Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/15/1997 - AT&T ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes October 15, 1997 8:00 p.m. Present: J. Glass, Chairman J�J P.Ayers J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski K. Zizzo Absent: F. Geinosky R. Guzzardi C. Henrici Staff: S.Niehaus,Assistant to the Village Manager Petitioners: J. Leahy,Riley&Associates G. Suarez,AT&T Wireless P. Conarty,Attorney Item A: AT&T Special Use Permit Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. and briefly summarized the petition being presented to the Plan Commission. Acting Secretary Paliganoff swore in the petitioners. Chairman Glass stated that AT&T Wireless(AT&T)was before the Plan Commission seeking a special use permit to amend Ordinance No. 2527 which authorized AT&T to install a 112 foot monopole on Village property at 1060 Oakton Avenue. Ordinance No. 2527 was approved by the Village Board on December 10, 1996. Glass stated that the proposed height under the amended ordinance would be 120 feet. James Leahy, of Riley&Associates, representing AT&T zoning matters, explained AT&T's need for the additional 8 feet on top of the approved monopole. Leahy stated that the original height of 112 feet was requested based upon a computer model of the Elk Grove area. As such, AT&T believed that their original requested height would provide sufficient coverage for their wireless communications system. However, upon testing the actual antennas upon installation, it was determined that the approved height did not cover the Elk Grove service area. As a result, a significant number of dropped calls would be experienced by AT&T's customers in Elk Grove. Leahy stated that AT&T's current monopole at 1060 Oakton could be extended with an 8 foot addition. No changes would be required to the existing layout of AT&T's equipment shelter and access driveway. An amendment to AT&T's lease with the Village would be required if approved. Commissioner Ayers questioned as to why AT&T required a height of 120 feet at the 1060 Oakton address when Sprint PCS was only requesting a height of 85 feet at the same location. Leahy stated that the height differential is based upon the individual technology of both companies in conjunction with the different frequencies for each system. In addition, Leahy explained that AT&T has chosen to install fewer towers at greater heights which requires the installation of approximately 350 towers in the Chicago area. In contrast, Sprint PCS is installing more towers at lower heights, which requires approximately 500 towers in the Chicago area. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if the petitioner would need to increase the height of their monopole at a later date. Leahy stated that AT&T was confident that the 120 foot monopole would be sufficient for their needs based upon actual data from drive test studies of the Elk Grove area. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to what a"drive tests"was. Gabe Suarez of AT&T explained that drive testing was a way to gauge the coverage of specific antennas. The tests are conducted by having a phone in use as someone drives away from the antenna. The antenna coverage extends to the point where the phone call is dropped from service. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to how many other companies could locate on the AT&T monopole. Leahy stated that the monopole could hold as many as two other companies. Commissioner Meyers questioned what AT&T would do if their request was not approved. Leahy stated that AT&T would most likely continue service from the antenna but would receive continual complaints regarding the quality of service in the Elk Grove area which would require them to search for an alternative location in the same geographical area. Chairman Glass read a letter from Commissioner Henrici dated October 15, 1997 which stated that he had no objections to the proposed special use request. Chairman Glass questioned when AT&T would complete the extension of the monopole if the special use was approved. Leahy stated that it would take approximately 60 days to have designs prepared and approved for construction. Upon receiving the building permit,the actual work would only take 1 or 2 days. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing to comments from the audience. There were no comments. Chairman Glass closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Meyers seconded a motion, to amend a Special Use Permit authorized by Ordinance No. 2527 and extend the height of AT&T's planned monopole structure at 1060 Oakton from 112 feet to 120 feet. Upon voting,the motion carried unanimously(Glass,Ayers,Meyers,Paliganoff, Sokolowski,Zizzo AYES, Geinosky, Guzzardi,Henrici, ABSENT). Item 2: Special Use/Text Amendment-2401 Pan Am Boulevard Chairman Glass opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. and briefly summarized the petition being presented to the Plan Commission. Acting Secretary Paliganoff swore in the petitioner. Paul Conarty, attorney for the petitioner,presented information on the proposed special use and text amendment to the Plan Commission. Conarty stated that the subject parcel was located at 2401 Pan Am Boulevard in the DuPage County portion of the Elk Grove industrial park. The subject property was 6.3 acres in size and contained one vacant building. Approximately 3.85 acres of the parcel was paved with paved with a combination of asphalt and gravel. The remaining portion of the property is wooded and unimproved. Conarty stated that the petitioner was seeking to obtain a special use permit and text amendment from the Village in order to allow the subject property to be used as a long term parking lot for trucks operating in the Elk Grove area. Conarty stated that the petitioner had previously used the property as a repair shop for his personal trucking business and had recently vacated the building for an alternative location. Upon vacating the property the petitioner received several inquiries from local trucking companies regarding the use of his property for parking of trucks and trailers. In response to these inquiries research was conducted on the feasibility of operating a commercial parking lot on the subject property which led to the special use/text amendment request. Conarty explained that a text amendment to Section 7E-2 of the Village Zoning Ordinance would be necessary to create the classification of"commercial parking for private vehicles". Conarty stated that the proposed parking lot would cater to 3 to 4 different trucking companies at any one time. Ingress and egress to the property would be available from Pan Am Boulevard. The entire property would be secured by fence with barbed wire and a key-card entry system. A private security firm would also be contracted to perform visual site inspections on a periodic basis. All tenants would be required to sign a lease with the property owner which would enable them to park on the property. All parking spaces would be striped and reserved for approved tenants only. The parking lot would be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. No fueling, repairs or storage of goods would be allowed on the property. The existing building would remain vacant. Conarty also stated that the petitioner was experienced in the trucking industry and has operated a similar parking facility in Riverdale for several years without incident. Conarty stated that the proposed use would provide multiple benefits to the Village of Elk Grove by offering alternative parking for trucks thereby keeping them off of Village streets and out of illegal parking spaces. In addition,the proposed parking area would assist Elk Grove businesses in managing the fleet schedules. Conarty stated that the petitioner had reviewed all comments submitted by staff and was willing to comply with them including paving of the property, stormwater drainage requirements, and the installation of a knox box as requested by the Fire Department. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to the level of security that would be provided to the proposed parking lot. Conarty stated that the site would only be accessible through a key card entry system. Key cards would only be distributed to approved leaseholders. No on-site security would be provided. A security service would perform site inspections as deemed necessary, however, it was unknown how frequent those inspections would take place. Commissioner Zizzo questioned if the petitioners truck parking operation in Riverdale had on- site security. Conarty stated that an on-site security guard was supplied at the Riverdale location. Commissioner Zizzo questioned if the owner would have the ability to inspect inside of trailers parked on the property to determine if anything illegal or hazardous is being stored on the site. Conarty stated that the owner would not have the authority to inspect the trailers under their leases. Commissioner Meyers questioned if the property would be treated as one consolidated parcel. Conarty stated that the entire area would be fenced to combine the three separate parcels into one lot. Commissioner Meyers questioned if the petitioner had plans to install special lighting for security and safety purposes. Conarty stated that special lighting was planned for those purposes. Commissioner Meyers questioned as to what would happen with the existing building. Conarty stated that the building would be taken out of service and made inaccessible to the tenants. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned as to why the owner did not sell or develop the property for industrial use. Conarty stated that the preferred alternative of the owner was to sell the property if the right buyer was identified. Conarty stated that the property had been listed with several agents for a number of years. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if the wooded area would be cleared. Conarty stated that the wooded area would be removed to make room for parking spaces. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if the petitioner had prepared any site plans for the propose parking lot. Conarty stated that no site plan was prepared. If approved, an acceptable site plan would be developed with the assistance of Village staff. Commissioner Ayers questioned if the trailers would be padlocked. Conarty stated that the trailers would most likely be padlocked for security reasons. Commissioner Ayers expressed his concern for the proposed special use in regards to the lack of on-site security and the probability that storage of illegal and/or hazardous materials would occur in the trailers on the property. Ayers also stated that he did not feel that the proposed parking lot was the highest and best use of the property. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to how many clients the owner had at his Riverdale location. Conarty stated that the Riverdale location had 4 or 5 clients depending on the timing. Chairman Glass questioned as to how the vacant building would be secured. Conarty stated that the building would be locked-up and boarded to prevent entry from persons without authorization. Chairman Glass questioned if the petitioner would entertain any future uses for the vacant building and how parking would be impacted if the building were occupied. Conarty stated that the petitioner would like to reserve the right to use the building but that no alternative parking plans were prepared in the event that it would be used. Chairman Glass summarized the concerns with the proposed parking lot and the vagueness of the plan proposed by the petitioner. Specifically, Chairman Glass noted the following: • inability to police the illegal storage of goods trailers parked on the lot; • inability to audit/inventory what trucks are authorized to be on the property; • impact of building use on reserved parking spaces; • time frame for paving of the property; • lack of security presence on the property; and • uncertainty of lease language. In addition, Chairman Glass expressed a concerns over the potential impact of approving a text amendment for the proposed use and whether or not the parking lot should have a time limit which would allow the Village to review its use in the future. Commissioner Meyers questioned as to the anticipated cost of paving the property. Conarty, stated that the preliminary estimates for paving were $150,000. Commissioner Meyers questioned if the petitioner had any method of preventing trucking companies from stealing trailers since there was no on-site security. Conarty stated that there was no way to prevent someone from stealing another trailer. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing to comments from the audience at 10:10 p.m. Eugene Fronczak, 2701 United Lane questioned as to when the parking lot would be paved if the request were approved. Conarty stated that he would seek a temporary waiver of the paving until the spring of 1998 due to the closure of asphalt plants in November. However, it was their intention to pave the parking lot if approved. Chairman Glass closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Meyers moved,and Commissioner Zizzo seconded a motion,to recommend that the Village Board DENY the petitioners request for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a special use permit classification for Commercial Parking Lots and the corresponding special use permit to lease space on vacant property in the 1-2 zoned district for long term truck/trailer parking. Upon voting(Glass,Ayers, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Zizzo AYES, Geinosky, Guzzardi, Henrici ABSENT),the motion carried unanimously. Item 3: Wireless Telecommunications Structures,Monopoles,& Antennas Commissioner Meyers questioned if it would be possible to obtain a comprehensive map indicating all of the existing wireless communications facilities in the Village. Niehaus stated that he would have a large diagram prepared on an Elk Grove Village Zoning Map which indicated the location of wireless communications facilities by each company. In addition,Niehaus stated that he would try to develop a smaller map that could be provided to each Plan Commissioner. Discussion took place regarding the proliferation of wireless telecommunications and what authority local government had in regulating their location and aesthetics. Upon further discussion, Niehaus stated that he would research existing planning journals and the internet to find information on regulation of wireless telecommunications for the Plan Commission. Niehaus will also provide a glossary of terms if possible. Commissioner Zizzo moved, and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Upon voting,the motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �. NiQkacc�, Scott R.Niehaus Assistant to the Village Manager c: Chairman and Members,Plan Commission, President&Board of Trustees,Village Clerk, Village Manager,Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager,Administrative Intern, Dir. of Engineering&Community Development,Dir. of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2),Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members,ZBA