Long Grove Plan Commission
Chairman
present: Fred Phillips.
Commissioners present: Ed
Acuna, Joseph Di
Iorio, Michael Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Camy Gould, Robert
Jenkins and Lisa Phillips.
Commissioners Absent: None.
Also Present: Village Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Fred Phillips called
the meeting to order at
2.
MINUTES OF
There were some changes made
to the draft meeting minutes from
3. Continued Public Hearing For a Text Amendment and Special
Use Permit to Operate a Day Care Center for Approximately 22 Children Within
the Existing Residence Located at 7155 RFD (Lot #29 Towner Subdivision),
Submitted by Dmitriy Makhovik.
The Petitioner had not
submitted the traffic study as requested by the Plan Commission and the
Petitioner had requested that this petition be continued until the next
regularly scheduled meeting on
4. Continued Public Hearing for the consideration of a
request for a Special Use, Text Amendment and any additional relief necessary
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.
Al Lehto was
present at the meeting to present the petition for T-Mobile. Mr. Lehto stated
that no sites were found within the search area except the existing AT& T
tower which is currently full with other carriers. Three further sites were rejected outside of
the search area up to Half Day Road and
Mr.Lehto stated that the
Mr. Lehto
respectfully requested approval from the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Gould stated that she had two major concerns that had not
been addressed since first and repeatedly being raised in December 2002.
The first was evidence that current coverage was inadequate, e.g., data on
dropped calls or complaints of poor service logged with T-Mobile and would this
tower completely improve that coverage or would there still be problem areas
requiring another tower in Long Grove. The other concern was what other
options, including other sites, are there available to the carrier and reasons
why they were not feasible
Mr. Lehto replied
that T-Mobile did not have any data that he was aware of on the number or type
of dropped calls within this area. The
colored scientific maps that were presented to the Plan Commission illustrate
the inadequacy of coverage within the search area. This site was not a convenient site for Voice
Stream because they had spent approximately 3 years on locating and pursuing
this site. The AT&T tower is the
most convenient and best site location but it is not available to T-Mobile due
to the tower being full with other carriers.
The only other possible site that Mr. Lehto
was aware of was the site at Twin Orchards Country Club,
this site was rejected because it was to close to Voice Stream’s closest tower
at Half Day Road and Route 22.
Commissioner Gould asked if there were any
other options other than a tower in this search area, for example on a building
maybe.
Mr. Lehto stated
that there were no other options available within this search area.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if a larger number
of smaller towers could achieve the same purpose.
Mr. Lehto stated
that this would not be efficient and would also not work within the search
area.
Commissioner Dvorak had a concern with
setting a precedent with the reduction of the 500-foot setback and the
quarter-mile separation between towers with this case.
Commissioner Fasano
asked the petitioner if there was any new technology that would allow one more
carrier to locate on the existing AT&T tower.
Mr. Lehto indicated
that the carriers constantly update their equipment and the AT&T tower
could not handle another carrier. He had
contacted AT&T about the possibility of locating on their tower in 2001 by
extending the tower to allow for more carriers and they said it was not
possible.
Commissioner Fasano
asked the petitioner if an alternative carrier could be added to the existing
tower in the future.
Mr. Lehto indicated
that was correct.
Commissioner Jenkins noted that a balance was
needed between aesthetics and purpose.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
stated that the Village has limitations set on it through the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Commissioner Fasano
asked whether the T-Mobile service in place now, was adequate under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996?
Mr. Lehto stated
that there was a problem with the current level of service and the FCC requires
a certain spectrum or level of service from the carrier.
Commissioner Fasano
asked if T-Mobile currently meets the FCC requirements or standards?
Mr. Lehto stated
that was correct.
Commissioner L. Phillips noted the critical nature of the dropped call
data which has repeatedly been requested, but not provided. She further
noted that the Commission, after repeated requests, also had not yet received
any listing of alternate sites which had been investigated. She reminded
the petitioner that she had never been documentation of such sites or the
corresponding reasons for sites having been rejected as had been requested
numerous times in the past. Without these data Commissioner
Phillips felt that it would be difficult to provide a positive recommendation
on the petition, particularly given the extensive relief from current Village
regulations being requested by the petitioner.
Mr. Lehto indicated that actual dropped call
data was not available and that dropped calls were determined by drive testing
the area. He added that customers do not generally call in dropped calls.
Commissioner L. Phillips asked if T-Mobile could document lost business
due to poor coverage in this area.
Mr. Lehto stated
that this would be very difficult to calculate.
Mr. Lehto
indicated in talking about the site search that the
Commissioner Fasano
requested that this information be provided to the Plan Commission in a report
format. Commissioner L. Phillips also requested that the sites be shown on one
of the coverage maps presented.
Commissioner Acuna
stated that the petitioner is requesting both a text amendment and a special
use and must demonstrate more documented need for this site, and that this need
for the site had not been documented and shown to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Lehto suggested
that the information submitted to date reflected this need for this site.
Commissioner Gould was not satisfied that the
amount and level of information provided to the Plan Commission proved a need
for this site at this location, and that this information had been requested of
the petitioner since December 2000.
Chairman F.Phillips
also stated that a need or a hardship had not been proved or shown by the
petitioner.
Commissioner Gould reiterated that T-Mobile
was requesting a great deal of relief from the Village regulations which is why the Plan Commission is so
insistent that the petitioner prove need and that no
other options exist.
Mr. Lehto stated that
he believed that T-Mobile had provided the relevant and requested information.
Commissioner Acuna
stated that without further information provided by the petitioner, the Plan
Commission would be required to vote on this petition without all the relevant
and requested information that the Plan Commission needed to make an informed
decision.
Mr. Lehto
respectfully requested a decision be made on this petition that evening.
Commissioner Acuna
made a motion to deny the text amendment and the special use to permit a second
monopole at the
6. Other Business.
There was some
discussion on which potential text amendments should be discussed at the next
available meeting. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that impervious lot coverage and
institutional zoning districts should be a priority and Village Planner Cage
suggested that driveways could be handled in an efficient manner for the next
available meeting. A public hearing
notice would be published for these three potential zoning text amendments for
the next available meeting.
Village Planner Cage
would provide the Plan Commission with a list of Plan Commission meeting dates
for 2004 and Village Board attendance dates for the next Plan Commission meeting.
7. Adjournment:
Next
Regular Meeting,
Motion to
adjourn by Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Acuna. Ayes, all. Nays, none, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted by,
Village Planner
Village of Long Grove