Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2011/06/08 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the June 8, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, June 9, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Jack Reisenberg, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Tim Newman, James Carris, Lloyd Culbertson and Jeff Kuchman. Commission members absent: Beth Miller Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Reisenberg introduced members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Approval of the minutes of the April 13, 2011 meeting. The minutes of the April 13, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Recognition of past Commissioners Michael Adelman and Catherine Waldeck. Chairman Reisenberg recognized past Commissioner Waldeck and thanked her for her wisdom, succinct comments and service to the community. He wished her well as she moves on to fill the position of first ward alderman. He presented her with a plaque recognizing her service. Chairman Reisenberg noted that past Commissioner Adelman was unable to attend, but recognized and thanked him for his service to the community. 4. Information only: Consideration of a request for an amendment to Article X, Personal Wireless Service Facilities of the City Code. The requested amendment would eliminate the permitted area for a future telecommunication tower on the Barat Campus property and add a permitted tower location on the west side of Sheridan Road, south of Westleigh Road, near the existing ComEd equipment. The Plan Commission will receive preliminary information and public comments on this item. No action will be taken by the Commission on this item at this meeting. Applicant: SBA Towers II L.L.C. Richard Connor Riley, Attorney Property owner: Public right-of-way Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item noting that the item is being presented at this time for information only. He explained that the request is to amend the City’s wireless facilities overlay district to eliminate the right to construct a telecommunications tower on a portion of the Barat Campus property and add a new site to the overlay district on City owned right-of-way, along Sheridan Road, to the south of Barat Campus. He stated his expectation that some of the questions raised at this meeting may be able to be answered, but most likely, responses to Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 2 of 10 questions will be prepared as a follow up to the meeting and presented the next time this matter comes before the Commission. He asked the Commission to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he reiterated that no action will be taken by the Commission on this petition at this meeting. He explained that the independent consultant hired by the City to assist in evaluation of telecommunication petitions was unable to attend this meeting however; he noted that the Commission decided to move forward with hearing this petition, and the next one, to continue the community discussion on this topic. He noted that there is significant resident interest in this matter. He stated the Commission’s intention to hear a presentation from the petitioner, hear public comment and to allow the Commission to raise questions and comments in an effort to surface all related issues so that hopefully, answers to the questions raised can be provided at the next meeting to allow action on this request. He stated his intention to invite public comments prior to turning the discussion over to the Commission to streamline the process of this meeting. Mr. Riley spoke on behalf of the petitioner noting that SBA is the largest tower company in the Country. He reviewed the increasing demand for wireless service noting that the demand is exceeding even the expectations of the carriers. He reviewed the number of subscribers for different devices and types of services. He reviewed a timeline noting SBA’s continuing interest in an additional telecommunication tower in Lake Forest. He noted previous discussions by the Plan Commission several months ago about additional telecommunication sites. He reviewed coverage maps from U.S. Cellular noting areas of deficient coverage pointing out that with the proposed tower, coverage would be significantly improved. He discussed the proposed tower location, to the north and west of the existing ComEd facility along Sheridan Road. He explained that that the proposed tower would be designed to support six service providers. He noted that interior antennas, rather than externally mounted antennas, are proposed at a spacing of 10’ apart. He stated that the uni-pole proposal is submitted in recognition of the concern about the aesthetics of a tower in this location. He reviewed graphic simulations of the proposed tower noting that the pole is shielded by trees to the west. He discussed the reasons for the proposed height of 170’ noting that the original request was for a 195’ tower. He stated that currently, there are antennas mounted on top of Old Main at Barat College which would benefit from being located at an increased height. He stated that providing one tower, at the proposed height, which will accommodate multiple providers, will meet the goal of the City’s Code which is to minimize the number of towers in the community. He acknowledged that in the future, there will be other system demands and other technologies deployed but noted that full deployment of those alternative systems is many years away. He discussed recent press stating that towers are no longer needed and clarified that antennas still need to be elevated to provide the required signals. Ms. Czerniak explained that the City Code has provisions for telecommunication facilities which were adopted in 1997. She noted that the provisions include an overlay district that identifies permitted sites for roof top antennas and cell towers. She stated that at the time the Code provisions were developed, the City worked with local institutions and some private property owners who were interested in having the opportunity to locate telecommunication facilities on their properties for the purpose of receiving revenue. She commented that the Code provisions have served the community well and that over the years, the provisions have been amended from time to time. She stated that about 18 months ago, after receiving some inquiries from telecommunication providers and due to budget considerations, City staff asked the City Council whether consideration should be given to amending the provisions of the Code to allow Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 3 of 10 telecommunication towers on some City owned properties such as near the City’s compost center. The City Council directed that the City should not take the lead on this issue, but instead, respond to specific requests that may come in through the Code amendment process. She continued noting that as it became clear that the approved Barat Woods project would not move forward, and that a Court appointed receiver would be in control of the Barat Campus property for some period of time, the City Council again discussed whether the City should consider amendments to the telecommunication facilities overlay district. She explained that at the direction of the City Council, the Plan Commission considered possible alternatives to the permitted tower site on Barat Campus. She noted that the Plan Commission discussed the issue, but took no action noting that the discussion was good background if a petition for a tower comes forward. She noted that the Commission directed that if a petition comes forward, further study should be conducted and an independent consultant should be used to evaluate any such requests. She stated that this brings the Commission up to date noting that this matter is now before the Plan Commission because petitions for new tower locations were submitted for consideration. She explained that the City has received two petitions, each asking for an amendment to the telecommunication facilities overlay district to permit new towers on sites that are not currently in the overlay district. She noted that the request now being considered requests, with the approval of the property owner, Harris Bank, elimination of the permitted tower site on Barat Campus and replacement of that site with a location to the south along Sheridan Road. She stated that this petition does not affect or change the Code allowance for roof top antennas on Old Main. She reviewed the process for a Code amendment request noting that the matter is first considered by the Plan Commission and once the Commission has completed its deliberations, a recommendation on the request is forwarded by the Commission to the City Council. She discussed the proposed new tower site on Sheridan Road confirming that it is located on City owned right-of-way. She noted however that no discussions regarding leasing of the property to SBA or any wireless provider have occurred pending discussion and a decision on the Code amendment. She explained that if the amendment is approved, then the City could solicit proposals for location of a tower on the site and negotiate a lease. She noted that ultimately, building permits would need to be obtained prior to construction. She emphasized that this is the very front end of the process. She stated that all of the questions and comments presented will be noted and that after the meeting, research, requests for additional information and preparation of responses to questions will all be completed. She acknowledged that some of the questions raised may be answered differently by various parties; she stated that differing points of view will be brought forward as part of the Commission’s future consideration of this petition. Chairman Reisenberg emphasized that this discussion is the beginning of the City’s consideration of this request. He stated however that based on previous discussions, an alternative site at Western Avenue and Westleigh Road which was previously discussed by the Commission is no longer under consideration. He emphasized that the City is pre-empted by the Federal government from considering health or environmental issues and from basing decisions about telecommunication towers solely on aesthetic concerns. He invited public comment and swore in all those intending to speak. Dr. Michael Williams, 428 Beverly Place, noted that he previously sent a series of letters to the Plan Commission and City Council addressing this request and the previous discussions of the Plan Commission on this subject. He stated his intent to review the information in those letters and enter it into the record as part of this presentation. He stated that there is no factual data to Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 4 of 10 support the assertion that there are problems with U.S. Cellular coverage in this area. He questioned whether there is evidence of gaps in coverage from other carriers who presumably would occupy this tower. He added that there is no data to support the request for the tower height as proposed. He pointed out that other communities are rejecting new towers. He noted that the application does not address the future needs of the community and stated that alternatives must be explored before going forward with a new tower noting that collocation on existing towers and alternative technologies including DAS and light radio should be considered. He reviewed the City’s residential design guidelines noting that these guidelines can be applied to a cell phone tower. He noted that while the Federal mandate states that a decision cannot be made solely on aesthetics, the character of the community can be considered. He discussed alternative technologies noting that they are being deployed in other countries. He stated that if a need is established, alternative technologies should be considered in an effort to minimize visual impacts. Richard Steck, a resident of Villa Turicum stated that he has lived in Lake Forest for about 40 years. He stated that he lives about four tenths of a mile from the ComEd site, the proposed tower site. He acknowledged that the proposed tower will not be “in his backyard” and that he will hardly see it, but stated that he cares about Lake Forest and has important information to share. He reviewed the distributive antenna system (DAS) and explained its operation noting that it is connected by fiber optics. He discussed the advantages of this type of system noting that areas such as the beach can be connected. He noted some other cities that use a distributed antenna system, both large and small cities. He noted some cities near Lake Forest, such as Barrington Hills, which moved fully to a distributed antenna system several years ago. He noted that SBA is a major investor in a distributed antenna system company. He stated that towers are 25 year old technology and suggested that old technologies should not be used. He reviewed various photos of distributed antenna systems noting locations within Lake Forest and other nearby communities. He noted the hazards associated with structures as tall as the proposed tower. He stated that a structure of this height will be seen from 15 miles away. He urged consideration of a distributed antenna system noting that it will support all of the future needs of the community. Holly Williams, 428 Beverly, stated that she is pleased that the subject of distributed antenna systems has come up noting that it was raised by the neighbors at the Plan Commission discussions last year. She noted a website about distributed antenna systems and read from some of the pages on the website. She noted previous comments of representatives of SBA in support of state of the art technology and questioned why outdated technology is being pushed on Lake Forest. Allen Palmer, 1077 Coventry, questioned why the community would “cut a deal” with a telecommunications company. He questioned why the government would be involved and what the term of the lease would be. He suggested that alternative technology should be considered. He asked for information on the range of the coverage. He suggested that rather than hiring a consultant, students in the community could conduct research and then bring this back for public comment. Sandy Ganun, 650 Northmoor, asked that the responses to the questions posed come back in sufficient time to allow time for public review. He stated that the school districts have cell Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 5 of 10 towers and he asked whether there is any coordination occurring between the City and the school districts. Patricia Rees, 625 Beverly, stated that the proposed site for the tower is a natural site and is maintained by the City and Lake Forest Open Lands. She questioned the wisdom of the proposed tower at the entrance to the City, on a beautiful piece of property. She stated that the ComEd equipment has been at this location for years. She stated that the bushes planted there do not grow and do not screen the equipment. She stated that a fence would not provide screening. She stated objection to the proposed location of a cell tower in this natural area. Chairman Reisenberg noted that one request for cross examination was received and invited Mr. and Ms. Willliams forward to cross examine the petitioner. In response to questions from Mr. Williams, Mr. Riley stated his intent to provide responses to the questions raised by the consultants. He stated that this is not a simple matter. He stated that every company is investing in distributed antenna systems because they are in the business of providing distribution systems for carriers. He noted however that every carrier has towers even if they are using DAS in limited areas. He stated that today, each company is using a variety of cell systems. He stated that DAS is just one way to provide a wireless signal. He stated that ultimately, his expectation is that DAS will be used in LF, but not exclusively. He noted that it is expensive and pointed out that there is the visual intrusion of antennas and boxes on poles. He stated that to meet the need that exists, DAS is not an appropriate solution and stated that he understands that he will have to prove that statement. He stated that he only recently received the questions from the consultant but noted that some of the questions raised are not applicable to his request. He stated his intention to discuss those questions with staff. In response to Ms. Williams's statement that a recent Court case found that only carriers can assert a need for coverage, Mr. Riley stated that based on another Court case, tower companies do have legal standing to bring forward such a request. He stated that he will provide the citation of that case. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak clarified that this is a request for a Code amendment, noting that no negotiations have occurred with respect to a lease, duration of a lease or revenues to be received. She stated that if the Code is amended to allow a tower in the requested area, on City owned property, the City could begin negotiations with interested parties. She clarified that the initial charge to the consultant was to answer basic questions such as: Is there a need? If so, what is the minimum facility required to meet the need? What technologies are available to meet the need? And, what are the characteristics of the various technologies that could meet the need? She stated however that in reviewing the materials submitted by the petitioners, the consultant determined that there was not sufficient information submitted to answer the questions. She stated that additional information has been requested from the petitioners to allow these basic questions to be answered. She confirmed that the City and school districts have coordinated closely on telecommunication facilities. In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak clarified that no action is requested of the Commission at this meeting. She noted that the Commission is being provided with information and the public hearing was opened to begin consideration of the requests to amend the City Code to add two permitted areas for towers. She stated that the Commission Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 6 of 10 should consider continuing this matter with direction to bring back more information and answers to the questions raised. Commissioner Newman requested information to verify the level of need in southeast Lake Forest for additional coverage, the height at which a blinking light is required on a tower, whether SBA has standing to bring a request forward, information about DAS and whether it is a viable alternative to additional towers, information on the capacity of the tower and whether as proposed it provides room for growth and information on the existing fiber optic in the City including locations and what is served. Commissioner Culbertson requested information on the number of existing towers in the community, a map of the permitted tower locations based on the current Code, an understanding of whether the City is covered comprehensively by the sites already permitted, whether removal of the tower would be pre-funded and information on alternative technologies. Commissioner Carris asked for the following information: information on whether more than one carrier can be supported on a DAS system or whether each carrier would need a separate system, a comparison of the costs of the different technologies, information on the coverage area for the proposed towers and specifically whether service would be provided to other communities from the proposed tower, information on the appearance of the tower from the roadway to the south and justification for not only moving the site from Barat Campus to Sheridan Road, but also for the proposed increase in tower height. Commissioner Kuchman asked for information on the system used in Barrington Hills, DAS systems in general and information on whether any research has been done to employ the DAS in combination with the existing facilities in the community. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Riley pointed out that no tower structure currently exists in the southeast quadrant of the City. He discussed the operation of cells noting that as the distance between the cells is reduced, the height of the cell can come down. He noted a corresponding reduction in the footprint of coverage. He stated that he does not think that given the coverage area, a DAS will provide for sufficient transmission. He confirmed that SBA participates in DAS but noted that it is not appropriate for this area. He stated however that he will return with specific answers to the questions raised including information on the effectiveness and a cost comparison with other systems. Chairman Reisenberg requested that information be provided on the heights of the existing towers and the cost and cost effectiveness of a DAS system in comparison to a tower system. Commissioner Shaw questioned whether given the fact that the discussion is centering on eliminating the Barat site, the City will be able to meet its obligations under Federal law with a DAS system. Chairman Reisenberg suggested that SBA consider alternatives to the proposed height noting the Commission’s intention to consider carefully the coverage that is needed while at the same time, being sensitive to the character of the community. He stated that the Commission does not have an interest in overbuilding telecommunication facilities in the community. Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Shaw made a motion to continue the petition to allow time for the petitioner to submit the additional information requested and to respond to the questions raised. He added that the continuance will allow time for further review of the additional information that is submitted by the City’s consultant and City staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Newman and was unanimously approved by the Commission. The Commission took a short recess. 5. Information only: Consideration of a request for an amendment to Article X, Personal Wireless Service Facilities of the City Code. The requested amendment would add a permitted tower location at 920 Waukegan Road, in the parking lot for the Private Bank. The Plan Commission will receive preliminary information and public comments on this item. No action will be taken by the Commission on this item at this meeting. Applicant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. Wanchay Chathandounsey, Attorney Property owner: Lake Forest Partners, LLC Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item. He asked for any conflicts of interest of Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this item. Ms. Chathandounsey introduced the petition noting that she is an attorney representing T- Mobile. She noted that T-Mobile has realized that wireless service demands are increasing creating a need for increased facilities to provide robust service. She stated that after the need was identified, she drove the area near Waukegan and Everett Roads looking for colocation opportunities. She noted that the St. Patrick’s Church steeple was identified, but noted that the Church was not interested in hosting wireless carriers. She stated that the Fire Station was considered, but determined to not be workable. She stated that T-Mobile currently has a lease option with Private Bank to locate a tower to the south of the bank in the parking lot. She stated that this is a request to add that area to the City’s permitted tower sites overlay map. Mike Bienick, also an attorney representing T-Mobile, noted his experience in zoning and the telecommunications industry. He reviewed the request for a 100’ tower on the Private Bank property. He stated that the tower and ground equipment area is designed to accommodate multiple carriers, improving coverage for businesses and residents along a major thorough fare. He added that the proposed tower will provide collation opportunities and meet the need of enhanced data usage. He noted the number of subscribers for wireless service and provided other statistics. He reviewed the proposed location of the new tower and reviewed some photo simulations. He stated that the antennas will be internal and concealed within the canister. He reviewed the propagation maps noting three levels of service, on street coverage, in a building, or in a car. He stated that the coverage along Waukegan Road will improve with the proposed tower particularly in vehicles and inside buildings. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting that the tower would be located in the southwest corner of the private bank property. He stated that a “flag pole” tower, with internal antennas is proposed for aesthetic reasons. He showed photos of similar towers in other municipalities. He stated that the ground equipment will be enclosed by a brick wall in keeping with the exterior material of the bank building. Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Chathandounsey noted that a radio frequency engineer is available to address questions about coverage requirements. She discussed DAS noting that this technology has been around for about 8 years and is a solution for some locations and is one component of a wireless system. She stated that at locations where there is a gap in coverage for a specific area and a lack of other workable solutions, DAS can be helpful. She noted that in this business area, a tower is most appropriate. Ms. Czerniak stated that the background provided for the previous petition also applies to this petition. She stated that in this case, if a need for additional service is demonstrated, it will be important to look at what may be the most appropriate site to serve the west Lake Forest area. She noted that the City has had some discussions with the school district and commented that there may be some opportunity to coordinate with the District on a centrally located site to serve this area. Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment. Holly Williams, 428 Beverly Place, noted that many of her comments on the previous petition apply to this one as well. She added however that there are many opportunities to camouflage a tower if in fact it is demonstrated that one is needed. Richard Steck, Villa Turicum resident, stated that the coverage maps presented for this petition were done with great precision and should be appreciated. He discussed the flag pole concept and asked for dimensions of the pole at the base and at the top noting that the tower will not be small. He asked if any graphics of the flag pole are available with reference points to help understand the size. Commissioner Kuchman stated that he would like to understand whether there are any opportunities for location of an antenna at the fire station and if not, why not. Commissioner Carris asked for information about the inter-relationship between the coverage area between the two towers currently proposed and how those coverage areas inter-relate. He stated that the flag pole is an interesting concept, appealing to the community’s patriotic nature. He asked for information about lighting of the flag in the evening and how the flag would be maintained. In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Mr. Bienick addressed the inter-relationship of the towers noting that each cell works in and of itself. He stated that the system is a network noting that as vehicles travel on Waukegan Road, different towers pick up the signals. He noted that the transfer from tower to tower is affected by the number of users and capacity of the system. He confirmed that the coverage from the tower proposed earlier will not overlap with the coverage area resulting from for this tower. He stated that in more dense areas, towers get lower. He discussed the flag noting that it will be on the tower at all times and will be illuminated with up lighting at night. He stated that the lease normally includes provisions for replacement of the flag. Ms. Chathandounsey confirmed that accommodations for maintenance of the flag are included in the lease. She pointed out that there is an option to not have a flag on the pole. Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 9 of 10 In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Bienick confirmed that the pole will support a small number of additional carriers. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Bienick stated this tower would accommodate two or maybe three towers. He stated that the pole would need to be taller to accommodate more carriers. He noted that there are other towers in this general area with T- Mobil antennas so at this site, the lower height is workable. He noted that in the southeast quadrant of Lake Forest, there are no other towers. He stated that on a 100’ tower a flag of approximately 20’ x 30’ would be used. Commissioner Culbertson asked for future discussion on how many towers the community should have and in conjunction with that, how many carriers should be accommodated on each tower. He noted that up lighting of the flag will have an impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Newman stated that he is troubled by the petition and asked for a coverage map for all of the carriers serving the area to understand what other type of coverage might be needed in the area. Chairman Reisenberg stated that he lives in this area and noted that he is not aware of any coverage problem. He stated an interest in understanding why a tower is needed at this location. Mr. Bienick stated that each carrier has their own grid system. He stated that the Federal government does not require every provider to be on every pole since wireless service has not been determined to be a utility. He noted that carriers have different levels of service and noted that the propagation map shows the coverage problems for T-Mobile in this area. He acknowledged that the discussion of the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T is under consideration by the Federal government. He noted that the deal is not final and in the meantime, T-Mobile needs to provide coverage to the area. He noted that if the acquisition moves forward, due to capacity issues, all existing sites may very well be needed. He confirmed that the lease option has been signed with Private Bank and that the proposed tower could be taller to accommodate more carriers. He stated that if the tower is lower than 100 feet, the trees limit the propagation of the signals. He stated that it is important to get above the tree levels. Chairman Reisenberg commented that he cannot conceive of approving a cell tower in this business area. He questioned whether there are better options. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. Bienick stated that T-Mobile is not ruling out West Campus as a possible site. He discussed other potential locations and the loss of coverage that could result in some areas. He stated an understanding that the feasibility of DAS needs to be explored and explained but noted that in his experience, DAS is more of an in- building system. He noted that DAS systems supplement systems that already exist. Chairman Reisenberg stated his preference not to see a tower at this location. He encouraged the petitioner to work with City staff and the consultant to evaluate alternative sites if in fact a need for a tower is documented. He stated that the solution should focus on preserving the character of the community. Plan Commission Minutes – June 8, 2011 Page 10 of 10 In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Chathandounsey confirmed that possible roof top locations in the area have been explored. She pointed out that with roof top antennas there would be a significant height loss and the opportunity for colocation would be lost. Chairman Reisenberg asked for information on the elevation of the ComEd site discussed in the previous petition. Commissioner Shaw made a motion to continue consideration of this petition to allow further work by the petitioner to respond to the questions raised and to allow review of additional information submitted by the City’s consultant and by City staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Newman and was unanimously approved by the Commission. Ms. Czerniak noted that the City is maintaining an interested parties list for these petitions and invited any member of the public who wants to receive mailed notices of future meetings on this topic to provide their name and address to the Community Development Department. 6. Public testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items. 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development