Be Careful What You Ask For

Submitted by jeffpsmith on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 11:39

Both by nature and training I tend to look at multiple sides of issues. So, both to try and see if lemonade is extractable from the sour taste of the last Tower vote, and to try and extend some credit to Council members, I stepped back and looked at the punt to the Plan Commission in another light. One way to view it is that residents got, in part, what they asked for.

A chief criticism of the Tower is not just at the building itself (a wholly different story) but that, as the Mother of All Planned Developments, it trivializes the ongoing downtown planning process and ensures that this one building, not a plan, will set the tone for downtown. Objecting to that, many have said, "Plan first, build second."

By holding off decision until the Downtown Plan is done (although that was not well-defined), you could say that the Council is doing just that. Now we're going to plan first.

There's a problem with that. The Downtown Plan has already been crafted and drafted by consultants with an eye to the 708 Church project. Few citizens, looking at downtown, would have said, "Gee, what the smallest block in downtown needs is the tallest building in Evanston, to help visually dwarf the Marshall Field's building and our new library, and put all the lunchtime diners at Chipotle and FlatTop into shadows." It's obvious that the impetus for grossly upzoning this block came from developer, staff, and possibly supportive council members, and was done with this specific project in mind. So what we have so far is not blank-slate planning, it's tailored.

Another problem is that the public was directed, in public comment on the downtown plan, not to discuss the Tower, since theoretically at that time the Council had said that the downtown building moratorium, in place while planning was ongoing, didn't apply to that project.

Did Tower opponents outfox themselves? By asking for planning, did they fail to "kill" the project? No, not at all. A denial of the zoning changes here might have halted this particular proposal, but wouldn't stop some revised or different skyscraper from being proposed for this block.

So where from here? We now all know a lot more about the possible look and impact of the Tower than we did in December when public comment on the Downtown Plan was closed. And it's fairly clear that this project wouldn't have garnered the necessary supermajority for approval under existing planned-development standards, with a majority of the City Council seemingly agreeing that the combo meal of height and benefits embodied in the Tower does not cut it.

It's no longer possible to ignore the elephant in the room. But if the elephant entered the room, it can leave (unless the room was built around the elephant). The planning process, which resumes tonight at 7:00, should retreat from having been driven by this one building, and should take new information into account, especially issues of use as opposed to form, and preferably, for democracy's sake, by at least partially re-opening public comment (within reason). Meanwhile, residents should keep in mind that whatever we plan for this block, or anywhere in downtown, should be done not with an eye just to one building, but all buildings that potentially could be built, within whatever envelope we choose.

"Care" is a good thing. If we are careful, what we ask for, and what we get, could be a downtown Evanston we'll cherish for generations.

Comments

trish stieglitz

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 06:23

Jeff – Really, you do not think that the motion to table a decision had anything to do with giving the Plan Commissioners an opportunity to include this parcel in the downtown plan based on citizen comment? This proposal was on life support with the plug about to be pulled after receiving its last rights when all of a sudden some guardian angels discovered a slight pulse that could keep it alive indefinitely. And if while resuscitating the project some council members suddenly look like they are listening to the citizens by sending it back to the plan commission, what a bonus.

Reality is, the entire downtown planning process for the core area has been compromised and needs to start over. While I am not suggesting what the correct height for any of these buildings should be, it just makes sense that the work completed to date for this area could not have ignored and should not have ignored what was being considered. Additionally, from the beginning of this process Chairman Woods was pretty emphatic that no discussion regarding this site could be raised by either citizens or other commissioners. How can you then suddenly incorporate what everyone seems to agree is the center of downtown without starting over? Furthermore, knowing that the majority of the plan commissioners are in favor of the tower and that the above mentioned guardian angels are well aware of that, what possible harm could there be in sending it back?

So, I just cannot agree that Tower opponents outfoxed themselves. In fact, several of the council members outfoxed or more plainly preformed a well calculated end run around their fellow council members.

jeffpsmith

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 10:55

Trish, I was mainly playing devil's advocate. Although one has to consider that things are Sometimes Not What They Seem here, here's the way I think it shakes out, and some comments (which have not been publicized) at the Plan Commission meeting shed some light.

First, consider that Dennis Marino Wed. night confirmed what I expected, that the process for the Downtown Plan will parallel the Central Street plan:

  1. The Plan Commission makes a recommendation;
  2. P&D reviews it and makes a recommendation;
  3. The City Council approves the Plan in concept;
  4. The Plan goes back to the Plan Commission, where it then goes
  5. into the Zoning Committee of the Commission for detail work, then comes back through
  6. the full Plan Commission,
  7. P&D, and
  8. finally the Council, who adopts an ordinance changing the zoning (since, unlike some other Plans we've seen, this one requires changing our laws).

Although John Lamotte said that this is different than Central Street in that they've already done "80%" of the zoning work in the draft Plan, it still seems unlikely that Step (1) above will even be done before the end of July; someone Wed. night indicated three more PC meetings. It's unclear what the Council is actually going to wait for: Eb's motion I think said to table until the Downtown Plan is "completed" but I'd have to see the exact wording.

I think you are somewhat mistaken on how the Plan Commission approached the Fountain Square block. Although discussion of the Focus specific project was not allowed (altho it still snuck in), that block was certainly permitted to be commented on, and many did, and the Commission now is considering it. In fact that's the turf over which the blowup occurred.

Now, an interesting point one of the commissioners made is that the Klutznick-Anderson 708 Church St. project can still get evaluated and passed by the Council under the "old rules" no matter what happens to the downtown plan. I think that's correct. Ultimately that's the apparent effect of the motion to table, giving "life support" as you put it. The Plan Commission could recommend 27 stories or even 10 stories for that block, the Council could even pass that -- and the Tower could still go through under the rules that were in place when it was submitted. Whereas if it were truly killed, they would have to start over. But does that make a difference? It's possible no new rules or zoning will be in place until possibly next spring, arguably the old rules would still apply if they submitted a revised proposal in, say, July 2008. At most, if a Plan had been recommended by then, that was inconsistent with their proposal, that might make it a little harder for them.

But consider this: If Focus wants to play by the old rules, that means they are also still stuck with having to come up with 6 votes for a special-use PD with SDAs, requiring map and text amendments. So they, too, may be victims of "be careful what you ask for."

I don't think whatever the Commission does will have much impact. What's likely to come out of the Commission is either a consensus for some lowered height on that block (less than the 42 stories Lakota/Duncan recommended) or a 5-4 split, which I don't think will have that much weight. And even the maximum height the Commission might recommend would involve a lot more public benefits than have been proposed, i.e., you'd have to max out in every "bonus" category. Assuming such a result, how will that change any Council members' vote?

In sum, I think the motion to table was just plain wrong: there was a substantive motion on the floor, at a special meeting, about whether to approve or deny a zoning change needed for a project. There are standards in place and all the Council members had sufficient information to cast their vote up or down. It makes no sense to say "we need to lay this on the table while we see what the Plan Commission says about some future zoning," and in fact it really seems improper. If the developers had the votes they needed, and this tactic was employed by opponents, they'd have a legitimate complaint that this was illegit. However, since they apparently did not have the votes, they really have no beef.

The more I think about it, the more I think the tabling has no real effect except creating confusion, plus opportunity for behind-the-scenes conversations. Neither of those are a good thing but they could have gone on anyway.

trish stieglitz

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 20:04

Jeff, it was a rhetorical question. How could anyone who has been paying attention to this specific project really think that after months of public hearings and continual denials to citizen requests (that the project follow the plan), that an eleventh hour reversal to send it back to the plan commission was anything other than tactical?

What I don’t understand though is how this site could be added to the plan at this point in the process, without starting over. Isn’t it logical that the plan, in its current state, was developed around and because of what this project was proposed to be? And if the project no longer exists, then shouldn’t it be a clean slate for the central core area? I do realize that the “blowup” occurred because of this parcel and that there are strong opinions on both sides of the fence. I also agree that whatever the determination at the plan commission level, the council can choose to ignore it - but that is only as it relates to this specific project. The downtown plan, which is being greatly formed through the plan commission, will mean a lot. Even though it can be changed once it gets to P&D, if the system works properly I don’t think the changes should be substantial. Am I just being naïve about that? This is a collaborative effort that began with the visioning process and if P&D were to make substantial changes, what value would there have been to the months of work completed up until that time. This plan as a whole will determine the direction of Evanston’s future so I do not think it is asking too much that we take a step back and rethink what the citizens really want. Another thought is, would it be feasible or even possible to have a binding referendum where the voters could actually have input about what the maximum heights should be (and not for just one building)? If not a referendum, what about a survey that goes to every household? We keep hearing that there is a lot of support for the tower but where are these people? Instead of spending money with outside consultants to verify if the economic plan for the developer works, let us spend it on something that will bring back real results. I do not think any of the developers are racing to the bank for construction loans, so it would not be impacting their development cost. Is there any other reason for rushing through the process now?

Somewhere along the line it appears to me that our governmental systems have broken down. Residents are wary of what motivates our public officials. Our neighbors to the north, south and west wonder what we are thinking and I am continually being asked “what is going on in Evanston”. Our top staff has dwindled significantly and the only reason we are given is early retirement. Who knows where the budget is going. Does anyone else really wonder what is going on?

jeffpsmith

Sat, 05/17/2008 - 11:09

Trish, your questions about Evanston government are good ones, and I think I'll start a separate thread on that one.

As to the Downtown Plan, it is far from a "done deal." And bear in mind that even as first drafted it has many positives. It will be redlined by the Commission over the next couple months, presented to P&D, and sent back to the Commission for detail zoning work, then back to P&D. Continued input will continue to refine it. As to a binding referendum, no, there's no provision for that, although citizens could be proactive on downtown zoning by proposing an ordinance via petition.

barbrak1

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 08:45

Trish, I am not at all sure that you are correct in stating that the majority of the Plan Commissioners support the Tower. Certainly, Woods, Galloway, Staley, and Opdycke support the Tower. Just as certainly, Schuldenfrei, Nyden, and Burrus oppose it. However, I have not heard the newest Commission member, Seth Freeman, come out in favor of the Tower. If Mr. Freeman is in the camp of the "minority Commissioners" on this issue, the Commission would be split 4-4.

Barb Rakley

barbrak1

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 10:17

Trish,

I need to clarify my prior post. Of course, you are right that the Plan Commission voted 4-3 pro-Tower. However, I believe it is now reasonable to consider the "Tower" as virtually synonymous with the "Central Core District" in the draft Downtown Plan. Since the Plan Commission walkout on Wednesday night concerned an apparent 4-4 split on the appropriate height for the Downtown Core District, I think it is now fair--in a practical sense, if not a technical one--to consider the Plan Commission evenly split on the Tower, a/k/a, the Central Core District.

Barb Rakley

trish stieglitz

Fri, 05/16/2008 - 19:57

Barb - you could be right about a split vote, but until they actually have a vote I guess we will not know what Commissioner Seth Freemans’ position is. Is there a chance that the vacant seat could be filled prior to the next meeting? What is the procedure if there is a split vote?