Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 03/04/1992 - 200 BIESTERFIELD & 1620 GIBSON/OUTDOOR SIREN ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 4, 1992 Plan Commission Present: John R. Glass, Chairman Fred Geinosky, Secretary David Paliganoff Paul Ayers Charles Henrici Thomas Parker Patton Feichter George Mullen John Meyers (8:30 p.m. ) Absent: None Zoning Board of Appeals Present: Raymond Brandt, Chairman Brian Carey Raymond Keegan Anthony Inzerello Ted Staddler Robert Phillips Absent: Peter Serafin Staff: Raymond R. Rummel , Administrative Assistant Renee M. Farrell , Administrative Intern Earle Kracht, Plan Reviewer Fire Chief James MacArthur Others: Sherri Vazzano, Daily Herald Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Item A: Joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission on the special use permit and zoning variation of proposed outdoor warning siren systems at 200 Biesterfield Road and 1630 Gibson Drive. The Petitioner, Fire Chief MacArthur, was sworn in by Secretary Geinosky. Chief MacArthur explained that the current placement of the 4 outdoor warning sirens are leaving gaps in coverage of the Village. The current placement of the sirens are: 1. Greenleaf and Busse with a 9,000 ft. radius 2. Oakton and Wildwood with a 5,500 ft. radius 3. West Glenn Trail with a 5,500 ft. radius 4. 901 Brantwood (Fire Administration Building) with a 4,500 ft. radius 0 0 Chief MacArthur stated the siren at 901 Brantwood is the oldest siren (installed in 1972) and would remain in place until a breakdown occurs, if a siren is installed at 200 Biesterfield. The Chief also stated that the siren at Oakton and Wildwood was currently replaced increasing its radius from 4,500 ft to 5,500 ft. The Chief reviewed two alternatives that were deemed not feasible. The first was to install a siren similar to the one in the industrial park for the whole Village. This would reduce costs but would be large, unsightly and very loud. Another alternative was to increase the coverage pattern of the 901 Brantwood site from 4,500 ft. to 5,500. It was noted that with this replacement a large portion of the Village would still be without coverage. The Chief stated that the two proposed sites at 200 Biesterfield and 1630 Gibson would provide the best coverage at the lowest cost to the Village. The site at Biesterfield would provide coverage to the central portion of the Village while the Gibson site would provide coverage to the Northwest Section. The Chief also stated that current electrical lines exist in these areas. He also noted that alternative sites researched did not have sufficient electric. Electrical hookup for these locations would cost around $3,000. The Chief stated the proposed sirens are rated at 130 decibels and are within FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Systems) requirements. The Chief said the sirens would be tested at 10 a.m. the first Tuesday of every month for two minutes. Commissioner Parker inquired about the maintenance of the sirens. The Chief said maintenance is provided only when a break down occurs. Commissioner Ayers questioned who activates the siren. The Chief answered the Northwest Central Dispatch does the physical activation although the Department can request its activation. Commissioner Paliganoff inquired about the noise element. The Chief said that during test periods the siren rotates 2 to 3 times per minute with the sound coming from above ground level . It is deemed a safe level of noise from FEMA. Paliganoff inquired about the make of the siren pole and future protection in the Village. The Chief stated the siren is mounted on a 60 ft. wooden telephone pole buried 10 ft. in the ground with 50 ft. above ground level . The Chief also noted that once the new sirens are in place there will be no need for additional sirens. The Chief did mention that the only area without coverage with the two new sites would be a small section of Northwest Point which is unincorporated. The Chief noted that the lack of coverage in this small section would be insignificant. Commissioner Mullen inquired about the decibel ratings of the sirens. The Chief said the sirens are rated at a level of 130 decibels. The siren in the industrial park is rated at a level of 135 decibels. 0 0 The Chief explained that in areas where the sirens overlap in coverage there would be no increase in the decibel level . The sounds would just be coming in different directions. The Chief then addressed questions from the Zoning Board of Appeals. During this line of questioning the Chief stated that a 50 ft. pole height is the optimum height for sound transmittal . The Chief also stated that locations like the West Side Garage and the fire station on Biesterfield are poor locations for the sirens. He explained that both locations have no electrical feed and the Biesterfield Fire Station location would provide problems with radio frequency interference. Chairman Glass opened the hearing for questions from the audience. The following residents opposed the location of the siren at Wellington and Biesterfield: Mary Oberhart of 897 Wellington Irene Modenane & Joe Shlup of 737 Wellington Bob Shower of 891 Wellington Mary Avildio & Jack Hoffman, President of Hampton Farms Association It is noted that resident Joe Janis and Jack Hoffman oppose the Gibson site with Mr. Hoffman opposing both sites. Commissioner Mullen suggested considering other locations for the Wellington - Biesterfield siren, possibly the Village Hall site. Henrici inquired about the decibel level of siren 3 at its perimeter of coverage. Chairman Glass stated that the public hearing will be recessed and reconvened on March 18. Until that time, the Chief will research other site locations for the Wellington - Biesterfield siren. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Ayers seconded the motion. Res ectfu11 submitted � Y /w Renee M. Farrell Administrative Intern C: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Chairman & Members of Zoning Board of Appeals, Village President, Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Director E/CD, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney i i March 25, 1992 TO: President and Board of Trustees FROM: gz&t�� n R. Glass, Chairman, Plan Commission SUBJECT: Finding of Fact - Outdoor Warning Sirens (Docket 92-2) The Plan Commission was petitioned by the Village for special use permits to install outdoor warning sirens at two locations: 1) 1630 Gibson Drive at a JAWA receiving station; and 2) 200 Biesterfield Road at Well House #3. In addition, the Zoning Board of Appeals was petitioned to allow structures greater than 35 feet in height in a residential zoned district at the above locations. The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a joint public hearing on the petition. The first hearing was held on March 4. At that meeting, Fire Chief James D. MacArthur testified that the sites were selected to maximize coverage in the Village and to close two large gaps in the current warning siren coverage. In addition, the sites were selected because of the availability of electrical energy at the sites, and the sites are already owned by governmental agencies. Fire Chief MacArthur also testified that the sirens are operated for two minutes at 10 a.m. on the first Tuesday of each month, or during an actual weather related emergency. The sirens rotate almost 3 times per minute during operation. The sirens would be installed on 60 foot poles which are buried 10 feet into the ground, leaving the sirens at a height of 50 feet. That height is recommended by the manufacturer for the most effective coverage. During that public hearing, six residents testified that they oppose the Biesterfield siren location due to its proximity (160 feet) to a single family residence; its proximity to multi-family units (Park Chardonnay) ; and its aesthetic impact on the Biesterfield corridor. In addition, two residents testified that they oppose the Gibson site due to its proximity to single family homes. The hearing was continued until March 18, after the Plan Commission asked the Fire Chief to examine the possibility of locating the Biesterfield siren in the municipal complex parking lot rather than the well site. 0 0 On March 18, the Fire Chief reported that he was examining the possibility of locating the siren in the southwest section of the municipal complex parking lot. The Chief noted that space exists in the complex's electrical panels, but the Chief did not know if the existing conduit for the parking lot lights had enough capacity remaining for another line. If not, the parking lot would have to be trenched to install conduit. In addition, another public hearing may need to be conducted to place the siren at the municipal complex site; however, since the site already functions as a municipal purpose with towers in excess of 50 feet, another hearing may not have to be held for the site. Finally, the Chief noted that the siren could not be installed next to the existing radio communications tower because radio frequencies from the tower would occasionally cause the siren to activate falsely. All of the sirens are activated by radio signals transmitted from Northwest Central Dispatch. At that meeting, one resident again opposed the well site and supported the municipal complex ,site. Another resident spoke in favor of the well site because it would allow the sirens to be installed quickly before the tornado season is upon us. At the meeting, a motion was made and approved unanimously (Glass, Henrici , Meyers; Absent) to recommend that the Village Board do the following: 1. Grant a Special Use Permit for the warning siren at 1630 Gibson Drive; 2. Do not grant a Special Use Permit for the warning siren at 200 Biesterfield Road; and 3. Place the warning siren in the parking lot of the municipal complex property if at all possible. The Plan Commission recommended against the Biesterfield site due to 1) the sirens proximity to high density, multi-family dwelling units; 2) the aesthetic impact of the siren along Biesterfield Road; and 3) unavailability of information necessary to rule-out the possibility of installing the siren on the municipal complex property. In addition, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to recommend granting a zoning variation to both sites and/or the municipal complex site because the siren operates most effectively at a height of 50 feet. el 3-25-92 C: Plan Commission Chairman and Members, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Director of Engineering/Community Development, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Fire Chief