and subject
to administrative review, except as provided in Section C.9. regarding Height Exceptions
or Variances, but not subject to zoning review or approval if they are collocated (i) in
rights-of-way in any zoning district, or (ii) outside rights-of-way in property zoned
exclusively B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and I Zoning Districts of the Village.
B. Permit Required. An applicant shall obtain one or more permits from the Village to
collocate a small wireless facility. An application shall be received and processed, and
permits issued shall be subject to the following conditions and requirements:
1. Application Requirements. A wireless provider shall provide the following
information to the Village, together with the Village’s Small Wireless Facilities
Permit Application, as a condition of any permit application to collocate small
wireless facilities on a utility pole or wireless support structure:
a. Site specific structural integrity and, for a municipal utility pole, make-ready
analysis prepared by a structural engineer, as that term is defined in Section 4
of the Structural Engineering Practice Act of 1989;
b. The location where each proposed small wireless facility or utility pole would
be installed and photographs of the location and its immediate surroundings
depicting the utility poles or structures on which each proposed small wireless
facility would be mounted or location where utility poles or structures would
be installed. This should include a depiction of the completed facility;
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
6
c. Specifications and drawings prepared by a structural engineer, as that term is
defined in Section 4 of the Structural Engineering Practice Act of 1989, for
each proposed small wireless facility covered by the application as it is
proposed to be installed;
d. The equipment type and model numbers for the antennas and all other
wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility;
e. A proposed schedule for the installation and completion of each small
wireless facility covered by the application, if approved; and
f. Emergency contact information of the application and installation contractor
which shall include at a minimum a cellular phone number, email address and
mailing address.
g. Certification that the collocation complies with the Collocation Requirements
and Conditions contained herein, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.
h. In the event that the proposed small wireless facility is to be attached to an
existing pole owned by an entity other than the Village, the wireless provider
shall provide legally competent evidence of the consent of the owner of such
pole to the proposed collocation.
2. Application Process. The Village shall process applications as follows:
a. The first completed application shall have priority over applications
received by different applicants for collocation on the same utility pole
or wireless support structure.
b. An application to collocate a small wireless facility on an existing utility
pole or wireless support structure, or replacement of an existing utility
pole or wireless support structure shall be processed on a
nondiscriminatory basis and shall be deemed approved if the Village
fails to approve or deny the application within 90 days after the
submission of a completed application.
However, if an applicant intends to proceed with the permitted activity on a
deemed approved basis, the applicant shall notify the Village in writing of its
intention to invoke the deemed approved remedy no sooner than 75 days after
the submission of a completed application.
The permit shall be deemed approved on the latter of the 90th day after
submission of the complete application or the 10th day after the receipt of the
deemed approved notice by the Village. The receipt of the deemed approved
notice shall not preclude the Village's denial of the permit request within the
time limits as provided under this Chapter.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
7
c. An application to collocate a small wireless facility that includes the
installation of a new utility pole shall be processed on a
nondiscriminatory basis and deemed approved if the Village fails to
approve or deny the application within 120 days after the submission of
a completed application.
However, if an applicant intends to proceed with the permitted activity on a
deemed approved basis, the applicant shall notify the Village in writing of its
intention to invoke the deemed approved remedy no sooner than 105 days
after the submission of a completed application.
The permit shall be deemed approved on the latter of the 120th day after
submission of the complete application or the 10th day after the receipt of the
deemed approved notice by the Village. The receipt of the deemed approved
notice shall not preclude the Village's denial of the permit request within the
time limits as provided within this Chapter.
d. The Village shall deny an application that does not meet the
requirements of this Chapter.
If the Village determines that applicable codes, ordinances or regulations that
concern public safety, or the Collocation Requirements and Conditions
contained herein require that the utility pole or wireless support structure be
replaced before the requested collocation, approval shall be conditioned on the
replacement of the utility pole or wireless support structure at the cost of the
provider.
The Village shall document the basis for a denial, including the specific code
provisions or application conditions on which the denial is based, and send the
documentation to the applicant on or before the day the Village denies an
application.
The applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the Village and resubmit
the revised application once within 30 days after notice of denial is sent to the
applicant without paying an additional application fee. The Village shall
approve or deny the revised application within 30 days after the applicant
resubmits the application or it is deemed approved. Failure to resubmit the
revised application within 30 days of denial shall require the applicant to
submit a new application with applicable fees, and recommencement of the
Village’s review period.
The applicant must notify the Village in writing of its intention to proceed
with the permitted activity on a deemed approved basis, which may be
submitted with the revised application.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
8
Any review of a revised application shall be limited to the deficiencies cited in
the denial. However, this revised application does not apply if the cure
requires the review of a new location, new or different structure to be
collocated upon, new antennas, or other wireless equipment associated with
the small wireless facility.
e. Pole Attachment Agreement. Within 30 days after an approved permit
to collocate a small wireless facility on a municipal utility pole, the
Village and the application shall enter in a Master Pole Attachment
Agreement, provided by the Village for the initial collocation on a
municipal utility pole by the applicant. For subsequent approved
permits to collocate on a small wireless facility on a municipal utility
pole, the Village and the applicant shall enter in a License Supplement
of the Master Pole Attachment Agreement. The Village Manager, or his
designee, is hereby authorized to enter into such an Agreement and
License on behalf of the Village.
3. Completeness of Application. Within 30 days after receiving an application, the
Village shall determine whether the application is complete and notify the applicant.
If an application is incomplete, the Village must specifically identify the missing
information. An application shall be deemed complete if the Village fails to provide
notification to the applicant within 30 days after all documents, information and fees
specifically enumerated in the Village’s permit application form are submitted by the
applicant to the Village.
Processing deadlines are tolled from the time the Village sends the notice of
incompleteness to the time the application provided the missing information.
4. Tolling. The time period for applications may be further tolled by:
a. An express written agreement by both the applicant and the Village; or
b. A local, State or federal disaster declaration or similar emergency that causes
the delay.
5. Consolidated Applications. An applicant seeking to collocate small wireless facilities
within the jurisdiction of the Village shall be allowed, at the applicant's discretion, to
file a consolidated application and receive a single permit for the collocation of up to
25 small wireless facilities if the collocations each involve substantially the same type
of small wireless facility and substantially the same type of structure.
If an application includes multiple small wireless facilities, the Village may remove
small wireless facility collocations from the application and treat separately small
wireless facility collocations for which incomplete information has been provided or
that do not qualify for consolidated treatment or that are denied. The Village may
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
9
issue separate permits for each collocation that is approved in a consolidated
application.
6. Duration of Permits. The duration of a permit shall be for a period of not less than 5
years, and the permit shall be renewed for equivalent durations unless the Village
makes a finding that the small wireless facilities or the new or modified utility pole
do not comply with the applicable Village codes or any provision, condition or
requirement contained in this Chapter.
If the Act is repealed as provided in Section 90 therein, renewals of permits shall be
subject to the applicable Village code provisions or regulations in effect at the time of
renewal.
7. Means of Submitting Applications. Applicants shall submit applications, supporting
information, and notices to the Village by personal delivery to the Village’s
Engineering Department, by regular mail postmarked on the date due or by another
other commonly used means, including electronic mail or by another method as
otherwise required by the Village.
C. Collocation Requirements and Conditions.
1. Public Safety Space Reservation. The Village may reserve space on municipal utility
poles for future public safety uses, for the Village’s electric utility uses, or both, but a
reservation of space may not preclude the collocation of a small wireless facility
unless the Village reasonably determines that the municipal utility pole cannot
accommodate both uses.
2. Installation and Maintenance. The wireless provider shall install, maintain, repair and
modify its small wireless facilities in a safe condition and good repair and in
compliance with the requirements and conditions of this Chapter. The wireless
provider shall ensure that its employees, agents or contracts that perform work in
connection with its small wireless facilities are adequately trained and skilled in
accordance with all applicable industry and governmental standards and regulations.
3. No interference with public safety communication frequencies. The wireless
provider's operation of the small wireless facilities shall not interfere with the
frequencies used by a public safety agency for public safety communications.
A wireless provider shall install small wireless facilities of the type and frequency
that will not cause unacceptable interference with a public safety agency's
communications equipment.
Unacceptable interference will be determined by and measured in accordance with
industry standards and the FCC's regulations addressing unacceptable interference to
public safety spectrum or any other spectrum licensed by a public safety agency.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
10
If a small wireless facility causes such interference, and the wireless provider has
been given written notice of the interference by the public safety agency, the wireless
provider, at its own expense, shall remedy the interference in a manner consistent
with the abatement and resolution procedures for interference with public safety
spectrum established by the FCC including 47 CFR 22.970 through 47 CFR 22.973
and 47 CFR 90.672 through 47 CFR 90.675.
The Village may terminate a permit for a small wireless facility based on such
interference if the wireless provider is not in compliance with the Code of Federal
Regulations cited in the previous paragraph. Failure to remedy the interference as
required herein shall constitute a public nuisance.
4. The wireless provider shall not collocate small wireless facilities on Village utility
poles that are part of an electric distribution or transmission system within the
communication worker safety zone of the pole or the electric supply zone of the pole.
However, the antenna and support equipment of the small wireless facility may be
located in the communications space on the Village utility pole and on the top of the
pole, if not otherwise unavailable, if the wireless provider complies with applicable
codes for work involving the top of the pole.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms "communications space",
"communication worker safety zone", and "electric supply zone" have the meanings
given to those terms in the National Electric Safety Code as published by the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
5. The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable codes and local code
provisions or regulations that concern public safety.
6. The wireless provider shall comply with written design standards that are generally
applicable for decorative utility poles, or reasonable stealth, concealment and
aesthetic requirements that are set forth in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan or other
written design plan that applies to other occupiers of the rights-of-way, including on a
historic landmark or in a historic district.
7. Alternate Placements. Except as provided in this Collocation Requirements and
Conditions Section, a wireless provider shall not be required to collocate small
wireless facilities on any specific utility pole, or category of utility poles, or be
required to collocate multiple antenna systems on a single utility pole. However, with
respect to an application for the collocation of a small wireless facility associated
with a new utility pole, the Village may propose that the small wireless facility be
collocated on an existing utility pole or existing wireless support structure within 100
feet of the proposed collocation, which the applicant shall accept if it has the right to
use the alternate structure on reasonable terms and conditions, and the alternate
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
11
location and structure does not impose technical limits or additional material costs as
determined by the applicant.
If the applicant refuses a collocation proposed by the Village, the applicant shall
provide written certification describing the property rights, technical limits or
material cost reasons the alternate location does not satisfy the criteria in this
paragraph.
8. Height Limitations. The maximum height of a small wireless facility shall be no more
than 10 feet above the utility pole or wireless support structure on which the small
wireless facility is collocated.
New or replacement utility poles or wireless support structures on which small
wireless facilities are collocated may not exceed the higher of:
a. 10 feet in height above the tallest existing utility pole, other than a utility pole
supporting only wireless facilities, that is in place on the date the application
is submitted to the Village, that is located within 300 feet of the new or
replacement utility pole or wireless support structure and that is in the same
right-of-way within the jurisdictional boundary of the Village, provided the
Village may designate which intersecting right-of-way within 300 feet of the
proposed utility pole or wireless support structures shall control the height
limitation for such facility; or
b. 45 feet above ground level.
9. Height Exceptions or Variances on Rights-of-way. If an applicant proposes a height
for a new or replacement pole, located within the Village’s right-of-way, in excess of
the above height limitations on which the small wireless facility is proposed for
collocation, the applicant shall apply for a Variance in conformance with procedures,
terms and conditions set forth in the Village’s Zoning Ordinance.
10. Height Exceptions or Variances on Property Outside of Rights-of-way. If an applicant
proposes a height for a new or replacement pole, located on property that is not within
a Right-of-way located in the Village, in excess of the above height limitations on
which the small wireless facility is proposed for collocation, the applicant shall apply
for a Variation in conformance with procedures, terms and conditions set forth in
Village’s Zoning Ordinance.
11. Contractual Design Requirements. The wireless provider shall comply with
requirements that are imposed by a contract between the Village and a private
property owner that concern design or construction standards applicable to utility
poles and ground-mounted equipment located in the right-of-way.
12. Ground-mounted Equipment Spacing. The wireless provider shall comply with
applicable spacing requirements in applicable codes and this Chapter concerning the
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
12
location of ground-mounted equipment located in the right-of-way if the requirements
include a waiver, zoning or other process that addresses wireless provider requests for
exception or variance and do not prohibit granting of such exceptions or variances.
13. Undergrounding Regulations. The wireless provider shall comply with local code
provisions or regulations concerning undergrounding requirements that prohibit the
installation of new or the modification of existing utility poles in a right-of-way
without prior approval if the requirements include a waiver, zoning or other process
that addresses requests to install such new utility poles or modify such existing utility
poles and do not prohibit the replacement of utility poles.
14. Collocation Completion Deadline. Collocation for which a permit is granted shall be
completed within 180 days after issuance of the permit, unless the Village and the
wireless provider agree to extend this period or a delay is caused by make-ready work
for a municipal utility pole or by the lack of commercial power or backhaul
availability at the site, provided the wireless provider has made a timely request
within 60 days after the issuance of the permit for commercial power or backhaul
services, and the additional time to complete installation does not exceed 360 days
after issuance of the permit. Otherwise, the permit shall be void unless the Village
grants an extension in writing to the applicant.
D. Application Fees. Application fees are imposed as follows:
1. The applicant shall pay an application fee as set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code
for an application to collocate a single small wireless facility on an existing utility
pole or wireless support structure and the fee as set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code
for each small wireless facility addressed in a consolidated application to collocate
more than one small wireless facility on existing utility poles or wireless support
structures.
2.The applicant shall pay an application fee as set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code
for each small wireless facility addressed in an application that includes the
installation of a new utility pole for such collocation.
3.Notwithstanding any contrary provision of State law or local ordinance,
applications pursuant to this Section shall be accompanied by the required application
fee. Application fees shall be non-refundable.
4.The Village shall not require an application, approval, or permit, or require any fees
or other charges, from a communications service provider authorized to occupy the
rights-of-way, for:
a. routine maintenance;
b. the replacement of wireless facilities with wireless facilities that are
substantially similar, the same size, or smaller if the wireless provider notifies
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
13
the Village at least 10 days prior to the planned replacement and includes
equipment specifications for the replacement of equipment consistent with
subsection d. under the Section title Application Requirements; or
c. the installation, placement, maintenance, operation, or replacement of micro
wireless facilities suspended on cables that are strung between existing utility
poles in compliance with applicable safety codes.
5.Wireless providers shall secure a permit from the Village to work within rights-of-
way for activities that affect traffic patterns or require lane closures.
E. Exceptions to Applicability. Nothing in this Chapter authorizes a person to collocate
small wireless facilities on:
1. property owned by a private party or property owned or controlled by
the Village or another unit of local government that is not located within
rights-of-way, or a privately owned utility pole or wireless support
structure without the consent of the property owner;
2.property owned, leased, or controlled by a park district, forest preserve district, or
conservation district for public park, recreation, or conservation purposes without the
consent of the affected district, excluding the placement of facilities on rights-of-way
located in an affected district that are under the jurisdiction and control of a different
unit of local government as provided by the Illinois Highway Code; or
3.property owned by a rail carrier registered under Section 18c-7201 of the Illinois
Vehicle Code, Metra Commuter Rail or any other public commuter rail service, or an
electric utility as defined in Section 16-102 of the Public Utilities Act, without the
consent of the rail carrier, public commuter rail service, or electric utility. The
provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to an electric or gas public utility or such
utility's wireless facilities if the facilities are being used, developed, and maintained
consistent with the provisions of subsection (i) of Section 16-108.5 of the Public
Utilities Act.
For the purposes of this subsection, "public utility" has the meaning given to that
term in Section 3-105 of the Public Utilities Act. Nothing in this Chapter shall be
construed to relieve any person from any requirement (a) to obtain a franchise or a
State-issued authorization to offer cable service or video service or (b) to obtain
any required permission to install, place, maintain, or operate communications
facilities, other than small wireless facilities subject to this Chapter.
F. Pre-Existing Agreements. Existing agreements between the Village and wireless
providers that relate to the collocation of small wireless facilities in the right-of-way,
including the collocation of small wireless facilities on authority utility poles, that are in
effect on June 1, 2018, remain in effect for all small wireless facilities collocated on the
Village’s utility poles pursuant to applications submitted to the Village before June 1,
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
14
2018, subject to applicable termination provisions contained therein. Agreement entered
into after June 1, 2018, shall comply with this Chapter.
A wireless provider that has an existing agreement with the Village on the effective date
of the Act may accept the rates, fees and terms that the Village makes available under this
Chapter for the collocation of small wireless facilities or the installation of new utility
poles for the collocation of small wireless facilities that are the subject of an application
submitted two or more years after the effective date of the Act by notifying the Village
that it opts to accept such rates, fees and terms. The existing agreement remains in effect,
subject to applicable termination provisions, for the small wireless facilities the wireless
provider has collocated on the Village’s utility poles pursuant to applications submitted to
the Village before the wireless provider provides such notice and exercises its option
under this Section.
G. Annual Recurring Rate. A wireless provider shall pay to the Village an annual recurring
rate to collocate a small wireless facility on a Village utility pole located in a right-of-
way that equals (i) the fee set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code or (ii) the actual, direct,
and reasonable costs related to the wireless provider’s use of space on the Village utility
pole.
If the Village has not billed the wireless provider actual and direct costs, the fee shall be
the fee set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code payable on the first day after the first annual
anniversary of the issuance of the permit or notice of intent to collocate, and on each
annual anniversary date thereafter.
H. Abandonment. A small wireless facility that is not operated for a continuous period of 12
months shall be considered abandoned. The owner of the facility shall remove the small
wireless facility within 90 days after receipt of written notice from the Village notifying
the wireless provider of the abandonment.
The notice shall be sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, by the
Village to the owner at the last known address of the wireless provider. If the small
wireless facility is not removed within 90 days of such notice, the Village may remove or
cause the removal of such facility pursuant to the terms of its pole attachment agreement
for municipal utility poles or through whatever actions are provided for abatement of
nuisances or by other law for removal and cost recovery.
A wireless provider shall provide written notice to the Village if it sells or transfers small
wireless facilities within the jurisdiction of the Village. Such notice shall include the
name and contact information of the new wireless provider.
12.06.040. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
The Circuit Court of Cook County shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all disputes arising
under the Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act. Pending resolution of a dispute concerning
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
15
rates for collocation of small wireless facilities on municipal utility poles within the right-of-
way, the Village shall allow the collocating person to collocate on its poles at annual rates of no
more than the fee set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this Code per year per municipal utility pole, with
rates to be determined upon final resolution of the dispute.
12.06.050. INDEMNIFICATION.
A wireless provider shall indemnify and hold the Village harmless against any and all liability or
loss from personal injury or property damage resulting from or arising out of, in whole or in part,
the use or occupancy of the Village improvements or right-of-way associated with such
improvements by the wireless provider or its employees, agents, or contractors arising out of the
rights and privileges granted under this Chapter and the Act. A wireless provider has no
obligation to indemnify or hold harmless against any liabilities and losses as may be due to or
caused by the sole negligence of the Village or its employees or agents. A wireless provider shall
further waive any claims that they may have against the Village with respect to consequential,
incidental, or special damages, however caused, based on the theory of liability.
12/060.060. INSURANCE.
The wireless provider shall carry, at the wireless provider's own cost and expense, the following
insurance: (i) property insurance for its property's replacement cost against all risks; (ii) workers'
compensation insurance, as required by law; or (iii) commercial general liability insurance with
respect to its activities on the Village improvements or rights-of-way to afford minimum
protection limits consistent with its requirements of other users of authority improvements or
rights-of-way, including coverage for bodily injury and property damage.
The wireless provider shall include the Village as an additional insured on the commercial
general liability policy and provide certification and documentation of inclusion of the Village in
a commercial general liability policy prior to the collocation of any wireless facility.
A wireless provider may self-insure all or a portion of the insurance coverage and limit
requirement required by the Village. A wireless provider that self-insures is not required, to the
extent of the self-insurance, to comply with the requirement for the name of additional insureds
under this Section. A wireless provider that elects to self-insure shall provide to the Village
evidence sufficient to demonstrate its financial ability to self-insure the insurance coverage limits
required by the Village.
12.06.070. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Chapter or application thereof to any person or circumstances is ruled
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of this Chapter that can be given effect without the invalid application or provision,
and each invalid provision or invalid application of this Chapter is severable.
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
16
SECTION 3. Chapter 1.16, Fee Schedule, of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding the following thereto:
Buffalo Grove
Municipal Code
Section
Classification Fee
12.06.030
subsection d.1.
Application fee to collocate a single small wireless
facility
$650.00
12.06.030
subsection d.1.
Application fee for each small wireless facility to
collocate more than one small wireless facility
$350.00
12.06.030
subsection G.
Annual recurring rate per year per small wireless facility $200.00
SECTION 4. Subsection A. of Section 17.34.010, Applicability, of the Buffalo Grove
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.34.010 Applicability.
A. The requirements set forth in this Chapter shall govern towers, antenna support
structures, telecommunications and personal wireless service facilities requiring a special
use but shall not pertain to small wireless facilities as set forth and covered by Chapter
12.06 of this Code.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication in pamphlet form as required by law.
PASSED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, on
the _____ day of July, 2018, according to the following roll call vote:
AYES: _______.
NAYS: _______.
ABSTAIN: _______.
ABSENT: _______.
Beverly Sussman, Village President
ATTEST:
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
17
Janet Sirabian, Village Clerk
Published in Pamphlet Form________ 2018
DM#718065
July 3,2018
ND#4810-8933-3100 v.1
2.3.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
2
3
7
6
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
-
S
m
a
l
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
06/20/2018
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD,
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2018
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1.Consider an Amendment to the Plaza Verde East Planned Development with Variations
to the Sign Code for the Property at 1205-1349 Dundee Road (Trustee Stein) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Lawrence Freedman, 77 W. Washington Street, Chicago, IL 60602; Mr. David
Mangurten, KMA & Associates, 1121 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, IL 60015; and Ms.
Lynn Means, Gewalt Hamilton, 625 Forest Edge Drive, Vernon Hills, IL 60061, were
present and sworn in.
Mr. Freedman represents the owner of the Plaza Verde East Shopping Center. His client
has been the owner for some time now and has made most of the recent improvements
to the center. He introduced Mr. Mangurten to review the proposal.
Mr. Mangurten explained that there are three (3) elements to the request for the
amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD). He reviewed the existing site
conditions. The first element of the amendment is they want to create a parking field in
front of the 21,000 square foot retail building. The second element of the amendment is
the proposed façade improvements and the third element is the proposed ground sign.
The 21,000 square foot retail building has a lot of vacancies and has for a while.
Comments that they typically hear back is that there are no convenient parking spaces.
Currently, customers have to travel approximately 100 feet to get to the parking lot. They
are proposing to remove part of the concrete sidewalk and landscaping and add
additional parking stalls. About one half of the new parking stalls will be installed at a 45
degree angle. The other half would be installed at 90 degrees. Then every store will have
parking available with 20 feet. The proposed changes to the façade will keep the same
column elements and they will add different exterior materials that include concrete
panels that simulate wood and also add precast concrete. The facade changes would be
on the north, east and west elevations of the building. The final change will include a new
ground sign. The existing electronic reader board ground sign has not functioned in
years. The new ground sign would allow tenants of the retail building to have visibility
along Dundee Road. The new ground sign would incorporate the same materials being
used for the façade. They are requesting a variation to the Sign Code to allow for an
additional 20 square feet of sign area over what is permitted.
Com. Goldspiel is concerned with the proposed parking in front of the retail building. Most
shopping centers have fire lanes located directly in front of the building. He asked staff
about the standards regarding parking. Mr. Stilling advised that the Fire Department looks
at each proposal on a case by case basis. The proposed access would be sufficient. The
Fire Department typically does not want their fire equipment to be that close to a building
in the event of a fire. The Fire Department had reviewed the proposed amendments are
they are fine with it. Com. Goldspiel asked what the separation is between the building
and where fire equipment would be staged. Mr. Stilling advised that the separation, which
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 40
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
is currently about 30 feet, would remain the same with the proposed parking stalls in
place. Com. Goldspiel asked Ms. Means to review the traffic study that was conducted.
Ms. Means advised that they observed the existing traffic flows on both roads, Dundee
Road and Arlington Heights Road. They monitored stacking and observed the traffic at all
different times during the day and evening. In general, along Arlington Heights Road,
there were typically 2 to 3 cars stacked. The cars never stacked beyond the proposed
parking spaces, so there would be no impact. They also calculated future conditions and
there appeared to be no interference. Com. Goldspiel asked if having cars back up into
the drive aisle will be a hazard. Ms. Means responded no. Some of the proposed parking
stalls are angled and some are direct. There will be approximately 17 to 18 feet for cars
reach the traffic aisle. Com. Goldspiel asked if vehicles coming out of the parking spaces
would impact traffic coming to or from Arlington Heights Road. Ms. Means responded no,
there is a loading area and vehicles would not be backing directly into the traffic. Com.
Goldspiel advised that when this shopping center was approved in the 1970’s, it was
considered to be an upscale center and asked what is being done to account for that. Mr.
Freedman responded that the center was originally built over 30 years ago. The center
owner has not been able to fill the vacancies largely due to the parking constraints. The
proposed amendments will be upgrades to the center. Com. Goldspiel asked the
Petitioners to describe the proposed landscaping. Mr. Mangurten reviewed the proposed
landscaping plan, which is included in the packet. Com. Goldspiel asked if the outdoor
bench seating will still be available. Mr. Magurten advised that the outdoor benches will
largely be replaced with clusters of potted plants. Com. Goldspiel asked if there will be
large areas of asphalt in the parking lot that will not be used. He would like to see a better
use of the parking lot. Mr. Mangurten stated that the goal is to fill the vacancies and have
all the parking spaces in the lot used. Com. Goldspiel reviewed the historic tenants and
recounted that those tenants generated more traffic. The types of tenants attracted to the
center now are more individual-style uses. Mr. Mangurten advised that there are a couple
tenant spaces that are currently under construction; one being a health club. Having
more parking available for that use is essential. Mr. Freedman added that they do not feel
that the center has an over-abundance of parking at this time. Com. Goldspiel asked if
the customers will move in and out of the center more quickly than with the traditional,
older tenant uses. Mr. Mangurten responded that there are different types of tenants in
the center today. They are also trying to attract more restaurant uses. In addition,
patients using DaVita Dialysis typically spend almost half a day there. The mix of tenants
is big and they do not know the total mix that there will be in the future.Com. Goldspiel
understands the new appearance design and it seems to be an improvement to the
center. However, he is concerned that overall this will be a down grade of the center. Mr.
Freedman replied that the center is not the same center that it was back in the 1970’s.
They feel the proposed improvements will be an upgrade of the current center tailored to
today’s market. They need to attract, and retain, tenants. They will be putting landscaping
where they can. Com. Goldspiel asked what would indicate that the proposed
improvements would make the center better. Mr. Freedman responded that the proposed
improvements will be a substantial upgrade to the center.
Com. Weinstein asked about any planned repairs to the remainder of the parking lot. Mr.
Freedman advised that they will repair the entire lot. Com. Weinstein noted that the
proposed façade changes and the proposed ground sign link in appearance, but they
would not match the existing outlot buildings. Mr. Mangurten stated that the outlot tenants
have their own identity but will eventually match in the future. Com. Weinstein asked
about the buildings to the west. Mr. Mangurten advised that the Plaza Verde East center
owner does not own the buildings to the west.
Com. Khan stated that the parking lot is an eyesore. He is pleased to hear about the
upgrades to the parking lot. He has three additional maintenance concerns with the site.
There are very large pot holes in the access drive south of the Starbucks off Arlington
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 41
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
Heights Road. The pot holes were only filled with cold patch. Mr. Freedman advised that
they will address that with staff. Com. Khan also noted that there are dead trees located
in the islands in the parking lot. He would like those dead trees to be removed or
replaced. Mr. Freedman advised that he will also address that concern with staff. Com.
Khan also noted that the first 10 to 15 feet of the entrance off Dundee Road has been
broken for years. He feels that needs to be addressed as well. Mr. Freedman stated that
he will meet with Village staff to address all the concerns mentioned and will make sure
that any dead trees on the property will be removed. Com. Khan asked about the
proposed pavement markings for the Arlington Heights Road access. Ms. Means replied
that they have recommended new pavement markings. Com. Khan asked Ms. Means to
explain the thought process behind having the through lane share the right turn lane to
Arlington Heights Road. Ms. Means explained that the recommendation made was based
on volumes and gap timing. The right turn was not impeded as much with traffic going
straight through then if being shared with the left turn lane.
Com. Lesser agrees that the owner has made a lot of improvements to the center. He
also agrees that the retail environment has changed over the years. The proposed
amendments will help. He also shares the same concerns with his fellow Commissioners
concerning the parking lot in need of repair. He also agrees with Com. Goldspiel and
would like to see some additional landscaping added. He recommended more planters
along the building. Parking in front of a building is important. He asked which tenant
would be allowed to have panels on the proposed ground sign. Mr. Mangurten explained
that the owner can use the tenant panels in lease negotiations to attract tenants to the
center. Most likely new tenants would be granted tenant panels on the new ground sign.
Com. Lesser stated that he would not want to see tenants that already have visibility from
the road to be allowed more signs. He also does not have any issue with the additional
sign area being requested. However, he would like to see the sign height reduced. He
directed the Petitioner to work with staff to possibly reduce the overall height of the
proposed ground sign. He believes the center is moving in a positive direction and is
improving.
Com. Au appreciates the proposed façade changes and asked if any of the proposed
materials would overlap with the existing outlot buildings. Mr. Mangurten advised that the
materials would be somewhat similar. Com. Au would like to see somewhat similar.
Mr. Stilling provided a material sample board for the Commissioner’s review.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the change to the impervious surface coverage would change
the stormwater detention. Mr. Freedman responded that there would not be any change
to the amount of impervious surface coverage.
Com. Khan noted that other centers have had façade and parking lot improvements.
Initially he had concerns with those improvements. However, this request is not that
different from those and he does not have any issues.
Ch. Cesario asked if there would be a change in the height of the buildings due to the
façade changes. Mr. Mangurten explained that there would be a slight change in the
height due to the materials. The precast concrete would add approximately 2 to 3 feet to
the buildings. Mr. Stilling advised that the new height would still meet code. Mr.
Mangurten added that the change helps break up the buildings. Ch. Cesario believes that
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 42
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
the façade changes are visually appealing to him. He also believes that reducing the
proposed ground sign to 18 feet in height would be superior.
Mr. Freedman reviewed the standards for the variation for the ground sign. The tenants
are in need of visibility from the roadway as they are blocked by other buildings. The
proposed ground sign would not be more detrimental than what exists now. They are
trying to provide visibility for the tenants in the setback buildings.
Com. Lesser added that he is not opposed to much of what is being requested. However,
some of the hardship and unique circumstances were created by the owner with regards
to the outlot buildings.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were
no questions or comments from the audience.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated June 20, 2018 as Exhibit 1.
The public hearing was closed at 8:36 PM.
Mr. Stilling amended Condition number 2 in the staff report to include that the owner shall
remove and replace landscaping and complete repairs to the parking lot satisfactory to
Village staff.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to make a positive recommendation
to the Village Board to approve an amendment to the Plaza Verde East Shopping Center
planned unit development (PUD) in the B-3 District with a variation to the Buffalo Grove
Sign Code, subject to the following conditions:
1.The proposed improvements shall substantially conform to the plans and exhibits
attached as part of this petition.
2.The owner shall complete repairs to the existing parking lot for their portion of the Plaza
Verde East Shopping Center in a manner acceptable to the Village. Said repairs shall be
completed within 6 months from the date of approval of the Ordinance.
3.Any dead trees shall be removed and replaced in a manner acceptable to the Village.
4.Pavement markings will be added to delineate clearly the proper lane usage at the
Arlington Heights Road access point.
5.The Petitioner shall consider an overall sign height of less than 20 feet if the reduced
height meets the goals and objectives set forth.
Ch. Cesario is comfortable with the request. He feels that visibility is reasonable
considering the activity on Dundee Road, the size of the property and the setback of the
buildings. He believes that the overall increase in the sign area is reasonable. He is
comfortable with the traffic study and he believes that these will be an improvement to the
center.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 43
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
RESULT:RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 7/16/2018 7:30 PM
MOVER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Matthew Cohn
2.Public Hearing- Small Wireless Facility Regulations (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Stilling was sworn in.
Mr. Stilling explained that On April 12, 2018, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1451
(P.A. 100-0585), the Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act (Act). This Act provides
the regulations and process for permitting and deploying small cell wireless facilities
throughout Illinois. The new Act restricts the regulatory authority of Illinois municipalities
(including home rule municipalities with the exception of Chicago) over small wireless
facilities. The Act will go into effect on June 1, 2018. Municipalities have two months from
the effective date to adopt application fees through an ordinance or a written schedule of
permit fees. Staff discussed the matter with the Village Board at their May 4th Committee
of the Whole. The proposed regulations will require amendments to the Village Zoning
Ordinance. As a result, a public hearing is required.
It should be noted that staff and the Village Attorney are still working through the changes
and the impacts to Village Code. Therefore, staff is recommending that the PZC open the
public hearing and allow staff and attorney Raysa to provide some background on the
matter and answer any questions. Staff will then recommend that the matter be continued
to the July 9th Special PZC meeting to consider the final changes.
The law prohibits municipalities from banning, regulating, or charging for the co-location
of small wireless facilities in a manner which is inconsistent with the law.
It also provides that small wireless facilities are considered "permitted uses" for zoning
purposes.
It further states that small wireless facilities are not subject to zoning review or approval if
they are either (a) co-located in rights of way in any zone or (b) are located outside of
rights of way in commercial or industrial zones. However, a municipality can limit the
maximum height of a small wireless facility to 10 feet above the utility pole or support
structure with a few exceptions. Since the Village regulates all cell devices as special
uses in the certain business and industrial districts, we will have to amend our Zoning
Ordinance to include this provision.
Municipalities may require permits for co-location of a small wireless facility, and can
apply generally applicable standards regarding underground requirements, construction
standards for rights of way installations, design standards, and other regulations.
However, the municipality cannot require as a condition to permitting that the applicant to
perform services unrelated to the co-location (i.e., in-kind contributions, reservation of
fiber, etc). The municipality also must process applications within the statutory time
period (30 days to determine if the application is complete; if there is no decision within
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 44
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
120 days, the application will be deemed approved). The law mandates approval of an
application unless it fails to comply with the requirements of the new law.
Municipalities can reserve space on utility poles for public safety uses or electric utility
uses, but that reservation cannot preclude the co-location of small wireless facilities.
Municipalities cannot require the placement of facilities on specific utility poles, or impose
minimum horizontal separation distances unless the facility will interfere with public safety
communications.
Municipalities may charge an application fee, but it cannot exceed $650.00 for the first
co-located facility, and $350 for each additional co-located facility. For small wireless
facilities that will include the installation of a new utility, the fee can be $1,000.
The law limits the amount of “rent” or “license fees” which a municipality can collect for
providing space on its own utility poles to $200 per year.
Staff answered questions from the Commissioners.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated June 20, 2018 as Exhibit 1.
Moved by Com. Lesser, seconded by Com. Khan, to Table the public hearing to the July
9, 2019 Special meeting to be held at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Buffalo
Grove Village Hall.
RESULT:TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 7/9/2018 7:30 PM
MOVER:Scott Lesser, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Matthew Cohn
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1.Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - May 2, 2018 7:30 PM
Moved by Com. Au, seconded by Com. Weinstein, to approve the minutes of the
May 2, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as submitted.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 45
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
06/20/2018
RESULT:ACCEPTED [5 TO 0]
MOVER:Amy Au, Commissioner
SECONDER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
AYES:Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au
ABSTAIN:Scott Lesser
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Matthew Cohn
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Com. Lesser advised that he attended the June 18, 2018 Village Board meeting. All the members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission were re-appointed for a one year term. He also noted that
Mr. Louis Schriber spoke to the Village Board under Questions form the Audience.
Com. Weinstein noted that he attended the May 21, 2018 Village Board meeting. The Movement
& Sound Dance studio was approved.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that there will be a Special Meeting of the PZC held on July 9, 2018 which will
include the small cell public hearing and 2 fence code variations. The Final Plat of Subdivision for
Link Crossing should be on the July 18, 2018 PZC agenda. There will also be a training for the
Commissioners. Ms. Woods described the training and the facilitators through the Chaddick
Institute.
The PZC was provided an update on the new Recreations Vehicles regulations and an update on
the Prairie View Plan.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 PM
Chris Stilling
APPROVED BY ME THIS 20th DAY OF June , 2018
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 46
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
2
0
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)