Senior Housing at Berteau Campus Falls Through; Developer Cites Too-strict Building Codes
Experts will review “belt and suspenders” building code.
Photos
Excessively strict building codes are being cited as the reason a plan for senior housing at Elmhurst Memorial Hospital's Berteau Campus recently fell through.
Belmont Village, a company that has developed senior housing facilities in Glenview and Oak Park, was interested in the 11-acre site on Berteau Avenue that will soon be vacated by Elmhurst Memorial Hospital. The developer wanted to use multiple layers of drywall with metal supports in building the new facility.
But according to Assistant City Manager Mike Kopp, city code mandates that multi-unit buildings, such as condominiums, hotels and dorms, have concrete block support every 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, allowing the units to withstand two hours of fire.
On Monday, the Development, Planning and Zoning Committee began considering whether the city's code needs to be loosened.
Elmhurst has one of the strictest codes in the area when it comes to interior building construction for fire safety. The concrete-block specification puts the city's requirements beyond those outlined by the International Building Code, which forms the basis for building mandates in most suburbs.
“We want to be safe,” Mayor Pete DiCianni told the committee. “But we don't want to be so tough that we discourage development.
Kopp, who is Elmhurst's former fire chief, acknowledged that the city's code in essence required both “belt and suspenders.” But, he added that the city's building and fire departments have historically worked together to ensure structures not only resist fire but also maintain integrity as long as possible to allow firefighters to do their job.
Kopp added that Elmhurst's stricter code did not affect how buildings look from the outside.
Initial research done by city staff shows that some suburbs had codes as strict as Elmhurst's, but have updated them in recent years, often to allow developers more flexibility.
The committee will ask an outside consultant to review the city's building codes and complete a more detailed comparison with neighboring towns.
“These are life and death decisions,” said Second Ward Alderman Norman Leader.
Committee Chairman and 6th Ward Alderman Steve Morley said he wondered, in the event that the city could justify keeping the codes in place, if trade-offs or tax relief for developers could be considered.
Let Patch save you time. Get more local stories like these delivered right to your inbox or smartphone with our free newsletter. Fast signup here.
Tim Race
7:58 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
“Why Not In Our Community?”
Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing
An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Feb 2005
Urban Barriers—Building Codes, Rehabilitation, and Infill Development
"Regulatory barriers to urban development include a diverse and often archaic and complex mixture of building codes, labor ordinances, and local tax provisions."
"Despite a growing need for housing rehabilitation, many cities continue to use building codes that emphasize criteria more suitable for new construction to the detriment of rehabilitation activities. In a 1998 survey of building code authorities, respondents cited regulatory requirements as frequent impediments to increased
rehabilitation."
Tim Race
8:14 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The requirement for concrete block may either be simply an archaic artifact of the local code or may have been used to intentionally impede certain types of residential development in Elmhurst. I don't know. However, the entire issue seems irrelevant when you examine the facts. The existing code is not justifiable. UL fire rated building assemblies for block wall construction as well as drywall/steel-frame construction can be specified as equivalents. Building assemblies for each material type are available with 1-, 2- 3-, and 4-hour ratings. Elmhurst's required block wall assembly has a 2-hour fire rating. A multi-ply drywall/steel-framed assembly may have a fire rating as high as 4-hours. Furthermore, concrete block fire assemblies are impractical for rehab projects. Elmhurst should specify a performance requirement, ie. a 2-hour fire rating rather than requiring a specific building material.
Bill Angel
11:07 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Very well stated. When you push paper and pencils around you loose sight of the real world of the economics of a project.
Tim Race
8:49 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
I should also mention that the intent of the Elmhurst code requirement for concrete block firewalls for multi-unit residential structures, may have been as structural firewalls rather than firewall partitions. In this case it makes sense because the superior structural integrity of concrete walls helps to protect fire fighters from the very real danger of building collapse. However, the addition of interior structural firewalls to a large existing structure is cost prohibitive at the scale suggested by Elmhurst's building code.
Richard Inskeep
10:47 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Why is the City considering hiring a consultant to answer the questions we already have the answers to.. City staff is very competant and able to access the situation without the assistance of an outside consultant.
Bill Angel
11:09 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Consutants make huge political contributions. Staff will not! Next we will see a lobbyist lobbying the Mayor and his peeps!
John Iwaszkiewicz
11:48 am on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I will do it pro bono. I have been a registered architect for 30 years. It will take me one day of phone calls and internet usage, at NO cost to the taxpayer. This really is a simple task, with no need for complicated studies, to arrive at a conclusion we are already well aware of....the Elmhurst code amendments are more restrictive and costly than the national standards, with no justification BASED ON VERIFIABLE DATA.
John
11:14 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Tim,
You write intelligently on the subject. Thank you. As an individual who was involved in early drafts turning three regional model codes into the IBC, I was astounded at the level of energy, expertise, and commitment to safety that was involved in their development. Please stay involved and help our leaders understand where appropriate trade offs can be made without sacrificing safety beyond the intent of these codes.
Joe O'Malley
8:41 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Messrs Inskeep and Howard. Great insight!! But maybe too little, too late? Wouldn't a developer be foolish to invest "their" money, let alone jump through the fiery hoops the City would bring to the party in order to complete this housing project?
Belmont Village would be interested in making a profit. Local property tax liabilities would surely prohibit that.
In addition, there are many competitive established senior housing and retirement communities within close proximity of "ground zero."
http://assistedlivingway.com/IL/elmhurst/
But then again, there's always "Mr. Potter" who could purchase the property and then sell it to D205 at a small profit for much needed additional district office space that will accommodate future teacher's union negotiations. Your thoughts?
bill trudeau
10:12 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The city is afraid of their own tail when a decision has to be made regarding large projects, yet they still let people die of radon exposure in their own homes rather than require builders to put in 30 feet of pvc pipe and an electric outlet. Mind boggling.