Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/01/2008 - 850 WELLINGTON/SPECIAL USE T-MOBILE RECEIVE® Elk Grove Village FEB-2 Plan Commission Minutes 2009 October 1, 2008 VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE Present: P. Ayers F. Geinosky J. Glass E. Hauser C. Henrici J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokoiowski T. Thompson Absent: Staff: B. Jacobsen, Assistant Village Manager S. Trudan, Deputy Director of Community Development Petitioner: Ray Shinkle, Insite Inc. Sahjay Jaisingani, T-Mobile Central LLC Commissioner Glass called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Item 1: September 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Henrici motioned to approve the September 17 meeting minutes. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Glass, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff. Thompson, Sokolowski, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. Item 2: 850 Wellington —Special Use Chairman Glass read the legal notice for the record and announced that site property was properly posted. Commissioner Geinosky swore in the petitioner, Ray Shinkle, of Insite Inc., and T-Mobile Engineer, Sahjay Jaisingani. Ray Shinkle of Insite Inc., has submitted the documentation for a Special Use Permit on behalf of T-Mobile. Mr. Shinkle explained to the commission the everyday uses for cell phones and the growing.reliance on wireless communication within daily life. He explained that this petition was a direct result of customer demand. When explaining coverage maps, he used the analogy of a sprinkler system. Cell phone companies want to cover the most square miles with the least amount of overlapping areas. In 2007 Ray Shinkle and T-Mobile carne to an agreement with the Village to place antennas at 901 Wellington but due to the construction project, the agreement was not carried out. The 2 antenna tower at 901 Wellington would have been much higher than the one Mr. Shinkle was requesting be placed at 850 Wellington because the tower would also have carred Verizon Wireless and US Cellular antennas in addition to T-Mobiles. He went on.to explain that Alexian Brothers Medical Center is not a preferred site because it is too far west of the area the antenna is intended to cover. Mr. Shinkle explained that he did not increase the screening as suggested by staff because he and his engineers felt this would draw more attention to the antenna. He stated that he would be willing to paint the structure to match the building but he felt the white and steel might blend in with the sky better. He also explained that the antenna would be sled mounted and will not penetrate the roof of the building but it would meet all structural demands and requirements from the Village. Commissioner Hauser asked for clarification on the height of the antenna. Mr. Shinkle stated that the antenna itself was six feet (6) high. The roof reaches forty-nine and a half feet (49.5') and the top of the antenna will be at fifty-nine feet (59'). Commissioner Hauser asked Mr. Shinkle if Building Number Two's Board had their legal counsel read the agreement. Mr. Shinkle responded, that he believes an attorney did review the lease agreement because when it came back there were a couple minor changes. Commissioner Hauser questioned if the lease could change or adapt in any way based on the language under 7-A. Mr. Shinkle responded noting that T-Mobile cannot make any substantial modifications to the plans and lease agreement being voted on other than replacing the antennas with upgraded equipment of the same or smaller size. In the event that T-Mobile would like substantial changes to be made, they would be required to go before the Plan Commission-with those plans at that time. Commissioner Meyers asked if improvements to this location would include additional antennas. Mr. Shinkle responded that if additional antennas were needed at some point in the future, an additional lease would have to be signed by both the property owner, and approved by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Meyers then asked why some of the equipment was near the elevator and some was near the end of the building. Mr. Shinkle explained that the antennas must face different directions to meet the intended coverage and if they are not near the edge of a building the antenna signal will shadow and hit the end of the building rather than being projected outward. He also noted that the cable running-from the cabinet to the antenna should be the shortest length possible for the greatest signal. Commissioner Meyers again asked for confirmation on the height of the antenna in relation to the rooftop. Mr. Shinkle stated that the rooftop is at forty-nine and a half feet (49.5'). The top of the physical antenna will reach fifty-six and a half feet (56.5') and the highest point on the system, an antenna similar to the ones seen on cars, will reach fifty-nine feet (59'). Commissioner Hen.rici asked why the rooftop equipment was not being screened even though it was requested under Item 4 of a letter from the Director of Engineering & Community Development. Mr. Shinkle stated that the sled would be wind-loading and will not penetrate the 3 rooftop. Building a structure around the sled may weigh more than the foot will hold and reduce the cost effectiveness of the project. Commissioner Henrici asked if the wiring would be within a cabinet. Mr. Shinkle responded that the electrical would be in a cabinet much like the existing air conditioning unit currently on the roof. Commissioner Henrici asked why it was not proposed to put the antenna on top of the elevator and Mr. Shinkle noted that it was not a viable structure for the weight. Commissioner Geinosky asked for clarification on the term "collocate."Mr. Shinkle explained that "collocate" referred to collocating the antenna on the existing building at 850 Wellington. He also stated that T-Mobile is currently at this building and they cannot prevent another company from, collocating at this address. Commissioner Geinosky asked if staff was strongly opposed to this site without the screening or if screening was required. The Deputy Director of Community Services stated that items three (3) and four (4) on the Director of Engineering and Community Development's memo are suggestions for the Plan Commission to determine and that Engineering has a neutral opinion on the screening. Commissioner Geinosky asked if Village on the Lake was a co-petitioner. Mr. Shinkle stated that the Board of Building One executed an agreement for T-mobile to submit the application and move forward with the approval of plans for the Special Use Permit. He noted that this agreement was made in March of 2008. Commissioner Geinosky asked about Mr. Shinkle's statements that Village on the Lake is not the ideal height. He would like to ensure that this is not foreshadowing further expansion. He asked within his agreements, if T-Mobile reserves the right to change the site plan. Mr. Shinkle stated that the agreement with Village on the Lake does not allow any material changes to the antennas. If a future expansion were necessary, he would have to execute a new lease agreement with Village on the Lake and come back before the Plan Commission. The existing lease only allows for upgrading the antennas. Commissioner Thompson stated that he spent significant amount of time at Village on the Lake earlier in the day and residents on the third and fourth floor of the neighboring building would be looking out at the antennas. Mr. Shinkle responded by stating that the alternative is a tower. The Village came to an agreement with the T-Mobile to put a tower at the Village Hall; the agreement fell through with the construction plans. He also noted that putting antennas on water towers are unattractive but they have become a part of the landscape. Commissioner Thompson added that he was going to defend the homeowners. He feels that the antennas may reduce property value and he was not going to support this Special Use application. 4 Mr. Shinkle added that T-Mobile has done assessments on property to see the impact on property value and the results do not show a decrease in value. He also noted that Alexian Brothers is too far west of.the coverage area that T-Mobile is targeting. Commissioner Thompson added that the high-tension wires would affect property value, as will antennas. He asked if Mr. Shinkle had approached the library as well. Mr. Shinkle replied by asking Commissioner Thompson if he would approve a one hundred foot (100') tower at the Library. Mr. Shinkle added that towers and antennas have become a part of the landscape. Commissioner Thompson stated that he finds cell towers to be offensive and objects to this petition. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if when this lease was entered into the Board members spoke to the individual homeowners. Mr. Shinkle stated that he was not aware of the Board's communication with homeowners. He said that he followed the requirements within the bylaws of the building and the residents were notified of the Public Hearing. He also noted that the lease agreement was contingent on obtaining the necessary permits. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if residents would see substantial money from this antenna project and what the break down would be. Mr. Shinkle stated that he was not aware of how the Building Board will separate the Money. He assumes it will help with monthly dues. Commissioner Sokolowski asked who will be responsible should the Village experience a catastrophic event such as a tornado or a storm in which the antenna was carried and caused damage. Mr. Shinkle stated that T-Mobile would be one-hundred percent responsible. He also stated that all the drawings met state and county laws regarding wind-loading equipment and building code requirements. He added that T-mobile has 1,800-1,900 sites in the Chicago area and they are just one of the six carvers in the region. Commissioner Ayers asked if the Condo Board approved to have the rent monthly offset assessment fees. He also asked why Mr. Shinkle suggests a 140-foot tower would replace this antenna if it were denied. Commissioner Ayers asked for clarification on the height difference.. Mr. Shinkle stated that the previous agreement included the option for the Police and Emergency agencies to place their antennas on the original tower proposal. He also explained that making a tower financially feasible, additional wireless carriers would be invited to put their antennas on the tower. State law requires a ten foot (10') separation of carrier antennas and in order for all of these stipulations to work, the tower option would be much greater in height than the proposed project. Commissioner Ayers asked if the new building was almost complete, why not go back to the Village regarding the tower idea. Commissioner Paliganoff then asked if 140 feet, or 60 feet was the ideal height. Mr. Shinkle explained that the higher the antennas, the more coverage they get. If he were allowed to go twenty feet (20') higher he would do it but then the antenna before the Plan Commission would not be structurally sound. Commissioner Paliganoff asked for the lease terms. He said it looks like the agreement is for five- year terms with the option for five (5) separate five-year renewals. Mr. Shinkle stated that 5 the lease has a maximum number of twenty-five years at which time they will need to return the roof to the original status, sign a new lease, or find another site. At 7:55 p.m. Chairman Glass called for a ten-minute break. At 8:05 p.m. the Public Hearing resumed and was opened to the audience. Chuck Courtney of 720 Wellington#509 stated he is the First Vice President of Building#4 at Village on the Lake. He stated that homeowners in his building will.overlook the roof and he feels that the antennas are eyesores. He also feels that he will not be able to sell his home should he ever want to move. He asked the Commission to consider how they would feel if their neighbors put an antenna on their roof. He stated that his building doesn't receive any of the rent money and instead must look at the antenna. He noted that people try to attach satellite antennas, AM radio antennas and his Board has covenants against those uses. Dan Vincent of 850 Wellington #114, stated that he felt the structure would stand out and would like to know the weight of the steel sleds. He also asked if the roof would still hold the weight of the sled when the building is covered in three feet of snow. Chairman Glass reiterated that the antenna would have to be signed off by an engineer and they would have to obtain a building permit. He also stated that although those are good questions, the Building Department's role is to protect the Village from problems such as those stated by Mr. Vincent. Debra Frances of 840 Wellington had three issues with this antenna. She thought the antenna was an eyesore, she wanted to know about the environmental issues this may cause, and she wanted to know how it will affect the residents' health over a 25-year period. She felt that the bottom line had better cell phone coverage and Building#2 brings in $1,500 a month. She inquired about whom would repair the roof if leaking did occur. She also asked if the antenna's power unit would create any noise. Ultimately she felt that all of the buildings should reap the benefits of this agreement; however, she would prefer if it were in a commercial area rather than a residential area. Chairman Glass stated that preferred locations for cellular antennas are on commercial sites and when that occurs, the Village does not require a Special Use permit and a Public Hearing. Mr. Shinkle stated that the plans met all of the Village's requirements. He stated that as far as health issues are concerned, the FCC issued a license to T-Mobile and they have mandated requirements for antennas. Furthermore, the FCC reserves the right to pull a license should a company be found not in compliance. Mr. Shinkle also stated that even if the antenna were running at full capacity it would still be of less than 5% of the "safe emission" level as determined by the FCC. T-Mobile is bound by the rules set forth by the Federal Government which are much stricter than those required by the Village. Chairman Glass asked what would happen incase the wireless tower is no longer needed or if T- Mobile merges with another company, would T-Mobile be required to remove the equipment. Mr. Shinkle stated that upon early termination of the agreement, T-Mobile is required to restore the facility to the previous condition. 6 Chairman Glass then told the residents in the audience that revenue sharing and splitting the money with the association is a private matter that the Village on the Lake will have to resolve privately. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Hauser moved to recommend approval of the Special Use petition for Ray Shinkle of Insite Inc. on behalf of T-Mobile at 850 Wellington based upon the following conditions: 1. The petitioner will remove the antenna and restore the property to the pre-existing condition if T-Mobile ceases use of the antenna. Commissioner Ayers seconded the motion. Upon voting (Ayers, Geinosky, Glass, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, AYES, Thompson NAY) the motion carried. Item 3: Adjournment. Commissioner Geinosky motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Glass, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Thompson, Sokolowski, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Jacobsen Assistant Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission,Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Director of Public Works, Director of Engineering/Community Development, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Village Attorney,Deputy Village Clerk