Loading...
2004-09-08 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/08/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Special Meeting SPECIAL MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 8, 2004 Zoning Ordinance amendments concerning cellular antenna Towers—Workshop #4 ASAP Software, 850 Asbury Drive—Final Plat ASAP Subdivision Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Ms. Martha Weiss, Buffalo Grove Park District Mr. Michael Rylko, Buffalo Grove Park District APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Ottenheimer and Khan abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on August 30, 2004. She stated there were no referrals to the Plan Commission. There was a pre-application conference for the proposed Fairview Estates residential development on the east side of Weiland Road south of Pauline Avenue by Glenbrook Properties. A resolution was passed objecting to the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Timber Court condo development on the west side of Old Arlington Heights Road in the north part of Arlington Heights. Buffalo Grove staff is investigating the legal aspects as far as the zoning and density of the development to see what possible recourse the Village may have, if any. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS CONCERNING CELLULAR ANTENNA TOWERS —WORKSHOP 94 Mr. Pfeil reviewed and summarized the revised text for the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. He noted any commercial towers are to be regulated as a special use regardless of height. He noted that if the base height for towers is established as the building height of the underlying zoning district, height variations will be requested for most commercial towers since the standard for building height is generally 35 to 45 feet for most of the Villages districts. In the Industrial District a base height of 80 feet for towers is suggested. A special use would still be required, but it there may be locations where towers can be constructed without needing variations of the height standard. Mr. Pfeil further noted that towers would be allowed as a special use on publicly owned property and public utility property in residential districts. The setbacks from property lines would be the height of the tower. For building-mounted antennas some Commissioners had discussed requiring a special use if an antenna exceeded 15 feet which can be further discussed tonight. Mr. Pfeil continued noting that Mr. Summers has prepared some supplementary text concerning appearance review requirements for building-mounted antennas. Lastly, there is a condition that a petitioner would have to supply an inventory of all existing towers in the area, not just the towers owned or leased by the specific carrier requesting approval for a specific location. Commissioner Cohn noted the draft text needs to be made consistent concerning terminology. He pointed out that terms such as "personal wireless services" and "telecommunications facilities" are used in various portions of the draft. Commissioner Samuels noted that in the draft text under Procedures the text reads: "The Plan Commission is authorized, pursuant to direction from the Corporate Authorities, to conduct a review and public hearing to recommend a variation of said height standard." He commented that this language sounds like it is not discretionary and may need to be revised. Also, in the next paragraph the text"...this chapter has the effect of prohibiting a person or entity..." should read as alleged effect. Commissioner Cohn asked how a petitioner would know where existing towers within the Village and within one mile of the Village's boundaries exist. Mr. Pfeil stated he is not sure what methodology they would use. There was also general discussion by the Commissioners on this matter and how they might obtain information. Commissioner Cohn asked for a clarification of section E under General Requirements concerning the bond and letter of credit requirements. Mr. Raysa commented that this section should read that the bond or letter of credit shall be equivalent to 125% of the sum of the estimated cost of maintenance and the cost of removal and disposal. Mr. Pfeil noted that in section F under General Requirements, it would be important to require co-location on towers as they get higher and this is something that needs to be addressed on an individual basis for each petition. Commissioner Samuels noted an inconsistency in section G regarding the minimum height requirement and stated it is at cross purposes with co-location requirement. If co-location is desirable but requires a higher antenna in a given location, the paragraph following this requirement states that the petitioner must demonstrate that the antenna height is the minimum required. Chairman Ottenheimer suggested changing the language to state the petitioner shall demonstrate what the minimum height required shall be in order to provide satisfactory operation. Commissioner Samuels also suggested what effect co-location would have on that height, if any. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the language in section F regarding co-location is an alternative to the concept of making a petitioner demonstrate that they sought to hook onto someone else's tower but were denied. Mr. Pfeil stated yes. He noted that it seemed that the Commission was skeptical that requiring a petitioner to say they had tried to co-locate but weren't successful would not be enough for the Village to determine the reasons that co-location is not feasible. In the alternative situation, if a tower is going to be 100 feet or higher, it is incumbent on the petitioner to address co-location. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if this means that the Plan Commission and Corporate Authorities can say that in order for you to build your tower you have to provide the opportunity for co-location. Mr. Raysa said conditions of this type are permissible if the facts of the situation indicate that co-location is feasible. Trustee Kahn noted that the Village Board recently reviewed a petition by U.S. Cellular that proposed a 150-foot tower in the Com Ed right-of-way south of Aptakisic Road, and the Board discussed co-location with that petitioner. The petitioner indicated that that other carriers are very reluctant to share information relative to service coverage areas and technical requirements. The Village will have to be very careful to communicate with the actual decision makers for the respective carriers to ensure that the co-location alternative is adequately addressed for specific locations. Commissioner Samuels asked to what extent the Village can regulate the locations or towers. He asked if they can be forced to pay a tax to try to force some co-location. Mr. Raysa stated as far as he knows that would be looked at in court as trying to inhibit that tower. He does not as yet have a full answer. Mr. Pfeil continued to review the proposed language and noted that number 5 under section G should be modified to better address the situation when an equipment shelter needs to be large enough to accommodate more than one carrier. Mr. Pfeil noted that section H is the abandonment language. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how we would know if a tower is not being used. Ms. Kenski-Sroka stated you can check with the FCC to see what licenses are active. Commissioner Cohn noted you can track FCC licenses or business licenses. Commissioner Samuels asked where the provisions are regarding fines for abandonment Mr. Raysa commented that generally the bond or letter or credit would be used to remove a tower. Mr. Pfeil stated that as technology changes it is hard to know if a tower of a certain height is still going to be as useful as it was. Mr. Pfeil reviewed the definitions section of the proposed zoning amendments and the special uses addressed in residential districts. The major change in the proposed ordinance is that towers would be allowed as a special use on property owned by a unit of local government or a public utility. Mr. Pfeil stated the second table concerns special uses in business districts. Towers would not be allowed in B-1, B-2, and B-5 or in Office & Research district. Towers would be allowed in the B-3, B-4 and Industrial districts. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he feels the distance between each pole in the residential districts seems to be too close. He stated the way he is reading the proposed ordinance the setback has to be not less than the height of the tower or pole. He asked if this means that if a pole is 150 feet, it has to be 150 feet back from the property line. Commissioner Samuels asked if the setback is sufficient at 150 feet. Chairman Ottenheimer stated you could have a setback of 150 feet from the line but then it could be up close to the next structure. Trustee Kahn said he is thinking along the lines of Highland Park or Wilmette which require a distance of not less than two times or three times the height of the towers depending on the specific situation. Mr. Raysa noted that a municipality's regulations and standards should not have the effect of prohibiting towers. The regulations should provide a reasonable basis concerning control of the aesthetics, zoning and spacing of towers. He noted that the special use authority gives the Village the basis to place conditions on a special use. Mr. Pfeil said that he thinks it would be onerous to require a setback as large as three times the height of a tower. Commissioner Samuels noted you can still vary the setback or put in a lot size restriction. He commented that multiples of a setback probably work better and are more closely allied for the purpose of protecting adjacent residents. He suggested that a setback of two times the height of a tower would be reasonable for sites adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Raysa noted that generalized aesthetic concerns may be a basis for denial, but aesthetics can be difficult to articulate and quantify. How do you prove that a tower is so unsightly and unsuitable that it is not appropriate for the proposed location? To what extent can it be shown that an unsightly tower would have a negative effect on the value of adjacent properties? Commissioner Samuels stated that when a petition is denied there would be a number of factors supporting the Plan Commission recommendation or final Village Board action. A denial would not be based on just one factor such as setbacks or aesthetics. If a setback requirement is part of the denial, the setback itself is not necessarily the denial. Setbacks function to alleviate a number of concerns such as safety, aesthetics, etc. Mr. Raysa noted that if the Village denies a tower, there must be written reasons for the denial and there must be evidence to support the denial. Commissioner Stark commented that the litigation in this area seems to place the burden on the municipality to justify why a petition was denied rather than having the petitioner prove that the tower is needed and has little impact on adjacent properties. Commissioner Samuels stated that since one of the factors for denial can be property values, can the Village require an independent expert to determine appraisal value and if so who would pay for that expert. Mr. Raysa stated the Village can certainly hire an expert appraiser for testimony. The Village's costs for this type of professional expertise can be shifted to the petitioner. He noted the Village enacted a cost recovery ordinance in March, 2003 which requires any petitioner for a zoning action to deposit $2,000 for payment of the Village's costs and expenses such as newspaper notices, traffic consultants, Village attorney's fees and other similar costs. Commissioner Cohn stated that the Village should make sure that the fee schedule covers the real costs that the Village will have in reviewing petitions for towers. Mr. Green noted that the paving requirement for off-street parking might be a problem and unnecessary in some instances. Mr. Pfeil commented that in some situations paving may be very difficult and expensive so it might be a legitimate reason to allow a variation of the paving requirement. Mr. Green asked that the parking language be checked as it sounds like it may require 27 foot aisles, handicapped parking, etc. ASAP SOFTWARE, 850 ASBURY DRIVE—FINAL PLAT—ASAP SUBDIVISION Chairman Ottenheimer asked what this plat is about as he does not recall it ever coming before the Plan Commission. Mr. Pfeil noted ASAP has an existing property in the Village at 850 Asbury. ASAP purchased an adjoining parcel from the Laidlaw school bus company. ASAP is enlarging their site to support construction of a building addition and expanded parking lot. The re-plat places all the property in a single real estate lot. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commission Bocek to recommend approval to the Village Board of the final plat of subdivision for ASAP Software. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Samuels The motion passed 8 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said that the next meeting will be a special meeting on September 22, 2004. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair