MINUTES City of Batavia PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to make an official record of the actions taken by the Committee/City Council, and to include some description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some of the individual attendee s comments, nor the complete comments if referenced. 1. Meeting Called to Order for the Meeting Chair LaLonde called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. 2. Roll Call: Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Chair LaLonde; Vice-Chair Schneider (entered at 7:01pm); Commissioners Gosselin, Harms, Joseph, and Peterson Commissioner McGrail Mayor Schielke; Scott Buening, Director of Community Development; Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer; Drew Rackow, Planner; Jeff Albertson, Building Commissioner; and Jennifer Austin-Smith, Recording Secretary 3. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed There were no items to be removed, added or changed. 4. Approval of Minutes: March 7, 2018 To approve the minutes from March 7, 2018 Maker: Peterson Second: Joseph Voice Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent Motion carried. * Vice-Chair Schneider entered the meeting at 7:01pm. 5. Independence and Spuhler Subdivision Final Plat of Subdivision Kevin Stough, Applicant, 1600 West Wilson Street Rackow reported that this is for the final plat of subdivision for the six-lot subdivision at Wilson, Independence and Spuhler. In October, the City Council approved a resolution for a preliminary plat along with the planned development approval for that property. The previously reviewed this final plat of subdivision in September of last year. Rackow summarized the memo to the Commission. Staff is recommending that the final plat of subdivision be recommended for approval subject to staff approval on the final engineering.
Page 2 To recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision for Independence and Spuhler subject to staff approval on the final engineering. Maker: Harms Second: Peterson Roll Call Vote: Aye: Harms, Joseph, LaLonde, Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Prairie Commons Subdivision Cal-Atlantic Homes, Applicant, 3S387 (2001) South Kirk Road Zoning Map Amendment for a Planned Development Overlay for a R4/GC District with Planned Development and Arterial Setback Overlays Design Review Approval Rackow reported that this public hearing is for the Prairie Commons Subdivision for several actions: Zoning map amendment for a planned development overlay for a R4/GC District with planned development and arterial setback overlays, preliminary and final plat of subdivision approval, and Design Review approval. The site was annexed and zoned in 2004 as the Prairie Commons subdivision. The original proposal had a mix of four building types and had open space and retention ponds. Cal-Atlantic is pursuing a project that is similar in nature to the original approval of 242 townhomes along with the commercial frontage. There are some changes in which staff felt that it was appropriate to bring the planned development back to the (PC) for review. Essentially we are looking at a 242-unit subdivision with a park district site, a park district trail, private open space controlled by the HOA and commercial property. There are certain aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that will be advanced by this proposal. Rackow discussed the linkages, connections, and street frontages to the subdivision with the PC. KDOT would have to approve the design of the connections. The Mayor will supply historic names for the street names. Rackow discussed the rear load and front load garage buildings. The elevation of the rear load building type was asked to add more architectural detail, which is listed as a condition of approval. The applicant has stated that they would do those architectural items. The Zoning Code was modified in 2010, in order to address the number of changes that have occurred since the 2004 submission there are modifications from the base district to facilitate those changes. There are some minor changes to the base district of the zoning that will be up for consideration tonight. Overall staff is supportive of this project. Staff recommends that the close the Public Hearing and take the following actions: 1. Approve the Findings of Approval for a Zoning Map Amendment for a R4 and GC Planned Development with Arterial Setback Overlay. 2. Approve a Zoning Map Amendment for a Planned Development Overlay for R4 and GC General Commercial with Arterial Setback and Planned Development Overlay with the boundaries proposed for the current site plan of Prairie Commons subject to the following conditions: a. The development shall substantially conform to the Elevations attached hereto as Exhibit A, Plat of Subdivision, attached hereto as Exhibit B, the engineering plans attached as Exhibit C and the Landscaping Plans attached as Exhibit D, and as modified by the approved conditions.
Page 3 b. Add sidewalk connection along the south side of Prairie Commons Drive. Sidewalk shall be extended to Kirk Road on the north side upon Development of the commercial property. Commercial frontage along Kirk Road will install sidewalk upon development. A letter of credit shall provided for any sidewalk not constructed under this requirement. c. Talbot Greenway (Outlot 60) shall be conveyed to the City upon the City s request at no cost if requested in the future. d. Modifications to the R4 base district regulations Table 2.204 to allow the following: i. Modification from the maximum net land area per unit to allow a 4,829 square foot lot rather than the 4,375 maximum. A modification of 454 square feet. ii. Modification of the Minimum Perimeter Front and Corner Building Setback from 30 to 20 feet. A modification of 10 feet. iii. Modification from the Separation between two and three story buildings from 25 to 20 feet. A modification of 5 feet. iv. Modification from the Private Open Space requirement to permit private open space, consistent with the existing approval. v. Modification from Common Open Space Amenities to omit the required enclosed community facility. vi. Modification to permit a setback between buildings of 48 feet for the purposes of providing decks for proposed buildings. vii. Modification to allow a fence along the perimeter of the water tower site at 6 feet in height in all required setbacks. e. To the extent possible, the applicant will work with the United States Post Office and City of Batavia to request redesignation of the USPS Zip Code for the property to be Batavia, 60510 f. Applicant shall agree to the establishment of a Special Service Area prior to the conveyance of any property to another entity. g. Applicant shall provide a signalized pedestrian crossing at Kirk Road and Wind Energy Pass intersection, subject to KDOT review and approval. h. Applicant shall connect Riverbirch Drive (Kirkland Crossing private street) street entrance at Prairie Commons Drive, with a provision to keep this entrance closed until such time that the City of Aurora removes a street gate at Wagner Road and Mesa Drive. i. Staff approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) prior to recordation to add the following: i. This Declaration shall be amended to 1) deed the common areas to the Homeowners Association within one (1) year of the creation of the Association and 2) change the outside transfer date from 10 years to 7 years. ii. Addition of language, enforceable by the City, stating that parking or driving on landscape areas within the alley areas is strictly prohibited. j. Final approval of engineering plans by City of Aurora, Kane Division of Transportation and Fox Metro, prior to permit issuance. 3. Approve a Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision subject to the following conditions: a. A variation from the Subdivision Code to permit all lots to not have a street frontage b. Conveyance of Lot 52 shall be to the Batavia Park District rather than the City of Batavia c. Use of Street Names selected by the Mayor from the Historic Street Name List d. Staff approval of Final Engineering
Page 4 e. Approval by Kane County Division of Transportation 4. Approve Findings for Approval for Design Review 5. Approve Design Review for the Prairie Commons Subdivision subject to the following conditions: a. Staff approval of Final Engineering Plans b. Staff review and approval of the proposed model home location and site configuration c. Staff review and approval of elevation modifications that: i. Provide a brick wainscot across the street facing side or other visible locations of elevations for rear loaded garage buildings ii. Provide a brick sill line along the front elevations of units without masonry iii. To the extent possible permitted by the proposed structural design, align windows along side elevations of rear-loaded buildings. iv. Addition of a wrought iron style aluminum fence along the perimeter of the water tower site, subject to Staff Review, for security purposes. Fence not to exceed 6 feet in height. A gate 8 feet in width shall be provided along the fence. The Committee discussed access on Mesa Lane, modifications since 2004, annexation requirements, proposed elevation changes, and building materials proposed. After PC discussion, the Commission opened the public hearing. Maker: Second: Voice Vote: To open the public hearing Schneider Gosselin 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent Motion carried. Chair LaLonde swore in all who wanted to address the Commission for this public hearing. Peter Bazos, attorney representing Cal-Atlantic Homes, addressed the Commission. He announced that the affidavit of mailing of public notices was submitted to Drew Rackow prior to the hearing and he would like their petition to be part of the record. Bazos gave the history of the site since 2004. He clarified that they are not here tonight to discuss the eighteen acre commercial portion of the site. While Cal-Atlantic will be purchasing that site if the City Council were to approve the residential portion, there are no commercial development plans before you. If and when Cal-Atlantic finds a commercial user for that site, the commercial user will have to come before the PC with preliminary PUD approval and specific plans and layout. The sooner we could get our residential portion approved, which is a condition to buying the commercial site, the sooner Cal-Atlantic will put that commercial site up for sale. The thirty-five acre residential site proposes the same 242 townhomes as it did in 2004 that were approved. Scott Guerard, Lennar Homes, gave the history of Lennar Homes, the acquisition by Cal- Atlantic, and where they have developed in the Chicago market. Guerard shared that 133 townhomes would be rear-loaded and are called Urban Townhomes. There will be another 109 of the front-loaded townhomes.
Page 5 Rich Olson, Gary R Weber and Associates, stated that they created the land plan and landscape plan that is before the Commission tonight. He showed the Commission the PowerPoint slide titled Prairie Commons Land Use Exhibit. He discussed the site with the PC. The Planning Factors slide was shown that illustrated the grade changes on the site. He discussed buffering the wetland portion of the site and preserving the trees that exist on the site. Pedestrian access to the site was shown along with connecting to the existing pedestrian trail system. The Prairie Commons New Plan slide was exhibited and Olson discussed the usable green space and stormwater management areas. Olson conferred the site amenities shown on a separate slide. There is a proposed open green and a central seating area, pocket park with seating area, pergola elevation, and entrance monument elevation. Olson discussed the Site Plan Comparison slide and how the new site was brought up to 2018 standards including creating two distinctly different streetscapes utilizing front and rear-loading garages, an added larger park area, second open space feature, and roadway connections. Scott Guerard discussed the architecture of the proposed townhomes with the Commission. The slides showed the rear loaded urban townhomes and traditional front loaded townhomes for the Commission to view. He addressed staff s request to adjust the location of the window. He explained that the issue they are running into is making the window off-center to the interior rooms of the house. They would prefer not to be required to align the windows. Anthony Martini, Civil Engineer Mackie Consulting, discussed connectivity of the site. He stated that at Wind Energy Pass and Kirk Road there would be a signalized system similar to what is there today and the plan has been submitted to KDOT for approval. On the south of Kirk Road there is a right in and right out that is also to be permitted by KDOT. Connectivity to the north and the south was discussed. He noted that when staff decides it is appropriate to connect they would connect access to the south. Pedestrian connectivity was overviewed with the PC. The Kane County Forest Preserve has already reviewed connection to the Prairie Path and they are very accepting and encouraging of that connectivity. Martini discussed the stormwater detention. The basin has been made larger in consideration of the commercial development site. If the commercial developer goes above and beyond what has been provided for them they would have to provide supplemental storage. Martini discussed the flood plane, grading plan, sanitary sewer service, and maintaining water tower service. Peter Bazos thanked staff for their responsiveness. He stated that they are in general agreement with virtually all of the proposed actions before the PC but there are some small disagreements in which they would like to bring to the Commission s attention. Recommendation 2b, sidewalk connections, they are fine with all of that for sidewalks that pertain to the residential development, but since there would be a commercial developer, he would like it clarified that the requirement has nothing to do with the sidewalks along Kirk Road or the commercial development. The next is item 2. D. sub-7, 5c iv regarding fencing around the water tower. He stated that isn t required by the annexation agreement. The land was dedicated to the City and the water tower was built and has been unprotected for a number of years with residential around it. It is the City s lot and it is a fairly large lot. If the public works could work with a smaller enclosure they would be willing to work that out with the City and manage that expense. The next is item 2. F. regarding the Special Service Area (SSA) and they are okay with a backup SSA, not an active SSA. Buening clarified it is for a backup SSA. Bazos stated that for River
Page 6 Birch Drive and Kirkland Crossing, until the City of Aurora opens up their street that this would remain blocked. They are prepared to build that street but they assume that it is up to the City to put up whatever barrier it wants with respect to keeping the traffic from the south coming north. They do not want to build, maintain or enforce such a barrier but they would connect the street. Item J, they would appreciate if it would be clarified to read building permit issuance. They are hoping that in item 5Ciii the City would understand that because it would affect the homeowners ability to do furniture placement the window placement remain the same. They are in agreement with all of the other conditions. Bazos stated that this plan is very similar to the 2004 plans with the annexation agreement and they hope that the PC recommends approval tonight. Don Cawley, 2012 Peterson Place, representing the Kirkland Chase Courtyard Townhomes, complimented Cal-Atlantic on a well design plan. Their concerns are about infrastructure connection. A crew doing survey work on connection to water mains and they were discussing running through an area south of our property, between our property and the detention area. There are trees there that are twelve to twenty feet that were planted there as a functional barrier for wind. They are curious about the connection and would like to have assurances that they would be made whole if they needed to go into that area. Cawley asked about stormwater drainage. He would like to know about the stormwater control that Cal-Atlantic is planning and how it would affect our retention pond and stormwater system on our site. Chair LaLonde asked to see a picture of the site in question. Rackow projected the street view from Google Maps for the attendees and PC to view. Cawley showed the PC the areas he was referring to. Cawley noted that Kirk Road is a busy road and a lot of people go through Mesa Lane to race through the light. He would like to recommend the City look at the speed limits through that corridor of the development. Chair LaLonde stated that the residents would all address the Committee and then the applicant could address any questions. Jeff Showerman, 3S015 Wagner Road, addressed the Committee. He shared that they built a house off of Wagner Road on a family farm for over 100 years. They want to make sure that there is some type of barrier to prevent intrusion of trash onto their fields. Alan Long, Board member of Marmion neighborhood and Board member of Savannah Homeowners Association, 3120 Savannah Drive, addressed the PC. He noted that he is also part of the group titled Keep Batavia Strong. Long asked if there would be other hearings where parameter treatments could be discussed. He would like to know what they would put up would compare or conflict with the surrounding wetland grasses. Long would like the parameter treatments to conform to what has been already established. He asked if the City negotiated with Aurora about opening Wagner Road into Wal-Mart. Buening answered that there have been no direct conversations with Aurora about opening Wagner Road. Sarah Scalia, 2047 Swan Lane, pointed out last year the plan that was presented had a lot of single family as well as front-loaded townhomes that is consistent with the community. This plan has a lot of urban townhomes and this is not an urban area and the urban townhomes seem inconsistent with the area. It is a minor concern but she wanted to point it out that it is inconsistent with our homes and the townhomes across the way.
Page 7 Sean Berry, 1570 Fidler Court, stated that he did not get to see the backside of the frontloaded houses. His property and another ten properties would back up to the extension of the path that would go through there. He would like to know how far the path would be from his property and what type of landscaping would be used. The rear elevation of the frontloaded houses was shown. Berry expressed concern about having mix-matched fences put up and asked if one uniform fence could be put up to provide a barrier between the two sites. Rick Goluszka, 3054 Savannah Drive, shared that there is a lot of water right behind his neighbor s back yard to the west side of his property. It looks like it is right at the edge of the retention. His concerns are what is going to happen to that water there and what is going to happen to his back fence line. Guerard addressed the resident s questions. He stated that City staff directs the water main location. The City staff had requested that the water main connection for the infrastructure be made to Kirkland Chase. They are not showing any tree impacts to that area. There will only be green space area. Guerard stated they will go through the gaps with the water main and showed the attendees on the street view utilizing Google Maps. Guerard addressed the stormwater. There will be no impact to upstream areas. He explained that they are taking all of their water onto our site and conveying it through our site. He stated that staff has their stormwater management report in their possession and staff has reviewed the report. The speed limit was addressed. He stated that they have limited control over the speed limit, as does the City of Batavia, on this Kane County jurisdiction road. Guerard stated that the family farm is a neighbor to the north. The wooded area and the wetland complex will be preserved along with as much native vegetation along the property line as possible. It is in Cal-Atlantic s best interest to maintain that buffer. There is a split rail cedar fence proposed adjacent to the wetland area for delineation purposes. Savannah, the subdivision south to the site, has the wetland area and the area that is adjacent would be consistent with the adjacent use. The landscape plan will be consistent with what you would see in that area. Cal- Atlantic is vigilant with their landscape installation and there is maintenance and management plans for that area. They will address the undetained water issue and control it with a vegetated swale and releasing the water off-site. There is one house that is closest to our property. He addressed the distance concerns. There would be one hundred feet plus from the back of our unit to the back of his unit. They increased the area from the back of our homes to the back of their homes from the previous plan. The previous plan had 31 feet to the path, the current feet to the path is 47 feet. The landscaping along the boundary, that property will be deeded over to the Park District and the Park District will dictate what is along there. We are planning evergreen landscaping along the backs of the homes and the path. The plan shows this landscaping and he showed the attendees the location on the plan. Guerard explained that the urban townhomes are called an urban but a true urban would have a flat roof. The proposed urban still look like a single-family townhome and the market is demanding the rear-load townhomes more that the front-load townhomes. Most of the townhomes being built today are the urban townhomes. The detention basin was addressed. The new grading plan, the south property line would be a vegetative swale and storm sewer that
Page 8 discharges into our basin and then over to the Savannah subdivision. They have been working with the City of Aurora regarding this and will be getting their permit approval as part of our process. Chair LaLonde opened the floor for follow-up questions. Rick Goluszka asked what side of the path would the evergreens be located. He was informed that they would be on the north side of the path. The Park District has given the developer direction on the location of the path as well as what will be placed in there. Chair LaLonde noted that residents on the south would be allowed to put up their own landscape buffer on their own property. Nicholas Litow, 3084 Savannah Drive, shared that he backs up to that property. There is a 20- foot easement on the back of their properties with a storm sewer that runs to our ponds. He does not know what they could plant on their properties that would not interfere with the existing storm sewer. They are limited in what we could do because of the storm sewer. He would like to know if there is a way to put a buffer on the other side of the path. The held discussion on the Prairie Commons Subdivision. The PC reviewed samples of the proposed project, traditional color palate in earth and neutral tones (the applicant would supply color renderings to the City) and similar communities. The price ranges were discussed. The urban townhomes would have a $244K base and the traditional townhomes would be at $232K base. The Commission considered the parking, sidewalks, school bus access, site access, Park District path, Bazos stated that it appears that a lot has been worked out tonight and the only thing left to discuss with staff is the letter of credit in which they will work out. We have been able to reconcile almost everything. He stated that they would like to start building this project this summer and to do that we really need to get to the City Council. He asked the PC to vote tonight so they do not lose time. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Goluszka addressed the Commission and asked that the Park District consider the distance between the path and the resident s buildings so that there are no people walking on a path that is five feet from his backyard. Chair LaLonde stated that the residents should speak to the Park District about that matter. Maker: Second: Voice Vote: To close the public hearing Schneider Peterson 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent Motion carried. Schneider stated he agrees with the developer with the sidewalk. Gosselin stated that he agrees with the developer as well, what we show as the lot lines and the other should come when they develop commercial. Buening stated that staff would have further discussion on this matter with the developer.
Page 9 Maker: Second: Joseph Roll Call Vote: Maker: Second: Gosselin Roll Call Vote: To Approve the Findings of Approval for a Zoning Map Amendment for a R4 and GC Planned Development with Arterial Setback Overlay to include the review of the conditions Schneider Aye: Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms, Joseph, LaLonde Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. To Approve the Zoning Map Amendment for a Planned Development Overlay for R4 and GC General Commercial with Arterial Setback and Planned Development Overlay with the boundaries proposed for the current site plan of Prairie Commons subject to the conditions with modification to those conditions include: Item B. subject to negotiations with staff and the developer; Item F. adding backup to the SSA; Item J changing to building permit issuance Joseph Aye: Joseph, LaLonde, Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. To Approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision subject to the conditions Maker: Schneider Second: Harms Roll Call Vote: Aye: Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms, Joseph, LaLonde Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. To Approve the Findings for Approval for Design Review Maker: Joseph Second: Harms Roll Call Vote: Aye: Joseph, LaLonde, Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. Maker: Second: Peterson Roll Call Vote: To approve Design Review for the Prairie Commons Subdivision subject to the conditions with removal of C.iii and C.iv staff and applicant will work out the size of the fence Schneider Aye: Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms, Joseph, LaLonde Nay: None 6-0 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried.
Page 10 7. PUBLIC HEARING Continued from March 7, 2018 Amendments to the Text of the Zoning Code City of Batavia, Applicant Chapter 2.2: Multi-Family Residential Districts Chapter 2.3: Commercial Districts Chapter 2.4: Downtown Mixed Use District Chapter 2.5: Mixed Use District Chapter 4.7: Wireless Communication Facilities Maker: Second: Voice Vote: To reopen the public hearing Joseph Gosselin 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent Motion carried. Strassman reported that at the March 7 th hearing the PC reviewed the proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Code. Strassman stated that there was concern about the location of monopoles being close to residences. Staff has addressed that concern by removing any reference to wireless communication facilities needing to be setback from only city zoned properties that are residential. We are now requiring the 500ft setback to apply to all property that is classified as residential in the Comprehensive Plan regardless of its zoning classification. To address the Commission s concern about clarity of monopole locations the table that regulates wireless communication facilities in mixed-use and all residential districts would now specifically prohibit monopoles in these districts. These changes were referenced in the memo. To address the Commission s comment regarding different types of wireless communication facilities the staff memo has included excerpts from the Zoning Code chapters six and seven, which contain definitions. Staff believes the new changes address the issues raised at the March 7 th public hearing. Matt Baldwin, Geneva-Allendale resident, stated that he is here in regards to the monopole on behalf of his neighbor, Sam, who was here last meeting. Her concern was these not be located next a a residential property outside the City and that there be a 500ft buffer from the adjacent neighborhood, Geneva in this instance. The rewriting states only within the Comprehensive Plan properties, and our properties are not in the Comprehensive Plan in Allendale. They would like this to apply to any residential property, regardless if it is Batavia or Geneva. The definition for monopole seems like it is included in the towers. Is there an ability to have another structure within five hundred feet that also has WCFs on it. Strassman stated that we do not feel that it is appropriate to look at zoning classifications in other jurisdictions. The Comprehensive Plan can extend beyond the City boundaries to some unincorporated areas. Strassman continued that other structures could have Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF). All of these are regulated. We do prohibit monopoles on mixed-use and residential properties. We do not identify an antenna tower as being allowed in those districts. LaLonde asked if a monopole could be placed on the Campana property with the current zoning. Strassman stated that he would interpret the code to not allow it as it is currently written.
Page 11 John Hunter, Allendale resident, addressed the Commission. He stated that 4701B is to protect and promote public health and safety. He submitted a document to the Commission regarding the health effects of wireless communications and microwave radiation in fire department facilities from WCFs installations near those facilities. The paper comes from the International Association of Firefighters. Hunter stated that we share those concerns and position and ask that you please review this report. He expressed concern of increasing exposure levels to residents by placing WCFs on light pole and electric pole installations. In 4704A4 regarding the setback, there should be a safe distance from the physical transmitter and he feels that the distance should be further than 500 feet. The setback should be created as a safety buffer in addition to the instance of an antenna collapse. There is a growing body of evidence that shows that living in close proximity to such transmitters is detrimental to human health. A utility pole mounted with a WCF would increase the exposure to the radiation to someone who is at ground level much more so than if it were on top of the Campana building, for instance. As mentioned at the previous meeting, there is no compelling reason to adopt these changes, he asked the Commission to consider carefully the health and safety aspects of the proposed changes for Batavia residents and nearby Geneva residents as well. He asked why are building-based WCF installations exempt from the setback of a typical antenna installation. Buzz Miller, 307 South Jefferson Street, stated that he is concerned about our attitude of discounting our neighbors and subjecting them to the health hazards of this 500ft level. We could put a note in this that we would not put a tower within 500ft of the City s boundaries. That is doable. To discount the neighbors is not the reason he lives in Batavia. The health hazards that were reported by the firefighters were serious health concerns due to the towers that were being mounted on their buildings. They experienced serious health changes and problems that resulted in this report. We are dealing with faster transmissions and different wavelengths and it is time to review these issues. He moved his business to the Campana building in 2010 and your consideration is much appreciated. Buening informed the Commission that this is not a Campana issue but an issue that is citywide. If it were a Campana issue this would be addressed more specifically. It is something that was raised as an issue with the recent Campana proposal, which made us look into this citywide. We are trying to address other tall buildings throughout the City that would be reasonable locations for WCFs where the residential restriction wouldn t allow them. Residential buildings everywhere have WCFs on them. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) establishes WCF regulations related to health and safety. We are specifically pre-empted from regulating anything in relation to RF radiation with these types of installations and it is not legal. Buzz Miller stated that the Telecommunications Act from 1996 refers to environment and excludes health problems. We do have the ability to address health issues and other major cities are looking into this. Hunter read the Act from 1996 and stated that environmental is a broad term and he believes this is a grey area in which health concerns could be considered. Hunter asked about the building mounted WCF installations and the setbacks. Strassman stated that building mounted WCF would be a stealth mount and is more of an aesthetic issue. Setback would follow the building s setback. Hunter stated that it is more aesthetics at issue than our health or safety. Buening answered that the stealth requirements are aesthetics based.
Page 12 Matt Baldwin stated that they do not want to see a new WCF installed right next to their back lots. He stated that they are not worried about existing conditions. We just do not want to see a 200ft pole in our backyards and asked that the City include language in the Comprehensive Plan to address their concerns. Buening stated that he believes the proposed Zoning Code changes address this concern regarding a 200 foot pole. Chair LaLonde asked for clarification. Strassman stated that Mr. Baldwin and his neighbors live near a mixed use zoned property. The way the code is structured it would not allow a monopole on that property by virtue of the property s zoning classification. The modification we are proposing does not include any provision to allow a monopole. By virtue of not allowing it, it is prohibited. Hunter shared that Guy Prisco is concerned about the outcome of this. Being a resident of the Holmstad that property might be subject to these zoning conditions. He asked him to convey his concern and to ask the Commission to take their time and consider it carefully. One of these things the studies have shown is that the very young and the very old are more susceptible to this type of radiation. Strassman stated that any concern about the Holmstad would be to go to the landlord and discuss their concern to the property owner and the owner could chose to either pursue an antenna on the property or not. The code does not obligate the building to have one. The PC discussed the amendments to the text of the Zoning Code. Gosselin stated that the FCC regulates the guidelines and it is something to keep an eye on. However, based on what he has seen he does not believe it is a health and safety issue without more information. He thinks that the revisions address the issues that we had so he is comfortable. Schneider concurred. Joseph stated that she has reservations due to the health concerns. She is not comfortable to saying yes to it. Harms agreed with Gosselin and Schneider. Chair LaLonde stated that he does not see why we need to make a hasty decision but questioned whether will we learn any more by postponing a decision. Strassman stated that they are not proposing any changes to WCFs on light poles or electric poles. We are proposing changes to allow them to be put onto taller residential buildings. No one is approaching us to do that right now but with changes of technology we want our code to be prepared to handle that. To close the public hearing Maker: Harms Second: Gosselin Roll Call Vote: Aye: Harms, Joseph, Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin Nay: LaLonde 5-1 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. Chair LaLonde stated that he would like to have a motion to make the recommendations to the text changes but striking the WCF and leaving it as written. The Commission discussed the possibility of discussing this further and what other communities are doing regarding WCFs. To approve the text of the amendments to the Zoning Code as presented in the memo from March 16 th
Page 13 Maker: Schneider Second: Harms Roll Call Vote: Aye: Schneider, Peterson, Gosselin, Harms Nay: Joseph, LaLonde 4-2 Vote, 1 Absent, Motion carried. Gosselin stated that if further information comes out he would anticipate that the code would be revised. 8. Matters From the Public (For Items Not on the Agenda) There were no matters from the public for items not on the agenda. 9. Other Business Due to the late hour there were no other business discussed. 10. Adjournment There being no other business to discuss, Chair LaLonde asked for a motion to adjourn the Plan Commission. Gosselin moved to adjourn the meeting, Peterson seconded. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Austin-Smith