MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006-7:00 PM at GALE COMMUNITY ACADEMY-1609 West JONQUIL
Join the Hell Hole for a community meeting to review a proposal to re-re-develop the building that once housed the headquarters for Pivot Point International into a mixed-use building, containing 37 residential condominium units and nearly 7,000 square feet of commercial space.
The meeting will be held at Gale Community Academy, 1609 W. Jonquil, on Mon., Feb. 6th at 7:00 p.m.
The six-story building located at 1791 W. Howard St. on the southeast corner of Howard and Clark Streets. The developer, the Kopley Group, plans to perform a gut rehabilitation of the building. Under the proposal, four of the condominium units would be set aside for affordable ownership in the City of Chicago’s Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) program.
The property is part of the Gateway Planned Development and is 10,640 square feet in size. The current underlying zoning designation is B3-2, which allows for 10 housing units. The Kopley Group has applied for a zoning change to B3-5 in order to develop the additional units.
The proposed zoning change must receive City Council approval. Because the site is in a planned development, the proposal also requires the approval of the Chicago Department of Planning.
The 49th Ward Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee is currently considering the proposal.
“As with every proposed zoning change in the neighborhood, this proposal must be subject to a thorough community review process,” said Moore. “I look forward to hearing from the members of the community,” he added.
29 comments:
The Kopley Group is a collection of Illinois coroporations and limited liability companies owned by K. NICHOLAS KOPLEY, including
KOPLEY GROUP I, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP, II L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP VIII, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP IX, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP X, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP XI, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP XII, L.L.C.
KOPLEY GROUP XIV, LLC
KOPLEY GROUP XV, LLC
THE KOPLEY GROUP XVI LLC
IL SOS Corporation/LLC Search
MJH said: "When will we get to attend public meetings where inclusive, comprehensive, community-based planning is on the agenda?"
Who is to say that we don't already have it. I am not taliking about meetings were we are invited to hear about WHAT IS happening.(projects that need no variance) That is a political decision Joe has made and I have no opinion as to it's effect.
Regarding all the talk about "Big Picture" planning for the "future" of the neighborhood. Much has been spoken and made about Joe not being a comprehensive long term visionary. Maybe so, but I am beginning to think that might be a good thing.
Just how do you go about writing that Manifesto FOR Rogers Park. Do you attempt to take into account what everyone wants? How are you to be sure you are not forgetting or missing a position or point of view?In Rogers Park we have an enormous depth of diverse interests mostly acting on their own behalf, mostly interacting and living in general peaceful coexistance. Do you try to bring a representative from each group/interest to the table? That will need to be an enormous table, and do you really think you can come to some conclusion as to what EVERYONE desires? Do many of these groups/people even care about a BIG PICTURE?
Large urban areas are notoriously transient. When we write this grand plan how do we account for the inevitable shift and movement that WILL take place? What seems good or right today might be totally misplaced in 10-20 years?
Most of what gets talked about around here is a matter of asthetics and personal preservation of some ridged idea of what RP should or should not be. I bet you ten bucks that the majority of people living here don't care about 4+1's 7 story buildings, rooftop eateries or boutique shopping.
It is always the vocal minority that drives policy and development. The majority of people round here just want a safe neighborhood with clean/well cared for housing good schools and the ability to do there day to day shopping close to home.
Maybe Rogers Park is the great neighborhood it is BECAUSE it has no master plan.......MAYBE it is better to encourage business and development growth and let people strive to reach for something better (weather that is a taqueria,jamaican record store or a rooftop restaurant in a seven story building that in no way blocks any public access to our beloved and cherished beaches? I say let them try and lets help them realize it. If they fail so be it. As long as they are not breaking any laws and not putting the general public in harms way let's look at each project based on it's own particular merits and encourage more people to become active in that process.
A comprehensive plan may just be what kills the Heart of Rogers Park?
Go ahead and tear this apart....I think some really fine ideas may come of it.
Kopley Group XIV LLC
5206 N. Sheridan Rd
Chicago, IL 60626
$3,500.00 3/9/2005 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
$2,500.00 1/6/2004 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
$1,000.00 9/25/2003 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
$500.00 5/7/2002 Individual Contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
Kopley, Nicholas/Michelle
3647 N. Keeler
Chicago, IL 60641
Occupation: Real Estate
Employer: Kopley Group
$1,000.00 1/24/2003 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
Kopley Group IV
3647 N. Keeler
Chicago, IL 60641
$500.00 11/15/1999 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
Kopley Group LLP
3647 N. Keeler
Chicago, IL 60641
$500.00 1/16/2001 Individual contribution to Citizens for Joe Moore
Illinois State Board of Elections
Moore has received at least $9,500 from Kopley since 1999 alone. (The online database of the Illinos State Board of Elections only goes back to 1999, when Moore began filing electronically).
This will be no Michael Land meeting! Look for The Man Himself Monday night. Another paid personal appearance info-mercial for a real estate development. Typical floor plans and list of amenities will be available for your perusal.
Although when Moore reported his campaign contributions to the Illinois Board of Elections, he disclosed all of Kopley's campaign contributions as "Individual Contributions," he only put the name of an individual on only one. Moore used 4 different corporations and limited liability companies for the 7 contributions he dislcosed since 1999.
> ... said Moore. “I look forward to hearing from the members of the community,”
Bring your checkbook and you, too, will be heard!
hey charlie-
" the majority of people round here
just want a safe neighborhood with clean well cared for housing, good schools and the ability to do there day to day shopping close to home."
if that's the heart of your argument, i think there are an awful lot of pepole who will say that those three issues are some of the biggest problems we have in rp.
gf said: hey charlie-
" the majority of people round here
just want a safe neighborhood with clean well cared for housing, good schools and the ability to do there day to day shopping close to home."
if that's the heart of your argument, i think there are an awful lot of pepole who will say that those three issues are some of the biggest problems we have in rp.
# posted by gf : 10:54 AM
I don't disagree with you.
thanks for your comment GAry
PS
It was posed as a question more than an argument.
What has been said here is unfortunately not really that new to me. Moore has been taking money from developers (or slumlords, depending on one's point of view) since his first election. (By the way, you can check the earlier contribution data, from the reports that were from before electronic filing began, by going over to the offices of the State Board of Elections.)
One technical correction regarding the query as to the absence of a (D-49) listing next to Moore's name. Please remember that the members of the Chicago City Council have been elected on a nonpartisan basis since before I was born.
Thanks for your comment MJH
I should have qualified that this was in no way directly posed as a question to you only....I simply used your comment as a jumping off point.
I also don't claim tpo know all or any of the answers.
Thanks
hey charlie-
didn't mean to suggest we should have an "argument". more along the lines of a discussion, any time you'd like.
gf.... I was insinuating that you and I or anyone else "argue"
I was just saying that my post was not written as an argument that I held to be true one way or an other.
Just some thoughts
oops i meant to say "not" insinuating
I tend to agree with Charlie that master/central planning is not a solution. Not to make too fine a point, but Marxian political economy has been pretty much discredited.
That said, some MEETING planning might be helpful so that instead of having all these different meetings every week or every other week it would be helpful if there were, say, one development meeting a month where whatever exemption requests are in the hopper are presented at one time. It would be a long meeting but if run with some basic ground rules (such as all plans will be presented with x amount of time for each, and then q&a from community will be taken with x amount of time for each)then us beleagured residents might be able to better get our heads around what is happening, and more people might show up. And, if things were presented in a more cogent fashion, we might actually be more supportive.
The Alderman's office might open such meetings by providing residents with basic statistics -- such as # of unsold condos, # of condos under development, # set aside for low income, # given to low income, and other helpful info. Some of us gather info methodically, some of have impressions based on what we see, and having the Alderman's office present REAL facts and figures could serve to get us pain in the ass residents behind more development or alert us all that there are potential problems. What is the ratio of SF housing to multi-unit housing today v. 5 or 10 yrs ago? What's the ratio compared to other 'hoods such as Edgewater? What is the percentage of SF housing stock that has been torn down (my husband's contention is that it's actually quite small; my impression is different)? What is the parking situation? Is it better or worse (what is the estimated # of cars in RP today v. 10 yrs ago)?
At risk of further inciting JM's ire, I'd say that his biggest fault is not operating in a more businesslike fashion, and doing the research and work necessary that would show us that he's really working on our behalf and has real data for us to digest. It's not a lack of central planning that's a problem; it's a lack of information and poor presentation that's the bigger problem.
Marxian political economy? Um, okay. Based on what little I know about your libertarian leanings and general demeanor, I assume you exagerate for effect Pamela. I don't think what MH or anyone else is suggesting that we resurrect the ghost of the "5 year plan". At least I hope not.
Actually, what I would like to see is exactly the kinds of stats you are asking for, but I also would like to see an OBJECTIVE (read: hire a consultant that has NO political/economic ties to this ward - heck, hire two)and COMPREHENSIVE pro/con projective analysis by people who are actually qualified to do this sort of thing. Perhaps you guys know how to do this in your spare time, but I'm guessing most of us do not. I know this will rub some of you the wrong way, but I don't think this is the kind of process that is amenable to the "hey kids, let's put on our own show out in the barn" approach. That part could come after we've all read what various informed experts have to say.
If you want a case study on how this might all work, look at what edgewater is already doing (and has been doing for quite some time).
Agree on the JM point. Time to start treating us like grown-ups Joe, instead of trying to seduce us with funny plush toys. It's not working.
I do exaggerate for effect but there is a point to my hyperbole. Central planning of almost any kind is a slippery slope. Charlie touched on the issues -- of trying to please so many constituencies, special interests lobbying for their interests, and so on. I rather prefer individuals acting individually. It is more chaotic but, oddly, less dangerous, and certainly more free for most because individuals are limited in the power/control they can exert.
I'm also not big on consultants. There is a great story in my biz (the book publishing biz) about Simon & Schuster hiring the top drawer firm of McKinsey for a companywide analysis. McKinsey's study revealed that S&S would be more profitable if they just published more bestsellers. S&S paid a lot of money for utterly idiotic analysis. Consultant studies sound good but, in my experience, are more likely a waste of time and money.
I think that residents are smart and can digest data, particularly if compared to other wards to which we are similar (pick a similar north and south side ward such as Edgewater and Hyde Park, for instance). I did a search on condos for sale in RP and Edgewater on the Trib, just for kicks. There are approx. 365 listings for RP and 301 for Edgewater. There are about 8 SF homes listed for RP and 15 listed for Edgewater. Wards are roughly same size in population (looking at 2001 data). It would also be interesting to know the rate at which they are selling. (I know this is anecdotal info and not hard data and is used for illustrative purposes only.)
The reality is that property owners can pretty much do what they want with their property within zoning laws (which further makes the point that a study might be a waste of money). No study, analysis, etc. will have any bearing on x owner taking their rental building condo. Or in preventing y owner from tearing down a SF home and building a multi-unit building. What we do have some control over is whether exemptions are granted. I think the answer should, generally, be "no" unless the community finds good reason to bless a zoning exemption or change. The Alderman's office could tell developers and the like that to get community blessing they need to give the community more than pretty drawings and pictures and a pep talk -- that they should come to meetings with hard data, references, etc. And then the Alderman's office should have their data and either at the meeting or after give the community their recommendation, and ask the community to let the A's office know if they agree or not. JM still has power (in most cases) to do as he pleases but such an approach would probably garner support more often than not and where it didn't JM may decide that it's simply not worth it to give that zoning exemption.
I may not be a fan of planning or consultant studies but I believe deeply in transparency, full disclosure, and hard data. If we all have the same information, we can make better decisions, and, generally speaking, we will work better together. With transparency comes trust so that even if a decision is made that you or I disagree with at least no one feels like something is being hidden (like campaign contributions). If JM were really savvy, he'd open these meetings with disclosures about campaign contributions from developers requesting exemptions. Treat people with the utmost respect and they will almost always give one the benefit of the doubt. And if he were really really good, he'd be super nice to Craig at all meetings. Of course I am living in a complete fantasy world and none of this will ever happen. Time to put that bottle of wine away!
pamela-
maybe, instead of using a term such as "central planning", which conjures up negative images, at least in my head, you could think of the process as you would a business plan.
objective and subjective information gathering and analysis that could allow us to understand where we are, what we want, where we see ourselves in the future and a roadmap, based on succesful models , of how to get there.
pamela-
i totally agree with you on the transparency issue especially with developers contributions and the true ownership of properties. i just wrote about that in relation to the adelphi teardown.
that information, imho, should be part of the community approval process for development.
gf -- I hear what you are saying but the difference between a business plan and community planning (I'll move off the Marxist metaphor) is that most biz plans are not drawn up by committee. I've developed enough indivdiually and within corporate environment and, at the end of the day, the best plans involve one person calling the ultimate shots and making the final call which tends not to go down well within a community setting. Within a business environment people tend to defer to the one higher on the totem pole who ends up calling those shots. Not so on committees where everyone thinks they are equal. That's my issue with trying to plan a community. Further, community planning usually ends up leading to a lot of "can't do this, can't do that" rules. My mom lives in one. Too Stepford for my tastes. Life is messy. I say embrace the messiness.
Professor Toto is here:
So what would happen if they consolidated proposed development meetings into say one or two a month with several developments stacked together at one meeting?
1) One would complain that the meeting date was set intentionally so they could not make the meeting. The meeting organizers don't want to make their meetings accessable. Must be a conspiracy.
2) Another would say, these damn meetings, they take too long. We were there until almost mid-night. The meeting organizers streched everything out until people just went home. Must be a conspiracy.
3) Another would say, they ran that meeting so fast so everyone could get out the door by 10:00 p.m., they wouldn't let everyone in the audience ask their questions. It must be a conspiracy.
4) So a new person suggests, lets have more meetings. And guess what? It must be a conspiracy.
Siggy and I took up your case and decided: A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence.
So please, drink your prune juice and you won't be so bottled up. Better yet, just get a good colon cleansing once in a while and you won't give shit anymore.
pamela-
i have been an " embrace the messiness" proponant also. some of the best urban environments have occured by "accident". but what i and others have seen happen here and in neighborhoods throughout the city, are more like train wrecks waiting to happen.
you are correct in your analysis that decisions eventually are deferred to the "higher on the totem pole". that's essentially what we have now, except there is no genuine effort at consensus building. the decision structure i'll try and put foward will be quite different. i'm only asking for a fair hearing and an open mind.
this is a process and i expect and encourage healthy debate on this critical issue. debate is a crucial part of the process and will allow the opportunity for us to be proactive and in front of an issue for once, rather than frustrating debate that is reactive after decisions have already been made and presented at meetings masqueraded as community input..
K. Nicholas Kopley, President
The Kopley Group, Inc.
e-mail: nickkopley@kopleygroup.com
URL: www.kopleygroup.com
Board of Directors, Rogers Park Builders Group
>The 49th Ward Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee is currently considering the proposal.
I feel better already.
Who sez there is no plan?
There's a plan, all right: tear down as many buildings as possible and milk the zoning change and permit application process to bolster the campaign war chest. It's a plan as old as ward politics in Chicago. You may not agree with the plan, but there it is. Those who claim there is not a plan are not being fair to the current Alderman.
>Under the proposal, four of the condominium units would be set aside for affordable ownership in the City of Chicago’s Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) program.
Questions We Would Like to See Answered
Is the Pivot Point project only the SECOND development in the history of Rogers Park to include set-asides for affordable ownership?
Is the only COMPLETED (as opposed to announced) project with affordable set-asides, the only affordable set-aside, ownership-based housing that actually has neighbors benefitting from living in it, in the history of Rogers Park, the Vista North project from Aldermanic pal Hipolito "Paul" Roldan and Hispanic Housing Development Corp, which was subsidized by the City of Chicago, and was supposed to be 100% set aside for low to moderate income buyers?
What was the process for selecting the buyers for the taxpayer subsidized homes in Vista North? Was a lottery held?
How did a DevCorp North staff member come to own one of the taxpayer subsidized homes in Vista North?
What will be the process for doling out the affordable homes in the Pivot Point building?
Moore Questions We Would Like to See Answered
Won't the condos block the view of the Dominick's?
> ... with each project most developers create another LLC.
Or a limted partnership, like
Kopley Group IV Limited Partnership
... which owns ...
1233 W Greenleaf Ave, PIN 11-32-111-005, the red brick courtyard around the corner from Abels Legacy.
Here's a link to some background material on this project:
The Pivot Point Story in press clippings
Please look this material over before the meeting and bring questions. THANKS!
Post a Comment