Monday, November 25, 2013

Plans For 4642 Magnolia Presented, Pending Upzoning Approval

Proposal for 4642 N. Magnolia
If upzoning is approved, and the 1896 Victorian home is demolished at 4642 N. Magnolia, here is a good idea of what you can expect. Those in attendance say that the meeting tonight at Clarendon Park Fieldhouse was especially uncomfortable during a "spirited," impromptu presentation by the the Victorian home's owner. No decision has been made and the potential developer is willing to tweak the design if upzoning is granted. A tough decision for sure.

38 comments:

  1. I have mixed feelings regarding whether the house should be saved, but if it's not I'd like to see eight units there. The property is big enough for that and the apartment building to the north is certainly much denser.

    I like density. We need more folks in the hood. Particularly since the marketing gurus at "FLATS" are seemingly utilizing a Soviet Style five year plan for renovating their properties. Marketing they have down. Renovating...they could use some construction viagra to improve the speed of the renovations.

    One other thing I'd recommend if I the citywide zoning guru is a BAN on split face block. Not only is it ugly it's a nightmare to maintain properly.

    Any developer who uses it should be flogged and not in a good way. If I were aldercritter, and you should all be thanking whatever God you pray to that I'm not, I wouldn't upzone without an ironclad guarantee that split faced block would NOT be used.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hearing people complain about Victorian homes that they don't own being demolished makes me want to leave the city, buy a gun, and become a republican. Then I hear Ted Cruz speak, and I'm back to being a city-loving Democrat! Back-and-forth, back-and-forth...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can anyone provide details about what the house's owner said? I would like to know how it had a fire 20 years ago, and had nothing done to it in the meantime. They're paying taxes on an uninhabited, gutted, house?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mrs. Rutherford who co-owns the house made quite an impression by taking centerstage during the meeting. She pointed to herself several times and said My house! My house! My house! She said no matter what the Landmarks Commission decided, or whether the house's zoning remained the same, "It's coming down, no matter what." She said she would sell it to the Finans (prospective buyers) for $525K, but if anyone else wanted to buy it, it would cost them $1.5 million (clearly illegal). She said if the property was not upzoned, not only was the house coming down, she would put in a parking lot to show the neighbors just who is boss. She called out her next-door neighbor by name, yelled "Shame!" at him, and accused him of assembling a posse against her. She brought an iPad and ran around the room holding it in front of various attendees' faces and snapping their photos. When the buyers' attorney cautioned against making threats, both Mrs. Rutherford and Mrs. Finan (who also mentioned putting in a parking lot) replied that they weren't making threats.

    I'm sure there was more, but the headache the meeting gave me is blocking the details. Thankfully. One wonders at the absolute determination of a second wife to destroy the century-old familial home of her husband's first wife by wiping it off the face of the earth and threatening to replace it with a parking lot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds like a good meeting to skip. Just be glad the meeting is over.

    Sounds like Ms Rutherford was taking lessons from the bad sisters who own the Maryville property on how to win over the neighbors. That being said putting in a parking lot is an interesting "suggestion" to make. I'm not sure if an alderman has the legal authority to stop that. She was pulling an Edward G Robinson on the community. Didn't turn out well for him in that toon, did it?

    Sounds more like a carnival than a meeting. Were there clowns there? Just be glad the carnival is over.


    Also be glad it's 2am and I can't think of any more silly videos to post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GG's description is spot on. I've never seen such behavior in a public forum before.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any word on the JDL Maryville project update?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are working on getting the updated renderings. In a nutshell, the main or "south" tower at Clarendon and Montrose has decreased in size. The north tower at Agatite has increased in size. The TIF being requested is $14M. There is still retail at Montrose & Clarendon under the south tower, specifically for a small grocer. Nothing was "decided" at the meeting but there will be another meeting on January 6 that will hopefully be more productive.

      Delete
    2. Thanks! I hope "small grocer" does not mean yet another "food/liquor" quick shop.

      Delete
    3. "Small" in relation to the nearby Jewel. I don't think we have to worry about any sort of convenience store going in this building. =)

      Delete
  8. Agree - GG's description of how Judith Rutherford, the current owner, acted. It was quite appalling. She certainly has a vendetta against this home and sealed it fate.

    The Finans were a bit flip at times and are clearly out to make money - and who can blame them? I just wish it weren't so apparent as the too seemed to relish throwing a wrecking ball at this house. I am sure the building they will put in its place will make a fine addition to the neighborhood - but it will not compare to the character of what is currently there.

    Oh and - to top it off, Denise Davis made her appearance (said nothing) and the neighborhood artist was there - of course interrupting at any given chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who was that selfish woman in the turkey hat who wouldn't shut up?

      Delete
    2. Denice was probably silent from daydreaming about how she could become alderman and use eminent domain to snatch the property and give it to CHA!

      Delete
    3. Denice would undoubtedly love to flood the ward with more low income housing. Better yet how about halfway houses for gangbangers convicted of shootings and homicides. That would keep Alderwoman Davis busy going back and forth between her office and various police stations.

      Got to keep those hardworking gangers out of jail!

      In reality what we are likely to see in the coming year is Denice Davis 2.0 where she tries to tone down her rambuncilicious(I just coined a new word alert Websters Dictionary) personality. It will be interesting to see how toned down she will stay.

      Her real agenda reminds me of the infamous "more cowbell" skit from SNL. What does Uptown need, Ms Davis? More low income housing. Lather. Rinse. Lather again. Etc etc etc.

      Another possibility is that at that meeting she realized she could not compete with the craziness embodied by our local mentally ill "Artist" who's hyping his own campaign or with the property owner who by most descriptions was a little bit over the top at the meeting.

      After all we live in "Denice Davis's Uptown" and she might not want to share the spotlight.

      My guess is the campaign and Davis will get fairly bizarre as time goes by, but perhaps she will surprise me with her self discipline. I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

      Delete
  9. I think the city has banned split face block since 2007. Regardless of how the owner acted at the meeting, I think protecting a shell property that has been vacant for 20 years from demolition and development doesn't serve the best interest of the community as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A quick internet search gives conflicting answers to split faced block being banned. I'll look more later and see if I can turn something up.

      I hope you're right and I just missed the ban. Probably because I was drunk no doubt.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I'm not so sure on an all out ban, but I did see they banned it for any subsidized housing (not sure what's worse haha)

      Delete
    3. I would be interested in looking at this property as a rehab for myself. I am sorry I was not aware of the listing before, but am looking to buy and rehab a home for myself.

      Delete
    4. You'd make a lot of people very happy if you could do that, Christopher. I do not have the owner's contact info but the listing had David Panozzo as the agent and his cell is (773) 616-4198. He might be able to explain your options, if any.

      Delete
    5. Christopher Nyren: Please email me if you are serious about evaluating this property. My family live next door.

      Delete
    6. My friend/agent/contractor is in contact with the owners now about getting us in to see the place after the New Year. (I am out of town this week and just learned about their inability to get the zoning changed).

      Delete
  10. Oh look. A featureless red brick six-flat. How... original. Never seen anything like it before...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it looks great. I think it has character.

      Delete
  11. I like the property but its been sitting vacant and to renovate that place would be VERY expensive, I think the owner should be able to sell to whomever. Those who are so interested in giving it landmark status then should pay the taxes and upkeep for the owner - along with a collective neighborhood RENT. This is just ridiculous!

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not a question of whom the owners sell to. It's a question of whether the current zoning for the property remains as is, in keeping with the zoning for most of Sheridan Park. The zoning was put in place to preserve the area's character. There is a lovely empty lot on Beacon where another developer tore down the oldest Victorian home in Sheridan Park after a zoning change. I have often admired the green flapping canvas on the fence that has surrounded it for years and years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly agree. I would enforce the current zoning and reject the request for an upzoning. What's the point of establishing zoning rules if they can be broken and revised? In this instance in particular, the community should demonstrate that the kind of pouting, bullying and threatening which was on display last night isn't persuasive and that the community will not tolerate that kind of behavior.

      Delete
    2. The current R3 zoning allows for a 3 flat to be built. The Finans said that would not be economically feasible given the lot size – understandably a 6 flat is more cost effective. The house will not be landmarked and will unfortunately be torn down no matter what the zoning is. If the block club does not up the zoning to R4, we are left with an empty lot. I'm not particularly thrilled with the options left, but an empty lot would be even worse. The pouting, bullying and threatening is coming from none other than the current owners. The fate of this home lies clearly in their court.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps a 6 flat is most cost effective, but the Finans probably have a backup plan in case the block club chooses to deny upzoning. All good entrepreneurs have a Plan B and an exit strategy. Somehow, I don’t think that the Finans paid $525k for a lot to lie fallow. What I am hearing is that several people feel like the current and future owners have painted the community into a corner in the interests of the most "cost effective" means to move forward. Based on the empirical evidence, I'm pretty certain that all three options are viable (preserving the house, the 3 flat and the 6 flat), and that the current and future owners strongly support the most profitable solution to them. The rest of the community does have a say in the fate of the property, if not of the house, and we ought to exercise our say as property owners rather than merely rubber stamp what the current and future owners are trying very hard to depict as a foregone conclusion.

      Delete
    4. I think the Finan's back up plan if the zoning falls through is to back out and void the contract for the sale. I believe that is their contingency for this sale to go through. This of course, according to Judith Rutherford, would raise the asking price to $1.5 million for anyone else who is interested in buying it (where that rationale came from is anyone’s guess???), along with her threats of tearing the house down herself (seems counter intuitive!). So Uptown Revivalist, you might just have a point. If the zoning doesn’t happen, we would definitely be in for some neighborhood entertainment courtesy of the current owners!

      Delete
    5. Actually, CN, there was no zoning change regarding the Victorian home on Beacon. I believe there was a technicality in the city's records. It had been downzoned to protect it from being replaced with a six flat but the city had not updated its records. Regardless, it is a sad empty lot.

      Delete
    6. You have to ask: what else could they be saying?

      If they'd said "well, gosh, if we didn't get the upzoning, then we'd take another look at rehabbing the house" then obviously they'd never in a million years get R4.

      It's always important to remember that developers are quite limited in what they can say at meetings like this. As long as they're asking for an upzoning, they have no choice but to represent all other options as impossible, regardless of any analysis they've actually done.

      And even if they genuinely don't think the house can be saved, they could very well be mistaken.

      Delete
    7. I understand the irritation at being trapped into accepting a teardown--it's really unfortunate that the existing house is so far gone, and the owner sounds like a lunatic. But I don't understand the preference for a 3-flat as opposed to a 6-flat. 6-flats are certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and would beat an empty lot by a landslide IMHO.

      Delete
  13. Why are the Finans bothering with all of this? If they want to make money they should avoid the head-ache on Magnolia and buy space in the already existing massive lot on N. Malden and build there. The rube selling the property should not be rewarded for letting her home fall into disrepair.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is another, highly personal set of issues here. The Rutherford's history on this block is colorful, to say the least. They bought and tore down the house next to their building, even after another neighbor offered to buy, restore and preserve the single family residence. That property was annexed and made into a garden. There are many more conflicts between them and other long-time Uptown residents and from what it sounds like, she is using this property as leverage against at least one. The Rutherford's motives are not necessarily financial or logical. The Finans likely got caught in the middle and were trying to do something they thought would benefit the neighborhood/street on which they personally live and make a profit. Should have been a win win for them, but nothing is ever that simple here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OH yeah. Colorful is one way to describe the Rutherfords. It's the polite way so I'll leave it at that. I'm unfailingly polite. P O L I T E.

      Belch.

      Delete
  15. According to the miracle of the internet the property at 4303 Kenmore currently being developed as an eight flat sold for $720,000 in July. It's a slightly smaller lot and no teardown or legal zoning work was needed.

    Let's say the Finan's end up buying the property for $525,000 add in 25 grand for demolition and legal and they got an excellent deal.

    I'd argue both blocks are relatively similar in terms of desirability. Magnolia is a bit prettier and that stretch of Kenmore is a bit less "gangier".

    In any case suggesting they build on the other vacant lots in the hood is great. Those lots may not be for sale or for sale at as delicious a price.

    I suspect what we may see here is a soon to be vacant lot sitting empty for years. That won't be a good outcome.





    ReplyDelete
  16. Looks like the next meeting on the upzoning will be tomorrow (Wed the 11th) 7:00 PM at Truman College.

    Lots of opinions in this thread. ;) Come and be heard!

    ReplyDelete