Meeting Minutes
1. Call to order
Chairman Borawski
called the meeting to order at
Commissioners present: Chairman Borawski, Camy Gould, Robert Jenkins, Fred Phillips, Lisa Phillips, Ed Acuna, Nicholas Fasano, Joseph Di Iorio, and Secretary Bret Zacher.
Also present: Village Manager
Commissioners absent: Michael Dvorak
2. Approval
of meeting minutes of
Following lengthy
discussion, Commissioner Gould moved, seconded by Com-missioner Jenkins, to
approve the
Following lengthy
discussion, Commissioner L. Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Fasano, to
approve the
Following lengthy
discussion, Commissioner Gould moved, seconded by Com-missioner Jenkins, to
approve the
Following lengthy
discussion, Commissioner Gould moved, seconded by Com-missioner Jenkins, to
approve the
3. Consideration
of a request to set a Public Hearing for a Special Use permit, text amendment,
and/or additional relief necessary, and/or appropriate under the Zoning Code to
install a second cellular monopole and related equipment on the Christ’s Church
property located at 5105 Arlington Heights Road, submitted by T-Mobile
(formerly Voice Stream Wireless).
Mr. Tom Ebols introduced himself as the authorized representative for the petitioner. He summarized the T-Mobile application for (1) a text amendment to permit a Special Use permit to install a second tower closer than the required quarter-mile from the existing tower, and (2) a Special Use permit for a second 120-foot tall monopole (123 feet with supporting electronic equipment and 128 feet with the required eight-foot lightning rod) and installation of three sets of flat-panel antennas composed of four antennas each. He added that T-Mobile is proposing to locate the transmitting and receiving equipment within three 5x4x2-foot self-contained weather-resistant cabinets concealed within the leased area that is surrounded by an eight-foot high cedar fence. He added that, if requested to do so, T-Mobile would enclose the cabinets in an equipment building identical to the existing structure.
The Commission raised comments/concerns, including: (1) confirm 531.5 feet to the nearest residence not located on the subject property, and the distance to adjacent property lines. The "overall site plan" identifies the closest “existing building” as "531.5 feet", however, the distances to the "existing three-story building" (the church) and “existing building” located on the same property are not identified. Is the “existing building,” a residence on the subject property, and less than 500 feet from the monopole? The :overall site plan" shows the proposed monopole as located 90 feet, five inches from the west property line, and 75 feet, 8 inches from the southern property line. Code requires that a 128-foot tall monopole be located no closer than 128 feet from any property line; (2) confirm 59-foot separation between towers; (3) requested a waiver of liability (for both fall zone and interference) from the owner of the other tower to be located this close; (4) submit data supporting “need”, including: How is this location needed to fill gaps? Are the gaps resulting in dropped calls? How would this location solve problems?; (5) confirm other locations that have been investigated, and explain why they have been ruled out in favor of this site e.g. if not on this site, where else could the tower be located?; (6) when would this site would be at projected capacity based on call data; (7) concern about aesthetics, preference for a design similar to that of the existing tower on the site; (8) confirm who other two carriers would be; (9) can the tower be designed to handle a maximum of four carriers; (10) concerned with impact of the new tower on the future desirability of adjacent property; (11) detailed landscaping plan is required (type, size, number, etc.) to provide a buffer that would effectively screen the view of the tower compound from adjacent residences and for the planting of canopy trees around the perimeter of the site to screen towers from off-site view as much as possible. Existing landscaping for the existing tower is insufficient. Landscape plans need to address proposed and existing sites shown at the time of planting, and to confirm that no trees would be removed;(12) requested financial information, does T-Mobile have the financial resources to install, maintain, and operate the installation and associated tower grid?; (13) requested that a structural engineer review the fall zone, and the graphic representation showing the zone and existing and potential structures, parking lots, and property lines within fall zone. Could the tower conceivably fall on any structure on or off site from where it is to be located?; (14) asked who inspects the site, for what, and how often?; (15) asked if the existing pole could be combined with a new taller (200-foot) pole to eliminate the need from two poles?; (16) expressed concerns about the visual impact of the monopole; and asked what stealth design options are available; (17) overall concern that intent of the ordinance was to encourage cellular companies to be creative with ways to obtain coverage without multiple monopoles; (18) and, concern about precedent.
The petitioner responded in general and requested that the Public Hearing date be set in February to provide sufficient time to develop specific answers to the comments/questions raised by the Commission.
Following further discussion, Commissioner L. Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Gould, to set the Public Hearing for the February 4, 2003 meeting. By voice vote the motion was unanimously approved.
4.
Chairman Borawski
noted that the Comprehensive Plan includes an areas along both sides of Route
53 for a sub-area plan, and details a combination of land and use plans.
Commissioners were asked to determine whether or not conditions have changed to
warrant an amendment to the sub-area plan.
Commissioners reviewed the minutes of the
5. Approval of 2003 meeting dates and submittal deadlines
Commissioner F. Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak, to approve the Calendar for Meetings in 2003, including a 30-day submittal deadline requirement. Motion unanimously passed.
6. Other business
The next regularly
scheduled Plan Commission meeting is at
7. Adjournment
Commissioner L.
Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Fasano, to adjourn the meeting. By voice vote, the motion was unanimously
approved. Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Village Manager
Village of Long Grove