Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2013 P&Z Minutes 05-13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-13 Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 900 Business Center Drive PETITIONER : BladeRoom USA PUBLICATION DATE: May 8, 2013 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-104-007-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Variation to decrease the setback of an Accessory Structure 2) Variation to increase the Height of an Accessory Structure 3) Variation to decrease the Roof Pitch of an Accessory Structure MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly, Chair Tom Fitzgerald Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Sharon Otteman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : BladeRoom USA, LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing one (1) previous case, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-05-13, 900 Business Center Drive, BladeRoom USA, LLC at 8:07 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-05-13 is seeking approval for Variations for an accessory structure on the property located at 900 Business Center Drive. The subject property is located on the North side of Business Center Drive and contains a one-story building with the related improvements. Ms. Andrade stated the building was zoned I1Limited Industrial and also boarders I1 Limited Industrial District on all sides. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposes to occupy the west half of the existing building to serve as a regional headquarters for BladeRoom, a company which specializes in the manufacturing and sales of modular data centers. Additionally, the Petitioner proposes to construct an accessory structure that would be used as a visual demonstration of the product that BladeRoom offers for sale. The structure would function as an accessory to the primary use, which would be the office and light manufacturing that would take place inside the building. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-05-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner’s site plan indicated the accessory structure would be located to the north of the building along the north property line. Ms. Andrade further explained the Petitioner’s site plan included two concrete pads east of the accessory structure which would be used for condensing units. Ms. Andrade explained the Petitioner’s plans indicated the accessory structure would measure 3,944 square feet in area and would be setback five feet (5’) from the north property line, which would not meet the required setback of six feet (6’). Therefore, the Petitioner is requesting Variation approval to reduce the required setback from six foot (6’) to five feet (5’) along the north property line. Ms. Andrade addressed the elevation plans for the Subject Property which indicated the structure would consist of a flat roof measuring thirteen feet (13’) from the grade to the top of the roof. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed roof and height of the accessory structure does not meet the Zoning Code requirements. She stated the code limits the height of an accessory structure to a maximum of ten feet (10’) in height and requires a minimum roof pitch of three to twelve (3:12). Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is seeking Variations to increase the height from twelve feet (12’) to thirteen feet (13’) and allow a flat roof. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property complies with the Village’s zoning regulations and the primary building meets the required setbacks and overall lot coverage is under the maximum seventy five percent (75%). Ms. Andrade explained the proposed the accessory structure would not comply with the required roof pitch, exceed the maximum height, and in addition not comply with setback requirement. Ms. Andrade stated the parking for the Subject Property currently complies with the code requirement and would still be in compliance with the proposed improvements. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A summary of the findings include:  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 Variation to the accessory structure’s required setback Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner indicated a was necessary in order avoid unacceptable losses to the parking count, and limit the visibility of the structure from the road. The corner lot limits the location options for the accessory structure. Ms. Andrade further stated that the proposed location was the best option. Prior to the current proposal, the Petitioner submitted a proposal that placed the accessory structure in the parking lot area along the east property line. This site plan would have complied with the required setbacks, but would have reduced the parking from sixty five (65) to forty two (42). In addition, the accessory structure would have been visible from Business Center Drive. The current proposal would only reduce the current parking spaces by three (3) parking spaces. Ms. Andrade stated Staff was supportive of the setback Variation request as the property’s physical characteristics limits the options for the location of the accessible structure. The Petitioner’s current proposal Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-05-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 2 of 4 would place the accessory structure behind the building, maintain as many existing parking spaces, and reduce the visual impact from the public road. Ms. Andrade discussed the Variation request to increase the height of the accessory structure to thirteen feet (13’). She stated the Petitioner indicated the Variation is necessary because the accessory structure is “fixed sized”. Ms. Andrade stated Staff was supportive of this request as the accessory structure is unique with respect to use. The Village Code’s ten foot (10’) height restriction is intended for storage sheds in residentially zoned properties. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner stated a Variation to decrease the roof pitch to allow a flat roof was necessary because the accessory structure is “fixed sized”. Ms. Andrade stated Staff was supportive of this request as the accessory structure would be consistent with the primary building on the Subject Property and surrounding properties. The primary building and surrounding buildings in the area consist of flat roofs. The Village Code’s minimum three to twelve (3:12) roof pitch is intended for storage sheds in residentially zoned properties. Neither of the Variation requests would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposal has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed Variation requests met the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Code. Based on these findings Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve: A.A Variation to reduce the required setback of an accessory structure that will be incidental to the proposed tenant from six feet (6’) to five feet (5’) along the north property line; B.A Variation to increase the height of an accessory structure that will be incidental to the proposed tenant from ten feet (10’) to thirteen feet (13’); and C.A Variation to reduce the roof pitch of an accessory structure that will be incidental to the proposed tenant from three to twelve (3:12) to flat.” Ms. Andrade stated the case was Village Board final. Chairman Donnelly then asked the board if there were any questions for the Staff regarding the case. Commissioner Youngquist asked if there was a maximum square foot size for any accessory structure. Ms. Andrade responded there was no size restriction for the commercial and industrial districts. Commissioner Donnelly swore in the Petitioners for BladeRoom USA. Mr. Timothy Hill 30 W. Monroe, Suite #510 Chicago, Illinois. Mike Palmed, CFO BladeRoom USA 1821 Walden Office Square, Schaumburg, Illinois. Matt Englert, Chairman of BladeRoom USA 880 Maybury Road, San Jose California. Mr. Englert stated BladeRoom intends to use 900 Business Center Drive as the headquarters for the company, and intends to provide data center products all over the country and internationally. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-05-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 3 of 4 He explained the intended use of the property is to store inventory of the product and to put it on display for potential customers. Chairman Donnelly clarified the height and size variations are needed for the product to run correctly. Commissioner Floros asked if they leased the building and were new to the area. There was general discussion on how BladeRoom chose the building and how their lease was contingent upon the variations needed. Mr. Palmed stated there would be about thirteen (13) employees to start off and would vary from project management to engineering. Commissioner Hinebar asked if there would be storage on the premises. Mr. Palmed responded some of the building would be used for storage. Mr. Youngquist verified that the room was going to mainly be constructed as a model room for the products. Mr. Floros asked what the product manufactured was used for. Mr. Palmed explained that the product was used by companies like Facebook for data service. Chairman Donnelly asked if they would not need the loading dock that is being eliminated. Mr. Hill stated that there were two loading docks on the site and the one that will remain is more beneficial for the use intended. Chairman Donnelly asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address the matter. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing portion of the case at 8:24 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Floros made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve the Variations to the height, roof pitch, and setback of an accessory structure. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Fitzgerald, Hinaber, Youngquist, Floros, Donnelly. NAYES: None The motion was approved 5-0. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Commissioner Floros made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to adjourn at 8:24 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. _________________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-05-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 4 of 4