Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/16/1996 - AT&T ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes "October 16, 1996 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers Present: F. Geinosky, Chairman C. Prochno, Secretary P. Ayers C. Henrici D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski K. Zizzo Absent: R. Guzzardi J. Meyers Staff: S. Niehaus, Administrative Assistant Petitioners: Jim Leahy, Riley & Associates Abe Ghais, Flour Daniel Architects Dave Roach, AT&T Wireless Communications Larry Dobkin, Altheimer & Gray Chairman Geinosky called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Chairman Geinosky introduced Don Sokolowski as the newest Plan Commission member. Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the September 18, 1996 Plan Commission meeting. Item A: AT&T Special Use Permit Requests Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Secretary Prochno swore in the petitioners. Leahy explained to the Plan Commission that AT&T Wireless Service Corporation (AT&T) was seeking a special use permit for the purpose of constructing both temporary and permanent antenna structures on Village owned property located north of Oakton Avenue west of Lively Boulevard. Leahy stated that AT&T had recently purchased personal communication services (PCS) licenses from the Federal government which would enable them to enter into the wireless communications market in competition with the existing service providers, Cellular One and Ameritech. Leahy stated that AT&T is currently in the process of securing the necessary locations for their system infrastructure. Leahy explained that AT&T will need between 250 and 300 antennas throughout the Chicagoland region. AT&T's typical antenna is a monopole structure in excess of 100 feet in height, equipped with a triangular platform structure constructed to hold nine (9) panel antennas. Leahy stated that the temporary and permanent antennas at the proposed location would be 67 feet and 112 feet in height respectively. The maximum allowable height on I-1 zoned property is 60 feet. Leahy stated that AT&T's infrastructure plan required that an antenna be located somewhere in the northeastern portion of Elk Grove. Leahy explained that AT&T originally approached the village with three potential sites, all of which were perceived to have negative impacts on the surrounding property owners. As a result, AT&T met with Village staff who proposed that they locate on the Village's property at Oakton and Bonnie. Leahy stated that the site is ideal because it is compatible with their technical needs and is located in an industrial area adjacent to other tall structures (Commonwealth Edison towers and high tension lines) . Leahy stated that the village plans to utilize their property for the purpose of constructing a fire substation and a salt storage dome. However, due to the fact that the village does not know what the site plan for the parcel will look like, AT&T is seeking permission for a temporary special use permit which would allow them to install their equipment on the property and begin testing on the site prior to providing active service in the spring of 1997. The site plan for the temporary equipment includes the installation of a 67 foot wooden pole on the site in conjunction with a portable equipment shelter which will house the antenna's control functions. Leahv stated that the antenna and shelter will be enclosed in a chain link fence to deter vandalism. Leahy stated that ingress and egress to the temporary antenna will be available through an access agreement with an adjacent property owner to the east. Leahy stated that AT&T is willing to work with the Village to locate their permanent antenna in a manner compatible with the Village uses. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to the difference between the temporary and permanent equipment shelters. Leahy stated that the temporary shelter is a self contained unit that is placed on screw anchors and can be installed or removed within a short time period. The permanent shelter is a precast concrete structure placed on a concrete pad which is large enough for equipment technicians to perform maintenance procedures from inside the building. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to the approximate height of the permanent antenna. Leahy stated that the height will not exceed 112 feet. Commissioner Ayers questioned staff as to what is actually being considered for special use. Niehaus stated that the Plan Commission should be providing recommendations to the Village Board on both special use permit requests. In addition, any recommendations may also be subject to a site plan review of AT&T's permanent site prior to issuance of the special use permit. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to what would happen if the special use were not approved and if it was absolutely necessary. Leahy stated that AT&T would not be able to provide PCS services to customers in the Elk Grove area and for that reason the special use was absolutely necessary. Commissioner Prochno questioned if the petitioners had considered any of Village's water towers in their feasibility studies. Leahy stated that AT&T had considered the Village water towers but had determined that their locations were not within theirsearch ring and would not be technically feasible. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to the material of the temporary pole and how the antenna cable would be mounted on it. Leahy stated that the temporary pole would be wood and would have a cable running on its exterior. Commissioner Henrici questioned if AT&T would have any difficulty accessing the site over the drainage ditch on the east portion of the property. Leahy stated that it would not be a problem and would be done in a manner acceptable to the Village. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if the access arrangements would pose any conflicts with the traffic and parking of the adjacent businesses. Leahy stated that AT&T's maintenance personnel would only visit the site once per month for a short time period, therefore no conflicts should exist. Chairman Geinosky questioned why AT&T needed such a tall facility as compared to other cellular providers. Leahy stated that AT&T is currently in its build out stage where they are creating their cellular infrastructure with macro cells. As such, they require taller heights in order to make the necessary connections in their grid systems. In comparison, Ameritech and Cellular One are mature companies who are in the process of filling in holes within their grid system with micro cells. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to AT&T's future need in Elk Grove. Leahy stated that their current plans do not show a need for additional antennas, however, it is difficult to say that they will not need any more in the future. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to AT&T's proposed timeline for construction. Leahy stated that AT&T would like to have their temporary antenna installed by November 30, 1996. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to why the permanent equipment shelter was so much larger than the temporary one. Leahy stated that the permanent shelter needed to be designed to allow maintenance employees to work on the system within the building. Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing to comments from the audience at 9:10 p.m. There were no comments. r , Chairman Geinosky questioned .p€ the petitioners had any closing statements. Leahy stated that he felt that AT&T had taken the correct approach in determining the location of the antenna by working with the Village and that they were willing to work around the Fire Department and Public Works building needs to be located on the site. Chairman Geinosky closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded a motion to recommend approval of AT&T's special use permit requests to allow the construction and installation of temporary and permanent monopole antenna structures on village owned property north of Oakton Street and west of Lively Boulevard subject to the following conditions: - the temporary monopole structure shall not exceed 67 feet in height; - the permanent monopole structure shall not exceed 112 feet in height; and - final site plan review for the permanent antenna and equipment by the Plan Commission Upon voting (Ayers, Geinosky, Paliganoff, Prochno, Sokolowski, Zizzo AYES, Guzzardi, Meyers ABSENT, Henrici ABSTAIN) the motion carried. Chairman Geinosky called for a 15 minute break prior to addressing Item B on the agenda. Chairman Geinosky reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. item B, Antenna Siting Policy Chairman Geinosky asked staff to provide some background on the origin and purpose of the antenna siting policy. Niehaus stated that the antenna siting policy was drafted in response to the increased number of antenna requests coming before the village. The draft policy was developed by staff using the informal methods and procedures that the Village Board, JPZ Committee, and Plan Commission had used to regulate antennas to date. In addition, some language was incorporated from similar policies in other communities. Niehaus stated that the purpose of the policy wasrprovide petitioners with guidelines to use when considering locations in Elk Grove. It is intended to benefit the Village Board, Plan Commission, staff, and the petitioners by making more information available up front which will make the decision making process smoother for all involved. Commissioner Geinosky stated that the Village Board requested that members of the cellular industry be present to discuss how the draft antenna siting policy would impact their industry and asked them to provide their comments. Larry Dobkin (Cellular one) and Jim Leahy (AT&T) stated that they had received a copy of the draft policy and had concerns with several areas. Dobkin stated that he had a concern with the requirement that a five year facilities plan for the five mile radius around the proposed site be presented at the time of application. Dobkin stated that this requirement was both burdensome and impractical due to the fact that most cellular companies did not have a five year plan and if they were to provide one it would most likely be in a state of constant change. Additional concerns over proprietary rights were also cited by both Dobkin and Leahy. Considerable discussion on this issue took place amongst the Plan Commission members who felt that there was a need for some type of facilities plan to be submitted for informational and planning purposes. The general consensus of the Commission was that a submission of all future known mans within the Village li its of Elk Grove in the next two to five years would be sufficient to supply meet the Village's needs without causing burdensome or meaningless work for the cellular companies. A second concern expressed by the cellular companies was the policy's requirement that each special use permit for antennas be subject to a review by the Plan Commission every seven years. Dobkin and Leahy both stated that such a review would be a concern of their clients who invest large amounts of capital resources towards the development of cell sites. Dobkin stated that their fear was that they would be subject to losing their special use permit if the Plan Commission thought that their sites were not necessary even though they are not technical experts in the field. Dobkin stated that a review process to determine necessity of the towers would be useless due to the fact that cellular companies would rather remove the towers than pay rent on a site that serves no purpose. The Plan Commission discussed this portion of the policy and determined that its purpose was to limit the existence of towers and antennas which are no longer in use. The consensus of Plan Commission was that language requiring all towers/antennas which are no longer in permanent use to be removed would be sufficient to meet this need. Dobkin also stated that the first requirement under the roof mounted antenna guidelines was contradictory to what was the standard industry practice. Dobkin stated that most micro cell antennas are located on the edge of the building as opposed to the center of the roof because they do not need to be as high in order to function effectively. Dobkin stated that any requirement that the antennas be located in the center of the roof would only increase their height and create an additional negative impact. Commissioner Henrici also added that this requirement would be a disincentive for companies to located on top of existing buildings which was contrary to the Village's desire to have cellular companies use existing structures as opposed to new towers and poles. Upon discussion of this issue it was the consensus of the Plan Commission that the requirement for all roof top antennas be located in the center of the building be removed. In addition, the Plan Commission felt that some consideration should be given to waiving the special use permit process for locations where facilities currently exist or for where special use permits have been granted. The Plan Commission felt removal of the special use process would motivate cellular companies to locate on existing locations as opposed to seeking new properties. Both Dobkin and Leahy confirmed that such an action would be attractive to cellular companies. Commissioner Prochno requested that the definition of disfavored sites be expanded to include sites which are adjacent to single family attached or detached zoned districts due to the fact that antennas may be proposed in commercial and industrial zoned districts adjacent to residential uses. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to recommend this change as proposed by Commissioner Prochno. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to the definition of the term "visual obstruction or clutter" which was used in the general guidelines section of the policy. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission that the Village Board consider clarifying this definition prior to adopting the policy. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Paliganoff moved and Commissioner Prochno seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board adopt the antenna siting policy subject to the following changes: - That application information requirement #1 be amended to require the submission of "all future known plans for the next two to five years within Elk Grove" in place of the existing language; - That General Guideline #6 be replaced with a requirement that all cellular facilities be removed upon the termination of permanent use; - That Attached/Rooftop Mounted Cellular and PCS Antenna Guidelines #1 be amended to allow the installation of facilities on any portion of the building; and - That the definition of disfavored sites be amended to include all locations "adjacent to" single family attached or detached zoned districts. Upon voting (Ayers, Geinosky, Henrici, Paliganoff, Prochno, Sokolowski, Zizzo AYES, Guzzardi, Meyers ABSENT) , the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Prochno moved and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Geinosky adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Resp ctfully submitted, Scott R. Niehaus Administrative Assistant C: Chairman and Members Plan Commission, President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, village Manager, Assistant village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members ZBA