History‎ > ‎3. Third Plan (2009-10)‎ > ‎


The following is our exchange of emails with GBC's representative:

First note (2/4/10):


I represent Grace Bible Church in the development of their land on S. Maple Road.  I'm sure that you know that a development called "42 North" has been approved for the 15 acre parcel.  My recollection is that you had several concerns about the proposed project, including off campus student housing, the number of beds, and the amount of asphalt. 

We have an interesting opportunity to consider an alternative development that, frankly, we like a lot better.  I would like to get your input and feedback to this alternative scenario.  I would also like to get feedback from a few of the City Council members representing the Fourth and Fifth Wards, just to get a sense of whether or not you all like this proposal as much as we do.

I would like to set up a meeting with you and the developer so that he can explain his ideas.  We can meet at the church if that is convenient.  Can you let me know whether a meeting during the day or in the early evening would be better for your schedules, and then I will suggest several dates based on your preferred time of day.

I look forward to meeting all of you.


Our 2/4/10 response:

Mr. Griffin,

In an effort to keep our communication orderly, please accept this reply on behalf of myself, Tom Ivacko and Jim Boyd. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss plans for the Maple Road site. Personally, I am pleased to hear that the land may be used for a purpose other than the proposed plan commonly referred to as 42 North.

Tom, Jim and I all have day jobs. Therefore, meeting in the evening would work best for us. Please suggest a couple times and dates and we will coordinate our calendars to see which works best for us. Please note that we would expect that at some early date, the developer would be available to present this idea to a broader group of neighbors. But as a preliminary matter, we are quite willing to meet and learn what ideas the developer has.

~Jack Eaton

His 2/4/10 response:


I'm leaving for Chicago in the morning, so I'll get some dates out to you next week.  And yes, we definitely plan to meet with a broader group of neighbors, but we initially wanted to get your input.

Thanks for getting back so quick.  Have a great weekend.


His 2/9/10 follow up:


The developer is available on any of the following dates.  My suggestion is that we meet at 7:00 at the church, so you will all have a chance to get home from work and grab a bite to eat beforehand.   Can you let me know your availability for these dates?

Wednesday, Feb 17

Monday, Feb 22

Tuesday, Feb 23

Wednesday, Feb 24

Thursday, Feb 25

As soon as I hear back from you, I'll confirm it with both the developer and the church.



Our 2/11/10 note:

Mr. Griffin,

We are available Thursday February 25. Meeting at the Church at about 7:00 pm is acceptable to us.

Please note that Mr. Boyd's email address has a "J" at the beginning - JBoyd@____.com. I believe that at least one of your messages omitted the J.

Also, Mr. Ivoacko prefers that you use his home email address - tivacko@____.com.

Jack Eaton

His 2/11/10 confirmation:


We're all set for the 25th at 7:00.  We'll meet in the conference room next to the church's offices.  Thanks for the feedback on the e-mail addresses.  I kept getting Mr. Boyd's e-mails back, and I wasn't sure why.  Now I know.

I'm looking forward to meeting all of you.

Take care,


Our 3/1/10 follow up note after the meeting:


Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and the new developers. We
especially appreciate that the meeting happened before the developer's
plans are set in stone. We hope to work cooperatively with him to
achieve a plan that suits his investment needs and also responds to our
neighborhood impact concerns.

We are pleased with some of the changes in this development from the
last project. As I mentioned near the end of the meeting, we remain
concerned about the following:

  1. the size of the development (compared to the size of the site);
  2. the height of the buildings;
  3. the removal of existing wetlands and the use of off site wetland mitigation;
  4. the use of a single primary access drive and its placement;
  5. water pressure in the surrounding neighborhood.
In addition to the concerns raised during the meeting, I have been 
reminded that the 42 North development included sewer capacity
mitigation in the form of payment for the City's drain disconnect
program.The 42 North project was going to pay for drain disconnects in
our area to compensate for the increased load on the sewer system. We
are interested in whether this project would also include the drain
disconnect payments. Additionally, we ask that the developer insist that
any payments he makes for drain disconnects be applied to implementing
that program in our neighborhoods (surrounding the Church property).

As I mentioned, when you are ready to hold an open meeting for the whole
neighborhood, we recommend holding the meeting at the nearby Dicken
Elementary School. Just let me know when you are ready and I will
arrange to have the all-purpose room available for the meeting.

We look forward to continuing the discussion about this development. I
hope you will take the time to respond to our concerns.

His 3/1/10 thank you note:
Thanks, Jack.  We will be in touch as Alex's plans take shape.

A post-meeting update sent to the neighborhood:

On Thursday night February 25, Tom, Jack, Marian, Linda and Jim attended a meeting with the Realtor for the 42 North property and a developer.  They are in the early stages of a new proposal for the property, and were seeking community input.  We were not shown any detailed plans, it appears they are still very much in the formative stage.

The major changes to the 42 North plan would be:
•     switch from a student to an active adult market
•     decrease residency from 480 to approximately 370
•     1, 2, and 3, bedroom apartments (42 North had 4 bedroom units)
•     370 parking spaces total (down from 484 with 42 North)
•     move approximately 200 (of the 370) parking spaces underneath (below grade) the residence buildings
•     telemonitoring for each unit

These changes would allow for greater setbacks, fewer total parking spaces, and less impermeable surface.  They envision apartments renting in the $800-1,200 range.

Retained from the 42 North proposal:
•     5 residence buildings approx. 70x200’
•     1 clubhouse with indoor pool, wellness and community centers
•     3 story, 30’ tall buildings
•     entrance and development layout
•     removal of the on-site wetlands replaced by off-site wetland mitigation

We approached the meeting as an opportunity to gather information on the project, and welcome everyone’s comments and questions regarding it.