Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 06-34: 543 E. Taylor Road (Madison Meadow Park)

In order to provide for the approval of two 100-foot high personal wireless facility

monopoles, the petitioner requests approval of the following zoning actions for the

subject property located within the C/R Conservation/Recreation District:

1. Pursuant to Section 155.404 (C)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, grant a conditional use

for a planned development;

2. Grant a use exception and a variation from Section 155.508 (B)(3) of the Zoning

Ordinance (Standards for Planned Developments with Use Exceptions);

3. Grant conditional uses as referenced in Section 155.206(A)(2) (General

Requirements for Personal Wireless Facilities) with relief from the following subsections:

a. Section 155.206 (B)(2)(b)(1) (Maximum Height Requirements in Non-Residential

Zoning Districts) providing for a monopole of greater then forty-five feet (45') in height;

b. Section 155.206 (B)(2)(e)(1) (Separation) to allow for the two monopoles to be

Mike Fugiel, 404 W. Edward, Lombard, Director of the Lombard Park District, introduced

himself and noted that the Park District is the owner of the subject property. He then

turned over the presentation to the attorney who represents the petitioners.

Richard Nikchevich, of the law firm of Barack, Ferranzano, Kirschbaum, Perlman &

Nagelberg LLP, 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700, Chicago, noted that he is

representing US Cellular and T-Mobile with substantive identical petitioners and asked

to represent both of their requests. There are no material differences in their cases, so

they will make one presentation.

He introduced the team members associated with the petition. Each of the carriers is

well known and valued leaders in wireless communication services. There is a need for

approved wireless communication services and there is a deficiency in the Madison

Meadow Park. This is a unique application because it is both sensitive to the community

and at they are trying to meet a service need. Its network operates on a cell basis, and

needs overlapped cells of coverage. There are a variety of factors as to how they

wound up in this location. This is a stealth application, not a traditional monopole. The

antennas are hidden inside the pole. This design is not typical to Sunset Knoll or other

locations around Lombard.

He noted the requested relief associated with the petition. He stated that to address the

standards, there are three critical questions their presentation will address:

1. Why are the proposed monopoles proposed at this location?

2. Height. What already exists at this location? 70' light standard poles, which they

propose to swap out 2 poles at 70' for 100' poles with the feature with antennas inside

the pole.

3. What are the impacts on the neighboring properties?

He referenced their submitted application package on behalf of both carriers. He

mentioned the FCC licenses, copies of David Kunkel's impact analysis, radio frequency

propagation maps designed to tell part of the story from an engineering prospective,

construction and site plans - how the pole designed and ground level equipment and

photo simulations. He mentioned the flyers about radio frequency emissions. Radio

Frequency (RF) standards are part of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

regulations. They commissioned a third party that reviews their emission numbers.

He showed the existing pictures of the seventy foot high light standards. They propose

to replace two poles with new one-hundred foot high poles. Antennas will be located

inside the poles, above the light standards, and the lights will be reinstalled back on the

poles at the same levels. The bottom ground level equipment will be fenced in and

secured from public access. He showed a picture of the one at Sunset Knoll Park - the

tower there is different than this. He described it as being about 100 foot high tower,

where there is more of a traditional monopole tower platform, with nine antennas that

stick out. There will be no beacon lighting on the pole, only the lighting associated with

the ball fields.

At the ground level is complementary equipment that is consistent to a park setting.

Access to the site would be made by the existing pathway. A couple of times a month,

engineering personnel will visit and possibly perform maintenance. Utilities exist in park

- they both operate with electricity and communications they feed into high speed fiber

optics, which are in the ground. There will be no additional lighting on the towers. The

field lighting will remain at the seventy foot level.

Michael Cruz, 17356 Fender Rd., Naperville, senior design engineer, gave his

professional background. He noted that there are several different cell sites that provide

coverage to Lombard and the surrounding areas. Five sites are in the Village - three

monopoles, all approximately one-hundred feet in height. Three of these T-Mobile and

US Cellular share. He referred to the RF map tab where they have an affidavit stating

why there are here and why they need the sites. He described how they use the

propagation tool to determine where the coverage is and how there is deficient

coverage. Industry standards want in-house coverage where all phones used operate

at work and home. The color plots in the report differ by the two different companies,

but represent the same thing. Their goal is achieving eighty percent coverage for this

area.

In regard to in-vehicle coverage and in-street coverage, the map shows no coverage

and poor/unreliable coverage for vehicles in the vicinity of the proposed cell towers.

They want to provide consistent coverage. The primary goal for this area is to provide

in-building coverage. Customers that do not have service cannot make emergency calls

or other important calls. Customers have grown accustomed over time and they want to

provide an acceptable service level. They try to place monopoles equidistant to each

other. This one is placed in the center of this area, which is why this site was chosen.

This will provide maximum amount of coverage. There are no tall structures located in

this area. If the size was diminished, the tree line would interfere and you can provide

better coverage looking down instead of looking up. Foliage acts like a sponge and

does not allow the signal to travel. They find that this time of year with the leaves being

off, coverage is easier to come in, but as it grows in and thickens up, coverage is harder

to get through. They operate on a different frequency licensed by the FCC and will not

interfere with TV, radios or other wireless devices like baby monitors, cordless phones,

cell phones, etc. He mentioned there are other facilities with the same distances from

residences as well as condominiums that have antennas on their rooftop.

When you dial 911, you get an operator, as more customers grow accustomed to this,

you want to be sure you have that ability to call 911. They provide this service so the

customers can feel comfortable and they can get through. As the technology evolves,

they put GPS in the phones so the 911 operator can pinpoint that exact location without

even speaking to you.

Mr. Nikchevich mentioned the numbers of cell phone use and how this is a critical

component of a town. He re-mentioned the flyer about RF safety. They are regulated

by the FCC, who tells what is safe for the public. They meet 1/10 of one percent

allowed by the FCC, when standing right in front of antenna on top of the tower.

Mr. Cruz noted that each engineer has to run an exposure analysis. They do not exceed

the safe levels by the FCC. An independent company was used to see what was

emitted from the tower and he mentioned the name then stated that they had copies of

the report. They confirmed the emissions would be within FCC regulations.

Sonjay Jaisingani, 8550 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, a radio frequency engineer for

T-Mobile was questioned. He agreed with Mr. Cruz's comments regarding the coverage

needs and how they are similar, but in this location where the park is located, there is a

significant hole. The sites in surrounding areas are not tall enough or close enough, so

they need to fill the coverage hole. T-Mobile has not run their independent review, but

they will if need be. It needs to be prefaced that US Cellular technology is different and

they operate in a different band than T-Mobile. T-Mobile is operating on a PCS band

and the signal is much smaller and more vulnerable to trees, leaves and branches.

They must transmit at a slightly higher power.

The radio antennas are a more appealing design, but the energy is insignificant once it

reaches the ground. The numbers drop as you move further away from the tower. If the

capacity of the tower was reached and every possible connection made when you have

all subscribers on site at one time, they are transmitting at most potential energy. He

has taken the worst case scenario, which would be at 4.9 percent of the maximum level

allowed.

Mr. Nikchevich introduced David Kunkle, employed by his own independent appraisal

firm and retrained by carriers to look at what is the impact from the facilities on the

neighboring properties. David Kunkle, 1440 Maple Avenue, Lisle has looked at these

types of facilities all around Chicago. The primary challenges they have from a property

value standpoint are similar enough in location and timeframe to isolate a factor. The

studies they have done are very detailed in and around the location of the tower. The

studies were done to isolate that one factor from proximity to the tower. He has done

studies on 40-50 different locations around Chicago in several different time frames. His

original thought was that there may be an impact, but found that there is no impact.

There is a reaction by the people when it is introduced so there must be an impact, but

they cannot find an impact. His studies include the types of traditional monopoles, but

since the stealth is a new design, the 40-50 studies did not include this type of pole.

This is a positive impact. He has visited the site, looked at the plans, and seen many of

these over ten years so they do not see any factors here to have an impact.

Mr. Nikchevich is seeking various forms of relief that require that they show there to be

no adverse impact, no harm to public safety and welfare, all which they have addressed.

They have a unique situation, and they want to produce quality high rate of service and

they have been creative with the light standards in the park. The carriers got creative by

spending a few extra dollars in order to serve the community. They think it is the least

intrusive. Cell phones are critical at a personal, professional, and emergency level. Half

of all emergency calls are from cell phones, 200,000 calls in a given day. When they

factor in why they need to be there, they cannot lose site of that. Their petition is a win,

win, win solution, from community, customers and park district perspective.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one to

speak in favor of the petition. Those against the petition include:

Barb Alvarado, 1008 Lewis, stated that neighboring residents and she opposes the

towers in Madison Meadow Park, due to health hazards posed by exposure by RF

radiation. The engineers cannot provide that they are not harmful and won't show a

cumulative effect exposed on a daily basis. She conveyed research on electric fields.

She mentioned that the research did cover the exposure they generate and the side

effects at the non-thermal level; the type of energy these towers give off. Studies have

shown increased breaks in DNA in soldiers exposed 2-4 times as many cancers. EMF

possible human carcinogens and receive limited exposure. She stressed that the

cumulative data does not exist. She mentioned that acceptable levels of radiation can

trigger additional cancer growth. The industry wants you to believe this research is

harmless. The reason the towers are high is because the trees soak up the radio freq.

signal. Wouldn't the people in the park soak up the signal? They are not as safe as they

want you to believe. She gave differing opinions from various entities. The poles are

close to a day care center and the most used park in all of Lombard. She mentioned the

independent studies are paid for by the companies. New technologies are always being

introduced into the market so it is difficult for them to tell us what our bodies are exposed

to. She questioned the location and probability for profit. The documents stated a

smoke stack on Hammerschmidt, but it was the Village that did not want that, so it

doesn't sound like it was their first choice. If you have to choose from the dropped call

or cancer for her daughter, she would choose the dropped call.

Village Attorney George Wagner advised the Plan Commission members that the

Telecommunication Act of 1996 specifically preempts the Village from considering

environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, so long that it is compliance with the

FCC standards. They can listen to comments about emissions; they cannot consider

those when making their recommendations.

Mr. Nikchevich cross-examined Ms. Alvarado. Under cross-examination she noted that

she is not an expert in this field. He noted that their two experts testified that they were

in compliance with regulations. He asked whether she has any reasons to believe that

their testimony was not correct. She responded by stating that the analysis looked at

these towers alone - what is the cumulative study how much hazardous effects? He

asked if the flyer included within the Plan commission was created by her. She

responded yes. He noted that they arte not proposing a lattice type design. She stated

that she did not know that the picture was not exactly like the one they are proposing.

John Fitzloff, 514 S. Lodge, moved there because of Madison Meadow Park. He is a

biomedical scientist professor at University of Illinois-Chicago. His area of expertise is

in the biomedical field. He started about one week ago with his research. Recent

literature is still ambiguous about radio frequency waves. You will find both research for

and against. He is convinced on the basis on several dozen articles and journals written

it is not the risk, but this is something that has become a part of people's lives. If he had

to choose again, he would never want to be there. He would not want his children to

play baseball there.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Nikchevich, the following discussion ensued:

Nikchevich: Could he guess how many publications are out there.

Fitzloff: Over ten years, about several thousand.

Nikchevich: In your role as a professor, have you been engaged to study these?

Fitzloff: He is familiar with the terminology and the validity of their results. As a

medicinal chemist, he understands how things affect cells. He is not a radio frequency

scientist, but does understand the concept.

Nikchevich: You spent a week studying these articles. What you surmise would be

more detrimental - using a cell phone or being in close proximity to the tower?

Fitzloff: The cumulative effect would be the tower.

Nikchevich: What about a handset to the head?

Fitzloff: I don't know what the emitter is, just the frequency.

Nikchevich: In your expertise, do you believe that the testimony is not accurate at the

levels in excess of the federal mandated levels?

Fitzloff: No, he has no evidence.

Cindy Ward, 700 S. Chase, lives at the edge of Madison Meadow Park. She mentioned

the Zoning Ordinance and it exists for the quality of life for its residents as well as

mentioned the single family homes. She quoted the code that includes cell towers 500

feet apart and these are the two variations requested. Madison Meadow has uses that

attract the public, and the residences need the assurances that the Zoning Ordinance

will be enforced. She mentioned the letter to the Village about Sunset Knoll Parks, and

that the monopole is a conditional use and does not comply based on monopoles being

erected on residential districts under other conditions.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Nikchevich, the following discussion ensued:

Nikchevich: Are you familiar with the existing light standards and their height?

Ward: Yes.

Nikchevich: Are you aware that the Village Board approved the monopole at Sunset

Knoll Park?

Ward: Yes, the Plan Commission was opposed to it, but the Park District managed to

get it approved.

Kevin Thomas, 1046 Lewis, lives close to Madison Meadow Park. He mentioned all the

inconclusive studies, such as www.cancer.org, which suggests that RF have increased

brain tumors and expert agencies will provide this information as well.

Barbara DeSantis, 729 S. Fairfield stated her backyard buts up to the park. She would

ever hate to find out ten years later that the towers caused cancer. It is meant for

recreation, not cell towers, and she is totally against it.

Mary Beth Sullivan, 1071 S. Lewis, had concerns with environmental and nutritional

concerns. She believes it is a major health threat.

Donald Ceithaml, 905 Cherry Lane, noted that as a retired science teacher of 35 years,

he can look back at reports and predictions about radio activity, electro magnetic waves

and that have now changed. All they are discussing is the current literature. We are

looking in the wrong direction and should be looking at the human element. He would

never think of doing that with the thought of the cell towers. He mentioned the

petitioner's material about their scientific method. They are admitting their equipment is

not adequate, but need to have those 100' foot towers. We don't have the service of

these two companies and our phones work without any problems. Why should the Park

District and the Village give up the nucleus of the Park District that is used 24/7 in the

summer. He is very concerned and expressed this to the Plan Commission because

their judgment is very important.

John Guthrie, 1012 S. Lewis, lives three houses from the park and heard why the

petitioner needs the sites. He needs to be here because he has three children. He

mentioned other services out there and they don't have their towers in the middle of the

park what is with the petitioner's equipment that they need it. He mentioned the height

of the tower. He questioned the accuracy of their numbers but he thought they would

access this site about two times a month. He doesn't believe that Roosevelt Road is not

an option but can't consider it because it is cheaper to put on public property. What

about when they want the polls removed? Where do you stand when something needs

to be corrected? He mentioned possible scenarios and the dollar that goes into their

pockets. He asked the appraisers background and if he is accredited, if he is paid for

his analysis. This is important if you are to put this in the park. A child's head was

broken open and what happens if the pole falls down. He doesn't believe any of the

petitioners are from Lombard or the surrounding area of the park. Put this on a

permitted location and the technology will get better and better.

Marilyn Jensby, stated that Dick Arnold was president last time she presented in front of

the Plan Commission. She lives near Lombard Common. Her reaction is that a tower in

Madison Meadow Park when will they get to Lombard Common, so she is here to

support the neighbors. She mentioned the staff report that states that monopoles are

limited to the (I) Limited Industrial District. A park is not an industrial park district. The

petitioner stated that monopoles don't belong in the park, she believes children, trees,

and the public belong in the park What matters is that we pay the taxes to have open

land and open space, not to have monopoles, etc. in their park. She asks them to vote

as if this tower were coming to their house.

Shannon Wezeman, 706 S. Lodge Lane, lives one house away from the park and she

moved there in 1998. One of the reasons she enjoys it is because of the park. She

likes being out in nature and looked to upgrade around the park. She had one week's

notice before coming here. The people that came tonight have been speaking, if they

had more opportunity they would have more residents and if possible, the line for the

residents would be out of the door. Concerned about the possible cancer exposure, she

hopes that the Plan Commission will side with them, and say no.

Peggy Kozak, 611 Lilac Way, stated she has lived in Lombard 28 years and is well

versed in what has happened in the town along with the wonderful development. She

wanted to mention that we know the possible dangers, but doesn't know for sure what

the cell towers will do to the environment. She is a realtor and does market analysis on

homes; they (high tension wires) give certain values on homes. Homes lose value near

high tension wires. Their neighbors are worried about their children as well as the

market values of the homes, but there are people out there who care. Not talking just

about aesthetics, but the children, adults, dogs, and voting in the commissioners and

trustees. Their value needs to be protected and why would we put a determent in the

park.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Nikchevich, the following discussion ensued:

Nikchevich: You mentioned property values. Are you licensed as appraiser?

Ward: Not as an appraiser, but a real estate agent. She mentioned the classes they

have to take for her background.

Nikchevich: In the State of Illinois, are you licensed to make appraisals?

Ward: No.

Nikchevich: Have you done scientific methodologies on impacts? Have you prepared

any scientific reports or any evidence?

Ward: She mentioned what she did. She takes exception to her clients who look to her

for guidance.

Nikchevich: The high tension wires mentioned are not being proposed as part of this

petition - they are proposing stealth poles.

Ward: She is entitled to give her opinion on how this is perceived by the public.

Bob Kozak, 611 Lilac Way, lives right on the park. He asked whose park is it? It is

something we want aesthetically pleasing to the eye and does not impose a health risk.

You can bring in experts to what they know today. As a taxpayer, I don't want that in my

park, which I paid for. It is a risk and the people who have to absorb that risk are not the

experts you bring in. We have to live in the park and have to absorb that risk and as a

taxpayer, I don't want towers in this park.

Mark Cannon, 512 E. Taylor, owns a brand new house on side of park. He has a lot of

concerns as others do tonight. He thanked the Park District for the new parking lot,

which increased the value of his home and replacing the grass/sod in the park. The

testimony says it will not have an impact, but what will it do anything to the tax base?

He has Verizon and would hate to see them come and ask for them to come in and deny

their request. Please take this into consideration.

Scott Whittke, 702 S. Lodge Lane, has lived there for 22 years. They had US Cellular

and never had a connection problem. He did not hear the homes or what the benefit to

Lombard there is. What is the percentage of calls from Lombard? What is the overall

benefit; it has to be a bigger picture than to benefit the Village of Lombard, and it is not

just to benefit us.

Ms. Alvarado, who testified earlier, asked how much the Park District will make in

income from doing this?

Mr. Fugiel noted that while they have the largest acreage, they have the lowest tax

base. The District will receive $1,200,000 over 20 years.

Mr. Nikchevich stated that he appreciates the debate and the fear of the unknown that

grips us in the force of lives and with our families. I apologize if I was less than

respectful to them, as I try to treat each with respect and get to the bottom line. Facts

are facts and speculation and conjecture are not appropriate. He then called upon Mike

Cruz.

Mr. Cruz addressed the question in regards to the fear related to the towers toppling.

He described how the towers are engineered. If they fall, they fall within a fall zone,

which is 1/3 the height of a tower. He referred to tornado valley and how they never had

a tower fall within that area. He mentioned Hurricane Katrina and mentioned that none

of those fell, even being under 10 feet of water.

Regarding the high tension power line issues, he mentioned the different types of waves

and that they are not comparable to monopoles. Regarding signals, there are signals

are everywhere throughout this community. TV stations have 5m watts, police and fire

operate at 500w, and these will operate at less than 100 watts. They have five

locations in water tanks on top of condos where peoples reside. This is the 600 foot

setback, which is similar to what they are proposing. No matter where you go

transmission waves are there. Radio waves are generally everywhere.

Mr. Nikchevich said the bottom line is an analysis if they operate within the FCC

regulations. All evidence indicates that they are operating at a fraction of an exposure

level and have no basis for finding otherwise. They have done their job to address the

criteria like property values and what they have done for the right reasons. For the

people who visit that park, this technology is not speculative in its impact; rather it saves

lives for the community. They don't mean disrespect, but they want to mention the

tangible that this is the premier application in the Village.

Chairperson Ryan asked what percentage of 911 cell phone calls come from Lombard?

Mr. Cruz said they don't have any way to tap the data for the Village.

Chairperson Ryan asked what is the percent of increase benefit overall of this

coverage? Mr. Cruz said they can say their intent is to provide reliable service to an

area within one mile of that park. So they physically improve the reliability of the

service. It is directly affected by Lombard, not for future expansion of services. The

petitioner then offered the educational background of the engineers on the project.

William Heniff, Senior then presented the staff report, which was submitted to the public

record in its entirety. Following Counsel's direction, the role of the Plan Commission is

to review the land use issues. The role of the Plan Commission is advisory one to the

Board of Trustees. The Lombard Park District, not the Village, is the owner of the

property.

They have two past monopoles cases pertaining to CR District property. There was a

request for 100 foot high pole at Sunset Knoll Park that the Plan Commission

recommended denial, but the Board of Trustees approved it and that particular

monopole is 600 feet away from the closest residence. The other petition was at

Western Acres Golf Course, as the Park District wanted to preserve their existing right

to erect a monopole through DuPage County, but that item was withdrawn.

He noted that monopoles only permitted in the I Industrial District. However, wireless

facilities are permitted by right in the R5, R6 and commercial and office districts, if they

are attached to roofs and he gave examples of where they are located.

He mentioned the objector's reference to Hammerschmidt School to accommodate the

proposed antenna. The school site is closer to adjacent residences. When you look at

other potential sites to get a maximum buffer separation, Madison Meadow Park would

provide the separation.

He then noted staff's considerations included within the report including:

1. There are no I District properties within the RF hole in which a monopole could be

erected and meet code;

2. There are no tall structures within the RF hole that would be able to provide

coverage to the area;

3. The petitioner selected a site which provides the greatest amount of separation from

adjacent residences; and

4. The proposed stealth design provides the minimum amount of impact within the

park and on adjacent properties.

He then passed draft language for the Plan Commissioner's consideration. If the Plan

Commission makes a recommended motion, feel free to add conditions or comments. If

they recommend for denial he did provide additional language, but you must state the

reasons the petition might be denied with emphasis to land use issues.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for the Plan Commissioners.

Commissioner Flint commended the petitioner for the findings and information. He also

commended the residents for coming forth. This is a difficult issue but the petitioner is

trying to blend something in the Park District. If this is approved for at least two carriers,

would there be a possibility of someone else coming in at a later date?

William Heniff stated that if there was a petition brought forward that is above and

beyond what they are considering now, it would require a public hearing process. Staff

does not know whether there will be any future cases and would defer to the property

owner. Mr. Fugiel stated that they have not been contacted by another carrier. At

Sunset Knoll, they have not been approached by any one else either. It is not in high

demand as one might think, but only in areas where it is needed.

Commissioner Olbrysh thanked the petitioner for the information as well as his

neighbors. It is a difficult issue as he has terrible phone service in his area. Cell phones

have become a way of life for most of us. His concern is that is if this is approved, what

if others want to come in that could pose a problem? However, we can't look at the

health issues, but the land issue based on those issues. He asked about landscaping

and screening and this is approved with equipment near each one of these tower. In

regards to the metal screen cage over the equipment, he would assume that this cage

would be at an angle, should a ball go onto it, that the ball would roll back down and be

angled?

Mr. Fugiel stated that is correct and already taken into consideration. Village staff

suggested that a hedgerow of arborvitae might be appropriate, but our staff that

arborvitae is not desired, so we will look for an alternate plant materials.

Chairperson Ryan confirmed that if this petition is approved, they would still have to

come before us is any other monopoles are installed.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if are we bound by precedent, or is this the case where

past decisions are used as a basis? Mr. Heniff noted that conditional uses, by definition,

can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the approval at Sunset Knoll was recommended for

denial as during the discussion they noted that an industrial site near the site had not

been pursued. The aesthetics in this case are different now. The land use is not an

ideal location, but if we have to disregard potential health issues, which I don't like, then

we are looking at a pole that already exists. So if you say a park is not for poles, the

evidence says otherwise. She also asked a rhetorical question for the petitioner - would

they have their children live in this situation that they have asked us to be in.

Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the petition. He provided a general

description of the cause for concern regarding this issue. Three more recent cases of

tents being used as storage structures were mentioned and supported with

photographic evidence.

Michael Toth noted that staff modeled their text from DuPage County Code. Important

issues were highlighted in regards to the amendments. He noted that tent permits for

non-residential events will still be considered permissible through a temporary event.

He stated that the amendments would exempt tents associated with yard parties or

recreational activities.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor or

against this petition. He then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Olbrysh noted that nothing is said about tents in regard to the period of

time they can be up, which concerns him. William Heniff responded that there are a

couple of ways that the code addresses this issue. Non-residential instances would

require a temporary event permit, which is three days. For residential properties, there

would be prohibition for such structures unless it met the provisions set forth within the

proposed code. If a tent is seen for an extended period of time staff will inform our Code

Enforcement Division.

Commissioner Olbrysh then questioned the time period to which Pods (cargo

containers) could remain on the property. William Heniff stated that cargo containers

can remain as long as you have an active building permit. They are not permitted to

remain on a residential property. If cargo containers are placed on a property, Code

Enforcement staff can follow up with a site inspection.

Fountain Square/Sunrise Senior Living

William Heniff presented the workshop. He indicated that the property is Lot 2 of

Fountain Square located along Westmore Meyers Road, south of 22nd Street and north

of Butterfield Road. This site was previously workshopped and was to include a bank

and restaurant. That petition has not gone forward and they now have a new

conceptual site plan and building elevations for another proposed development. The

new development has incorporated many of the Commissioner's comments from the

previous workshop. The proposed development will be known as Sunrise Senior Living

consisting of two buildings - a four-story independent living facility with 65 units and a

four-story assisted living facility with 78 units. The assisted living facility will be located

in the building fronting 22nd Street while the independent living building will be located

toward Fountain Square Drive. The two buildings will be connected by a kitchen and

dining hall. Even though the level of care of each facility will differ, the site will operate

as a single entity.

The site will be accessed exclusively from Fountain Square Drive with the primary

entrance linked up to Champps. The secondary entrance is to the west of the primary

entrance and is currently shown as a right-in/right out facility. The van parking, refuse

and drive aisle might be slightly changed to include greenery and landscaping per the

B3 requirements. The site will include surface and below grade parking which will meet

code. There will be a substantial amount of greenspace, will include an attractive

gazebo and land banking spaces.

Mr. Heniff noted that the petitioners were in the audience and were looking for

input as to the following:

1. Comments on the building elevations. Do they reflect the design schemes found in

Fountain Square?

2. Access issues such as the secondary access and whether this needs to be a right in

right facility.

3. Any preliminary comments of the concept site plan and any additional issues or

modifications you would like to see.

Commissioner Olbrysh indicated that he liked the concept very much. The elevations

are a nice blend being located just west of the condos. Of the various proposals seen to

date, he liked this one the best as it flows. He referred to the workshop whereby there

were issues with the location of the parking as well as a berm along 22nd Street. With

this being a critical corner this plan is very well executed and those issues are now

gone.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed that with Commissioner Olbrysh's comments.

Commissioner Burke indicated that the elevations are extremely ordinary and something

needs to be done to make it more attractive. He referred to the third page of the

elevations and indicated he would like to see something different especially as this

development is on the corner and will be the first thing you see into Fountain Square. It

needs to stand on its own.

Chairperson Ryan asked if this development was similar to the one in Glen Ellyn. Mr.

Heniff indicated that it was. Chairperson Ryan asked if that was a two story

development. Tom Hedges of Sunrise Senior Living indicated that it was and that it

worked with the slope. It is two stories in the front but due to the 15 foot grade change

of the Glen Ellyn facility, it was designed with more siding and brick but that would not

be appropriate at the proposed site. Chairperson Ryan indicated that he has seen the

petitioner's products which are nice looking and assumed that something could be

worked out to make this a beneficial addition and add to the aesthetics of Fountain

Square.

Commissioner Flint expanded on Commissioner Burke's comments. Since it is a tall

building, he suggested some banding or changing the color of the brick. He indicated

that the overall concept has addressed a lot of the Commissioner's concerns particularly

as to the corner and the access.

Chairperson Ryan stated that he liked the overall plan and concept at this location. By

changing the looks a little and making some enhancements, it will provide a good flow.

Mr. Heniff indicated that the proposed development will not need any companion zoning

relief and will appear before the Commissioners as a site plan approval submittal.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was a sidewalk around the entire facility that

people could walk. Mr. Heniff indicated there is an existing bike trail along 22nd Street.

He noted internally there is a coachwalk going around the perimeter. Commissioner

Sweetser asked if it was possible to walk on level ground around the whole facility. Mr.

Heniff answered that could be worked out in the planning details.

Commissioner Sweetser indicated that if the parking meets code and design, then so be

it.

Commissioner Burke noted that the sidewalk dead ends into the garage and that needs

to be worked out.

Bob Pugliese indicated that the reason for the elevations looking as they do, is that they

were sensitive to the language in the agreement with respect to the condos. We can

deal with adjustments that meet that standard and we will work with staff but he wanted

to explain why the buildings look like the condos as much as they did on the first

submittal.

Commissioner Burke stated he did not see a reason to tie the two together when this is

such a significant development. We want to ensure that it is equal in material to the

condos but architecturally should have more detail.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that the windows looked like empty squares and

that could be enhanced.