HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 12/6/1999 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 6, 1999
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z•483
SPRINTCOM INC, AND RICHARD AND RITA ) Sprintcom
ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR A USE )
VARIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND SETBACK )
VARIANCES, PURSUANT ) Lincoln Road
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Use Variance wlVariance
MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, IL )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CtTY Of MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A Public Hearing on the above•captioned Petition was held on December 6, 1999.
Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. The following persons were
in attend�nce:
1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Paula Ekstrom, Darick
Franzen, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: John Howetl.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer
�
4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio.
5. Petitioner: Sprintcom Inc.
6. Attorney for Petitioner: Richard Conner Riley & Associates, represented by
Michael McCrery, 7600 S. County Line Road, Burr Ridge, IL 60521.
7. City Council Members/Staff: None.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Reg�istered Observers/Objectors:
a. John Justen, 2619 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
b. David Miller, 2717 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
c. Allen Hunt, 2218 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 9,
1999. Notices were mailed to abutting property owners via Certified mailing. The
property was posted as required by ordinance. Certificate of Publication and an
� affidavit of notification and posting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Page 2
ZBA-Sprintcom
12/6/99
�
LQCATION
The subject property is located approximately 1,000 feet south of Lincoln Road and
north of 2600 West Route 120, just north of Adams Commercial Center.
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is seeking the following:
■ A Use Variance to permit the construction and operation of a Radio Tower in the
E-Estate residential zoning district;
■ Variance as to the minimum setbacks in the E-Estate residential district;
■ Variance as to the maximum height of a radio tower in the City of McHenry, to
permit a 200-foot tower.
STIMO(�Y
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioner:
■ Amy Park, property location specialist;
■ Gary Pes, radio frequency specialist;
■ Jim Lockhart, construction manager.
Attorney McCrery stated Sprintcom has identified a specific area in which a tower must
be placed in order to facilitate "seamless service" • automatic switching from one
tower to another without interruption of service. Mr. McCrery provided background on
� the advantages to cell phone usage by the citizens of the community. Referencing the
Site Plan provided to the Board, Mr. McCrery indicated the tower would be located at
the approximate mid-point between Lincoln Road and Route 120 on Richard and Rita
Adams property and would be an integral part of the Sprint PCS digital network
system. The installation of a tower requires a height variance, as radio signals are very
susceptible to obstructions. In order to effectively use the tower it must be 200 feet
in height. This height would allow seamless service. Mr. McCrery provided visual aids
to demonstrate the service areas without the tower, with a 35-foot high tower as
permitted by City of McHenry ordinance, and with the requested 200•foot tower.
Mr. McCrery noted the following locations had been investigated prior to Sprint's
decision to locate the tower on the subject premises:
■ TCI Cable tower at 2508 W. Route 120 — the tower is not tall enough;
■ Adams property along Route 120 — topography not appropriate as the land is too
I ow;
■ Eastwood Manor Water Tower — the tower is too short;
■ VFW property—topography of the land drops off and it is outside of the search ring;
■ PrimeCo tower on Lincoln Road — this tower is 150' high which is not tall enough.
The sprint unit would have to be placed at least 10' below the top of the tower,
140', as a 10' vertical separation is required between providers;
■ Radicom property on Chapel Hill Road — located outside of the search ring;
� ■ Gravel Pit east on Route 120 — located outside of the search ring.
Page 3
ZBA-Spri ntcom
12/6/99
� Mr. McCrery noted the subject property was selected as the best option. A 50' by 50'
parcel would be leased by Sprint PCS. The proposed tower would be a monopole
design and be 195' high with a 4' lightning rod for a total height of 199'.
UESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Cadotte asked the distance between towers. Pes responded the distance varies due to
topography but it averages between 3-5 miles between towers. He noted the radius of
each search ring in this area is approximately 1.5 — 2 mites. Cadotte asked if the
proposed tower would service only sprint users. Pes stated, unless another provider
ptaces a facility on the tower, it would only service Sprint users. Each provider has its
own facility, although towers can be shared by up to three providers.
Meyer asked how long the proposed tower would be adequate for this area. Pes
responded it would provide needed seamless service for 3-5 years. In response to
Meyer's inquiry, Pes stated as the elevation of the tower is reduced, Sprint would have
areas where there would no longer be seamless coverage. Pes noted the leased parcel
is located approximately 30' from District 15's Hilltop School property. Ekstrom asked
if any concerns had been voiced by School District 15. Staff responded in the negative.
Semrow expressed concern regarding a proposed commercial use in a district zoned
E Estate. He did not want this matter to set a precedent for other commercial uses
being permitted in a residential district. He suggested the Petitioners could have
� chosen a site in Adams Commercial Centre as appropriate zoning is established.
General discussion occurred regarding the selection of the site, the adjacent wetlands,
and the annexation restriction of one dwelting on the E Estate zoned property.
Doherty asked if Sprint has experience with a search ring encompassing a densely
populated residential area. McCrery responded Sprint attempts to locate its facilities
on existing towers where possible. If there is no existing tower, one must be located
within the specified search ring. Further discussion followed re�arding reclassification
of the property to Business Park District. Ekstrom noted utilizing this residential
property for the cell tower is similar to the gravel-mining overlay on residential
property.
In response to Franzen's inquiry, McCrery responded the City's water tower could not
be utilized by Sprint, as it would not be high enough. Staff noted the water tower is
subject to a maximum height of 150', as it will be integrated with existing water towers
in the City. Lockhart stated engineering would not allow the erection of a 50' structure
on top of the 150' water tower.
Semrow asked the petitioners what precautions would be taken to protect children
from climbing the 199' monopole. Lockhart responded the pole would be secured by
a six-foot chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. He noted the climbing poles
would be located eight feet above the ground. In order for anyone to climb the
`' monopole, they would need a ladder.
Page 4
ZBA•Sprintcom
12/6/99
�, UESTIONS BY OBSERVERS AND/OR OBJECTORS
avi Miller 2717 yV Lincoln Road• He asked the height of other towers indicated on
the visual charts provided. Pes responded:
■ Spring Grove tower — 199'
+ Ingles+de tower — 185'
� Gilmore Road tower — 195'
■ Holiday Hills tower — 185'
� Ringwood tower — 199'.
Miller asked how far apart the existing towers are located in this area. Pes stated the
towers are between 3•5 miles apart. In response to Miller's inquiry, Pes stated the
varying de�rees of service are refated to the topography of the land. Miller asked the
capacity of the proposed tower. Pes responded there is no hard number as to the
number of customers the tower would serve.
Meyer asked how Sprintcom would increase service if customer use increases. Pes said
an increase o#frequencies on the tower would accommodate an increase in customer
usage. It would not be necessary to increase the number of towers.
Miller asked if it might be better to have more shorter towers rather than fewer high
towers. Pes responded he is not sure the shorter towers would be any more
aestheticatly pleasing.
� Allen Hunt. 2218 Woodlawn Park• He expressed concern regarding the height of the
proposed tower and its susceptibility to being struck by lightning. Lockhart explained
the tower could take up to 25 hits per month without any damage being incurred. The
hits would be absorbed into the soil. Discussion occurred regarding the potential of
other providers also using the proposed tower and the potential interference or
blockage by the City of McHenry water tower. Hunt noted once this tower is approved
there could be no end to requests for towers in this area and/or in the City of
McHenry.
Meyer asked if other Sprintcom towers in the area have leased space to other
providers. Pes stated the only tower with more than one provider is the Sprin� Grove
tower which leases to the McHenry County Sheriff. Discussion followed regarding the
potential for leasing tower space to other providers and the varied needs of each
provider as to tower height, space between search rings, etc. Staff suggested the
motion could include the requirement Sprintcom allow the co-location of two other
providers on its tower.
STATEMENTS BY OBJECTORS/OVBSERVERS
Chairman Semrow swore in the following Objectors:
� Allen Hunt, 2218 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050
■ David Miller, 2717 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
� Allen Hunt: "The neighborhood is concerned that the proposed 13 acre Estate-zoned
parcel will be unbuildable as a result of this zoning request being granted. Could the
City come up with some type of document whereby the area could be assured of open
Page 5
ZBA•Sprintcom
12/6/99
�
space left on this land? The City needs some assurance that the fair market rate wouid
be chargf�d to potential leasees of the tower so that co-Iocation on the tower could
occur. HE� stated he does not object to the monopole tower provided Sprint offers
space to �ompetitors at a competitive rate."
Attorney McArdle stated the City should be the beneficiary of any such provision.
Davi Miller: "How many providers of telecommunications are there in the Chicagoland
area?" Mr. Pes responded there are currently seven. Miller said, "the proposed tower
could handle three providers, where would the remaining four be located? Would there
be four more towers constructed in this area? I am not excited about having a 200'
tower adj�cent to my back yard."
McCrery responded most carriers have already built their facility in the area.
CL4SING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Attorney McCrery stated the Petitioner has found a good location for the monopole
tower. The Petitioner is willing to agree to the conditions has set forth by the City if the
Use Variance and Variances are granted.
Chairman Semrow stated "there being no further testimony before the Board with
� regard to this matter, the Board will consider this Petition at this time, unless there
is a motion to recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the
Chair will entertain a motion with regard to this Petition."
DELIBERTATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Doherty, to recommend to the City Council that
The Petitioner's request for:
■ A Use Variance to permit the construction and operation of a monopole Radio
Tower in the E-Estate residential zoning district;
� Variance as to the minimum setbacks in the E-Estate residential district;
■ Variance as to the maximum height of a radio tower in the City of McHenry, to
permit a 200-foot tower.
be granted , subject to the following conditions:
� A six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire shall be installed to
protect children from the 50' by 50' tower site;
■ No advertising signs shall be located on the premises;
■ No artificial lighting shall be used to illuminate the site;
� ■ No strobe lights shall be utilized on the premises;
■ The Petitioner shall provide co-location of two additional providers on the tower;
■ The Petitioner shall be required to offer fair market value for rental of space to
providers co-locating on said tower;
Page 6
ZBA-Spri ntcom
12/6/99
�.
■ The le.�se of the subject premises shall include the provision the City of McHenry
shall be beneficiary of the terms of the lease regarding the co•location of providers
on sai�� tower;
■ Lands�;aping of the site as approved by the Community Development Department
shall �e required;
■ The tower shall be developed in substantial conformance with the application;
• The tower shall be equipped with an anti-climbin� device.
and that Table 32 The Approvaf Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning
Ordinance have been met; and that Table 32A The Approval Criteria for Use Variances,
page 379 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
DISCUSSICIN ON THE MOTION
Meyer stated he was extremely disappointed at the last hearing regarding the sprint
proposal for Use Variance and Variances. Sprint has addressed many of concerns
expressed and the monopole design is much more favorable than the lattice work
design requested at the first hearing.
Semrow stated he had misgivings regarding a Use Variance in the Estate District.
� VOTING ON THE MOTION
Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Ekstrom, Franzen, Meyer, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Howell.
Motion carried 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow stated, there being no further business before the Board with
regard to this matter, this Hearing is adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
ectfully s bmitted,
Harry mrow, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City
Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference
Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman,
� Northwest Herald, The Sun, File Copy. Z-483
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 6, 1999
CITY OF MCHENRY
�
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-478
THE CITY OF MCHENRY FOR A TEXT ) City of McHenry
AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO THE )
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Text Amendment
MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, IL )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on September 13, 1999,
September 20, 1999, October 4, 1999, October 1 l, 1999 and recessed to this date.
Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 9:10 p.m. The following persons were
in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Paula Ekstrom, Darick
Franzen, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: John Howell.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
�.
4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio.
5. Petitioner: City of McHenry.
6. Attorney for Petitioner: David McArdle.
7. City Council Members/Staff: None.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on August 27, 1999.
Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City
Clerk's Office.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting a Text Amendment to the City of McHenry Zoning
Ordinance be approved as follows:
� ■ Section I I I (K),Temporary Uses— definitions, restrictions and maximum duration
of time they may be utilized.
Page 2
� ZBA-City �f McHenry
12/6/99
TESTIMONY
Staff noted the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to Temporary Use
was originated by the City Council. The City Council, recognizing area businessmen
were annually requesting extensions for the outside sale of garden/plants and related
materials. suggested the Zoning Ordinance be amended to accommodate the typical
needs of the local retailers regarding this temporary use. At the same time, outside
entities seeking such a temporary use would be subject to the approval of the City
Council and would be limited to a shorter time frame than local retailers.
UESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meyer asked if there was a distinction between temporary uses for service
organizations and retailers. Maggio stated the garden center temporary use time lime
would be expanded from 90 days to 120 days for both local businesses and service
organizations.
Commission members expressed concern with why the amendment to Temporary Uses
is being proposed. Pros and cons of leaving the temporary use ordinance as-is or
modifying it were discussed. Semrow stated there is no sense in amending the
ordinance to universally accommodate all temporary use applications for garden
� centers. It was also mentioned that it would be difficult to administer a modified
ordinance which attempts to prevent potential leasing of property within the corporate
limits to outside retailers who wish to sell goods on land for which property taxes for
unimproved land are being paid. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the ways of
limiting temporary use garden center sales to local businesses and the prevention of
property owners from leasing land to outside entities for garden center displays. Staff
clarified it is the intent of the revised ordinance to limit temporary use garden center
outside sales to established City of McHenry retail businesses for a period of time not-
to-exceed 120 days. The temporary use permits to City retailers could be issued by the
Community Development Department without need for additional Council approval.
Conversely, out of town temporary use garden center permits would be authorized only
by City Council approval and for a period of 90 days.
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Franzen, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that
Section III (K) be amended as follows:
Paragraph 2 shall read:
Outside Display and Sale of Landscaping Materials:
Conditions:
a. Does not exceed 120 days per calendar year.
b. Is Conducted in Commercial Districts only.
� c. Does not cover an area exceeding 50QJo of the width of any public walkway.
d. Is operated or sponsored by:
Page 3
12/6/99
I. An established business n operation on the same property; or
� 11. A non-profit group, but only with the prior written consent of the
property owner.
Paragraph 4 shall read:
Temporary Roadside Display and Sale of Farm Produce, Landscaping Material
or Other Merchandise.
Conditions:
a. Is not conducted in or adjacent to any developed residential area.
b. Is limited in duration to 90 days.
c. Provides adequate ingress and egress from adjoining roadways.
d. Provides one off-street parking space per 75 square feet of display area
with a minimum of 3 spaces. Such spaces need not meet the requirements
of the off-street parking and loading or landscaping sections herein.
e. Shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Franzen, Meyer, Semrow.
Voting Nay: Ekstrom.
Not Voti ng: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Howell.
Motion carried 5-l.
�. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Doherty, seconded by Franzen, to adjourn the hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Ekstrom, Franzen, Meyer, Semrow.
Voti ng Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Howell.
Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully sub itted,
u
Harry Se ow, Chairman
Zoning B ard of Appeals
c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City
Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference
Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman,
Northwest Herald, The Sun, File Copy. Z-478
�