Community Development Department

Transcription

1 Community Development Department SUBJECT: First Consideration of an Ordinance granting a commercial variation for ITW Rooftop Mechanicals at 150 Waukegan Road AGENDA ITEM: 11.g MEETING DATE: April 17, 2014 VILLAGE BOARD REPORT TO: Village President and Board of Trustees FROM: Jeff Brady, Director of Planning, (847) THROUGH: Todd Hileman, Village Manager CASE # : Z LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 150 Waukegan Road ITW Rooftop Mechanicals ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests Village Board consideration of a Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation for approval of a Zoning Variation Ordinance from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)f. of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at heights in excess of 12.0 feet above the adjacent roof deck, as allowed and required by said ordinance. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Natalie McElligott The Architects Partnership 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste Chicago, IL Tel: (312) CONTACT: Rodney Jones Illinois Tool Works 3600 West Lake Avenue Glenview, IL Tel: (847)

2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION: Commissioner Perl moved, seconded by Commissioner Jester, that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval to the Village Board of Trustees, by a 4-0 vote, of a Variation in the case of Z , 150 Waukegan Road, for the applicant, Illinois Tool Works, represented by The Architects Partnership, from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)(f) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at a height of feet above the roof deck instead of a maximum height of feet above the roof deck, as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the rooftop structures are in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DISCUSSION: Staff summarized the applicant s proposal and the applicable rooftop structure height requirement from which variations were requested. The proposed rooftop structures and cooling tower height would be feet where a maximum height of feet above the roof deck would be permitted. The applicant explained that the proposed cooling tower configuration would greatly reduce the number of units that would be needed to ventilate the existing building. The Zoning Board asked for further clarification regarding the proposed screening material and potential noise impacts. The Zoning Board also inquired about the impacts that a compliant configuration may create. The applicant stated that the screening material would be substantially more effective than the current material and should prevent visibility of the units from grade. The units would also be compliant with the Village of Glenview noise performance standards. One resident spoke regarding the proposal. Through testimony between the resident, staff, and the applicant it was determined that all of their concerns, including noise and visibility, would be reduced under current proposal. The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the testimony and evidence and confirmed that the subject property met the variation standards in so much that the lot size and setbacks are unique and substantially larger than those provided elsewhere in the Village. The Zoning Board also noted that the new screening material would greatly reduce the visibility of the units. The Zoning Board of Appeals noted that specific architecture may be amended somewhat from the design presented since final review from the Appearance Commission was still outstanding and would be completed when the building permit review was further along in the process. There were no additional questions from the Zoning Board and there were no additional questions or comments from the public. Since the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the applicant s proposed screening for the rooftop mechanicals received preliminary approval from the Appearance Commission on March 12, ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Report 2. Public Notice 3. Excerpt from Minutes of 03/17/2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 4. Draft Ordinance and Exhibits 2

3 Village of Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF REPORT March 17, 2014 TO: Chairman and Zoning Board of Appeals Commissioners FROM: Community Development Department CASE #: Z LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: 150 Waukegan Road ITW Rooftop Mechanicals CASE MANAGER: Tony Repp, Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Variation request from Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests consideration of a final determination regarding the petition. APPLICANT / CONTACT: Natalie McElligott The Architects Partnership 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste Chicago, IL Tel: (312) CONTACT: Rodney Jones Illinois Tool Works 3600 West Lake Avenue Glenview, IL Tel: (847) PROPOSAL: The petitioner, Illinois Tool Works, represented by The Architects Partnership, Ltd., request a Variation from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)f. of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at heights in excess of 12.0 feet above the adjacent roof deck, as allowed and required by said ordinance. SITE DIRECTIONS: From Village Hall, turn left onto Waukegan Road and proceed south to Golf Road. Turn right onto Golf Road and proceed west to Harlem Avenue. Turn right into the subject property s visitor parking lot. The most westerly building nearest the Harlem Avenue entrance is the subject building. Report Disclaimer: Village staff makes no representations regarding support, endorsement, or the likelihood of approval or disapproval by any Glenview regulatory commission or the Village Board of Trustees. 3

4 Site Assessment VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING: PIN: & Current North East South West Glenview I-1 Limited Commercial District Glenview R-5 Residential District Glenview R-5 Residential District Morton Grove Commercial District Glenview R-18 Residential District / Glenview B-2 General Business District AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 4

5 PICTOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY: West Elevation South Elevation 5

6 Project Summary BACKGROUND: The subject property is currently improved with an office campus that formerly housed a branch of the Kraft Corporation. Kraft has relocated and Illinois Tool Works ( ITW ) is now working towards occupying the property. The existing buildings will house ITW s offices as well as their research and development facilities. As a part of various improvements to the existing buildings, ITW is proposing the installation of four (4) cooling towers and screen walls atop the west building on the property, which based on their height require variations. The proposed cooling towers would replace ten (10) existing HVAC units on the roof, which measure at a height of approximately 9.0 feet from the roof deck. As part of the proposed installation of these towers, ITW would also provide a metal grille screening based on the approval granted by the Appearance Commission on March 12, The buildings are setback more than feet from each property line, but are still visible from some of the adjacent residential neighborhoods and roads. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: The following sections outline current ordinance requirements as these would be applied to the existing and proposed conditions. Maximum Rooftop Structure Height: Per Sections 98-4 and (2)(f) of the Municipal Code and as applied to the subject property, the maximum permissible height of rooftop structures is 12.0 feet above the roof deck. The applicant is proposing to install rooftop mechanicals and screening at a height of feet above the roof deck. This results in a total height from top of the rooftop structures to grade of feet. Other Bulk Regulations: The proposed improvements would be in full compliance with all other design and bulk requirements of the zoning ordinance. APPEARANCE COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The Appearance Commission considered the proposed building design, materials, and architecture at their regular meeting on Wednesday March 12, The Commission chose a louvered panel as the appropriate screening. A copy of the specifications for that material has been provided to the Zoning Board. Draft minutes of this discussion were not available at press time for this report. If these should be available in advance of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, copies will be provided for review. 6

7 Zoning Board of Appeals Review KEY VARIATION STANDARD COMMENTS: Staff comments after evaluating the wide range of issues considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, including but not limited to the following: Whether there exists a legal hardship of the property as distinguished from an inconvenience Whether the alleged hardship may be self-imposed Whether a.) the property; and/or b.) the application of the ordinance to the situation is unique Compatibility of the resulting conditions with other properties of the same zoning designation Demonstration of how other available options are not viable, regardless of economic impact Mitigation of impact(s) upon properties in the vicinity Staff Comments: The applicant is proposing to screen the proposed units with horizontal grille metal panels. The subject property is comprised of a large lot size and is bordered by three major roads and is setback more than feet from every property line. POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS: The proposed building addition would be centrally located upon the site which fronts upon Waukegan Road, Golf Road, and Harlem Avenue. At press time, staff had not received any public correspondence regarding the proposed rooftop structures, and there were no members of the public who spoke at the Appearance Commission meeting. 7

8 Technical Review PROJECT TIMELINE: A. 02/18/14 Application received B. 02/27/14 Public notice published in the Glenview Announcements C. 02/27/14 Public notice sign posted upon the subject property D. 02/27/14 Public notices mailed to surrounding property owners E. 03/12/14 Preliminary Appearance Commission F. 03/17/14 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting G. TBD First Consideration by Board of Trustees H. TBD Second Consideration by Board of Trustees I. TBD Building Permit Application & Final Engineering J. TBD Building & Engineering Inspections K. TBD Certificate of Occupancy L. TBD Expiration of Zoning Variation 2014 A BCD E F G H M Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ZONING BOARD JURISDICTION & PURPOSE: The Zoning Board is vested with the authority to hear, and make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees regarding applications for commercial, multi-family, and institutional variances subject to the standards set forth in Section of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall identify findings of fact based upon the standards prescribed whether the application of regulations of the zoning ordinance will create a practical difficulty or hardship for the owner, lessee, or occupant of land, buildings, or structures. LEGAL NOTICE & PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: A notice of a Public Hearing to be held was published in the Glenview Announcements, a newspaper with a general circulation within the Village of Glenview, not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for said hearing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 65, Section 5/ of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. 8

9 REQUIRED APPROVAL(s): The following chart details the necessary required approvals. An associated appendix includes specific descriptions of each regulatory approval, the review criteria, and standards for approval. Each commissioner has a copy of this appendix and copies for the public are located on the table near the entry doors to the Village Board Room. The appendix can also be viewed on the Planning Division website at the following URL: Required Regulatory Review A. Annexation B. Annexation with Annexation Agreement C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Official Map Amendment E. Rezoning F. Planned Development G. Conditional Use H. Final Site Plan Review I. Second Curb Cut J. Subdivision (Preliminary, Final, and Waivers) K. Variation(s) (Zoning Board of Appeals) L. Certificate of Appropriateness (Appearance Commission) M. Final Engineering Approval & Outside Agency Permits N. Building Permits O. Building & Engineering Inspections P. Recorded Documents (Development Agreements, Easements, Covenants, etc.) Q. Business License R. Certificate of Occupancy VARIATION STANDARDS: 1.) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not vary the regulations of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code unless it shall make a finding of fact based upon the evidence as presented to it in each specific case that the: a. Particular physical surroundings shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or hardship upon or for the owner, lessee or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were carried out. b. Conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique and would not be generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. c. Alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. d. Granting of the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. e. Proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. f. Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2.) If all of the standards set forth in subsection (1) of this section cannot be met, yet an identifiable overriding public benefit can be realized by the granting 9 of the requested variation, the zoning

10 board of appeals shall forward a written recommendation, including a specific finding of fact of overriding public benefit, to the board of trustees for final disposition. 3.) The Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variation as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in this subsection (1) to reduce or minimize the injurious effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the general intent of Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code. 10

11 PROPOSED VARIATION PUBLIC NOTICE Z Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a petition requesting a Variation of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance. The meeting will be held on Monday, March 17, 2014 at 7:00 P.M., in the Village Hall, 1225 Waukegan Road, Glenview, IL in accordance with Chapter 65, Section 5/ of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. The property involved is commonly known as 150 Waukegan Road and legally described as: LOT 1 IN KRAFTCO CORPORATION S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THAT PART OF LOT 1 AND ALL OF LOT 2 (EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSESREGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO ) IN MCINTOSH & PRASSAS SHOPPING CENTER, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ON MAY 23, 1955 AS DOCUMENT NO ; AND THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 250 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN A LINE 50 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION BEING FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID LINE 250 FEET; THENCE EAST 250 FEET TO A POINT JUST 250 FEET NORTH OF GOLF ROAD, AS DEDICATED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 565 OF PLATS PAGES 40 TO 45; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE LINE PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 250 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF GOLF ROAD AFORESAID; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES), MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 IN MCINTOSH & PRASSAS SHOPPING CENTER; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST; FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WITH A RADIUS OF FEET AND A CHORD WHICH REARS NORTH 45 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST, FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST, FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The petitioner, Illinois Tool Works, represented by The Architects Partnership, Ltd., request a Variation from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)f. of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at heights in excess of 12.0 feet above the adjacent roof deck, as allowed and required by said ordinance. All persons interested should attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard. For additional information regarding this case, please contact Tony Repp, Planner, at (847) Zoning Board of Appeals Ronald A. Greco, Chairman Attest: Jeff Rogers, AICP Senior Planner Publication Date: February 27,

12 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF 03/17/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Z Waukegan Road ITW Request: Rooftop Structure Height This case was published in the Glenview Announcements on February 27, Mr. Repp reported that the applicant, Illinois Tool Works (ITW), is requesting a variance for a roof top structure height. The maximum height for accessory roof top structures including HVAC units and screening is 12 feet above the roof deck. The proposal is to install four new cooling towers at a height of 15.3 feet above the roof deck to replace the existing towers on the former Kraft site at Golf and Waukegan Road, which exceeds the requirement. The Plan Commission granted a Certificate of Appropriateness pending Zoning Board approval for screening Option 1. Mr. Repp said the project timeline listed in the staff report was incorrect but has since been revised. Various exhibits were shown. A rendering illustrated the proposed configuration of the four towers and screening, and a photo of the right-of-way from Harlem Avenue shows how the existing mechanicals and screening would appear. There are deciduous trees that bloom in the summer and block some of the areas around the three sides of the property bordering public rights-of-way. In the winter some of the deciduous trees are dormant and allow an expanded view into the property. A sample of the proposed screening material approved by the Appearance Commission was shown. The material allows proper circulation and ventilation of air as it comes into and out of the screening units, but from a distance it is difficult to see. Chairman Greco asked how four cooling towers could replace ten cooling towers. Project engineer Bill Stangeland, McGuire Engineers, 300 South Riverside, Chicago, said the existing cooling towers sit on the west roof. Consideration was given to putting the new cooling towers in the same location since the piping and infrastructure already exist. The chillers for the existing towers are almost directly below in the one corner of the west building. Since the proposed towers exceed the maximum 12 foot height, other options were considered. He explained why these alternatives were not workable. Once the options were eliminated, research began for towers no higher than 12 feet. The ten unit option required a style of cooling tower that is less efficient and costly and this solution barely met the Illinois energy code requirements with its 300 horsepower. The four tower solution is 80 horsepower thereby providing a huge energy saving. The ten tower option would require additional steel infrastructure and piping, and ITW would have to accept the inefficiency of the ten towers. That is what prompted the variance requests. Commissioner Jester asked about the location of the proposed cooling towers and screening. Project architect Natalie McElligott, 122 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 2810, Chicago, said consideration was given to lowering the screening height but it would negatively impact the main view of the building from the Harlem Avenue entrance. Lower screening was considered but it wouldn t cover the other equipment on the roof. Commissioner Jester asked if the proposed screening for the existing towers is better than what exists. Ms. McElligott said the proposed screening is more solid than other options. Also, when looking up at the roof the towers would not be visible due to how the proposed screening would be mounted. Commissioner Perl recalled the applicant s testimony that the proposed towers would meet the minimum basic requirements for efficiency and energy standards. Mr. Strangeland said the proposed towers meet and exceed the minimum standards. The proposed towers with 80 horsepower significantly exceed energy requirements by almost four times compared to 300 horsepower needed to operate the ten towers. In terms of addressing an increase in cooling needs over the next ten years, one of the four proposed towers would be designated as a 100% stand-by tower. The design accommodates operating the chillers with three towers. The standby tower would be used when one of the other three is being serviced or when cooling needs increase in the future. One person came forward to speak to this petition. Mr. John Ciszek, 245 Neva, lives on the other side of the ITW property at Neva and Colfax. When Kraft last worked on the air conditioners it was done at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning. The work involved the use of helicopters although the neighbors were not notified. He asked ITW to be a better neighbor and consider doing the work during a weekday rather than a Sunday morning. Ms. McElligott assured Mr. Ciszek that ITW would be very sensitive to the neighbors and all Village guidelines for when work could be done would 12 be followed. In response to Mr. Ciszek s concern

13 about the noise from the four towers, Mr. Stangeland said the noise from the four towers would be quieter and about half the noise level from the operation of the exiting ten towers. Mr. Repp stated that staff would provide the applicants with a copy of the latest version of the noise ordinance prior to the installation of the proposed towers, if approved. He added that during the preconstruction meeting there was discussion with the applicant and the architect about how they would provide outreach and support to the neighbors during the construction process to ensure the neighbors wouldn t be disturbed. In response to Chairman Greco, Ms. McElligott said the current wall is 71.6 feet (building and existing screening). The proposal exceeds the existing height by 6.3 feet. Ms. McElligott added that the fourtower approach would be The existing nine foot screen would increase to a total of 15.3 feet as proposed. Chairman Greco stated that the ordinance standards have been met. The compelling argument is the applicants are proposing to install an energy-efficient system compared to existing and other options. Based upon findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Municipal Code; Commissioner Perl moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval to the Village Board of Trustees of a Variation in the case of Z , 150 Waukegan Road, for the applicant, Illinois Tool Works, represented by The Architects Partnership, from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)(f) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at a height of feet above the roof deck instead of a maximum height of feet above the roof deck, as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the rooftop structures are in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition. Commissioner Jester seconded the motion. On Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Perl, Siegel, Jester, Chairman Greco Nays: None Absent: Commissioners Jang, Mullarkey, Whipple Ms. McElligott said demolition was expected to begin within the next few weeks 13

14 Z Commercial Variation for Rooftop Structure Height at 150 Waukegan Road - ITW 05/06/14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A COMMERCIAL ZONING VARIATION WHEREAS, the Village of Glenview (the Village ) is a home rule municipality in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; WHEREAS, the Village has the authority to adopt ordinances and to promulgate rules and regulations that pertain to its government and affairs that protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, a notice of public hearing before the Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals was duly published in the Glenview Announcements, a newspaper of general circulation within the Village, scheduling a public hearing for March 17, 2014 on an application seeking a variance for property classified I-1 Limited Office District by the Glenview Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid notice, a public hearing was held on March 17, 2014 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-43(d)(2) of the Glenview Municipal Code (the Code ), and all persons who desired to be heard were heard, and an opportunity was given to all persons who desired to make objections thereto; WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended the granting of such variance, which recommendation was duly considered by the corporate authorities; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities have determined that in order to further the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, it is appropriate and in the public interest to grant the applicant s request for a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village as follows: Section 1: The facts and statements contained in the preamble to this Ordinance are found to be true and correct and are hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2: The variation described in Section 3 below is hereby granted to the property commonly known as 150 Waukegan Road (the Subject Property ) which is legally described as: LOT 1 IN KRAFTCO CORPORATION S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; 14

15 THAT PART OF LOT 1 AND ALL OF LOT 2 (EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSESREGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO ) IN MCINTOSH & PRASSAS SHOPPING CENTER, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ON MAY 23, 1955 AS DOCUMENT NO ; AND THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 250 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN A LINE 50 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION BEING FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID LINE 250 FEET; THENCE EAST 250 FEET TO A POINT JUST 250 FEET NORTH OF GOLF ROAD, AS DEDICATED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 565 OF PLATS PAGES 40 TO 45; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE LINE PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 250 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF GOLF ROAD AFORESAID; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES), MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 IN MCINTOSH & PRASSAS SHOPPING CENTER; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST; FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WITH A RADIUS OF FEET AND A CHORD WHICH REARS NORTH 45 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST, FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST, FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Section 3: To allow Variations from the provisions of Sections 98-4 and (2)f of the Code to allow rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, and screen walls at a height of feet above the roof deck instead of a maximum height of feet above the roof deck. Section 4: To allow a period of up to six (6) months from the date of this Ordinance for the issuance of a building permit for construction of the aforementioned improvements, or the variation shall be rescinded. Section 5: Appropriate notice shall be taken by the Office of the Director of Community Development and any other affected departments of the Village of the variance herein authorized and suitable records of same shall be maintained by the Village to guarantee such variance to the property heretofore described. Section 6: Every section and provision of this Ordinance shall be separable, and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this Ordinance. Section 7: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this day of,

16 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED by me this day of, 20. ATTESTED and FILED in my office this day of, 20. James R. Patterson, Jr., President of the Village of Glenview, Cook County, Illinois Todd Hileman, Village Clerk Village of Glenview, Cook County, Illinois 16

17 17

18 Thisapplicationmustbecompletedinfullbytheapplicantortheirappointedagent. Applicant sinte restinprop erty(sole owner,coow ner,lessee, contractpu rchaser, etc. ): Architect PleaseIdentitytheVariation(s)appliedfor: FrontYard Setback RearYardSe tbacksid eyardsetb ack(s)fa RLotCovv eragesig n Height Other: Maximum Height Describe the proposed variation request compared to the regulations required by the Glenview Zoning Ordinance: We are requesting a variation to Zoning Section 98-4: Roof structures needed to operate and maintain the building on which they are located may extend 12 feet above the portion of the roof on which they are located. We are proposing four (4) cooling towers at 15-4 above the West Building roof to replace the existing, outdated towers. SiteDataEvaluation(allmeasurementsmustbeprovidedtothehundredthdecimalfoot): PrincipleResidenceorStructure LotSize FloorAreaRatio FrontYardSetback RearYardSetback SideYardsSetbacks MaximumBuildingHeight BuildingLotCoverage ParkingStalls LoadingBerths AccessoryStructure(s) StructureHeight( (ifapplicable) StructureArea(ifapplicable) RearYardSetback SideYardsSetbacks Fences FenceHeight(ifapplicable) FenceMaterial(ifapplicable) Signage SignHeight(ifapplicable) SignArea(ifapplicable) SignSetback(ifapplicable) FrontYardSetback SideYardsSetbacks Existing Proposed Permitted 2,110, sq.ft. No Change sq.ft. N/A sq.ft % sq.ft. No Change sq.ft. N/A sq.ft ft. No Change ft. 100 ft ft. No Change ft. 50 ft ft./ ft. NC ft. / NC ft. 50 ft./ ft ft. No Change ft. 70 ft. 168, sq.ft. No Change sq.ft. 33 1/3% = 703,398 sq.ft stalls TBD stalls 1370 stalls 4 berths No Change berths berths 4 Existing Proposed Permitted ~10 ft. No Change ft. N/A ft sq.ft. No Change sq.ft. N/A sq.ft. 111 ft. No Change ft. N/A ft. 213 ft. / 863ft. NC ft. / NC ft. N/A ft./ ft. N/A Existing ~3-6 ft. Proposed No Change ft. Permitted 8 ft. chain link No Change Existing Proposed Permitted N/A ft. ft. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. /ft. ft. /ft. ft./ ft. 18

19 VARIANCE QUESTIONS: Section 98-47(c) of the Village of Glenview Zoning Ordinance requires that certain conditions must exist before the Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA ) may grant a variation. Your responses to the items set forth below should address these conditions and provide the basis by which the ZBA will evaluate your application. Therefore, answers to the following items must be as complete and detailed as possible. Please feel free to prepare responses separately on additional pages if necessary. PLEASE NOTE: Yes and No answers are not acceptable. Any application that does not contain detailed answers to ALL questions will not be scheduled for the ZBA until the questions have been answered sufficiently. Please explain all answers in detail. 1. Briefly explain the extents of the improvement(s) currently proposed and itemize each zoning variation that is requested. The cooling towers that serve the West and North Buildings are to be replaced as part of the scope of work for the ITW Corporate Relocation. These Towers are years old and have passed their useful service life. Renovation of the towers is not an option as replacement components are not available due to the age of the equipment. Also the performance of the existing towers would not meet the requirements of the current Energy Conservation code. The building stands at 62-6 with existing cooling towers 9 above the roof. We are proposing four (4) new cooling towers at 15-4 above the roof (77-10 total height). We are requesting a variation to Zoning Section 98-4: Roof structures needed to operate and maintain the building on which they are located may extend 12 feet above the portion of the roof on which they are located. 2. Explain how the enforcement of the applicable zoning requirement(s) for which relief is currently requested to the proposed conditions would create a hardship or practical difficulty. Examples of hardships or practical difficulties include the following: the subject property s physical surroundings including but not limited to proximity of proposed improvements to adjacent properties and improvements, compatibility of adjacent land uses, attempts to preserve existing mature/quality trees, etc.; an irregular lot shape, multiple lot frontages, topography, drainage patterns, etc.; potential impacts upon adjacent properties would be greater if development was pursued in accordance with the ordinance than the alternative requested; the history or chronology of the existing improvements upon the subject property; and/or other similar conditions which demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty. PLEASE NOTE: The alleged hardship or practical difficulty should not originate from a personal need of the present user(s) or occupant(s) of the property, but should instead arise from the condition(s) of the property or improvements, or from the application of the ordinance requirements to the situation. To meet the 12 height maximum would require ten (10) towers (72-0 1/4 ), in lieu of the proposed four (4) tower approach (77-10 tower height), which is extremely energy inefficient (80 total horsepower for the four (4) tower approach versus 300 total horsepower for the (10) tower approach). In addition, the proposed four (4) tower approach is a much quieter design than the ten (10) tower approach (sound reduction up to 50% (3dB)). The proposed four (4) tower approach is the more efficient scheme (compared to the ten (10) tower approach) from an installation and energy efficient standpoint. The performance required per IECC 2012 for a centrifugal fan open circuit cooling tower is that the tower be greater than or equal to 20.0 gpm/hp. The alternate tower (300 HP, shorter height) is exactly at 20.0 gpm/hp for design conditions and if the condenser water pump system is less than the proposed design conditions then the system will not meet the requirements of IECC Whereas, the proposed 80 HP cooling tower is at a performance of 75.0 gpm/hp. The proposed system is more efficient than the requirements indicated in IECC 2012 and is more than 3 times as efficient as the 300 HP tower design. 19

20 3. Explain how the existing conditions and factors creating the need for relief from the zoning ordinance are unique. The evidence provided should identify how the factors identified are unusual due to unique site conditions or circumstances, and demonstrate how these site conditions or circumstances would not be generally applicable to other lots subject to the same zoning regulations. The need for variance is unique because of the existing building conditions. Because the current cooling towers are located on the roof of the West Building, the infrastructure for them already exists at that location and moving them to another location would be challenging (see Question 5 below). To replace the existing cooling towers and meet the required cooling load for the campus, four (4) towers at 15-4 above the deck are required. These circumstances would generally not be applicable to lots of the same zoning regulations unless they had a similar cooling load that requires towers of the same size and similar limitations on where the towers can be located. 4. Identify the characteristics of your plan which demonstrate how the granting of your requested variation(s) would not create impacts upon adjacent property owners or other properties in the vicinity. Your response should address any potential impacts on each of the following criteria: the supply of light and air to neighboring properties; traffic and congestion on nearby public streets; public safety, such as increased risk of fire or other potential hazards; neighboring property values; and the future development and enjoyment of neighboring properties. If warranted in response to any potential impacts, describe any design solutions that will be implemented or other efforts you plan to undertake to mitigate or eliminate potential negative impacts stemming from the granting of your requested variation(s). The only impact the requested variation will have upon adjacent properties is a visual one. The proposed cooling towers will be 3-4 above the maximum allowed. This will make them more visible, however their view will be shielded by a screen. Additionally, the building setbacks are well beyond what is required, which makes the additional height less obtrusive. The placement of the cooling towers and their distance from the property line will ensure that there is no impact on neighboring lots in terms of sound or supply of light and air. 5. Describe available alternatives you considered to the variation(s) you have requested, and explain why each alternative is not considered viable. Your response must identify why the plan selected is the only viable option. -Although we reviewed moving the cooling towers to grade level (see attached Site Plan for reference), there are no viable locations near the chiller room due to the location of the HVAC s ventilation system s outside air intakes and the danger of cooling tower drift being drawn into the outside air intake which would result in serious health concerns (Legionnaire s disease). Also, the further the cooling towers would move from the outside air intakes the closer they would move to the residential area. - In addition, the North Building roof would not be a viable option due to the existing skylights on that building and the extended distances that condenser water piping would have to travel. -Also, as the existing cooling towers are already installed on the roof of the West Building the infrastructure for the condenser water system (i.e. piping, water filtration system, structural support, etc.) is already in place at this location. For example, the main condenser water piping risers span more than 250 feet (12 and 10 pipes each) from the Towers to the chillers. Moving the cooling towers to another location would create a hardship for the owner, both in significantly extending the construction schedule and increasing the construction costs. 6. Economic impacts can be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, however economic impacts alone do not provide sufficient grounds for approval or denial of any variation request. Explain what, if any, economic impact you would incur if the requested variation(s) were to be denied. The initial installation cost for the ten (10) tower approach is in the range of $500,000 to $600,000 more than the four (4) tower approach. Additionally, the owner will have higher ongoing operating costs due to the increased energy consumption. The proposed Tower (at 80 HP total) would have an annual energy consumption of approximately 60,000 kwh, while the alternate Tower (at 300 HP total) would have an annual energy consumption of approximately 225,000 kwh. The operating cost differential between the two options is approximately $16,

21 The Architects Partnership, Ltd. 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1810, Chicago, IL Tenants and Square Footages Illinois Tool Works will be moving into the existing campus. Total Employees Total Square Footage 550 (approximate) 535,474 SF

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31