Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/01/28 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the January 28, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 28, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Rosemary Kehr, and Board members: Sam Ciccarelli, Robert Franksen, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff, Jay Kennedy and Stewart Dixon. Zoning Board of Appeals Board member absent: None Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures Chairman Kehr reviewed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the November 26, 2012 meeting The minutes of the November 26, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the height requirements to allow construction of a generator on the roof of a commercial building at One Westminster Place. Owner: Westminster Partnership, L.P. Representative: Nader Khorza, Westminster Partnership Mark Danielak, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Mr. Danielak introduced the petition noting that he designed the platform for the generator. He stated that Mr. Khorza, the property owner, was unable to attend the meeting explaining that he and the electrical contractor are present to answer questions. He explained that a law firm is a primary tenant in the building and is driving the need for a larger generator for the building. He stated that the law firm has a large server which supports the firm’s office in this building as well as another branch of the firm located downtown. He explained that a small generator is currently located on the roof of the building but a larger backup generator is necessary to allow business to continue if power is lost. He stated that there is no place to locate the generator on the site except Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 2 on the roof because the building covers the site. He described the building pointing out the shorter and taller building elements. He explained that the existing generator is on the taller portion of the building and that putting the generator on the roof of the lower portion of the building would be difficult because it would disrupt the interior space due to piping and conduit that would need to be installed. He stated that the necessary piping and conduit is already in place in the taller portion of the building. He further pointed out that the shorter portion of the building is frame construction and cannot support the load of a large generator. At the request of Chairman Kehr, Mr. Danielak provided some photos of the current conditions at the site noting the existing generators on the roof. He noted the area where the new generator will be installed and the air handler which will be removed from the roof in the future. He also pointed out the other roof existing roof top equipment that will remain. He explained that the roof is poured in place concrete, a composite deck system, and is sufficient to support the existing equipment and the larger generator without any re-enforcement. He stated that the proposed location for the new generator is close to the mechanical room making it very simple to extend the required electrical service. He reviewed a photo of the mock-up that was put up on the roof prior to the meeting. He explained that the photo shows the mock-up as viewed from westbound Westminster. He stated that the replacement generator will be about 11” taller than the generator that it will replace and only several inches taller than the other existing unit which will remain. He stated that alternatives for screening the equipment were considered including the “Cityscape system” suggested by City staff. He stated that system requires the frames of the screening panels to be attached to the mechanical units. He stated that this system will work for the existing units and the proposed replacement generator. He stated that it would be difficult to use this screening system on the air handling unit that will be replaced in the near future since it is near the end of its life. He explained that the frames are built to attach to specific units and as a result, a new screen would need to be build and installed when the air handling unit is replaced. He asked the Board to consider delaying the requirement for screening of that particular unit. Ms. Neuman noted that this petition is different from most of the petitions reviewed by the Board. She explained that this is a request for a variance from the height regulations in the Central Business District. She stated that preserving the character of the Central Business District is important and commented that keeping unsightly equipment out of the public view is important to achieve that goal. She stated that the conditions of this site may justify a variance however, how the screening of the existing and proposed mechanical equipment is executed, will be the key to a successful solution. She explained that screening should be done in a way that does not attract attention to the roof top and minimizes the appearance of clutter. She acknowledged that the screening will Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 3 need to recognize the limitations of the building. She commented that based on information from the petitioner, it appears that attaching screen walls to the units is possible. She offered that an alternative would be to install a single screen wall that encompasses the various pieces of equipment. She stated that conditions of approval are provided in the staff report for the Board’s consideration. In response to questions from Board member Kennedy, Mr. Danielak stated that the size of the generator is based on the power needed and the fact that the generator itself is enclosed with sound deadening material. He stated that generators from various manufacturers were explored and to meet the needs of the tenant, the generators are all about the same size. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the existing building is not conforming to the current 35’ height limit for buildings in the Central Business District. She stated that the existing building is 40’ 2” at the tallest point. She stated that the replacement generator would increase the overall height by about 4”. Chairman Kehr swore in Robert Markus, President, Markus Electric, and the supervising electrical contractor on the project. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Markus stated that the proposed generator will likely be quieter than the existing generator due to the newer technology that will be used. He stated that currently, the primary tenant’s server is not backed up and when the power goes out, work is stopped. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the staff report recommends a condition of approval that requires screening to be installed around all existing units as well as the replacement generator. She stated that the condition, as written, would allow the screening to be reviewed and approved at the staff level or referred to the Building Review Board if an acceptable solution cannot be reached. In response to questions from Board member Franksen, Mr. Markus stated that the current server is backed up only by a UPC for a short while. He stated that the primary purpose for the replacement generator is to back up the law firm’s servers both at this site and at a branch office downtown. He confirmed that the generator will also support emergency lighting which is supported by the existing generator. He added that the generator will be used to back up the electric heating system. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Markus confirmed that the generator is 100 KW and will be exercised once a week for 15 minutes. He stated that the unit can be programmed to run at any time and suggested that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 4 Fridays, at lunch time, are usually times of activity during so running the generator will hardly be noticed. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Danielak confirmed that the building owner is planning to replace the existing air handler unit which is the large, long piece of equipment currently on the roof. He stated that he is not sure how soon that replacement will take place. Mr. Markus added that the gas line serving the building was recently upgraded to a larger line to support a new gas air handler. He stated that the work is planned in stages and the replacement of the generator is the first phase. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr and Board member Dixon, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the condition as proposed in the staff report requires screening of all of the roof top units at the same time. She acknowledged that in the presentation, the petitioner’s representative requested a delay in screening the air handler unit pending its replacement. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Danielak and Mr. Markus offered that the air handler unit could be painted the same color as the screening until the unit is replaced. Board member Dixon observed that currently there is no screening of the roof top equipment acknowledging that seasonally nearby trees may offer some screening. He stated support for screening of the generator with an understanding of how and when the air handler unit will be screened. Mr. Danielak noted that the staff recommendation calls for screening along the east and south elevations. He stated screening in those areas can be accomplished. He noted the only exception is to allow the existing air handler, located on the west side, to be screened on a temporary basis until a new unit is put in place at which time the new unit would be screened consistent with the others. Board member Franksen noted that one of the standards for variances is a hardship that is caused by changes to the Zoning Code not a hardship created by action of the property owner or past owners. He stated that is not the case with this petition. He stated that in this case, a high end law firm wants to preserve its business operations. He commented that the firm has been operating to date without the increased generator capacity. He stated that the replacement generator will stand out as a large structure when viewed from westbound Westminster and could be an eyesore. He stated that he is not completely convinced that the variance criteria are met and asked for Board discussion. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Markus stated that the law firm Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 5 has been a tenant in the building since about 1985, before the current owner owned the building. He explained that with the change in technology, there are demands for new equipment. He pointed out that a server room did not even exist in the building until about 5 or 6 years ago. He stated that the community is vulnerable to ComEd outages noting a 16 hour outage experienced at the building last summer. He stated that he has advised the building owner for the past 5 years to provide a backup generator for the server. He added that providing a backup for the heating system is also important. He stated that the installation of backup generators has become a necessity. Board member Franksen acknowledged that the proposed replacement generator alone will not change the character of Westminster. He noted however as pointed out by Mr. Markus, there may be an increasing demand for additional mechanicals through the Central Business District. He stated that careful consideration should be given to this petition with an eye toward what else might be requested in the future. He commented that mechanical equipment, at various levels could at some point change the character of the area. In response to comments from Board member Franksen, Mr. Danielson explained that there is an advantage to putting up a screen that will create a sense of uniformity on the roof rather than the various units of different colors and sizes that exists today. Board member Dixon agreed that the proposed screening will be an improvement over what has existed on the roof for many years. Board member Kennedy stated support for the variance noting that if the generator was not needed, the owner would not install it. He agreed that the roof top area does not look great now and that screening will be an improvement. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Mr. Danielak and Mr. Markus confirmed that the screening will be a single height and a single material and will bring consistency to the roof top area. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Neuman confirmed that if the adjacent single story building was replaced with a new building, the 35 foot height limit would apply. Chairman Kehr invited comments from the public. Hearing none, she invited final comments from the petitioner and staff. Mr. Danielson commented on possible color choices for the screening noting that the sky lights are a zinc colored material. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 6 Ms. Neuman stated that a plan for screening the units will need to be submitted for review. She stated that the proposed color should be noted in the plan. She suggested that a mock-up at the site, using various colors, would be helpful. She stated that the color of the screening will directly relate to how visible the screen is and whether it attracts attention, or provides a subtle screen. She noted success with previous mock-ups of screen material and commented that sometimes the results are surprising with a lighter color attracting more attention to the roof top than a darker color. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that staff would review the screening plan and refer it to the Building Review Board if necessary. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the current Code requires screening of all roof top mechanical units. She confirmed that permits are required for all roof top equipment and that through that process; the City is able to track this activity. She stated that to her knowledge there has been no significant increase to date in these types of projects. Board member Christoff suggested that roof top plantings could also be considered to screen of the units. Board member Culbertson observed that the new generator will be somewhat, but not much, larger than the existing generator. He noted that with the condition of approval as proposed in the staff report, screening will be required to improve upon the existing condition by shielding both the new and existing roof top equipment. He stated that with a condition for consistent screening, he can support the request. Board member Christoff noted that the project is in support of a long term tenant and agreed with Board member Culbertson that the current situation will be improved as a result of the proposed work. Board member Kennedy agreed that with the screening, there could be an improvement of the roof top view. Board member Dixon stated that the screening plan should also address the color of the screen. Board member Franksen stated that he can reluctantly support the variance noting that the criteria are met, but just barely noting that the additional height should be carefully considered and limited to the extent possible. He stated that it is reasonable to try to accommodate a good tenant and building owner. He commented that the roof top equipment is not attractive now and Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 7 screening should improve upon the current situation. He asked that the conditions of approval assure that consistent screening is installed. Chairman Kehr commented that in the past, the Board has seen requests that allow buildings to be updated to meet current needs and uses. She stated that this request for an updated generator goes beyond the existing tenant. She commented that after this generator serves out its useful life, this type of equipment may be smaller and a variance may no longer be required. Board member Franksen commented that other building owners may want the same accommodation. Board member Culbertson stated that every variance needs to be considered on its own merits. Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of a height variance to allow a replacement backup generator to be located on the roof top as reflected on the drawings presented to the Board. He continued noting that the height of the generator, at its highest point, shall not exceed 40’-6” above the sidewalk at 1 Westminster Place. He noted that the motion is based on the findings presented in the staff report and is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) a comprehensive plan for screening all of the roof top equipment existing and new, over time shall be submitted for review and subject to staff approval ; and b) a mockup of the screening portraying the material, height, color and overall configuration shall be installed for staff review and a determination of whether the screening serves to mitigate the appearance of the roof top equipment in a manner that does not draw attention and is consistent with the general character of the Central Business District. At staff’s discretion, the screening may be presented to the Building Review Board for consideration and action. 2. In the future, if replacement mechanical units of the same or smaller profile than the existing units are proposed, those units should be placed in a manner to minimize the view from the street and be screened consistent with the approved screening plan associated with the proposed generator. I f additional or larger units are proposed, additional variances will be required. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and was unanimously approved by the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 28, 2013 Page 8 4. Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to authorize the future establishment of an educational use, the Krebs Center for Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship at 1045 Walden Road. Owners: Robert and Anne Krebs This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There was no other public testimony presented to the Board. 6. Additional information from staff. Staff reminded the Board that there is no meeting in December. The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development