HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/11/1999 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING B�ARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 11, 1999
CITY OF MCHENRY
� fN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-483
SPRINTCOM INC, AND RICHARD AND RITA ) Sprintcorn
ADAMS, f'ROPERTY OWNERS, FOR A USE )
VARIANCE W{TH HEIGHT AND SETBACK )
VARIANCES , PURSUANT ) Lincoln Road
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Use Variance w/Variance
MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, IL )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A Public Hearing on the above-captioned Petition was held on September 20, 1999
and recessed to October 11, 1999. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at
7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Darick Franzen, John
Howell, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Paula Ekstrom.
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: Alderman Glab.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None.
a. John Justen, 2619 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
b. Mike Oliver, 1717 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050.
c. Ed Gottlieb, 2326 Lincotn Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
d. David Miller, 2717 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050.
e. Allen Hunt, 2218 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050.
f. Rhonda Burke, Chicago Tribune, 521 N. Beck Road, Lindenhurst, tL 6a046.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on September 24,
� 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 �ffice of the City Clerk.
Page 2
ZBA-Spri ntcom
10/11/99
� LOCATION
The subject property is located approximately 1,000 feet soutM of Lincoln Road and
north of 2600 West Route 120, just north of Adams Commerciai Center.
U$ MMARY
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.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioner:
� Andre Termanowski, 9801 W. Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018
• Naitak Patel, 9801 W. Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018.
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. 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.
UESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BO/�RD
Howell asked if the visual aids indicated only the Sprint service area. Mr. McCrery
responded in the affirmative.
Cadotte asked if cell phone users other than Sprint could use the Sprint tower or would
they require their own tower for services. Mr. McCrery responded each cellular service
agency requires its own equipment; however, occasionally more than one agency uses
the same tower by co-locating equipment on a single tower. He stated a maximum of
three users can utilize a tower, in response to a Board inquiry, Mr. McCrery stated his
client could not use the Primeco tower in the same vicinity as the proposed Sprintcom
tower as �t is only 150 feet high. Chairman Semrow asked if the Petitioner cou{d utilize
the tower on the Meyer Material property on the west side of town. Mr. McCrery
responded that location is outside the search ring of seamless service. Mr.
� Termanowski noted if Sprintcom were to use an existing tower at a location not within
the specified search ring, there would be gaps in service for cell phone users.
Page 3
ZBA-Sprintcom
10/11/99
� Meyer asked if the Petitioners are specifically seeking a site within the corporate limits
of the Cit�,r. Mr. Termanowski state the proposed site provides the maximum benefit
to users. Moving the location one mile in either direction would open up areas for
dropped service. Cadotte asked about the possibility of adding 50 feet to the Primeco
tower. Mr. McCrery responded the base and framework is not designed to add
additional load. Chairman Semrow asked if the tower could be located in closer
proximity to existing towers, such as the Primeco tower in an effoKt to minimize the
areas impacted by towers. Mr. McCrery stated the Primeco site had been investigated,
however the owner and Sprintcom could not reach agreement.
Meyer expressed concern regarding permitting an industrial use in a residential
district, particularly the E-Estate District. He stated he is not comfortable with a Use
Variance of this type in the E•Estate District. Staff suggested it would be more
appropriate to grant a Use Variance as opposed to zoning reclassifieati4n of this
property. The property owner and the City agreed at the time of annexation that a
single residence could be built on the property.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible relocation of the tower site within the City.
Mr. Patel indicated the tower being proposed would accommodate equipment from two
additional carriers. Mr. Patel stated the search ring must overlap the search rings from
adjacent towers in order to have seamless service. Likewise, the tower must be
desi�ned to satisfy future customer needs. Mr. Termanowski stated the tower would
� be designed to accommodate anticipated growth for the next five years.
Meyer asked if other Sprintcom towers have multiple users. The Petitioner was unable
to respond. Mr. Termanowski noted it is highly unlikely another user would require a
tower higher than 200 feet. Discussion occurred as to the tower design to withstand
maximum windloads. Meyer asked what type of barrier wouid be used to protect
adjacent properties from the tower property. Mr. Patel indicated a 6-foot chain link
fence with barbed wire, if permtted, is being proposed. 1n addition, all code
requirements regarding landscaping and screening the site would be met.
Chairman Semrow expressed concern about the location of the tower being in close
proximity to Hilltop School. He opined a six foot fence will not prohibit a child from
climbing the tower. Mr. Patel stated the tower being proposed is a lattice tower wf►ich
will have a base 8•10 feet off the ground. If required by the City additional height could
be added to the base to create a higher safety barrier prior to the beginning of the
latice work.The climbing rungs will not start until 10 feet above-grade. General
discussion occurred regarding safety issues of the lattice-type tower. Meyer asked if
the Petitioner would comply with all federal regulations. Mr. McCrery responded all
regulations including those of the FCC, FAA and ASAC will be met. In response to an
inquiry, Mr. McCrery stated there would be no signage on the tower. He stated his
client would sign a 25•year lease for this site.
� QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS AND/OR OBJECTORS
David Miller, 2717 W. �.incoln Road: He stated the proposed site is adjacent to a grade
school — why couldn't the Petitioners make use of the existing Primeco Tower? Mr.
Patel stated he had not investigated the base of the Primeco Tower and he was not
Page 4
ZBA-Sprintcom
10/11/99
� certain it could withstand the windload of an additional fifty feet. Miller suggested the
Petitioner erect several 35 foot towers in closer proximity to each other rather than the
200 foot tower in his back yard. Mr McCrery responded the towers must be located in
the indicated search rings. Miller asked if the Petitioner had approached the City of
McHenry regarding the use of the water towers in town to erect the cell equipment. Mr.
McCrery responded in the negative. Mr. Miller asked about the potential radiation for
nearby residents and students from the cell tower. Mr. McCrery stated this was not a
concern.
John Justen. 2619 Lincoln Road: Mr. Justen asked the size of the base of the tower.
Mr. Patel responded it would be triangular in shape and each side would measure 24
feet in length. The overall area of the compound for the tower would be 50' X 50'.
Justen asked if there would be guy wires. Mr. Patel answered in the negative. In
response ta Mr. Justen's inquiry, Mr. Patel stated there would be no ionizing energy
and it would not be similar to a radar beam. There is no harmful radiation emitted by
the tower.
Allen Hunt. 2218 Woodlawn Park: Mr. Hunt stated the City of McHenry is building a
150' water tower, how will that impact your 200 foot tower in close proximity to the
City's tower. Mr. Termanowski stated there would be no shadowing from the water
tower. Hunt asked the Petitioner if they had checked with Radicom about sharing their
cell tower. Mr. McCrery responded the Radicom tower must not be within the search
4 ring. Hunt asked what if Sprintcom sets its lease rate so high so that no other tenant
wants to pay the rate to co-locate on their tower; in that event, other users would have
to erect 200' towers as well.
Mike Oliver. 1717 Woodlawn Park: Mr. Oliver asked the location of the next Sprintcom
tower going west from the proposed location. Mr. Termanowski responded he did not
know the focation of the next tower west. Oliver asked the location of the next tower
going east. Mr. Termanowski stated it could be the one at Pro-Circle Golf, although he
was not certain. Oliver asked if the Peti#ioner has investigated using the tower in the
gravel pit east of town. Mr. McCrery responded it must be outside of the search ring
as it was not included in the survey of locations. Oliver asked the prime location for
the tower. Mr. McCrery stated it was the Primeco location; however, the lease rate was
too high.
�ohn Justen, 2619 Lincoln Road: Mr. Justen inquired if there was potential
interference with television or radio signals. Mr. McCrery responded in the negative.
Franzen, noting the water tower to be erected near this property, asked if the
Petitioners had researched the possibility of putting their facility on top of the water
tower. He asked if a fifty foot extension would be possible, especially since the water
tower had not been constructed yet. Lengthy discussion occurred regarding the
expenditure of increasing the height of the water tower, and the feasibility of funding
� of the project. Howell asked if the entire area had been thorough(y investigated to
assure that there are not other viable sites for the cell tower. He asked if there were
any other companies planning to construct cell towers in the City of McHenry at this
time. He also inquired as to the existing cell towers in the corporate boundary. Maggio
Page 5
ZBA-Sprintcom
i0/11/99
�
respondeci Cell One is looking at a site on the south side of the City. He stated at this
time he b�lieved there were no other celt towers in the City.
Meyer, referencing Item #4 in the Approval Criteria for Use Variances in Table 32A,
opined property values in the area would be impaired by the construction af the cell
tower. Mr. McCrery responded there has been no evidence of that in previous cell
tower locations. Meyer asked if the Petitioner had a backup plan in the event the
Petition was denied. Mr. McCrery stated the Petitioner would go back into the search
and try to find another site for their facility. Howell expressed his concern that the
subject property is the Qnlv possible site for the cell tower. He inquired as to other
sites which had been investigated. Howell asked what other sites had been explored
and rejected.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 8:58 p.m. The Hearing was reconvened at 9:03
p.m.
Mr. McCrery stated the sites which have been previously investigated were:
■ 2801 W. Route 120; and
■ 2508 W. Route 120.
He did not have detailed information on the other properties in the site search at this
time.
�'" Ed Gottlieb. 2306 W. Lincoln Road: Mr. Gottlieb noted as the Adams water tower is
not constructed yet, why couldn't the Petitioner pay the cost to increase the height of
the water tower by 20 feet and then a 30' extension could be used to support the cell
tawer unit. Mr. Termanowski responded the cost would be prohibitive. In addition, the
Petitioner would have to compensate Mr. Adams for the increased cost of his water
tower. McCrery stated some people may consider that more unattractive than the
proposed tower.
CLOSING STATEMENTS OF OBSERVERS AND/OR OBJECTORS
Chairman Semrow swore in the following Objectors:
■ Allen Hunt, 2218 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050
■ Mike Oliver, 1717 Woodlawn Park, McHenry IL 60050
■ David Miller, 2717 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry IL 60050
Allen Hunt: "I will have to look at a 200' antenna for 25 years. I hope the City Council
votes against this project. Why doesn't the City build the tower and lease the space to
potential cell providers. Why can't the Petitioners use numerous small antennae rather
than a single 200' antenna. A lattice antenna is ugly. It's a huge structure being
proposed to be erected in a residential neighborhood. I disagree that this structure
would not have an impact on our neighborhood. The construction of this tower will
have a negative impact on our property values."
`" Mike Oliver: "It is my understandin� the Petitioners are not dealing in good faith. I
would like to thank the Zoning Board for makin� sure the public was notified regarding
this Public Hearing. No one wants this tower in their back yard. Previously, towers have
Page 6
ZBA•Sprir�tcom
10/11/9u
�
been installed in industrial parks. I am not against the tower; I am against the
proposed location of it. I believe the Petitioners are trying to build in the cheapest
location ��ossible with no regard to the impact on the existing neighborhood. This
tower cou d be built in Mr. Adams Industrial Park and not on his residential property."
David Mill�r: "I live next door to the proposed location of the cell tower. If I were to sell
my house. I could only sell it to a blind man. Looking at a three-legged lattice tower
is ugly. Why do we need a 200' tower — why can't we put up several smaller 100'
towers?"
CLO ING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Attorney McCrery stated the Petitioner has presented this Petition in good faith. He
noted the construction of the tower would enhance 911 service for Sprint cell phone
users in the community. The Petitioner has chosen not to build right on Lincoln Road.
They have opted to build the tower 1,0�0 feet back from the roadway in an effort to
make it as discreet as possible and to remove it from the vicinity of the adjacent
residential neighborhood.
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 Cadotte, seconded by Howell, to recommend to the City Council that
The Petitioner's request for:
■ A Use Variance fio 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.
be granted , subject to the following conditions:
• The tower shall be developed in substantial conformance with the application
drawings, prepared by W-T Engineering, Inc, dated 7/30/99, subject to the
remaining conditions:
■ A 6' chain link fence shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the
tower site; and the tower shall be equipped with an anti•climbing device;
■ No portion of the tower shall be used for any advertising signs;
• The tower shall maintain a galvanized steel finish, or be painted so as to reduce its
� visual obtrusiveness, unless prohibited by a state or federal authority;
■ The tower shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe
fights, unless required by a State or Federal authority;
Page 7
ZBA•Sprintcom
10/11/99
�
• The tower shail be designed and constructed to accommodate the placement of no
fewer than two additional antennae for two additional providers. A copy of the
signed lease that includes appropriate guarantees and agreement to the co•location
of faci!ities shall be provided at the time of application for a building permit;
• If the tower is abandoned or remains unused for a period of one year, it shall be
removed within 18 months of its abandonment. A copy of the signed lease that
includes this requirement shall be provided at the time of application for a building
permit;
■ The variance as to height be granted to a maximum of 200';
■ The petitioner be required to provide plantings and landscaping around the base
of the tower, and to screen the fence with vegetation;
that Table 32A, the Approval Criteria for Use Variances, page 379 of the Zoning
Ordinance has been met; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages
377•378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met.
DISCUSSI4N ON THE MOTION
Howell expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of the proposed tower. This tower
could blight the landscape of the area. This is an issue which should be considered.
The question is, is Sprintcom acting in good faith? Is this really the only location in
which this tower could be erected? In my mind, the Petitioner has not proven their
� case.
VOTING ON THE MOTION
Voting Aye: Howell, Semrow.
Voting Nay: Cadotte, Doherty, Franzen, Meyer.
Not Voti ng: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Ekstrom.
Motion failed 2-4. There will be no recommendation to the City Council with regard
to this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow stated, there bein� no further business before the Board with
regard to this matter, this Hearing is adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Res ectfully s bmitted,
F.IGGI
Harry S row, 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
OCTOBER 11, 1999
CITY OF MCHENRY
�"" IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATtON OF ) Z-478
THE CITY OF MCHENRY FOR A TEXT ) City of McHenry
AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO ?HE )
ZON�NG URDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Text Amendment
MCHENR`r, 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, and recessed to this date. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 9:36 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty,Darick Franzen, John
Howell, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Paula Ekstrom.
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
C�erk'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 of McHenry
� 10/11/99
R CESS
Due to lateness of the hour, Chairman Semrow called for a motion to recess the Public
Hearin�.
Motion by Doherty, seconded by Meyer, to recess the Public Hearing to December 6,
1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Center Council Chambers.
The Hearing was recessed at 9:38 p.m.
Vating Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Franzen, Howell, Meyer, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Ekstrom.
Motion carried 6-0.
tfy�lly s mitted�
k . �/ / -Z�r�f(.Li.,''t�C..
Harry S row, 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-47g
�