2242 Community Feedback

Transcription

1 2242 Community Feedback Sent: Thursday, February 16, :11 PM The official Greater Ravenswood Chamber of Commerce position is that we support the re-zoning in either case. Certainly would be nice to see development in a lot that has sat vacant for so long. I just wanted to let you know that I did get some feedback regarding the glut of store-fronts in the area. We may be nearing a saturation point. Perhaps if you do public meetings you'll get a chance to hear more from the community, but I think it's a perspective for the developers to consider before they decide which option to choose. Sent: Friday, March 17, :53 AM I'm the owner of a 2-flat at on the 4800 blk of N Claremont. I'm away on travel for the March 23 meeting regarding 2242 and 2247 w Lawrence, but wanted to give my feedback to the proposal. I support both zoning changes - the more density on Lawrence the better - it stabilizes the neighborhood and helps ensure that the nearby local businesses have more foot traffic. Sent: Thursday, March 23, :47 PM I had the opportunity to attend tonight's community meeting and I am glad I did. I wanted to provide some general feedback and some feedback about these developments. 1. We are glad Pawar is trying to bring more density into the neighborhood, trying to turn Lawrence into a more commercial/walking friendly street with new developments and making sure developments have a mix of affordable and luxury housing. 2. We bought in this neighborhood recently and love the shops on Damen and frequent those businesses often, but we would love to see more businesses on Lawrence. We don't want to walk by empty buildings and parking lots, which is what's on Lawrence right now : Out of the two options, we prefer the option with commercial space on the floor level. We often frequent the businesses on Damen that occupy similar buildings and we love those developments. Aesthetically, the Candela developments are beautiful and I think they would look great on Lawrence. I can't stress enough how important it is for me and my partner to live in a vibrant neighborhood. And we are excited about all the new developments that are coming to Lawrence. We are ideally located between the Metra and 2 brown line stations, but without many new businesses coming into the neighborhood and new developments that attract higher density we think Lincoln Square will not grow and progress as a neighborhood. Sent: Friday, March 24, :12 PM I wanted to reach out to let you know that I support the proposals presented Thursday along Lawrence Avenue. While I don't live very close to the proposals, I understand that the ward needs to strategically add density near transit to off-set the loss of apartments as two-flats are converted to single family homes. This is a smart strategy that leverages our amazing transit while preserving the character of residential blocks. Phone call : Like projects because they create density and help families Sent: Friday, March 24, :24 AM I have been looking for new condo developments in Lincoln Square for a move. I currently reside on Irving Park Road (Park Place Towers). I am very interested in the proposed development on 2242 W. Lawrence Ave, especially since the developer is proposing 3 bedroom units, which is perfect for raising a family in the city. Not everyone can afford single family homes in the area, but 5 story flats are an affordable option. I hope the Zoning Committee approves this development. I have a preference for Option 1 (Mixed Use) because I believe ground floor retail will add attractive economic activity in the local community. Lastly, I hope you also approve the TOD proposal for 2247 W Lawrence. The city really needs tax revenue.

2 Sent: Friday, March 24, :38 AM I am writing you to offer my strong support for transit-oriented development along Lawrence Avenue between Western and Ashland, including proposed developments at 2247 and 2242 Lawrence. In particular, I want to voice my support for: - street facing commercial space on all frontage facing Lawrence Ave (& other arterials) - limited provision of off street parking for new units. Your professed long term vision for this corridor is one I support wholeheartedly, and I encourage you and any developers to pursue it wholeheartedly. The complaints I have seen from others that you can t live in this neighborhood without a car may approximate life today (although arguably not) but in any case are shortsighted. Our community is better with fewer (not zero) cars and this is a great way to achieve that. Sent: Friday, March 24, :58 AM Please continue with the development of Lawrence Avenue. Waiting years for a "plan" is a terrible idea. My wife and I live at the edge of your ward on Ainslie and Leavitt and we moved to the neighborhood from Wicker Park last year, because of the Roots Pizza, the Lawrence Avenue Streetscape, the ease of walking to two Brown Line stops and the fact that we could stay in the city. Don't let residents forget that this is still part of Chicago and density is what makes this city great. It is not the lifeless, auto-centric "planned" suburbs. You have said it yourself that if we do not increase the density of this neighborhood with apartments/condos, it will lose its small businesses and independent shops. The people who oppose density are uneducated on the matter and I don't think their opinions will be changed easily. There are massive vacant lots on Lawrence and I continue to see multi-unit buildings in my neighborhood torn down or converted into Single Family Homes. If we continue to allow only million dollar homes and shun apartments and developments, our population will continue to decline, businesses will close and we will lose property values. I fully support the Surpless Dunn building, the Chase development, the Wintrust project, The Sears project, and any other multifamily development in the neighborhood. The people who oppose these projects are small minded and not representative of the future of Lincoln Square. Sent: Sunday, March 26, :37 PM Although others might disagree about the 2247 project, I don't think either of the projects is aesthetically displeasing and I generally support the notion that we need to be replacing lost housing stock, particularly rental units, in the 47th ward. My areas of concern, in ascending order, are: 1) the 2247 project pushes to the absolute limit the ratio of parking spots to units with 6 spots for 24 units. While I believe that stats show that Millennial renters don't have cars, I can understand the concerns of their immediate neighbors: 6 spot is too few for this project. 2) the 2242 building is asking for a height variance, similar to the variance that the builder (Candea) received for the condos being built on the Farmers Market lot right next to this project. I'm concerned because when does a variance become the standard? I don't like the thought of many more 70' tall buildings on lining Lawrence from Western to Damen. 3) my greatest concern is that there is no master plan for the Lawrence corridor. With hundreds of units planned for the Chase site, a 59 unit building at Lawrence and Leavitt (which I opposed: see attached), plus the 2242, 2247, and other developments, what is the total number of units (and people) that we'll be adding to the neighborhood? No one seems to have the answer. I'm concerned that all of these projects are being evaluated in a one-off fashion with little regard or consideration for the overall impact on the neighborhood. The 47th Ward is blessed with excellent transportation options and we need to add to the housing stock to take advantage of these resources but we shouldn't do so without a master plan in place. I recommend a moratorium on any new buildings until a master plan has been completed. Sent: Tuesday, March 28, :59 AM I am a long time resident of the 47th Ward (since 1979) and I against both of these projects. Putting up a five

3 story building on Lawrence at 2247 will make the street much less attractive and not fit in with the other buildings. Please do not change the zoning on this parcel. The other condominium project at 2242 is also a bad idea based on the feedback from an owner in a different building. It sounds like this builder is doing shoddy work. Please do not change the zoning here. There needs to be a plan for the ward, not the unrestricted growth that is occurring. Lawrence ave is a traffic nightmare all day long. Too many cars and not enough lanes. There is already several projects to build more apartments. We do not need any more. I heard that the alderman is concerned with overcrowding at McPherson School. These projects as well as the other one are going to put in more families and impact the school. Sent: Friday, March 24, :05 PM I am writing to say, as a resident of Lincoln Square who lives on Lawrence Ave, I support the development that is taking place on Lawrence Ave. I have read a few articles saying the residents of our neighborhood do not want new development. I do not agree. I believe our neighborhood is part of Chicago. I do not want it to turn into a suburb. I am an architectural designer who, after years of school and some real world experience, understands that density translates to growth. Growth in business, community, and happiness. We could have a different talk about the design of some of these buildings, but I will leave that for another time. Sent: Wednesday, March 29, :46 AM I want to offer comments on the proposed developments on both sides of the 2200 block of W. Lawrence. I work in affordable housing, and we need more housing in this neighborhood to make it more accessible to a diverse group of residents. I am fine with the height of both buildings, and see little need to have more parking, since the target residents for both buildings are unlikely to require permanent parking spaces or contribute much to traffic along Lawrence. Adding density to that stretch of Lawrence will improve the streetscape and make it more attractive to walk. Sent: Wednesday, March 29, :58 PM I like this project a lot more because it seems to fit the architectural character of the area. I do not like the fact that it is 5 stories high (or 4 1/2)--seems to overpower the immediate area. This height seems to be the new norm approved for the nearby Surpless building. In general, I would agree with a comment made at the meeting about no master plan. Although I think we need more density to attract retail, etc. zoning seems to be changed with very little thought to the overall goals for Lawrence Ave and other developing parts of Lincoln Square. Date: April 4, 2017 at 4:51:56 PM CDT I am against the zoning change as the building will be out of scale for the neighborhood. I am for retail on the first floor, but allowing the change awards the developer extra height to maintain the residential units they want and the building will simply be too tall. I have no problem if there is no retail and the developer maintains the same amount of residences. A good example to show the enormous scale is the new building going up on the west side of Lincoln Ave, between Ainslie and Argyle you can see how massive and out of scale the building is. I believe this is another Candea project. Sent: Thursday, April 6, :02 PM It was mentioned in the meeting that there was a planning group but it seems like 1 building here and 1 building there keeps getting reviewed and then approved all the while not presenting a bigger picture for the entire Ravenswood/Lincoln Square area. I do not want our great neighborhood to turn into Lakeview where you can't get in or out easy and there is no parking ANYWHERE ANYTIME. That is one of the main reasons why we picked this area to move into. Building more means more property taxes for the city but I don't see an upcoming decline in our taxes (home or goods and services) as more people are leaving the city than are coming in. Yes I know there have been a lot of changes for the better thanks to Pawar between businesses and school focus as we have been here over 15 years and have witnessed many changes but the parking lot otherwise known as Lawrence is not better... it has gotten much worse.

4 We walk around the neighborhood for errands and for some entertainment but the fact of the matter is most likely if you live here you own a car especially now since the increase in getting held up and gang activity. I wont walk alone late at night on my own like I used to and will only drive even if its 7 blocks and if one doesn't currently own a car there may be plans to purchase one in the future. You can't get to the airport easily unless you want to spend 2 hours on public transportation to go downtown and head out...not likely. Side streets like Ainslie and Wilson have now become the new main traffic areas as people look for faster ways to get into or out of the area W Lawrence, B1-1. Nice looking building but seems like Candea developer is taking some shortcuts on construction leaving owners to move into a bad situation and then not fixing the problems and continuing to build without modifying the design problems. Again, I really like the way this building looks and fits into the neighborhood but there seems to be some very real issues that need to be addressed in the design of the building from an engineering standpoint with things like having all water lines in walls and not hanging out in the garage exposed.

5 From comment sheets of March 23, 2017 meeting I have numerous concerns because Candea's architect s design has many flaws. We bought 2 yrs ago in a new Candea building and we are experiencing a long list of structural issues. Candea fails to keep promises and has legal muscle to shout down his former buyers. I currently live in a Candea condo. I could not be more upset and disappointed with this building. The Candeas lied to us about a number of issues while building. Later, after closing, a number of issues came up with the very integrity of the building. Domicile Constructing analyzed the building and came up with a 30 page report of things structurally wrong with the building. They never even addressed primary items on personal unit punch lists. We have a major structural circle on one back wall, which may eventually fall off the building. There masonry and flooding is missing in many places, or not done correctly. They used the deconposting (?) contractor and materials they could find. They refused to address any of our issues, until the year warranty was up. They just kept saying, "talk to our lawyer". Who would never respond. They knew it would cost us all a lot more money for a court fight. This is a shady product with unethical people running it. They were eager to leave us holding the bag and going on to their next projects. We don't need more luxury condo units. I have concerns about the builder. Add sustainable features to the design. *We need a master plan for Lawrence* Increase percentage of affordable units. Require that the leases do not include permit parking. Add green roof, solar, high insulation, energy efficient windows and other green/sustainable features. Make it a LEED gold or higher building. *We need a master plan for Lawrence* We need density for local business- I support both projects The density of Lawrence is increasing too rapidly with no master plan. There are concerns about gentrification, congestion, sustainable growth as well as sustainable energy use (green buildings). I have concerns about the lack of transparency of the process of changing the zoning for taller buildings. These comments are not just about this building but for the others presented this evening and also for what is happening in general on Lawrence. In particular, I moved into this neighborhood 5 yrs ago because of the diversity on my block. What I've seen in the larger neighborhoods that will be exacerbated by all these high end buildings is a reduction in ethnic diversity. My wife and I feel that A) the building is to large B) the parking is inadequate. The proposed building will constitute to the heavy traffic on weekends and on rush hours as well as drive tenants to park on the side streets with or without parking permits. The tenant from another one of the developers other properties told a very illuminating story about poor construction and terrible design. Q: why are we now allowing all of this 5 story construction?