SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 1 of 6

APPROVED

SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPAARC)
MINUTES
September 24, 2014

Members Present: S. Berg, R. Dahal, I. Eckersberg, J . Ferrera, M. J ones, M. Klotz,
M. Muenzer, J . Nelson, L. Pearson, C. Ruiz

Others Present: Ald. J udy Fiske

Staff Present: C. Caneva, E. Golden, D. Latinovic, B. Newman, M. Treto, R. Voss

Presiding Member: M. Muenzer

A quorum being present, Chair Muenzer called the meeting to order at 2:31 p.m.

New Business:

1) 1814 Central Street Recommendation to ZBA
Request for a Special Use for a Type 2 Restaurant (Beths Little Bake Shop) located in
the B1a Business District and oCSC Central Street Overlay District

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Beth Welch Business owner

GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Mr. Muenzer explained the process to the applicant. Details from the application were
discussed and other issues were raised:

Trash pickup: dumpsters in rear, 2 days per week (or 3 if necessary)
Chair Muenzer advised the applicant of the littler pickup requirement by Type 2
restaurants
Phase 1 is proposed; if successful, plan to take over adjacent store front for a Type
1 sit-down restaurant

Mr. Berg moved to recommend approval of the special use, seconded by Ms.
Pearson.

The Committee voted unanimously 10-0 to recommend approval of the special
use.

2) 2149 Sherman Avenue Recommendation to ZBA
Request for major zoning relief to allow a third dwelling unit on an existing lot with 2,348
square feet of lot area per dwelling unit where 2,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling
unit is required by Code

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: P. Matt Lederer Property owner

GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Chair Muenzer explained the approval process to the applicant. Details from the
application were discussed and other issues were raised:

SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 of 6

It was a 3 flat when applicant purchased it in 2002 and has made no changes to the
configuration
A recent inspection revealed that the 2-bedroom, 3
rd
floor unit is not in compliance
The applicant had the Dean of Students of NU meet with new tenants about their
noise levels and his tenants have not caused problems since they had an issue, 7
years ago
The building has 8 occupants
Parking: there are 3 garage spaces and 3 slab spots; 2 are rented to a neighbor who
stores supplies in them; the others are taken by tenants, who usually dont have cars

Chair Muenzer noted that several emails objecting to the variance were received
by staff (attached).

Chair Muenzer called the public who wished to speak:

Mark Metz of 2125 Sherman since 1980, representing his wife and some other
neighbors said:
He is opposed to the variance

Mary Kay Conlon of 2201 Sherman for 25 years, representing her husband, Richard
and J ennifer Alexander said:
She is opposed to the variance

Ald. Fiske of the 1
st
Ward said:
She is opposed to the variance

Noreen Edwards of 2125 Sherman for 33 years said:
She is opposed to the variance

Chair Muenzer noted that staff received emails and letters from the following neighbors:
J ulie Koon
J ennifer Alexander of 2201 Sherman
Mark Sencar of 2211 Sherman, with photos of the applicants and other properties.

Mr. Lederer said he:
He and his partner maintain their buildings
Is in the remodeling business
Does not know that his buildings are the cause of the problems
Is not looking to increase density but just keep things as they have been
Probably will have to sell if he cant continue to rent the third unit and it will only be
sold to another landlord who may be neglectful so it wont be an improvement to the
neighborhood

Ms. Pearson said she does not believe Mr. Lederers request meets the standards that
must be met in order to qualify for a variance including the hardship.

Chair Muenzer commented that it will be the ultimate decision of the ZBA.

SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3 of 6

Ms. Klotz explained to Mr. Lederer that the purpose of the variance may not be to
extract additional income and it must provide a public benefit, to which Mr. Lederer
replied that he is not attempting to extract further income, but it would be a reduction in
his income if it is not granted; Ms. Klotz explained that the City views it as additional
income, because the income it generates is based on the legal status of the building.

Chair Muenzer added the decision to grant the variance will set a precedent, which
must also be considered by the ZBA.

Ms. Pearson moved to recommend denial of the variance, seconded by Mr. Berg.

The Committee voted unanimously 10-0 to recommend denial of the variance.

3) 600 Davis Street Recommendation to ZBA
Request for Special Use for a Type 2 Restaurant Patisserie Coralie, located in the D2
Downtown Retail Core District

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Pascal Berthomieux Business owner

GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Chair Muenzer explained the approval process to the applicant. Details from the
application were discussed and other issues were raised:

There is seating for 20; the rest will have to take their food to go
Deliveries: through the front door as there is no rear access; each morning by 10:00

Ms. Pearson moved to recommend approval of the special use, seconded by Mr.
Berg.

The Committee voted unanimously 10-0 to recommend approval of the special
use.

4) 1571 Maple Street Recommendation to Plan Commission/
Pre-Application Conference
Michael McLean of 1571 Maple Ave L.L.C., is requesting Special Use approval for a
Planned Development to construct an 11-story 122.6-foot high multiple-family building
with 101 dwelling units, 3,696-square feet of commercial space and 13 on-site parking
spaces. The proposal includes a request for eight site development allowances: number
of dwelling units, building height, floor area ratio (FAR), number of on-site parking
spaces provided, and building setbacks from the east, north, northwest and south
property lines

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Michael McLean Developer
Howard Hirsch Architect
Luay Aboona Traffic Consultant
Bernard Citron Attorney
Craig Soncrant Landscape Architect

GENERAL DISCUSSION:
SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 of 6

Chair Muenzer explained the approval process to the applicant. Mr. McLean, developer
and Evanston resident, presented plans and elevations and explained the proposal. The
following were discussed:
The project has been revised since the packet was distributed to respond to
concerns expressed by the neighbors:
o Increased setback from south property line to 25 to meet code
o Increased height to 12 stories to accommodate increase in setback
o Removed and revised windows on south elevation to address privacy concerns
o Roof deck amenity on north side will drop a level from the top
o F.A.R. reduced from 5.1 to 4.85
Mr. Dahal requested that landscaping should be no higher than 36 at the driveway
exit and that the applicant should resolve any outstanding public parking issues with
the Parking Division.
Mr. Berg advised that the Fire Dept. requires a 20 width for access on Elmwood and
Davis and the building will need to comply with the high rise code
Developer did first conversion of Galleria (former Marshall Fields building) to condos;
have 6 pending developments currently in Chicago; Chair Muenzer requested a list
of their current proposed developments
Ms. J ones asked whether they would consider Class A office space above the retail
space to which Mr. McLean replied that on this particular site it will not attract a large
tenant and according to the area brokers, it is not feasible to rent to smaller
businesses
Mr. Ruiz requested that they add glass to the garage door and replace the brick on
the south wall with glass, to which Mr. McLean replied that the brick replaced
windows per the request of the neighbors privacy issue; Chair Muenzer requested
details of the glass and brick placement
Mr. Hirsch explained that there will be a tall window in the living rooms and high
windows, starting at 4-4.5 on the bed walls as a direct request of the neighbors
Mr. Nelson advised that they will need 2 services for water and the meter must be
within 5 of the building entrance; the applicant agreed to comply
Mr. Dahal requested that the sidewalk be wider on the Elmwood with the building set
back, to which Mr. McLean replied that he did not think it would be allowed; Chair
Muenzer suggested that this may be a unique situation
Mr. Latinovics comments:
o Requested a landscaping screen on the east side of Elmwood
o Regarding a 6 easement for neighbors to the west; Mr. McLean said they met
with them regarding loading onto Davis and would prefer to load through the
parking lot
o Requested a fence along Maple with vegetation to which Mr. McLean agreed
o A Public Parking sign will be required
o Confirmed 8 modular brick will be used for the entire building
o Suggested eliminating the brick details beneath the windows; too busy; the
cornice is well-designed, meets the design guidelines and creates a pedestrian-
friendly corner
o Requested that the building maintain the landscaping on the east side, as
requested in the neighborhood meeting; Chair Muenzer suggested a 3 year
commitment

SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 of 6

Chair Muenzer called the public who wished to speak:

Edward Williams of 1571 Maple said:
How will the manager get residents to move their cars during the day?
Furniture deliveries cannot be compared to One Evanston because they are condos
and the proposed units are rental with much more frequent move-ins

Sally Henderson of One Evanston said:
Half of the retail spaces on Davis are empty; if new stores come in they will be
stealing from the existing spaces
Why would the City allow 2 high rises to be built next to each other?
The Downtown Plan had restrictions requiring breathing space between high rises
The top floor of the proposed building will have HVAC units and this will be the view
from the higher floors of the adjacent high rise
The lower floors will look at a brick wall
Is this project in the best economic interest of Evanston and has a cost analysis has
been done?
When she purchased her unit, most of the residents of One Evanston were told that
the Downtown Plan required that a building on that lot could not exceed 4 stories;
she feels blind sided and asked whether the Downtown Plan has validity; Chair
Muenzer replied that it is just a guiding document; the Zoning is what dictates a
Planned Development, which allows for variances. He said he understands her
concerns and thanked her.

Howard Ellman, One Evanston condo association president said:
Represents 96 unit owners
This is the wrong project based on its impact on One Evanston and other nearby
buildings
The development is not compatible with the neighborhood as prescribed in the
Downtown Plan that was approved in 2005 and should be used as a guide
The Downtown Plan prescribes 42 in height with allowances up to 80
In 2011, the Plan Commission sent a recommendation on how to modify the Zoning
code based on the Downtown Plan
This is a fundamental issue of fairness:
o There are no 2 buildings of this size, this close to each other anywhere else in
Evanston
o There will be 72 AC units on the roof, which will generate 60 decibels of noise,
eliminating the joy of opening their windows or sitting on their balconies
o 25 from the lot line they will see a solid brick wall
o This is many of the residents largest investment
o He would rather the height start at Davis St.
o He asked why the Citys guidelines are more important than these residents
homes and investments
He believes residents will prefer to park free in the residential area over paying for
the garage space
Parking must be within 1,000 of the property by the Zoning code; in his Google
birdseye measurement it was 1,300. He asked that Zoning staff re-check the
measurement
SPAARC Meeting Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 of 6


Chair Muenzer replied that as rental tenants, it will be clear that they do not rent their
spaces between certain hours. At Chair Muenzers inquiry, Mr. McLean said they have
not decided whether the garage spaces will be included in the leases. He does not
believe the garage spaces will be fully rented.

At Chair Muenzers inquiry, Mr. McLean said they are open to modifying the windows on
the south elevation; they were only eliminated per the neighbors request.

Mr. McLean said the setbacks were designed to place the building the furthest distance
from One Evanston as possible. 14 of the 126 units at One Evanston are affected by
the proposed development. None of the units views or light are affected.

Mr. Latinovic said by right, they can build to the lot line; they are asking for a site
allowance; they meet the requirement on the south lot line.

Ms. Pearson thanked the developer for addressing the neighbors concerns. Chair
Muenzer concurred and encouraged them to continue conversations to mitigate the
impact to the building to the south

Mr. Berg moved to recommend approval of the Planned Development with the
condition that Planning & Zoning staff and the Fire Dept. approve the plans prior
to the Plan Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Pearson.

The Committee voted unanimously 10-0 to recommend approval of the Planned
Development on the conditions.

Other Business:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.

Ms. Pearson moved to approve the minutes of the September 17, 2014 meeting,
seconded by Ms. Klotz.

The Committee voted unanimously 9-0 with 1 abstaining to approve the minutes.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Bobbie Newman
To: SPAARC and Zoning Board, City of Evanston
Re: 2149 application for major variance
September 24, 2014

I am Noreen Edwards and have lived at 2125 Sherman Avenue for 33 years, a half
block south of Noyes on Sherman Avenue.

There are 17 homes on our block, on our side of the street, between the townhouses to
the south and the Rookwood Coop on the north. Historically, there have been 5-6 homes
only on our block that had apartments, mostly on the third floor, but when we moved here,
there was only one home on the block that was not occupied downstairs by the
homeowner; it was owned by NU, but has been returned to single family.

On our block, as homes have changed hands, more single family homes have been
scooped up by investors, and then packed with students. This is very clearly a change on
our block. They can rent bedrooms for $800 per month and try to get as many students as
they can. There is a limit of three unrelated persons per dwelling unit, but many landlords,
routinely break the law and have 4 or 5 or more per unit. As neighbors, though we can
easily see how many people are living there, we can not request an inspection. The city
inspects only every two years I think. They can not insist upon entering an apartment
unless the tenant requests it. And when inspections are scheduled, the tenants are warned
and remove evidence (beds) of illegal tenants for the inspection, and return the beds after
the inspection is done. Tenants are warned not to put too many names on the mailboxes,
but they sometimes forget and as you can see from the photos, there are currently 4
names on a mailbox at 2207.

Misters Knapp and Lederer own two properties on our block. Neither is maintained as
well as most homeowner occupied homes on our block. (please see attached photos).
They also have broken the law repeatedly, since they have owned the buildings by both
having two many dwelling units per lot and by having too many unrelated persons per
dwelling unit.

Mr. Lederer says that the 3
rd
unit has existed for years. It was duplexed to the third
floor in the 80s I think by the homeowners who occupied the building, but not made into
a third unit. He has rented it as an illegal third unit. Now he wants to make it a legal third
unit, so he can legally rent to more people. He already rents to too many people in other
units, so one would assume he (or future landlord) would rent all three units to three or
more unrelated people each, that would be 9 tenants. This building was built as a single
family homeits not huge.

Financial Hardship?
Assuming $800 per month per tenant, full rental, the annual income for:
6 legal tenants is $57,600
8 tenants is $76,800
10 tenants is $96,000 Per Year!
Hardly a hardship!

Garage spaces go for $80 per month or more in our neighborhood, and at 2149 he has
3 indoor spaces and 3 concrete spaces, so we could assume at least another $3000 per
year in rental income from parking. At 2207 there are 5 garage spaces; thats another
$5000 per year.

How many tenants do Mr Knapp and Ledarer have? Their application does not tell us,
but we do know from their application floor plan there are 4 bedrooms on the second
floor. And we know from the mailbox that there are 4 in at least one of the units. And at
least 2 in the illegal third floor unit. In any case, I cant see that hardship is what we
have here, but what they want is more windfall profits from their buildings.

With more people, homeowners will have to put up with much more garbage, noise
and cars. And the end result will be more single family homeowners giving up and selling
to investors. Is this what we want for Sherman Avenue north of downtown, which by the
way, is part of the Northeast Evanston National Historic District?

Homeowners who live in their homes, improve them inside and out, because they want
the home they live in to look nice. Investors have no such incentive. Their incentive is to
put in the most number of students and do the minimum amount of maintenance, and that,
frequently only when the neighbors complain. Which puts the onus of responsibility on
the rest of us neighbors, who have to act like enforcers and police, and report both unruly
and illegal behavior and below standard housing violations. It is tiresome.

So, as NU neighbors, we have been willing to put up with occasional unruly behavior
because we enjoy the vitality of this neighborhood. But if more students are packed into
homes around here, I fear it will tip the balance, and homeowners will give up and this
block and neighboring blocks will become more student ghetto. Oh, and homes not big
enough for student housing, will suffer reduced value since who wants to live next door
to the "name your team--swimming, baseball, soccer..." party house?

Please deny them the application for the third unit and inform them that only 3
unrelated people per legal unit are allowed per unit. Also, how can we get them to follow
the law in their building at 2207 Sherman Avenue, regarding number of units and
numbers of tenants per dwelling unit?

Thanks for your consideration and service.

Sincerely,


Noreen Edwards