Hello PRU readers -- we apologize for the delayed posting today and appreciate your patience.
In today's online Herald-Advocate, we read 'Commission suggests changes for Touhy condo developer'. The article begins --
A developer looking to construct a 32-unit condominium building in ParkEverybody got that? 32 units on a site that currently contains 3 single family homes, but even with a zoning change, the maximum allowable density would be 12 units.
Ridge received some advice from the city's Planning and Zoning Commission.
The commission on Aug. 25 asked that Hoffman Homes, Inc. consider
reducing the height and "softening" the look of the building, which is proposed for three properties from 1963 W. Touhy Ave. to 1975 W. Touhy. Commissioners also said the density of the building should be examined, and the project (.pdf) should meet parking requirements under the city's Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed height of the building is 42 feet, which exceeds the
40 feet allowed for under R-4, high density residential, zoning. Plans call for eight fewer parking spaces than the Zoning Ordinance requires, and 32 units are proposed although the density allowed for the size of the property is just 12 units.
Think think. Think think.
Why would a developer believe he could ask for and expect to receive a zoning variance of that magnitude? Precedent, perhaps?
The zoning code does allow the city to grant variances for certain public amenities. If you're interested, you can read about all those amenities in the zoning code -- Section 5 Planned Developments (.pdf)
It could be possible that the public amenities the developer plans to offer are --
6. Community amenities including plazas, malls, formal gardens, places to
congregate,outdoor seating, public art, and pedestrian and transit facilities.
But the PRU Crew feels it's more probable that the public amenities the City of Park Ridge will be offered will be --
11. An affordable housing set-aside of twenty percent (20%) or more of all units as either rental or for-sale, according to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) guidelines.Okay, everybody got that? From 3 single family homes to a building 42 feet high with 32 units -- in exchange for the public amenity of having 6 more affordable housing units in the City of Park Ridge.
Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!
Remember this PRU post? Density. Density. Density.
And who is the great guy from Hoffman Homes who will offer Park Ridge this great public amenity? President and owner of Hoffman Homes Inc., Mr. Norman Hassinger.
The PRU Crew read about Mr. Hassinger here. Doesn't Mr. Hassinger sound like a real great guy?
Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!
24 comments:
This developer is obviously out to make as much of a profit as he can! I thought we were past this selfish BS already.
There's nothing wrong with making as much money as one can...honestly, *transparently*, accountably, and with integrity...
...something someone used to refer to as HITA...
The "problems" happen when such profits are made on the backs of taxpayers...or behind tightly drawn curtains where "advisors" suggest courses of action which will place them in a position to reap those profits...and certain "pols" pursue the interests of their "advisors" as rewards, directly or indirectly, for support...
...but don't mind me, I'm just a homemaker/volunteer...
Bean, are you talking about the condo development? It sounds as if you've got something else on your mind.
What's up?
it's like we've stepped into a time machine and gone back to the days of Frimark! I thought all that was ovr.
More than you know.
so Schmidt is REally Frimark? U gotta be kiddin me.
Mr. Hassinger sounds like a swell felon...oh wait, I meant fellow. :)
Why Bean......whatever do you mean?
There would be any kind of sheNANagans going on here would there?
I wonder what kind of "public amenity" could possibly be offered when they intend to use up EVERY square inch of the property proposed (well above what the ordinance allows) would there even be room for a park bench?
I wonder... what will they offer honestly and transparenty and with integrity?
7:13 find out some information before throwing out comments like that. The plans for this proposed developement went before the appearence commission in 2008....while Frimark was still Mayor.
You also might want to check out the "player" list on this one as I'm sure there is more than meets the eye here.
it's the old game called "connect the dots."
something stinks here!
key words.."affordable housing"
sec. 8?
Question...while I don't like Sec. 8 housing, and certainly don't want it in Park Ridge, don't we legally have to have 10% of it? Obviously this development is way over the top, but I'm wondering what PRU suggests in order to comply with the law.
PRU suggests that since Park Ridge is a home rule unit of local government, as well as being a land-locked community, the 10% affordable housing stock issue remains a question of law.
Boy, it sure is a good thing we have all this money to challenge the validity of the 10%.
Amen PRU,
First let's set the record straight. AFFORDABLE housing, and LOW INCOME or Sec 8 housing ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!! Although there seems to be opinions or intepritations that differ,state of Il and HUD define them separatly.
So.. let's ask another question.
Why would "advocates", or people "working affirmitivly" for low
income or sec 8 housing feel the need to disguise their cause as "Affordable" when even Government agencies define them differently?
Anon @ 1:53, I would think we'd only have to challenge it if the state forces us to. In that case, I'm betting we could join forces with other municipalities and fight it together.
Anonymous 153,
Is that a threat? Are you threatening to sue the city?
I have an idea. Everyone who wants Park Ridge to have more affordable housing step up and sign a pledge to have your home valued at no more than $250,000. Promise that if you sell your home you won't sell it for a penny more than $250,000, or whatever amount the liberals decide is affordable without considering economic trends or whatever.
I also think it's only fair that if somebody gets in on such a deal and buys a property for reduced market value they have to agree they can't sell it for more than they paid. Wouldn't want to close the door of opportunity on the next generation of leeches.
anon 3:39:
Your anger is clouding your vision and/or your brain. How on earth could you read my post as a threat? If it is a "matter of the law" it may require that the city spend legal fees. My post was just a bit of sarcasm related to our budget issues.
I am glad may post gave you an opportunity to get that off your chest, although it appears you really didn't need a reason.
Take a deep breath and have a good weekend!
I am renting out my basement to illegal aliens.
Mork from Ork?
I, for one, didn't know where 1963-75 W. Touhy was located so I entered it into MapQuest. Unless I'm reading something incorrectly, we're talking about three parcels just east of Maine Cemetary. So if one was driving east bound on Touhy, there'd be a gas station, Dee Rd., the cemetary and then the condo building being discussed. And across the street would be condo buildings. And to the east would be condo buildings. For the love of Pete and proper zoning! Who would ever think about putting a condo building there? It must be a conspiracy!
5:28 it is not the condo but the size of the condo and the fact that it doesn't even come close the openspace, parking, set backs, height, and density requirements of the zoning ordinance.
5:28
I just dont think you get it. Hasnt that developer made neough money already? Its time to give the land back to the people.
who's the alderman for this neighborhood? My $money$ is on Allegretti...that would explain A LOT!
Post a Comment