The letter should read...
To my dearest friends and neighbors of mine,
My name is Connie Abels and I am the queen of the cheap, re-habbed condo conversions in the 49th Ward. I also own 7015 North Sheridan Road. This property at 7015 North Sheridan Road is a single family home I let go to hell. I let it fall apart. I never bothered fixing it up and now it has deteriorated to trailer trash status.
I neglected this single family home so bad and for so long, now I'm going to tear it down.
But my close friends and good neighbors, have I got great news for you! I got a super idea one night after watching a wicky loud band play at the Morseland Night Club. I saw people who were foolish enough to pay $5 and 10 dollars just to get in the door and eat (hee-hee). I said right then, that's the business for me.
I'm going to open up this roof-top restaurant (hee-hee) 79 feet high in the air. I figured I could get into the liquor selling business too. The word on the street is, selling booze is like printing money. Plus, real estate is on the down-slide. The bubble is nearly bursting and I need to find a new career, pronto fast.
Plus, plus, being a smart business woman, I picked this location because it's no where near the Special Service Area #24 tax boundaries. Who wants to get screwed paying into that boon-doggle tax? Not me. Besides, did you see the way they treated me at the Morse Avenue Streetscape meeting in Novermber 2005. Those ace Morse Avenue Streetscape committee members couldn't even get me #@$-%#@# planters. Pardon my french.
Plus, plus, plus, I'm such a great neighbor and am doing this all for you. I am building 30 parking spots too. Parking spots are so hard find and I want to help my neighbors out by renting 26 of them to you. Market value of course. I haven't worked out the details yet, but 26 spots is good to rent, right? Let's see, if my math is right, that leaves 4 parking spots for my cookie cutter condo buyers and 26 to rent out to John Q. Public. That's 30 parking spots. Who needs parking for all my restaurant (hee-hee) workers and patrons. What am I going to do about the ground-floor commercial tenants? They can find spots on Sheridan Road. That's if they don't get rear-ended finding a spot on Sheridan Road (hee-hee). Traffic gets heavy sometimes in the morning hours and sometimes in the evening hours for some reason.
Please, please, please, please, come with an open mind. Don't believe everything you read on the Hell Hole. I see a silver lining in this property I let go to the toilet and I will show you all the plans on Wednesday night.
So, here's the deal, take it or leave it. I'm asking for a R3-5 because knowing the zoning rules. I can about get away with anything I want after I get that zoning R3-5.
Then I can say...."Screw you neighbors, I'm doing what I want!"
37 comments:
Paradise:
For the record I have not formed my opinion yet. I knew of this plan months ago and generally thought it unfavorable due to the height. I will hold off untill I get a good look at the design. I too am curious about setback etc.
RETAIL THRUST UPON US?
Are we talking about the same parcel? Sonnys.Ennui,Unan Imports are all retail services that have been there for quite some time. Help me out here I'm confused by your comment.
As much as I would love people to rely on their auto usage, providing parking does in fact address your concerns about added parking problems.
Lovely quiet tree lined st? Lunt runs to the lake and opens to an enormous parking lot and it faces SHERIDAN RD!
We are not talking about the 1200 block of Columbia here. I see the addition of retail a good one and another restaurant welcome. (I believe it is just the top floor and not open to the elements) That is a very risky business move but who am I to say it could not work if done well.
Regarding the house....sure it was never the best looking yard on the street but beyond that you make it sound as if it was a well funded crack house! Gimme a break.
conceptually, i think the idea of a rooftop restaurant is a good one but i don't think the zoning laws need to be altered to make that restaurant a success. allowing the zoning change would set a terrible precedent along the lakefront and what reason could we have to deny the next developer who will ask for a similar variance.
i think the view of the lake will be just as nice from a rooftop within the current zoning restrictions.
Paradise: Charlie, go look at that block. Retail has never worked there. Where would anybody park.
I lived on that block for the better part of 10 years. I ran a retail biz out of the space that Blossom Flowers is in.
I know the area quite well.....heck we likely know each other?
Depending on the scope of the restaurant......Connie mentions it being a place for all to enjoy....I am not sure about that.....however she plans to offer parking!!!!
If the place is reasonably priced I can imagine many many people would be able to walk to such a spot. In fact the more streetside retail we have (especially open at night) will create and encourage a more pedestrian lifestyle so we can walk to and from these places at night with the added safety of more people out and about on the street.
To me that is a good thing....and something to think about.
IHSQ said: Am I hallucinating what I'm seeing around Lincoln Sq. with $1.1M houses being sold like hotcakes? Can you tell me why something close to the lake can't fetch anything in that ballpark?
We too have single family homes fetching such prices....
I think the issue with this one might have something to do with the fact that it is flanked on both sides by 4 story courtyard builings with no setback?
No big suprise why this may not be someones first choice for a single fam home purchase.
my guess is the owners of the restaurant have factored the parking issue in, as this is a huge problem for these type of businesses. i don't think this is going to be a very large restaurant, probably somewhat exclusive requiring reservations and with 24 parking spaces alloted and other patrons walking, there might not be the crush of cars as everyone is anticipating. the upscale nature would also probably limit the excessive street noise that seems to be a concern.
sitting on top of 2 expensive condos should be a clue this is not a sports bar with lots of loud music.
i'm trying to be opened minded and remove personalities from the issue,that can't be changed.
my guess. another "mia francesca"
restaurant. they've done very well on bryn mawr.
Ok. Split this thing in two
Build a condo at 7015.
The restaurant? There's a lot of real extate on Devon Avenue.
i"m simply saying, except for the zoning variance, which i oppose to, we might just want to hear them out and see the architectural renderings before outright dismissing the whole CONCEPT.
i'm not making a decision until i know all the facts and details and i don't yet. they should be allowed to make their case. if it doesn't work, if there are too many concerns that can't be answered, they will have to go back to the drawing board if there is one.
btw. peoples market would be my choice over whole paycheck.
> I knew of this plan months ago ...
how did you find out about it?
> I knew of this plan months ago ...
how did you find out about it?
posted by Hugh.
Because I am a pandering, ass kissing apologist and big wig insider who gets his information from people involved and not coffee shop speculation and inuendo.
Come on Hugh.....I thought you knew everything!
;-)
sheridan rd. is a highway. 24 or so cars every 2 hours really isn't going to impact that very much one way or the other. the restaurant would probably be busier during the week with local , walking pedestrian taffic which would add some much needed people on the street.
the marathon station on sheridan caters to NOTHING but cars, adds noise and traffic. should we shut them down too?
at some point, we will need to accept responsible businesses into our neighborhoods. they add jobs and revenue and stability. the "mia francesca" group happens to be a responsible group.
if this isn't the right location for their restaurant, maybe we can offer another one.
but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. someone has decided to take the risk and offer a service in our neighborhood.
I could not agree more Gary.
> If the property is zoned RT4, it should stay RT4.
> ... build the 6 flat that current zoning and leave it at that.
Of course, that is the fall-back. And make no mistake, it would be very lucrative. But first: some election year neighborhood theater.
Compare and contrast Abel's proposal with a very similar situation one block south: 6963 N Sheridan (PIN 11-32-200-003), a two-story single-family home demolished recently for 9 luxury condos (PINs 11-32-200-040-1001 through -1009) by Daniel T. O'Leary of Jasper Construction Company, Inc. (since dissolved). Same side of the street, also in the middle of a block, also in an RT4 district, 8800 square feet of prime real estate on North Sheridan Rd.
This tear-down was particularly significant because the former single-family home was listed on the Chicago Historical Resoruces Survey, and so presumably was subject to the 90-day demolition permit hold process.
Unless I read this wrong, doesn't the flyer state, a top floor restaurant? I understood that to be a restaurant on the "top floor". Not the roof.
While I don't like the precedent that the height sets, I am intrigued to find out more.
the zoning variance they are asking for might have something to do with the restaurant exhaust requirements so if the zoning variance doesn't pass this will all probably be a moot point.
a lot of us complain that we drive to evanston or elsewhere because there are very few retail choices in rogers park. i would rather spend my money here, support a local business here that can offer walkable jobs to local people here.
the much bigger problem imho is the lack of a comprehensive development plan. the alderman has us running around putting out brush fires everywhere and keeping us all occupied in discusions like this and with "community meetings" that are nothing more than a dog and pony show as we have found out lately.
this is not urban planning. this is an urban problem in the making.
thank you cd
michael-
my guess is that the parking rentals are a giveaway when the concerns are voiced about "no available parking" to appear conciliatory and to make us feel as though we have "input"
mclnoh-
you are correct about the lfpo. that is the paramount issue and it should not be changed.
i think we should get our sandbags ready.
MJH said: A new restaurant, likely upscale in price, with a spectacular view. But with no parking? Who expects this business to survive on foot traffic alone? Better and more comprehensive planning needs to be the standard here, not an afterthought.
You make a good point here Michael. However that is the owners risk, and they should be able to take it as part of their overall business plan. No?
Do we than start a policy by where you are required to offer parking if you want to open a restaurant?
No way. If they fail due to a lack of parking....that is a risk they should be allowed to take.
> That Marothon station with the Subway behind it would be good candidates to go, but they are already 'grandfathered' in.
The gas station on the Subway sandwich shop on the SW corner of Pratt & Sheridan are in an RT4 district. They are non-conforming uses.
The zoning rewrite of 2004 renamed R4 RT4. Before this area was RT4 it was R4. I'm not sure what the zoning was when the gas station went in, but it was definitely R4 when the sandwich shop went in. The Subway shop was NOT "grandfathered" in. No one I've talked to can explain to me how that sandwich shop got a license in a residential district. It's not a matter of getting some special permission or a zoning variance or something, it's flat out not allowed.
> I knew of this plan months ago ...
Did you think this might have been of interest to your neighbors? Most of us are meeting here online in order to share information and learn from each other, soemtimes I think you are not.
Hugh said: > I knew of this plan months ago ...
Did you think this might have been of interest to your neighbors? Most of us are meeting here online in order to share information and learn from each other, soemtimes I think you are not.
I bet it would have been of some interest.....but just because something was mentioned to me in passing durring a casual conversation does in no way obligate me to pass that info on or discuss it before it is public knowledge.
That of course would be in violation of my security clearance with the NSA.
Oh yeah...it is also how misinformation starts running a muck on BB's and Blogs. Truth be told I thought it was a dead deal and simply don't want to spread false rumors.
Novel idea huh?
hey red-
i guess i wasn't clear. i was suggesting that the height variance might be needed to FULFILL a building code requirement regarding exhaust. exhaust ducts have to be a certain height above and pointed away from a building so the fumes are dissipated, similar to a chimney. there is a height requirement.
red, i don't beleive they will be renting those parking spaces.
insider talk writes:
A very reliable friend told me a “rumor”.
Roger parker is dead on.
You are debating a proposal that was never meant to pass. This was by design a campaign maneuver by Moore and friends to provide an opportunity for Moore to turn down a friend and contributor. He can’t run on his current record, so they’re putting together another one. The fight you are making is the rage he needs to say he’s answering to when he says no to the zoning change.
Think about it. When has anyone ever placed a flyer on our cars telling us in advance about what they want to do? Including several details guaranteed to piss off just about everybody? Usually they lay as low as possible- remember the tif meeting a couple weeks back? Get a clue people. These guys are playing to win and setting us up to lose.
--I'm tempted to believe this. On the other hand, it's too far away - timewise - from the Aldermanic Elections. Who would remember this "stunt"?
> 24 parking spaces ... FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO RENT
Canard. The developers will initially own all 30 parking spots. Once this project is approved they will be perfectly free to sell or rent them as they choose or as the market dicates. Perhaps those that don't sell immedaitely may be rented until they sell. We as neighbors have no mechanism to hold a developer to a verbal commitment to rent housing or parking spaces as opposed to selling.
Oh what lovely KAOS. Tis may be the most hilarious reading on the hellhole in the last 6 mos.
Ms. Abels rep and pie in the sky dreams aside, a few points:
1. I eat at that wretched Subway behind Citgo from time to time. Subway actually not bad though I prefer Potbelly but that would mean going to Evanston instead of walking, as Paradise prefers we do. Aside from the burrito joints on Clark, Subway pretty much my only option for lunch. And Heartland. Please don't make me eat at Heartland anymore. 15 years of one restaurant. The Kama Sutra has more positions than Heartland has meal options. And Ennui, which I am fond of but sometimes they are out of everything -- like lunch.
2. Restaurant parking: like Suron, it would probably offer valet parking and rent spots from someplace down the street. This is what restaurants all over the city do (when they aren't parking cars illegally).
3. White Hen, etc. for north of Touhy denizens. Um, there are bodegos around including one on the corner of Howard and Sheridan though the fact that the proprietor sits in a bullet proof cage is a little trippy.
4. "Commercial as hell" Clark street: Kind of funny that the Hispanic community has the only thriving business zone in RP. Presumably they have done it through hard work, putting their money at risk, and simply opening businesses that people want or need without the white know it alls trying to tell them what to do, where to do it, and how to do it. Ya think that may be a ticket to success? Of course it's not Paradise's idea of pretty but if you live around Clark and Estes you can find milk late at night (among other things though not foie gras though one might find some prostituee).
5. Joey should just give Connie a damn planter. Which reminds me, does anyone know if Joey was able to obtain commitments for the entire Morse Streetscape funding yet?
I don't agree that Sheridan road isn't (potentially) retail friendly...and frankly the height doesn't really bother me as long as they've designed appropriate set backs (although I think it's pushing it, there is a difference between 7 stories and 30). What does bother me is the precedent this zoning change would create, and I'm not so sure I understand the extent to which CA is bound to her original proposal at all once the variance is granted.
I would be inclined to agree with many points made by Gary and Michael on this one, but I am leaning toward thinking this is a set up. The parking thing doesn't add up, unless Connie intends to do a bait and switch on the parking rentals, which as I understand it, she would be perfectly free to do. Even the 26 spaces seems a bit short for a "destination" restaurant - I mean, how many tables are they planning in that big space? Perhaps they plan to do "valet" parking in the public lot next to the park? Anyway, I'm sure the buyers of those sure to be giant flats would want more than a single parking space, wouldn't they? No, it just doesn't add up...
...but I'll be very curious to see the dog and pony show on Wednesday.
BTW - wondering what kind of construction it's going to be...I sure as hell wouldn't want a restaurant above my apartment...I guess they'll have to use something more solid than the usual cinder block. If they are actually serious about the restaurant thing, I think that exterior noise from ventilation systems and such is a legitimate concern...I'll be curious to see how they address that...perhaps that is part of the logic for the height? We shall see...
I really think the most important thing we can be thinking about with regard to this proposal is why isn't there better leadship for long term planning. Others have already said it better here today, but isn't that the missing link?
How about a report on the potential economic/social/environmental impact with all the pros and cons laid out, instead of just some realtor lady hyperventilating in front of us, telling us how fabulous it's all going to be. It's going to be fabulous? Great - now show us some objective projections and the grown ups can get together and talk it over.
How does this proposal fit with the larger plan for the future of RP? What is that plan anyway? And who the heck right now is providing any cogent leadership to figure all that out?
paradise said: I notice that some people think I'm effete and elitist because I like a neighborhood to be PRETTY, with nice masonry buildings that have presence, lots of mature trees, and small, attractive businesses.
Yeah I wonder why? I mean with comments like this I'd assume.........
Sheridan Road looks much better than Clark, and if you call a long strip of tacky, ghetto type businesses 'success', then, I guess you are entitled to your own idea of what constitutes 'success'. Personally, I think Clark St. is a dirty, tacky dump that could use some good, well-financed businesses.
Whether we like Clark St. visually or not, one must acknowledge that the businesses are thriving which, presumably, indicates that they are serving their segment of the community. They are perfectly legal businesses, earning money, ostensibly, by honest work and trade. We don't see them asking for tax breaks or zoning exemptions. The streets are busy with people, as opposed to other parts of RP that are virtual ghost towns. So, yes, the businesses on Clark Street are a success by almost any definition of capitalism. They are every bit as successful as "prettier" businesses on Halsted or Armitage or Clybourne or their brethren on W. Chicago. They're just not businesses that serve the more flush denizens of RP.
Obviously Sheridan is a more aesthetically pleasing thoroughfare. But my point was that the Hispanic community has really the only robust business zone in the 'hood.
Don't ever run for Alderman, Charlie. The last line of your post just lost you the Hispanic vote!
Pamela.....I am laughing to hard. I was quoting Paradise!
Here it is in all it's glory......shame on you for thinking I'd ever say that!
---------------------------------------
I notice that some people think I'm effete and elitist because I like a neighborhood to be PRETTY, with nice masonry buildings that have presence, lots of mature trees, and small, attractive businesses.
Sheridan Road from North Shore clear to Howard mostly looks good.It has an open feeling, lots of large buildings AND some really beautiful, well-kept single family homes, and many 3 and 6 unit flats. I'd love to see fewer bland 4+1 buildings and more buildings with really good architecture, but good architecture is expensive and therefore 'upscale' which might offend some people who despise 'yups'.
Sheridan Road looks much better than Clark, and if you call a long strip of tacky, ghetto type businesses 'success', then, I guess you are entitled to your own idea of what constitutes 'success'. Personally, I think Clark St. is a dirty, tacky dump that could use some good, well-financed businesses. We don't want high intensity businesses on Sheridan and we shouldn't be stuck with them any more than people who don't want condos in their single-family house hoods should have cookie cutter condos packed down their throats.
Anything would be an improvement on dirty Clark St. and I'd like to see dozens of restaurants like the one Abels is proposing, go in there, as well as other good retail. Clark needs major retail and large restaurants; Sheridan Road does not.
# posted by Paradise : 8:57 PM
Whoopsie! My bad. Stop picking on Charlie and instead pick on Paradise (sorry, Paradise!). I misread. My way bad.
TW, I never thought this day would come, but for once I agree with everything you've said.
Except the swipe at Courbusier. Notre-Dame-du-Haut is one of the most beautiful buildings I've ever had the honor to be in. The Villa Savoye and the United Nations aren't too shabby either.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Le_Corbusier.html
But I take your point about his public housing projects through - the
"mini-city in a building surrounded by open park" concept, no matter how well intentioned, is a wash. That's what happens when you let your ideology run away with you!
Oh dear, I mostly agree with TW's points too though I kind of like some of those fascist buildings, or I like the starkness of them against more ornate buildings. But don't agree with TW's advocacy of community planning. I do want central meetings, however, which would have close to the same effect without annoying committees and the mediocrity they usually create. Monthly or every other month meetings where zoning issues are addressed would bring development issues in front of the community in a more wholistic fashion.
Meis was no fascist......in fact he was kicked out of Germany and the Bauhaus shut down by the Nazi's.
That is how he ended up in Chicago and IIT. One of his paramount concerns was in fact Anti- Architecture. It took into account an open and flexible floorplan that made every attempt to think about the function of it's space over it's form. Ever been in a Meis highrise? Ever notice how those open floor to ceiling windows brings you much closer to nature and the outside world? Ever notice how extremely well his buildings are sighted? Ever notice how when you walk up to a meis structure you are always greeted by a very open plazance giving the building a very welcome and pedestrian scale even though it towers above you?
Ever notice that Meis was building structures FOR living people and NOT building temples?
Had Meis developed the entire stretch between Hollywood and Loyola on Sheridan......it would never feel like the canyon it does today.
Like his work or not Meis took into account the human scale of things......he really did.
I agree with TW too about the planning. It really annoys me when people say, "We already have conflicting/hodge podge styles of architecture in RP, so it's too late to have a unified vision." Just because we have some ugly 4+1s and a few mid-rises, we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? I don't think so.
It's plain and simple an excuse. It's not elitist- it's called urban planning. Connie Abels kind of alluded to this when my guy commented about the style of the building being inappropriate. She doesn't seem to get it.
Post a Comment