2004-08-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 08/04/2004
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
August 4, 2004
Zoning Ordinance amendments concerning cellular antenna
Towers—Workshop #3
Vice Chairman Samuels called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council
Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
Commissioners present: Mr. Samuels
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Teplinsky
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Khan
Also present: Mr. Dave Wytmar, Groundwork. Ltd.
Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee
Mr. Michael Rylko, Buffalo Grove Park District
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion
and the motion passed unanimously.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Samuels stated he attended the Village Board meeting on July 26, 2004 and no
items were referred to the Plan Commission. However, many citizens were present to voice their
opinions regarding Arlington Heights' approval of five-story condominium buildings on Old
Arlington Heights Road.
Trustee Kahn noted those residents have mobilized and will be meeting at Village Hall with an
attorney to discuss what opportunities they may have for pursuing action contesting the approval
granted by Arlington Heights.
Commissioner Smith stated he attended the Village Board meeting on August 2, 2004 when the
Insignia Homes project on Prairie Road was approved. There was also a pre-application
conference for a medical office on the northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Deerfield
Parkway. It was not referred to the Plan Commission.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS CONCERNING CELLULAR ANTENNA TOWERS
—WORKSHOP 93
Mr. Pfeil reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments. He stated that antenna facilities would
be allowed as permitted uses in residential districts on buildings on public or quasi-public
property, which would include churches and places of public worship. All the business districts
would also allow antenna facilities on buildings to encourage the use of existing structures rather
than the installation of new free-standing towers.
Mr. Pfeil noted the proposed special uses would be a substantial change from the current
regulations concerning towers on public property in residential districts. The proposed
regulations would allow units of local government to achieve a special use for towers. Towers up
to 60 feet would not require a special use but anything above that would require a special use.
Towers would not be allowed in the B-1, B-2 and Office & Research Districts. In the B-3, B-4,
and Industrial Districts, antennas could be achieved on either public or private property.
Commissioner Bocek asked how we can encourage this type of installation along arterial
roadways instead of in single-family areas.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted the special use criteria require findings concerning the
appropriateness of a proposed location. Any of the things that go into the mix will be relevant in
the determination of whether or not a special use should be allowed. One factor is whether it is
injurious or would affect property values, and this would be stringently evaluated for facilities
proposed in residential areas.
Commissioner Bocek noted that placing towers in small public parks close to residential areas is
not appropriate, and she is not sure that the special use criteria would be effective in preventing
the location of towers near residential properties.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated that text could be added concerning a minimum lot size for the
special use so that very small parks would not qualify.
Commissioner Cohn inquired if the regulations would require a special use for all ground based
towers regardless of height.
Mr. Pfeil stated he will need to sort out the 60 foot height limitation. Currently a private user
such as a ham radio operator is allowed to have a 60-foot high tower for non-commercial use on
a residential property. The current draft may be inconsistent concerning minimum height and the
requirement for a special use. He noted that one choice is to allow structures of 60 feet as a right
and require a special use for towers over 60 feet.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted that the proposed ordinance should be written so that a tower of
60 feet or less could be place on property owned by a unit of local government, with a special
use being required for towers over 60 feet.
Mr. Pfeil stated that is the concept that was intended in the draft text.
Commissioner Cohn stated that a cell tower is so different from the character of any residential
neighborhood that even if it is 60 feet or less the Village should make sure that it is appropriate
for the proposed location. He suggested that a special use should be required for all commercial
towers, regardless of the height.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated it is conceivable that cell companies could make arrangements
with a string of home owners resulting in 60-foot poles in their respective rear yards.
Mr. Pfeil noted that loophole needs to be closed to make sure that commercial towers are not
allowed on privately owned residential properties.
Trustee Kahn noted that the ordinance should include something regarding future configurations
that may come with new technology.
Commissioner Cohn noted that the whole issue can be avoided by requiring a special use for any
commercial communications tower regardless of location.
Mr. Pfeil noted that the location of antennas on buildings would be encouraged if a special use
was not required.
Commissioner Teplinsky asked if it would be advantageous to have a special use review of
structures placed on buildings that will be above 15 feet.
Commissioner Cohn stated that all antennas on buildings should be a special use, not just those
that are above 15 feet. An array of 15 feet on one building might be very different from 15 feet
on another building.
Mr. Pfeil noted that an appearance review would be required for an antenna structure on a
building.
Commissioner Bocek noted that Village regulations take great care to make sure that all air
conditioning units are concealed and screened, so the new regulations concerning antennas
should similar appearance regulations for cellular equipment on buildings. She stated that these
antennas and their associated equipment should be properly screened.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated the variance procedure and qualification should be defined.
Variances are normally due to hardship requirements. He asked if we are saying there is no
hardship requirement for this specific special use.
Mr. Pfeil noted the Zoning Board of Appeals is bound by specific hardship criteria in
considering a variation. The Plan Commission enjoys a more liberal approach with P.U.D.s and
special uses. It is not really a hardship in the classic zoning sense but more a matter of being
appropriate for the location at the specific height and setbacks from adjacent properties.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted that in addressing situations with multi-family density, there are
bonus factors for amenities within the P.U.D. regulations. He inquired if a similar approach
should be used for special uses concerning cellular towers.
Mr. Pfeil stated the regulations encourage co-location of antenna facilities. If a tower is going to
be 130 feet instead of 100 feet, it might be the preferred alternative if it results in fewer poles in
the community. He noted, however, that taller towers should comply with the applicable setback
standards from adjacent properties
Commissioner Bocek asked if the number of towers can be limited in the Village.
Mr. Pfeil noted that the draft regulations limit towers to one per zoning lot and there is a spatial
separation requirement of 1,000 feet between towers that are 100 feet or taller. These concepts
have been taken from a number of ordinances that were used as guides and models. The
regulations also require a provider to disclose their tower inventory and where towers are needed
to provide adequate coverage for acceptable service to customers. He noted that it is difficult to
limit the total number of towers and antennas within a community.
Mr. Pfeil sated the co-location concept needs to be clarified. Co-location should be encouraged,
but the challenge is how to make it happen in actual situations.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated it should be handled similar to the way the appearance review
standards when something is encouraged although it is not required.
Commissioner Teplinsky noted that putting into the ordinance that co-location was sought and
denied, might invite carriers to deny each other the opportunity to co-locate which would help
satisfy one of the criteria to erect a tower.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated that it could be required that they would have to allow
co-location was permission is granted to build a new tower.
Commissioner Smith noted that co-location requires taller towers than individual users require.
Commissioner Teplinsky noted that each provider on a tower would require their own equipment
shelter.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted that the equipment storage facility would have to accommodate
the number of carriers. He stated that may be something that needs to be addressed in the draft
regulations.
Commissioner Cohn noted that co-location means having fewer towers. But if we decide what
we think the density of towers should be in the Village and put that into the ordinance, then it
would not become such an issue.
Commissioner Bocek noted that she too feels it is important to specify some reasonable number
as she sees this becoming a bigger and bigger issue as time goes on.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted that in some locations it may not be feasible to accommodate
multiple users. These sites may be suitable on a smaller parcels than those accommodating
co-location.
Mr. Pfeil indicated that as currently drafted, the regulations require a carrier to provide an
inventory of only their own tower and antenna sites.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated that the ordinance should require a full inventory of all towers,
regardless of the carrier, so that the Plan Commission could identify suitable co-location
opportunities.
Mr. Dave Wytmar stated that based on many discussions with providers they have made it
known that it is very difficult to work with a 60-foot height for towers and vendors will be
coming in asking for an 80-foot height from the start. At a 60-foot height they will be asking for
a variance for every new tower. Mr. Wytmar handed out and reviewed a letter dated August 4,
2004 from John Green re: zoning ordinance amendments concerning cellular antenna towers.
The letter listed the following five notes:
1. Since the intent of the draft ordinance appears to imply a desire to promote users on a
pole, and minimal pole needs scattered around the community, then a flat 60' height limit seems
counter productive. We would suggest dual limit language
2. Since the intent of the draft ordinance and previous workshop discussions seemed to seek
to minimize the need for pole proliferation, the 60' height listed does not seem consistent with
that desire as it would require more poles located closer together throughout the community.
3. In discussions at workshops, there was dialogue suggesting that locating cell towers more
adjacent to non-residential/low impacted properties could be encouraged. However, the
proposed language does not consider these opportunities.
4. In consideration of the above, we would suggest that the language of the last sentence for
districts R-E/R-6A; R-7; R-8; R-9; B-3 /B-4 read as follows:
"The height of said tower or pole is limited to 80' for a single user structure and
120' for a multiple users structure and should be set back from property lines
abutting public road right-of-ways and adjoining residentially zoned property
lines a distance not less than equal the height of the tower or pole"
5. Also, we suggest that the following sentence be added at the end of the language for each
district listed above:
"Where property upon which a tower or pole may be located abuts non-residential
property at least 225' wide or land designated as public utility right-of-ways
(electric, storm water management, railroads, etc), it may be located not less than
15' from said property line."
Vice Chairman Samuels stated that since equipment can be located on electrical towers,
proposals for towers and antennas within a certain distance from existing electrical towers
should use the existing towers. Antennas should be located on the electrical towers, rather than
on new towers. He further noted that he would also encourage vendors to go on railroad
right-of-ways. .
Mr. Pfeil asked Vice Chairman Samuels what is to be done if a provider determines that a
Commonwealth Edison tower is too short, so they need to build their own tower on the Com Ed
property next to the existing electrical towers.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated he would encourage them to either add on to the existing
electrical tower or build a separate tower on the right-of-way property if height and appearance
issues can be adequately addressed.
Mr. Pfeil asked Mr. Wytmar how many different sites in the Village were evaluated to determine
the parameters #4 and#5 in the August 4th memo from Groundwork.
Mr. Wytmar stated that no specific sites were reviewed. He noted that heights of 80 to 120 feet
are the heights that are specified by cellular carriers in designing facilities and assessing
locations for towers.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next scheduled meeting will be held on August 18, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried
unanimously to adjourn. Vice Chairman Samuels adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
MICHAEL SAMULS, Vice Chair