8/13/2019 FAQ for The Lighthouse at Montrose Harbor
1/3
Maryville FAQ
● Will this development reduce neighboring property values?○
Historically, new development does not have a detrimental affect on
surrounding
values. A new development that brings additional amenities to a
neighborhood would be
expected to have positive impact or no impact on surrounding
values.
● Are there studies/data showing how the need for this
additional housing was determined?
○ Yes. The Fourth Quarter 2011 Apartment Research Market Report
from Marcus &
Millichap shows evidence of this need. After 2 years of falling
rental vacancy rates,
the vacancy rate for rental housing in the Rogers Park/ Uptown
area is 4.7%, and the
vacancy rate in the area between Belmont and Montrose is 3.6%. A
vacancy rate below
5% is considered a shortage. In addition, data shows that rents
in the area are rising,
another indication of a rental shortage.
● Other developers are interested, why will the Alderman not
meet with them?
○ No developer, other than Sedgwick, has asked to meet with
Alderman Cappleman
regarding this property. Several community members have had
ideas about what
they would like to see happen with that site, but no proposals
in any form have been
presented. The Alderman will meet with any developer interested
in working in the 46th
Ward for any location.
● No other developer will present a proposal until Sedgwick is
out of the picture, the sooner
they are gone the sooner we can get a better developer to
present a proposal.
○ It is common that other interested developers would approach
both the Alderman and the
City Department of Housing and Economic Development to express
interest in a potential
development site, even when the option is held by another party
or there is another
development proposal under consideration. This has not
happened.
● Can you discuss the 1957 ordinance which prevents the sisters
from selling the eastern
building for non-charitable/religious purposes? Friends of the
Park has concerns about
the land rights to the east parcel of land.
○ Currently, Alderman Cappleman’s office has found no evidence
to question the current
owners’ rights to sell the land to a developer. Friends of the
Park has indicated that they
will continue to pursue legal questions regarding this transfer.
Alderman Cappleman will
defer to the conclusion of the city’s legal team whatever it may
be.
● This will create additional traffic problems. Traffic is
already backed up on Montrose
during rush hour and weekends in the summer, showing that our
roads are near
saturation.
○ The developers are required to make improvements to
surrounding roadways and
intersections that will help to mitigate the impact of increased
traffic.
8/13/2019 FAQ for The Lighthouse at Montrose Harbor
2/3
● Why put a grocery and gym into the retail spaces when there is
already a grocery and gym
2 blocks away?
○ While there is never a guarantee that any given business will
succeed, 46th Ward
residents leave the Ward to spend $56 million per year at food
and beverage stores, and
a higher end grocery store was the retailer most requested in
the 46th Ward retail survey.
Mariano’s is considered a higher-end grocer with reasonable
prices. It is closer in price
and concept to a Trader Joe’s than a Whole Foods. Ward residents
also leave the Ward
to spend $41 million on health and personal care services, X
Sport has many services
that are not currently available. New developments are evaluated
with an eye to keeping
residents retail spending inside the Ward as well as attracting
shoppers from outside the
Ward. In addition, many of the residents of the building would
be expected to patronize
these businesses.
● Will there be low-income housing in the development?
○ No. The housing component will be all market-rate rental
apartments, and there will
be town-homes on the north site. In lieu of adding affordable
housing units to the
development, the developer will make a contribution the Chicago
Low Income Housing
Trust Fund.
● What are the options for fines and other penalties to be
imposed on the developer
for failure to comply with any agreement with committee or other
appropriate city
organizations?
○ It is the responsibility of the City Zoning Administrator to
enforce compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance. Failure to do so can result in a variety
of penalties including
revocation of permits, fines, and stop work orders. More
information about this process is
in chapter 17-16-0500 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance. In
addition, the Redevelopment
Agreement that governs a Planned Development can have
provisions for penalties such
as not receiving TIF payments.
● What are the chances of this design changing after the zoning
committee has approved
the change in zoning? Will the community be part of the
process?
○ After the Alderman approves a project based on feedback from
the 46th Ward Zoning
and Development Committee, it would then go through the city
Plan Commission
approval process and finally to City Council. Changes may be
made between the
Ward’s approval process and the City Plan Commission. After the
Planned Development
proposal has been approved by the Plan Commission it will be
passed in that exact form
by the City Council. Changes after that point will be considered
either minor, and can
have administrative approval, or major, which requires community
review and is similar to
the approval process starting over from the beginning.
● Couldn’t a completely private development bring new tax
revenue without diverting taxesto TIF for 24 years? Can’t we
redirect this TIF money to parks, schools and libraries in the
46th?
○ Currently, there is no tax revenue being generated from this
property. Until there is a
profit-generating entity built here, there will be no tax
revenue and so none is being
diverted.
● Have you added a claw-back provision to the agreement? If no,
why not?
