Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPZ - 10/30/2000 - TELE ANTENNA SITING POLICY/ALARM USER LICENSE FEE/AMB SERVICE FEES JPZ COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 30, 2000 7:00 P.M. Chernick Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Trustee Lissner, Chairman Trustee Czarnik Trustee Prochno STAFF PRESENT: Ray Rummel, Assistant Village Manager Peter Vadopalas, Asst. to the Village Manager Steve Schmidt, Chief of Police Larry Hammar, Deputy Police Chief George Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Chairman Lissner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Telecommunications Antenna Siting Policy Assistant Village Manager Rummel introduced the draft policy revisions for the Village's wireless antenna siting policy. Mr. Rummel explained the revisions are intended to create incentives for wireless companies to locate in favored areas of the Village, and to dissuade companies from siting antennas in disfavored areas. Mr. Rummel introduced Stu Chapman of Municipal Services Associates as the consultant retained to review and recommend changes to the Village's existing siting policy. He then introduced Patti Bernhardt, an attorney with the firm of Connor, Riley & Associates, who is attending the meeting to provide the perspective of the telecommunications industry on the policy. The Committee discussed creating existing antenna sites as permitted locations for new antennas, and the requirement to build oversized towers that would accommodate multiple carriers. P. Bernhardt noted that requiring towers to be built for co-location would result in the construction of larger diameter towers. To provide sufficient space for cabling within the tower structure, an oversized tower would be 5 to 6 feet wide at the base. The Committee discussed the issues associated with prohibiting new tower structures within the Village. S. Chapman explained that in denying a petition, the Village must create a written record showing the justifications for denial. This requirement can make it extremely difficult to justify a denial of a tower, which makes an antenna siting policy very important. In addition, under the Telecommunications Act, local governments may not impose an indefinite moratorium on new tower construction. The Committee discussed the prohibition of antenna sites within single family zoned districts, with the exception of"microcell" antennas. Future communications technologies may require the installation of small rooftop antennas to provide residential communication services. The Committee discussed the requirement to use "stealth"installations where appropriate, which disguise antennas as trees, flagpoles, or other common structures. P. Bernhardt explained that stealth installations are very expensive for companies to build, are not always appropriate for screening the antennas, and eliminate the ability to co-locate additional carriers. After discussion of the issue, the consensus of the Committee was to have the Village implement this type of installation when appropriate and practical, especially in "disfavored" areas where there is no other alternative. S. Chapman suggested a review requirement, wherein every telecommunications company would need to justify to the Village why their installation should remain. This requirement would provide additional regulatory authority in reviewing installations for their continued need. S. Chapman noted that while technologies may change over time, it is unlikely that telecommunications companies would no longer need antenna sites. In addition, if the company no longer needs a particular site, they may simply continue paying rent on the location rather than incur the cost of removing it. After further discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to not include this review requirement. After discussing the installation of lattice towers in the Village, the consensus of the Committee was to prohibit their construction for wireless communications uses. R. Rummel discussed the creation of Favored Locations that would not require a Special Use permit, and could be approved administratively. Such sites include co-locating with existing antennas, rooftop installations at Northwest Point or Alexian Brothers, and Village-owned property in I-2 zoning districts. The consensus of the Committee was to add the Hawthorn and Pratt water towers as favored locations, to permit the reconstruction of an existing monopole in the 1-1 and 1-2 districts, so long as the new tower does not exceed 110% of the height of the replaced antenna, and to add rooftop installations on buildings no less than 60-feet in height as favored locations. The Committee discussed several Village-owned properties as potential antenna sites. The Landmeier Public Works facility was discussed, and the consensus of the Committee was to not approve antenna installations there due to the residential nature of the neighborhood. The Committee discussed the Meacham Fire Station and Sprint's proposal to construct a 120-foot monopole there. The Village Board would be considering this petition at a future meeting. The Committee further discussed some of the terminology used in the draft policy and made several changes to industry terms as suggested by Chapman and Bernhardt. The JPZ Committee directed staff to make the revisions as approved by the Committee and to distribute revised copies of the policy for future discussion with the Village Board. Alarm User License Fee The JPZ Committee discussed a proposed Alarm Ordinance prepared by the Police Department. Representing the department were Chief Schmidt, Deputy Chief Hammar, Cindy Fox and Diane Smalec. The Committee was advised that the original Ordinance adopted in 1982 contained regulations for alarm systems in the industrial and commercial areas of the Village. This amendment would include the residential districts as well. The department indicated that there has been a significant increase in the number of false alarms from security systems in the residential area necessitating this change. In addition, the proposed amendment increases the fines and penalties for multiple false alarms. After a discussion it was the consensus of the Committee to recommend to the full Board that the proposed Ordinance amending the Alarm Systems Ordinance be passed. This amendment would include an annual license for residential alarms at a minimum $25.00 annual fee. Ambulance Service Fees The last item under discussion was the Section of the Village Code concerning fees and costs for fire service to areas outside Village limits. The Village Attorney indicated to the Committee that the Village charges an annual contract fee for fire service to unincorporated subdivisions and areas in an amount of$125.00 per year per home for the residential properties and $145.00 a year for commercial and industrial. Any persons or firm who chooses not to contract annually with the Village, and just pay on a per-call basis, an estimated cost of $490.00 per call for an ambulance and an engine. It was the consensus of the Committee to amend this Ordinance by clarifying the fact that the annual contract fee and the per-call assessment was to be the responsibility of the establishment or home as opposed to any guest or patron. The clears the ambiguity as to which party is responsible for payment for service to unincorporated areas where no contract exists. The Village Attorney was directed to prepare such an amendment. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. C: Chairman and Memb s of JPZ Committee, President and Board of Trustees, Village Manager, Assistant Vil e Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Village Clerk, Fire Chief, Chief of Police, irector of Engineering & Community Development, Director of Public Works, He th Services Coordinator, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission.