Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CC:

Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
CC: Members of the Planning and Development Committee
From: Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner
CC: Johanna Leonard, Community Development Director; Scott Mangum,
Planning and Zoning Manager
Subject: Ordinances 29-O-20 and 30-O-20, Creation of R5a Zoning District and
Emerson Street Map Amendment
Date: February 24, 2020
Recommended Action:
Plan Commission recommends denial of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to create a
new zoning district, R5a General Residential, and a map amendment to rezone the properties
north of Emerson Street roughly between Asbury Avenue to the east, Gilbert Park and former
Mayfair railroad property to the west, and the block north of Foster Street to the north from
the existing R5 General Residential District to the new R5a Zoning District. The rezoning is
primarily intended to reduce the height limit to better align with the existing lower height
residential buildings in the area while avoiding creation of nonconforming uses.
Council Action:
For Introduction
Summary:
The area north of Emerson Street roughly between Asbury Avenue to the east, Gilbert Park
and former Mayfair railroad property to the west, and the block north of Foster Street (1403-
1601 Emerson St., 1910-1930 Asbury Av., 2000-2024 Wesley Av., 2007-2021 Jackson Av.,
1900 Block of Jackson Av., 1900 Block of Wesley Av., 1400 Block of Foster St.) is currently
zoned R5 General Residential Commercial. This area has been zoned for similar height and
density as allowed in the current R5 District since at least the 1960s. The R5 District’s
Purpose Statement is:
The R5 general residential district is intended to provide for infill development of a mix
of multi-family residential structures at a medium density, including townhouses, two-
family dwellings, three-story walk-ups and courtyard apartment buildings that
characterize the traditional multiple-family housing development found in this district.

-- 1 of 45 --

Outside of the above described area, the R5 zoning is generally located south and east of the area
with some stretches along Central Street and Howard Street. It is one of the higher density
residential zoning districts in the City, typically having a variety of residential uses from single
family homes to larger apartment or condominium buildings (full R5 district regulations are
attached). The area described north of Emerson Street is made up of approximately 85
parcels and has a number of properties that match this description with single family homes,
two-family homes and several apartment buildings.
This portion of Emerson St. is surrounded by the R1 and R2 Single Family Residential
Districts south of Emerson Street, C2 Commercial, WE1 West Evanston Transitional District
and R4 General Residential Districts to the West with a small area of B3 Business to the
southeast, B2 Business and R4 Districts to the north, and R4 to the immediate west. A
portion of this area is also within the West Evanston overlay district (see map below).
Canal-Green Bay Road/Ridge Avenue Church Street Study Area Report
In September of 2005 City Council adopted the Canal-Green Bay Road/Ridge Avenue-
Church Street Study Area Report. This report looked at the area defined by the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Canal, Green Bay Road/Ridge Avenue and Church
Street, analyzing existing conditions, identifying issue groups (Economic Development; Urban
Design, Community Character, & Zoning; Public Infrastructure, Services, Streets and
Transportation; Housing; Public Safety and Community Cohesion; and Youth) and creating a
vision.
Within Issue 2: Urban Design, Community Character & Zoning (attached), a great amount of
the sub-committee’s attention was given to the physical form of the area, improving the
streetscape and gateway areas and general zoning regulations. The R5 zoning was a point of
discussion with some participants pointing out that the area is largely single family homes
Page 2 of 45

-- 2 of 45 --

(some having been converted to two or more dwelling units) and others pointing out that
downzoning the area would take away property value and limit the ability to create affordable
housing in the area. The Committee ultimately came up with a compromise, proposing the
creation of a new zoning district, R5a General Residential. The district was proposed to have
the same regulations as the existing R5 zoning but have a lower maximum height of 42 feet.
Proposal Overview:
Per the Aldermanic referral, the proposed amendments would create a new zoning district,
R5a General Residential, and rezone the area north of Emerson Street roughly between
Asbury Avenue to the east, Gilbert Park and former Mayfair railroad property to the west, and
the block north of Foster Street (1403-1601 Emerson St., 1910-1930 Asbury Av., 2000-2024
Wesley Av., 2007-2021 Jackson Av., 1900 Block of Jackson Av., 1900 Block of Wesley Av.,
1400 Block of Foster St.) from R5 to R5a.
The maximum mean building height in the R5 District is 50’ (or 62’ as a site development
allowance for a Planned Development) or 5 stories, whichever is less, while maximum mean
building height in the R5a District would be allowed up to 42’ (or 54’ as a site development
allowance for a Planned Development), or 3.5 stories, whichever is less. Full comparison
charts of zoning regulations for all residential zoning districts are attached. Initial discussion
surrounding the referral suggested a rezoning to R3 Two-Family Residential. Staff
subsequently clarified the referral while looking at the existing parcels in the area and
comparing how many parcels would be compliant versus non-compliant regarding minimum
lot area (density) with different zoning designations. With the existing R5 zoning there are 16
non-compliant properties; if the area were to be rezoned to R4 or R4a that number would
increase to 27 properties; if R3, the non-compliant properties would total 36.
Page 3 of 45

-- 3 of 45 --

Overall, the change from the R5 District to a new R5a District is minimal. Permitted uses and
bulk requirements would remain the same with the exception of the building height which
would be reduced by 8 feet. This change would be in line with recommendation that came
from the 2005 area study referenced above. The proposed text amendment and rezoning are
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan
including: Maintain the appealing character of Evanston’s neighborhoods while guiding their
change.
The proposed establishment of a new zoning district and rezoning would be compatible with
the overall character of existing development in the area by maintaining similar bulk, structure
and use regulations. With the only change proposed for the new zoning district being a height
reduction, there would likely be no new nonconforming structures created in the area and a
variety of housing types could still be permitted to be constructed. Due to this, rezoning will
likely not have an adverse effect on the value of adjacent properties. Adequate public
facilities and services are already available in the area.
Legislative History:
January 22, 2020 – A vote on a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment as
presented by staff failed by a 1-4 vote. That motion therefore failed. Plan Commission Packet
from January 22, 2020.
December 11, 2019 - The Plan Commission continued this item to the January 22, 2020
meeting due to lack of a quorum for this item.
October 30, 2019 - The Plan Commission began discussion on this item and it was
subsequently continued to the December 11, 2019 meeting after a request for continuance
was submitted by an affected resident.
Attachments:
Ordinance 29-O-20 Text Amendment Creating the R5a General Residential District
Ordinance 30-O-20 Map Amendment Rezoning Emerson Street Area from R5 to R5a
Plan Commission Meeting Minutes from 1.22.2020
R5 General Residential Zoning District Regulations
Residential Zoning District Comparison Chart
Petition in Support of the Amendments - Submitted 1.22.20
Page 4 of 45

-- 4 of 45 --

2/10/2020
29-O-20
AN ORDINANCE
Amending the City Code to Add Section 6-8-9, R5a General Residential
District
NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:
SECTION 1: Title 6, Chapter 8, of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as
amended, is hereby further amended to add the following section:
6-8-9. – R5a GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
6-8-9-1. - PURPOSE STATEMENT.
The R5a general residential district is intended to provide for infill development of a mix
of multi-family residential structures at a medium density, including townhouses, two-
family dwellings, three-story walk-ups and courtyard apartment buildings that
characterize the traditional multiple-family housing development found in this district.
6-8-9-2. - PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted in the R5a district:
Daycare home—Adult (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-3, "Adult
Daycare Homes," of this Title).
Daycare home—Child (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-2, "Child
Daycare Homes," of this Title).
Dwelling—Multiple-family.
Dwelling—Single-family attached.
Dwelling—Single-family detached.
Dwelling—Two-family.
Educational institution—Public.
Page 5 of 45

-- 5 of 45 --

~2~
Home occupation (subject to the general requirements of Chapter 5, "Home
Occupations," of this Title).
Neighborhood garden.
Park.
Playground.
Residential care home—Category I (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-
4, "Residential Care Homes and Child Residential Care Homes," of this Title).
Residential care home—Category II (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-
4, "Residential Care Homes and Child Residential Care Homes," of this Title).
Shelter for abused persons.
6-8-9-3. - SPECIAL USES.
The following uses may be allowed in the R5a district, subject to the provisions set forth
in Section 6-3-5, "Special Uses," of this Title:
Assisted living facility.
Bed and breakfast establishments (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-7,
"Bed And Breakfast Establishments," of this Title).
Child residential care home.
Community center—Public.
Congregate housing.
Cultural facility.
Daycare center—Adult (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-3, "Adult
Daycare Homes," of this Title).
Daycare center—Child (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-2, "Child
Daycare Homes," of this Title).
Educational institution—Private.
Independent living facility.
Long term care facility.
Membership organization.
Office (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-8-1-11, "Special Conditions For
Office Uses," of this Chapter).
Page 6 of 45

-- 6 of 45 --

~3~
Planned development (subject to the requirements of Section 6-3-6, "Planned
Developments," of this Title and Section 6-8-1-10, "Planned Developments," of this
Chapter).
Public utility.
Recreation center—Public.
Religious institution.
Retirement community.
Retirement home.
Retirement hotel.
Rooming house.
Shelter care home.
Transitional shelter (subject to the requirements of Section 6-3-5-11, "Additional
Standards For A Special Use For Transitional Shelters," of this Title).
Transitional treatment facility—Category I (subject to the general requirements of
Section 6-4-5, "Transitional Treatment Facilities," of this Title).
Transitional treatment facility—Category II (subject to the general requirements of
Section 6-4-5, "Transitional Treatment Facilities," of this Title).
6-8-9-4. - LOT SIZE.
The minimum lot sizes in the R5a district are:
Minimum Lot Size
(A) Single-family dwelling
unit
Five thousand (5,000) square feet, except as expressly
allowed in Subsection 6-4-1-7(B) of this Title
(B) Single-family attached
dwelling unit
Two thousand (2,000) square feet each for the first three
(3) dwelling units, plus one thousand two hundred
(1,200) square feet for each additional dwelling unit
(C) Two-family attached
dwelling unit
Two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet per
dwelling unit
(D) Multiple-family and group One thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet each for
Page 7 of 45

-- 7 of 45 --

~4~
occupancy dwelling units the first four (4) dwelling units, plus eight hundred (800)
square feet for each additional dwelling unit
(E) Nonresidential use Ten thousand (10,000) square feet
6-8-9-5. - LOT WIDTH.
The minimum lot width in the R5a district is as follows:
Minimum Lot Width
(A) Single-family detached dwelling unit Thirty-five (35) feet
(B) Two-family dwellings Thirty-five (35) feet
(C) Single-family attached dwelling units; three (3) or more Sixty (60) feet
(D) Other uses Fifty (50) feet
6-8-9-6. - BUILDING LOT COVERAGE.
The maximum lot coverage in the R5a district is forty-five percent (45%).
Building lot coverage shall include two hundred (200) square feet for each required
parking space for any residential unit when the required parking space is provided other
than within a building.
On a zoning lot that is: a) used for a "dwelling" or dwellings as herein defined, and b)
legally nonconforming as to building lot area, when a land user seeks zoning
certification for a building permit to replace an existing detached garage with a garage
having the same ground floor area as the existing garage, such construction shall be an
allowed continuance of the legal nonconforming building lot coverage.
6-8-9-7. - YARD REQUIREMENTS.
The minimum yard requirements in the R5a district are as follows:
(A) Residential structures:
1. Front yard Twenty-seven (27) feet; parking prohibited
Page 8 of 45

-- 8 of 45 --

~5~
2. Side yard abutting a
street Fifteen (15) feet; parking prohibited
3. Side yard Three (3) feet
4. Rear yard Twenty-five (25) feet
(B) Nonresidential structures:
1. Front yard Twenty-seven (27) feet for building; parking prohibited
2. Side yard abutting a
street Fifteen (15) feet for building; parking prohibited
3. Side yard Ten (10) feet for building; parking prohibited
4. Rear yard Twenty-five (25) feet for building; five (5) feet for
parking
(C) Accessory uses and structures:
1. Front yard Garages only, twenty-seven (27) feet
2. Side yard abutting a
street Garages only, fifteen (15) feet
3. Side yard Five (5) feet
4. Rear yard Three (3) feet
Page 9 of 45

-- 9 of 45 --

6-8-9-8. - MEAN BUILDING HEIGHT.
The maximum mean building height in the R5a district is forty two (42) feet or three and
one half (3.5) stories, whichever is less. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building or
structure legally existing and conforming to the building height requirement of this
district as of the effective date hereof, shall, for the purpose of the district and the
requirements of this zoning ordinance, be deemed complying with the mean building
height requirement and shall have the status of legally permitted structure or use, not a
legal noncompliance, and shall not be subject to or benefit from the allowances,
restrictions and procedures of Chapter 6, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying
Structures," of this Title. Such conforming status shall continue in the event said building
is removed or destroyed by a means within the control of the owner thereof and shall
allow for the construction of a building or structure at the height of the building or
structure legally existing and conforming to the building height requirement of this
district as of the effective date hereof.
6-8-9-9. - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
(A) The maximum impervious surface ratio for the R5a district is sixty percent (60%).
(B) The impervious surface ratio is calculated by dividing the total defined net
impervious surfaces on the zoning lot by the area of the zoning lot.
(C) The total defined net impervious surfaces on the zoning lot are all areas included
in building lot coverage plus any hard surfaced, nonnaturally occurring area that
does not readily absorb water, including, but not limited to, any paved, asphalt or
concrete areas, parking and graveled driveway areas, swimming pools,
sidewalks, and paved recreation areas subject to the following exemptions:
1. Any area, including open parking, paved or unpaved, included in the calculation
of building lot coverage, shall not be twice counted in the calculation of total
defined net impervious surface.
2. Subject to the porch exemption of Section 6-8-9-10 of this Chapter, the
following standards govern the classification of structures commonly referred to
as decks:
(a) Uncovered Decks with Permeable Surface Areas Underneath: Any
uncovered deck, or a portion thereof, covering three percent (3%) of the lot
area will be excluded from building lot coverage and impervious surface
coverage calculation. Any lot area covered by an open deck above and
beyond the initial three percent (3%) will count towards the impervious
surface coverage calculation.
(b) Uncovered Decks with Impermeable Surface Areas Underneath: One
hundred percent (100%) of the lot area covered by an uncovered deck
counts towards impervious surface area.
3. Twenty percent (20%) of areas covered by paving blocks made of impervious
material to the extent that they cover an area that maintains a demonstrable
Page 10 of 45

-- 10 of 45 --

29-O-20
~7~
level of porosity whether soil, sand, gravel, or similar material shall be excluded
from the calculation of net impervious surfaces.
4. Twenty-five percent (25%) of areas covered by paving blocks made of
permeable materials and pervious paving systems to the event that they cover
an area that maintains a demonstrable level of porosity whether soil, sand,
gravel, or similar material shall be excluded from the calculation of net
impervious surfaces.
(D) Driveways or walkways legally existing as of the effective date hereof may be
replaced or repaired, provided that the replacing or the repairing is in the same or
lesser dimensions as existed on the effective date hereof.
6-8-9-10. - PORCH EXEMPTION.
Excluded from the calculation of maximum building lot coverage and maximum
impervious surface for all residential districts are the following:
(A) Fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of porches with the following characteristics:
1. Open to the air;
2. Not all weather;
3. Roofed or not roofed;
4. Screened or not screened;
5. Facing a street;
6. Not a rear or back porch or any portion of a porch between the rear wall of the
house and the rear lot line; and
7. Not separated from the street right of way by a fence with both an opacity
exceeding sixty percent (60%) and a height exceeding forty-eight (48) inches.
SECTION 2: The findings and recitals contained 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.
SECTION 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its
passage and approval.
Page 11 of 45

-- 11 of 45 --

29-O-20
~8~
SECTION 5: If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held 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 application of this
Ordinance is severable.
Introduced: _________________, 2020
Adopted: ___________________, 2020
Approved:
__________________________, 2020
_______________________________
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Devon Reid, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Nicholas Cummings, Deputy City Attorney
Page 12 of 45

-- 12 of 45 --

2/11/2020
30-O-20
AN ORDINANCE
Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone 1403-1601 Emerson St., 1910-
1930 Asbury Ave., 2000-2024 Wesley Ave., 2007-2021 Jackson Ave.,
1900 Block of Jackson Ave., 1900 Block of Wesley Ave., and 1400
Block of Foster St. from the R5 General Residential District to the R5a
General Residential District
WHEREAS, the City of Evanston is a home-rule municipality pursuant to
Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and
WHEREAS, as a home rule unit of government, the City has the authority
to adopt ordinances and to promulgate rules and regulations that protect the public
health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Article VII, Section (6)a of the Illinois Constitution of 1970,
which states that the “powers and functions of home rule units shall be construed
liberally,” was written “with the intention that home rule units be given the broadest
powers possible” (Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 Ill.2d 164); and
WHEREAS, it is a well-established proposition under all applicable case
law that the power to regulate land use through zoning regulations is a legitimate means
of promoting the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, Division 13 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-13-1,
et seq.) grants each municipality the power to establish zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and the Illinois Municipal
Code, the City has adopted a set of zoning regulations, set forth in Title 6 of the Evanston
City Code of 2012, as amended, (“the Zoning Ordinance”); and
Page 13 of 45

-- 13 of 45 --

30-O-20
~2~
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2019, the Plan Commission held a public
hearing, pursuant to proper notice, regarding case no. 19PLND-0089, to consider
amendments to the Zoning Map, cited in Section 6-7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to
place 1403-1601 Emerson Street, 1910-1930 Asbury Avenue, 2000-2024 Wesley
Avenue, 2007-2021 Jackson Avenue, the 1900 Block of Jackson Avenue, the 1900
Block of Wesley Avenue, and the 1400 Block of Foster Street from R5 General
Residential District to the R5a General Residential District. Prior to receiving testimony,
the Plan Commission continued case no. 19PLND-0089 to its meeting on December 11,
2019; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2019, the Plan Commission continued the
matter to its meeting on January 22, 2020 due to a lack of a quorum; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, the Plan Commission received
testimony and made findings pursuant to Subsection 6-3-4-6 of the Zoning Ordinance
and recommended City Council denial thereof; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 24, 2020, the Planning and
Development Committee of the City Council considered and reviewed the findings and
recommendation of denial of the Plan Commission in case no. 19PLND-0089 and
recommended City Council approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, at its meetings of February 24, 2020 and March 9, 2020, the
City Council considered and adopted the records and recommendations of the Planning
and Development Committee; and
Page 14 of 45

-- 14 of 45 --

30-O-20
~3~
WHEREAS, it is well-settled law that the legislative judgment of the City
Council must be considered presumptively valid (see Glenview State Bank v. Village of
Deerfield, 213 Ill.App.3d 747) and is not subject to courtroom fact-finding (see National
Paint & Coating Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124),
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 amends the Zoning Map to remove
those properties with the addresses and PINs listed in Exhibit A and identified in Exhibit
B, both attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, from the R5 General
Residential District and place them within the R5a General Residential District.
SECTION 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 4: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held 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 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage, approval and publication in the manner provided by law.
Page 15 of 45

-- 15 of 45 --

30-O-20
~4~
SECTION 6: The findings and recitals contained 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.
Introduced: _______________, 2020
Adopted: _________________, 2020
Approved:
___________________________, 2020
________________________________
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Devon Reid, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
________________________________
Nicholas Cummings, Deputy City
Attorney
Page 16 of 45

-- 16 of 45 --

30-O-20
~5~
EXHIBIT A
Addresses and PINs of Properties Removed from the R5 General Residential
District and Placed Within the R5a General Residential District
Property Address PIN
1403 Emerson St. 10-13-211-029-0000
1407 Emerson St. 10-13-211-031-0000
1411 Emerson St. 10-13-211-030-0000
1413 Emerson St. 10-13-211-026-0000
1419 Emerson St. 10-13-211-025-0000
1421 Emerson St. 10-13-211-024-0000
1425 Emerson St. 10-13-211-023-0000
1503 Emerson St. 10-13-210-031-0000
1507 Emerson St. 10-13-210-019-0000
1509 Emerson St. 10-13-210-018-0000
1511 Emerson St. 10-13-210-017-0000
1513 Emerson St. (Gilbert Park) 10-13-210-027-0000, 10-13-210-026-0000
1601 Emerson St. 10-13-210-035-0000, 10-13-210-034-0000
1910-1912 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-023-0000
1914 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-022-0000
1916-1918 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-021-0000
1920 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-020-0000
1924 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-019-0000
1926 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-018-0000
1930 Asbury Av. 10-13-212-017-0000
2000 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-017-0000
2004 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-015-0000
2008 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-014-0000
2010 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-013-0000
2014 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-012-0000
2018 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-024-0000
2024 Wesley Av. 10-13-204-009-0000
1913 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-011-0000
1915 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-010-0000
1917 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-009-0000
1919 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-008-0000
1925 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-007-0000
1929 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-006-0000
1933 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-005-0000
1937 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-004-0000
Page 17 of 45

-- 17 of 45 --

30-O-20
~6~
1941 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-003-0000
1945 Wesley Av. 10-13-212-001-0000
1944 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-012-0000
1942 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-013-0000
1940 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-014-0000
1936 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-015-0000
1932 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-016-0000
1928 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-017-0000
1924 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-018-0000
1922 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-019-0000
1920 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-020-0000
1918 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-021-0000
1914 Wesley Av. 10-13-211-022-0000
1917 Jackson St. 10-13-211-011-0000
1921 Jackson St. 10-13-211-010-0000
1925 Jackson St. 10-13-211-009-0000
1927 Jackson St. 10-13-211-008-0000
1929 Jackson St. 10-13-211-007-0000
1931 Jackson St. 10-13-211-006-0000
1933 Jackson St. 10-13-211-005-0000
1935 Jackson St. 10-13-211-004-0000
1939 Jackson St. 10-13-211-003-0000
1941 Jackson St. 10-13-211-002-0000
1945 Jackson St. 10-13-211-001-0000
1944 Jackson St. 10-13-210-007-0000
1938-1940 Jackson St. 10-13-210-008-0000
1936 Jackson St. 10-13-210-009-0000
1934 Jackson St. 10-13-210-010-0000
1932 Jackson St. 10-13-210-011-0000
1930 Jackson St. 10-13-210-012-0000
1928 Jackson St. 10-13-210-013-0000
1924 Jackson St. 10-13-210-014-0000
1918-1920 Jackson St. 10-13-210-015-0000
1914 Jackson St. 10-13-210-016-0000
2007 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-007-0000
2009 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-006-0000
2013 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-005-0000
2015 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-004-0000
2017 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-023-0000
2021 Jackson Av. 10-13-204-022-0000
1310 Foster St. 10-13-212-002-0000
1407 Foster St. 10-13-204-016-0000
1421 Foster St. 10-13-204-008-0000
Page 18 of 45

-- 18 of 45 --

30-O-20
~7~
EXHIBIT B
Map of Properties Removed from the R5 General Residential District and Placed
Within the R5a General Residential District
Page 19 of 45

-- 19 of 45 --

Proposed Zoning
City of Evanston IL, Imagery courtesy Cook County GIS
Zoning Boundaries & Labels
Zoning Overlay Districts
oCSC - Central Street Corridor
oDM - Dempster-Main Overlay
oH - Hospital Overlay
oRD - Redevelopment Overlay
oWE- West Evanston Overlay
Tax Parcels
October 24, 2019 0 	0.065 	0.13	0.0325 	mi
0 	0.1 	0.2	0.05 	km
1:4,000
This map is not a plat of survey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See www.cityofevanston.org/mapdisclaimers.html for more information.
Copyright 2018 City of Evanston
Page 20 of 45

-- 20 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 1 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
MEETING MINUTES
PLAN COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
7:00 P.M.
Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room G300
Members Present: Jennifer Draper, Carol Goddard, George Halik, Brian Johnson, Jane
Sloss
Members Absent: Peter Isaac (Chair), John Hewko, Andrew Pigozzi,
Staff Present: Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Manager
Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner
Brian George, Assistant City Attorney
Presiding Member: Chair Goddard
1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Mangum called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Jones called the roll and a
quorum was established. Mr. Mangum explained that due to the Chair recusing himself
and no Vice-Chair being in place, the Commission members present would need to
elect an Interim Chair for the meeting.
Commissioner Sloss made a motion to elect Carol Goddard as the Interim Chair.
Seconded by Commissioner Draper. A voice vote was taken and the motion was
approved unanimously, 5-0.
2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: January 8, 2020
Commissioner Halik made a motion to approve the minutes from the January
8, 2020 meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sloss. A voice vote was taken
and the minutes were approved, 4-0, with one abstention.
3. OLD BUSINESS (Continued from October 30, 2019 and December 11, 2019)
A. Text Amendment
New Residential Zoning District 19PLND-0090
A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment pursuant to City Code Title 6, Zoning,
to create a new general residential zoning district designation with a
maximum height limit of 3 and one-half stories.
Page 21 of 45

-- 21 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 2 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
B. Map Amendment
Emerson Street Rezoning 19PLND-0089
A Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment pursuant to City Code Title 6, Zoning,
to rezone properties located north of Emerson Street roughly between
Asbury Avenue to the east, Gilbert Park and former Mayfair railroad
property to the west, and the block north of Foster Street to the north, from
the existing R5 General Residential District zoning district to a new general
residential zoning district with a height limit of 3 and one-half stories.
Ms. Jones provided a brief review of the referral and proposed text and map
amendment, describing the proposed boundaries and the difference between the
existing and proposed zoning district (a reduction in height from 50 ft. or 5 stories to 42
ft. or 3.5 stories).
Thomas Ramsdell, lawyer for Victoria Kathrein who requested the continuance,
introduced both Ms. Kathrein and Mr. George Kisiel of Okrent Kisiel Associates, Inc. Mr.
Ramsdell then explained that the proposed text amendment is not as much of an issue
but the map amendment is what would affect the seven properties Ms. Kathrein and her
husband spent 20 years assembling and investing $2 million in. He continued, stating
that the proposed development that was brought forward on her properties was the
result of a misunderstanding and that there are future plans for development that would
fit the existing zoning requirements. Mr. Ramsdell then pointed out that staff is not
making a recommendation for or against the proposed amendments and asked that if
the proposal moves forward, that Ms. Kathrein’s 7 properties be excluded from the
rezoning.
Mr. Ramsdell then brought up Ms. Kathrein to speak and asked questions with
responses that follow. Ms. Kathrein then spoke, explaining that she owns and manages
property in both Chicago and Evanston, lived in Evanston between 2002 and 2013 then
explaining how she and her late husband assembled property on Jackson beginning in
1997. Those properties were managed and rented. He passed away in 2015. She then
explained that it was not her intention to apply for any variances from the existing R5
zoning whenever the property is redeveloped. Some preliminary planning with an
architect began in 2009 and almost $2 million have been invested in the properties.
Ms. Kathrein continued stating that she is familiar with current trends of development
moving out of the downtown area. She spoke with staff to verify zoning and inclusionary
housing requirements and intended to have affordable units on-site in whatever
development occurred. After her husband’s passing, she intended to purchase two
additional properties then sell all of the properties to a developer with more expertise,
contracting with Domanus development in 2018. She explained that Domanus had
prolonged the closing on the properties and had undertaken actions behind her back,
proposing a development that did not meet zoning requirements and emptying the
Page 22 of 45

-- 22 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 3 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
existing buildings which now sit vacant. Ms. Kathrein briefly described the community
meeting in which Domanus presented their plans which were not well received soon
after the contract between her and Domanus was broken. She then explained that the
R5a zoning was never mentioned prior to Domanus development proposing their project
but she had no intentions of putting forth a project that did not meet the current R5
zoning regulations.
Ms. Kathrein finished by stating that if the R5a zoning was not approved, the property
would go back on the market with conditions of adhering to the R5 zoning requirements
but she is unsure of what will happen if the area is rezoned to R5a. A reduction in
permitted height would be a financial burden.
Mr. George Kiesiel then gave a brief overview of the work he has done which includes
Church Street Plaza then provided a presentation. He explained the code requirements
and suggested that rezoning from the existing R5 zoning to the proposed R5a would
lead to a 28% loss in development rights on an average sized lot. He then used Ms.
Kathrein’s properties in an example development based on current and proposed
requirements, claiming that an overall 33% loss in development ability. He then
provided a brief overview of the change in use within the area over time and planning
context of the 2005 Ridge/Green Bay/Emerson, mentioning that the plan did not
consider transit oriented development and that the Comprehensive Plan, though older,
mentions demand for more urban development and the need of Baby Boomers to
downsize. He then explained that downzoning could lead to a potential loss developable
area of 265,000 sq. ft. and lead to a reduction in potential tax revenue.
Chair Goddard opened the hearing to questions from Commissioners.
Commissioner Halik inquired about the zoning in the surrounding areas and the
appropriateness of a 5-story building within the R4 District on Emerson Street. Mr.
Kiesel responded that that was likely built as a planned development and an affordable
housing development.
Chair Goddard then opened the hearing to questions from the public.
Ms. Tina Paden asked for clarification on how many units Ms. Kathrein planned to build.
Mr. Kiesel stated that no development is proposed but the example shown would allow
for 52 units. Ms. Paden then inquired about the number of required affordable units,
stating that 10%, 5 units in the example case, is a small amount. She then inquired
about the units that Ms. Kathrein owns and what the rent amount for those units. Ms.
Kathrein responded, listing her properties and clarifying that the rent was market rate.
Mr. Ramsdell interjected that the rent amounts are not related to the proposed
amendments.
Ms. Roberta Hudson explained there were a lot of problems in the area at one time and
Page 23 of 45

-- 23 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 4 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
The Foster Park Neighbors neighborhood group was created to address them. She then
asked what type of housing is proposed and stated that a plan has been provided that
was not implemented but should be kept. Mr. Goddard clarified that there is no specific
development proposed for the area and a text and map amendment are what is being
considered.
Mr. Christopher Gotschall inquired when Ms. Kathrein’s properties were acquired and
suggested that some knowledge of the 2005 Plan for the area would have been known.
Ms. Kathrein and Mr. Ramsdell responded that the properties were acquired between
1998 and 2018 and purchased according to current zoning.
Ms. Carolyn Dellutri asked if the developer asked residents to vacate without a signed
contract. Mr. Ramsdell responded that this question does not relate to the proposal in
front of the Commission. Ms. Dellutri replied that residents are attempting to get
additional understanding on the history of the process and Ms. Kathrein’s actions and
how it relates to the 2005 Plan.
Ms. Goddard then opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Mike Abdelsayed stated he is opposed to the downzoning on Asbury Avenue
between Green Bay Road and Emerson Street. He explained that this area has a
different character and many different uses, the street is an A1 designated traffic street
and is exposed to a lot of traffic. He has no opinion of rezoning property west of Asbury
but feels the rezoning would reduce the value of his property.
Mr. Timothy Samuel explained that he moved out of the City to get away from density
and that this area is mostly single family homes with a few apartment buildings. He
stated that he welcomes development and affordable housing but is opposed to a dense
5-story development. He added that Domanus wanted to bring Lincoln Park to Evanston
but expanding outside of downtown is not appropriate here. There is already ample
development near transit areas in the downtown area which is more appropriate. He
supports the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Marcus Legleider stated he is in support of the rezoning and has a petition of
signatures in support of the change. He explained that proposed rezoning reflects what
the community wants as does the Study done in the area. He added that there are three
buildings on his block that are not single family homes and not represented in Mr.
Kiesel's representation of properties during his presentation. He added that he has a
request from the owner of 1323 Emerson Street to include it in the rezoning.
Ms. Linea Lattimer stated she is a 5th Ward Ambassador and lifelong Evanston resident
and that her family founded United Faith Church. She inquired how many live and work
in Evanston’s 5th Ward then explained that while the Comprehensive Plan states the
market for urban housing may become strong, that is not necessarily the case now.
Page 24 of 45

-- 24 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 5 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
Offices, restaurants, etc. are desired more in the area, not affordable housing that is not
affordable for residents. She then recommended an article within the Evanston
Roundtable that provides a history of redlining in the area and asked that the
Commission consider the impact of decisions to rezone the properties.
Ms. Roberta Hudson stated that residents are fighting for the area and a 400 member
survey had been done in the past regarding what residents would like in the area. They
would like to have something for children, jobs and need to preserve the area for what
people want. The residents’ dollar turns over once then leaves the community. She
added that affordable housing is an issue and what the previous developer proposed
did not fit what is needed in the area. She added that some recent developments had
damaged homes during the construction phase that residents had to fix.
Ms. Tina Paden stated that 1421 Emerson should not have been acquired or be a part
of redevelopment as it was a part of the NSP2 affordable home program and will no
longer be affordable. She mentioned that recent development is high-rise that changed
the character of the area. She then added that the R5a zoning is important and that
developers should not dictate zoning and build additional high-rises.
Chris Gotschall stated that it is strange that Ms. Kathrein was not involved in the 2005
Study that would affect her property and that she knew this would be a possibility for 15
years. He added that he believes R4 or R3 should be the new zoning district and would
love development of single-family, low density homes in the area. The area should not
be looked at as Lincoln Park and developers should respect the wishes of the
neighborhood and current character.
Ms. Carolyn Dellutri stated that as the former Executive Director of Downtown
Evanston, she is very familiar with the downtown area and development. She and her
husband purchased their home in 2008. She explained that the City should consider
and analyze the 600 new dwelling units coming online within the City before going west
into this area. She mentioned that the 2005 study has been questioned and the City
should consider looking at updating it.
Ms. Brenda Greer stated she is a born and raised Evanstonian and she hopes that the
commission considers the residents. New developments and rental fees are pushing
people out of Evanston and she hopes that the rezoning goes forward.
Mr. John Cleary stated he is a 7 year resident and introduced Mr. Dan Lauer, his
attorney. Both spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning and Mr. Lauer added that
he has a petition with signatures of residents on the 1900 Block of Asbury requesting to
be removed from the proposed rezoning. Mr. Cleary then stated he would like to build 2
four story buildings, one apartment building, another a condo building with 2 affordable
units. The development would be in compliance with zoning and he has met with staff
on a proposal. Mr. Lauer added that typically, a 4 story building is 44 ft. tall and that a
Page 25 of 45

-- 25 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 6 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
3.5 story building with a frame roof would actually be taller than the height limit
proposed.
Chair Goddard then closed the comment portion of the hearing and asked for closing
comments.
Mr. Ramsdell explained that he is struck by the amount of confusion and who the true
petitioner is and that Ms. Kathrein is not asking to change any zoning but for it to be left
alone. She is not relying on a plan but on the law and that it would go against equity to
change the rules in the middle of the game when she is seeking to use her property
rights. He asked that if the rezoning is to go forward, that her 7 properties be excluded.
Chair Goddard then closed the hearing and the Commission began deliberation.
Commissioner Halik stated that he can see both sides of the issue. He does not
understand why the area is currently zoned R5, which is surprising given the existing
development in the area. However, downzoning sets a dangerous precedent and that
specific properties should not be concentrated on instead of the larger area. He
continued, stating that Asbury is not a single family home area and could be taken out
of the proposed map amendment area as well as possibly property along Emerson
Street north to the alley. He added that the difference in height is 8 ft. which would not
constitute a high-rise.
Commissioner Sloss agreed with Commission Halik, stating that it is strange for the
zoning in the area to be R5 given the existing character acknowledging that it is not
uniform.
Commissioner Goddard inquired if there have been other properties downzoned in the
past. Ms. Jones responded that she is not aware of any recent downzoning that has
occurred, especially not of this magnitude. Much of the rezoning that has occurred has
been to similar or higher density. Mr. Mangum added that the R4a was a recent
rezoning of a larger area in 2005. Additionally this particular area was once zoned R6
when there were 7 different zoning districts (instead of the current 6) in the 1960’s and it
has been zoned for higher density for some time.
Commissioner Draper expressed that she is conflicted. A mix of housing is common and
has a concern of spot zoning if certain properties are added and removed. She added
that there is an aspect of single family housing that is unaffordable and apartments can
be more affordable.
Commissioner Johnson stated that plans, in a national context, are usually done or
updated every 15 years and changes are fairly rare. To approve changes to zoning, the
Commission must be very sure that it is the right way. He then asked for clarification on
how the vote for the amendment could be structured.
Page 26 of 45

-- 26 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 7 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
Commissioner Halik added that a study should be done in context with the whole City
and that any zoning change should be comprehensive.
The Commission then reviewed the standards and found that of the three that were
applied to the proposed amendment, the proposed amendments do not match with the
information within the Comprehensive Plan which calls for the current zoning, the
proposed amendments are compatible with adjacent properties, however, the proposed
changes could negatively impact the value of some properties in the area.
Commissioner Halik inquired if the Commission should consider removing certain
properties from the map amendment. Chair Goddard responded that in order to move
forward with the map amendment, the text amendment needs to be approved, which
has not yet occurred. Commissioner Johnson then added that possibly altering the
proposed rezoning by block is wading into spot zoning.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of the
proposed text amendment to create the R5a Zoning District. Seconded by
Commissioner Draper.
A roll call vote was then taken and the motion failed, 1-4.
Ayes: Sloss
Nays: Draper, Goddard, Halik, Johnson
Commissioner Halik asked if there was an ability to make additional
recommendations to City Council regarding this item as this should be part of a
greater comprehensive plan evaluation.
Commissioner Sloss made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed
map amendment to rezone the Emerson Street area from R5 to R5a with a
maximum building height of 3.5 stories. Seconded by Commissioner Draper.
A roll call vote was then taken and the motion failed, 1-4.
Ayes: Sloss
Nays: Draper, Goddard, Halik, Johnson
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
A member of the public inquired about a decision to omit the properties on Asbury
Avenue from the rezoning consideration. Ms. Goddard responded that the
Commission has voted to recommend denial of the text and map amendments as
presented by staff. The minutes will reflect the discussion and the recommendation
will move forward to the City Council.
Page 27 of 45

-- 27 of 45 --

APPROVED
Page 8 of 8
Plan Commission Minutes 1/22/20
5. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Sloss seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved by voice vote 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meagan Jones
Neighborhood and Land Use Planner
Community Development Department
Page 28 of 45

-- 28 of 45 --

6-8-7. - R5 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
6-8-7-1. - PURPOSE STATEMENT.
The R5 general residential district is intended to provide for infill development of a mix of multi-family
residential structures at a medium density, including townhouses, two-family dwellings, three-story walk-
ups and courtyard apartment buildings that characterize the traditional multiple-family housing
development found in this district.
(Ord. No. 43-O-93; amd. Ord. 71-0-05)
6-8-7-2. - PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted in the R5 district:
Daycare home—Adult (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-3, "Adult Daycare Homes," of
this Title).
Daycare home—Child (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-2, "Child Daycare Homes," of
this Title).
Dwelling—Multiple-family.
Dwelling—Single-family attached.
Dwelling—Single-family detached.
Dwelling—Two-family.
Educational institution—Public.
Home occupation (subject to the general requirements of Chapter 5, "Home Occupations," of this Title).
Neighborhood garden.
Park.
Playground.
Residential care home—Category I (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-4, "Residential
Care Homes and Residential Residential Care Homes," of this Title).
Residential care home—Category II (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-4, "Residential
Care Homes and Residential Residential Care Homes," of this Title).
Shelter for abused persons.
(Ord. No. 43-O-93; amd. Ord. 71-0-05; Ord. No. 81-O-14, § 28, 8-11-2014)
6-8-7-3. - SPECIAL USES.
The following uses may be allowed in the R5 district, subject to the provisions set forth in Section 6-
3-5, "Special Uses," of this Title:
Assisted living facility.
Page 29 of 45

-- 29 of 45 --

Bed and breakfast establishments (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-7, "Bed And
Breakfast Establishments," of this Title).
Child residential care home.
Community center—Public.
Congregate housing.
Cultural facility.
Daycare center—Adult (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-3, "Adult Daycare Homes," of
this Title).
Daycare center—Child (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-2, "Child Daycare Homes," of
this Title).
Educational institution—Private.
Independent living facility.
Long term care facility.
Membership organization.
Office (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-8-1-11, "Special Conditions For Office Uses," of
this Chapter).
Planned development (subject to the requirements of Section 6-3-6, "Planned Developments," of this Title
and Section 6-8-1-10, "Planned Developments," of this Chapter).
Public utility.
Recreation center—Public.
Religious institution.
Retirement community.
Retirement home.
Retirement hotel.
Rooming house.
Shelter care home.
Transitional shelter (subject to the requirements of Section 6-3-5-11, "Additional Standards For A Special
Use For Transitional Shelters," of this Title).
Transitional treatment facility—Category I (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-5,
"Transitional Treatment Facilities," of this Title).
Transitional treatment facility—Category II (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-5,
"Transitional Treatment Facilities," of this Title).
(Ord. 44-0-09)
Page 30 of 45

-- 30 of 45 --

6-8-7-4. - LOT SIZE.
The minimum lot sizes in the R5 district are:
Minimum Lot Size
(A) Single-family dwelling unit Five thousand (5,000) square feet, except as expressly allowed in
Subsection 6-4-1-7(B) of this Title
(B) Single-family attached
dwelling unit
Two thousand (2,000) square feet each for the first three (3) dwelling
units, plus one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet for each
additional dwelling unit
(C) Two-family attached
dwelling unit Two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet per dwelling unit
(D) Multiple-family and group
occupancy dwelling units
One thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet each for the first four
(4) dwelling units, plus eight hundred (800) square feet for each
additional dwelling unit
(E) Nonresidential use Ten thousand (10,000) square feet
(Ord. 70-0-07)
6-8-7-5. - LOT WIDTH.
The minimum lot width in the R5 district is as follows:
Minimum Lot Width
Page 31 of 45

-- 31 of 45 --

(A) Single-family detached dwelling unit Thirty-five (35) feet
(B) Two-family dwellings Thirty-five (35) feet
(C) Single-family attached dwelling units; three (3) or more Sixty (60) feet
(D) Other uses Fifty (50) feet
(Ord. 95-O-09)
6-8-7-6. - BUILDING LOT COVERAGE.
The maximum lot coverage in the R5 district is forty-five percent (45%).
Building lot coverage shall include two hundred (200) square feet for each required parking space for any
residential unit when the required parking space is provided other than within a building.
On a zoning lot that is: a) used for a "dwelling" or dwellings as herein defined, and b) legally
nonconforming as to building lot area, when a land user seeks zoning certification for a building permit to
replace an existing detached garage with a garage having the same ground floor area as the existing
garage, such construction shall be an allowed continuance of the legal nonconforming building lot
coverage.
(Ord. 109-0-02; amd. Ord. 71-0-05)
6-8-7-7. - YARD REQUIREMENTS.
The minimum yard requirements in the R5 district are as follows [9]:
(A) Residential structures:
1. Front yard Twenty-seven (27) feet; parking prohibited
Page 32 of 45

-- 32 of 45 --

2. Side yard abutting a street Fifteen (15) feet; parking prohibited
3. Side yard Three (3) feet
4. Rear yard Twenty-five (25) feet
(B) Nonresidential structures:
1. Front yard Twenty-seven (27) feet for building; parking prohibited
2. Side yard abutting a street Fifteen (15) feet for building; parking prohibited
3. Side yard Ten (10) feet for building; parking prohibited
4. Rear yard Twenty-five (25) feet for building; five (5) feet for parking
(C) Accessory uses and structures:
1. Front yard Garages only, twenty-seven (27) feet
Page 33 of 45

-- 33 of 45 --

2. Side yard abutting a street Garages only, fifteen (15) feet
3. Side yard Five (5) feet
4. Rear yard Three (3) feet
(Ord. No. 43-O-93; amd. Ord. 71-0-05)
Footnotes:
--- (9) ---
See also Subsection 6-4-1-9(A), "General Yard Requirements," of this Title.
6-8-7-8. - MEAN BUILDING HEIGHT.
The maximum mean building height in the R5 district is fifty (50) feet or five (5) stories, whichever is
less, except as modified per the requirements found in Table 4-B of Section 6-4-1-7 of this Title.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building or structure legally existing and conforming to the building
height requirement of this district as of the effective date hereof, shall, for the purpose of the district and
the requirements of this zoning ordinance, be deemed complying with the mean building height
requirement and shall have the status of legally permitted structure or use, not a legal noncompliance,
and shall not be subject to or benefit from the allowances, restrictions and procedures of Chapter 6,
"Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures," of this Title. Such conforming status shall continue
in the event said building is removed or destroyed by a means within the control of the owner thereof and
shall allow for the construction of a building or structure at the height of the building or structure legally
existing and conforming to the building height requirement of this district as of the effective date hereof.
(Ord. 70-0-07)
6-8-7-9. - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
(A) The maximum impervious surface ratio for the R5 district is sixty percent (60%).
(B) The impervious surface ratio is calculated by dividing the total defined net impervious surfaces on
the zoning lot by the area of the zoning lot.
(C) The total defined net impervious surfaces on the zoning lot are all areas included in building lot
coverage plus any hard surfaced, nonnaturally occurring area that does not readily absorb water,
including, but not limited to, any paved, asphalt or concrete areas, parking and graveled driveway
areas, swimming pools, sidewalks, and paved recreation areas subject to the following exemptions:
Page 34 of 45

-- 34 of 45 --

1. Any area, including open parking, paved or unpaved, included in the calculation of building lot
coverage, shall not be twice counted in the calculation of total defined net impervious surface.
2. Subject to the porch exemption of Section 6-8-7-10 of this Chapter, the following standards
govern the classification of structures commonly referred to as decks:
(a) Uncovered Decks with Permeable Surface Areas Underneath: Any uncovered deck, or a
portion thereof, covering three percent (3%) of the lot area will be excluded from building
lot coverage and impervious surface coverage calculation. Any lot area covered by an
open deck above and beyond the initial three percent (3%) will count towards the
impervious surface coverage calculation.
(b) Uncovered Decks with Impermeable Surface Areas Underneath: One hundred percent
(100%) of the lot area covered by an uncovered deck counts towards impervious surface
area.
3. Twenty percent (20%) of areas covered by paving blocks made of impervious material to the
extent that they cover an area that maintains a demonstrable level of porosity whether soil,
sand, gravel, or similar material shall be excluded from the calculation of net impervious
surfaces.
4. Twenty-five percent (25%) of areas covered by paving blocks made of permeable materials and
pervious paving systems to the event that they cover an area that maintains a demonstrable
level of porosity whether soil, sand, gravel, or similar material shall be excluded from the
calculation of net impervious surfaces.
(D) Driveways or walkways legally existing as of the effective date hereof may be replaced or repaired,
provided that the replacing or the repairing is in the same or lesser dimensions as existed on the
effective date hereof.
(Ord. 112-0-03; amd. Ord. 71-0-05; Ord. No. 165-O-15 , § 7, 5-23-2016)
6-8-7-10. - PORCH EXEMPTION.
Excluded from the calculation of maximum building lot coverage and maximum impervious surface
for all residential districts are the following:
(A) Fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of porches with the following characteristics:
1. Open to the air;
2. Not all weather;
3. Roofed or not roofed;
4. Screened or not screened;
5. Facing a street;
6. Not a rear or back porch or any portion of a porch between the rear wall of the house and the
rear lot line; and
7. Not separated from the street right of way by a fence with both an opacity exceeding sixty
percent (60%) and a height exceeding forty-eight (48) inches.
(Ord. 112-0-03; amd. Ord. 71-0-05)
Page 35 of 45

-- 35 of 45 --

Zoning District Comparison
Zoning
District
Max. Bldg.
Height (ft.) 	Max. FAR 	Max # of Units
Max. Bldg.
Height (ft.) 	Max. FAR
Max. # of
Units
R1
35 ft. or 2.5
stories, whicever
is less
30% (Bldg. lot
coverage)
1 sfdu (7,200 sf
min. lot) 	47
+10% (Bldg lot
coverage) 	NA
R2
35 ft. or 2.5
stories, whicever
is less
40% (Bldg. lot
coverage
1 sfdu (5,000 sf
min. lot) 	47
+10% (Bldg lot
coverage) 	NA
R3
35 ft. or 2.5
stories, whicever
is less
45% (Bldg. lot
coverage)
5000 sf for sfdu,
3500 sf/du for 2‐
family 	47
+10% (Bldg lot
coverage) 	NA
R4
35 ft. or 2.5
stories, whicever
is less
40% (Bldg. lot
coverage
5000 sf for
detached sfdu,
2500 sf/du for two
family and up 	47
+15% (Bldg. lot
coverage) 	25%
R4a
35 ft. or 2.5
stories, whicever
is less
40% (Bldg. lot
coverage
5000 sf for
detached sfdu,
2500 sf/du for two
family and up 	47
+15% (Bldg. lot
coverage) 	25%
R5a
42 ft. or 3.5
stories,
whichever is less
45% (Bldg. lot
coverage
1500 sf for first 4
units + 800 sf for
each additional unit 	54
+15% (Bldg. lot
coverage) 	25%
R5
50 ft. or 5 stories,
whicever is less*
45% (Bldg. lot
coverage
1500 sf for first 4
units + 800 sf for
each additional unit 	62
+15% (Bldg. lot
coverage) 	25%
R6
85 ft. or 8 stories,
whichever is
less*
50% (Bldg. lot
coverage
2,000 sf for first 2
units + 1000 sf for
each additional unit 	97
+20% (Bldg. lot
coverage) 	25%
*Mean building height
Standard Requirements 	PD Site Development Allowances
Page 36 of 45

-- 36 of 45 --

_<_m3omG
 	2 Em
 	_u_m:
oo33_mm_o:
m	Em
 czama?ama
mxuammm
oc_.
 
mcuuon
9. 	Em
 	Eouommq
 _.m~o:_:m
oq Eoumamm
8888
 
son:
 3
mo:
 
96$
 
3cm_.._<
cmazmma
>m_u_.=<
><m:cm
8 Em
 mmm».
9.3:
 
um}
 
man
8_.3m_.
 
_<_m<8:
_.m___dma
um:<
8 Em
 	Emmn
man
Em
 	Eoox
 
22E
 
3 mo?mq
 
mzmm
38-.
 
2: 
m3m..mo:
m...
$3-130
 
>ma:_.<
m..~ooo-~o§
 
<<mm_m<
><m..
83-
 
83 
gmoxwoa
><m..
$8 
w_oox
9. 	gmoxmo:
><m..
88 
w_o%
 
2
mm_m<
><m._
Koo
 
w_8x
 
2 _uom.m_.
ms:03 Em mx_mE6
mmOm:m—m_
_»mmEm::m_
 
UWEQ
 328
8 m:92 
mum
Om:m_.m_
_»mmam:=m_
 
Qmion
 
33.8
 
Ewan.
 
<<_E
 m:3: 
=3:
 
2 3 m8:mm
o..
S
mmr
E_n:m<m_.
 
_m_mmm.
mmnoasm
8 mum
Eoca
 
cm.2 xmmuim
<<_E
 Em
 	amooaamzamzoam
325
 
3 Em
m?m<m_._m8:
 	_<_mw~m_.
_u_m:
maou?ma
.53.
 	K 83.
 
<<m
mm
:2 mcnm
<.E<
Emmm
_.moo33m:ammo:m
m:_n_3_u_m3m_:ma
2 Em
 33m
 	85 zoum
Em
 0.2
 	2 m<m:m8:
 	<<___
:92
 
30.2
 
Ea 8.6
 
o<ma:m
aau
m&:m.3m3.
\§
Page 37 of 45

-- 37 of 45 --

m .Koo
 
maox
om
8 m:92 
mam
mwo_. 5.» 	Em».
aamzammozm
m 	9 m:_.m
 <<—._<
O3
 
2 m<m:m8=
V
_. \x"
1.
U vI—¥l‘
1
F..rsk
k _.§\hI
Page 38 of 45

-- 38 of 45 --

Page 39 of 45

-- 39 of 45 --

Page 40 of 45

-- 40 of 45 --

Page 41 of 45

-- 41 of 45 --

Emma.
8 mmm
m:
m_m<<
Em
 	mam
mm
m
m8=.
Page 42 of 45

-- 42 of 45 --

Page 43 of 45

-- 43 of 45 --

Page 44 of 45

-- 44 of 45 --

Page 45 of 45

-- 45 of 45 --