Judging from the shadows, I'd wager 3 story six families.
I liked the part where he said "parking is a problem!", then "basic street services, such as trash pick up and street cleaning, are not provided consistently due to the over abundance of parking", then "the lack of adequate parking is far from adhering to best building practices", then, the one that makes all his parking arguments go away, is "an increase in the number of automobiles will degrade local air quality".quincunx wrote: ↑Oct 25, 2021You're telling me you addressed the NIMBY's concerns in your new design and they are still in opposition?! Shocked! Shocked I tell you!
And FFS if you want easier ingress/egress by car, open Waterman at DeBaliviere!
Sir, you cant have it every which way.
I liked the attack on the human race. Oppose this project, people are bad!!! More efficient land use and transit use, less waste.chriss752 wrote: ↑Oct 25, 2021I liked the part where he said "parking is a problem!", then "basic street services, such as trash pick up and street cleaning, are not provided consistently due to the over abundance of parking", then "the lack of adequate parking is far from adhering to best building practices", then, the one that makes all his parking arguments go away, is "an increase in the number of automobiles will degrade local air quality".quincunx wrote: ↑Oct 25, 2021You're telling me you addressed the NIMBY's concerns in your new design and they are still in opposition?! Shocked! Shocked I tell you!
And FFS if you want easier ingress/egress by car, open Waterman at DeBaliviere!
Sir, you cant have it every which way.
My guess for the proposal's predecessors would be 6 family buildings, the footprints look very similar, if not slightly larger, than 5592 Waterman.
The neighbors objecting to this proposal are way beyond NIMBYs at this point- they’re BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anwhere Near Anything). Hopefully they’ll be brushed off at the pres board meeting (as they should).
The preservation board voted in favor of preliminary approval per the staff recommendation-
That the Preservation Board grant preliminary approval to the new construction with the stipulation that the design of the parapet be reconsidered, reducing the number and height of projections; and that final plans, details and exterior materials be reviewed and approved by the Cultural Resources Office.
The Alderwoman claiming I didn't meet with her and ignored her requests. I sent her multiple emails with multiple times to meet to discuss the project and she ghosted me.
I have them all my Gmail. All the correspondence I've sent I have.walker wrote: ↑Oct 28, 2021Do a sunshine request for the specific emails!chriss752 wrote:The Alderwoman claiming I didn't meet with her and ignored her requests. I sent her multiple emails with multiple times to meet to discuss the project and she ghosted me.
What reasoning would this Alderwoman have to avoid a meeting and claim her requests were ignored? If it was Chicago, this would be a ploy to "get something" from the developer. Hope that is not the case here. I could see some Alderpersons attempting to make some "grabs" before redistricting kicks them to the curb.
- 3,762
i think the idea is that the sunshine request would prove she received and ignored them.chriss752 wrote: ↑Oct 28, 2021I have them all my Gmail. All the correspondence I've sent I have.walker wrote: ↑Oct 28, 2021Do a sunshine request for the specific emails!chriss752 wrote:The Alderwoman claiming I didn't meet with her and ignored her requests. I sent her multiple emails with multiple times to meet to discuss the project and she ghosted me.
Quick update: Project will soon go through the tweaking of the design as requested by the Preservation Board in October. Should be easy fixes, but that'll only be after the Board of Adjustment meeting since approval of the project is dependent on that meeting. If it's shot down there, it'll have to wait a full year before being reheard.
I was sent this letter back in October and had a hard time figuring out what it meant. After consulting some folks, we realized that we need a variance due to the rear setback (facing the parking lot). The front yard rules do not apply as we measured all the other buildings on the block and found the Marigold was in line with them all and, if anything, sat a few more inches back than the others.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I was sent this letter back in October and had a hard time figuring out what it meant. After consulting some folks, we realized that we need a variance due to the rear setback (facing the parking lot). The front yard rules do not apply as we measured all the other buildings on the block and found the Marigold was in line with them all and, if anything, sat a few more inches back than the others.
Board of Adjustment will hear this project on January 12th.
In my experience with board of adjustment variance hearings if you have support from the neighborhood association and the alderperson you are almost guaranteed the variance. Anyone can join the meeting. If you could find a few neighborhood residents to be present for the meeting (currently via zoom) to lend their support that would really help.
I have withdrawn the present plans after having discussions with City Zoning and Alderwoman Navarro. A revised plan will be submitted for Zoning review (again) soon. During this time, the setback issues (which would've required a variance) will be addressed along with a few other minor things.
Following the b******t hurdles you've faced in order to shepherd this project toward approval/entitlement is an interesting exercise - case study really - in itself. Thanks for the updates. And good luck with round 2, or is it 3, or 4.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2022I have withdrawn the present plans after having discussions with City Zoning and Alderwoman Navarro. A revised plan will be submitted for Zoning review (again) soon. During this time, the setback issues (which would've required a variance) will be addressed along with a few other minor things.
It hasn’t been the easiest process, but it could’ve been much worse and much harder. I just hope the resubmission process goes well.wabash wrote:Following the b******t hurdles you've faced in order to shepherd this project toward approval/entitlement is an interesting exercise - case study really - in itself. Thanks for the updates. And good luck with round 2, or is it 3, or 4.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2022I have withdrawn the present plans after having discussions with City Zoning and Alderwoman Navarro. A revised plan will be submitted for Zoning review (again) soon. During this time, the setback issues (which would've required a variance) will be addressed along with a few other minor things.
This is a letter one of the neighbors forwarded me that explains what was wrong with the current, soon to be previous, set of plans.
Wow, over a handful of feet and some bike racks? Or am I misinterpreting?
Yes. But the one issue that led to the other is being off by 3 inches on Clara. And we have more bike racks than requested, just the number wasn’t providedbwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2022Wow, over a handful of feet and some bike racks? Or am I misinterpreting?
Don't like what the zoning code says? Change it. We all know it needs updating Citywide, but who is leading the charge? Until then, that's what the rules say. We can't just ignore ordinances. The Zoning section is required to do a review for building permit applications (make sure you submit in advance for "zoning only" review if you expect an issue), and they do just that. It's no different than if your plans don't meet building code as currently adopted by ordinance. The Board of Adjustment is charged with making decisions for zoning variances when the current zoning for a site is problematic for a proposal, but doesn't justify a full rezoning. In my experience with the Board of Adjustment, and it's extensive, they are a very fair minded body, and no reasonable variance request is denied, though there are often conditions attached. I'd say they are sometimes a little too fair to applicants. I have opposed bad variance requests in the past, which is not fun being the only person there to speak in opposition when the applicant had packed the room with random likely paid-for supporters, and the variances were still granted. Unfortunately, I have always been right in my opposition in those cases. But despite some occasional bad decisions, I have always felt good about the experience whether I was the applicant, or speaking in support or opposition. Basically, part of being a developer is understanding and being able to work within the process, whether it makes sense or not. In this case, it sounds like Chris and the architects are working to do just that.
^I appreciate you sharing your experience with the Board but when the zoning code has been in place since the 1940s I don't think it can be changed just because some of us don't like what it says. Any zoning code that allowed QuickTrip to do what it did to Chouteau/Jefferson and Chouteau/Vandeventer sucks. But it's not like I could just waltz into City Hall and get the zoning code changed.
^No, neither of us can walk into City Hall and get the zoning code changed on our own. We need some Alderpeople to pick up the cause. We as interested citizens can lobby them. Or maybe everyone at City Hall thinks our zoning regulations are great, and that's why no one wants to change anything. Based on discussions I had a few years back with PDA, at that time they were more interested in using local historic districts to accomplish what form based codes should do. I think their view on that has changed by now with some successful implementation of overlays. Another conversation after a zoning review about 5 years ago led to a comment from someone in zoning that they were surprised there is interest in form based codes from architects. And let's not forget that a new zoning code for the entire City will cost real money, money which up until recently wasn't something that anyone was willing to put the effort into finding. Maybe now is the best time to tackle zoning with the neighborhood planning work that is underway in some parts of the City and coming soon in other areas, and flexible money from say the Rams settlement.
- 9,662
The bike rack requirement is fairly new because people asked for it and at the time alderman Ogilvie championed it. It’s only been a thing since like 2015ish
I don't disagree with the Zoning requirements (at least for this particular project). The rules are in place to prevent something from sticking too far out from the bunch in the neighborhood. This would be a site where a building built right up to the sidewalk, without any setbacks, is a bit too much. I also don't have a problem with the maximum unit count on this site (59 maximum). The bike parking requirement is as little as it comes. Having a bike room in a parking garage isn't a hard thing to do. Even if the building plans didn't include bike parking, they could easily be added.
I wish I knew what the issues with the plan were before this past week as I could've worked with staff to address those issues (much like I'm getting ready to do and intimated the process on). Zoning Staff is happy to help if you reach out to them.
I look forward to providing more updates.
I wish I knew what the issues with the plan were before this past week as I could've worked with staff to address those issues (much like I'm getting ready to do and intimated the process on). Zoning Staff is happy to help if you reach out to them.
I look forward to providing more updates.