Loading...
2004-12-01 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 1, 2004 Buffalo Grove Park District - Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile 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. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Proposed cell tower locations, dated May 3, 2004 Exhibit B: Schematic location plans for Busch Grove Community Park, dated 3/26/04, Rolling Hills Park, dated 5/10/04 and Bison Park, dated 6.07/04 Exhibit C: Bison Park, Sheet Z-1, dated November 24, 2004 Exhibit D: Bison Park Plan, dated December 1, 2004 Exhibit I: Bison Park Stealth Pole and Busch Grove Park Proposed Monopole Depictions Exhibits K,L. M, N Memo from T-Mobile responding to Section 17.34.040.D with T-Mobile attachments, 2A (Exh. L), 2B (Exh. M), 2C (Exh. N) Exhibit O: Accessory Structures Exterior Material Sheets, dated November 19, 2004 Exhibit P: T-Mobile Attachment#1, Existing Tower Inventory Exhibit Q: Area Existing Service Level Color Depiction prepared by Odyssey, dated June 8, 2004 Exhibit R: Staff Memo from Robert Pfeil, Village Planner dated November 24, 2004 Mr. John Green stated he will present an overview of the general program of all three sites. He stated the Buffalo Grove Park District, Board of Commissioners undertook a consideration to pursue the utilization of public land for community needs to meet the service demands and requirements for wireless communications last winter. They envisioned an opportunity for the dictates of the federal directives to ensure balance service opportunities within communities coupled with the chance to minimize taxing needs and/or park district program reductions by seeking to move to an existing income source and to move that into the public coffers. They found the Park District is in possession of some of the largest and/or best open tracts of land to meet this need with minimal impact to the community. They also found that the service providers needs existed throughout the Buffalo Grove area largely because of the difficulty in finding appropriate sites except along the eastern edges of the town and also that there was an opportunity to secure a revenue source which would otherwise be disbursed into the private sector. Finally, the Village zoning ordinance and development ordinance related to the zoning placement, location, design etc. for these various types of uses did not exist. In May, 2004 the Park District approached the Village Board for referral of the consideration of this into the Plan Commission process. After being referred to the Plan Commission process there were several workshops and an architectural review meeting to discuss the various issues and design questions related to the proposal. At the same time the Village independently embarked on a five month zoning ordinance review which resulted in a new state-of-the art comprehensive change to the zoning ordinance relative to wireless service systems. Now with Village Board approval and acceptance of that ordinance they have elected to move forward on behalf of the Park District with the proposals to provide appropriate but minimal service structures in locations within the Buffalo Grove Park District. Mr. Green noted they had been requested tonight to pass out new copies of the plans which are the same plans previously received but show the modifications recommended by the ART meeting to be included in the plan. Mr. Green stated the three sites before the Commission have been selected because of the scale and advantageous relationships and other mitigating features that exist on the land and because they bridge both the north/south and east/west service gap areas and because in combination they minimize both the height and the structural proliferation needs for this type of service. Mr. Green stated Bison Park is a 4 '/z acre park site extending south from Dundee Road. It is about 900 feet in length and at its narrowest point along Dundee Road it is approximately 225 feet wide. As the park moves to the south it begins to widen until at the very southern end it is 380 feet in width. There is single family existing to the east and the park shares a 120 foot wide parking lot with multiple family residential to the south. The entire west portion of the site is shared with or bounded by a car dealership. The dealership's driveway or parking lot extend along the park's west boundary line. Originally a 100 foot structure was proposed, but with the addition of the 10 feet height proposed at Busch Park and in consideration of the re-examination of the cell tower provider, they have been able to reduce the height to 80 feet. In order to minimize the appearance a stealth pole is proposed. This is a monopole structure where there are no arrays visible as all antennas are enclosed within the pole itself. A natural aluminum or galvanized color is proposed so that it blends best with the surrounding area. The park has a parking lot both at the north and south end. There is a soccer field to the north and a ballfield to the south. The proposed structure has been located just south and west of the ballfield as close as possible to the B-4 business zoning. This has been located where the park has expanded in its width so that the maximum distance can be obtained from both the south and east. There are a couple of tall trees that exist in the southwest corner by the ballfield. The structure is placed to fall within the area of those trees. This also positions it adjacent to an irregular line of existing trees that run east/west through the park helping to further screen any impacts to both the east and to the south. Mr. Green noted the accessory building is designed to be a split face masonry building with a gabled roof and the color scheme has been reviewed by the ART and consists of neutral tones that are consistent with those used in many other Park District structures. Fencing and evergreen landscaping are proposed for enclosure and screening. He noted that as part of this proposal two variations have been requested. The first variation is from Section 17.40.020.b which is to permit the 80 foot height. Under the new ordinance heights are limited to the height of a structure permitted within a zoning district. The second variation is to allow a 16 foot west setback and a 142 foot south setback to locate the pole within the area of the trees and as far as possible from residential zoning and at the same time to allow it to work in conjunction with the commercial use to the west. Mr. Green stated and reviewed the six Special Use criteria noting that the proposal will fill a gap in the service area and that the location has been set to minimize impacts. Second, the area surrounding the site is developed and therefore would not interfere with the development of the district and has been located as remotely as possible from existing residential and adjacent to a parking lot that is on Park District property that provides that provides appropriate access. Third, the proposal has been designed and placed to minimize any impacts and it has also been reduced in height. Fourth, the surrounding area has already been developed and this proposal will therefore not impede the development of adjacent lands. Fifth, there are adequate utilities, access roads and drainage. Sixth, this use has extremely minimal traffic needs and it has been located for access and availability for service needs. Commissioner Stark asked if the pole would be surrounded by trees. Mr. Green stated there is a large tree located immediately north of where they are proposing the tower. There is also a very large tree which exists immediately to the east of the proposed location. There is also an irregular line of trees that runs toward the east and they have tried to position the tower so it is working in conjunction with that line of trees as well as toward the south. In addition, the area will be surrounded by arborvitae. Commissioner Stark noted T-Mobile already has a 75 foot tower at Dundee and Buffalo Grove Road and asked why the proposed tower is necessary. Mr. Green noted the service area distribution plan shows there is the start of diminished service there and we have to reach toward both the west and the north from that site. Commissioner Stark asked if the term "public" means everybody. He noted it seems like this would service not only cell phone users but specifically T-Mobile cell phone users. He asked if that meets the definition of the "public" Mr. Raysa stated he believes it does. Commissioner Teplinsky asked how far the proposed shelter is from the closest apartment. Mr. Green stated they have elected to keep the shelter to the south of the structure because then it can also remain as far west as possible. It is approximately 261 feet from the lot line and 220 feet from the existing multi-family building to the southeast. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the 80 foot height of the tower includes a lightening rod. Mr. Green stated no. There will be a lightening rod which will extend up another 5 feet. He further noted that the setbacks far exceed those that have been established in the new ordinance except for where they are requesting the variation. The reason for that variation is to maximize the distance from residential. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the reduction to 80 feet affects the ability for more than one cell phone provider to use the tower. Mr. Green stated this would be limited to one cell phone provider. Commissioner Samuels asked if there are other sites available in the general area where this pole could be located. Mr. Green stated technically yes. Commissioner Samuels asked if it would technically be feasible to locate a pole such as this on a light standard. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Samuels noted it appears that the weakness of the service area is basically concentrated to the west of this site. Mr. Green noted there are gaps in service lightly toward the west and also a considerable gap toward the north. Commissioner Samuels asked if there are additional towers planned further to the west. Mr. Green no. Cross examination of Petitioner's Witnesses: Mr. Boris Hitalenko, 860 Weidner Road, asked if there is an aircraft warning light on top of each tower. Mr. Green stated no. Mr. Hitalenko asked if this proposal was within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Green stated it is his opinion that the variation requested is requested in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hitalenko asked if there are any other 80 foot towers within the neighborhood. Mr. Green stated there are a number of other towers within the area. There is a radio tower a couple of blocks west of this that is 435 feet tall. Mr. Joseph Arango, 1022 Crofton Lane, asked if this antenna microwave rays will go out in all directions at once with equal force. Mr. Green stated that is correct. Mr. Arango asked if this was for T-Mobile customers only. Mr. Green stated that is correct. Mr. Arango asked what will prevent other carriers from using the same criteria and choosing the same location. Mr. Green stated he can only respond to this petition and the answer is that this is a single user pole. Mr. Arango stated he understands that the further away from the rays emanating from the tower, the safer it is. Why then the reason for the variance in heights being requested for all of these towers. Mr. Green stated safety is an ongoing debate. It is not a concluded item. Mr. Leonard Sophian, 125 Morning Side Lane East, asked what height would be necessary for the tower at Busch Park if the Bison tower height of 100 feet was retained. Mr. Green stated they had indicated a minimum height of 110 feet for Busch. Mr. Barry Frazin, 1955 Sheridan Road, asked if a public invitation was made for the workshop meetings. Chairman Ottenheimer stated no. The laws provide that notice is only required to be given for purposes of a public hearing. At workshops no decisions are made as it is only a discussion and fact finding process. Mr. Frazin asked if it was a process that provides input from various people. Chairman Ottenheimer noted only to the extent that people show up. Mr. Frazin asked for further information on this proposal in order to "meet this need." Mr. Green stated it is for the need of the service gaps that exist in T-Mobile service. The other need is the opportunity for the Park District to capture what normally flows into the private sector as income opportunity because the Park District also has the need and opportunity to capture funds. Mr. Frazin asked if the Park District brought the wireless communication ordinance to the Village. Mr. Green stated no. He noted the Park District filed for consideration for cell towers to be located in park sites. The Village identified that there were no provisions that existed not just for Park District proposal but in general zoning ordinance. The Village then suggested that they would need to review their own zoning ordinance. The Park District did not participate in that process. The Village followed its own program and process to create a zoning ordinance. Mr. Frazin noted that the trees are shorter than 80 feet. Mr. Frazin asked what the fence will be made out of. Mr. Green stated it is a 6 foot high cyclone fence. Mr. Frazin asked how the top of the pole is accessed. Mr. Green stated he does not know. Mr. Frazin stated that if the fence is scaleable and the pole is accessible for servicing up to the top then it could be considered an attraction for children. Mr. John Siegel, 1100 Lockwood Drive, asked if he could have an estimate of approximately what the revenue stream would be coming from the three proposed towers that would help suppress his taxes. Mr. Green stated the Park District believes it is significant enough to justify going through this process at a six figure number. Mr. Siegel noted that a 120 foot cell tower at Busch Park would lessen the natural look of the Buffalo Grove Park District's nature walk recently created there. Mr. Raysa reminded everyone that these are three individual public hearings and each public hearing is being recorded by a certified court reporter. The statement just made pertains to a different tower and would be best made when that public hearing is convened. Mr. Jerry Cooper, 479 Satinwood Terrace, asked if there would be barbed wire at the top of the fence. Mr. Green stated no as it is not permitted. Mr. Cooper asked if you can see through the trees around the shelter or if it hides it. Mr. Green stated they have selected 21 trees at 6 feet high at time of planing. They will grow to completely surround the site. Mr. Cooper asked if the trees will eventually form a barrier that cannot be seen through. Mr. Green stated yes. Mr. Kevin Rose, 781 Edgemere Road, asked if this tower will enhance the calling capacity and signal strength of T-Mobile users in Arlington Heights or Palatine. Mr. Green stated the general range of the signal is approximately a one half mile diameter so anything within that diameter would get some value out of it. Mr. Rose asked if the proposed tower will be sending out a signal that is strong enough in distance from Bison Park to be able to service the T-Mobile users in Arlington Heights. Mr. Green stated some of them, yes. Mr. Rose asked why T-Mobile is proposing a stealth tower as opposed to a tower than can be used to accommodate co-location of other wireless carriers. He asked if T-Mobile has any aversions to proposing a tower than can accommodate other carriers. Mr. Green stated the Park District and Park District board sought to minimize any impacts. Also the Village ordinance seeks to minimize impacts. As a result of the discussions held by the Park District and during the workshops it was determined they would seek an 80 foot monopole in the stealth style which would only be able to handle one service provider. Mr. Rose asked if T-Mobile or the Park District done any kind of research into the effect that the proposed tower would have on property values. Mr. Green stated he understands there have been a number of studies done over the course of time on property values and there have been no significant demonstrations of effects to property values the negative. Mr. James Wiczer, 608 Hackberry Court West, noted Section 17.34.040.b provides for an inventory of nearby towers and the capacity for co-location at each tower. Mr. Green stated it was included with the submission to the Plan Commission as exhibit P. Mr. Wiczer asked why it was not possible to co-locate on the other towers. Mr. Green stated that is because the other towers are those that exist and are utilized. Mr. Wiczer noted that many things can affect the service coverage and there will always be micro gaps in coverage based on structures and other things. Even if the proposed tower is put in there would still be micro gaps. Mr. Wiczer stated that cell phone towers can be all heights. He even noted one on his building that is only 40 feet. Mr. Green stated they can be different heights but noted the Village also created a separation requirement in the ordinance which affects that. Some of the information provided is related to the separation ordinance that is part of the Village standard now. Mr. Greg Neustadt, 2003 Sheridan Road, asked how many square feet of park property would be used. Mr. Green stated the support structure in this case is 200 square feet. The fenced area is dimensioned to be 17 feet wide and 45 feet long. He noted there is no access path but there is an access gate located on the west side toward the south. There is already a parking lot nearby. Mr. Neustadt asked what the length of time of the lease would be. Mr. Green stated he is not at liberty to give specifics. He noted it is a multi-year lease. Mr. Neustadt asked how close this is to the soccer field or baseball field. Mr. Green stated the soccer field is to the north so it is a considerable distance away. The baseball field is also to the northeast to the site and the back stop appears to be about 35-40 feet away. Mr. John Halloran, 946 Crofton Lane, noted that there are many other competitors in this field and they may also want to entertain this kind of proposal and we are therefore looking at many poles in the future. He asked for more detail about maintenance of these poles. Mr. Schwartz stated there are safety rungs built onto the pole that allow an operator to service the pole. Mr. Halloran stated his discussion with a realtor showed that the values diminish by 15-25 percent when these towers are installed. Mr. Edward Kaplan, 2108 Brandywyn Lane, asked how many subscribers T-Mobile has in Buffalo Grove. Mr. Green stated that is proprietary information according to T-Mobile, however, they indicated they are doing this because of complaints from customers. Mr. Loren Cohen, 860 Weidner Road, stated he is president of the Delacourt Homeowner's Association noted they have had experience with towers. He noted the broadcasting tower causes tremendous interference and wonders if there is a possible interference issue here. Mr. Green noted that as part of the submittal process the Village requires a statement from the projected provider to indicate that interference will not bean issue. That was provided to the Plan Commission and it is part of Exhibit K. Mr. Boris Hitalenko asked what the height requirement is for an aircraft warning light on the tower. Mr. Green stated he did not know the answer to that but as part of the Village ordinance they are required to meet all FAA and federal communication standards and they will be meeting all of those standards. If it is required by FAA regulations, it has to be provided. There is no light required for this. Mr. Frost, 602 Hackberry Court West, reiterated one of the provisions of the special use criteria which requires a variation due to hardship. He asked for further detail about the hardship. Mr. Green noted the site is of significant size and scale that the Park District could pursue this without a variation. In order to pursue it without a variation the tower would need to be set at least 80 feet from the west lot line. It would also have to be set at least 160 feet from the east lot line. The width of the park permits that to happen. A request has been made at the suggestion of the Village and in discussions with the Park District and the Village in order to maximize the distance from residential users. It is not for the convenience of the Park District nor will it have an economic impact. If the Plan Commission chooses not to approve the variation, this tower can still be located on the park but would be located approximately 70 feet closer to the residential area. Mr. Edward Kaplan, 2108 Brandywyn Lane, asked how many complaints has T-Mobile received for lack of coverage within the last year. Mr. Green noted it is again a proprietary matter. Mr. Schwartz noted it is enough to justify the application and for T-Mobile to seek to cover the area in a more coverage oriented fashion. Mr. Richard Superfine, 1911 Sheridan Road, asked what the diameter would be of the guide wires relative to the first site. Mr. Green noted there are no guide wires with the monopole design. It would just be the pole itself. Mr. Superfine asked if it often becomes somewhat of a tower farm once one cellular company locates a tower in an area. Mr. Green noted that one of the discussions in creating the ordinance was whether or not the Village had an interest in creating cell farms and the ordinance was drafted so that there could not be cell farms. Ms. Katz, 897 Thornton Lane, asked if T-Mobil has had any experience or are aware of experiences with other cellular carriers where they have worked with public entities such as villages or park districts. Mr. Green stated yes. T-Mobile has done work with other government agencies including park districts. This is not the first proposal or cellular structure they have done on public property. Ms. Katz asked which villages T-Mobile has worked with. Mr. Green stated he does not have the list but he can say it was more than seven. Ms. Katz if the petitioner considers the public to be T-Mobile customers. Mr. Green stated the public is all the residents of Buffalo Grove. Ms. Katz asked if the criteria of not injurious to enjoyment of adjacent properties to have been met where there are this number of people who feel it is taking away from their aesthetic enjoyment of adjacent properties. Mr. Green stated it is their testimony that they are meeting the criteria. Mr. Raysa stated he would like to clarify the record as to what a workshop is and a public hearing and meeting is. Mr. Raysa stated that a workshop is a public meeting. Plan Commission workshops are listed on the published meeting agenda and are certainly open to the public. Mr. Barry Frazin, asked if specific notification of the workshop was sent to the affected residents in all three public hearing matters. Chairman Ottenheimer stated no. The law does not require specific notification of a workshop. Testimony by any interested persons or witnesses: None Commission questions and examination of interested persons: None Mr. Green stated they would like to reserve their conclusions and summaries until the end of the third petition. Public comments and questions: Mr. Kevin Rose, 781 Edgemere Road, stated the reason he was specifically asking about the distances in transmission from Dundee and Buffalo Grove Road and this proposed area is because he owns a business located in Wheeling. Part of his business is interaction with the three car dealers on Dundee Road. He noted that as a T-Mobile user he gets excellent signal strength and coverage in this whole area. This shows the discrepancies in what they are proposing about enhancing coverage. Mr. Halloran stated he feels that this matter and the workshops should have been brought to the people who live in this area well before this time. That this has gotten this far with so little value for the people who live in Buffalo Grove is appalling. Chairman Ottenhimer continued the public hearing as it pertains to Bison Park at 9:17 p.m. (At 11:15 p.m., after completing a portion of the public hearing concerning Rolling Hills North Park, the hearing was continued to January 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the current location, Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard.) Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 1, 2004 Buffalo Grove Park District - Busch Grove Community Park, 801 McHenry Rd Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile Chairman Ottenheimer called the public hearing to order at 9:34 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. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Proposed Cell Tower Locations, dated May 3, 2004 Exhibit B: Schematic Locations for Busch Grove Park, dated 3/26/04; Rolling Hills North Park, dated 5/10/04; Bison Park, dated 6/7/04 Exhibit E: Busch Grove Park sheet Z-1, Fullerton Engineering dated November 24, 2004 Exhibit F: Busch Grove Park Plans, Fullerton Engineering dated December 1, 2004 Exhibit I: Bison Park Stealth Pole and Busch Grove Park Proposed Monopole Depictions Exhibit K, L,M,N Memo from T-Mobile responding to Section 17.34.040.D with T-Mobile attachments 2A (Exh. L) ,2B (Exh. M),2C (Exh. N) Exhibit O: Accessory Structures Exterior Material Sheets, dated November 19, 2004 Exhibit S: Staff Memo from Mr. Pfeil, Village Planner to the Plan Commission dated November 24, 2004 pertaining to Busch Grove Park Exhibit T: Letter from Janice Hershkovich to Plan Commission Chairman dated November 22, 2004 together with three pages of signatures to a petition dated November 18, 2004, and a 10 page document from Mt. Shasta entitled Health Effects From Cell Phone Tower Radiation Mr. Green asked that all the items he outlined in his general overview during the hearing on Bison Park be included as part of the considerations for this public hearing. Mr. Green stated that the structure that is proposed to be located in Busch Grove is intended to be located roughly in the center of the 76 '/z acre park site and situated by the southerly ball field. It is intended to be set inside a U shaped peninsula with trees on three sides. It is intended to replace an existing light standard that is 70 feet tall. The same lights that are on that light standard would be reused and set at the 70 foot level. The trees surrounding this particular portion of the site are between 75-90 feet tall. At its closest point to a perimeter lot line of the park it will be over 500 feet distant from any of those lot lines which is more than twice the minimum setback that has been established by the new ordinance. Mr. Green stated the structure is shown to be located in the right field are on one of the standards which already exist. When it was originally presented it was presented at 110 feet. However, the ordinance as written by the Village encourages or suggests that where and when it is appropriate multiple user opportunities could or should be considered in order to minimize the proliferation of poles community wide. As a result they are proposing a 120 foot high pole plus 4-5 feet for the lightening rod that is intended to benefit more than one user. Mr. Green stated there would be a 200 square foot support structure which would have similar materials as described in the first public hearing. In this case the roof is a different color because they have matched the roof to existing roofs. The proposal for this site is essentially in the middle of the town because this is the weakest signal point. The facility is proposed to be fenced and landscaped in accordance with the ordinance that was created by the Village as part of their zoning ordinance. In addition, the screening has been collected on the sides that are not covered by the tree stands that exist. Mr. Green stated there are three variations being sought. The first is for the height to be 120 feet. The height limitation under the new ordinance is tied specifically to the height permitted within a zoning district. The reason for seeking the variation is because it is not possible to create a useable tower on 35 feet of height and so it is necessary to seek this variation. The 120 feet was to respond to the ordinance outlined to minimize the proliferation imposed by creating opportunities where they could be created. The second variation request is for an 86 foot setback from the north property line. Busch Grove Park consists of three parcels. There exists a lot line 86 feet north of where they are proposing the cell structure. That lot line is a lot line between part of the park and part of the park. It is not a lot line where a setback request from other uses or other sites. It is within the park itself but because there is a lot line that exists at that point and in order to maximize the distances within the entire park it was appropriate to request a variation for 86 feet from the north lot line that it shares with itself. The third variation is to permit the lights that are already there to be remounted onto this pole when it is in place. Mr. Green stated the pole will have the same finish and flavor in its design as the existing light standards. Mr. Green outlined the six criteria for special use and stated: 1. They believe this will provide for a gap in the existing service distribution area. 2. The site has been pretty much developed and they do not believe it will have any impact and the access does exist. 3. They believe they have situated this and placed and spaced it so that it will not be injurious in any way 4. Most of the property surrounding this has already been developed and they do not believe that will have any impact. 5. Adequate utilities, access roads and other necessary facilities have been provided. 6. The traffic impacts of this use are minimal and occasional access is all that is needed. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the ability of a member of the public to receive a signal depends on the quality of phone they have. Mr. Green stated he is advised that the quality of the phone has some effect. Commissioner Teplinsky noted there appear to be some inconsistencies between Exhibit Q (the existing service level map) and the attachment that is part of Exhibit K, L, M, N. He noted Exhibit Q shows an area indicating very poor coverage in the east. However the Exhibit K, L. M, N, does not show the same thing along Deerfield Road. Mr. Green noted there are some areas of good service but much without good service. Commissioner Samuels noted his recollection from the ART notes is that the ice bridge on the service building is to be eliminated in favor an underground connection. Mr. Green stated no. The changes requested by the ART are now on the new plans dated November 24, 2004. Commissioner Stark asked if a 120 foot tower covers more area than an 80 foot tower. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Stark asked if T-Mobile is averse to co-location here. Mr. Green stated more importantly the Park District is not averse to co-location here. Commissioner Samuels asked if T-Mobile is one of the carriers on the Northwest Community Hospital grounds. Mr. Green stated they had been negotiating to get on that pole but did not get located on that pole. Commissioner Samuels asked if they were not able to locate there due to financial issues or because there was no room. Mr. Schwartz stated there were structural issues which had a bearing on the determination. Cross-examination of petitioner: Ms. Wendy Frost, 602 Hackberry Court West, asked if the screening of the support structure with arborvitae trees would prevent people from seeing the structure and hide behind the bushes. Mr. Green stated the Village ordinance requires that it be screened with evergreen material. Mr. Ed Barnett, 1939 Sheridan Road, asked what the coverage for this tower is. Mr. Green stated they have tried to locate the tree poles that are requested so that all inter-work together. It is somewhere between '/z mile and 1 miles. Mr. Barnett stated this pole must go at least a mile if they are going to get coverage by the three poles. Mr. Schwartz stated the taller pole has a greater coverage range than the shorter pole. There is no absolute empirical answer to the question. Mr. Barnett stated special use number one talks about a health hazard and this is a park where children play. He noted it has been stated that it is still questionable whether or not these poles are health issues. Can it be stated for sure that there is no health issue involved in locating these poles in parks. Mr. Raysa noted that questions have been asked as to what the federal Telecommunications Act describes as RF. The Telecommunications Act gives the Federal Communication Commission the sole authority to determine what standards wireless facilities must meet to ensure that radio frequency emissions do not harm humans or the environment. If the facilities meet the FCC standards concern about the effect of the RF emissions is not a permissible reason for making a zoning decision. He then quoted from Metro PCS, Inc. vs. City and County of San Francisco wherein it said that Metro PCS claims the city based its denial on the purported adverse environmental effects of the radio frequency emissions in violation of a certain section. It goes on to state, "no State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the place, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Therefore this Plan Commission nor the Village Board cannot make its decisions based upon testimony in regards to radio frequency emissions. Public comments and questions: Mr. Leonard Sophian, 125 Morningside Lane East, stated the major benefit being offered to persons is an improvement in service from T-Mobile. He stated he feels there are other avenues available that would be less costly than setting up these towers. He stated the economy is based on the idea of free and open competition which does not require a level playing field. It requires you to offer the best you can and if the customers do not like it they have an alternate source which would be with other companies who are not here pressing for such towers. He stated the economic benefit to the Park District will not, however, result in any kind of a tax decrease. It may allow for new programs, but in general this is insufficient justification to take property which is public property essentially and devote it to private use which will have no economic benefit to the majority of the people within its range. In addition, to say that you will be screening the tower by putting in trees which will grow to a height of 12 feet is ridiculous. Mr. Jerry Cooper, 479 Satinwood Terrace, stated if the funds are really needed, there must be other ways to get the funds instead of doing this. He asked what happens if T-Mobile should default. He asked who would be carrying liability insurance for an accident. Mr. Ed Barnett, 1939 Sheridan Road, noted that a decrease in home values far outweighs the money to be made for the Park District through the loss of taxes. Ms. Ann Giometti, 2128 Birchwood Lane, stated she is familiar with the financial difficulties of the Park District and is saddened that Park District land must be used for this. She further noted that in the next 3-5 years we may not even need these towers anymore. If we open the gates to this kind of project it leaves them open to further possibilities. Mr. Eric Rauscher, 2002 Sheridan Court, stated it is a shame that the Park District has representatives to do their job instead of coming here and supporting what they think is right. Mr. Kevin Rose, 781 Edgemere, stated it seems the impact to the Park District cannot be nearly as beneficial as what T-Mobile stands to benefit. It does not seem conceivable the Park District will benefit as much as T-Mobile will. He also stated it is a shame that no one from the Park District is here tonight. Mr. Steven Shlobin, 790 Edgemere, noted there is such a concept called micro site. This is what Europeans do in densely populated cities. T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telecom which is primary carrier in Europe. Micro sites do not require antenna towers and are put on regular utility poles. There are other solutions that could be brought to this problem. Chairman Ottenheimer continued the public hearing at 10:33 p.m. (At 11:15 p.m., after completing a portion of the public hearing concerning Rolling Hills North Park, the hearing was continued to January 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the current location, Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard.) Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 1, 2004 Buffalo Grove Park District - Rolling Hills North Park, 1951 Sheridan Road Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 10:33 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. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following Exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Proposed Cell Tower Locations, May 3, 2004 Exhibit B: Schematic Locations, Busch Grove Community Park, March 26, 2004, Rolling Hills North Park, May 10, 2004, Bison Park, June 7, 2004 Exhibit G: Rolling Hills North Park, Sheet Z-1, Fullerton Engineering, November 24, 2004 Exhibit H: Rolling Hills North Park Plans, Fullerton Engineering, December 1, 2004 Exhibit J: Lattice Pole Rendition, Rolling Hills North Park Exhibit K, L,M,N: Memo from T-Mobile responding to Section 17.34.040.D with T-Mobile attachments, 2A (Exh. L), 2B (Exh. M), 2C (Exh. N) Exhibit O: Accessory Structures Exterior Material Sheets, dated November 19, 2004 Exhibit P: T-Mobile Attachment#1, Existing Tower Inventory Exhibit Q: Area Existing Service Level Color Depiction prepared by Odyssey, dated June 8, 2004 Mr. Green stated the Rolling Hills North Park is a 5.6 acre site with an existing ballfield in the southeast portion of the park. The structure is proposed to be located as remotely as possible from any and all residential areas surrounding the park. The triangular park on the south and west side of the triangular park is bounded by a 210 foot wide Commonwealth Edison right of way with a double row of high tension towers and a lower wooded pole line that is on the north side of the back high tension line. That high tension line area adjacent to this park covers an additional 3-3.3 acres of land. This makes the total area in which the structure is to be located almost 9 acres. The proposed cell tower location has been coordinated to work with the locations of the Commonwealth Edison transmission lines. Commonwealth Edison advises that their structures in this area are 75 feet and 90 feet tall. The proposed structures have now been reduced to 90 feet to work with the existing heights of the Comm Ed lines. They are also seeking to locate the cell structure nearest to the Comm Ed right of way so that the cell tower and high tension lines can work and blend together in addition to maximizing the distance from residential areas. The accessory structure is designed to have a gabled roof and concrete masonry walls similar to those that have been previously described. Fencing and evergreen landscaping, in this case 32 arborvitae are included to meet the Village ordinance requirements. Mr. Green stated that in this case they were also looking for a design to diminish the visual impact. T-Mobile and Fullerton Engineering have responded to that and have become creative in their proposed solution. They are proposing for this site a lattice structure which has an access route to the park that exists through a Comm Ed right of way. He stated it has a bikepath so access is provided to the location of the tower. The design has been created to mimic and will have the same finishes as the existing high tension towers. They have also located it on the site so it is working in conjunction with a pair of towers that now exist immediately to the south of the proposed location. Mr. Green stated there is a ballfield to the east of the proposed structure. It would be coordinated so that it works between those elements and they have endeavored to consider the overall distances, including the Comm Ed right of way. As such they are requesting two variations. The first variation is to permit the 90 foot height. Because all Park District land is zoned with underlying residential zoning, the maximum height for the residential zoning is 35 feet and it is not possible to have an operational tower that is effective at 35 feet so it is necessary to request the variation. The second variation is to permit the tower structure to be located 16 feet from the Commonwealth Edison right of way instead of 90 feet. That permits them to move it closer to the Common Ed right of way. This tower could be located on the park site without a variation but it would require it to be closer to residential uses. This way it maximizes the distance from the residential sites and they do exceed the limitations that are established in the new ordinance. It would be approximately 226 feet northeasterly of the Rolling Hills development and approximately 270 feet west of the Churchill development and it would be approximately 270 feet south of the north lot line. The site is bounded on the north by Long Grove and on the east, south and west by Buffalo Grove. All other provisions of the new ordinance would apply and these include those ordinance standards that have been specifically designed and require provisions for maintenance, for removal, discontinuation of use, site restoration, escrow funding, bonding and insurance, etc. Mr. Green once again read and reviewed the six Special Use criteria. Commissioner Smith asked for a review of the need for this cell tower. Mr. Green stated it is the third prong in what has been leading up to a three part presentation. They are required to make independent presentations. There is a large gap in Buffalo Grove, north/south and east/west. The connection of these three towers as proposed fills in most of that gap. The goal has been to minimize the overall program and maximize the opportunity to provide general service throughout the community. It is not fully served by one tower in the middle. A tower needs to be built at the north and south end of the community. These towers now provide that overall general service. It is a linked need. Commissioner Smith asked if it is possible for T-Mobile to utilize the existing Comm Ed towers. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Smith asked for more detail on why this project will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties. Also, what information is there that this will not diminish property values? Mr. Green stated they have indicated that there have been studies about property values which do not indicate conclusive evidence that this specifically diminishes property value. He noted the surrounding property has already been development so they do not see any developmental issues. The other element they have worked on is the question of providing the service while eliminating the visual aspects which they believe they have accomplished by creating a lattice tower so that it will look and blend in as just another one of the high tension poles. Commissioner Teplinsky referred to a letter dated November 4, 2004 from Erica Baltizar to the Plan Commission regarding justification for the Rolling Hills location. He stated that the results of the study on Ms. Baltizar's memo appear to be completely different from Exhibit Q and asked for an explanation. He noted the area she indicates that surround the proposed site has a lot of green and blue and she concludes that the T-Mobile coverage is not efficiently serving its customers in this region at the present time causing poor quality and in many instances inability to place or receive calls altogether. The Rolling Hills location in Exhibit Q which appears to be surrounded by red and pink does not make sense. Mr. Green stated he will explore that with T-Mobile as part of these proceedings. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if T-Mobile could locate their antenna on the Comm Ed towers and if they have attempted to do that. Mr. Green stated they have had conversations with Comm Ed in general. The information they provided to the Park District is that they are very difficult to talk to and secondly T-Mobile would prefer to provide the funding to the Park District rather than to Comm Ed. Third, one of the reasons this proposal is before the Plan Commission is that if it is on a high tension line it will be considerably closer to residential. Commissioner Bocek asked for a response to a question from the public about new technology in Europe not requiring the tower. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the petitioner needed to consult with T-Mobile about that. Commissioner Samuels asked if the six figure number mentioned as revenue includes all of the proposals. Mr. Green stated there are different arrangements for each of the proposals which total six figures. Commissioner Samuels asked if the tower would be built if only one part of this linkage is approved. Mr. Green stated yes. He stated that any one of them would still increase service opportunity. Commissioner Stark asked if the chain link fence around the proposed accessory structure is there to keep people out. Mr. Green stated it is there because it is required by Village ordinance. Commissioner Stark asked if there is anything around the electrical towers prohibiting people from getting to them. Mr. Green stated it is a prairie area and are designed to prevent people from getting up them. Mr. Schwartz stated it is important to note that the Buffalo Grove Park District did not just walk out onto the street, meet someone from T-Mobile and say what a great idea. The Park District which is a body of government in this community and consists of a Board and holds elections, met two or three times in the winter and spring of 2004 to discuss in great detail and analyze the request and proposals that were being made to them. They did so keeping in mind the benefits that would be derived by the Park District which would be shared and spread through the Village of Buffalo Grove. The benefits that would be derived financially would assist the Park District in providing the wonderful resources and parks that it does. The Park District clearly spent substantial time analyzing, reviewing and making the determination at public workshops at which any one of the residents of the Village could attend and came to a conclusion that it was a benefit to the Park District and the people it serves to pursue this. It is also important to note that although there has been no testimony from the Park District they have been present at this hearing and are keenly and acutely aware and concerned about the outcome of this matter. Commissioner Samuels asked if the length of the lease was disclosed at the Park District hearings. Mr. Schwartz stated he does not believe the negotiations and terms of the contract were discussed in a public meeting because those terms are proprietary. He noted that he would hope the fact would be accepted that the Park District is working for the best interests of the community at large and the people it serves. The concerns that were raised concerning duration, insurance, bonding, abandonment and all the other things are clearly considerations that are part of the contract negotiations. Commissioner Samuels once again asked if the amounts of the contracts or the lengths of the contracts discussed in those public meetings. Mr. Schwartz stated he did not believe they were but he will find out the information and get back. Mr. Green stated the term of the agreement is 20 years. He noted the question regarding the differential between the two different mappings is that one of them is a road test. Those measurements were taken by an individual driving down the roads which is why it is limited to the road areas only. As indicated earlier you sometimes get different readings at different times. As a result the broader test is the all area test which is the infamous Exhibit Q. That is the broad area test which tends to give you a better picture of the service areas. What you see in that is that the general service area in the north is a bit better than the one in the south but there is still a great gap through the middle of the Village and running a bit east/west. After having gotten the road test which they were obligated to do, they got an all area test and that is the differential between the two reports. Further, he noted that in relation to the micro-cell technology, he is advised that micro-cell technology does exit and that the units cover a significantly smaller area because they are significantly smaller units. As such they would need more of them because the area coverage would be much less and that they tend to be used here in high density environments and is the short of thing that might be mounted on a street light or a traffic light and therefore pick up a smaller service area but a larger density of people. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how many people would wish to have cross-examination of petitioner's witnesses. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the public hearing would have to be continued because of the hour. Mr. Pfeil recommended continuation to January 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Raysa asked for a count of how many people wish to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there were at least 10 hands. Mr. Raysa suggested re-opening the other two public hearings so they could be continued. Chairman Ottenheimer opened the public hearings on Busch Grove Park and Bison Park and continued all of the hearings to January 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the current location, Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. 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: 12/01/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 1, 2004 Buffalo Grove Park District, Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Busch Grove Park, 801 McHenry Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Rolling Hills North Park, 1951 Sheridan Road— Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 11:09 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 20, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the special meeting of November 10, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS—None CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted that the next regular meeting is December 15, 2004. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adj ourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adj ourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair