Back on February 25 we published a post about two new construction projects within a block or so of each other in the Greenwood/Busse area.
One is a 25-townhouse project by Lexington Homes on the Greenwood and Elm site known as the City’s old public works headquarters (the “LEX”). The other is an assisted living facility (the “ALF”) on Greenwood between Busse and Northwest Highway.
At the City Council meeting on March 7, rezoning for the LEX – from R-2 single-family residential to R-4 multi-family residential – was defeated by a vote of 4 (Alds. Milissis, Van Roeyen, Shubert and Mazzuca) to 3 (Acting Mayor Maloney and Alds. Moran and Knight).
At that same meeting, the Council approved a “special use” to the ALF – because the site is currently zoned B-2 general commercial – by a vote of 4 (Acting Mayor Maloney and Alds. Moran, Milissis and Van Roeyen) to 3 (Alds. Shubert, Knight and Mazucca), even though the ALF will exceed the maximum 40-foot height permitted in the City’s Zoning Code by a sizable 12 feet, or 30%.
That 30% height variance is scheduled for final approval at tonight’s Council meeting.
We had no “stringer” at the meeting and we haven’t watched the meeting video. That means we’re relying entirely on the articles published in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Park Ridge City Council says no to Elm Street townhouses,” March 8 and “Assisted living building gets early OK from Park Ridge City Council,” March 10), along with the Agenda Cover memos issued by the City’s Community Preservation & Development Director, Jim Testin, for the LEX and the ALF.
We’ve repeatedly been critical of the City’s unpredictable and seemingly schizophrenic way it deals with zoning. The way these two projects were dealt with would appear to be Object Lesson No. 1 in that regard.
According to the H-A articles, two of the “no” votes against both projects were from Shubert and Mazzuca.
Shubert’s objections to the LEX were traffic-related and because “[m]ost of the people [he’s] talked to were lukewarm or against this particular project,” according to the H-A article.
Mazzuca opposed the LEX – which could have accommodated up to 25 living units – on the grounds that such a multi-family development would be inconsistent with the single-family nature of that neighborhood. He opposed the ALF on a similar there-goes-the-character-of-the-neighborhood basis.
Frankly, we can see both sides of the LEX argument.
But it seems like there’s a lot more heavy lifting, policy-wise, to be done on the fundamental development issues that the LEX presents, such as: Does Park Ridge need 25 additional townhouses on land that reportedly could accommodate 11-12 single-family homes under its current R-2 zoning?
If you’re a local merchant, 25 new townhouses mean more doubling the number of households that standard single-family homes on that property could provide, which might mean roughly double the consumer sales that single-family homes might generate. The townhouses might also bring in more total property tax revenue than single-family homes, although that remains an open question.
But those same 25 townhouses also might double the number of kids enrolling in our public schools. And that might produce annual property tax deficits (per-household student costs v. per-household property taxes paid to the school districts) of ten, twenty or thirty-thousand dollars per residence per year – deficits that will need to be made up the majority of property taxpayers without kids in those schools.
Should overburdening the schools be a City concern?
We think that’s a great question that needs to be addressed by the City Council, and sooner rather than later – because only the City has the legal ability to regulate land development and thereby control the number of residences that can be built in town.
As best as we can tell, neither the City Council nor the Planning & Zoning Commission ever have had that particular “policy” discussion. And don’t expect the D-64 and the D-207 Boards to contribute much of value to such a discussion.
Over the last 25 years, neither school district has demonstrated that they either know or care about how many students they have to educate, so long as they can spend their respective districts into financial crises every so often – for D-64 it’s usually every 10 years or so (e.g., the crisis leading to the “Yes, Yes!” referendum in 1997; and the crisis leading to the “Strong Schools” referendum in 2007) – that enable them cry “Wolf!” and stampede the taxpayers into voting for yet another hefty tax-increase…“for the kids,” of course.
And irrespective of whether all that money actually improves educational quality, objectively measured.
Because both districts are masterful in manipulating and hiding the full impact of their respective financial situations from the taxpayers, however, they can pretty much dictate when those tax-increase referendums are held. That means steering them to the odd-year local elections when voter turnout is significantly lower – and can be more easily dominated by a well–organized and uber-motivated “for the kids” campaign committee – than in the general elections in November of the even years.
Which might explain why, this year, the D-64 Board appears to be hell-bent on locking in a boxcar’s worth of non-referendum debt for various construction projects (including $7 million for those not-really-secure vestibules) while also giving the PREA (teachers union) a three-or-four-year contract that will almost certainly be, once again, of the sweetheart persuasion. Such profligacy – combined with the enrollment increases likely to come from all those new multi-family residences – can help create another financial crisis suitable for leveraging into another tax-increase referendum in 2017 or, more likely, 2019.
Is there an actual plan for our community’s development; and, if so, is it actually being followed?
Does anybody know? Does anybody care?
To read or post comments, click on title.
11 comments so far
I don’t understand the 30% excessive height permit. Will the ALF be the new highest point in Park Ridge? And does architect Andy Koglin have the inside track at City Hall?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Nor do we.
No, we believe the penthouse of Mr. Koglin’s Residences of Uptown is higher, if only because it sits on a higher elevation.
We have no idea, although the Planning & Zoning Commission passed the ALF with only one “no” vote – and chair Joe Baldi endorsing the 30% excess height by saying that the location could accommodate “a building that’s a little bit tall.” So it would appear that 30% higher than Code is just “a little bit” high and deserving of an exception. So much for a predictable development process.
It is very predictable. Follow the code and your are denied. Don’t follow the code and you get a variance…..simple!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t completely agree, but you’re more right than wrong. And it might also depend on who’s asking.
I just read that Milissis and Van Roeyen flipped and that LEX passed. All your arguments about no city policy seem to be in play with that flip. And Milissis opposed 400 Talcott that did not need any variances or other special treatment.
You are absolutely correct when you describe our zoning and development process as schizophrenic. That may even be too generous.
Planning and Zoning approved the addition height of the Busse and Greenwood location. The city council approved a Special Use request to allow an Alzheimer’s type home to operate in that lot.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Correct. But as we understand it, the Council could have rejected it based on the 30% excess height.
What is the purpose of the zoning code allowing for variances or exceptions? And
If the code was always to be strictly followed then why doesn’t the council amend out the variances and exception provisions?
If no one is willing to develop a piece of property next to railroad tracks as single family after waiting a significant amount of time to find some willing developer isn’t it reasonable to get the next best use out of it? Townhomes aren’t as disruptive to the single family home environment as are denser condos/apartments.
As to putting to many kids in the schools – we heard those arguments at PNZ meetings when the development next to whole foods was being considered. It was discussed that it was in field schools boundaries and that if the developer was wrong and no children high end professionals willing to pay thousands a month to live near a train line didn’t materialize the concern was families with kids renting there to take advantage of the public schools.
EDITOR’S NOTE: THAT’S why we think these issues need to be discussed on a “policy” basis rather than as each individual development project comes up for consideration.
Does anybody connected with the city, or the school districts or the park district, have any idea of how many people Park Ridge can optimally hold? And if so, what if anything are those government branches doing to reach those targets?
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Optimally” is a difficult concept and means different things to different people/special interests. As we’ve pointed out, merchants tend to want maximum residential density to maximize the local customer base. The counterpoint to that is if such density adds a lot more school-aged kids attending our public schools, everybody’s taxes rise significantly – especially for D-64, which is basically confined to Park Ridge’s borders – because of the high cost ($14-15,000/student) of education.
6:37:
I know. Let’s hire a consultant and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars to give us the answers. They could measure the entire city with a yard stick and do all kinds of analysis and give us the fancy document and than the council could cherry pick the ones they want!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Or we could just stumble alog from project to project, letting staff and the P&Z Commission flip a coin – or use the Magic 8 Ball – to decide whether to approve or not.
The mix of the Alzheimer’s project at Greenwood and NW Highway, and the Elm and Greenwood townhomes should be seen as a positive. The fact that the Alzheimer home location will never have condominiums, apartments or other dwellings on it speaks to the Editor’s concern for limiting the costs (from our taxes) associated with educating students in D64 and D207. The townhomes at Elm and Greenwood may have some school age children residing there, or they may not. There is no reason to believe that traffic in this area will be any worse later than it is now. Some argue that we needed more retail in this area, yet Village green is 100 yards to the west and has many units available for interested retailers. We should be cautious about decisions made for the city, but we should not crush development simply because we fear “possible” downsides.
On Park Ridge Homeowners Matt Coyne justifies the extra height of the ALF by the extra storm water detention. I’m not sure that I agree with that because that rationale could support a 60, or 70, or a 100-foot height. I don’t believe our zoning code is intended to be governed by water. Am I missing something?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Nope, you don’t seem to be missing anything.
The approval of the extra 12 ft. In height was made by the zoning appeals board. The approval of a Special Use was made by the City Council. while in the end a taller building and site with extra stornwater detention were approved, the two things were unrelated in terms of overall consideration by the city council. This was not a quid pro quo arrangement.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “The two things were unrelated” and “[t]his was not a quid pro quo arrangement” says the anonymous commentator, who for all we know could be the “quid” or the “quo.”
Besides, the approval of the extra 12 feet was made by Planning & Zoning, not the ZBA; and the Council has the power to over-rule P&Z approval.
One thing is for certain…these slapped together town houses/apartments are just that…not to the fire code for sure. 1). One single common roof, 2). No true masonary fire wall(s) for unit by unit sepration, 3). true smoke stop and fire stopping for the pipe chases have not been completed. What is the FD Inspection Bureau thinking….or did 505 decide to by-pass the fire prevention codes too? One thing is for sure…I would not want to own or live in those fire traps for sure.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We understand that all codes were satisfied. If you have actual PROOF that they weren’t, provide it.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>