708 Church Tower Developers Seek Time to Revamp Proposal

Apparently realizing they did not have the necessary six votes to gain Planning and Development, and thus City Council, approval for zoning map and text amendments necessary to proceed with their project, the developers of the proposed 49-story skyscraper on the site of the present 708 Church St. building asked that the ordinance changes be taken off the committee's agenda at the Mar. 24 meeting. Speaking for the Klutznick-Anderson development team, attorney Steven Friedlander asked for a continuance "to make revisions to lower the height, and address concerns of the public and of the aldermen," and so that the team could then make a 20-to-30 minute "brand new presentation" at a later meeting.

Although technically a purely procedural matter, several aldermen took the opportunity to express publicly their thoughts, perhaps in response to public criticism that the previous P&D meeting ended without the public gaining the benefit of the aldermen's thinking. During discussion, comments by the aldermen indicated that the project lacked the supermajority necessary to move forward as a "special use" under city code.

Ald. Steve Bernstein (4th) specifically criticized the lack of "meaningful public benefits," saying "to the extent you're going to lop some floors off, that probably would be accommodating, but I really need something for the benefits you're going to provide as a developer." Bernstein opined that rehabilitating the Hahn building with city funds is not a public benefit, and said that he "was not moved in terms of competing with Old Orchard, loss of office space is a net loss, not a public benefit."

Ald. Elizabeth Tisdahl (7th) indicated that she had the same concerns as Bersntein.

Aldermen Melissa Wynne (3rd) had the most comprehensive set of objections, agreeing with what her colleagues had expressed but also expressing concern with "erasing an economic engine," the activity and revenue currently generated by the existing retailers and professional offices in the building, as demonstrated by Evanston Coalition for Responsible Development (EDRD) member John Kennedy at the March 17 meeting. Wynne noted that downtown has many possible locations for luxury condos, but not for office space, "so that is a critical issue" to her, as is the loss of a quarter-million dollars per year in parking revenue. Wynne also suggested that the promise of a LEED-certified building be made a "guarantee, with a penalty if not met," if the building is to have "iconic" stature, and noted that although the proposal is "tripling the floor area ratio" without getting "anything near the [public] benefits we got from Sherman Plaza."

Ald. Jean-Baptiste added to the list a revamped Fountain Square, a feature that, in the transcripts of pre-public meetings held with the developers, appeared to be persuasive in generating early council member support for the project, but which is now absent from the plans. Jean-Baptiste told Friedlander, "Much has been said about early responses that this Council had, to an image, to a Fountain Square that was well done, and that's a significant public benefit to the community. So you have to address that."

Ald. Cherly Wollin (1st) quickly disagreed with Ald. Jean-Baptiste's thoughts on the Fountain Square rehab, saying it was a City responsibility, not that of the developers.

Ald. Anjana Hansen (9th) has been reported not to favor the project but did not contribute to the discussion of the merits of the proposal.

The aldermen then debated the timing of a new meeting, with Ald. Rainey noting that the next agenda of the Administration and Public Works Committee, which meets immediately prior to P&D, is expected to be heavy. The aldermen also discussed whether the presentation would have to be a special meeting, how expected public input could be accommodated, and whether the proposal, if significantly different enough from the original proposal, needed to go back to the Plan Commission. Ald. Wynne declared that the Committee (which includes all the sitting members of the Council) should not be engaging in more than minor changes.

Ald. Cheryl Wollin (1st) and Ald. Delores Holmes both disagreed with sending the project back to the Pla Commission, saying that it was too early to determine how different a do-over would be, since no one had seen the new proposal.

Because of the heavy APW committee schedule on April 8, there was some consideration of a special meeting sometime after that date but before the next regularly scheduled P&D meeting in late April. The prospect of yet another meeting did not generate much enthusiasm among the Council members, especially when calculating how to allow for public feedback. Friedlander and various aldermen explored whether the developers might make available, before a presentation, their thoughts, but the discussion was inconclusive. At that point Ald. Jean-Baptiste's motion to grant the continuance was called for a vote and passed, with clarification that the continuance would be until April 8th, in two weeks. It was not clear whether either the public or the aldermen would get to see the new proposal in advance.

ECRD members, before the meeting, discussing the impending request for continuance, agreed that the project did not have the votes. If Ald. Hansen is considered a "no" vote, combined with Wynne, Bernstein, and Tisdahl, the developers would have had at most five votes. Significantly, in the discussion, no alderman expressed significant support for the project, with Hansen, Holmes and Ald. Eb Moran (6th) silent on the merits, and only Rainey and Wollin offering any remarks in defense or sympathy of the proponents.

Other ECRD members, however, were skeptical, noting that many longtime observers of City Council had never expected the 49-story proposal to pass, and didn't think the developers expected that either; rather the proposal was only an opening gambit in a bid for a slightly shorter but still-extremely-tall skyscraper, e.g., 37 stories, on the site.

In public comment at the City Council meeting following the P&D session, ECRD member Barbara Janes announced that the group had collected over 500 petition signatures online at their website (www.evanstoncrd.org) and over 1,000 signatures on paper petitions circulated in the community. Konstantine Savoy, a professional urban planner, gave a quiet but extremely effective criticism of the process to the Council, in which he observed that the concept of giving a variance of such magnitude to only one developer, on one site, given to no one else in the whole City, was unprecedented in his many years of planning experience, and went beyond "spot zoning," raising potential legal problems for the City should anyone challenge the project in court.

Both Janes and ECRD member Chris Ernst said that the rate of signatures on the group's website had skyrocketed since the last meeting of P&D, and the placement around Evanston of hundreds of "Stop the Tower" signs with the group's website URL.

Jeff Smith
3/25/2008