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