Does everyone remember Mr. Coe?
Mr Coe is one of the Alderman's pals.
Mr Coe has 49th ward clout.
Mr. Coe knows how to play hardball.
Yet, Mr. Coe couldn't keep track of what was going on half the time.
Mr. Coe insults his future new neighbors.
Mr. Coe has poor demolition habits, caught here on the Broken Heart.
A day later, the Censorist, 49th ward zoning member and east/west retail theorist David Fagus added his two cents.
Now Mr. Coe wants to change some building designs. With his track record, we are better off keeping the big hole in the ground.
13 comments:
I'm not opposed to development.
However, with his track record, he should have to "give a little" in order to get a change like this.
Zone the first floor for retail, or a restaurant. Adding offices does nothing to improve the community.
I'm opposed to building right up to the sidewalk. A little landscaping goes a long way.
my 2cents
When you look at the picture on the first link in this post, the old building went right up to the sidewalk. Was the old building against code? I don't understand why that zoning would need to be changed.
Jim suggested...
>Zone the first floor for retail, or a restaurant.
Good suggestion, Jim, thanks for posting, but unfortunately there is no way to implement your perfectly reasonable idea. We citizens of Chicago do not have a zoning available to us to express our desire for retail on the first floor of a development. We used to, it was called a B ("mixed-use business") district, but our esteemed Aldermen, working for the real estate developers who fund their campaigns, took it away from us last year when they "revised" our zoning laws. Now retail is optional on the first floor, at the discretion of the developer, in B districts.
For Moore information see the posting "Moore's Republican Attitude" from Saturday, October 01, 2005, and the assocaited comments, here on the "Broken Heart."
I second that, James.
the old building went right up to the sidewalk. Was the old building against code?
Yes but it was only one story high.
Jim posted...
>I don't understand why that zoning would need to be changed.
Coe wants to build from corner to corner on the lot. He wants relief from the side (in this case Greenview) and rear (north) set-backs.
If you are confused by the letter, that is by design. The contents of the letter are defined in the 2004 zoning law, and the developers do the absolute legally required minimum.
First, notice that it is a notice that an application has been filed, not a notice of a public hearing. We used to get letters notifying us of the date and time of a public hearing, but our esteemed Alderman, working for the real estate developers who fund their campaigns, got themselves out of the public hearing notification business last year when they "revised" our zoning laws. For more information, see the "2004 Zoning Law: Public hearing notices eliminated" article on Forum49.
Click on the letter and enlarge it. Notice how it does nothing to explain to you the relevant zoning laws or your rights or options under law. Notice how the letter does not extend to you any way in which you may respond, not even a phone number to call. The old letters used to invite you to a hearing downtown at a specific data and time to discuss the issue.
This is another instance where I ask myself, "Why bother with zoning laws when everyone gets exceptions anyway?" Maybe a better system would be to create a board that would review all construction projects in the ward and decide what is appropriate and what is not based on an agreed upon standard that has been voted on and passed by the residents of the ward. Throw the zoning out and judge each project on a case by case basis. Is this realistic? Is this already happening but just not effective?
Charlie posted...
>I'm opposed to building right up to the sidewalk. A little landscaping goes a long way.
Jim and Charlie,
The developer is within his rights to build right up to sidewalk, on Morse. The human niceties in terms of green space you guys seem to be looking for are in general a requirement of residential (R) districts. R is exclusively for people. Retail is prohibited in R districts, but set-backs are required. In general B districts have no requirements for set-backs or landscaping.
That's why the Aldermen's developer pals are so exited about the revised zoning law 2004. After decades of lobbying, they are looking forward to our B districts finally being opened up to all-residential buildings. Overnight, with no map changes, dropping the requirement for retail in B districts made all the B districts in Chicago more like R districts than B districts. It's like R, but without the set-backs! It's the best of both worlds. Why plant grass or bushes where you could fit more concrete block luxury condos?
Jim asked...
>I don't understand why that zoning would need to be changed.
Coe's property on the north-east corner of Morse and Greenview is in a B district. While in general lots in B districts do not require green space, they do when they are next door to a lot in an R district. The intent of this law is that a new development in a B district not ruin things for an immediate neighbor in an R area.
Coe's neighbor to the north in the single family frame house who refused to sell under intense pressure caused a major problem for him, and he wants us to bail him out. For more information on Mr. Coe's efforts to force his neighbors to sell to him, see the posting "6961 N. Greenview Isn't Worth Anything?" from Friday, March 18, 2005 here on the "Broken Heart."
Coe's property on the north-east corner of Morse and Greenview is what is known as a "reversed corner lot," called a "reversed" lot because the "side" (Greenview) is longer than the "front" (Morse). Corner to corner, the lot is narrow to beigin with. Subtract the legally required set-backs, and the poor guy can't build as many concrete block luxury condos as he would like.
Here's the law Coe wants us to give him a pass on:
17-3-0406 Side Setbacks
No side setbacks are required in B and C districts, except when B- or C-zoned property abuts R-zoned property, in which case the side setback required for a residential use on the R-zoned lot applies.
17-3-0406-A Reversed Corner Lot Setback Standards
In all B and C districts, the minimum side setback on a reversed corner lot must be equal to at least 50% of the front yard that exists on any R-zoned lot abutting the rear of the reversed corner lot.
if this involves cutting down existing trees and not having any landscaping, then I oppose it. I agree it's hard to understand exactly what this means.
and with his prior violations and rudeness, he probably does not deserve the consideration.
Rpneighbor posted...
>if this involves cutting down existing trees and not having any landscaping, then I oppose it.
Sorry to bear bad news, but all the City trees in the parkways adjacent to this project along Morse and Greenview are gonners. They are in the way of development.
Coe/Camelot's proposed project at Morse & Greenview will create 5 new lanes of traffic for pedestrians to cross as they walk north on Greenview, which is one block west of the EL station, supposedly a pedestrian-friendly zone. A pedestrian on Greenview will be treated to a facade of garage doors and 5 lanes of cross-traffic between Morse and the alley. Will crossing gates be installed on the sidewalk to prevent accidents?
The proposal features curb cuts on Greenview for TWO separate garages, one with 9 parking spaces and one with 3 parking spaces. The larger garage has a curb cut wide enough for two cars to pass each other going in and out, while the three car garage has curb cuts wide enough that each space has a straight shot from their berth to the street.
The three-car garage sure looks to be reserved for the future owner of the commercial condominuim on the first floor, private parking for DevCorp North, the local public charity that owns half-vacant Gateway Mall. Executive Director Kimberly Bares and her sometimes staff-member, sometimes-boss Rene Camargo are no doubt tired of having to park their cars on the street on Howard like common folk.
The developer and the meeting hand-out claim the proposal has one unit of parking for each condo, as required by law, but when you count the commercial condo, and you account for the curb cuts, our neighborhood is losing 5 spaces on Greenview, for an EFFECTIVE RATIO of 7/13 = 0.53 spaces per unit, about TWO CONDOS FOR EACH PARKING SPACE.
And no retail. I for one feel betrayed for taking the time to attending and participate in DevCorp North's recent series of meetings soliciting input for Morse, Howard, and Devon. A strong concensus for pedestrian-friendly, vibrant retail was expressed, documented, and summarily ignored.
For more information see the "Morse and Greenview Development" article on Forum49.
Post a Comment