Monday, February 06, 2006

O.K. Let's Get Serious.

Some Questions For You

Wouldn't you like to see a fully developed set of architectural plans for once?Wouldn't you like to have a copy of the drawings that offer the architect's comprehensive and detailed vision for a project, instead of the highly conceptualized, bold yet incomplete plan that was presented by Connie Abels for the 7015 Sheridan Road proposal? Wouldn't you like to be able to make a rational decision based on real information before hand, rather than react to a plan at a one hour meeting to an incomplete concept, that as presented, in it's developmental stage, raises more questons than it answers?

Because, as much as I liked the direction the architect was headed and it seemed others did too, much work remains to be done before an important decision such as this can be made. The proposal that was presented for the 7015 Sheridan Road project is incomplete. It needs to be fully developed as a business plan. There needs to be an impact projection the plan would have on the local economy and immediate vicinity. We need detailed renderings that would allow us to see whether this design concept works architecturally with the existing buildings it will sit between.

We need this information so that we can make a comprehensive, rational decision on whether the zoning variance should be granted, that seems to be in conflict with the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.

So, would you like to see the original drawings for the Gateway Mall project so you could go to the Pivot Point meeting tonight with some hard data and reasonable questions? Question such as WHY the building was not torn down as the original planned proposed? WHY is the completed mall aesthetic and overall environment so sterile compared to the original plan? WHY didn't the money that was saved by not demolishing the building, be applied towards creating a more succesful completed project? WHY wasn't the Passage family offered an alternative space somewhere in the neighborhood, to relocate their succesful business?


The Original Gateway Mall Drawings

Paradise would like to see those plans. In her recent, excellent comment, she asked some very relevant questions that need answers. All of us need answers to our questions and we all have many. All of our questions and opinions are relevant and they would be incredibly helpful before the fact and during the planning process.

In my humble opinion, we are at a developmental planning stage right now with the Pivot Point Building. We also seem to be at a crossroads with regards to future development in Rogers Park.

We are meeting tonight to discuss the Pivot Point Building and its' apparent re revised incarnation. We will be able to ask rational and reasonable questions tonight based on real, developed plans and be able to put this new Pivot Point proposal into a larger context. And that context is the comprehensive, fully developed original Gateway Mall plan as the architects originally envisioned it.. How can we do that you ask?

Because I Am Looking At The Plans Right Now

So Paradise will get her wish and so will the rest of you, who answered yes to some of the questions I posed. I will bring color copies to hand out, of the 4 drawings that were the original, fully developed plans for the Gateway Mall. I will also go to Kinkos and have the drawings enlarged so we can look at them before our meeting. I encourage anyone who is reading this to come to the meeting tonight and call a neighbor and bring them too.Take a look at what could have been in relation to what we have now and from these plans , ask some of your own questions tonight.

This is not a whine about how things could have been, although I, and a lot of you seem to be unhappy about the way this whole project has evolved. This is more about where we are, where we are going and how we should get there.

A Flawed Process

Because now, we might have a bit of a problem. Directly across the street from the Pivot Point Building, a new, 17 story rental apartment building is being constructed with a 245 car parking garage. The north east corner property is for sale and the current zoning will allow an 8 story building to be built there. And in todays' economic reality, a reasonable assumption could be made that it will probably be built that big. So now, with the Pivot Point Building still standing, we will have a canyon of large buildings right at that important and difficult intersection and as the "gateway" to Howard Street and the NOH neighborhood.

Obviously, this is not the concept that was originaly envisioned.

When you see the plans you will understand what the architects had in mind. I will not divulge the details and let everyone instead, have their own reactions. I will only say that the architects made their case and they proved to me that the Pivot Point building should have been taken down for the sake of the bigger picture. I love that building, as you know but given the real facts, as I am looking at them now, I would have agreed with the architects plan. The original plan was not a suburban sprawl theory concept, but an urban solution for an urban neighborhood. What Gateway is now is quite different.

How many more mistakes can we afford to absorb?

My previous posts were written for several reasons and I will write about the chronology of all these posts, this blog space and what we, yes we, hope to accomplish with this forum because I'm working with a partner at the Rogers Park Review. I only ask that you understand that I just consider myself a regular person like you with a couple of cats and a dog and a regular life. The thoughts and opinions written here are not more important than yours simply because I happen to write on a blog.

Your comprehension, suggestions and opinions are relevant and important and I believe that we all can, given hard data and developed concepts, arrive at constructive suggestions and relevant opinions that can help shape our neighborhood by changing the current process by which those decisions are made.

We Need A Comprehensive Development Plan For Rogers Park. We Need A Framework That Will Allow Our Concerns To Be An Integral Part Of The Development Process During The Planning And Not After The Fact.

The Rogers Park Review is Working on the Development of Such a Plan Based on Succesful Models Elsewhere.

We Need Your Support, Your Suggestions and Your Dialogue.

See you tonight.

Gary Fuschi

20 Comments:

Blogger Don Mac Gregor said...

Hello Everybody it's time one cagain for Alderman Moore's MONDAY NIGHT MEETINGS!!!
(Cue Hank Williams Junior
"All my rowdy friends are here for Monday Night.")
Here's the serious stuff now:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
February 6, 2006 49th Ward Service Office (773) 338-5796

MOORE TO HOST COMMUNITY MEETING TO REVIEW
BIRCHWOOD AVE. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

Alderman Joe Moore announced today he will hold a community meeting to review a proposal to redevelop the properties located at 1954 and 1958 West Birchwood Ave. with a three-story residential building, containing nine condominium units and nine parking stalls. The meeting will be held at the Pottawattomie Park Fieldhouse, 7340 N. Rogers, on Monday, Feb. 13th at 7:00 p.m.

A frame single-family residence and a brick two-flat currently sit on the properties and would be demolished to make way for the development. The properties are currently zoned RT4, which allows for a residential building of up to seven units. The developer, Joe Mirro, is applying for a change in the zoning designation to RT4.5 in order to construct an additional two units.

The proposed zoning change must receive City Council approval and is currently being considered by the 49th Ward Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee. “I look forward to hearing the views and opinions of the neighbors,” said Moore.

-30-

2:07 PM  
Blogger Don Mac Gregor said...

I meant to say Hello Everybody it's time ONCE AGAIN for Alderman Moore's MONDAY NIGHT MEETINGS!!!

I'm not making fun of public meetings, but people, this is getting rediculous!

This is just the type of piecemeal planning several of you have been complaining about.

Makes me feel like a foxhound before the hunt.

Why, all of a sudden do I have this image of Joe Moore on horseback in English hunting mufti.

Tally Ho!!!!!The game's afoot.

2:22 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

Mirro, Joseph
2100 W. Pratt
Chicago, IL 60645

$500.00 7/29/2004

Mirro Construction
1425 W. Fullerton Av
Chicago, IL 60614

$1,500.00 3/9/2005
$500.00 7/29/2004
$1,500.00 2/3/2004
$1,000.00 11/6/2003

Source: Illinois State Board of Elections

Moore disclosed at least $5000 in contributions from Mirro and his company. Although Moore declared all of the contributions as "individual contributions" he only put the name of an individual on ONE of the 5 contributions.

The Condo Queen Connie Abels is Mirro's listing broker.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

> “I look forward to hearing the views and opinions of the neighbors,” said Moore.

Bring your checkbook and you, too, can be heard!

2:42 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

Gee, I wonder what Joe thinks of this proposal?

2:43 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

> The properties are currently zoned RT4, which allows for a residential building of up to seven units.
> The developer, Joe Mirro, is applying for a change in the zoning designation to RT4.5 in order to construct an additional two units.

Moore Fact Check: By-rights Density Calculation

Moore tear-downs in RT4, Moore campaign contributions.

The number of units you can build depends on the size of the lot.

1954 W Birchwood PIN 11-30-400-011 single-family frame home, 3750 square feet of lot area

1958 W Birchwood PIN 11-30-400-010 red brick two-flat, 3750 square feet of lot area

7500 square feet of land total

7500 + 750 = 8250 with 10% "administrative adjustment"

The current zoning RT4 requires 1000 square feet of land per unit.

Residential Districts: Minimum Lot Area per Unit Standards (Density)

8250 / 1000 = 8 units "by rights"

The proposed zoning RT4.5 requires 700 square feet of land per unit.

8250 / 700 = 11 units "by rights"

It is important to recognize that the zoning change goes with the land. Moore is asking us to change the zoning for this property, not necessarily for this particluar development proposal. In evaluating these proposals, it is important that we neighbors consider not only what the presenters SAY is going to happen, but also what is PERMITTED to happen. The land could change hands or the plans could change and then there would be "nothing we can do" to prevent 11 units from going in.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

Joe Mirro, member Rogers Park Builders Group

3:24 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

link repaired

Residential Districts: Minimum Lot Area per Unit Standards (Density)

3:45 PM  
Blogger Hugh said...

> We Need A Comprehensive Development Plan For Rogers Park.

Joe Moore on Planning

Ever careful in choosing his words, and ever mindful of the upcoming election, Joe Moore danced around the controvoersial issue of planning, stopping short of coming out in favor:

"Certainly I am not opposed to any kind of planning."

"Plans are great, but they are only that."

7:24 AM  
Blogger Hugh said...

Answer the Question or Deride the Questioner?

"I find it somewhat strange to hear you speak out about affordable housing and North of Howard, since you think we have too much of it."

-Joe Moore
to a neighbor and constituent
February 6, 2006
Gale Academy

7:28 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Well, at least from that comment we have a pretty good idea of who is "digesting" the blogs for Joe now...

Apparently Joe forgot that we know how to read too.

11:23 AM  
Blogger gf said...

well, at least i know at least one person is reading this stuff.

11:49 AM  
Blogger gf said...

any one who is not familiar with my position on these issues can glance through 24/7 howardwatchers and decide if that statement is correct.

3:11 PM  
Blogger gf said...

thisaintoz-

my personal opinion isn't important but the process and details that are presented are. whatever our personal opinion is regarding the lpo, we all need to be better informed about this entire project before reaching an informed decision.

i would like to see a complete, detailed proposal as would others before making that decision. i don't believe the development team made their case in this concept presentation.

11:01 AM  
Blogger gf said...

thisaintoz-

i like the way you think and i hope you continue you to post your comments but i believe you are giving me more credit than i might deserve.

firstly, i do not own the property and i am not part of the development team. on this project and in this process, i don't have any more control over events than anyone else. your concerns should be voiced to the alderman. he set up the current process and is in control of the decisions. we are not. we are left to react to proposals, not shape them.

secondly, my personal position on the lpo is unwaivering. i do not think it should be violated, not once, not ever and i have written that.

thirdly, my belief is that a development team should always put the best possible proposal on the table the first time, fully detailed. if you have been reading you know i am not a big fan of the circle jerk show.

in this process, watered down, mediocre proposals are presented and if the community doesn't articulate a concern, or happens to miss a detail or two in the alloted time, that mediocre proposal gets built. i think the process currently is backwards.

now i enjoy playing chess logic, but what do you think of the current system? we are trying to engage our neighbors in this discussion and your input would be helpful. gaining consensus would allow us to be more persuasive.

3:46 PM  
Blogger Blogger said...

thisaintoz-

"If you're against changing the LPO, you are against the 7015 restaurant project - more plans don't matter."

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. The LPO is a complex document with many ambiguities built in - I don't know the history of how this language was crafted, so I can't offer an insight into why this is so, but there it is. This or any proposal would not be about "changing" the LPO, it would be about interpreting it. Interpretation can only really be done if one understands context thoroughly. Context is what we were not given during this presentation.

While I think I understand your strategy in reading certain policies in the ordinance in a rather fundamentalist way, I would like to suggest that there may be cases in which the variance being requested does comply with the spirit and goals of the LPO policies. I respectfully disagree that the LPO was intended to prevent any and all development until the day comes when all buildings East of Sheridan road crumble into dust and blow into the lake. I'm also not saying this project follows the spirit of the LPO though, because we simply weren't given enough information to make that determination, which the lens through which I heard Gary's comments.

I understand you may disagree with my interpretations here and I welcome your rebuttal. Hashing out these difficult issues is what we set up this space for.

1:10 AM  
Blogger Blogger said...

Forgive the mixed metaphor - "lens through which I heard" - I really need to get some sleep...

1:13 AM  
Blogger mcl said...

thisaintoz has it right. There should be NO plan considered that violates or calls for an exception to the LPO. Period, end of story!

11:04 AM  
Blogger gf said...

rp observer-

i think there is beginning to be some confusion between proposal and plan.

7015 sheridan is a proposal.

the comprehensive plan process we are advocating for is something else entirely. this type of proactive review structure and process should include the lpo as the basis for any proposed development along sheridan rd.

if a developer decided to take the time and expense drawing up detailed plans, a complete business plan and impact statements and go through a thorough review process, knowing it would be vetoed, that would be his choice to do so. he should given a fair hearing.

in that process the community has veto power. in this current process we have no veto power. we are only reactive to plans after they have already been proposed.

does that make a little more sense.

11:57 AM  
Blogger mcl said...

Any 'proposal' that requires any exception to the LPO should be DOA and get no 'consideration'! It's my understanding that the LPO forbids any structure over 4 stories specifically. Do we, the community, hold fast to the very thing (the LPO) that for 50+ years has protected our lakefront (east side of Sheridan on)and in doing so, made us unique amoung all lakefront communities in the city. It's a no brainer...yes we do. No exceptions!

3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home