 |
| The 5 vacant lots stretching from 4608-4630 N. Malden |
Ald. Cappleman just sent out a newsletter clarifying the plans:
"After 3 previous attempts for an upzone on five neighboring empty parcels of property at 4608-30 N. Malden, developer Steve Sgouras made the decision to pursue building on these lots without an upzone. With no upzone, the Affordable Requirements Ordinance will not be enacted, which would have required a 10% set aside for affordable housing. Mr. Sgouras is asking for zoning variances to reduce setbacks in order to provide one-to-one parking for the development. Sheridan Park is an historic designated area, and residents in the past had petitioned to have 30′ setbacks for any development built. However, it’s not clear if this setback is a requirement by the City; the building directly south, which was built after Sheridan Park’s designation, has less of a setback. Ald. Cappleman is seeking clarification from the Dept. of Planning & Development on required setbacks within Sheridan Park.
Residents with questions are encouraged to stop by the 46th Ward Office during open office hours any Monday evening from 5pm – 7pm or send an email to info@james46.org."
UU Note: The 0' setback on the north side of the development that had some neighbors up in arms actually refers ONLY to a 10' 3" section of the garage which would abut the neighboring lot line. Also of note is the 22' setback to the front of the building. The 14' setback refers to the distance from the sidewalk to the front of the balconies. Those items are highlighted on the site plan below.
 |
| Site plan for the 4630 N. Malden Building (46th Ward Development Page) |
Great news. I am a property owner in this neighborhood "association" and the voting was rigged. I'm 100% for it. Others are too. Forget the crying about setbacks, just a bunch of loud mouth, horn tooting if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteBuild it, this is great for the neighborhood. Hell yes.
Again, UU, NONE of these proposals were turned down by the local block club. The local block club is NOT our elected alderman, and has only the authority that the Alderman grants them.
ReplyDeleteBut his indecision (he's STILL looking for clarification from City Planning? Take your time, I guess.
To recap, could have had 61 units with some parking beneath, 45 condos with 44 parking beneath, and now?
8.
Eight.
Why only 8? Had to make room for the garages.
This is a low density nightmare, and not great for the neighborhood.
The "Great" Eight, on 7500 Sq.Ft.
This is what aldermanic non-perogative hath wrought.
Don't want to get into the politics here, but you misread what was shared of the proposal. The attached plan is for a single parcel out of the 5... assuming all buildings will be the same and one parking space per unit, this will be at least a 40 unit development.
ReplyDelete