Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2017 P&Z Minutes 03-17 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO.PZ-03-17 Hearing Date: March 23, 2017 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 801 W. Kensington Road PETITIONER: Township High School District 214 PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 2017 REQUEST: VAR: Rooftop unit screening MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Otteman Agostino Filippone William Beattie Keith Youngquist Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Fitzgerald STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Arguilles- Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Shallcross- Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Township High School District 214 Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30. Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 23, 2017. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Commissioner Otteman abstaining. Chairman Donnelly introduced the first and only case on the agenda, PZ-03-17 801 E. Kensington Road. Mr. Shallcross stated that the Petitioner completed construction of a natatorium building addition in 2016 and is seeking a variation from the requirement to provide rooftop unit (RTU) screening for two RTUs that were constructed as part of the project. The larger RTU is approximately fourteen feet (14') tall, forty-five feet (45') long, and sixteen feet (16') wide. The smaller RTU is approximately nine feet (9') tall, twenty-four feet(24') long, and six feet(6') wide. Mr. Shallcross further explained that the natatorium was constructed on the east side of the school, just west of the existing tennis courts. The addition is setback over 600' from the north lot line (Kensington Road), over 360' from the east lot line (Forest Avenue), and over 900' from the south lot line (Memory Lane). Mr. Shallcross showed pictures of the RTUs from the various rights of ways. Mr. Shallcross summarized the variation standards as the following: Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 2 • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Shallcross further explained, per the Petitioner, the installation of screening, of the size, weight, and mounting required would cost the School District, and the constituent taxpayers of the Village of Mount Prospect, $143,135. The Petitioner states that the cost of installing the required screening will cause a financial hardship to the School District. Per the Petitioner, the installation of this screening will impact the school's warranty for the new natatorium building, resulting in diminished value of the construction to District 214 and increased potential for leaks and future roof maintenance issues. Per the Petitioner, the resulting appearance would be of an even larger plain box than currently exists, with no improvement to the aesthetics of the facility. Mr. Shallcross stated the Petitioner feels, that while the rooftop equipment can be seen from several hundred feet away, the intent of the code is not to regulate equipment from several hundred feet away and that the installation of screening would detract from the appearance of the facility. He further explains, the Petitioner states that viewing a piece of equipment on the roof of the School from any property line of the School is very different than viewing a piece of rooftop equipment at almost any other non-residential structure located in a residential R-1 area from tens of feet away. The Petitioner states that this is due to Prospect High School being located approximately at the center of the largest single piece of land in the Village of Mount Prospect. The Petitioner states that in order to see the equipment one must look beyond parking lots, other athletic facilities, and other portions of the building and secondary structures on the site. Mr. Shallcross stated that the Petitioner further states that Prospect High School is the only four-year public high school in Mount Prospect, a natatorium facility requiring air handling and dehumidification is unique to this property and that there is no other property in the Village that this variation would apply to. He further explains, the Petitioner states that the request is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Petitioner adds that the required screening could possibly become a hazard to public safety in a major windstorm with microburst potential. Mr. Shallcross stated, Village Staff reviewed the Petitioner's request and believes it meets the variation standards. He further explains, the existing site conditions and land use are unique and not applicable to other property within the R1 zoning classification. This is the largest parcel, and the only Public High School, in the Village of Mount Prospect. Furthermore, the addition is setback more than 350' from the closest lot line; not impairing the light and air to adjacent property. He further stated, granting the variation in no way sets a precedent for any other properties on the Village. Mr. Shallcross explained, when a unit of local government, such as a school district, park district, or county, comes to the Village with a zoning request, the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Trustees apply the same standards from the Zoning Ordinance to the zoning application as it would with a private property owner. However, in addition to the standards in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission and Board of Trustees also need to consider whether any condition of approval or whether a Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 3 denial of the application would frustrate or thwart the obligations imposed by State laws on the unit of local government. Stated positively, the Village should consider whether the requested relief furthers the statutory mission of the unit of local government and, if it does, give the requested relief some deference. He further explained In light of this additional consideration, for District 214's application before the Commission, the Commission should consider: 1. The relationship of the aquatic center to the education obligations of the District; 2. The plausible locations for the placement of the equipment on the roof, and 3. The negative effects on the District if relief is not granted. Some parts of the Illinois School Code applicable to the District and potentially relevant here are: 1. Physical education and training, 105 ILCS 5/27-5, "School boards of public schools and the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities shall provide for the physical education and training of pupils of the schools and laboratory schools under their respective control, and shall include physical education and training in the courses of study regularly taught therein. The physical education and training course offered in grades 5 through 10 may include the health education course required in the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act." 2. Courses in physical education required, 105 ILCS 5/27-6(a), "Pupils enrolled in the public schools and State universities engaged in preparing teachers shall be required to engage daily during the school day, except on block scheduled days for those public schools engaged in block scheduling, in courses of physical education for such periods as are compatible with the optimum growth and developmental needs of individuals at the various age levels except when appropriate excuses are submitted to the school by a pupil's parent or guardian or by a person licensed under the Medical Practice Act of 1987 and except as provided in subsection(b) of this Section." Mr. Shallcross further stated that in analyzing the application for relief from the screening requirement, SD 214 has indicated that compliance with the requirement will create economic hardship on an already costly project, and create some concerns about structural integrity because of the extra weight. Mr. Shallcross stated given the concerns raised by the District, deference and weighing them against the reduced aesthetic goals that would be achieved on a large property such as this with its large setbacks, staff recommends granting the relief to the District. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To adopt staff findings in the staff report as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve: A. Variation from the requirement to provide screening for the natatorium rooftop mechanical equipment." He stated the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Commissioner Beattie asked what the purpose of the screening is. Ms. Arguilles stated that the primary purpose of the screening is aesthetics and to help with minimizing the sound. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 4 Commissioner Filippone asked if there were any other properties in the Village that have had similar issues. Ms. Arguilles stated that the Village does have several commercial buildings that have rooftop units some are not screened because they were installed prior to the zoning code requirement which are considered existing non-conforming. Commissioner Beattie asked what the screening requirement consists of. Ms. Arguilles stated that typically the top is open and the just the sides are screened. Commissioner Filippone asked why the code changed to include screening of rooftop units. Ms. Arguilles stated that the main reason was for aesthetic purposes. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if there was a height variation in regard to the building. Ms. Arguilles stated the code doesn't have a height restriction for rooftop units. Commissioner Youngquist asked if the drawings regarding the rooftop screening were included in the initial packet for the building permit and if they could be explained as they were hard to read. Ted Bierren, Director of Operations for district 214, came to the stand. He stated that the drawing in the Commissioner's packet shows the extent of the rooftop screening. Chairman Donnelly is asking if the Village has reviewed the Petitioner's application prior to the variation request. Ms. Arguilles stated that a zoning review did take place even though the building permit was issued through the State of Illinois. Chairman Donnelly asked if the screening requirement was brought to the Petitioner's attention at that time. Ms. Arguilles stated that they were informed of the requirement before they built the building. Chairman Donnelly swore in Ted Bierren, Director of Operations for district 214, 2121 S. Goebert Road Arlington Heights, Illinois. Mr. Bierren stated that they are requesting a variation from the rooftop screening requirement. He stated they did submit the plans to screen the units to the Village for zoning review before the building. He explained that the school district had complied with other requests from the Village including the addition of a fire lane and additional landscaping. He stated that when it came time to install the rooftop screening they felt like it didn't make a lot of sense and were faced by a new budget crisis by the State. Mr. Bierren stated that they, being the Petitioner, felt it would make the unit less attractive and be a safety hazard because the added weight to the unit. Chairman Donnelly asked if the building was designed to have added weight for the screening. Mr. Bierren stated that the building was designed that the screening would be added at some point. Commissioner Beattie asked if the added weight and the warranty of the building was a concern while designing the building; and why wasn't it taken into consideration until after the building was constructed. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 5 Mr. Bierren stated that the type of screening that was configured during building was not supported by the Village of Mount Prospect's code. He stated that there wasn't enough communication between the Village and the school district regarding the screening and when the extent of the screening was fully explained it raised the concern of affecting the integrity of the unit and roof structure. Chairman Donnelly stressed the fact that the Petitioner should have taken the steps needed to build the building and screening to code since Petitioner was aware that screening was needed in order to comply. Mr. Bierren stated that he agreed; however, felt that the screening was something that could have been worked through with the Village since the Petitioner had complied with many other of the Village's requests. He further stated that they had provided different options to the Village regarding the screening which included landscaping and other aesthetic changes to the unit which were not permitted by the Village. Commissioner Filippone asked if the Petitioner had any support in writing explaining the concern of the added weight to the units from the screening. Mr. Bierren introduced the team of consultants that directly worked on the project. Commissioner Youngquist asked if they screening shown in the drawings provided was originally bid into the project. Mr. Bierren stated that the drawings portrayed the new type of screening that would comply with Village Code which was not originally bid into the project. He further stated that the original plans included landscaping as the screening which was thought to meet the intent of the code. Chairman Donnelly asked the total cost of the project. Mr. Bierren stated that the total cost of the project was over thirteen and half million dollars ($13.5 million). Commissioner Mizwicki asked, other than aesthetics, what is the functional value of the screening? Mr. Bierren stated that, it's his understanding the value of the screening is strictly for aesthetic purposes only. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if there were any safety issue with the screening. Mr. Bierren stated that if there were a microburst in the area the screening could become airborne since it's not a physical part of the structure. There was general discussion regarding the possibility of putting solar panels on the roof at a later date. Chairman Donnelly asked if any other district 214 pools have roof top screening. Mr. Bierren stated no other district 214 pools have screening. Chairman Donnelly swore in Bob Sell, CS2 Design Group, 831 Oakton Street Elk Grove, Illinois. Mr. Sell stated that he was one of the engineers on the project. He apologized that he doesn't have the exact weight of the screening. He gave a general explanation regarding the construction of the roof curb and how the additional weight of the screening is not conducive to the design of the roof. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 6 Mr. Sell gave a brief history of the when and how the building was designed and when the issue of the screening became apparent. He stated that various options including landscaping was presented to the Village in place of the requirement and none were satisfactory. Chairman Donnelly asked if landscaping was included in the original plan submitted to the Village for review. Ms. Arguilles stated that screening was included in the first phase of submission prior to construction. Commissioner Beattie asked for clarification on why the project was built without the proper requirements to withhold the weight of the screening when the Petitioner knew of the requirements in the first place. Mr. Sell explained the concern that the vapor barrier would be needed to be penetrated in order to support the weight of the added screening. Commissioner Otteman asked why the additional supports were not built in to the design during the construction of the building. Commissioner Youngquist gave a general explanation of how the screening could be attached to the roof and the various issues it could cause to the building by adding the screening after the building has been built. Chairman Donnelly stated that he understands the issues it can cause now, but wants clarification as to why the building wasn't built to specifications proposed in the drawing in order to accommodate the screening. Mr. Sell stated that the type of screening needed didn't make it to the bid process and believes that throughout the variations of the plans the screening was eliminated along with solar panels that didn't work into the budget. He further stated that he doesn't believe the screening wasn't on the construction documents. Chairman Donnelly pointed out that the screening wasn't an issue when the Petitioner came before the board for a height variation for the addition. Commissioner Youngquist stated that it is unheard of to not have roof top units screened. Mr. Sell stated that units are relatively discreet even though they are large. He stated that because of this the variation would be considered. Chairman Donnelly asked for the measurements of the unit. Mr. Sell stated the unit weighs about three hundred(300) tons. Commissioner Otteman asked what impact the screening would have to help reduce the sound from the rooftop units. Mr. Sell stated that it would depend on the screening material and that some calculations would need to be done in order to answer the Commissioner's question. Commissioner Youngquist stated that the Village Code doesn't reference noise as a reason for screening. Commissioner Beattie stated aesthetics and sound are the main concerns of the surrounding neighbors and that both concerns should be taken into consideration. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 7 Chairman Donnelly stated that the neighbors sent in a petition requesting the Variation be denied because of the noise issue and unpleasing aesthetics. He suggested that if the Petitioner can address the noise issue without fully screening the rooftop unit to help save on money and added weight the neighbors may accept the compromise. Chairman Donnelly swore in Ares Dalizanis, attorney for the school district, 300 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Dalizanis stated that the addition of screening will make the units appear larger. He also stated that the units are "self-screened"because they are flat on the outside and don't have ductwork or pipes coming off the units. He further stated that the Subject property is unique because of the large setbacks from the street frontages. Chairman Donnelly pointed out that the Subject Property is in an R-I single family area as opposed to a commercial district. There was general discussion between the Commissioners regarding the size of the units and the choice of the Petitioner's to use such large units. Chairman Donnelly opened the hearing to the public for discussion. He also stated that there was a petition received from seventeen of residents that oppose the variation request. Chairman Donnelly swore in Donald Wood 619 N. Forest Ave, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wood stated that he was representing the neighbors that signed the petition. He stated that the Subject Property provides a lot of echoing sounds that disrupt the neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Bierren told him the screening would go up around the units at a later date. Commissioner Beattie asked the Petitioner to comment on the level of the noise from the various activities. Mr. Wood stated the noise level is minimal compared to the continuous running of the rooftop units. Chairman Donnelly swore in Dan Rotzoll 719 N. Forest Ave. He stated that he feels the rooftop units are there for a purpose but feels that the School District needs to finish the job and provide the necessary screening. Commissioner Mizwicki asked Mr. Rotzoll if he thinks the screen will temper the noise level. Mr. Rotzoll stated that he believes it will. Mr. Wood stated that the he found information online regarding a building material that is light weight and absorbs sound. Chairman Donnelly asked the residents if they would be in support if the School District used similar material to absorb the noise but didn't screen the entire unit. A female resident was sworn in; however, she didn't give her name and address or the record. She asked for the Petitioner to give statistics regarding how many rooftop units have blown off the top of buildings. Chairman Donnelly swore in Tom Vangese 515 Forest Ave Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Vagese reiterated that the noise level on the school grounds keeps increasing and the rooftop units are adding the overall noise level. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 8 Chairman Donnelly called the Petitioner back to the stand to address the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Bierren stated that the other schools in the district are not screened. He further stated for the record that the rooftop units on Buffalo Grove High School are not screened and are closet to the residential neighbors to the north, multi-family to the east, and commercial to the west and south. Mr. Bierren stated that the strict interpretation of the code specifies the screening is just for aesthetics of the property and doesn't address anything about sound. However, in response to the petition from the neighbors, the School District conducted a noise survey done by Pepper Construction. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner if they would be willing to screen the top half of the units as a compromise to help with some of the noise. Mr. Bierren stated that would be a question better suited for the architect on the project. Commissioner Filippone asked Mr. Bierren to comment on his conversation with Mr. Wood during the project. Mr. Bierren stated that he spoke to Mr. Wood several times about the screening and that Mr. Wood's statements were accurate. He stated those conversations took place when they were looking at other variations of screening. Chairman Donnelly swore in Jay Rifske, 411 Lake Zurich Road, Barrington Illinois. Mr. Rifske explained the process used to measure the noise level of the rooftop units. He explained that the unit was measuring at 80 DB when standing on the roof next to the rooftop units, 60 DB at ground level, and 45-50 DB at the edge of the eastside of the property line. He further compared the 80 DB measurement to being curbside on a busy road, the 60 DB measurement as conversational speech, and the 50 DB measurement to the average home. Chairman Donnelly stated to measure the sound accurately a base number should have been recorded when the units were off to compare the difference. Commissioner Beattie interjected that they can assume the baseline would be less than 40 DB. Mr. Bierren addressed the question regarding the air conditioning units on the property. He stated that there are three (3) units by the loading docks that run overnight seven (7) days a week and other various rooftop units for different systems. Commissioner Youngquist asked if there was a specific reason the Petitioner chose this type of unit as oppose to a chiller. Mr. Bierren stated that they needed a dehumidification system for the pool and that the current cooling system's size wasn't sufficient enough to accommodate the natatorium. Commissioner Youngquist commented that it was a conscious economic decision. Commissioner Beattie asked about the size comparison between the rooftop unit in question and the one at Buffalo Grove High School. Mr. Bierren stated that the units are nearly identical however; the one at Buffalo Grove High School is a fraction smaller. He further gave a brief explanation of the units at Elk Grove High School and Wheeling High School. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 9 Commissioner Mizwicki asked where the "humming" sound is coming from that the neighbors are hearing. Mr. Bierren said it was from the fans on the unit and that they intentionally placed the intake of the unit on west side of the building towards the school building to help muffle the sound. Commissioner Mizwicki stated that he doesn't think the screening will help with the noise unless something can be put on the top of the unit where the fans are located. Commissioner Youngquist stated that trying to stop sound is very difficult and that it wouldn't help in this situation. However, he further stated the sound issue isn't the intent of the code and shouldn't be the deciding factor for the variation request. Chairman Donnelly closed the public portion of the case. There was general discussion between the Commissioners. Commissioner Youngquist and Commissioner Beattie agreed that screening around an already large unit will just make the units more visible and will not help the with noise reduction. However, agreed that the issue should have been addressed in the beginning of the design process. Chairman Donnelly stated that any type of screening will reduce the decibels coming from the unit; however, it may not be significant enough to make a difference. Commissioner Beattie stated he doesn't think it's right to force the school district to spend a considerable amount of money to install a covering that may not provide the relief from the issue being presented. He further stated that the decibel level on the ground needs to be defined better. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner if they would be willing to continue the case to the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting to give them a chance to conduct a better survey of the noise and to come up with a solution that would address the concerns of the residents. Commissioner Otteman stated that the Petitioner decided to take the screening out of the design after it was approved and is now asking for relief after the fact. Mr. Dalizanis stated that the noise element isn't the issue being voted on. He stated that there is no sufficient evidence showing the rooftop unit's noise is depreciating property values and feels that it isn't the Petitioners duty to provide information regarding the noise level because the code doesn't specify noise reduction as a reason for screening. He stated the mandates screening for aesthetic purposes only. Mr. Dalizanis asked what information the Commission wants if the case was continued. Chairman Donnelly asked for the Petitioner to find an alternative that would be a light weight screening option that would only cover half of the unit and would decrease the noise about 10-15 DB. He feels that a compromise would appease all sides. Mr. Dalizanis asked if the Commission would be in favor of the variation request if the Petitioner hired a sound consultant to do a complete sound survey. He further asked Staff if they have had any similar instances where the Petitioner has had to conduct a noise survey even though sound isn't in purview of the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 10 Mrs. Arguilles stated that she hasn't in the time she has been at the Village; however, it is within the right of the Commission to request the information. She further stated it is up to the Petitioner to take the continuance request of the Commission or to ask that the Commission make a decision at this meeting. Commissioner Youngquist stated he believes the data center on Central and Rand went through a similar process. Ms. Arguilles stated she would have to look up the case information to see if noise issues were part of the case. Chairman Donnelly stated that screening is supposed to help aesthetically and with a reduction of noise. Mr. Dalizanis asked if Village attorney, Lance Malina, if an issue that is outside the scope of the Commission's purview is holding up a Staff recommendation. Mr. Malina stated that the sound issue is not irrelevant; however, it isn't the driving factor of the intent of the code. He further stated that the code doesn't define the purpose of the screening, it's a reasonable inference that it's largely visual but also can help with noise reduction; but without mandating some type of material it could make the noise level worse. Chairman Donnelly stated the intent of his suggestion is to help find a middle ground that will help both sides. Mr. Dalizanis stated he recommends his client do some further scientific noise testing and come back with the results at the next Planning and Zoning Meeting with the results. He asked if it would appease the Commission if the results show similarities to the study Pepper Construction conducted and that there is no significant noise issues. Chairman Donnelly stated that it would be a step in the right direction and recommended they come back with a proposed material that will help reduce the noise and be lighter weight. Mr. Malina stated the Commission shouldn't make the Petitioner make the decision to use a different type of material at this point. He stated the Petitioner should conduct the testing and independently decide based on the results of the testing if a new type of material for the screening is needed. Mr. Dalizanis agreed. There was general discussion regarding a state legislation and how schools fit in to the zoning process. Mr. Malina explained that the schools have their own building code and that once the initial zoning review was complete the school didn't have to come back with any changes to the building plans because it is not governed by the Village. Chairman Donnelly asked for the motion to continue the case to the next regular Planning and Zoning Meeting. Commissioner Otteman made the motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Otteman, Beattie, Youngquist, Mizwicki, Filippone, Donnelly NAYS:None A positive vote 6-0 to continue the case to April 27"', 2017 Planning and Zoning Meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 11 Hearing no other xitizens to be heard, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman and the meeting was adjourned. Jenna Moder Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission- March 23, 2017 PZ-03-17 Joseph Donnelly, Chair