1961-2418r~~
RESOLUTION Noo 2418
RESOLUTION DENYING APARTMENT USE;
PERMIT APPLICATIONS F®~ LOT 2S "RICHFIELD GARDTNS~
WHERFAS$ Sanders Ackerberg has made application t® locate two 16®unit
apartment buildings and two 11®unit apartment buildings on the Fast half
of Lot 2S "Richf field Gardens"s in accordance with a plot plan on which a
public hearing was held on Mondays February ~?8 19615 and
WHEREAS's in addition to hearing the testimony at said hearings members
of the council have personally-viewed the premises and familiarized them®
selves with the location and surroundings of the applicants proposed
apartment projects and
WHERFASe the zoning regulations of the village classify this property
as "Multiple Residence Dwellings or "MR"s and provide in ~17bstance that
such districts shall not be used for multiple residence structures accom-
modating more than two families unless such structures are part of a
"Group Housing Development Project" as defined in the zoning ordinances and
WHEREASs applicantgs proposed apartment buildings provide for more
than two dwelling units per builda.ng s and
WHEREASs applicantts proposed project does not come within the defin-
ition of a "Group House~Development Projects by reason of having insuff icienl
areas but this council has given cpp.sideration to other apartment building
projects in the vil~.age where such ~~°ea requirement has been waived and
therefore has g~vett Consideration to the applicant's proposed pr~eject in
spite of lack v~ sufficient area for a "Group Housing Development Project"s
and-
WHEREASs the land elevation of the proposed site for applicantgs pr®®
jest is higher than many of the adjacent properness in an area where nearly
all of the other buildings are single story in heights and
WHRR$ASs the proposed site is a half®block of land. which is served by
streets only at the ends of the blocks and is not served by a public street,
along the east side of the property and the blocks and
WHEREASs Queen Avenues which if eztended would run along the easterly
side of the proposed sites has not been constructeds and to date no plans
have been initiated for the construction of such portion of Queen Avenue
nor has any right®of®way for it been acquireds and
WHERBASs the construction of Queen Avenue past the proposed apartment
buildings would place two of such buildings only ten feet from the probable
street rightmof~way of Queen Avenues leaving far less than the usual street
set-back for such buildings and
WHEREASs the council is informed that the owners of adjacent residences
were told at the time they purchased their residences that the proposed site
would be used for two®family multiple residence units and such owners purm
chased their reside~aces relying upon such representations and
m ~
WPdLRE~e the council is cognizant of the location of police and
fire®fighting facilities of the village in relation to the proposed
sites and
WHCR~ASs the council is inf ormed that the public elementary school
which serves the area in which the proposed site is locabed is already
crowded and that the addition of 54 additional residential units might
tend to further aggravate the school space problem at that schools and
WHERDASs the proposed arrangement of buildings and parking 1®ts
w®uld place large multiple residence apartments only 20 feet from the
rear lot lines ®f the residences which occupy the balance of the blocks
large off street parking lots for the project would be only 15 feet
from such rear lot line s and ~ea~y plantings, of whatever natures could
not be likely to avoids for suoh~residences the adverse consequences
of the proposed projects sash as noises lights and fumes and loss of
privacys and
WHEREA,Sg in other instances where the council has granted permits
for apartments adjacent to residences many of such permits have been
on main thoroughfares or adjacent to railroad tracks or on commer®
dally or industrially zoned properties where the construction of
apartments has tended to reduce or prevent other adverse influences upon
such residences and similar favorable factors for granting a permit
are not involved to the same degrees and
WHLREASs in this instances considering all of the factors involveds
it appears that the adverse influence of the applicants project upon
adjacent residences would be unusally sevex°es and
WHEREASs the proposed 'pr®ject would be likely to engender a greater
amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the immediate vicinity of
the nearby public elementary schoo~.e-and would tend to complicate t}~e
public safety problems df the area
NOW THEREFC1RI~s be it resolvede by the Village Council of the Village
of Etichfield as followsa
1, The council finds (a) that applicant®s proposed project does mot
fall within the definition of a nGroup Housing Development Pr~ject~ by
reason of not having sufficient area -and for that reason may not be
permissible on the proposed sited (b~ that regardless of the area of the
proposed sites property adjacent to the project would be adversely aff e~cteti
if the project were con~tructede and (c) that the proposed project if
comstructeds would not be consistent with the intent and purpose o~ the
zoning ordinance to promote the public healths safetys orders conveniences
and general welfare0
20 The application is denieda
®3 m
1
[I
Passed by the Village Council of the Village of Richfield this
13th dap of Marche 1961e
Mapox°
ATTEST-o
~!~~~~
C er
1
Ma age r