Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2012 P&Z Minutes 03-12 & 04-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE #'s PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Hearing Date: April 26, 2012 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1200 E. Algonquin Road PETITIONER: United Air Lines, Inc. PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 2012 PIN NUMBERS: 08 -23- 100 -005, 08 -23- 100 -006, 08 -23- 100 -007, part of 08- 23 -100- 008 REQUESTS: 1) Plat of Subdivision - modIA- property lines to create one (1) lot of record from four (4) parcels (PZ- 04 -12) 2) Rezone from 133 Community Shopping and RX Single Family to I1 Limited Industrial (PZ- 03 -12) 3) Variations - parking, landscaping, fence location, fence height (PZ- 03 -12) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mike Landers, John Walters, Dan Lvnch, Karl Ottosen, Mark Youngquist Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 6 -0. After hearing three (3) previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Cases PZ -03 -12 & PZ- 04-12, 1200 E. Algonquin Road at 8:47 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -04 -12 Nvas seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision that creates one (1) lot of record for the property located at 1200 E. Algonquin Road. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property consists of three (3) incorporated parcels zoned 133 Community Shopping and part of a parcel Nvhich is currently unincorporated Cook County. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is bordered by Dempster Street on the north, Algonquin Road on the south, Linneman Road on the east, and commercial development, Nvhich fronts Busse Road, on the Nvest end. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner Nvas seeking to annex 13.6 acres of the unincorporated parcel into the Village of Mount Prospect's corporate limits and construct a data center. The Village Code prohibits the construction of buildings over property lines. Since the Subject Property is made up of several parcels, the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision is required to create one (1) lot of record. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 1 of 7 Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property would be rezoned to I1 Limited Industrial to allow the proposed development. Ms. Andrade stated per Village Code, the minimum lot size required in the I1 Limited Industrial is two (2) acres. The Preliminary Plat of Subdivision indicates the proposed lot Nvould measure sixteen and one half (16.5) acres, which Nvould exceed the minimum lot size required. Staff has revieNved the plat and found that it Nvas prepared in accordance Nvith the Village Codes and Subdivision requirements noted in Section 15.304. Ms. Andrade said per the Village's Subdivision Code, the subdivision of land five (5) or more acres require approval of both a preliminary plat and final plat. A final plat of subdivision Nvill be required to be submitted Nvithin one Near after receiving preliminary subdivision plat approval from the Village Board. A recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by the Village Board is required in both cases. Based on Staff s review of the preliminary Plat of Subdivision, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the motion listed in Staff s report for Case PZ- 04 -12. Ms. Andrade stated the development of a data center required zoning map amendments and variations. The Petitioner Nvas seeking to annex 13.6 acres of the unincorporated parcel into the Village of Mount Prospect's corporate limits, upon annexation the 13.6 acres Nvould be automaticalIv classified as RX Single Family Residential. The Petitioner Nvas seeking a zoning map amendment from RX and 133 to I1 Limited Industrial to allow the proposed development. Ms. Andrade said the proposed building Nvould be one (1) story tall and Nvould be constructed in two (2) phases. The first phase Nvould measure 172,598 square feet and consist of 22,022 square feet of office space and 150,576 square feet of Nvarehouse space for data equipment. Phase two (2) Nvould consist of 112,932 square feet of Nvarehouse space for additional data equipment and generators. Access to the development Nvould be provided via the existing drives located on Dempster and Algonquin Roads. Ms. Andrade stated the site plan indicated a fence along the perimeter of the property. The fence Nvould be installed in the front and interior side yards. The Village Code permits fences in the interior side yards provided the fence is located behind the front line of the principal building. A Variation Nvould be required to allow the fence in the front yards along Dempster Street and Algonquin Road. Per the site detail plan, the proposed fence Nvould be an ornamental metal fence measuring eight (8) feet tall. The Petitioner Nvas also seeking a Variation to allow an eight (8) foot tall fence when the maximum height permitted is five (5) feet. Ms. Andrade said the building Nvould be constructed out of precast concrete panels and measure thirty (30) feet and nine (9) inches in height. As proposed, the building would measure over 400 feet Nvide as part of phase one (1) and over 800 feet once phase two (2) is completed. Per Village Code, any structure over 200 feet in length shall be designed to stagger the building facade in order to break up the visual expanse of the structure when fronting a right of Nvay. The north building elevation along Dempster Street Nvould be required to be revised to break up the visual expanse of the structure. Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 2 of 7 I1 Minimum Requirements Proposed Development Setbacks: 76' building / 14.5' parking lot Front 30' building / 10' parking lot (Dempster St.) (north and south lot lines) 110' building / 10.2' parking lot (Algonquin Road) Interior 15' building / 10' parking lot 78.5' building/ 14.5' parkin Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 2 of 7 (west and east lot lines) (West) 192.10' building / 0' existing parking (East) Lot Coverage 75% Maximum 71% Height 40' 30' -9" The table compared the I1 District's requirements to the proposal. The proposed building and new parking lot areas Nvould meet the minimum required setbacks. The lot coverage Nvould be 71% which is under the maximum 75% permitted. The proposed building height Nvould not exceed the maximum height permitted. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Code requires four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for office space and one (1) parking space per 1,500 square feet for industrial/warehouse space. The proposed 285,530 square foot data center Nvould require 264 parking spaces. The Petitioner's site plan indicated 116 parking spaces, including twenty -four (24) land banked spaces Nvill be provided. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to reduce the required number of parking spaces to allow 116, including twenty -four (24) land banked spaces. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner submitted a preliminary landscape plan that indicated 245 trees Nvould be provided when the Village Code requires 301. The Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to reduce the required number of trees from 301 to 245 trees. The Petitioner has not requested any other relief from the landscape requirements and Nvould be required to revise the landscape plan to meet Code. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case Nvith respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: The compatibility Nvith existing uses and zoning classifications of property Nvithin the general area of the property in question; The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; • The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing commercial shopping center, multi - family residential development, and industrial office /Nvarehouse buildings. The proposed data center building Nvould be in keeping Nvith the existing industrial land uses and the Village's Comprehensive Plan. The Village Comprehensive Plan designates the property as light industrial and office research. Ms. Andrade stated the proposal met the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible Nvith existing properties Nvithin the general area of the Subject Property and the buildings Nvill be designed and landscaped to have minimal impact on the adjacent developments. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 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,* Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 3 of 7 • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade stated the project required relief from the parking, landscape, and fence regulations. The Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to reduce the required parking spaces from 264 to 116, including N, -enty -four (24) land banked spaces. The proposed data center Nvould only include 22,022 square feet of office space. The remainder of the building Nvould consist of storage areas for mechanical, electrical, and equipment. Per the Petitioner, only eighty -six (86) employees Nvould occupy the building across two shifts. Staff Nvas supportive of this Variation as the majorit -,T of the building Nvould be used for Nvarehouse space to be used for storage of equipment. The proposed parking spaces met the parking requirement for the office space. The Petitioner Nvould be required to construct the land banked parking spaces should Staff determine that additional parking spaces beyond the ninety- two (92) initially provided are required. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to reduce the required number of trees from 301 to 245 trees. Per the Petitioner, the Variation Nvas necessary for maintaining security visibility to monitor the site. Staff Nvas supportive of this request provided the remainder of the landscape requirements are met. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner Nvas seeking Variations to allow a fence in the front yards along Dempster Street and Algonquin Road and to allow an eight (8) foot tall fence when the maximum height permitted is five (5) feet. For security reasons, the fence Nvas proposed along the perimeter and up to eight (8) feet tall. Staff Nvas supportive of the Variation requests due to the nature of the proposed land use on the property. HoNvever, the fence line along Dempster Street and Algonquin Road shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the property line so that there is sufficient landscaping along the public right -of -N ay. Based on Staff review of the request and Code standards, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the motions listed in the Staff Report for Case PZ- 03 -12. Mr. Youngquist asked Staff to clarIA- condition number thirteen (13) listed in the Staff Report for Case PZ -03 -12 that discussed a timeline for permits. Mr. Simmons stated that it is a standard condition per Code for any Variations or Conditional Uses that are approved. The Petitioner Nvould have to pull a permit Nvithin a Near; othenvise an extension could be requested. Chairman Rogers swore in Mike Landers, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Landers stated that he is the Director of Design and Construction for the United Airlines. Mr. Landers introduced his team members to the Commission. Chairman Rogers swore in all parties that Nvould be speaking on behalf of the Petitioner John Walters, Vice President of Jones Lang LaSalle, 200 E. Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois, stated that his company is the real estate development advisor for the Petitioner. He explained the importance of the proposed data center. The proposed data center Nvould support United's Nvorldwide operation. Mr. Walters said the security of the building is important to ensure that it is not compromised. There are also mechanical and electrical systems in place to support the data center. He stated that the proposed facility Nvould be in operation twenty -four (24) hours a dav, 7 days a Nveek; 365 days a Near. There Nvould be a maximum of eighty -six (86) employees to operate and maintain the proposed facility. Mr. Walters said the proposed one (1) story facility Nvould be made of precast concrete and able to Nvithstand Nvinds of 206 miles per hour to ensure that the facility remains operational. He discussed the square footage breakdoN -,n inside the facility as previously mentioned by Staff. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Mr. Walters that the 25,000 square feet labeled as "data hall" Nvas the actual space Nvhere the computer equipment Nvas stored. The remainder of the non - office space Nvas the mechanical, electrical, and other systems to support the data center. Chairman Rogers asked how the computer equipment Nvas protected; he Nvanted to know if there Nvas a halon system in place. Mr. Walters stated there Nvould be a fully interlocking pre- action fire suppression system. He Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 4 of 7 said the Subject Property is master planned to accommodate a total 285,530 square feet if expansion Nvas Nvarranted. It is the Petitioner's goal to obtain the U.S. Green Buildings Council LEED Gold expectations. Mr. Walters summarized United's Plat request. He shoNved an aerial of the existing buildings on United's campus in comparison Nvhere the proposed data center Nvould be located. Mr. Floros confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that the existing buildings on United's campus Nvould remain. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas adequate Nvater detention for the entire site. Mr. Walters stated the pond on United's property does handle all of the storm Nvater for the entire campus. The Subject Property Nvould have its own storm Nvater detention system to accommodate the new building. Mr. Walters discussed the 13.6 acres that Nvould be annexed into the Village. He stated 11.8 acres is United's property and the remaining 1.8 acres Nvould be part of the right -of -N ay on Algonquin and Dempster. The remaining 4.7 acres of land is already incorporated into the Village. He stated the overall goal is to create one (1) lot of record that Nvould be 16.5 acres. Mr. Walters discussed the Petitioner's zoning request for Case PZ- 03 -12. Mr. DonnelIv asked if the old data center Nvas Nvithin the United's campus. Mr. Walters stated the current data center is presently underground at the Northeast corner of the United campus. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that there is an existing eight (8) foot fence currently around the United campus. Mr. Landers stated the existing data center is one (1) of nine (9) centers that United operates. He said they have a data center in San Francisco and several in Texas. According to Mr. Landers, the proposed data center Nvould bring the others all together. Mr. Walters stated the height of the fence is needed for security in addition to the request to place Nvithin the front yards along Algonquin and Dempster. He said the parking Variation is needed because the data centers are not heavily populated buildings; just a small staff operates and maintains the building. Mr. Walters felt that the ninety -two (92) spaces in addition to the twenty -four (24) land bank spaces Nvould be more than enough for the life of the proposed facility including potential future expansion. He said the request for the Variation in reduction of trees is security related. Mr. Walters stated that they Nvere asked by United Security to keep mature trees avmv from the fence to prohibit anyone from climbing over the fence. Mr. Walters discussed the landscape plan and shoNved Nvhere the eight (8) foot fence Nvould lie on the Subject Property. He also talked about the type of fencing and the front gate that Nvould be installed. Mr. Walters shoNved and discussed the floor plan of the proposed facility. Mr. Donnelly asked if there Nvere emergency generators on- site and if they Nvould be inside or outside. Mr. Walters confirmed that the emergency generators Nvould be inside, fulIv enclosed, and compliant Nvith IEPA emissions and sound requirements. The fuel tanks for the generators would be underground as Nvell. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the redundant systems and future expansion. Mr. Walters shoNved plans of the building's elevations and the proposed building view from Algonquin Road. He stated that the Petitioner recognized Staff's comments regarding the North side facade along Dempster. The Petitioner Nvill Nvork Nvith Staff to adequately address the Code. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner had any objections to the conditions placed by the Village in the Staff Report. Mr. Walters stated he is aware of the conditions and agreed to them. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that all applicable building codes Nvould be folloNved during construction of the proposed building. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Floros asked whN- the Petitioner Nvas now deciding on annexing into the Village since United has remained unincorporated for many Nears. Mr. Walters stated they Nvere annexing to allow the construction of the proposed building; it could not be constructed in its current form over boundary lines. Mr. Floros asked if the remaining United campus Nvould eventually be annexed in over time. Dan Lynch from United Airlines said there is discussion Nvith the Village, but it is out of the scope of the current proposal. Chairman Rogers swore in Karl Ottosen from the law firm of Ottosen, Britz, Kelly, Cooper, Gilbert, and Dinolfo, 1804 N. Naper, Naperville, Illinois. Mr. Ottosen stated that his law firm has been hired to represent the Rural Elk Grove Fire Protection District anytime annexation is discussed of a property Nvithin the fire district. He said he Nvanted to discuss potentially losing property that Nvould be detrimental to the fire district. Mr. Ottosen stated that via the press that the remainder of the United property Nvould be less than sixty (60) acres, which could lead to a forced annexation by the Village. He said the United property is approximately twenty (20) percent or more of the fire district's EAV. Mr. Ottosen stated the Petitioner Nvas only proposing to install eighty (80) percent of the trees required by Code. He asked the Commission what characteristic of the Subject Property led to a unique hardship. He said that the size of the building and profit motive created the hardship. Mr. Ottosen also discussed the amount of parking spaces. He stated that the amount of parking is approximately only four (4) spaces or more that Nvould be required for just the 22,000 square feet of the office portion of the proposed project. He believed parking Nvas not adequate and asked what the hardship Nvas for the parking Variation. Mr. Ottosen asked what the Petitioner Nvas proposing in regards to storm Nvater detention. He Nvanted to know if there Nvill be enough capacity to take care of the proposed new site since it Nvas not indicated on the footprint of the sixteen (16) acre property. Chairman Rogers asked if Mr. Ottosen's client currently services the unincorporated area for fire protection and if there have been any problems Nvith the Subject Property. Mr. Ottosen confirmed that the Subject Property is serviced by the Elk Grove Rural Fire Protection District and there have not been anv issues because the area in question is primarily a parking lot. Mark Youngquist of GRAEF, 1921 W. Potomac Avenue, Chicago, Illinois stated he is the Civil Engineer on record for the Petitioner. Mr. Youngquist said the primary concern for the landscaping Variation Nvas for building security. He said when the landscape plan Nvas originally looked at; some of the trees blocked the views of the security cameras that Nvould be in place on the Subject Property. Mr. Youngquist stated there Nvas a preliminary storm Nvater plan submitted to the Village as part of the zoning packet for the Subject Case. He said that there are ongoing discussions Nvith the Village's Engineering Division. Mr. Youngquist stated the storm Nvater detention Nvould be stand alone on the eastern portion of the Subject Property and Nvould meet the requirements of the Village and MWRD. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the storm Nvater detention Nvould be part of Phase I of the proposed project. There Nvas additional discussion regarding storm Nvater detention. The detention area is a part of the property to be annexed into the Village. Mr. Landers explained the primary uses and functions of the data center. He stated the parking numbers should be kept low to keep people avmy. The parking is only needed for those who operate and maintain the center. Mr. Floros asked how many trees are currentIv located on the Subject Property. Mr. Landers stated significantly less because the Subject Property is a parking lot. He said that they are open to placing as many trees on the Subject Property as they can; they had to come to the Commission Nvith an exact number that they knew could fit in the plan. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that there Nvere no issues Nvith landscaping the right- of -Nvays along Algonquin and Dempster. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the security cameras and parking for the facility. Mr. Beattie confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that the eighty -six (86) employees mentioned by Staff Nvould be the maximum amount of employees on the Subject Property in case of an emergency or crisis situation. Mr. Landers stated the total number of employees Nvould be split amongst two (2) to three (3) shifts. Chairman Rogers asked if the Subject Property Nvould then be serviced by the Mount Prospect Fire Department. Mr. Simmons stated upon annexation, the Subject Property Nvould be under the Village's protection. Chairman Rogers also confirmed that Village Nvater Nvould also be utilized for the Subject Property upon annexation. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the cases at 9:32 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. DonnelIv made a motion to approve the Blue Sky Preliminary Subdivision to create a one (1) lot subdivision, as shoN -,n on the Petitioner's preliminary plat for 1200 E. Algonquin Road, Case No. PZ- 04 -12. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nvas approved 6 -0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to approve: A. a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from 133 Community Shopping and RX Single Family to I1 Limited Industrial; B. a Variation to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 264 to 116, including twenty four (24) land banked spaces; C. a Variation to reduce the required number of trees from 301 to 245 trees; D. a Variation to allow a fence in the front yards along Dempster Street and Algonquin Roads; and E. a Variation to increase the height of a fence from five (5) feet to eight (8) feet; subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nvas approved 6 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvere any citizens in the audience Nvaiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:36 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -03 -12 & PZ -04 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 7 of 7