Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2017/02/08 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the February 8, 2017 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Acting Chairman Culbertson, Commissioners Michael Freeman, Tim Henry, Guy Berg and Rosemary Kehr Commissioners absent: Chairman Ley and Commissioner Ruggles Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Acting Chairman invited the members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the December 14, 2016 and January 11, 2017 meetings. The minutes of the December 14, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. The minutes of the January 11, 2017 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Preliminary Discussion: Consideration of updates to Chapter 159.150, Wireless Service Facilities. Introduction: City staff Acting Chairman Culbertson asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts from members of the Commission, hearing none; he invited a presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak explained that as part of the overall review and update of the City Code that is in progress, the Commission has already completed reviews of some portions of the Code. She stated that the sections of the Code relating to Wireless Facilities are now before the Commission review. She noted that unlike other portions of the Code, an ad hoc task force reviewed this material due to the specialized nature of this topic and recommendations from that group are reflected in the proposed draft language. She added that the final report of the ad hoc task force was provided to the Commission as background. She noted that staff introduced this matter to the Commission at the last meeting and at that time, recommended not only updating and clarification of the Code language as recommended by the task force, but also changes in response to possible future needs of wireless providers for additional towers Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 2 of 7 at locations not covered by the current overlay districts. She stated however that based on the Commission’s discussion at the meeting and follow up input, staff is now recommending that the two efforts be separated and that the Code update be completed first to provide a strong framework for considering future requests from wireless providers and tower building companies. She stated that after the update, further amendments may be proposed by wireless providers and all parties will benefit from having updated review procedures, requirements and criteria in place. She added that general public notice is provided when a Code update is proposed however, when a petition is filed or changes proposed that affect a specific property, direct mailed notice is provided to residents and property owners in the area. She noted that the changes recommended by the task force support colocation of new antennas that may be needed to provide adequate coverage or meet capacity demands, on existing towers or other tall structures. She summarized the updates proposed to the various sections. She noted that additional language is proposed to assure that existing or new wireless facilities are adequately screened, properly maintained and removed when no longer needed. She noted that language is proposed to enhance and expand the Purpose Section to clarify that the provisions are intended to avoid adverse impacts on the community and not simply to provide the opportunity for wireless providers to build out their systems. She noted that an Interpretation Section is proposed to clarify that the Code provisions are not intended to prohibit the buildout of any wireless system once the need is demonstrated. She added that the proposed language clarifies that the Code provisions are not intended to favor one wireless company over another. She stated that some modifications are proposed to the Definition Section to clarify terms. She noted that the task force recommended defining some additional terms that came up frequently during their discussions. She noted that language in the Applicability Section clarifies that various Code provisions apply both to existing and new facilities. She explained that the task force recommended various language changes that are intended to encourage colocation by streamlining the approval process when existing structures are used to support additional antennas. She stated that the Code language as proposed requires review through the Special Use Permit process to assure a thorough review and the opportunity for community input and discussion. She explained that any proposal for a new tower outside of the established overlay districts requires a petitioner to file a petition for an amendment to the Code to assure a full public process as part of the consideration of such a request. She stated that no changes to the geographic boundaries of the overlay districts are proposed as part of the update now before the Commission. She stated however that language is proposed to detail the process for considering amendments to the overlay district and the criteria against which such requests must be considered. She noted that the updated language gives priority to sites that minimize adverse visual impacts on the community’s character and to sites that are screened by vegetation, topography or the presence of other utility poles such as in an area along a major transportation corridor. She noted that the proposed language directs that if it is demonstrated that a new tower or other facilities are needed, priority should be given to publicly owned sites assure that the overall community receives the financial benefit from leasing a site for this purpose. She stated that some amendments are proposed to enhance the sections that speak to design, setbacks, screening, lighting and Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 3 of 7 landscaping. She noted that the submittal requirements for new petitions are now detailed in the Code similar to the approach taken with other types of petitions such as subdivisions. She noted that the required submittal materials include documentation detailing why a new facility is necessary and an explanation of how the existing coverage is inadequate. She noted that specific language was added regarding what must happen and who is responsible if a tower is no longer needed or abandoned. She noted that a provision is included which provides for evaluation of a petition by an outside consultant, at the petitioner’s costs. She noted that language pertaining to ongoing maintenance requirements is also proposed. She stated that the recommendations of the task force are intended to set out a stronger and clearer framework for evaluating requests related to wireless facilities. She recommended that the Commission consider the proposed draft language, provide input and, if the Commission is comfortable with the general direction of the proposed amendments, direct staff to work with the City Attorney’s office to finalize the language. She stated that the final language will be brought back to the Commission for a final review and a recommendation to the City Council. She stated that the intent is to get updated language in place to assist the Commission in reviewing future requests. Commissioner Freeman stated that it was helpful to read the final report of the ad hoc task force and expressed his thanks to the members of the task force. In response to a question from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that to add an overlay district, a wireless provider or tower building company will need to submit a petition for a Code amendment. She explained that a request for an amendment would be processed consistent with the procedures for amending the Zoning Code. She confirmed that the wireless facilities provisions are in the Zoning Code. Commissioner Freeman suggested that it would be appropriate to amend the overlay district to remove the former Barat Campus since Old Main, the building originally intended for colocation, is no longer standing. She acknowledged that the existing tower is, to the best of staff’s knowledge, adequate to provide coverage in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner Henry, Ms. Czerniak stated that notice of the proposed Code amendments will be provided to private property owners covered by overlay districts on which wireless facilities are located, or can be located, to assure that they are aware of their responsibilities, the process and limitations. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak agreed to review the draft language to be sure that the submittal requirements for any proposal for a new tower include information about other towers and antennas in the area, even if they are outside the City limits. Commissioner Kehr stated that although requiring any new towers to be located at the perimeter of the City may be preferable to having them in more dense areas that may not be possible because of towers in other communities that are part of the grid. Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 4 of 7 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that towers cannot be limited to certain areas if a wireless provider demonstrates that in order to build out their system and meet demand for service, a tower is needed in another area. She stated that the burden of proving that a new tower is needed falls on the petitioner. Commissioner Berg stated support for the opportunity for a third party review. He noted the different provisions for roof top antennas for different areas and asked that the language be reviewed for consistency, if appropriate. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that review by the Building Review Board or Historic Preservation Commission is not required by the Code since applying the design guidelines to these types of structures would be difficult. She added that if a need for a tower is demonstrated, there are limits on what the City can require. She confirmed that the Plan Commission could request Building Review Board or Historic Preservation Commission review of particular aspects of a petition as part of the Special Use Permit process. Commissioner Berg commented that Lake Forest is a special community. He acknowledged that sometimes the process can seem overwhelming, but the outcome is always better because of the process. He stated that once the character of the community is lost, it cannot be recovered. He stated that the community processes have served the community well to preserve and protect the character. He stated that aesthetic review is important. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Commission, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited public comment. He swore in the audience member who requested the opportunity to testify. He asked that the comments be limited to the Code amendment being considered. Richard Riley, attorney, resident of Chesterton, Indiana, stated that he is interested in understanding the process for requesting approval of a tower in an area that is not currently in an overlay district where towers are permitted. He asked whether a Code amendment or the Special Use Permit process would come first. He made a brief power point presentation to illustrate the need for a new overlay district in the Everett and Waukegan Roads area. He stated that he works for Pi Telecom, a large company that builds out infrastructure for wireless companies. He stated that T-Mobile is his client. He stated that he has a history in the community noting that he was involved in the construction of the first monopole on the hospital campus. He provided some data on the increasing demand for wireless service and statistics on increased data usage. He stated that the trends show no signs of slowing down. He reviewed the existing T-Mobile sites located in Lake Forest. He noted the gap in facilities in the Everett and Telegraph Roads area. He reviewed a coverage map and again noted a gap in this area. He stated that the location of surrounding sites directly relates to the need for a new tower and directs where the tower should be located in order to complete the network. He reviewed some options noting that towers can be fabricated to look like trees, flag poles and other structures. He showed photos of crosses, steeples, bell towers and clock Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 5 of 7 towers which were constructed in other locations to conceal towers. He stated that people do not realize that the structures are cell towers. He presented more images of stealth installations including fiberglass chimneys and additions to buildings that conceal wireless facilities. He presented some contemporary structures and monuments that are used in Europe to conceal wireless towers. He stated that the structures can be decorative or plain. He presented one image of a 150 foot tall tower noting that it accommodates nine wireless carriers. He stated that it is possible to design an appropriate architectural structure to conceal wireless antennas that will not be offensive. He stated that he expects to file a petition requesting a Code amendment to establish an overlay district in the Everett and Waukegan Roads area. Acting Chairman Culbertson asked staff to address the public comments. Ms. Czerniak stated that if a tower is proposed in an area not currently covered by the overlay district, both a Code amendment and a Special Use Permit would be required. She stated that action on the Code amendment would be required before the Special Use Permit could be considered but noted that the two considerations would likely involve much of the same information and could overlap. She stated that if a new tower is proposed in an area already covered by an overlay district, where towers are permitted, only a Special Use Permit would be required. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the boundaries of a new overlay district and the limitations for new facilities within the district would be determined by the Plan Commission, and ultimately the City Council, based on the demonstrated need for additional wireless facilities and based on the opportunities and limitations within the identified geographic area. Commissioner Berg stated that multiple 50 foot towers may be preferable to one 150 foot structure. Commissioner Freeman stated that when a request for a Code amendment comes forward, the needs of various providers, rather than just a single provider, should be considered to allow the Commission to fully understand the need in a particular area. He agreed that once information is presented to the Commission, decisions about the boundaries of the overlay district and height limitations would be part of the Commission’s deliberations. He stated his hope that service in the area will be improved. Commissioner Henry stated that the Code language as proposed seems to set the stage for the Commission to set guidelines and make decisions once the need for additional facilities in a particular location is understood. Mr. Riley expressed concern about going forward with selecting a site for his client before an overlay district is established. He stated that once an overlay district is established, wireless providers will try to locate within the district to streamline the approval process. Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Freeman reiterated that an overlay district should not be established to meet the needs of a single wireless company. At the request of Acting Chairman Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak, summarized the direction she heard: 1) the Commission generally supports the direction of the draft Code amendment language, 2) the Commission directed staff and the City Attorney to review the draft language overall and to look at particular sections to assure that the language is clear, avoids internal inconsistencies and achieves the desired intent, 3) the Commission directed that the overlay district be amended to remove the colocation opportunity on the former Barat Campus because it was replaced by a tower, 4) the Commission directed that property owners affected by the proposed amendments be notified. Acting Chairman Culbertson added that any grid maps and coverage maps should extend beyond the City limits as requested by Commissioner Kehr. Commissioner Freeman asked that Attachment E be re-looked at as well as Attachment D-2. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Acting Chairman Culbertson invited a motion. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to continue consideration of the proposed Code amendments and directed staff to continue to review and refine the draft language as discussed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry and approved by the Commission in a 5 to 0 vote. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that the draft language will be reviewed and finalized in coordination with the City Attorney’s office and then brought back to the Plan Commission for final consideration and action. She stated that the City Council will then consider the Commission’s recommendation and take action. She stated that once the final language is in place, any individual petition that is filed will be reviewed by the Commission based on the requirements established by the Code. Acting Chairman Culbertson commended the work of the Adhoc Task Force and the report prepared by the group. 5. Additional public comment on non-agenda items No testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 6. Additional information from staff. Plan Commission Minutes – February 8, 2017 Meeting Page 7 of 7 Ms. Czerniak stated that the petition from Waterway Car Wash and a 4-lot subdivision on Saunders Road are expected to be on the Commission’s agenda for consideration in March. The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development