HomeMy WebLinkAbout037-O-21 Granting Major Zoning Variations to Construct a Four Story Rear Addition and Adaptive Reuse of an Existing Religious Structure, 1101 Church St.3/30/2021
37-0-21
AN ORDINANCE
Granting Major Zoning Variations to Construct a Four -Story Rear
Addition and Adaptive Reuse of an Existing Religious Structure in the
R6 General Residential District
(1101 Church Street)
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") met on March 16, 2021,
pursuant to proper notice, to consider case no. 21ZMJV-0017, an application filed by
Christopher S. Dillion, joint venture partner for the property legally described in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, commonly known as 1101
Church Street (the "Subject Property") and located in the R6 General Residential District,
seeking approval of major zoning variations from: (1) Section 6-8-8-4(C) of the Evanston
City Code, 2012, as amended ("the Zoning Code"), to permit twenty-four (24) dwelling
units plus six (6) inclusionary housing ordinance units for a total of thirty (30) dwelling
units where fifteen (15) dwelling units are allowed; (2) Section 6-8-8-6 of the Zoning
Code, to 78.6% building lot coverage where 65% is permitted; (3) Section 6-8-8-7(A)(2)
of the Zoning Code, to permit a zero (0) foot street side yard setback to match the
existing structure where fifteen (15) feet is required; (4) Section 6-8-8-7(A)(4) of the
Zoning Code, to permit a one and one half (1.5) foot rear yard setback where twenty-
five (25) feet is required; (5) Section 6-8-8-7(C)(3) of the Zoning Code, to permit zero (0)
feet for open parking on the interior side yard where five (5) feet is required; and (6)
Table 16-B of Section 6-16 of the Zoning Code, to permit fourteen (14) parking spaces
where twenty-two (22) parking spaces are required.
37-0-21
WHEREAS, the ZBA,, after hearing testimony and receiving other evidence,
made a written record and written findings that the application met the standards for Major
Variations set forth in Subsection 6-3-8-12(E) of the Zoning Code and recommended City
Council approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 26, 2021, the Planning and
Development Committee of the City Council ("P&D Committee") received input from the
public, carefully considered the ZBA's record and findings and recommended the City
Council approve the Major Variations, as requested; and
WHEREAS, at its meetings of April 26, 2021 and May 10, 2021, the City
Council considered the ZBA's and P&D Committee's records, findings, and
recommendations, and adopted the recommendation of the P&D Committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:
SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals are found as fact and incorporated
herein by reference.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby adopts the P&D Committee's
records, findings, and recommendations, and hereby approves, pursuant to the Zoning
Code, the Major Variations on the Subject Property applied for in case no. 21ZMJV-
0017 and described hereinabove.
SECTION 3: The Major Variations approved hereby are as follows:
A. To permit twenty-four (24) dwelling units plus six (6) inclusionary housing
ordinance units for a total of thirty (30) dwelling units where fifteen (15) dwelling
units are allowed by Section 6-8-8-4(C) of the Zoning Code.
B. To permit 78.6% building lot coverage where 65% is permitted by Section 6-8-8-6
of the Zoning Code.
-2
37-0-21
C. To permit a zero (0) foot street side yard setback to match the existing structure
where fifteen (15) feet is required by Section 6-8-8-7(A)(2) of the Zoning Code.
D. To permit a one and one half (1.5) foot rear yard setback where twenty-five (25)
feet is required by Section 6-8-8-7(A)(4) of the Zoning Code.
E. To permit zero (0) feet for open parking on the interior side yard where five (5)
feet is required by Section 6-8-8-7(C)(3) of the Zoning Code.
F. To permit fourteen (14) parking spaces where twenty-two (22) parking spaces
are required by Table 16-B of Section 6-16 of the Zoning Code.
SECTION 4: Pursuant to Subsection 6-3-8-14 of the Code, the City
Council hereby imposes the following conditions on the Major Variations granted hereby,
violation of any of which shall constitute grounds for penalties or revocation thereof
pursuant to Subsections 6-3-10-5 and 6-3-10-6 of the Zoning Code:
(A) A construction management plan in required prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
(B) The Applicant shall develop and use the Subject Property in substantial
compliance with all applicable legislation, with the testimony and representations
of the Applicant to the ZBA, the P&D Committee, and the City Council, and the
approved plans and documents on file in this case.
(C) Green Building Ordinance: The Applicant shall comply with the Green Building
Ordinance for the new -construction portion of the development.
(D) Off -site Parking: Six (6) off -site parking spaces within one thousand (1,000) feet
of the site shall be leased.
(E) Rooftop Mechanicals: Rooftop mechanicals shall feature sound attenuating
devices or shall be screened to limit noise pollution.
(F) Inclusionary Housing: The application shall provide on -site affordable housing for
three (3) dwelling units for the following thirty (30) years in compliance with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
(G) Alley Resurfacing: The east -west alley shall be milled and resurfaced after
building construction is complete (not full alley/stormwater reconstruction). This
excludes any recently paved area associated with 1717 Ridge Avenue, if
applicable.
-3-
37-0-21
(H) ADA Inclusionary Unit: One of the required on -site inclusionary (affordable)
housing units shall be a two (2) bedroom unit in the new construction elevator
building and shall be constructed ADA adaptable and leased accordingly when
possible.
(1) Bird -Friendly Measures: The building design, glass material, and rooftop lighting
shall feature bird -friendly measures such as low reflectivity on windows and
minimal overnight rooftop lighting.
(J) Mayor's Monarch Proclamation: The building's landscaping and green roof
design shall incorporate appropriate habitat for Monarch butterflies and the at -
risk insect population.
(K) Transit Fund Contribution: In recognition of the TOD location and on -site parking
relief, the Applicant agrees to make a one-time $5,000 contribution to the City's
Transit Fund to utilize on matching 50/50 transit grants and other public transit
related improvements.
(L) Local Hiring/MWEBE: The Applicant will employ at least five (5) with a goal of ten
(10) Evanston residents during construction, with as many competent minority
and/or women Evanston subcontractors, workers, and residents as possible.
(M) Parking Count Sign: The Applicant agrees to install 110V electric to a City
Parking Garage Count sign to be located on City right-of-way adjacent to the
property. If the City determines the sign shall be located elsewhere, the Applicant
agrees to pay the cost of installation of the sign and its electricity with a one-time
contribution not -to -exceed $5,000.
(N) Utility Poles: The Applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to bury two
(2) ComEd utility poles located along the alley, subject to ComEd approval, and
in coordination with (0) below.
(0) The Applicant agrees to make a one-time contribution of $15,000 for the
replacement of trees, sidewalks, and street lights/Talmadge light LED upgrades
within one quarter mile of the site. In the event two (2) ComEd utility poles are
not buried pursuant to (N) above, the Applicant shall increase its contribution to
$35,000 to the City for trees, sidewalks, street lights/Talmadge light LED
upgrades within one quarter mile of the site.
(P) The Applicant agrees to mitigate impact on the property that abuts the subject
property to the west by methods including, but not limited to, additional
landscaping, location of outdoor utilities and transformers, and location of
dumpsters/recycling, subject to DAPR approval.
(Q) The Applicant shall, at its cost, record a certified copy of this ordinance, including
all Exhibits attached hereto, with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, and
provide proof of such recordation to the City.
ME
37-0-21
SECTION 5: When necessary to, effectuate the terms, conditions, and
purposes of this ordinance, "Applicant" shall be read as "Applicant's agents, assigns,
and successors in interest."
SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 6: Except as otherwise provided for in this ordinance, all
applicable regulations of the Zoning Code and the entire City Code shall apply to the
Subject Property and remain in full force and effect with respect to the use and
development of the same.
SECTION 7: This ordlinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 8: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 9: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is ruled unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect
without the invalid application or provision, and each invalid provision or invalid
application of this ordinance is severable.
SECTION 10: The findings and recitals herein are declared to be prima
facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as provided by
the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the courts of the State of Illinois.
—5—
Introduced
Adopted:
Attest:
Agri 126
Mav 10
, 2021
12021
iFdaow-do 6,oA4e2
Eduardo Gomez, Deputy City Clerk
Approved:
37-0-21
Mav 10 , 2021
J"A 4%e'�
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Approved as to form:
JycU d.j 6. awtntinq t
Nicholas E. Cummings, Corporation
Counsel
37-0-21
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel 1: The North 50 feet of Lots 14 and 15 in Block 2 in Eliza A. Pratt's Addition to
Evanston in the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 41 North, Range 14, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
Parcel 2: All that part of Lot 15 lying South of the North 50 feet thereof in Block 2 of
Eliza A. Pratt's Addition to Evanston, in Section 18, Township 41 North, Range 14, East
of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
PINs: 11-18-122-025-0000 and 11-18-122-022-0000
COMMONLY KNOWN As: 1101 Church Street, Evanston, Illinois.
—7—
It
A>v
CD
w
a
N
J
I
03 ���...<
F
—�_P_�_` E�—■-
1
U R C H
STREET
I � I k
A-ESS
L.—.---.
nmswsmrvue I .00Fu PR.ECT vn
E]a
IF
TEAM
I
PRASE
Z 001
1101 CHURCH
STREET
ADIX SS sv.xsrw,ne�
PRWECT
TEAM
Pmwonenmxr mnm�
Z_002
I
1101 CHURCH I.SA
R't
Page 16-of 27- — - - --'
DesignEvanston
Design Evanston Project Review of the 1101 Church Street Project
March 4, 2021
Design Evanston members participated in a presentation of the proposed 1101 Church Street
residential project by the developer and architect. Following is a summary of our general comments
and our Project Review Stardards:
General Comments
Overall we believe that this project is an attractive and appropriate project for this site. We believe
that it provides a number of benefits to the city, most of them public. Namely:
1. It saves an existing historic church by sensitively adapting it for residential use.
' 2. It provides a broad variety of desirable, needed residential housing units in its TOD context.
a. ADA units.
FF b. Affordable units
c. "Missing Middle" typologies; and
400 Main Street, 2c d. Townhouse "loft" units.
Evanston, Illinois 60202 3. It fills an awkward void in the streetscape and adjacent relatively densely developed
(847) 866-7480 neighborhood by capturing the space of the former parsonage associated with the church and
www designevanston.org providing an appropriately massed multi -family building.
4. It improves the streetscape appearance.
5. It represents a high quality of architectural design.
6. It puts this property on the tax rolls.
To execute this design several zoning variances are requested, namely:
1. 78.6% lot coverage vs. 65%. allowed
2. Density of 30 units, 9 unit variation.
3. Street Side Yard setback, Oak Street — lot line vs. 15'
4. Rear Yard setback, alley —1.5' vs. 5'
5. Open parking setback, west property line — none vs. 5'
6. Not currently meeting the parking requirement for 22 spaces.
Our comments are as follows:
1. 78.6% lot coverage — there appears to be virtually no apparent detriment to allowing the
additional lot coverage. The proposed building seems very appropriate for and sensitive to its
context.
2. Street Yard Setback, Oak Street — The 15' setback seems entirely inappropriate for this context.
The new building aligns with the church's east fagade, and is sensitive to the adjacent building
to the north.
3. Rear Yard setback, alley — the decreased setback seems to have no detrimental effect on the
alley functioning and should have no apparent effect on the neighboring building to the north.
4. Side Yard setback, west property line — the extension of the building parking in this direction
has no apparent functional) or visual effect on the neighboring building to the west as the site
effected is occupied by a parking lot. In addition, at grade, the first floor of the proposed building
consists of an open garage, not an intrusive blank wall.
5. Parking —As far as this property is concerned, 8 spaces currently provided is likely too few
to make a success of the project. The developer is seeking additional spaces from adjacent
residential high-rise properties and other city sources. We believe that through that effort
and possibly investigating increasing off -site adjacent street parking by changing to diagonal
spaces, that the appropriate number of spaces can be acquired. The provision of a dedicated
Founded in 1980, Design Evanston is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit advocacy organization promoting good design in Evanston.
Page 17 of 27
DesignEvanston
Page 2 rental car space might also be of benefit. Additional on -site parking could be acquired if more
of the first floor space of the new building were allotted for parking and the loss of residential
units there made up by increasing the height of the building one additional story. We do not
believe that this additional height would be objectionable (and still be within allowable height
levels), as long as any visual presence of parking at the first floor along Oak Street is sensitively
handled. See further overarching comments on parking at the end of this commentary (P.S.
below*).
The allowance of these above variances make it possible for the creation of what we believe is
a beautiful, appropriate, needed residential development that will provide a wonderful variety of
needed housing units in this neighborhood. These will be residents that will be encouraged to
shop and socialize locally, contributing to the economic sustainability of our unique downtown.
This design achieves this while addressing an awkward, in -fill site, that currently generates no tax
revenue. And it does it in a very sensitive way with a quality of design not seen in recent higher
density multi -family housing projects. The proposed design feels right, appropriate; looks wonderful,
FFrespects its neighbor buildings, and improves the streetscape along Oak Street.
400 Main Street, 2c As far as how the project addresses Design Evanston's established Project Review Standards:
Evanston, Illinois 60202
Evan 866-7480 The project addresses a perceived need in the city, provides a beneficial and appropriate use in
its neighborhood, is of appropriate and complimentary size, scale and proportion for its particular
www.designevanston.org
context, is representative of progressive, creative and sustainable design practices, provides for
current and future economic growth, has a very low infrastructure demand, provides for a positive
pedestrian and street level experience, conforms to the goals of "Complete Streets', and provides a
number of other public benefits.
The project also offers the possibility to address the rather uninspired streetscape along this
portion of Church Street that extends off of Ridge Avenue; a true gateway to downtown. Given
the possibility of the new Theater on the south side of the street, there is the opportunity to further
enhance the streetscape on both sides of the street, given the participation of the City, theater
developer and the developer of this project.
*RS. - The automobile and urban design — a perspective
The automobile, more than any other element, has had a profound influence on urban design
over the last 70 years. It is responsible for a vast increase in individual freedom of movement,
resulting in the creation of a vast interstate highway system, a dependence on unrenewable energy
resources and their resulting pollution and international political conflicts, facilitated some fine
suburbs along with urban sprawl and impersonal strip centers of commerce. It has also threatened
and destroyed many urban centers, and created undesirable urban traffic congestion.
The importance and desirability of car ownership in urban contexts has changed significantly over
the last 10 — 20 years. The need for an automobile in such a transit oriented city as Evanston has
waned significantly in recent years. The value of this appliance has seen a significant decline for
recent generations of adults. We believe that many cities have not kept pace with these changes as
far as zoning requirements are concerned. Developers seem to have a better grasp on the reality of
the current demand, and the success of their projects depends on an accurate assessment of this
demand. If a development can provide the minimum number of parking spaces for the residents it
intends to acquire, at no detrimental effect on public demand, we believe it should be respected.
Founded in 1980, Design Evanston is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit advocacy organization promoting good design in Evanston.
Page 18 of 27
DesignEvanston
Page 3 "Complete Streets" respects this current market. If there is a more perfect city than Evanston to
implement such an approach to planning and design, we are not aware of it. We, like many urban
residents, we suspect, would rather engage our transiting neighbors on public transport systems,
bikeways and sidewalks, rather than inside automotive cages, if given the choice.
Design Evanston Project Review Standards
Design Evanston members attended a presentation of the proposed residential development
at 1101 Church Street by the developer and architect. Following is a summary of comments by
attending members based on the DE Established Evaluative Criteria / Standards outlined below.
1. A project should address a perceived need in the city / community.
a. The need for a variety of broad market housing in Evanston is significant. This project offers
' a broad variety of housing types; affordable, ADA, "Missing Middle", townhouse "loft" units, in
a unique low-rise building.
b. Additional activation of this area of the downtown by additional resident's is very desirable.
400 Main Street. 2c 2. A project should provide for a beneficial and appropriate use in the project's
Evanston, Illinois 60202 geographical context.
(847) 866-7480 a. The site cf the project is currently vacant of use. This project would add desirable, relatively
www.designevanston.org
affordable, taxable residential units to this area of the downtown.
b. The site is close to mass transit access and the kind of services resident's desire.
3. The project should be of appropriate and complementary size, scale and proportion for
its respective physical context.
a. Commenting members felt the size, scale and proportion of the proposed building was very
appropriate for, even desirable, for its location. The variances requested actually improve the
viability and attractiveness of the project, and its appropriateness in its context.
b. Some members felt the project could be one story higher and not seem inappropriate for its
context.
4. The project should be representative of progressive, creative and sustainable design
standards.
a. This kind of relatively small scale, "in -fill" multi -family housing project that makes re -use of
an abandoned building and provides for a broad mix of residential units is very progressive
and desirable in any urban context. We find its design refreshingly creative; a far cry in
scale and boring fagade materials and composition from most recent high-rise developments.
b. The project provides for a wide variety of residential unit types, addressing a broad market.
The designs of its floor plans is very creative and progressive.
c. It is a very sustainable project in its execution, maintenance and operation, as well as its
ability to compliment a Transit Oriented neighborhood.
d. The roof top will have a space for resident gatherings.
5. The project should provide for present and future economic growth.
a. The injection of 30 desirable residential units in this neighborhood will be economic benefit
for years to come. The fact that the development replaces tax exempt property with taxable
residential units will have an immediate economic impact.
6. The project should have a high revenue generating / infrastructure cost ratio.
a. The existing infrastructure is more than able to support this relatively small development.
b. The project returns this area of land to the tax roles.
Founded in 1980, Design Evanston is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit advocacy organization promoting good design in Evanston
Page 19 of 27
DesignEvanston
Page 4
400 Main Street, 2c
Evanston, Illinois 60202
(847)866-7480
www designevanston.org
c. The project as a relatively low impact on the infrastructure of the area compared to the high-
rise developments nearby.
7. The project should provide for a positive experience at the street / sidewalk / pedestrian
level.
a. The project saves a charming existing church.
b. The base of the building is an appropriate small scale construction, and the upper floors a
very intimate scale.
c. The new building aligns with the existing church making for a very natural street front
experience. The building's extension to the alley obscures what is presently an unattractive
view west down the alley and forms an appropriate corner for entry into the alley.
d. New landscape materials will improve the current neglected streetscape along both Oak and
Church Streets.
e. If the city, the proposed theater, this developer and other adjacent property owners work
together there is the unique opportunity to address the streetscape design along both sides
of the street as it extends to Oak Street, and serves as an entry to the downtown.
8. The project should complement the practices and goals of "Complete Streets" and
encourage multi -modal transportation use.
a. The provision of a variety of desirable housing type units with minimal automobile
accommodation encourages the practices and benefits of "Complete Streets".
b. The project is located in relatively close proximity to Metra, CTA and Bus Service.
c. The creation of a building of this size and occupancy will have a positive effect on further
activating the streetscape in this area and along any circulation paths taken by its residents
and visitors.
9. The project should provide a tangible list of public benefits.
a. The project saves an attractive, historic church that is an integral part of the streetscape and
re -purposes it for desired residential use.
b. It puts a heretofore tax exempt property on the tax roles.
c. It provides a broad variety of needed housing for frequently ignored markets, affordable,
ADA, "Missing Middle" and "loft" Townhouses.
d. It provides a well designed infill building on a site of an abandoned parsonage home.
e. It is a highly complimentary building in its particular context, appropriately scaled and located
on its site.
f. It represents a high quality of architectural design, particularly for a relatively small project.
g. It improves the streetscape appearance along Oak Street.
Additional comments on the design:
1. While we are very pleased i with the composition of the window openings on the facades we
want to encourage that in their detailing they appear to be more set back from the metal panels,
providing a more pronounced shadow line.
2. We love the massing and articulation of the building, the way it feels so natural on the .site, and
improves the visual appearance of the neighborhood.
3. We are so grateful for the adaptive re -use of the church; a noble, creative act. We retain this
fine sample of humble historic church design and place it on the tax roles. In the process of this
Founded in 1980, Design Evanston is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit advocacy organization promoting good design in Evanston
Page 20 of 27
DesignEvanston
Page 5 adaptive re -use the fundamental general appearance of the exterior is only altered by the
addition of balconies for the townhouse units inside.
4. At the north portion of the east fagade the standing rib metal panels come all the way to grade.
While this is an attractive sculptural statement we wonder if expanding the brick or concrete
employed at the south end of the first floor wall would be a possible alternative application. It
would be a more durable material (resistive to ground borne dust, dirt, water, winter salts, etc).
The theme could be carried around the north and west facades at the garage portion's exposed
columns. In this case the brick/concrete would serve as a plinth for the sculptural composition
of windows and metal panel above. This is only a comment, we defer to the judgement of the
designer and his/her intentions.
5. We enjoy the dark grey color of the ribbed metal panels and think that it will be very
I complimentary to the church exterior, the brick or concrete employed at this building and the tan
and salmon colored brick masonry at adjacent buildings and the multi -gray colored siding
FF utilized at the parking garage to the northeast.
400 Main Street, 2c
Evanston, Illinois 60202
(847) 866-7480
www.designevanston org
Founded in 1980, Design Evanston is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit advocacy organization promoting good design in Evanston.
Page 21 of 27
3/1612021 :,ITY Cr CVAKSTOK Nail-2116rx3 rx;'r.'d::f Ap:j-xab Pu:,Ik; U:1'1•r•CIA Sign U:, -o rn
GLY nl
a , ,1-Melissa Klotz <mklotz@cltyofevanstan.org> b-
Zoning Board of Appeals Public Comment Sign Up Form
1 message
noreply@_formstack.com <noreplyrFor^stacc.rrm>
Reply-Th: nrr(-ply(cx fo-mstark.mm
o: mWol.L(Cvcilye levanstor.org
Tara, Mar 16. 2021 a: 12:43 PM
Formstack Submission For: Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Comment Sign Up Form
Submitted at 03/16/21 12;43 PM
Name! K•istin Cleland
Address of 11C7 Chu-ch S.
Resi dance:
Phone: (PA 7 ) 73&8066
How would
you like to
make your F •icr a In
public
comment?:
Provide
Written
Comment
Here:
Agenda Item The variations requested a •e too
(or comment g `eat. Set back anc building lot coverage
on Item net requirements are `here'n prn-ec` ad:ane-rt prrpsrlies =rom c•oweing and
on the privacy &.Jos and I cuestion why cur rights as voiy long b.mi LV osiconIs
agenda): are riot brainy protected?
Position on 011-Pr: suporrt development on: not to this magniaide
Agenda Item:
F::ps,Ihrwil.yoo�jc.r:ou/ru::illulC?i:=4162G73(J'a�vi::w=:;l&5:;31=aI&:;LTllhl(1':'Irt:,xl-r'/5�'6=441137339A.5523�c?`/7:rns��/M3N1^9�4113733345... '/2
Page 22 of 27
3/16/2021 CITY cr CVAKSTOK Nail—Zor•ineg rx;::,1::f PU:;lic; Car'19'C1-1 Siyn U., -OTT1
Copy�ic^t 02021 Fornstack. LLC. All righta re,.erved. —his is a Oustcmer service, email.
Fornslack, 1'67' Lantc— Rckc, S..ilc 3,)D, Fislx;rs, IN 46D33
Illu/,^,?k< 4762G7^sd", 4vi::w-:;l& � r=a1&:;�rrlhid=:u.x1-1�/5�'6=4411N"I11723M... 2/2
Page 23 of 27
3/1612021 CITY Di- CVAVSTOV Mail -1101 C•an:t• SL an•iN vaia:k nr
'City P1
6-
vans.tor
--r Melissa Klotz<rnklotz@cltyofevanstan,org> UE
1101 Church St zoning variations
1 message
Kristin Cleland <kristin.cleland@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 16. 2021 at 1:49 PM
o: 7onirg@riryofe.va-lston.crg
I am writing to express my signilicant concoms abouL the proposed zoni-)g modVica bons requoMod by L,)e doveloperol
1101 Church- St. The zoniig requirernen:s versus the cevelopers requested varialior•s are riot or small wnsequence.
Ny =ar,iIV anc I have. residec at 1101 Church $t for �14 yews.
6-&8-4-C: 15 cni`s allowed per code, rsquesti,ig 20 units. Bear in rni•id that the 1717 Ridce. 112' Churcn. anc nurrierois
oche, apartmert builcings within a block or so, have numerous apartments available =o• rent. The•efore, the additional 24
apartments (apart `rom the ( townnemes planned for the Ch,lrch strut:U'e, which I sjppori) that a'e planred 'c be. erected
in the parkir•g IoL. (whoa: the scl back and building lut wvurage coning variations arc t)cir•g iuqucstcd) is not pablic
service or in the best i nterest cf Evanston residents, but is further satu ating tt-e rental ma •ket.
"-8-6: HUildirg I of Coverage: Perttle coke Orly 50% is approved (not 6b%, as stated n tie notice post card) for
building uuvc,a;c and lid developer is rcqucsting 78.6%. 1 ask, why is our right NOT to be avwdcd and p-aclically buil.
ipon not civen serious consiceration pricy to app ovirg tie variance? I would welcome —embers c= tie zoring committee
a5 well as the developer to nome. to my home. and SP,e fo' yonr3PIvP.S how this revielop—eni i5 going to negatively affect
our quality of Ilfo and sonsc of privacy. nod for carat good? I sipOOri dcvolopmont on this prol", howovor I to kC
arnb•agc with L,id variar-ws oiling roqucslcd. I l is Lou rriassivc.
6-8-8-74-2: Set bark yard require renis, 15 feet. Developer requesting 0 `Fet.
6-&d-7-A-L : Sol back roar yard rcquiremen.s 25 feel. Devoloper requesting 1.5 foot!!
6-&8-7-C-3: Seel pack side yard rrequirerrien'. 5 reel Developer requestng C feet.
6-16 table 16-R: ?i parking spots regiiirPc. Developer rP.quPsting 8 spots.
—iese are rnassive variations Ming requested to the del•iment or long term Evar•slon residents for the uer-afit or wh•orri?
—ne developer? The tax coffers? Because I knew that 21 less ava it-ga rde apartmerts is not going to hurt anyone in this
community ou- more likely the over development of every em-ing square -cot is going to hurl tiis comml, ni-y.
Of ncie: The narking lot has had a bas cetoall hoop for probably 20 years that is used fregaer•tly by kits and adults frcrn all
ip aid down the block and alley. The-e are several t'PP; that have thrived it the pa,king lot (west sic against the chair
link fence) and we have erjoyed squi,rels, bids and insects as well as m Jch needed .r,reene`y. —nese mly seem like
s•-•all details ul hid parking lu., uu. Ihay make a winiiiwAty anc a iurnc.
Ir cxinClusion, I am not acairst development of :his prrperly, the rew nwre_rs have, eve, y right t0 devPfop or demolish.
However, the owners of this popery do not have a right to ignore code ecuirements and i- is our right as adjacent
propc,'Ly owidrs to tx: ruspccled and equally c orisiddred in ibis prouused dcveloomcil. This p''ujccl ricdds .o bc: sc-algid
down and propose something that is ini accordance with the current zoning regLirements.
nank you for yol,f V—e,
r<ristir Cleland
f:'.is�a/ulwit.ycx;�jc.con/nr:il/ulC?i:-4762G7:xi7a3vi::w=:;l&;:;au�r-al&:;erllhid-:lr.:xl-f/3n'6�4415520455�2(1775"/"7C�r✓3A169'552�4SG.., /1
Page 24 of 27
NOT APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
City of 7:00 PM
Evanston Via Virtual Meeting
Members Present: Violetta Cullen., Kiril Mirintchev, Max Puchtel, Jill Zordan, Mary
McAuley
Members Absent: Lisa Dziekan, Myrna Arevalo
Staff Present: Melissa Klotz
Presiding Member: Violetta Cullen
1101 Church St. ZBA 21ZMJV-0017
Christopher S. Dillion, Joint Venture Partner, submits for major zoning relief to construct
a 4- story rear addition and adaptive reuse of an existing religious institution structure in
the R6 General Residential District. The applicant requests 24 dwelling units (plus 6
IHO bonus units for a total of 30 dwelling units) where 15 dwelling units are allowed
(Zoning Code Section 6-8-8- 4-C), 78.6% building lot coverage where 65% is permitted
(Zoning Code Section 6-8-8-6), a 0' street side yard setback to match the existing
structure where 15' is required (Zoning Code Section 6-8-8-7-A-2), 1.5' rear yard
setback where 25' is required (Zoning Code Section 6-8-8- 7-A-4), 0' for open parking in
the interior side yard where 5' is required (Zoning Code Section 6- 8-8-7-C-3), and 14
parking spaces where 22 parking spaces are required (Zoning Code Section 6-16 Table
16-B). The Zoning Board of Appeals makes a recommendation to the City Council, the
determining body for this case.
Mr. Dillion introduced the team, including Brian Phillips from IHA who provided a brief
overview of the types of projects they have completed in the surrounding areas. Mr.
Dillion then proceeded with an overview of the project:
• It is a transit rich location.
• Will be prioritizing sustainability.
• An urban apartment building will be to the north.
• The site is L-shaped and they will be making an adaptive reuse of the church and
then a mid -rise new construction component at the rear of the church.
• All of the two bedrooms will be distributed through two floors.
• Bike storage will be at the front of the building.
• Looking for a series of variations that include:
o Density variation —proposing 30 units but it is zoned for 15 units.
o Lot coverage — 78.6% proposed vs. 65% per code.
o Setback variations
■ Street yard setback 0' proposed vs. 15' in code
■ Rear yard setback 1.5' proposed vs. 25' in code.
Page 1 of 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 25 of 27
o Parking variations
■ Open parking setback 0' proposed vs. 5' in code
■ Parking spaces = 8 onsite and 6 offsite for 14 spaces total vs. 24
parking spaces per code
• Several positive public impacts that include the adaptive reuse of the church to
save it and a growth of tax base by $135K annually.
• Many public benefits that include alley resurfacing, $5,000 contribution to the
Transit Fund, ADA/Adaptable Affordable unites and bird -friendly measures.
Ms. Zordan asked for clarification in the building directly to the north uses the alley.
Mr. Dillion responded that he wasn't sure but their utilities are served through that alley.
After speaking with the board of that building their main concern in is the current state of
the alley.
Mr. Puchtel asked about the setbacks by the alley and wondered if there is precedent
from City staff on the setback as it seems very close up and down the alley.
Ms. Klotz answered that because it is adjacent to downtown and multi -story buildings
she does believe it is appropriate.
Ms. Klotz indicated that here were letters sent one in favor from Design Evanston and
one against the project from a neighbor.
Deliberation:
Ms. Cullen stated that she is in favor and appreciate the increase in the tax rolls.
Ms. Zordan is leary of the setback variations, although with the support of City staff she
is favor and thinks it is an attractive design.
Mr. Mirintchev shared that he compliments the architects because this is a very difficult
project. He would like to see a little more residential design of the church and he
encourages additional parking spaces.
Ms. McAuley stated that loves the church re -adaptation and is in favor of the project.
Mr. Puchtel is also in support.
Standards:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
Page 2 of 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 26 of 27
Ms. McAuley moved to approve with the conditions laid out in the staff memo. Ms.
Zordan seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Page 3 of 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 27 of 27