During his first five years in office, Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt acquired the nom de veto “Mayor No” because of his numerous vetoes of profligate budgeting and overspending by the City Council – most of which were ultimately sustained, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Each of those vetoes was usually accompanied by a veto message in which Schmidt explained in detail why he was exercising his veto power.
But at last Monday’s (February 3) Council meeting, Schmidt provided a “dog bites man” twist to the proceedings when he read his first-ever non-veto message.
The Council action that provoked such an oddity was the two week-earlier Council approval – by a slim 4 (Alds. Sweeney, Shubert, Knight and Maloney) to 3 (Alds. Milissis, Smith and Mazzuca) vote – of the 116-unit planned development apartment building by Trammell Crow to be constructed at 205 West Touhy, which also got Planning & Zoning Commission approval by a similarly slim 5 to 4 margin.
The project’s biggest sticking point was that it exceeded the Zoning Code-prescribed residential density ceiling for that area by 31% because of its primarily 1-and-2-bedroom units, even though it could have complied with the Code’s density requirement if the same-sized structure consisted totally of 3-bedroom units.
Frankly, that sounds just plain goofy to us.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the P&Z Commission, the Council and the Mayor, the way this process played out demonstrates the need for some serious revisions to Section 5 of the City’s Zoning Code for “planned developments,” a kind of hybrid neither-fish-nor-fowl concept that effectively allows City officials to ignore our conventional zoning standards and regulations in exchange for certain other considerations.
Unfortunately, almost all of those other considerations are subjective and, therefore, subject to the vagaries and even arbitrariness of the folks applying them. That makes for a highly unpredictable process when what we should have is just the opposite: a set of clear, understandable standards regulated by a predictable process, so that a developer knows right out of the blocks what standards will be applied to its project.
The current process for planned developments like Trammel Crows seemed dominated by a number of fingers held to the wind. Some members of P&Z wanted “green” roofs; others wanted LEED gold certification; still others, more underground parking, or tree preservation and a “pocket park,” or additional storm water detention.
It was that last factor – with Trammel Crow offering to double the size of the City’s water detention basin adjacent to the development site – that seemed to seal the deal not only at the P&Z and Council levels, but also for the mayor’s non-veto. It also seemed to carry the day with flood-beleaguered neighbors who normally can be counted on to oppose any development of any kind in that area, including Whole Foods. That lack of vigorous opposition was another factor which Schmidt cited for his non-veto, and from the sound of things that also may have influenced the P&Z and Council votes.
We’ve regularly ripped on folks who charge that Park Ridge is “unfriendly to business” – which tends to be code for “the City won’t give us what we want,” or “the City won’t look the other way,” or “the City won’t give us money.” Since Schmidt became mayor, however, several of City staff’s biggest obstacles to business and development either have been terminated or have resigned after reading the handwriting on the wall.
Zoning Code provisions that reek of uncertainty and arbitrariness, however, truly are “unfriendly to business.” That’s why we commend Schmidt for pointing that out, and for asking Procedures & Regulation Committee chair Marc Mazzuca and Staff to get cracking on some Code revisions to dispel the uncertainty of the planned development process and standards.
Trammel Crow played the game by the City’s current rules, scaling down the project twice and substantially enhancing those project features that counted to City officials at every level of the decision-making. Under these circumstances, therefore, we agree with P&Z’s, the Council’s and Schmidt’s decisions.
But now the City must move expeditiously on the needed revisions to Section 5 of the Zoning Code. And developers need to take to heart Schmidt’s warning that this vote, and his non-veto, should not be viewed as a precedent for future 30% density variances or other significant departures from the Zoning Code’s basic requirements.
Because the next “squeaker” decision may well go the other way.
To read or post comments, click on title.
21 comments so far
Still don’t get Mayor Schmidt’s reason for not vetoing the project inspite reading the whole thing.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s really not that tough, but since you admit to being over your skis here are the Cliff Notes:
1. Zoning Code for planned developments too subjective and liberal.
2. Development meets subjective/liberal Code standards.
3. P&Z studied and recommended it after hearings.
4. Council studied and approved it.
5. Neighbors don’t oppose it.
6. It provides flood relief.
I think the City and the mayor made the right decision on this project, although I agree with the mayor that there need to be some changes in the Zoning Code to restrict developers of planned developments more in line with the normal zoning requirements.
My main concern is the number of new metra riders living in the building that will crowd into the already packed metra trains.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Seriously?
Made the right decision? The character of this town is getting sent down the sewer… Where in this town do apartments fit? Yay…transients… Maybe we can mix in a little Sec8 also when they can’t fill the 116 units. Take a look at every older apartment complex in town, and you will see this one down the road. TCrow already said their stake in this is limited after the build. Sorry but this town is pretty much maxed out, schools are at capacity. The answer is not to build up.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If the schools truly “are at capacity,” we wonder why nobody from D-64 or D-207 showed up at any of the P&Z or Council meetings to raise that point?
And if you don’t want apartments in the town, then show up at a City Council meeting and ask the Council to amend the Zoning Code to preclude apartments – assuming such an amendment would be legal.
1:17:
Your right!! What this town needs is more large empty buildings…that is what we need!! The go nicely with the large empty dirt lots where car dealers used to be!! Give me a break!
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we don’t need “more large empty buildings.” But just because a building becomes vacant doesn’t mean that we should leap at the first alternate use that comes along. If that were true, instead of the Whole Foods we would be looking at a 168-unit condo complex – although it was the downturn in the economy and not our Zoning Code or City Council that spared us from that.
Mayor should have vetoed the measure. Whether the zoning laws should be changed is a different issue. Why have zoning laws if you are going to pass variances anyways?
Surprised you are in favor of this building of apartments. There are already apartment vacancies. Houses are being rented out as well. Maybe by the time the construction is completed the economy will be better and more folks will move into them. However, if these apartments came on line this year, not sure you wouldn’t have 1/3-1/2 vacant for quite some time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The project satisfied the existing Zoning Code requirements (including Code-approved wiggle room for Planned Developments that we would like to see narrowed if not closed entirely), and was approved by P&Z and the Council, albeit by the thinnest of margins.
If private developers want to put their money into a project – and actually give the City some features (like doubling the size of the City’s water detention area adjacent to the building site) rather than demand taxpayer handouts like the developers of Uptown – we aren’t about to second-guess them on whether or not it’s a good investment.
As you often do, you attach some idea to a post that was never said. I never said “that we should leap at the first alternate use that comes along”. These decisions should be carefully considered by P&Z and our elected officials. They should explain their reasoning and we should hold them responsible for their decision.
The reality is there will ALWAYS be objections. Good lord there will (and I am sure still are) people against WF because of increased traffic…..on Touhy?!?!?!?! Similarly we hear the “character” issue brought up with every new development. I am sorry but I fail to see how a development of this size changes the character of PR.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you had SAID it, we would have put the statement in quotes, as we always do. But your seemingly knee-jerk reaction to an empty building suggested the view that we characterized as we did.
So essentially, the city got paid off?
Is the Mayor saying that since the city can’t accomplish better flood relief, that we will allow over-developments just as long as they provide a pipe?
Sounds pretty disappointing to me.
Sure, give us a transient group of people without the roots or wanted roots in Park Ridge? What about the “character” people of Park Ridge that usually is arm and arm with this administration?
Also, there is a hidden lie above. This is being re-zoned from Commercial to Residential, so let’s not pretend the only variance to code is the units.
I watched City Council last week and the Mayor and Mr Maloney joked about being “business friendly”, to me it’s not funny. These are the decisions Park Ridge is faced with and prove that the city is not a great place to do business. These are the results.
The victory lap around Whole Foods seems pretty stupid now, doesn’t it? Don’t guise this with any hyperbole. This is a bailout for the commercial property owner and city councils awful record on attracting commercial business owners.
Editor, this developer did EXACTLY what you say Gayle Mountcastle does. The developer understood a very easy way to “win” taxpayers and the Mayor over, by exploiting a clear problem that lies in the city. They are professionals about getting cities to do what they want regardless of the long-term consequences.
Bad move, dumb, short-sighted policy. A loss for the city.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you wish to characterize the Zoning Code provisions related to planned developments as permitting the City to get “paid off,” we can’t argue with that. But that’s EXACTLY what the Zoning Code permits for planned developments.
So if that’s so galling to you, where were you 7 years ago when the Zoning Code was being re-written to provide these pay-offs? And why have you been silent about these Zoning Code-oermitted pay-offs for these past 7 years? And why have you been silent about all the “transient group[s] of people” that have been permitted to live in Park Ridge from time immemorial, whether they rent apartments, condos or single-family houses?
Because this ISN’T about the City being unable to “accomplish better flood relief” but about ZONING.
As for the rest of your comment, it seems like a jumble of unrelated rim-shots without any clear connections – the most disjunctive being the reference to Gayle Mountcastle and Trammel Crow (“The developer,” we assume).
But if you want to take another crack at lucidity, have at it.
The Mayor stated he would’ve vetoed it without the pipe buy-off, so that’s him saying it, not me.
I have no problem with existing residential rentals, that’s the existing market. The council and mayor just changed the market.
I’ll be clearer. During council meeting, the Mayor was flippantly joking about being quote “business friendly” when the new Dunkin Donuts was looking for some help in getting people to be able to park (which clearly was a past zoning failure) and the Mayor kept flippantly saying the city is business friendly. To me, laughing about a failure isn’t real funny when consequences of those failures create things like over developed residential developments which should’ve been Commercial.
Regarding the Mountcastle comment. You have lamented again and again in many articles about her going to meetings to be trained how to get Park Boards / taxpayers to go along with what she wants. Trammel Crow would probably be the professors of seminars like that. They won, taxpayers lost.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Your point that “[t]he council and mayor just changed the market” is simply bunk. The DEVELOPER changed the market – or, more accurately, saw a new “market” that it chose to exploit in a way PERMITTED BY THE ZONING CODE. Apparently that’s a concept you’re having trouble with grasping, presumably because you have been asleep at the switch on this point for the past 7 years.
We still have no idea what you’re talking about “the new Dunkin Donuts…looking for some help in getting people to be able to park (which clearly was a past zoning failure)” and “laughing about a failure isn’t real funny when consequences of those failures create things like over developed residential developments which should’ve been Commercial.” If 205 West Touhy was such a great “Commercial” location, we suspect some “Commercial” developer would have taken a shot at it, and Advocate would have been happy to sell to him/her/it.
As for Mountcastle, we most certainly HAVE criticized her (and other public officials’) “going to meetings to be trained how to get Park Boards / taxpayers to go along with” what they want – but only because Mountcastle, et al. are PUBLIC officials learning how to snooker the taxpayers, while Trammel Crow is a PRIVATE sector entity who isn’t masquerading as somebody whose first duty is to the taxpayers.
You crack me up. Ask Ms. Mountcastle if she enjoys the utterly complaisant boards of eras past or whether she’s held to account for every little thing, and then some, by the current crop of Borelli wannabees on the Park Board. In your day, it would have taken an act of God to get the mens’ locker room cleaned, so it was just too, too much trouble. Everything from communications to cleanliness to customer service is a hundred times better these days, in part thanks to the jump-start by Ray Ochromowicz and in part thanks to a board that is vigilant to the point of micromanaging. The only thing Ms. Mountcastle is being schooled on is how to do the best job possible with the funds available — and she’s learning pretty dang well, despite challenges that would have bested a stronger man. And, as I recall, did.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We suspect you don’t (or don’t want to) remember the last time the Park District took on a major non-referendum debt for a facility that couldn’t pay for itself, the Community Center; and then went through roughly a decade of decline in the quality of facilities and services because tax caps prevented it from raising taxes in the amount needed to cover the debt service and operating deficits without a referendum – which the perps didn’t want to authorize because it would be an implied admission of mis-management.
By the time enough new commissioners were elected to recognize and admit to that problem, the executive director (Steve Meyer) and EVERY Board member who perpetrated that boondoggle were gone. We’re betting Mountcastle hits the bricks within 3 years – along with a majority of the perps still on the Board (Hunst and Vile are already gone) – before a post-Community Center-style decline becomes fully apparent.
But just keep telling yourself to pay no attention to the mis-manager behind the curtain.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the part over the last several months where some “expert” said Park Ridge was “overdeveloped”.
Was that before it after TC deemed it an appropriate place to plop done a project of this scope? Because I can’t imagine they did any research on the market.
Hahahaha.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. Trammel Crow is notorious for impulse-buying real estate and throwing up apartment buildings on a lark.
Clearly there is a disconnect on what a “market” is.
Editor writes: ” If 205 West Touhy was such a great “Commercial” location, we suspect some “Commercial” developer would have taken a shot at it, and Advocate would have been happy to sell to him/her/it.”
Is that even a serious comment? Advocate should just lower the price if they can’t get what they want for the property. Isn’t that what we have to do if we sell our homes? Mayor Schmidt bailed out Advocate. Period.
Also, 4:10, I was only using Mountcastle as an example, because this editor comes down very hard on her, but lets the city get away with anything.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The only “disconnect on what a ‘market’ is” seems to be yours, as reflected in your inane “Advocate should just lower the price if they can’t get what they want for the property.”
Advocate apparently GOT “what they want” for the property: the price Trammel Crow was willing to pay, which apparently was more than any “Commercial” developer was willing to pay for it. THAT’S how a “market” works, Zippy, and with nobody – not P&Z, the Council, or Mayor Schmidt – having “bailed out” Advocate or Trammel Crow. Period.
Since Schmidt became mayor the City has been the most transparent local governmental body, by far – which might explain why the City hasn’t even tried to push through any $8 million non-referendum capital expenditure boondoggles like Mountcastle’s Centennial Water Park on Schmidt’s watch.
These comments about “transients” are hilarious in a Cold War-era paranoia sort of way. I’ve lived in PR for almost 30 years and choose to rent now because I no longer view the housing market as a good investment and because renting a smaller space obviously benefits from a smaller share of bloated, outrageous property taxes.
PR might have plenty of old apartment complexes scattered around, but only a couple are actually up to modern standards. The 170 N. NW Hwy units (above TJ’s) are currently the most central-to-town rentals that fit the bill I’ve had experience with, but then you have to live with the shame of existing in a TIF-abyss everyday (which combined with concrete ceilings can feel like a sort of prison sentence!)
I had expected the owner of the attractive, characteristic red brick building opposite Touhy/Washington from WF to gut the inside and offer something more upscale, but since that hasn’t occured it only makes sense that TC would want to provide something close to uptown (and to organic produce) for yuppie singles and couples (DINKS) to enjoy. The fact that it will be a quick six block walk north up Washington to PR’s newest $18 million park should be a good selling point as well. I don’t see this build-out staying empty for long…
EDITOR’S NOTE: Just like Mayors Wietecha, Marous and Frimark – and their complicit Councils – didn’t see any of the Uptown TIF residential units being empty, or being leased units rather than owner-occupied; and didn’t see any of that “prime” retail space being empty, or housing service businesses rather than “retails” stores and restaurats.
But given how our elected officials botched the Uptown TIF while squandering our tax money, we’ll take our chances with Trammel Crow spending its own money.
4:26 — “I had expected the owner of the attractive, characteristic red brick building opposite Touhy/Washington from WF to gut the inside and offer something more upscale, but since that hasn’t occured” ——— You mean the one with the prostitute working out of there?
http://parkridge.suntimes.com/crime/prostitution-PRA-02132014:article
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe if the owner upscaled the place he/she/it would attract high-line call girls and “escorts” instead of just plain prostitutes.
Well, exactly- I trust Trammel Crow to have done objective, accurate research on the rental market in this town a lot more than I trust pie-in-the-sky/best-case-ever figures pulled from thin air by public employees like the ones used to sell the TIF district or park district developments.
It’s TC’s skin in the game afterall and worst case scenario for the city is that it gets a newer, more modern but (partially) empty building, with an improved drainage reservoir behind it.
What I don’t understand are the commenters who can’t seem to tell the difference of a net-gain for Park Ridge (Whole Foods revenue without the tax-sharing deal they wanted or this apartment build-out with the improved reservior) and a net-loss (the TIF district on our dime, higher school district salaries without improved performance, letting private clubs use city property for free)?? Maybe the problem is that it’s hard for some people to distinguish between private and public money these days…
For the ones who understand the value of increased tax revenue in theory, but are simply concerned with “hurting the town’s character”, well the burden would be on them to convince the P&Z commission or council on a case-by-case basis that these changes do just that. It seems exceedingly subjective to me to try and prove that an apartment complex hurts the character of this town in a way that the Advocate medical building did not. Personally I think that cutting down old trees to build a water slide in Centennial park or a splash pad on the YC property is a step backwards, but that is just me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s not just you, which is why Mountcastle and the Park Board weren’t about to let that boondoggle go to referendum.
Freeloaders want “public” money to pay for their “private” benefits. That’s why so many of the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park flood “victims” don’t want to pay a dime for the multi-million dollar flood relief plans they are demanding, which very well could juice up the value of their homes by 100x the cost to them of the tax increases that would be needed to fund those plans.
Lux renter- who do you think will be renting these apartments and clogging up Uptown? Guarantee it’s many families who will be using our schools for free.
So they will either be overcrowding the schools or hurting the teacher per kid ratio……either way a negative.
And it’s “not TCs skin”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Then show up at a Council meeting and demand that the Council change the Zoning Code to prevent rental apartments – and rental condos and rental townhouses and rental single-family houses, too.
Assuming that’s legal, which we don’t think it is.
….continued. It’s not TCs skin. It’s bad precedent and another negative for the future of the city.
Also- are you really sad a tweee is going to the shredder?
I’ll think of it as I enjoy this summer at the communities new pool!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If it’s not “TCs [sic] skin,” who’s skin is it?
Lux:
I disagree with some of your comments but I completely agree with your following statement…..” It seems exceedingly subjective to me to try and prove that an apartment complex hurts the character of this town in a way that the Advocate medical building did not”.
I find all these discussions about “character” to be very amusing as I drive by old empty buildings and/or dirt vacant lots.
I reminds me of the WF discussion where people were whining about increased traffic. The only way traffic would increase is when comparing it to an office building that was completely unoccupied. Is that the character of PR…..empty buildings??
Anon 11:25/28- I should clarify that part of the reason I am in support of this development is specifically because TC chose to increase the density by offering primarily 1- and 2-bedroom units, rather than a smaller amount of 2- and 3-bedroom units. From the proposed rendering of the building (http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/apartments-PRA-12192013:article) it looks pretty upscale and they have made it clear they are marketing towards DINKS.
Of course a family of four might rent a 2-bedroom unit and have the two kids share a bedroom, but more likely they would just find a much larger house to rent in town for the same amount.
Also, the uptown area is so far beyond the point of being a sleepy “bedroom” community that it only makes economic sense to have an extremely local population with immediate (foot) access to all the new retail. Consider that there are 10+ sandwich shops, 3 sushi restaurants, 4 breakfast cafes, etc. (mostly chains) currently operating in a three block radius of the location, but it’s an upscale apartment building that is going to ruin the character?
And as for trees, I personally like them more than waterslides, but that is just me. Clearly enough people care that the city bothers to advertise that element of PR’s character with all the “Tree City USA” signs, just like they advertise the Pickwick with the art deco motif banners on light poles around uptown. Maybe in a year when I am driving west on Touhy into PR I’ll see a sign that says “Park Ridge, Population 37,700 – Home of the Big Waterslide and Splash Pad But Not the Lazy River”!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, watch the wisecracks about the Lazy River – that may have been Mountcastle’s and Thillen’s best bait-and-switch.
I’m also interested in the comment from 1:17 up the thread that TC has limited stake after the build- who is taking over management afterwards?
Not that it matters to the taxpayers, as long as that entity is not the city itself.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It could be anybody, although we thought the rumor was that TC might end up selling off its ownership interest. But to your point, that’s what private enterprise is all about – unless a developer is lucky enough to find a bunch of elected officials all in the same place at the exact same time who are stupid enough to create a TIF and subsidize the developer.
LUX- This is what TC said on 205 Touhy
“Our goal is to deliver a 115 unit class A unit development operated by an institutional owner for the benefit of the residents and visitors of Park Ridge for decades to come.”
Looking at a few of their past properties they are sold off in their entirety to a property company.
This company (http://www.puremultifamily.com/ )a publicly traded one out of Canada just recently bought a large TC (216 unit) property in TX.
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>