Planning & Zoning Commission

DeKalb Municipal Building Council Chambers 200 S. Fourth St., 2nd Floor DeKalb, IL 60115 AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2017 6:00 PM A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 5, 2017 (correction) 2. August 23, 2017 D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) E. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continued Public Hearing on a petition by Central States Tower II, LLC, represented by Richard Connor Riley, for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140-foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 South Seventh Street. F. NEW BUSINESS (None) G. REPORTS H. ADJOURNMENT  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 5, 2017 Amended The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on July 5, 2017 at the City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 S. Fourth St., DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM. A. ROLL CALL Natalie Nelson called the roll. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present at roll call: David Castro, Deborah Nier, Jerry Wright, and Chair Christina Atherton. Members absent: Katharina Barbe, Vicki Buckley, and Matthew Crull. Katharina Barbe arrived at 6:05 PM. City staff present were Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner Dan Olson, and Administrative Assistant Natalie Nelson. B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Additions/Deletions) J. Wright motioned to approve the July 5, 2017 agenda as presented, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES J. Wright motioned to approve the June 7, 2017 as minutes as presented, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. E. OLD BUSINESS 1. Public hearing on a petition by Cademon Brewing Co. Inc. represented by Andrew Nordman for approval of a text amendment to the following Articles of Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance” of the Municipal Code: Article 3 “Definitions” to add the use and a definition for “Micro-Distillery”; Article 5 “Zoning District Regulations” to add “Micro-Distillery” as a permitted use in the “GC” General Commercial District and the “CBD” Central Business District; Article 12 “Off-Street Parking, Loading and Storage Requirements” by establishing a minimum parking requirement for “Micro-Distillery”. Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 2 of 8 STAFF REPORT Principal Planner Dan Olson presented on behalf of the City. He reported the applicant seeks to locate his micro-brewery on the lower level of The House Café, located at 216 East Lincoln Highway, which is in the Central Business District (CBD). He stated neither “Micro-brewery” nor “Micro-distillery” is a defined use in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He explained approval of the proposed amendment will allow the applicant to operate in the intended location and also allows any future businesses with the same use to operate on property within the zoning districts the City approves as appropriate for such use. Planner Olson reported the applicant intends to produce 6,000 gallons of craft beer per year. He stated a separate entrance off North Third Street will lead to the facility, which will include space for brewing equipment and a tasting room. He added they will sell the products for on-site consumption and in take-home containers, as well as limited food. Mr. Olson stated he consulted the applicant and researched other municipalities’ regulations to draft the language for the proposed UDO amendment: • To add a definition for “Micro-distillery,” which allows the production of up to 20,000 gallons of alcoholic beverages per year for on-site consumption and retail sales and prohibits sale of any other beverages on-site, • To add “Micro-distillery” as a permitted use in the CBD and the General Commercial (GC) zoning districts, • To add a definition for “Distillery,” which is the same as “Micro-distillery,” except production of more than 20,000 gallons per year is allowed, • To add “Distillery” as a special use in the GC, Light Industrial (LI), and Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning districts, and • To add parking regulations for both uses, following the same formula as restaurants, requiring one parking space for every three seats plus one parking space for each employee on the maximum shift. Mr. Olson reported the City received two Citizen Response forms in support of the proposed amendment, as well as an email message one person of who also submitted a Citizen Response form. He concluded that City staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed UDO text amendments. PETITIONER PRESENTATION The petitioner, Andrew Nordman, resident of 208 Alfred Drive in Sycamore and owner, brewer, janitor, and mechanic of Cademon Brewing Company presented. He stated he seeks to relocate his brewery operation and tasting room from its current location in Genoa to the lower level of The House. He said the DeKalb  Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 3 of 8 location would produce 90-gallon batches of drinks, to be sold on-site for tasting, as to-go bottle and cans, and to a few local bars and retailers. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION At 6:09, Chair Atherton opened the floor for public comment. Observing no participants, she closed the public hearing. COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. Castro asked Mr. Nordman for additional details about his business operation. Mr. Nordman stated his Genoa operation produced 250-gallon batches. In the DeKalb location, he would produce smaller batches, due to the location’s ceiling height, which limits the size of the equipment. He said this arrangement allows production a greater variety and will not likely reduce the total annual production. He said the move to DeKalb is a relocation, not an expansion, of his business. Mr. Castro asked City staff if the “Micro-distillery” category could be considered a subdivision within the “Restaurant” category. Planner Olson responded that it is a separate use. He explained one facility may sell food as accessory to the liquor production and sales, but another may produce liquor and sell it as an accessory to the food sales. He noted the proposed parking regulations are similar. D. Castro asked what state regulations affect micro-distilleries. Mr. Nordman responded local municipalities, not the state, regulate zoning for liquor manufacturing facilities. He noted the state does regulate liquor sales and taxation. Planner Olson added the City recently amended the Liquor Code to allow the liquor production use when The Forge sought to locate near downtown. J. Wright asked for clarification of the proposed parking regulations. Planner Olson explained the proposed parking regulations apply to locations in the GC, LI, and HI zoning districts but not locations in the CBD zoning district, where the applicant seeks to locate, because nearby public parking is available. J. Wright asked how the applicant chose the proposed location. Mr. Nordman stated The House Café owners approached him. He stated when he initially started his business, he wanted to operate in DeKalb, but it was not possible then. He said he wanted to set down roots in DeKalb and possibly expand within in DeKalb in the future. D. Nier asked if the applicant’s business would operate completely independently from The House. Mr. Nordman replied they are completely separate at the federal and state level, and their liquor licenses are also separate. K. Barbe requested details of the interior layout of the facility. Mr. Nordman responded that the entrance leads downstairs to a 2,000-square-foot space. He Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 4 of 8 said he plans to bring the bar from his Genoa operation to DeKalb, which includes taps to his products, and the space would allow for a total of 30 seats. K. Barbe asked if interior access exists between the two businesses. Mr. Nordman responded that a locked door on the stairs between the two businesses exists, but customers will not have access. He stated that each business’ liquor license specifies the boundaries and hours of operation. He provided assurances that he and his employees would strictly enforce rules to prevent customers from traveling between businesses. D. Castro asked if this was the only time the Commission would hear this case. Mr. Olson responded that if Commission approves the text amendment, it is out of the Commissions hands. He added the applicant still must obtain a City liquor license, submit building permits, and receive occupancy approval before opening. Chair Atherton asked how a former brewery was allowed to operate in the building currently occupied by Debutants without this proposed definitions and zoning regulations. D. Olson responded that it is possible the business was categorized as a restaurant and the brewery operation was an accessory use. MOTION D. Castro stated, based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of text amendments to the following Articles of Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance” of the Municipal Code: Article 3 “Definitions”; Article 5 “Zoning District Regulations”; and Article 12 “Off-Street Parking, Loading and Storage Requirements” as indicated on the attached Exhibit A in the staff report. D. Nier seconded the motion. VOTE A roll call vote was taken. Yea: K. Barbe, D. Castro, D. Nier, J. Wright, and Chair Atherton. Nay: none. Absent: K. Barbe, V. Buckley, and M. Crull. The motion passed 54-0-23. F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public hearing on a petition by Marijke van Nieuwstadt for a variance to Article 7.03 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for an uncovered front porch in the front yard, and a variance to Article 5.02.04 to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for the property located at 422 Regal Drive.  Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 5 of 8 PETITIONER PRESENTATION Marijke van Nieuwstadt, owner of 422 Regal Drive in DeKalb, presented before the Commission. She reported she purchased her home, located on a corner lot, in 2006. She explained the front of her house faces Joanne Lane, the side faces Regal Drive, and her address is on Regal Drive. She stated she has two front yards, but no door leads into the house on the side facing Regal Drive. She said she recently hired a contractor to replace her home’s siding, install a new door, and replace windows on the side facing Regal Drive. She also planned to add a 20’ by 10’ deck below the new door and replaced windows. She noted her two front yards provide approximately 100 feet of frontage, double that of neighboring properties. Ms. Van Niuwstadt reported, when her contractor applied for the deck permit, she learned City regulations allow only covered porches in the front yard. She said she cannot afford the addition the cost of adding a roof over the new porch. She asserted other nearby homes have uncovered porches in their front yards. She asked the Commission to approve her variance request to allow an uncovered porch in her front yard. STAFF REPORT Planner Olson presented on behalf of the City. He stated the applicant’s petition requests two variances: (1) to allow an uncovered porch in the front yard and (2) to allow a 15-foot front yard setback, as SFR-2 zoning regulations require a 25- foot front yard setback. He reported the applicant’s drawing of the porch’s dimensions was not to-scale, so he marked the correction in black. He stated the corner lot has two front yards, a side yard, and a back yard, which is too small to accommodate a porch, patio, or deck. He referred to the photographs of nearby properties with similar front-yard accessory structures. He reported no variances were granted for those structures, according to City building permit records. He suggested past City staff might have considered the accessory structures to be unenclosed porches, which are allowed to encroach into a front yard up to ten feet. Mr. Olson read aloud the findings of fact from the staff report. He reported the applicant obtained ten letters of support from neighboring property owners, and the City received one Citizen Response form in support of approving the variance. He recommended approval of the variance with the conditions that the applicant must submit a revised drawing accurately representing the porch dimensions, and the porch must be built in substantial conformance with the plans submitted. Mr. Olson stated that the Commission’s decision on this petition is final, as variance petitions are not forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 6 of 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION At 6:31 PM, Chair Atherton opened the floor for public comments. Observing no participants, Chair Atherton closed the public hearing. COMMISSION DISCUSSION K. Barbe, D. Nier, J. Wright, and D. Castro requested clarification of details not clearly depicted in the applicant’s materials. Ms. van Nieuwstadt explained the windows were replaced and a new door was installed after the photos were taken. She stated an existing door leads into the two-car garage, and the new door, which replaced old windows, leads directly into the living room. She said the edge of the new deck would be 10-15 feet from the edge of the existing driveway. She added a past improvement replaced a retaining wall in the back yard with eight terraced steps on which she has planted with flowers. D. Castro advised Ms. Van Nieuwstadt not to allow construction to proceed until she obtains all required City approvals. He also requested guidance from City staff to modify the sample motion to require a revised drawing. Planner Olson recommended additional language in the motion to require submission of updated plans indicating the accurate location and size of the new door and windows. D. Castro asked why setbacks and variances are necessary. Planner Olson explained that bulk standards that establish setbacks ensure adequate open space exists between the street and home. He stated DeKalb’s regulations allow encroachment into the front yard up to ten feet for certain accessory structures, including unenclosed porches and paved terraces, but others, such as uncovered porches, decks, and patios, are not allowed without a variance approval. He reported City staff determined the proposed accessory structure was an uncovered porch. Upon examination of the variance application materials and UDO zoning district regulations, City staff determined approving the variance request would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and recommended Commission approval. Director Charlton added zoning district regulations are developed based upon common property features in a neighborhood. She explained these regulations prevent property owners from constructing visual barriers or other objectionable elements on their properties. She agreed with Planner Olson that past City staff may have interpreted the City code differently when the other uncovered porches were built in the neighborhood. Mr. Olson noted front yard porches are often desirable architectural elements, as they encourage residents to use their front yards and help make neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly.  Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Chair Atherton agreed with the petitioner’s assertion that the orientation of the house makes the front yard unclear. She asked if the house was oriented at a slight angle on the property. Planner Olson replied the plat indicates it is a few feet from squarely positioned, but it is a negligible distance. MOTION J. Wright stated, based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a variance to Article 7.03 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for an uncovered porch in the front yard, and a variance to Article 5.02.04 to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for the property located at 422 Regal Drive subject to the following: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a survey showing the correct location and dimensions of the proposed 20’ x 10’ uncovered porch, doors and windows, shall be submitted and shall be in substantial compliance with the drawing indicated on the attached Exhibit A. D. Nier seconded the motion. VOTE A roll call vote was taken. Yea: K. Barbe, D. Castro, D. Nier, J. Wright, and Chair Atherton. Nay: none. Absent: K. Barbe, V. Buckley, and M. Crull. The motion passed 54-0-23. G. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Planner Olson announced: • The next meeting is July 19th, at which a public hearing will occur on a rezoning request from Plaza DeKalb for four properties at northeast corner of East Lincoln Highway and North Second Street, • City Council approved the final plat and plan for Cornerstone DeKalb on June 26th, and • Checks for Commission attendance, pending City Council approval, will be mailed July 25th. J. Wright asked how the Plaza DeKalb petition will proceed through approvals. Planner Olson responded Plaza DeKalb is different from Cornerstone DeKalb, which required City Council approval of financial elements prior to Planning and Zoning consideration. Mr. Olson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission will see the preliminary plat and plan for Plaza DeKalb first and forward recommendations to the City Council for final approval, after which time the City Council will consider the final plat and plan for approval. Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2017 Page 8 of 8 J. Wright asked why the newspaper published a story about Plaza DeKalb before the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the case. Planner Olson explained public hearings require at least 15 days’ notice to the public, which includes publishing the notice in the newspaper and mailing the notification letters to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. He reported City staff also emails a copy of the notification letter to each Planning and Zoning Commission member at the same time. He noted the next packet, distributed on the Friday before the next meeting, will contain the Plaza DeKalb petition materials. I. ADJOURNMENT J. Wright motioned to adjourn, K. Barbe seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM Respectfully Submitted, Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant Minutes approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 9, 2017. Amended Minutes approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 4, 2017.  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 23, 2017 The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on August 23, 2017 at the City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 S. Fourth St., DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:20 PM. A. ROLL CALL Brenda Hart called the roll. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were Vicki Buckley, David Castro, Jerry Wright and Chair Christian Atherton. Members absent were Katharina Barbe, Matthew Crull and Deborah Nier. City staff present were Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Brenda Hart. B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the August 23, 2017 agenda as presented. V. Buckley motioned to approve the agenda, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing on a petition by Central States Tower II, LLC, represented by Richard Connor Riley, for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 South Seventh St., DeKalb, Illinois. PETITIONER PRESENTATION The applicant, Mr. Richard Riley, representing Central States Tower II, LLC, gave a detailed accounting of the history from 2014 to present of Verizon’s pursuit of a special use permit for the proposed Verizon tower at the subject site. He went through the requirements of the City for cell towers per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and detailed how Central States Tower has met those requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Riley said the proposed cell tower is needed to provide Verizon adequate coverage to the surrounding area as almost everyone uses wireless now instead of landlines. Wireless systems are sophisticated in that if a call is dropped, it’s recorded which indicates where a greater need for service is. Mr. Riley displayed a map indicating how the area of coverage would expand with the new tower. He then discussed other existing towers and buildings where they have antenna and the possibility of co-locating on those. With each tower and building discussed there was a reason it wasn’t feasible, including the coverage isn’t where the need is or it wouldn’t provide the capacity needed. Mr. Riley provided affidavits from Trisha H. Bhuyan, a Radio Frequency Engineer and Ronald J. Pauly, a Principal Construction Engineer, both employed by Verizon Wireless. The affidavits made statements regarding construction and cost details of the co-location on the adjacent AT&T Tower and the feasibility of using one of Verizon’s other towers to increase service coverage to the area along S. 7th St. Mr. Riley showed a site plan detailing the fall zone for the proposed tower and the proposed landscape screening. He said the trees along 7th Street would provide coverage and would block the view of the tower. He showed photo simulations of the proposed tower from all directions noting the tower is non-obtrusive. Mr. Riley listed the City’s zoning requirements for cell tower placement noting that 1300 S 7th Street is zoned “LI” Light Industrial District, which allows for more intense uses than the commercial districts. He said cell towers fit well within the “LI” District. Mr. Riley read the allowed uses of the “LI” District and noted there is no mention of cell towers until Article 7 of the UDO, which requires a special use permit for such a use. He went through the list of considerations and conditions: setbacks, color, height, lighting, fencing, noise, design and the co-location protocol. He noted they mailed letters to all the other carriers for possibilities of co-location and sent a second one to AT&T. Mr. Riley provided copies of the letters to the City. He stated the proposed antenna meets all requirements and told how costly and time consuming this process has been and asked the Commission to make a finding that Central States Tower has done their due diligence in all aspects. He noted the height of the tower will be 140 feet and will hold 3 other carriers. Mr. Riley added the maximum height allowed for the tower per the UDO is 15’ over the max height allowed which is 75 feet. He noted, however, the UDO allows increased height of structures for additional setbacks, which they meet. Mr. Riley noted they submitted plans to AT&T for the colocation at their existing tower at 1500 S. 7th St. after they received their approval from the City. The estimate prepared by AT&T (dated February 24, 2016) indicated the cost for Verizon to co-locate on their tower would be $439,897.00, which was cost prohibitive for them. He noted the typical cost to co- locate on another tower is $100,000 to $125,000. Mr. Riley added the revisions mentioned by Thomas Wilson of AT&T (e-mailed dated July 20, 2017) would not result in a big change in costs and still would be over $400,000.00 as indicated on the provided affidavit from the construction engineer from Verizon. Mr. Riley made note the tower presently to the south at 1500 S 7th Street is an AT&T landline tower saying he has never seen wireless co-location on a landline based tower.  Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Riley noted Central States Tower was very careful in their search of an appropriate site. In their opinion 1300 S 7th Street is an excellent location and meets the requirements of a special use per the UDO:  The tower sits 750’ from the street and behind a building.  The tower will increase values of the surrounding area because connectivity will improve.  The 140’ tower is designed for three additional future co-locates.  The tower is compatible with neighboring uses.  The tower is the least aesthetically intrusive design, a mono-pole.  Traffic into and out of the site will be minimal, approximately once a month. There will be no staffing, no impact to noise nuisances.  There is no airport in close proximity to the proposed site. Additional benefits:  Public Safety – Providing good cell coverage supports the general welfare of the residents of the City of DeKalb.  This tower will ensure good cell service to the area. Businesses won’t relocate to areas that have poor wireless service. STAFF REPORT Dan Olson, Principal Planner, noted the applicant Verizon, and Central States Tower II, LLC, acting as their agent, requests the approval of a special use permit to construct a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St. The proposal will include the construction of an equipment shelter and access drive on a portion of the 12.93 acre site. The lease area (4,800 sq. ft.) and tower location will be on the southeast portion of the site. The property is zoned “LI” Light Industrial District and the property owner is Hovis Light Industry Park, Inc. Access will be provided from S. 7th St. along the south side of the site via a 12 foot wide asphalt drive. Mr. Olson also mentioned the applicant previously applied for a special use permit in 2014 to locate a 140 foot cell tower at the same location on the subject site. An initial public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 12, 2014 and continued two additional times until complete supporting information was provided by the applicant and the possibility of co-locating on the adjacent 300 foot AT&T tower was concluded. At the April 15, 2015 the Commission voted to deny the special use request based upon the recommendation from staff that the application was still incomplete, the applicant did not honestly convey the ability or opportunity to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower and opposition from neighboring residents. The petition was withdrawn by the applicant prior to consideration by the City Council on May 11, 2015. Mr. Olson added that in July, 2015 the City received correspondence from Verizon Wireless that they desired to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. A special use permit application was subsequently submitted, and on August 26, 2015, the Commission recommended unanimously to approve a special use permit for Verizon to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. The City Council approved the special use permit via Ordinance 2015-038 on Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 9 September 28, 2015. The applicant submitted plans for a building permit to co-locate on the AT&T tower in December, 2015 and the permit was issued for the work in February, 2016. No work was conducted on the project after issuance of the permit. The applicant met with City staff in May, 2017 and indicated they are re-applying for a special use permit for a 140 foot tower at 1300 S. 7th St. because the estimated cost to co-locate at the AT&T tower was extensive and cost prohibitive. The applicant provided an estimate indicating the cost would be almost $440,000 which was decided to be too great a cost. City Attorney Dean Frieders responded to two points made by Mr. Riley. 1.) The affidavits submitted by Mr. Riley are not too meaningful because the professionals who wrote the affidavits are not in attendance and cannot be cross-examined. 2.) It was stated there is not an airport within close proximity to the site. It was noted the DeKalb Municipal Airport is to the northeast of the site. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Chair Atherton opened the floor for public comment. Mr. David Lehman - 621 Karen Ave– Mr. Lehman spoke in opposition to placing the tower at 1300 S 7th Street. He expressed his concern and said his opinion is they have not provided adequate documentation to co-locate on the AT&T tower nor has Central States Tower shown a good faith effort by following DeKalb’s Unified Development Ordinance protocol on co-location. Mr. Lehman reviewed the history of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings in which Central States Tower was pursuing a special use permit. He noted AT&T has shown that it is possible to co-locate on their tower. Mr. Lehman reiterated his objection to the placement of a new tower considering it to be unnecessary and undesirable for the surrounding residents. He posed several questions to Mr. Riley, which were answered. Mr. Riley noted Verizon deals directly with AT&T on the co-location issue, not Central States Tower. Mr. Lehman requested a representative from Verizon attend the next PZC meeting. Patrick Fagan - 3700 Pebblebeach Ct., 4th Ward Alderman – Mr. Fagan said he feels a responsibility to add to the conversation. He indicated he met with the building owner, Mr. Hovis, and toured the facility. He added he met with the local residents and there were three in favor of the new tower. Mr. Fagan mentioned that one of those is the property owner, one did not give their address and one works in the building. He noted there are 14 residences in the immediate area that occupy 11 homes. He said he doesn’t understand why the tower can’t be moved to the industrial area on the other side of the RR tracks to the east. He would like more discussion on that in a continued public hearing. Richard Larson - 12284 Fairview Dr. & 1331 Sycamore Rd. Mr. Larson said he is concerned about representations being made without evidence. Some of those are:  Talk of poor service in the area but no documentation to support that statement.  A picture was shown of a tree along 7th Street with the claim that the tree will protect residents from the view of tower.  The claim was made that there’s no issue with the airport when in fact there may be.  Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 9  It was said that the fee to co-locate would be $439,897 but there is no documentation of that. Until the invoice is paid, it’s not admissible.  It was stated that real estate property values will go down if there is poor service. Is there evidence?  It was stated the existing AT&T tower has not adversely impacted the neighboring properties. He acknowledged if that tower were proposed today it may not be considered under the current UDO and wouldn’t be placed where it is presently.  Were told there’s an affidavit from an engineer but this is not evidence. The person who wrote it is not there to be cross examined.  Said there is a problem with colocation because it’s a landline tower but there is no competent witness to know what that means. Mr. Larson asked that these things be explored. Donna Larkin - 432 Karen Ave. – Ms. Larkin said she drives by the AT&T tower all the time and would prefer to not see it. She wondered how Central States Tower didn’t know there was an airport in DeKalb. She said she would prefer they make use of the tower that’s already there. Ms. Larkin complimented the City for the progress made on the Protano junkyard cleanup on S. 4th St. and said why take a step back by installing something unsightly in the neighborhood. She thinks there is no reason to not pursue the other side of the RR tracks as a location for the tower. She also found it interesting that the radius of the affected area to mail notices was reduced. Ms. Larkin expressed she finds it troubling that the conversation continues regarding a Verizon tower but no one from Verizon has attended a meeting to explain the necessity for one. City staff and the Commission Chair explained that the radius has not been reduced but rather the placement of the proposed tower was moved further away from the 7th Street thus changing the radius for notification. Michael Welsh - 3122 Fairway Oaks– Mr. Welsh explained he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission when the Verizon tower was previously proposed and also helped to create the UDO requirements for co-location which encourages several carriers on one antenna. Mr. Welsh strongly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission’s role is not to suggest a business be placed in a different location other than the one requested. In his opinion it would be wrong to do so. He said we now have a group that wants to construct a tower that will allow for future co-locations at a reasonable rate with the mono-pole being designed to hold four carriers. In his opinion, the goal should be for this community and its citizens to have top-notch service which he stated is what drives business. He wondered about the person sitting in an office who can’t get a signal. Mr. Welsh said he hears that people don’t want the antenna because of the view but wondered if it would really even be noticed. Mr. Welsh’s opinion is that we need to allow our community to have good cellular service and thinks Central States Tower is the right company to do it, noting they are willing to make the investment to bring cellular service to our community and asked what else we want. Donna Larkin – 432 Karen Dr. – Ms. Larkin wanted to clarify that cell service in that area is not lacking as several comments have been made to the contrary. Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Tarryn Thaden - 115 Andresen Ct – Current Property Manager at 1300 S. 7th St. - Ms. Thaden said there is presently an AT&T tower on the proposed site, large and looming. She reported when Central States Tower approached Jim Hovis about the site it was with the intention of providing the area with better service coverage and not simply because the site was available. Instead they believed the 1300 S 7th Street location to be an ideal location. With the existing AT&T tower being a landline tower they may not be able to easily co-locate. Being sensitive to resident’s concerns she noted using a monopole is less intrusive. Ms. Thaden said she works within the building at 1300 S 7th St. and her calls are often dropped within the business. She believes not taking care of our community’s communication needs will be problematic. Jim Hovis – 1300 S 7th St. – Mr. Hovis is part of the group that owns the property. Mr. Hovis said he doesn’t have an office within the building but others who do, say they don’t have good cell service. Central States Tower approached him indicating this was a good location. CST made an offer to lease the land and he accepted their first offer. Mr. Hovis said he wanted them to be in the best location in order to provide good service for the community. He noted that businesses within the building must use landlines because service is so poor. He thinks the tower will benefit other neighboring businesses such as Nestle and Panduit as well. Linda Liston - 717 Gifford St – Ms. Liston said within the surrounding neighborhood there is no connectivity problem with Verizon that she is aware of and wonders if the cell service trouble within the building has something to do with its construction. William Oleckno - 1622 Sleepy Hollow – Mr. Oleckno said he wants to congratulate the City of DeKalb on adopting the portion of the UDO that requires and promotes co-location, which means cooperation. He asked that Central States Tower attempt to bring an AT&T representative to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He said the issue of cost has come up in regard to co-locating on the AT&T tower but wonders if AT&T may be willing to reconsider some of those costs. Mr. Oleckno thinks that the future is smaller antenna and possibly being placed on a roof of a house with more efficiency. D’Ann Hamilton White- 614 Spring Ave – Ms. Hamilton said she is in agreement with those opposed to the antenna and would also like to see representatives of AT&T and Verizon at the PZC meetings. V. Buckley made a motion to extend the meeting until 9:30 p.m. Castro seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chair Atherton repeated the history of the pursuit of a Special Use Permit by Central States Tower. She said in 2015 approval was given for colocation on the AT&T tower and in 2016 a permit was issued. Chair Atherton noted the decision by the PZC can’t be based on financial reasons. She said that some of the industrial buildings in the area have poor service and recognizes the need for improvement.  Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 7 of 9 V. Buckley asked if other sites had been explored. She asked what the long term ramifications would be if the tower is not built. Mr. Riley said once there is an existing tower that will allow for co-location they will do whatever they can to use that site for other carriers. Colocation is valued because it’s a quick process. He added they looked at other sites, but this is the only location that works. Mr. Riley noted it will be good to have an outside engineer review the matter regarding the cost. He mentioned he will bring a representative from Verizon to the next meeting. Chair Atherton expressed frustration at the request for an extension of the Public Hearing. She noted that the previous time this was before the Planning & Zoning Commission there was displeasure expressed over the many extensions allowed. J. Wright made a motion, based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented, to continue the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing to Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm so staff can prepare a staff report and recommendation. In addition, it was recommend the preparation of the staff report be contingent upon the applicant providing a complete application submittal per Article 7.08 of the UDO, a revised estimate regarding the co-location on the AT&T Tower and that a Professional Fee Reimbursement Agreement and the appropriate escrow amount be established to cover the costs of any third party reviews of the cost estimates/plans for the project. D. Olson said the hearing should be continued to the September 20th meeting instead. City Attorney Dean Frieders noted if it’s not ready for a recommendation by the 20th, City staff will reach out to let the public know. J. Wright amended the motion to change the date to continue the hearing to September 20th. V. Buckley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was called. Vicki Buckley - yes, David Castro - yes, Jerry Wright - yes and Chair Christian Atherton - no. The motion passed 3-1-3. F. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continued Public Hearing on City-initiated text amendments to the following Articles of Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance” of the Municipal Code: Article 19 “Non-Conforming Situations” to remove the requirement in Article 19.05 (4) that a legal non-conforming use of a building or structure must be discontinued if a change in ownership, use or tenancy occurs; and to Article 19.09 to allow for a change in tenancy, ownership or management of an existing use of a building or structure, provided there is no change in the nature or character, extent or intensity of such non-conforming use of the building or structure. STAFF REPORT Mr. Dan Olson, Principal Planner, went over the staff report dated August 18, 2017, which recommended approval of the amendments to Article 19 as proposed. PUBLIC COMMENT Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 8 of 9 Rorry Heide, ReMax Real Estate - Ms. Heide told of a client who bought a residence as a two unit. The owner is now trying to sell it but had to remove it from the MSL listing because of the City’s requirement. She described a near impossible situation where the residence can’t be advertised as a two unit but also can’t be advertised as a one unit because it has two kitchens, two meters, etc. Ms. Heidi explained how difficult this is for owners who cannot sell their properties. She mentioned the instances where some are needing to move into a retirement situation and need the proceeds from their homes but aren’t able to sell it because of this requirement. Mike Groark - 1405 S 2nd Street – Real estate attorney - Mr. Groark observed the people who are affected by this ordinance are not owners of apartment complexes but rather the small mom and pop or the family who may live in one space and rent out the other in order to make ends meet. He has 6 different cases right now that are affected by this ordinance. They are small mom pop operations where the family may live in it and rent out a unit. He commented that people who own these may be retired and now trying to sell their house and can’t or are faced with taking 40% less than what they may have gotten otherwise. He sees another scenario, someone dies and the affairs can’t be settled because of the inability of selling the house. He sees situations where these houses have been like this for fifty, sixty or seventy years or more and trying to figure out when these changes were made and when the rules changed can be difficult if not impossible. Having to bring the house into conformance in order to sell will hurt many. He asked the Commission to please consider the recommendation regarding approving the amendments. Alex Finke - 1430 DeKalb Ave– Government Affairs representative – Hometown Association of Realtors – Mr. Finke stated he’s in agreement with the recommendation. Will Heinisch – DeKalb Property Owner – Mr. Heinisch stated his support for staff in removing this wording from the ordinance. Attorney Frieders explained that the changes proposed in the ordinance granted protection to uses that were initially established lawfully, but which became nonconforming uses by virtue of changes in the applicable zoning codes or standards. He further suggested that the continued protection from loss of legal nonconforming status should be provided as suggested by the PZC where there is a change in ownership or tenancy, but not where there is a change in use, as a change in use would change a nonconforming status. Bessie Chronopoulos – 423 Gayle Ave – Ms. Chronopoulos gave her agreement with all other speakers and said she is glad the City is taking a pro-active stance. She thinks the PZC should be more involved and get out in community more. Brian Morsch - 404 S 3rd Street – Mr. Morsch replied to Dean’s comments wondering about residents who bought their properties as a two or three unit without knowing historically whether permits were obtained and now want to sell. D. Frieders reiterated that it has to be a legal non-conforming use meaning it had to have been changed legally with building permits, etc. Dean stated that building codes go back a hundred years so there would have always been a requirement for permits.  Planning and Zoning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 9 of 9 V. Buckley motioned to continue the meeting until 10:00 p.m. Wright seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously by voice vote. B. Morsch added DeKalb needs to keep the EAV up noting that allowing property to be devalued won’t be good or sustainable. David Jacobson - 802 Edgebrook, #1 – Mr. Jacobson commented that we don’t want to scare investment out and suggested this change solves present and past problems but still presents questions for the future. He supports the amendment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. Castro said the proposed amendment seems arbitrary and doesn’t think this will give people a huge say in bringing things to conformity. He added the proposed change will not remedy the problem. V. Buckley motioned to approve the amendment as presented. Wright seconded the motion. Roll Call vote was taken. Vicki Buckley – yes, David Castro – no, Jerry Wright – yes, Chair Atherton – yes. The motion passed 3-1-3. G. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Continued Public Hearing on a petition by Central States Tower II, LLC for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 South Seventh St., DeKalb, Illinois. H. ADJOURNMENT V. Buckley motioned to adjourn, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM Respectfully Submitted, Brenda Hart, Recording Secretary Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on .  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 29, 2017 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jo Ellen Charlton, Community Development Director Dan Olson, Principal Planner RE: Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall Cell Tower (Verizon) – 1300 S. 7th St. (Central States Tower II, LLC) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose To obtain a special use permit to construct a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St. B. Location 1300 S. 7th St. C. Size 12.93 acres; Lease area – 4,800 sq. ft. D. Existing Zoning “LI” Light Industrial District E. Existing Land Use Industrial Building F. Proposed Land Use No change; Construct 140 foot tall cell tower, associated equipment and access drive G. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: LI; Fire station #2, water treatment plant, wholesale, church, residential South: LI; AT&T communications tower, industrial, park/ball fields East: PD-I; RR, industrial park West: SFR2; Single family residences H. Comprehensive Plan Designation Light Industrial II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Verizon, and Central States Tower II, LLC, acting as their agent, requests the approval of a special use permit to construct a 140 foot tall cellular communications tower to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St. The proposal will include the construction of an equipment shelter and access drive on a portion of the 12.93 acre site. The lease area (4,800 sq. ft.) and tower location will be on the southeast portion of the site. The property is zoned “LI” Light Industrial District and owned by Hovis Light Industry Park, Inc. Access will be provided from S. 7th St. along the south side of the site via a 12 foot wide asphalt drive. On August 23, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) conducted a public hearing regarding the request and approved a motion to continue the public hearing to September 20, 2017 so that additional documentation could be submitted by the applicant and a staff report could be prepared. Page 2 of 12 Prior to the scheduled September 20th PZC meeting, the applicant provided some of the required documentation; however, additional information was still forthcoming. Therefore, on September 20, 2017 the PZC voted to continue the public hearing to October 4, 2017. The applicant has provided additional documentation including providing an escrow agreement for review of the plans and documents by a third party. III. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Previous Application (2014-16) The applicant, Central States Tower II, LLC, previously applied for a special use permit in 2014 to locate a 140 foot cell tower at the same location on the subject site. An initial public hearing was held by the PZC on November 12, 2014 and continued two additional times until complete supporting information was provided by the applicant and the possibility of co-locating on the adjacent 300 foot AT&T tower was concluded. At their April 15, 2015 meeting, the PZC voted to deny the special use request based upon the recommendation from staff that the application was still incomplete, the applicant did not honestly convey the ability or opportunity to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower and opposition from neighboring residents. The petition was withdrawn by the applicant prior to consideration by the City Council on May 11, 2015. In July, 2015 the City received correspondence from Verizon Wireless that they desired to co- locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. A special use permit application was subsequently submitted, and on August 26, 2015, the PZC recommended unanimously to approve a special use permit for Verizon to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. The City Council approved the special use permit via Ordinance 2015-038 on September 28, 2015. The applicant submitted plans for a building permit to co-locate on the AT&T tower in December, 2015 and the permit was issued in February, 2016. No work was conducted on the project after issuance of the permit. Current Application (2017) The applicant met with City staff in May, 2017 and indicated they are re-applying for a special use permit for a 140 foot tower at the same location because the estimated cost to co-locate on the AT&T tower was extensive and cost prohibitive. The applicant provided an estimate indicating the cost would be almost $440,000 (estimate provided in packet). The costs are related to site preparation, tower remediation, electrical upgrades and project oversight by AT&T. The estimate was prepared by AT&T for Verizon and a representative from AT&T has responded confirming the amount. AT&T provided a response when they received a notification letter from Verizon required per the co-location protocol in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The response from AT&T was submitted by Thomas Wilson, Project Manager for AT&T Towers – Antenna Solutions Group via e-mail on July 20, 2017 and is provided in the PZC packet. The e-mail from AT&T included a markup of the drawings showing changes they believed would significantly reduce the co-location cost for Verizon from what was listed in the estimate. The e-mail states the two main changes are going from underground utilities to overhead and to add a concrete slab with Page 3 of 12 an adjustable raised platform for Verizon’s equipment shelter instead of removing underground conduit. AT&T could not provide a range on the percentage the cost would be reduced and stated Verizon is responsible for providing the revised estimate. Verizon subsequently did provide an affidavit from a construction engineer at the August 23rd public hearing noting the changes suggested by AT&T would not appreciably decrease the costs of the co-location. It should be noted the UDO does not allow the installation of overhead electrical power lines in these type of situations. Cost Analysis for Co-Location on AT&T Tower In February, 2016 a cost estimate was prepared by AT&T at Verizon’s request regarding the cost to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. The estimate provided indicates a cost of $439,897, which includes capital costs for AT&T vendors to perform earth work, structural and electrical work, tower remediation and project oversight. The applicant did provide an e-mail (dated June 22, 2017) mentioning that the typical cost to co-locate on any tower is approximately $35,000 and would be the same for the usual AT&T tower as well. The e-mail further stated Verizon’s costs are amplified in the co-location on the adjacent AT&T tower because Verizon would have to pay almost $440,000 in capital costs for tower modifications and a higher monthly rent than normal. The applicant did submit an affidavit at the August 23rd public hearing from a construction engineer for Verizon indicating that the changes suggested by AT&T would not significantly decrease the co-location costs and would still be over $400,000. Since the August 23rd public hearing, the applicant has submitted two detailed cost estimates that were done in 2016 to construct the proposed 140 foot Verizon tower and accessory equipment. The average cost between the two estimates is $171,625. Staff has requested, but AT&T has not provided further changes to the plans for the co-location to reduce the costs or additional detail into why the $440,000 estimate is so much higher than a normal co-location. AT&T has also not responded to a request to have a representative attend the PZC meetings. The City had a third party consultant, Pyramid Consulting, review the coverage maps and the cost estimate for the co-location on the AT&T tower along with the plans for the proposed new Verizon tower. They also reviewed the marked up plans that AT&T provided that would reduce the cost of the co-location. A copy of their report will be provided at Wednesday’s meeting. Pyramid is an Indianapolis based consulting firm that is working on the implementation of DeKalb County’s new digital telecommunications system. UDO Regulations and Standards for Wireless Communications Equipment Article 7.08 of the UDO, regulates the placement, design and use of wireless communication equipment. This section of the UDO also stipulates compliance with certain criteria that needs to be demonstrated by the applicant prior to approval of the special use. The criteria is listed in the applicant’s petition submittal along with responses. The applicant has also provided photo simulations indicating how the tower will look from ground level from all directions. Page 4 of 12 The applicant is indicating there is a need for Verizon wireless service in the area. A summary provided with the petition indicates the area under consideration is a coverage hole know for frequent trouble tickets and customer complaints. The summary continues by noting residences and business in the areas have poor coverage and neighboring cell sites currently covering the area are breaking for capacity. The petition notes the primary objectives for the proposed facility is to provide reliable in-residence coverage in the area and capacity offload to the neighboring sectors serving the area. The applicant has provided maps indicating the existing Verizon cell sites in the DeKalb area and also pre-coverage and post-coverage maps showing how the coverage will be improved around the subject site with the new tower. Updated coverage maps were provided by the applicant since the August 23rd meeting reflecting the coverage for a recently constructed Verizon cell tower at the northwest corner of Annie Glidden Road and I-88. The updated maps are provided in the packet. IV. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USE FOR ANTENNA FACILITIES (ARTICLE 7.08.08) 1. Points of Visual Interest Shall Be Protected The UDO requires “views from residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed tower to the following points of interest, shall be protected to the greatest extent possible.” • Public Open Spaces • Natural Areas as defined on the Development Plan • Landmark Structures There are no residential properties within 250 feet of the proposed tower and the closest residential structure is approximately 730 feet away from the tower so technically there is no visual points of interest that are required to be protected per the UDO. The closest public open spaces is McCormick Park, which is located to the south of the AT&T Tower, and about 900 feet from the proposed Verizon Tower. The proposed Verizon cellular tower would be located adjacent to an existing 300 foot communications tower owned by AT&T and which has a larger visual impact on McCormick Park. However, it is recognized that regardless of the applicant’s actions to minimize the visual impacts, there would be another tower added in the viewshed for park patrons and private property owners (see photo simulation images). 2. Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest The UDO requires an applicant to demonstrate how the points of visual interest will be protected. Since there are no residential structures located within 250 feet of the proposed cell tower, this provision does not apply. Should the special use permit be approved, it is recommended that conditions be attached specifying the design and color of the structure, landscaping and associated Page 5 of 12 equipment 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 color has been identified as a natural metal or sky color, which meets this criterion. 4. Height The UDO stipulates that a proposed cell tower must be no higher than the maximum height restriction of the zoning district in which the property is located plus 15 feet. To exceed this restriction the applicant must demonstrate why an exception would be necessary. The proposed 140-foot tower exceeds the maximum height standard set forth in the ‘LI” Light Industrial District (max. height 75 feet) by 50 feet. If approved as part of a special use permit, the UDO does allow for additional height on structures if setbacks are increased. The proposed monopole is setback an adequate amount to offset the additional height. The applicant’s documentation and testimony indicates the additional height is needed to adequately serve the area and provide adequate space for additional carriers on the tower. 5. Setbacks Adjacent to Residential Uses Antennas or towers must be setback from any existing adjacent residential property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower. The proposed 140 foot tower is about 710 feet from the nearest residential property line. The setbacks of the proposed tower are sufficient to meet the criterion. 6. Lighting The UDO stipulates that no lighting of the tower is permitted except as required by the FAA. In most cases, the FAA does not require lighting on towers under 200 feet. The applicant had previously submitted Form 7460 to the FAA, and the results of this report have indicated that the FAA approves the tower as proposed. In addition, DeKalb Airport Manager Tom Cleveland has reviewed the plans for the proposed tower and indicates that based upon the distance from the airport, height, and location in relation to the runways, it would not interfere with airport operations. 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 site plan submitted for review identifies a six-foot fence to surround the proposed tower. Page 6 of 12 8. Landscaping and Screening The UDO requires that landscaping be placed outside the required fenced area on sides facing public rights-of-way or residential areas. The plans submitted indicate landscaping along the north and south sides of the proposed fence. Additional plantings will be required for a portion of the west side of the fenced area to meet this UDO requirement. 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. Proposed is a 140 monopole without any guy wires or supplementary supports, therefore the applicant is meeting this criterion. 11. Co-Location Protocol Any special use request for the erection of a new tower must complete the co-location protocol as outlined in Article 7.08 of the UDO. A copy of Article 7.08 is provided at the end of the PZC packet. The purpose of the protocol is to create a process that will allow providers to share publicly available nonproprietary information among themselves, with interested agencies and the City. The co-location protocol is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for co-location have been investigated and that the appropriate information has been shared among the providers. The UDO regulations for co-location protocol also notes “that co-location is preferable, where technologically feasible and visually desirable, as a matter of public policy, but that co-location of antennas by providers is not always feasible for technical or business reasons.” Per the co-location protocol, the applicant has contacted the other providers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Cricket) in the area noting their intent to construct a tower along S. 7th St and if the other providers had co-location opportunities. The applicant provided the mailing receipts and copies of the letters that were sent to the other providers. Only one of the providers contacted noted an opportunity for co-location and that was from AT&T regarding the adjacent 300 foot tower to the south of the proposed Verizon tower. Per the UDO, if a response to a co-location request is received by the applicant indicating an opportunity for co-location, the applicant shall analyze and investigate the feasibility based upon criteria listed in the UDO. Those criteria include if service can or cannot be provided by co-location Page 7 of 12 at the site, evidence that the lessor either agrees or disagrees to co-location on their site and evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible co-location site. The co-location protocol is designed to ensure that the blight of multiple duplicative towers is minimized or mitigated to the greatest extent possible. However, neither the City nor the applicant has the ability to force or compel co-location with an unwilling existing tower owner. The City and the applicant have reached out to AT&T and attempted to negotiate the colocation of facilities here, but AT&T has persisted in bringing forward a cost that is a several times multiple of the cost of new tower construction. While this has been a challenging, multiyear process, the applicant appears to have complied with the intent of the colocation protocol in regards to the AT&T tower and exhausted reasonable colocation possibilities to provide service to the intended area. The Taylor Street Plaza building is a 16-story building located at 507 E. Taylor St. and about .7 miles from the proposed Verizon tower. The building is owned by the Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb and has three cell carriers on the roof of the structure. The Housing Authority has indicated via an e-mail dated September 5, 2017 that there is an opportunity for Verizon to locate on the building (e-mail provided in the packet). The staff has raised the question of using the Taylor Street Plaza building before and the applicant responded via an affidavit provided at the August 23rd public hearing that the building “was never considered since it is very close to an existing Verizon cell site.” Staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail into the reason the site cannot be used. The applicant has responded that the question has been answered before and the Verizon RF Engineer will answer any questions at the October 4th hearing. V. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 14.03.05) 1. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. The proposed tower and antenna is in compliance with the regulations of Article 7.08 of the UDO and the “LI” Light Industrial District, except for additional landscaping needed along the west side of the fenced area, which is made a part of the condition of approval. In addition, the request does not comply with the co-location protocol in Article 7.08 in regards to further investigating the possibility of co-locating at the Taylor Street Plaza building located at 507 E. Taylor St. 2. The proposed special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is to be located or to the public welfare at large. The closest residential structure is approximately 730 feet away from the proposed Verizon tower. There is an existing 300 foot tall AT&T tower to the south of the subject site and is approximately 300 feet away from the nearest residential structure along S. 7th St. For comparison purposes, a recently installed 190 foot tall cell tower behind the DeKalb Police Station along W. Lincoln Highway is approximately 300 feet away from the nearest residential structure. The proposed cell tower will be situated behind the building on the subject site and further away from the residential Page 8 of 12 area than the adjacent 300 foot tall AT&T communications tower. Several nearby residents spoke at the August 23, 2017 public hearing and submitted comments noting objections to the proposed tower and that it would be injurious to the neighborhood. However, no documentation was provided at the public hearing showing how or to what extent the proposed special use would be detrimental to property values in the surrounding area. Records from DeKalb County indicate assessments of residential properties in the area along S. 7th St. have gone up in the past years despite the presence of the existing AT&T tower. 3. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the special use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The surrounding areas is already developed with commercial, industrial, institutional and single- family residential uses. A 300 foot communications tower has existed on the property to the south for several decades. The special use will not dominate the immediate area and will not prevent development on the neighboring properties. 4. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adequate public services are already provided to the subject site. Power for the proposed cell tower will come from an existing utility line along S. 7th St. A 12 foot wide asphalt drive will be provided to the lease area from the existing paved parking lot on the subject site. 5. The proposed use, where such developments and uses are deemed consistent with good planning practice, or can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the district; can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area; shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located; and is deemed essential or desirable to preserve and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of DeKalb. The proposed special use will provide enhanced cell service to the surrounding area and was identified by the applicant as an area that is needed to provide adequate coverage relief to the areas in the southeast portion of the City including the I-88 corridor. The applicant’s documents also indicate that the new tower will improve in-building and in-vehicle coverage for the area and provide capacity relief in the area to improve data speed. Testimony provided at the public hearing from nearby residents who have Verizon service indicated no problems with their service in the area. Occupants of the building on the subject site reported poor in-building cell service at the hearing. Staff has requested from the applicant any reports indicating the number of customer Page 9 of 12 complaints of Verizon cell service in the 7th St. area, however no documentation was provided. The City cannot base a decision upon the perceived impacts of RF Emissions and electromagnetic health effects. Towers are required to be installed in accordance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields. VI. CITIZEN INPUT To date, there have been nine correspondence from surrounding property owners/residents indicating their opposition to the proposal and three correspondence noting their support for the proposal have been received and are made part of the record. The correspondence were provided in the PZC packet for the August 23rd meeting and provided again in the October 4th packet. Since that time there has been one correspondence from a resident, Donna Larkin, who submitted an e- mail dated September 18, 2017 indicating a request for the extension of the public hearing from September 20th to October 4th be denied. A copy of that e-mail was provided to the PZC at the September 20th meeting and is also provided in this packet. Documents submitted at the August 23rd hearing from resident David Lehman was also included in this packet. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The challenge with the request is that applicant (Central States Tower) is not the telecommunications provider. There is no incentive for the applicant to co-locate Verizon on another tower or building. However, 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 desired outcome for everyone in 2015 when the special use permit was approved for the co- location on the AT&T tower has been held up by the unusually high cost to do the co-location. As noted in this report, AT&T has not provided further changes to the plans for the co-location to significantly reduce the costs or provide more detail into why the $440,000 estimate is so much higher than a normal. AT&T has also not responded to a request to have a representative attend the Commission meetings to address questions. If the Commission desires to approve the special use, staff recommends that the hearing be continued to the October 18th meeting so the co-location protocol on the Taylor Street Plaza building can be fully completed. Staff also recommends 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 (listed on next page). If the Commission wishes to deny the special use request, it must be per the requirements of Article 7.08 of the UDO and the findings of fact for a special use in Article 14. Recommending denial of the special use request based upon the applicant not going through the full co-location protocol for the Taylor Street Plaza building could be a reason to make such a motion. Page 10 of 12 Sample Motion to Approve: Based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward its findings of fact and recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna and accessory equipment to be located on the subject property located at 1300 S. 7th St. subject to the following: 1. The tower and accessory equipment shall comply with the plans dated November 26, 2014 entitled Chicago SMSA Limited Partnership – State HWY 23 and Fairview. 2. The applicant is required to submit the necessary application and plans to the City in compliance with applicable Building Codes and the regulations of Article 7.08 of the UDO. 3. 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. 4. Add landscaping to the west side of the fenced area to meet the requirements of the UDO regarding screening of sides facing public rights-of-way or residential areas. 5. Provide a structural engineer’s report 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 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. 6. Upon issuance of a special use permit, the applicant shall state in writing that requests by other providers 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. 7. Completion of the tower and associated equipment shall be completed and a final certificate of occupancy issued by the City within one year of approval of the special use permit. 8. If the tower and associated equipment is abandoned or discontinued for a period more than six months, the special use permit shall be revoked. Sample Motion to Deny: Page 11 of 12 Based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward its findings of fact and recommend to the City Council denial of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna and accessory equipment to be located on the subject property located at 1300 S. 7th St. due to the following: 1. The applicant did not complete the co-location protocol for the Taylor St. Plaza building located at 507 E. Taylor St. Page 12 of 12 From: Richard Connor Riley To: Olson, Dan Cc: Charlton, Jo Ellen; Dean Frieders Subject: RE: ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:30:23 PM Attachments: Presentation1.pptx Dan, Please see below. From: Olson, Dan [mailto:Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:18 PM To: Richard Connor Riley <rcriley@siting-advisors.com> Cc: Charlton, Jo Ellen <Joellen.Charlton@CITYOFDEKALB.com>; Dean Frieders <dean@frieders.com> Subject: FW: ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS Richard, Thanks for the documents. I would forward the following comments/questions: · The coverage maps by the RF Engineer are hard to see. Can a larger size be provided? I will try and get you electronic copies you can manipulate. · We are looking for more detail regarding the co-location possibilities at the Taylor St. Plaza building. What existing Verizon cell site is “very close” to the Taylor St. Plaza building? How would the coverage maps look indicating a Verizon antenna on the Taylor St. Plaza building? The RF engineer can answer any questions you may have regarding the Taylor Street Plaza building, but the answer really is simple and has been answered twice. The following items are still needed: • Updated Summary Sheet including any reports documenting the number of customer complaints of Verizon cell service in the 7th St. area. I have come to understand that the need for a “Capacity” Cell site is different from how the need for a coverage site is determined. This will be explained at the hearing. • Copy of your PowerPoint presentation from the August 23rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I thought I sent a copy on September 22nd but I have attached it again. • As built cost for a similar sized tower in another location. They are looking but hard an exact site. Dan Olson From: Richard Connor Riley [mailto:rcriley@siting-advisors.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:45 PM To: Olson, Dan <Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com> Subject: ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS Dan, Attached are several of the items requested. With regard to your last request, Namely, • A detailed response on why co-locating at the Taylor Street Plaza building at 507 E. Taylor St. is not possible. The owner (Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb) has indicated there is a possibility of leasing space at the top of the building. They had a carrier recently leave and have an available platform space for another one. You should provide a response on why that building was not chosen and expand on your statements you made at the August 23rd public hearing. Please be advised that this was specifically answered in the Notarized affidavit previously submitted by Verizon’s RF engineer, namely: 1. Was the Taylor Street Plaza Building (507 E. Taylor Street) considered for co-location? RESPONSE: 507 E Taylor Street was never considered since it is very close to an existing Verizon cell Site. Additional questions may be asked of the RF Engineer at the October 4th Hearing. Thanks Richard Richard Connor Riley LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD CONNOR RILEY 123 North 4th Street Chesterton, Indiana* 46304 (312) 244-3792 (O) (312) 276-5123 (F)  CITY OF DEKALB CHAPTER 23: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ARTICLE 7 SUPPLIMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 7.08 ANTENNA AND SATELLITE DISH REGULATIONS (WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE) [ORD 1997-067] PETITIONER’S FORMAL RESPONSE TO SECTION 7.08.09 (4) SUBMITTED BY: RICHARD CONNOR RILEY ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER CENTRAL STATES TOWER II, LLC 123 N. 4TH STREET, CHESTERTON, IN 46304 RCRILEY@SITING-ADVISORS.COM (312) 953-5664  SECTION 7.08.09 (4) 4. Applicant’s Duty to Analyze the Feasibility of Co-location If a response to a co-location request letter is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for co-location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of co-location. This analysis shall be submitted with an application for any support structure. RESPONSE: We have received no formal responses to the C0-location letter sent to all carriers pursuant to Section 7.08.09 (3). 1. At the direction of Dan Olson, Principal Planner for the City of DeKalb a duplicate letter was sent to Thomas R. Wilson, a contract Project Manager for AT&T Towers. 2. Mr. Wilson responded by e-mail which stated that modifications could be made to the previously issued Invoice / Project Approval letter (PAL) for the existing AT&T tower (proximate to the subject site) which would reduce the original invoice cost of $439,897.00 by some unknown and unstated amount. 3. In response Petitioner submitted a notarized affidavit by Ronald J. Pauly, the Principal Construction Engineer employed by Verizon Wireless who stated: IN SUMMARY THE CHANGES SUGGESTED BY MR. WILSON WOULD NOT APPRECAIBLY DECREASE THE COSTS AS THE OVERALL AT&T COLOCATION COSTS WOULD STILL BE OVER $400 THOUSAND DOLLARS. Therefore, the only co-location candidate pursuant to Section 7.08.09 (4) that is necessary to address is the existing AT&T tower as Petitioner has not received any responses from other carriers. [I note that other properties have been suggested for co-location consideration but they are outside of the scope of this Section and will be dealt with separately through testimony] The investigation of the feasibility of co-location shall be deemed to have occurred if the applicant submits all of the following information: WITH REGARD TO THE AT&T TOWER: a. A statement from a qualified engineer indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co-location at the possible location site; RESPONSE: YES, THE NECESSARY RF SERVICE CAN BE PROVIDED BY CO-LOCATION AT THE AT&T TOWER [NOTE: TESTIMONY BY A QUALIFIED RF ENGINEER WILL AFFIRM THIS STATEMENT] b. Evidence that the lessor of the possible co-location site either agrees or disagrees to co-location on their property; RESPONSE: YES AT&T AGREES TO CO-LOCATION ON THEIR TOWER. PETITIONER HAS WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH AT&T IN FURTHERANCE OF CO-LOCATING AND RESULTED IN AT&T ISSUING AN INVOICE/PROJECT APPROVAL LETTER (PAL) (ATTACHED HERETO) IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,897.00.  c. Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible co-location site to accommodate needed equipment and meets all of the site development standards. RESPONSE: ADEQUATE ACCESS DOES EXIST AT THE POSSIBLE CO-LOCATION SITE TO ACCOMMODATE NEEDED EQUIPMENT AND MEETS ALL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. d. Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible co-location site. RESPONSE: ADEQUATE ACCESS DOES EXIST AT THE AT&T TOWER SITE. 5. Result of Co-location Feasibility Analysis If the applicant has provided information addressing each of the criteria in Section 7.08.09.04 above, the co-location protocol shall be deemed complete. RESPONSE: PETITIONER HAS RESPONDED AFIRMATIVELY TO EACH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA AS THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE AT&T TOWER WOULD BE CAPABLE OF CO-LOCATION BUT WHETHER THE COST OF SAID CO-LOCATION IS JUSTIFIED. From: Richard Connor Riley To: Olson, Dan Cc: Charlton, Jo Ellen; Dean Frieders Subject: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Presentation Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:39:33 PM Attachments: image001.png State Hwy 23 andFairview MUTI Bid Proposal-3-16-2016.pdf State Hwy 23 and Fairview Bid Form Mercury Communications Inc..xlsx Dan, Dan, Attached are two cost estimates for the subject site at 1300 S. 7th Street. They are the most accurate as they were submitted pursuant to the original specifications for this site. Please note the dates on these estimates they were prepared and sent on 3/16/16. For my purposes I have taken the average of these two bids, which comes to $171,625.00. I will submit the formal Co-Location Feasibility Analysis as required in Article 7.08.09 (5) of the UDO tomorrow. Frankly, I am still waiting for the RF information. Thanks, Richard Richard Connor Riley LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD CONNOR RILEY 123 North 4th Street Chesterton, Indiana* 46304 (312) 244-3792 (O) (312) 276-5123 (F) *LICENSED IN ILLINOIS From: Olson, Dan [mailto:Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com]  Attachment "E" Line Item Breakdown for Pricing SITE: State Hwy 23 & Fairview DATE: 3/16/2016 Site Pricing Breakout Unit Pricing Breakout Item #: Description Cost $ Project #: 1.1 Site Preperation $ 3,500.00 285821 1.2 Clearing and Grading and Trenching $ 9,500.00 Prepared by: 1.3 Access Road & Stone Mercury Communications, Inc. 1.3 Asphalt Paving $ 13,630.00 1710 Larkin Williams Rd 1.4 Compound Grading & Stone $ 3,480.00 Fenton, MO 63026 1.5 Landscaping $ 2,675.00 1.6 Fencing $ 9,670.00 1.7 Bollard Installation Project Data: 2.1 Electrical $ 8,500.00 1500 South 7th Street 2.2 Landline Facilities $ 6,200.00 Dekalb, IL 60115 3.0 Building Foundation/Stoop $ 23,250.00 3.1 Building Offloading/Setting 4.0 Tower Foundation 5.0 Grounding $ 5,200.00 6.0 Tower Erection/Crane 6.1 Antenna & Coax Install $ 22,750.00 6.2 Tower Attachments (Materials) $ 29,925.00 6.3 Sweep Test & Fiber Test $ 1,500.00 6.4 Night Work 7.0 Fuel Line Install $ 1,200.00 7.1 Generator Fueling (Include 200 gal. diesel fuel) 7.2 Deliver/Set Generator 8.0 Mobilization $ 9,200.00 8.1 General Conditions $ 6,325.00 8.2 OH & Profit $ 17,360.00 *BID QUALIFICATIONS Proposal submitted in accordance with the specifications and drawings as designed by: Furnish and install (1) – 3” SCH 40 PVC electric service entrance conduit w/ PVC sweeps and risers from the existing utility pole to the new meter / disconnect / ILC panelboard w/ 3 – 4/0 & 1 - # 4 XHHW aluminum (up to 275’ – includes 1 – in-ground pull box as required per NEC) Furnish and install (1) – 2” & (3) – ¾” SCH 40 PVC generator service conduits w/ GRC sweeps and risers from the new generator to the new ILC panelboard w/ cabling and terminations as required (up to 10’ each) Furnish and install (2) – 4” SCH 40 PVC fiber service entrance conduits w/ PVC sweeps and risers from the existing R.O.W. / new in-ground fiber vault to the new compound / in-ground fiber vault to the new equipment h- frame w/ 2 – 1 ¼” inner ducts each (up to 255’ each) Furnish and install (2) – tech lights, (1) – light switches and (0) GFCI receptacles on the platform Furnish and install (1) – 12” x 12” x 6” N3 alarm j-box w/ 2 – sets of dry contacts (relays) Utility company coordination, ground testing and close out information as required Furnish and install the ground ring and the site related final bonding requirements Furnish and install (1) – 120/240v 200a meter base and main breaker disconnect Install (2) – ground bars on the platform Furnish and install (2) – in-ground fiber vaults as required Permitting and inspection fees Bid includes painting of waveguide ladder, coax, hybrid, jumpers, antennas, mounts, etc. Bid includes coordination with Nicor for gas line installation. Construction drawings specify an 8ft fence but fence detail provided in drawings show a max height of 6ft vinyl fe LUMP SUM PRICE $173,865.00 Bid includes the additional asphalt in the crosshatched areas listed on C-1 and C-2 of the construction drawings.  Attachment "E" Line Item Breakdown for Pricing SITE: State Hwy 23 & Fairview DATE: 3/16/2016 Site Pricing Breakout Unit Pricing Breakout Item #: Description Cost $ Project #: 0 1.1 Site Preperation $ 3,375.00 1.2 Clearing and Grading and Trenchin $ - Prepared by:Tyler Kutz 0 1.3 Access Road & Stone $ - MUTI 1.3 Asphalt Paving $ 6,750.00 3890 Commerce Dr. 1.4 Compound Grading & Stone $ 4,725.00 St. Charles, IL 60174 1.5 Landscaping $ 4,725.00 1.6 Fencing $ 12,150.00 1.7 Bollard Installation $ - Project Data: 2.1 Electrical $ 24,975.00 2.2 Landline Facilities $ 18,225.00 3.0 Building Foundation/Stoop $ 12,150.00 3.1 Platform Installation $ 4,725.00 4.0 Tower Foundation $ - 5.0 Grounding $ 6,500.00 6.0 Tower Erection/Crane $ - 6.1 Antenna & Coax Install $ 30,160.00 6.2 Tower Attachments (Materials) $ 30,050.00 6.3 Sweep Test $ 1,200.00 6.4 Night Work $ - 7.0 Fuel Line Install $ 3,375.00 7.1 Generator Fueling $ - (Include 200 gal. diesel fuel) 7.2 Deliver/Set Generator $ - 8.0 Mobilization $ 5,750.00 8.1 General Conditions $ 550.00 8.2 OH & Profit $ - *BID QUALIFICATIONS Proposal submitted in accordance with the specifications and drawings as designed by: *Power and Fiber Bid to be bored to avoid asphalt Restoration *Add $6075 to bore gas line conduit for NICOR LUMP SUM PRICE $169,385.00 From: Olson, Dan To: "Randy Bourdages" Cc: davidlehman1@frontier.com Subject: RE: Platform Availability on Roof Top @ 507 E Taylor Street DeKalb Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:54:00 PM Thanks Randy Dan Olson From: Randy Bourdages [mailto:rbourdages@dekcohousing.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:26 PM To: Olson, Dan <Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com> Cc: davidlehman1@frontier.com Subject: Platform Availability on Roof Top @ 507 E Taylor Street DeKalb Good Afternoon Dan, I was contacted by Dave Lehman with regards to Verizon requesting a permit for construction of a new cell tower with in the vicinity of our 16 story high rise located at 507 E Taylor Street DeKalb. The Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb currently leases space to T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Sprint. When Cricket vacated 2016 we request that the platform remain to avoid damage to the building structure which in return allows us the opportunity to lease the platform space. I have reached out to Central States Tower II, LLC, and they referred me to Richard Connor Riley. I have left a message this afternoon informing Mr. Riley of the availability which can provide as a second option for Central States Tower II, LLC. This would save them a considerable amount in construction cost as the platform is already in place. The big question would be what their antenna requirements would be for this project and would the remain space be sufficient enough for their project. Dan, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to reach out to by calling my cell phone number at 815-739-0010 or my office number 815-758-2692 ext. 122. Sincerely, Randy J. Bourdages Capital Projects, Contracts & Procurement Manager Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb 310 N 6th Street DeKalb IL 60115 Phone 815-758-2692 Ext. 122  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT August 18, 2017 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jo Ellen Charlton, Community Development Director Dan Olson, Principal Planner RE: Special Use Permit for Antenna Equipment (Verizon) – 1300 S. 7th St. (Central States Tower II, LLC) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose To obtain a special use permit to construct a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St. B. Location 1300 S. 7th St. C. Size 12.93 acres; Lease area – 4,800 sq. ft. D. Existing Zoning “LI” Light Industrial District E. Existing Land Use Industrial Building F. Proposed Land Use No change; Construct 140 foot tall cell tower, associated equipment and access drive G. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: LI; Fire station #2, water treatment plant, wholesale, church, residential South: LI; AT&T communications tower, industrial, park/ball fields East: PD-I; RR, industrial park West: SFR2; Single family residences H. Comprehensive Plan Designation Light Industrial II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Verizon, and Central States Tower II, LLC, acting as their agent, requests the approval of a special use permit to construct a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St. The proposal will include the construction of an equipment shelter and access drive on a portion of the 12.93 acre site. The lease area (4,800 sq. ft.) and tower location will be on the southeast portion of the site. The property is zoned “LI” Light Industrial District and the property owner is Hovis Light Industry Park, Inc. Access will be provided from S. 7th St. along the south side of the site via a 12 foot wide asphalt drive. Page 2 of 6 III. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The applicant, Central States Tower II, LLC, previously applied for a special use permit in 2014 to locate a 140 foot cell tower at the same location on the subject site. An initial public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on November 12, 2014 and continued two additional times until complete supporting information was provided by the applicant and the possibility of co-locating on the adjacent 300 foot AT&T tower was concluded. At the April 15, 2015 PZC meeting, the Commission voted to deny the special use request based upon the recommendation from staff that the application was still incomplete, the applicant did not honestly convey the ability or opportunity to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower and opposition from neighboring residents. The petition was withdrawn by the applicant prior to consideration by the City Council on May 11, 2015. In July, 2015 the City received correspondence from Verizon Wireless that they desired to co- locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. A special use permit application was subsequently submitted, and on August 26, 2015, the PZC recommended unanimously to approve a special use permit for Verizon to co-locate on the adjacent AT&T tower. The City Council approved the special use permit via Ordinance 2015-038 on September 28, 2015. The applicant submitted plans for a building permit to co-locate on the AT&T tower in December, 2015 and the permit was issued for the work in February, 2016. No work was conducted on the project after issuance of the permit. The applicant met with City staff in May, 2017 and indicated they are re-applying for a special use permit for a 140 foot tower at 1300 S. 7th St. because the estimated cost to co-locate at the AT&T tower was extensive and cost prohibitive. The applicant provided an estimate indicating the cost would be almost $440,000 (estimate provided in packet). The costs are related to site preparation, tower remediation, electrical upgrades and project oversight by AT&T. The estimate was prepared by AT&T for Verizon and a representative from AT&T has responded confirming the amount. AT&T provided a response when they received a notification letter from Verizon required per the co-location protocol in the UDO. The response from AT&T was submitted by Thomas Wilson, Project Manager for AT&T Towers – Antenna Solutions Group via e-mail on July 20, 2017 and is provided in the PZC packet. Mr. Wilson indicated AT&T has revised the drawings showing changes they believe will significantly reduce the construction cost for Verizon from what was listed in the estimate. The e-mail indicates the two main changes are going from underground utilities to overhead and to add a concrete slab with an adjustable raised platform for Verizon’s equipment shelter instead of removing underground conduit. AT&T could not provide a range on the percentage the cost would be reduced, however Verizon is responsible for providing the revised estimate. The applicant was advised the City would need a revised project estimate regarding the changes prior to any recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As of August 18th, we had not received the revised estimate. The applicant did provide an e-mail (dated 6-22-17) mentioning that the typical cost to co-locate on any tower is approximately $35,000 and would be the same for the usual AT&T tower as well. The e-mail further states Verizon’s costs are amplified in the co- Page 3 of 6 location on the adjacent AT&T tower because Verizon would have to pay almost $440,000 in capital costs for tower modifications and a higher monthly rent than normal. Article 7.08 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), regulates the placement, design and use of wireless communication equipment. This section of the UDO also stipulates compliance with certain criteria that needs to be demonstrated by the applicant prior to approval of the special use. The criteria is listed in the applicant’s submittal along with their responses. Sufficient evidence supporting a 140 foot tower was not provided. The applicant has also provided photo simulations indicating how the tower will look from ground level from all directions. The applicant is indicating there is a need for Verizon wireless service in the area. A summary provided with the petition indicates the area under consideration is a coverage hole know for frequent trouble tickets and customer complaints. The summary continues by noting residences and business in the areas have poor coverage and neighboring cell site currently covering the area are breaking for capacity. The petition notes the primary objectives for the proposed facility is to provide reliable in-residence coverage in the area and capacity offload to the neighboring sectors serving the area. The applicant has provided maps indicating the existing Verizon cell sites in the DeKalb area and also pre-coverage and post-coverage maps showing how the coverage will be improved around the subject site with the new tower. Article 7.08 of the UDO describes the Co-location Protocol for antenna systems and is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for co-location have been investigated. The applicant has contacted other carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Cricket) in the area and provided mailing receipts. The only copy the City received of one of the letters was the one sent to AT&T. Staff has requested copies of the letters that were sent to the other carriers in relation to the co-location protocol in the UDO, but have not received them. Per the UDO, if a response to a co-location request is received by the applicant indicating an opportunity for co-location, the applicant shall analyze and investigate the feasibility based upon criteria listed in the UDO. Those criteria include if service can or cannot be provided by co-location at the site, evidence that the lessor either agrees or disagrees to co-location on their site and evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible co-location site. A financial or cost criteria is not one of the listed criteria in determining if co-location is a possibility. The City has advised the applicant that a Professional Fee Reimbursement Agreement be submitted along with the appropriate escrow amount be established per Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code. The escrow will be used to pay for any third party review of the cost estimates that are provided for the co-location on the AT&T Tower or the costs for the construction of the Verizon tower at 1300 S. 7th Street. The City also noted the agreement shall be established prior to any consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As of August 18th, the City had not received an agreement. Page 4 of 6 IV. CITIZEN INPUT To date, there have been 9 correspondence from surrounding property owners/residents indicating their opposition to the proposal and 3 correspondence noting their support for the proposal have been received and are made part of the record. The correspondence are provided in the PZC packet. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the past history of the request to place a 140 foot tall tower at this location and the amount of public interest and opposition regarding the request, it would be appropriate for staff to not make a recommendation until all testimony and information regarding the request has been heard and the public hearing was concluded. Staff would recommend after conclusion of the petitioner’s presentation, resident input and PZC questions and comments, the public hearing be continued to the next PZC meeting so staff can prepare a full staff report and recommendation. In addition, staff would recommend the preparation of the staff report be contingent upon the applicant providing a complete application, a revised estimate regarding the co-location on the AT&T Tower and that a Professional Fee Reimbursement Agreement and the appropriate escrow amount be established to cover the costs of any third party reviews of the cost estimates/plans for the project. Sample Motion: Based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm so staff can prepare a staff report and recommendation. In addition, I recommend the preparation of the staff report be contingent upon the applicant providing a complete application submittal per Article 7.08 of the UDO, a revised estimate regarding the co-location on the AT&T Tower and that a Professional Fee Reimbursement Agreement and the appropriate escrow amount be established to cover the costs of any third party reviews of the cost estimates/plans for the project. Page 5 of 6 July 26, 2017 Dear Property Owner: You may have recently received a letter and several associated documents via certified mail from Richard Connor Riley, representing Central States Tower II, LLC, regarding the application for a special use permit to construct a cellular communications antenna at the property located at 1300 S. 7th St. The documents also included a letter from the City of DeKalb to surrounding residents indicating there will be a public hearing in front of the City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the request on Wednesday, August 9, 2017. Although the public hearing notice for August 9th was published in the newspaper, the means by which the applicant (Central States Tower II, LLC) provided notice to surrounding residents was not clear regarding the process, hearing date and contact information. Therefore, in order to ensure the surrounding residents receive proper notice regarding the request, the public hearing originally scheduled for August 9th will not be held. The City will republish the public hearing notice for an August 23rd hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attached is a revised letter and hearing notice indicating the public hearing will be held on August 23, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me or the Community Development Department at (815) 748-2060. Sincerely, Dan Olson Principal Planner Enclosures CC: Jo Ellen Charlton, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant – Central States Tower II, LLC July 26, 2017 Dear Property Owner: The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a request on a petition by Central States Tower II, LLC, represented by Richard Connor Riley for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St., DeKalb, IL. The subject property is located along the east side of S. 7th Street, across from Karen Ave., zoned “LI” Light Industrial District, 12.93 acres in size and has a Parcel Identification Number (PIN) of 08-26-326-001. The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will review the request and hold a public hearing at its regular meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be at the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. As a property owner within 250 feet of the above-mentioned property, you are encouraged to attend this meeting to learn about and comment on the proposal. You are also welcome to submit any written comments you may have on the proposal no later than Wednesday, August 16, 2017. You may submit written comments regarding the request on the enclosed comment sheet by mail to the address listed above, or by e-mail to dan.olson@cityofdekalb.com. All comments will be shared with the Commission and included in the public record. If you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact the Community Development Department at (815) 748-2060. Sincerely, Dan Olson Principal Planner Enclosures CC: Mayor City Council City Manager Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant 1300 S. 7th St. – Special Use Permit Page 2 of 4 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on the petition by Central States Tower II, LLC, represented by Richard Connor Riley for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 S. 7th St., DeKalb, IL. The subject property is located along the east side of S. 7th Street, across from Karen Ave., zoned “LI” Light Industrial District, 12.93 acres in size and has a Parcel Identification Number (PIN) of 08-26-326-001. All interested persons are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above. Interested persons are also encouraged to submit written comments on these proposals to the City of DeKalb, Community Development Department, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, 60115 by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2017. Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748-2060. Christina Atherton, Chairman DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 4 From: Richard Connor Riley To: Olson, Dan Cc: Brian Meier (brianm@centralstatestower.com); Mike Douchant (mdouchant@dolanrealtyadvisors.com) Subject: RE: 1300 S. 7th Street - Verizon Tower Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:02:06 PM Attachments: PROJECT APROVAL LETTER PAL (State Hwy 23 & Fairview Ave) 1500 7th St. , Dekalb, IL.pdf Dan, It is the cost to Verizon that needs to be examined, and not the cost to Central States Tower. Normally Verizon’s costs to co-locate on any tower are approximately $35,000.00. This cost would be the same for the usual existing AT&T tower as well. Verizon’s costs are amplified in the colocation on this Central Office AT&T tower because Verizon would have to pay $439,897.00 in capital costs for the tower modification (See attached estimate) as well as a higher monthly rent than what Central States Tower would charge. CST’s proposed tower is 145’ with Verizon at 125’, which provides opportunity for 2 colocations above and one below. This co-location capacity is an important benefit to the City as it should eliminate some future towers. Allowing that Every site is slightly different CST typically budgets about $180,000 for a monopole in the 150’ range, of which approximately $60,000 represents the cost of the monopole itself, which CST could reuse if necessary. These costs are Central States Tower’s cost and not Verizon’s. It should be noted that it is the impossibility of the wireless carrier (Verizon) to co-locate on other structures that Section 7.08.09 Co-location Protocol mandates; CST believes therefore, that the real comparison should be the normal cost to Verizon to co-locate on an existing tower versus the cost to locate on the AT&T central office Tower. This cost increase is approximately thirteen (13) times higher and is therefore not feasible. Should you have any questions please call me. Thanks, Richard Richard Connor Riley LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD CONNOR RILEY 123 North 4th Street Chesterton, Indiana* 46304 (312) 244-3792 (O) (312) 276-5123 (F) *LICENSED IN ILLINOIS From: Olson, Dan [mailto:Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:09 PM To: Richard Connor Riley <rcriley@siting-advisors.com> Cc: Charlton, Jo Ellen <Joellen.Charlton@CITYOFDEKALB.com>; Dean Frieders <dean@frieders.com> Subject: FW: 1300 S. 7th Street - Verizon Tower Richard, Were you able to obtain the cost for the new tower? Dan Olson From: Olson, Dan Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:07 PM To: 'Richard Connor Riley' <rcriley@siting-advisors.com> Cc: Dean Frieders <dean@frieders.com>; Charlton, Jo Ellen (Joellen.Charlton@CITYOFDEKALB.com) <Joellen.Charlton@CITYOFDEKALB.com> Subject: RE: 1300 S. 7th Street - Verizon Tower Richard, Thanks. What is the overall cost for the construction of the tower so we can compare to the construction estimate you provided for the co-locate on the AT&T Tower? From: WILSON, THOMAS To: Richard Connor Riley Cc: Olson, Dan; Brian Meier (brianm@centralstatestower.com) Subject: RE: City of DeKalb IL. co-location notification Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 12:22:21 PM Attachments: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre.msg Good afternoon Gentlemen, thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. AT&T does have an existing tower approximately 290’ in height located at 1500 S. 7th St. DeKalb, IL 60115. When we MapQuest our address to the proposed address of 1300 S. 7th Street, DeKalb, Illinois 60115 they are 0.1 miles apart which is well below the 5,280 LF. We have taken the current drawings and value engineered them making a couple of small changes (see attached); changes we believe will significantly reduce the construction cost in the PAL letter that we sent to Verizon that was part of your attachment. The two main changes is going from underground utilities to overhead and the second is to extend the existing driveway with a concrete slab with an adjustable raised platform on top that will accommodate all of Verizon’s equipment. Just these two changes would totally redesign sheets C1 and C2 and would eliminate sheets C3 and C4. It would be up to Verizon to redesign their drawings with these changes in order for AT&T to get revised pricing. If you have any questions regarding the redlines and where we feel the cost will be reduced please feel free to contact me. In regards to my contact information please see my signature box below, we have changed offices some time ago. Thank you and have a great day. Thomas R. Wilson | Project Manager – CBRE for AT&T Towers – Antenna Solutions Group 5600 Glenridge Drive, 6E-94B Atlanta, GA 30342 (C) 678.602.2779 (O) 678.567.5462 Email - tw292v@att.com NOTE: New application is now available on the website To download the application, please go to www.atttowers.com/towers/files/ATT_Towers_Application.xls To access the AT&T Towers inventory, please go to www.atttowers.com Download the NEW AT&T site lease application (Version 10.3) From: Richard Connor Riley [mailto:rcriley@siting-advisors.com] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:44 PM To: WILSON, THOMAS <tw292v@att.com> Cc: Olson, Dan <Dan.Olson@CITYOFDEKALB.com>; Brian Meier (brianm@centralstatestower.com) <brianm@centralstatestower.com> Subject: City of DeKalb IL. co-location notification Mr. Wilson, Please see the attached notification letter which Dan Olsen, Principal Planner for the City of DeKalb, asked that I e-mail you regarding Verizon’s Application to build a new Cellular facility at the referenced location in the attached letter. I had previously mailed a notification pursuant to City Ordinances to the Inbound Colocation Manager, located at 4016 Watson Blvd, in Warner Robins, GA 31093. (Also Attached) Additionally I have attached the Invoice / Project Approval letter (PAL) for the existing AT&T tower; please advise if the amount of this Invoice has changed. Please call if you have any questions. Richard Richard Connor Riley LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD CONNOR RILEY 123 North 4th Street Chesterton, Indiana* 46304 (312) 244-3792 (O) (312) 276-5123 (F) *LICENSED IN ILLINOIS From: Donna Larkin To: Olson, Dan Subject: Special Use Permit - Cell Phone Tower - Regarding Meeting changed from Sept. 20 to Oct. 4 Date: Monday, September 18, 2017 12:43:34 PM Good afternoon Mr. Olson, I received a message from Natalie Nelson indicating that the city meeting that was scheduled this week on September 20th has been changed to October 4th at 7:00 PM. I asked why the meeting has been extended. She indicated that the City changed the meeting date to allow the people wanting to erect the cell phone tower additional time to submit the remaining documents needed. I'm curious why the City of DeKalb has extended the date AGAIN and continues to allow them the ability to keep wasting City time, and our time as well. They have had 2 to 3 years to get all of their documentation in place. I know at the last meeting there was general agreement by all involved that they should be able to have all of their documentation in place by September 20th. I think at this point the City of DeKalb needs to put their foot down and say enough is enough. It is my understanding that you will be present at the meeting on September 20th. I would like this email message to be shared and presented to all members of the Council, Board and all other City of DeKalb members who are in attendance at the September 20th meeting. I believe there has been more than sufficient time allowed for all of the required documentation to be submitted to the City of DeKalb. I am asking that the extension request be DENIED since the documents have not been received (AGAIN). I will attend the October 4th meeting @ 7:00 PM in the event the extension is granted. Again, I hope their request is DENIED. Thank you. Donna Larkin 432 Karen Ave. DeKalb, IL 815-757-7893