Evanston City Council on Monday night rejected a proposal that would have given the developers of a controversial 35-story tower more time to start construction.
The resolution, put forward by the city’s Planning and Development Committee, suggested giving Focus Development three extra years to obtain a building permit for the project, 708 Church St. Ald. Ann Rainey (8th), in an attempt to compromise on the issue, suggested the council vote instead on a one-year extension, but aldermen narrowly turned down the idea.
The company was originally granted five years in March 2009 to start construction, but the period expires at the end of this year.
The aldermen voted against Rainey’s proposal 5-4. Alds. Judy Fiske (1st), Melissa Wynne (3rd), Donald Wilson (4th), Mark Tendam (6th) and Jane Grover (7th) chose to reject the extension, while Alds. Peter Braithwaite (2nd), Delores Holmes (5th), Rainey and Coleen Burrus (9th) wanted the developers to continue their work.
Audience members burst into applause when Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl announced the vote count. Evanston residents expressed strong criticism toward the building, both at Monday’s meeting and when plans were first proposed in 2009.
As approved, the tower would have had 218 housing units and more than 18,000 square feet for office and retail space. The building would have been 385 feet in height, making it Evanston’s tallest building by more than 100 feet.
Tim Anderson, president and owner of Focus Development, argued before the vote that his company’s inaction was caused by the housing market crash of 2008. He said his team has been doing quality work in Evanston for 17 years, and it just needs more time to “bring this project to fruition.”
“This is the longest, dragged out public development that I can remember,” Fiske said.
If the extension were approved, it would be the longest period developers have been granted to start a project in Evanston, according to aldermen. Fiske called the plans “outdated” in light of how long they have been delayed. With the location of the building in the heart of downtown, the council should make sure they’re picking the best building, she said.
Tendam agreed with Fiske, saying Evanston has to maintain its “beautiful” downtown area.
“It makes a statement that, ‘This is our pride and joy,’” he said. “I’m not opposed to development. We just can’t afford developers to continue extensions.”
Wilson said the council should not approve “a straight extension for something that’s probably not going to happen.”
Wilson and many residents said the developers’ promises are no longer useful for or relevant to the city. He said the council has “given huge allowances” to Andersen with the structure, with the idea that he would build the structure. Instead, Wilson said, “the neighborhood has suffered.”
At the meeting, dozens of Evanston residents express concerns about the aesthetic nature of the tower, saying it disrupted the city’s small, college town feel. Evanston resident Martin Kanter said the building would “stick out like a sore thumb” in the middle of downtown.
Others said that the city had failed to address possible issues in traffic congestion and a wind tunnel effect caused by the tall tower. Some were worried the public benefits the developers promised were driven by profit motives and would just be detrimental to the city’s revenue in the future.
The council also unanimously passed the city’s fiscal year 2014 budget with no discussion.
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @paigeleskin
