Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DEKALB MUNICIPAL BUILDING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 SOUTH FOURTH STREET WEDNESDAY – FEBRUARY 11, 2015 - 6:00 P.M. MICHAEL WELSH, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 12, 2014 Meeting CITIZEN COMMENTS (OPEN FLOOR TO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON RECORD) OLD BUSINESS 1. Continue a Public Hearing to consider a request by Central States Tower II, LLC, on behalf of James Hovis, for a special use permit (SUP) to erect a new 140 foot cellular communications antenna to be located on property at 1300 South Seventh Street DeKalb, Illinois which is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI). NEW BUSINESS (None) CONSIDERATIONS (NONE) FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS (NONE) REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING (NONE) ADJOURNMENT Assistive services will be provided upon request PZC004-15  DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 12, 2014 The City of DeKalb Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 12, 2014 in the City Council Chambers of the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. CALL TO ORDER Chair Welsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Planning & Zoning Commission members present: Roger Ruehling, David Castro, Deborah Nier, Adam Katz and Chair Welsh. Also present: Derek Hiland, Principal Planner, Jared Heyn, Administrative Intern and Brenda Hart, Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Castro motioned to approve the November 12th agenda. The motion was seconded by Ruehling and approved by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. CITIZEN BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing – Public Hearing to evaluate the temporary Special Use Permit that converted the previous Ellwood- Nehring House as a Museum in a multifamily residential neighborhood. The Ellwood House Association approached the City of DeKalb approximately two years ago and asked to convert the Shirley Hamilton-Nehring House into a museum campus. At that time there was PZC005-15 Page |1 discussion about incorporating the property into the Ellwood House campus and there was lengthy debate about parking. Sought was a temporary approval of a special use permit with the requirement that the Ellwood House would keep a log of events, number of attendees and parking spaces used for each of those. In June of 2014 the Ellwood House Association came back to the Planning and Zoning Commission knowing that the special use would expire at the end of 2014. Two plans were presented for meeting the additional parking requirement, one with twenty two additional spaces proposed and the other with five additional spaces. Lisa Sharp of Sharp Architects – Sharp presented both plans stating that they believe the five additional spaces would meet the need noting that the City requirement is to have one space for every four people. She said if events are limited to 80 visitors the 21 existing parking places along with the 5 additional ones would almost meet the requirement. Sharp presented the plan for adding twenty two parking places informing the commission that adding these would require removal of two trees, one an oak tree and one an elm. She said they would prefer to not have to disrupt the trees and greenspace. Brian Reis, Executive Director of the Ellwood House Association - Mr. Reis noted there are a few exceptions to the limit of 80 people per event, the art fair, the wine on the terrace event, the ice cream social, etc. He said there are options to make changes if the social events are a problem. The commission members discussed the options and asked these questions  Would adding five spaces would the Ellwood Nehring House be in compliance with City code? Hiland answered that by adding the Ellwood Nehring House to the campus the requirement increases from 21 to 41 parking spaces  If two of the additional twenty-two parking spaces were designated for compact cars could we avoid removing the two trees? Sharp answered that the size requirement would need to be verified and that it would need to be looked into further.  Concern was expressed about parking in the surrounding neighborhoods and the adverse effect this has for residents.  Setting a precedent for future requests on waivers for parking.  The Ellwood-Nehring House having an increased need in the future that not addressing the possibility of that need now.  If the Commission approves the plan of adding the five parking spaces, what recourse would the City have if citizen complaints are made about the overflow parking in the surrounding neighborhoods? Hiland replied there would be no recourse as the Ellwood-Nehring House Association would have received a variance and waiver of City code and would not be in violation of anything. Mr. Reuhling said that he calculated the percentages of days there is a need to park on the grass. Currently there are 138 days there is a need to park on the grass. With five additional spaces those days are reduced to 84 and with the addition of twenty two parking spaces those days are reduced to only nineteen. Mr. Reis commented that he believes the days they are currently parking on the grass is only approximately 80. Mr. Katz asked about Mr. Reis how long he’s been the director and if he’s noticed an upswing in numbers over the years. Mr. Reis replied that he’s been director for four years and that there’s been PZC005-15 Page |2 a bit of an increase because of a Groupon special that was run. He noted this hasn’t been a problem, however, because of the requirement of calling ahead for the tour once the Groupon has been purchased. Mr. Reis also noted that when the special use was put into place originally they requested ninety nine people be able to attend events but already sees that this is too many and would like to reduce the number to eighty instead which would affect the need for parking. Welsh asked what the additional cost would be for the twenty two spaces as opposed to five parking spaces. Ms. Sharp replied that the cost for twenty two spaces is $40,000 but that the actual cost for five parking spaces has not been calculated. Nier motioned to approve a special use permit for permanent conversion of the single family Nehring- Ellwood Home into a museum at 417 N. First Street subject to construction of 22 additional parking spaces by December 31, 2015. Reuhling seconded the motion. Mr. Reis commented that he is already calculating what the future cost of removing the additional parking spaces will be when the world becomes a greener place? Mr. Katz said that he was strongly against the motion as the amount of times cars are parking in the parking lot doesn’t constitute the cost to increase the spaces and would make the property less attractive. Welsh asked about permeable pavers. Ms. Sharp said it would be too costly. Mr. Castro made the comment that if there were ever a time for an exception to be made it would be in this instance considering that the Ellwood – Nehring House is DeKalb’s main historical attraction in the City of DeKalb. Roll call vote – Reuhling – yes, Nier – yes, Castro – no, Katz – no, Chair Welsh – yes. The motion was carried by a majority vote. Public Hearing to consider a request by Central States Tower II, LLC, on behalf of James Hovis, for a special use permit (SUP) to erect a new 140 foot cellular communications antenna to be located on property at 1300 South Seventh Street DeKalb, Illinois which is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI). 1300 S Seventh Street is zoned LI - Light Industrial and is on the south side of DeKalb, east of Seventh Street bound by Southmoore Estates on the North and the AT & T communication tower & McCormick Park to the south, the Union Pacific Railroad and Park 88 to the east and to the west are residential neigbhorhoods. The proposal by Central States Tower II is for a one hundred forty foot tower which would include a platform for Verizon and would allow other carriers as well. Information provided to Commission members includes RF frequency maps, an aerial photo indicating the area that will have coverage, responses from Central States Tower to questions asked by the City of DeKalb, a utility map, property owner’s letters, studies regarding effect on property values, impact upon health and RF emissions. Hiland noted that state laws limit the Commissions consideration regarding impacts from RF emissions and electromagnetic health effects and that the charge of the Commission should be on the technical merits of the proposal and the minimization of the health, welfare and safety impacts upon the community. Mike Douchant of Nolan Realty Advisors based in Webster Groves, MO is petitioner. Nolan Realty Advisors do site acquisition throughout the Midwest. Verizon will be central states tower first client in this area. PZC005-15 Page |3 Mr. Douchant said Verizon is in the midst of a massive build-out. In order for the network to function properly there is not the flexibility of site location that there used to be because of the need of greater site specific locations which increases costs greatly. He noted wireless providers are attempting to avoid dropped calls, etc. meaning there must be a direct line of sight access in order to function correctly. He said the proposed tower would maximize the area requiring service. Also there are four levels allowing four different service providers to utilize the same tower. He made note they were recently approved in Rockford in the middle of the city for three antennas while the suggested location in DeKalb is on the outskirts of town, practically a rural setting with residential on only side. Mr. Douchant passed out pictures of what the monopole would look like and asked if the Commission had questions. Questions and concerns presented by the Commission:  What is the service area? Is there an area that would not receive the signal Mr. Douchant answered that those closest to the tower would receive the greater service while anything directly below the tower would have no service. Chair Welsh asked if a map with all towers on it could be provided.  What does the white area indicate on the map? Mr. Douchant said that it’s the area where there may be some trouble with service. He said the need with cell usage has gone beyond just the use of car phones but rather the need is now for businesses to receive service within buildings without interruption.  Why is the extra 50’ of tower needed over the 90’ allowed by our UDO? Mr. Douchant said the extra height would maximize coverage and would avoid the need to build an additional tower. Ms. Nier asked what determines the maximum height. Mr. Hiland replied that the height is determined by the height limitations for each zoning district, adding 15’ to the maximum height for each.  What wind velocity can the tower withstand? - Ninety plus winds. It was noted that the tower would most likely crinkle if it collapsed and would not fall over from the base. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Lehman – 621 Karen Ave. which is directly opposite the proposed location. Mr. Lehman said he moved to this location in 1979. The AT & T tower was already there. He wondered why the new antenna can’t be put on the AT & T tower. It’s less than 500’ from the proposed site. Lehman wondered if other locations had been looked at. He also said, according the plans, it doesn’t appear there will be any attempt to camouflage the pole. Deanne Hamilton White - 614 Spring Ave. She said that two of her questions were covered by Mr. Lehman already. Ms. White said that she is concerned about the effect of RF emissions and wants to know why it is not open for discussion. Welsh said the Commission cannot talk about that aspect but that she, as a resident, can voice her concerns. Ms. White also wondered why it has to be at that location and if there would be a war of towers if it is approved. Linda Liston -1117 Gifford Street. Ms. Liston said it seems that the addition of the antenna in this location is kind of a done deal. She wonders if the City will benefit financially or are there individuals PZC005-15 Page |4 who will be benefitting from this? Ms. Liston said that although she doesn’t live in the neighborhood directly surrounding this location, if it were in her neighborhood, she would want full disclosure as to why it’s needed. As a physician she said she knows that there are effects from emissions and would be concerned about that aspect. Chair Welsh replied that it’s not a done deal at all and that public input is needed first and foremost. Then the Commission will make a recommendation and the decision will be made by the City Council. Mr. Douchant replied saying the monopole is the answer to aesthetics. As far as emissions, generally speaking the tower produces 100 watts of power, when it hits the ground it is almost imperceptible when it hits the ground. He said that other lots had been looked at but this appeared to be the best spot. Environmental studies have been completed as a part of the federal regulatory approval but would like to reduce the number of conditions by the City. He said if this study is needed this he can provide it. Mr. Douchant noted there used to be tower farms but now co-location is encouraged. Central States Tower will try to sell space on the tower and also said he can provide the lease that was signed by Mr. Hovis is order to prove there is nothing to hide. Bob Snow - 530 S Seventh Street – Would there be locations on the other side of the railroad spur that might be better locations? Mr. Douchant said there may be other locations but they would like to avoid the additional expense because they’ve already gone to the expense of soil samples, geo-tech studies and environmental studies. When a new location is considered the process has to be completed again. He said there’s already been great expense getting to this point. Mr. Hiland asked if the tower were to move 500’ to either side what would it do to the service, would you lose the ability to address the area that is in need of service? Is there a propagation study that would show this? Mr. Douchant answered that it is possible but they need specifics. Mr. Hiland noted he wants to clarify a previous statement, although he’d previously stated that its zoned industrial there is also a mobile home park to the north which is also zoned industrial an will have a clear line of sight. Mr. Douchant said that the proposed location is good from their perspective that it’s a large lot, on the edge of town and the zoning is Industrial. COMMISSIONER COMMENT Chair Welsh asked about decorativeness wondering if there other alternatives? Mr. Douchant replied that they can close crop but it might not be most advantageous. Ms. Nier asked about the color. Hiland said the recommendation is for gray or sky blue but he recommends bringing this proposal back at the December 10th meeting after the protocols spelled out in Article 7.09 have been fully met. He said that the submitted packet is incomplete noting the requirements of Article 7.09 to be of the UDO are: 1. The color must be gray or sky blue. 2. Demonstrate, in report form, why the 90’ height restriction needs to be increased to 140’. Hiland noted that this has been done verbally but it should also be done in writing. 3. If required, the necessary application to the FAA should be made with the proposed antenna. 4. A 6’ high site proof wood (or other material) fence is required. 5. A landscaping plan is required indicating landscaping for sides facing the public rights of way. 6. A co-location plan. PZC005-15 Page |5  7. A structural engineer’s report. 8. In writing Central States Tower must state that requests by other entities to place antennas on the tower will not be unreasonably denied. Chair Welsh said the plan indicates a 12’ gravel access and asked if blacktop would be acceptable as gravel does not meet our code. Mr. Douchant said yes. Chair Welsh asked about the requirement of the fence. Mr. Douchant said that the fence would be chainlink and ties into another fence so wondered if he would need to meet this requirement. Chair Welsh also said there is a need to provide, in writing, that other specific locations are not available. Mr. Douchant told the Commission he wants a list of specific sites provided for him to check rather than being sent out repeatedly to check a new location. Mr. Hiland quoted Article, 7.08.09 if the UDO regarding co-location. Mr. Hiland gave his opinion that looking into other locations would be part of the petitioner’s due diligence. He would also like to have photos provided from the north looking south past the mobile home park and also from the street on the west side looking east. Chair Welsh repeated the 8 requirements as spelled out in the UDO. Chair Welsh summarized that there is a need for Central States Tower to make an effort to provide all requirements and documented communication with other possible sites. Mr. Douchant made the request that the desired sites be put in writing. The sites called out are DeKalb High Rise on Taylor Street, the water tower and the current AT&T tower at the same location. Mr. Lehman asked where the current Verizon towers are. Chair Welsh said that Mr. Douchant would bring a complete map showing all towers back with him for the next meeting. Mr. Hiland reviewed the list of required items: The list of 8 requirements listed in the UDO. Provide a photo perspective from north and west. Provide four longitude/latitude sites of possible co-locations. Map of all towers within the city of DeKalb. REPORTS/ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Chair Welsh proposed continuing the public hearing until the next meeting on December 10th. Passed by voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Nier made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Castro seconded the motion and it was approved by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 Respectfully submitted, Brenda Hart Administrative Associate PZC005-15 Page |6  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 6, 2015 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Central States Tower II, LLC – 1300 South Seventh Street I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose To obtain a special use permit to erect a cellular antenna on an industrially-zoned property. B. Location 1300 South Seventh Street (Hearing Help Express Building) C. Access South Seventh D. Size 23 acres (total property size) E. Existing Zoning “LI” Light Industrial F. Existing Land Use Industrial Building G. Proposed Land Use Industrial Building with new cellular antenna H. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: LI, GC – Southmoor Estates, commercial businesses, church and FD Station #2 South: LI & RR – AT&T Tower, Industrial building, McCormick Park and Union Pacific RR. East: PD-I & RR– Park 88 Industrial Park and Union Pacific Railroad line West: SFR2 – Single Family Residences I. Floodplain Not in a floodplain J. Comprehensive Plan Designation Light Industrial PZC003-15 UPDATE The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on the Special Use Request allowing the petitioner to go through the co-location protocol. Two months have passed and the petitioner will be returning on Wednesday night to share with the Commission their findings. At the time of publication, Staff, representatives from AT&T and the applicant have been continuing to discuss the possibility of co-locating other carriers on the AT&T Tower. Additional investigation by the applicant and staff are underway therefore further information would be made available at the meeting on our findings. II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, Central States Tower II, LLC, requests the approval of a special use permit for the construction of a new cellular communications tower on the property located 1300 South Seventh Street, DeKalb. The property is owned by James Hovis; the proposed 140-foot wireless cellular communications tower would be used by Verizon Wireless on whose behalf Central States Tower II, LLC is making this request. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS The subject property is a leased area approximately 4,800 square feet in area located on the southeast side of the building. The building and its parking lots sit on a property that is roughly 23 acres in size and is zoned LI Light Industrial. The property is adjacent to a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses, including Southmoor Estates Manufactured Home Park, multi- and single-family residential uses, AT&T telecommunications tower and other mixed industrial uses and McCormick Park. The subject property is generally bound by the Union Pacific Railroad line on the eastern property line, to the north is a manufactured home park and a small industrial business, to the west is South Seventh Street and single family residences and then to the south is the AT&T property. IV. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to erect a 140-foot monopole cell tower in a 4,800 square foot area on the southeast side of the industrial building. A new equipment shelter and a nine (9) foot tall ice bridge will be installed at the base of the antenna, with the area secured by a six-foot chain link fence. Access would be provided by a 12’ wide gravel access lane which is not compliant with the current UDO’s requirement. Article 12.03.01 indicates that “loading areas, parking lots, PZC003-15 Page 2 of 8 driveways, access ways and any other areas on which motor vehicles are parked or stored, or which are used for motor vehicle circulations, or used for the storage or parking of any other vehicle and or trailer, shall be constructed with either a Portland cement concrete, bituminous aggregate mixture or bituminous concrete”. Any variation from that requirement would need to be a condition of approval as a part of the Special Use Permit. Even with the assumption that cellular service is needed on the southeast side of DeKalb and particularly around the industrial parks that exist between South Fourth Street and Peace Road along Fairview Drive, the proposed location may not be preferable since it involves locating the new tower on property directly across the street from residential properties. The proposed antenna does not contribute to the aesthetics of the South Seventh Street area or Southmoor Estates. The proposed 140-foot tower exceeds the maximum height standard set forth in the UDO by 50 feet; additional information has been received from the applicant and their RF engineer has been submitted to address the request for the 140-foot tower at this location. In #7 of the recently submitted materials the RF engineer indicated that a 125-foot tower would meet the needs for Verizon Wireless however CST would still prefer to erect the 140-foot tower. Staff have consistently opposed the erection of new stand-alone communications antennae in highly dense areas like the South Seventh Street area, particularly when co-location options and / or alternate locations are available (See #5 email between staff and AT&T). Based upon the current coverage area map provided by the applicant and correspondence that occurred between the city and AT&T specific co-locates to consider are the adjacent AT&T tower and one other area that was identified on the map provided in #1 of the background materials. Community Development Staff wish to assure that this community is not overrun with a proliferation of cellular and PCS antennae, particularly if other site co-locates continue to not be explored and in turn request freestanding towers of their own. The applicant has now followed the colocation protocol identified in Article 7.08.09. However, the statement identified by the applicant is inconsistent with the response received by Ms. Hardy in #5 of the background materials. CST has repeated that the AT&T representatives were unreachable and that past AT&T towers were not constructed to accommodate additional equipment therefore eliminating the AT&T tower site as a possible co-location. That may be the case in other location, however this AT&T tower is capable and available for co-location. Article 7.08 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), also identified as the Wireless Communications Ordinance (ORD 97-67), regulates the placement, design and use of communications towers. This ordinance allows the placement of new communications antennas on industrially-zoned properties with the approval of a Special Use Permit. This section of the UDO also stipulates that compliance with certain criteria needs to be demonstrated by the applicant prior to approval of the Special Use Permit; the criteria area addressed in the following section of the Staff Report, “V. Standards of Special Use.” PZC003-15 Page 3 of 8 V. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USE 1. Points of Visual Interest Shall Be Protected. The only point of visual interest, as defined by the UDO, in the vicinity of the subject property is McCormick Park, which is located to the southwest. The applicant indicates that “residential views of ground-based equipment from NW and West would be blocked by property owner’s building. Residential views of ground based equipment and monopole from SW would be blocked by AT&T hub self-support lattice tower”. See #8 photographic renderings. 2. Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest. The information provided by the applicant does not address this criterion. The UDO requires an applicant to demonstrate how the points of visual interest will be protected. Specifically, the applicant must address:  Whether the applicant has examined other locations in the same area to identify where the visual impacts of the new cell tower can be minimized.  What attempts have been made to co-locate this tower on an existing structure, and why co- location is not feasible in this instance.  What attempts have been made to minimize the visual impacts of the proposed tower by providing landscaping beyond what is minimally required without said variations. Based on the information provided, it does not appear that this criterion has been fully addressed. Should the special use permit be approved, conditions will be attached specifying the design and color of the structure, building and associated appurtenances to minimize any potential negative impacts on the appearance of the surrounding area. 3. Color Proposed structures are to be a neutral color so that the structure and attached equipment are as visually unobtrusive as possible, unless otherwise specified under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The materials provided by the Applicant do not appear to specify the color of the antenna; requiring that the antenna, cabling, icebridge and related equipment be painted either a neutral light gray or sky blue is strongly recommended. 4. Height The UDO stipulates that a new antenna may be of a height no greater than 15 fifteen feet taller than the maximum building height permitted in the subject property’s zoning district. As the property is zoned “LI” Light Industrial, which requires a maximum building height of 75 feet, PZC003-15 Page 4 of 8 UDO Article 7.08.08, paragraph 4 would limit the proposed antenna to 90 feet in height. The antenna requested exceeds this standard by 50 feet, without any explanation for that deviation. The applicant attempts to address the 140-foot proposed antennae in #7 of the submitted materials. In that email, you find that the RF Engineer has determined the need of Verizon to be at 125-foot tall. 5. Setbacks Adjacent to Residential Uses The antenna will be more than its length (140 feet away) from a residential property, which is required by the UDO. 6. Lighting The UDO stipulates that no lighting of the tower is permitted except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant is not required to install a light atop the tower because it is less than 200’ tall. 7. Fencing and Security The UDO stipulates that communications towers must be enclosed by a fence not less than six (6) feet in height. The applicant has proposed to encircle the leased area, which is to include the antenna, building, ice bridge and other appurtenances, with a six-foot chain link fence. To deter possible vandalism or theft, a sight-proof fence of at least six feet in height constructed of wood, vinyl or in materials compatible with the adjacent building is strongly recommended. 8. Landscaping and Screening Article 7.08.06 of UDO requires that landscaping be placed outside the required fence area on sides facing public rights-of-way or residential areas. Landscaping appears on the revised site plan; the landscaping plan should expand the south side plantings to either continue westward along the fence line or planted in a north–south orientation for the first 10 feet of the west fence line of the leasable area to block the views from the southwest. 9. Noise As the proposed structure does not appear to be a source of noise to be monitored and regulated, this criterion does not apply. 10. Tower Design The UDO requires that proposed towers be designed without the use of guy wires or external supports. The site plan does not indicate that any guy wires or supplementary supports are required to maintain the proposed tower’s structural integrity. A structural engineer’s report will PZC003-15 Page 5 of 8 be required prior to the issuance of building and electrical permits for the antenna. 11. Co-Location Protocol The UDO requires that a special use request for the erection of a new tower be accompanied by evidence that the co-location protocol, as identified in Article 7.08.09 of the UDO, has been met. Information has been submitted regarding this request; staff’s evaluation of compliance with this criterion indicates that the petitioner has notified area cell providers of their intent to erect a wireless antenna and verify if colocation opportunities exist. Responses to the applicant’s request have not been received or not provided because none were included in submitted materials for this meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. VI. CITIZEN INPUT The first meeting assembled two letters of support and four letters indicating opposition to the antenna were received and were included for your review. For this meeting see #10 where a questionnaire, position of concern and a petition of signatures in opposition of the proposed tower have been submitted. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The petition requests the granting of a special use permit for the location of a one hundred forty- foot (140’) monopole cellular communications tower to be located on the subject property, located in the Light Industrial District of DeKalb. The location of the tower would benefit the cellular communication services provided by Verizon Wireless, the end-user of the tower by Central States Tower II, LLC. Staff review of the proposed location for the antenna resulted in few comments. Akin to power and utility poles, the antenna does not contribute to the appearance of an area but is needed to improve and extend a utility’s service. The proposed location is not immediately adjacent to a point of visual interest, however it is adjacent to residential structures. There are limited opportunities for co-locating an antenna on an existing structure on the southeast side of DeKalb near the industrial parks where the majority of the underserved area is located. The placement of an antenna at this location would also provide an opportunity for co-location of other service providers, in favor of erecting their own antennae. The Engineering Division noted that the proposed location is in close proximity to a storm sewer, and caution will be required during the installation of the antenna, fence and landscaping. Otherwise, no engineering or public safety concerns were noted. The City is not and cannot base the decision for approval upon the perceived impacts of RF Emissions and electromagnetic health effects. Towers are installed in accordance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields. PZC003-15 Page 6 of 8 However, Staff view this application as incomplete as the materials provided by the applicant do not convey the ability or opportunity to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T Tower. Emails between CST and Staff and AT&T and Staff contradict one another regarding the availability of the nearby tower. Staff has shared the AT&T email exchange with the applicant and are working to confirm whether or not Verizon can co-locate on an adjacent telecommunication tower. Unless co-location can be determined, Staff recommend that the Commission hold Second Call of the public meeting, with the intent to continue the public hearing until the meeting on January 14 with the intent to explore co-location on the adjacent AT&T Tower. Staff also recommend that, if the Planning and Zoning Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the request, certain conditions be placed on the approval of the special use permit ordinance (listed below). Staff further recommend that compliance with these conditions be demonstrated no later than 60 days of the issuance of the special use permit, if so approved by the City Council. Additionally the Planning and Zoning Commission should evaluate whether or not to support a reduction in the height of the tower based upon the RF Engineer’s recommendation of a 125-foot tower in lieu of a 140-foot tower or 90-foot tower. Recommended conditions for approval: 1. The proposed structure is to be painted a neutral color, preferably gray or sky blue, so that the structure and attached equipment are as visually unobtrusive as possible, unless otherwise specified under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. 2. The applicant will be required to submit the necessary application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its proposed antenna, including compliance with any FAA requirements that may applying to the lighting of the structure. 3. The UDO requires landscaping on sides facing public rights-of-way or residential areas, to be planted with vegetation at least four feet in height. As this property will be visible from the north and southwest, landscaping along those sides will be required. The landscaping plan submitted needs to be adjusted to meet this requirement. 4. The UDO requires that a special use request for the erection of a new tower be accompanied by evidence that the co-location protocol, as identified in Article 7.08.09 of the UDO, has been met. The applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the procedures set forth in UDO Article 7.08.09, including copies of all correspondence to the owners/managers of potential co-location alternatives. Additionally, the applicant should provide documentation as to why other locations to east and centrally located within the underserved areas is not acceptable or desirable. 5. A structural engineer’s report will be required prior to the issuance of building and electrical permits for the antenna. The applicant will present information about the dimensions of the panels to be affixed to the top of the tower, which will be evaluated based on their visual PZC003-15 Page 7 of 8  impact on the area. The applicant is strongly advised to consider the use of panels or equipment with narrow profiles that are fabricated/painted to minimize their visual impact on the area. The RF engineer’s report will also need to demonstrate how the adjacent AT&T tower, dark water tower located at the end of east Taylor street and other existing structures in the area are not suitable for co-location opportunities. 6. The applicant shall state in writing that requests by other entities to co-locate their antennae on the applicant’s monopole shall not be unreasonably denied, and shall not require leases/rents beyond the going market rate for such services. Respectfully Submitted, Derek Hiland Principal Planner PZC003-15 Page 8 of 8