Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout123-O-21 Granting A Major Adjustment to the Planned Development Located at 1900 Sherman Avenue 11/8/2021 123-O-21 AN ORDINANCE Granting A Major Adjustment to the Planned Development Located at 1900 Sherman Avenue 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 8 of 216 123-O-21 ~2~   WHEREAS, in November 2020, the City Council enacted Ordinance 109- O-20, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference, which granted a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development (the “Planned Development”) at 1900 Sherman Avenue (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 109-O-20 approved a map amendment to rezone the property from R6 General Residential to C1a Commercial Mixed-Use in addition to the construction and operation of a Planned Development with, among other things, a sixteen (16) story, one hundred seventy-two foot eight inch (172’, 8”) age-restricted multi-family residential building with one hundred sixty-eight (168) dwelling units, with thirty-seven (37) on-site subterranean parking spaces, while retaining the existing eleven (11) story one hundred (100) unit building authorized as a planned development in 1976 pursuant to ordinance 61-O-76, which is detailed at length in Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Housing Authority of Cook County (“the Applicant”) has submitted for a major adjustment to the Planned Development, seeking the following changes: a decrease in the number of new dwelling units from one hundred sixty-eight (168) to one hundred fifty-two (152), a decrease in the number of below grade parking spaces from thirty-seven (37) to twenty-five (25), and a decrease in zoning height from one hundred seventy-two feet eight inches (172’, 8”) to one hundred sixty-eight feet four inches (168’, 4”); and WHEREAS, the proposed changes trigger the need for a major adjustment to the 2020 planned development; and Page 9 of 216 123-O-21 ~3~   WHEREAS, in order to approve the major adjustment requested, the Applicant requests amendments to Ordinance 109-O-20 (the “Previously Approved Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Previously Approved Ordinance is a piece of legislation enacted by the City Council of the City of Evanston, subject to revision only by said City Council; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2021 and October 27, 2021, in compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq.) and the Zoning Ordinance, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the application for a Major Adjustment to a Planned Development, case no. 21PLND-0076 heard extensive testimony and public comment, received other evidence, and made written minutes, findings, and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission recommended City Council approval of the application for a major adjustment with the amendment that the Applicant obtain twelve (12) additional parking spaces to offset the loss of subterranean parking and that parking for caregivers is paid for, if requested, by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, the Planning and Development Committee (“P&D Committee”) held a meeting, in compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq), during which it considered the Applicant’s request; and Page 10 of 216 123-O-21 ~4~   WHEREAS, during said meeting, the P&D Committee received input from the public, carefully deliberated on the major adjustment, and recommended approval thereof by the City Council; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on December 13, 2021, held in compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, the City Council considered the P&D Committee’s recommendation, heard public comment, made findings, and adopted said recommendation; and WHEREAS, it is well-settled law in Illinois 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 hereby found as fact and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this ordinance, the City Council hereby grants an amendment to the Special Use Permit previously authorized by Ordinance 109-O-20 to allow a decrease in the number of new dwelling units from one hundred sixty-eight (168) to one hundred fifty-two (152); a decrease in the number of below grade on-site parking spaces from thirty-seven (37) to twenty-five (25), with the requirement that the Applicant obtain twelve (12) additional off-site parking spaces and that parking for caregivers is paid for, if requested, by the Applicant; and a Page 11 of 216 123-O-21 ~5~   decrease in zoning height from one hundred seventy-two feet eight inches (172’, 8”) to one hundred sixty-eight feet four inches (168’, 4”). SECTION 3: The conditions on the Special Use Permit imposed pursuant to Subsection 6-3-5-12 of the Zoning Ordinance by City Council in Ordinance 109-O-20 remain applicable to the Planned Development, SECTION 4: Except as otherwise provided for in this 123-O-21, all applicable regulations of the Ordinance 109-O-20, the Zoning Ordinance, 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. To the extent that the terms and/or provisions of any of said documents conflict with any of the terms herein, this Ordinance 123-O-21 shall govern and control. SECTION 5: When necessary to effectuate the terms, conditions, and purposes of this ordinance, “Applicant” shall be read as “Applicant and its agents, assigns, and successors in interest.” SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. SECTION 7: Except as otherwise provided for in this ordinance, all applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance 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. To the extent that the terms and provisions of any of said documents conflict with the terms herein, this ordinance shall govern and control. Page 12 of 216 123-O-21 ~6~   SECTION 8: All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are in conflict with the terms of this ordinance 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 hereby 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:_________________, 2021 Adopted:___________________, 2021 Approved: __________________________, 2021 _______________________________ Daniel Biss, Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Stephanie Mendoza, City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________________ Nicholas E. Cummings, Corporation Counsel   Page 13 of 216 November 08 December 13 12/14 123-O-21 ~7~ EXHIBIT 1 Ordinance 109-O-20 Page 14 of 216           ! "#$ %$ %&  &$'(% %&#&$(%)*)$ $                             !      "   #          !  !  !   "   ! "      $   #  #!%      !  ! #  #&  '()        #                                                     #*+!(,) !   %  $  !    !  $   %  %   " !  "-  " "   "        " $  #  #!%  ! #.       /   ! '(*0 &*# )"       %   $ -  " "  !         !   /   ! #      !  !    -  "  " #     1  (             !  "# Page 15 of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age 16 of 216 2    33 &  $  #  !2 $  ,# #  5     !  $    "#          #  "! "    + 50;.#   !  !   4  "/#  ! &  (   4  "2!  #  &     <(=  <  !   /          +*  .  /          % 3    &  > 5   5 !.     !  5       ! 7       #  ! $   #!!  ! " &$  (,(#(*#((# !(  4  "2!  #!   ! !         !   4  "/!!     !       &  > 5   5 !.    !  5     !     " ;  $  # #  5 " ! .               !  !!  % !  ! "!    !   5      +50;.!   ! !        !      " ;  $  #  !;  $  # #       !  !!!  !   !!   !    5 "!.       ! %  %    :  !  !     %   $     7     !      %     ! !    #   $  6   '%  !)           :  !$    % 35   $ !  5$!"   # Page 17 of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age 18 of 216 2    3*3 7  % !$ ! " "  7   '()    .  #%  &$  (' ) % " !!    ')   "   .    !     % +  &  .     %    $ " !    "  ')  ! "$ #%  $  ((* :     $ % ')  ! "$ +  &  .     %    $ " !    "  ! " $  !      ')   $  %    '*)  # %  $  (((, :   ! "$ !   $  ')  $     '*) +  &  .     %    $ " !    "       '*)9 "   &$6 5   # %  1 $ (@   (  4  "2!   :              7'()9 "   &$6 5   +  5 &$  (*  4  "2!  #            % " !    &  > 5  " !   $ #%  $  ! !$   !  ')#!     %     " !         !&  > 5    &$  (*!((  4  "2!  A +1     !   !    5 !.      - !$      !   $    % A     !   &   !0! 5  7 $ . ! # !    !    !      #       #   % 3             .  " !5 6  <  %   #  5   #  5C.   # !        !     ! !        + +1   "!"    /"  5' /5)%                 @ ! "5  +1   /5 ! $     !     % "A     "" "              ! " ! !       9 " !"    !  $      "     7 $    6      !  "" + Page 19 of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age 20 of 216 2    33 +!!         7         ! $ ! "#   %   9         7        "    - !            !5 !.       "    :  !$ 2!  (2(+ +      "          $ ! "  &$6 5    $   !  !     5 !.       ! % &$  ((   4  " 2!  + ,+5 &$  ((  4  "2!  #   #  #  !   !     !  # ! "  7 $   !    #%    9   <  !  . !# !   !        !       # $                  5 !.       - !$      !  +  7   %    ! !   2!  2 # $  "  2!  (2( !   7 $ ?#  4  "2!  #!       !    &$6 5   !      !  %      !!       +1    7   !        !!    %        # 2!  2"  !  +  !     !       %     $    !+        !                 !      %    !#  !                !  $ "     %      !        # !   !       !      !     $ + Page 21 of 216 2    383 1  !  $    !   !  " # !$       ! !$ %+ 1  ! "!     !   !  ! $       !      %      !  $     !   !      ! !$       !& !    &    +  ! !AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH#  !  !AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH#        A   HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  .  < !#    9           !A HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH# HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH &  B+B"  #/    !  A HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I  +=!9 #         Page 22 of 216 109-O-20 ~9~ EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 IN HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY’S PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12 IN HUSE AND POWERS ADDITION TO EVANSTON, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7 OF THE ASSESSOR’S DIVISION OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 14 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PURSUANT TO THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 29, 1874 AS DOCUMENT NO. 163502. Commonly Known As: 1900 Sherman Avenue PIN: 11-18-109-059-0000   Page 23 of 216 109-O-20 ~10~ EXHIBIT B Address and PIN of Property Removed from the R6 General Residential District and Placed Within the C1a Commercial Mixed Use District Commonly Known As: 1900 Sherman Avenue PIN: 11-18-109-059-0000   Page 24 of 216 109-O-20 ~11~ EXHIBIT C Map of Properties Removed from the R6 General Residential District and Placed Within the C1a Commercial Mixed Use District Page 25 of 216 Map Amendment fr om R 6 to C1a dra wGr aphics_poly U se r d ra w n p ol ygons Zo ni n g B o un da ri es & Labels Ta x P arc el s Octo be r 26, 2020 0 0.0 15 0.0 30.0 075 mi 0 0.0 25 0.0 50.0 125 km 1:1 ,0 0 0 This map is not a plat of surv ey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See www.c it yof evanst on.org/mapdisclaimers .htm l for m or e inform ation.Copy right 2018 City of Evans ton Page 26 of 216 109-O-20 ~12~ EXHIBIT D Development Plans Page 27 of 216 Site Plan 7/29/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1" = 30' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 12'-43/4"85'-43/4"10'-3"5'-0"50'-23/8"43'-31/2"31'-41/8"21'-2"5'-0"115'-0"31'-0"37'-5"60'-55/8"10'-81/4"136'-51/8" 136'-51/8"11'-43/8"61'-41/4"21'-2"W. Emerson StreetN. Sherman AvenueProperty LineParking Garage Entrance Property Line151.00'297.50' 297.87' Existing 11-Story Residential Building Existing 10-Story Residential Building Loading Dock Dashed line represents perimeter of proposed building above Existing 16' Alley Existing Driveway to remain 151.00'1 4 ' - 6 " P r o p o s e d P o r t e C o c h e r e N Proposal for 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL Zone! ! ! !Current R6 ! ! ! !Proposed C1a Area (sf)! ! !16,440 SF Area (acres)! ! !0.37 Acres Construction Type! !IA or IB Use of Structure! !Residential Floor Area! ! ! Typical Floor! ! !10,109 sf Total FAR Area! !144,677 sf Number of Dwelling Units!168 Type of Dwelling Units!Studio, Convertible ! ! ! !One and Two Bedrooms Size of Dwelling Units!Studios 450sf (Estimated)! ! !Convertible 515-550sf ! ! ! !One Bed 670-804sf ! ! ! !Two Bed 940-1160sf Overall Dwelling! !454 units / acre Unit Density Parking Spaces! !37 Spaces (see plans) Loading Dock!! !1 (see plans) Two replacement accessible spaces for the residents of the Perlman Building (each space is 11' x 18') 95Page 28 of 216 First Floor Plan 7/9/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 25'-0"10'-0"Storage Package Room Front Desk Leasing Office Elevator Lobby Temp Move In Storage Loading Dock Mechanical Bicycle Parking Parking Garage Ramp Mechanical Mail Room Trash Room Loading bert shown dashed (64 Bike Racks) Stair 01Stair 02 Stair 03 Lobby Dog Wash Lobby Service Corridor N 1st Floor Plan Floor Area (Gross)! !8,622 sf Areas Excluded: Elevators! ! !177 sf Stairwells! ! !310 sf Loading/Service Corridor!1,093 sf Mechanical! ! !1,241 sf Parking Garage Entrance!716 sf Total Excluded ! !3,537 sf Floor Area (Net)! !5,085 sf Legend Area excluded from floor area calculations 96Page 29 of 216 Parking / Basement 6/3/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 24'-0" 5'-0"11'-0"5'-0"11'-0"8'-6"18'-0"20'-0"8'-6"18'-0" -9'-1" -12'-1"-14'-6" -9'-1" 5% Ramp Down 5% RampDownMechanical Room Parking Garage 37 Parking Spaces Storage 1 2 3 21 23 24 25 26 27 Elevator Lobby Stair 01 Stair 03 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151617181920 22 Building Engineer's Office Ramp up @15% Typical for all drive aisles Typical Parking Space Typical Parking Space Accessible Parking Space Two Way Ramp, Typical Accessible Parking Space N Basement Garage Plan 97Page 30 of 216 Parking / Sub-Basement 6/3/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 -15'-7" -17'-4" 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Stair 01 Stair 03 Mech. Room Storage 5% RampUp 5% Ramp UpParking Ramp above shown dashed Two Way Ramp, Typical N Sub-Basement Garage Plan 98Page 31 of 216 Residential Floor - Level 2 & 3 7/9/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 718 sq ft 422 sq ft 741 sq ft 738 sq ft 978 sq ft 825 sq ft 541 sq ft718 sq ft 702 sq ft985 sq ft 690 sq ft 495 sq ft 0 4'8'16' 01 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 03 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 02 Unit 2 Bedroom Unit 04 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 06 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 05 Unit Studio Unit 09 Unit 2 Bedroom Unit 08 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 07 Unit Conv. Unit 012 Unit Conv. Unit 011 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 10 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit Stair 01 Stair 02 Electrical Room Data Room Mech. Chase Elevator Shaft Trash Chute Dn N Floors 2 & 3 Floor Area (Gross)! !9,795 sf Areas Excluded: Elevator Shaft!! !177 sf Stairwells! ! !355 sf Trash Chute! ! !26 sf Electrical/Mechanical!!95 sf Total Excluded ! !653 sf Floor Area (Net)! !9,142 sf Legend Area excluded from floor area calculations 99Page 32 of 216 Residential Floor - Level 4-15 7/9/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 0 4'8'16' 578 sq ft 1,155 sq ft 717 sq ft 718 sq ft 422 sq ft 743 sq ft 679 sq ft 1,000 sq ft 701 sq ft940 sq ft 690 sq ft 496 sq ft 03 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 04 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 06 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 05 Unit Studio Unit 09 Unit 2 Bedroom Unit 08 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 07 Unit Conv. Unit 10 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 12 Unit Conv. Unit 11 Unit 1 Bedroom Unit 01 Unit 2 Bedroom Unit 02 Unit 2 Bedroom Unit Stair 01 Stair 02 Up Electrical Room Data Room Mech. Chase Elevator Shaft Trash Chute N Floors 4-15 Floor Area (Gross)! !10,109 sf Areas Excluded: Elevator Shaft!! !177 sf Stairwells! ! !355 sf Trash Chute! ! !26 sf Electrical/Mechanical!!95 sf Total Excluded ! !653 sf Floor Area (Net)! !9,456 sf Legend Area excluded from floor area calculations 100Page 33 of 216 16th Floor Plan 7/9/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Amenity Mechanical Room Alternate Amenity Exterior Deck Stair 01Stair 02 Electrical Room Mech. Chase Trash Chute Elevator Shaft N 16th Floor Plan Floor Area (Gross)! !7,498 sf Areas Excluded: Elevator Shaft!! !174 sf Stairwells! ! !350 sf Trash Chute! ! !25 sf Electrical/Mechanical!!2,196 sf Total Excluded ! !2,745 sf Floor Area (Net)! !4,753 sf Legend Area excluded from floor area calculations 101Page 34 of 216 Open Space Comparison 8/11/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: As Noted 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 8/5/2012'-43/4"85'-43/4"10'-3"5'-0"50'-23/8"43'-31/2"31'-41/8"21'-2" 5'-0"115'-0"31'-0"37'-5"60'-55/8"10'-81/4"21'-2" W. Emerson Street Property LineParking GarageEntranceProperty Line151.00'297.50'297.87'Existing 11-StoryResidential BuildingLoadingDockDashed linerepresents perimeterof proposed buildingaboveExisting 16' AlleyExisting Drivewayto remain14'-6"ProposedPorteCochereCurrent Open Space Extent of Proposed Open Space 102Page 35 of 216 103Page 36 of 216 104Page 37 of 216 105Page 38 of 216 106Page 39 of 216 Signage 6/3/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1" = 10' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 1st Floor ±0" 2nd Floor +16'-4" 3rd Floor +26'-0" 27'-77/8"27'-2"23'-103/4"PROPERTY LINEEast Elevation Proposed signage location 2 - - refer to the next page for a more detailed elevation and notes Proposed signage location 3 - refer to the next page for a more detailed elevation and notes and refer to the site plan for approximate location - to be coordinated with the landscape design South Elevation Proposed signage location 1 - refer to the next page for a more detailed elevation and notes Proposed signage location 3 - set at angle in plan, see note below Note: Refer to following page for additional information for each signage location 107Page 40 of 216 Signage Detail 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Approximately 11'-2" Approximately 14" Approximately 18" Approximately 11'-2" Approximately 14" Approximately 18" Approximately 14" Approximately 14" Approximately 11'-2" Approximately 14'-0" Painted metal or brushed stainless steel cut letters hung from above with rods LED strip lighting or similar recessed into soffit above Painted metal or brushed stainless steel cut letters hung from above with rods LED strip lighting or similar recessed into soffit above Painted metal or brushed stainless steel cut letters hung from above with rods LED strip lighting or similar recessed into plinth or into landscaping Brick plinth with steel plate cap Proposed Signage Location 1 - Suspended Sign at Sherman Entry Proposed Signage Location 2 - Suspended Sign at Emerson Entry Proposed Signage Location 3 - Monument Sign at Corner Brick facade Brick facade Note: The name and font are preliminary and will be updated once the branding is completed Grade 108Page 41 of 216 Massing Diagram 6/3/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:0.88 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Semi-public landscaping at corner Note: as this is a diagram to identify components of the project, most trees and landscaping are not shown in full Setback at lower floors (dashed) Porte cochere / drop off Adjacent Jane Perlman building Rooftop amenity deck (refer to landscape plans for preliminary design) Screen for mechanical equipment and elevator override Massing diagram to show primary components of the proposal Adjacent apartment building - The Link Evanston E m e r s o n S t r e e t Sher m a n A v e n u e Sherman Gardens Existing tree to remain 109Page 42 of 216 Context comparison 6/3/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:0.99 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Subject Property!16 Stories Optima Horizons!16 Stories Adjacent Property!11 Stories LINK Evanston!10 Stories E2 Apartments!16 Stories Optima Views !28 StoriesSherman Plaza Condos !25 Stories Albion (behind Sherman)!15 Stories Chase Building! 22 Stories Context diagram to compare proposed project with other towers in the vicinity 110Page 43 of 216 Aerial Rendering - from the south 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:2.34 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 111Page 44 of 216 Aerial Rendering - from the south (annotated) 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:2.34 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Brick piers, utility-side brick, custom blend - exact color to be determined - intent is to compliment the brick colors in the immediate neighborhood Floor to ceiling window wall with color coordinated slab edges (exposed smooth with paint or with slab edge covers) Partially recessed balconies with glass and aluminum guardrails Floor to ceiling window wall system with color coordinated slab edge covers - system segments at each vertical at the curves Glass screen wall at the rooftop amenity deck Painted angled columns Alternate color brick at floors 1-3 in recessed areas - slightly darker and utility or norman size bricks this area only Dark color aluminum storefront system on a curb with granite or similar high-durability, quality finish material Partially recessed balconies with glass and aluminum guardrails Transition from masonry to window is expected to include a metal fin color matched to the window system so the masonry sits outboard of the windows by up to a few inches (detailing is not worked through at this stage) 112Page 45 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the east 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:0.87 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 113Page 46 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the east (annotated) 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:0.87 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Brick piers, utility-side brick, custom blend - exact color to be determined - intent is to compliment the brick colors in the immediate neighborhood Painted angled columns Floor to ceiling window wall with color coordinated slab edges (exposed smooth with paint or with slab edge covers) Partially recessed balconies with glass and aluminum guardrails Alternate color brick at floors 1-3 in recessed areas - slightly darker and utility or norman size bricks this area only 114Page 47 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the south-west 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:0.88 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 115Page 48 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the north 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:1.03 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 116Page 49 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the north (annotated) 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:1.03 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Floor to ceiling window wall with color coordinated slab edges (exposed smooth with paint or with slab edge covers) Brick facades utility-size, custom blend - exact color to be determined - intent is to compliment the brick colors in the immediate neighborhood Existing Jane Perlman building to north to remain Screen wall at mechanical space. Screen to be high quality corrugated anodized aluminum panels. Dark grey color to compliment window and other metal detailing . Perforation in some areas if required by equipment for air flow 117Page 50 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the west 7/14/20 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2020HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY Scale: 1:1.02 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 118Page 51 of 216 109-O-20 ~13~ EXHIBIT E Landscape Plans Page 52 of 216 123Page 53 of 216 124Page 54 of 216 125Page 55 of 216 126Page 56 of 216 127Page 57 of 216 128Page 58 of 216 129Page 59 of 216 130Page 60 of 216 109-O-20 ~14~ EXHIBIT F Ordinance 61-O-76 Page 61 of 216 Page 62 of 216 Page 63 of 216 Page 64 of 216 Page 65 of 216 Page 66 of 216 Page 67 of 216 The Emerson: A mixed-income senior building Planned Development Amendment Developed By: The Housing Authority of Cook County PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR: The Emerson: A Mixed-Income Senior Building at 1900 Sherman Avenue Project Developer: The Housing Authority of Cook County April 16, 2021 CONTENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Disclosure Statement 3. Plan of Site PINs 4. Plat of Survey 5. Zoning Analysis Results Sheet 6. Development Plans 7. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Application 8. Development Schedule 9. Statement on Development Allowances Page 68 of 216 Page 69 of 216 4. PRE-SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Prior to actually submitting an application for Planned Development, you must: A.Complete a Zoning Analysis of the Development Plan The Zoning Office staff must review the development plan and publish a written determination of the plan’s level of compliance with the zoning district regulations. Apply at the Zoning Office. B.Present the planned development at a pre-application conference Contact the Zoning Office to schedule a conference with Planning & Zoning Division staff. 5. REQUIRED SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS (This) Completed Application Form Application Fee (Planned Development: $6,000; Major Adjustment: $2,200; Minor Adjustment: $1,000 ) Two (2) Copies of Application Binder Your application must be in the form of a binder with removable pages for copying. You must submit two application binders for initial review. The Application Binder must include: Certificate of Disclosure of Ownership Interest Form Plan drawing illustrating development boundary and individual parcels and PINs Plat of Survey of Entire Development Site Zoning Analysis Results Sheet Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Pre-application Conference Materials Development Plan Landscape Plan (if changes will be proposed) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Application Statement addressing how the planned development approval will further public benefits Statement describing the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan and other City land use plans Statement describing the development’s compliance with any other pertinent city planning and development policies Statement addressing the site controls and standards for planned developments Statement of proposed development’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood Statement of the proposed development’s compatibility with the design guidelines for planned developments Statements describing provisions for care and maintenance of open space and recreational facilities and proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws Restrictive Covenants Schedule of Development Market Feasibility Statement Traffic Circulation Impact Study Statement addressing development allowances for planned developments Notes: ●Plats of surve y must be drawn to scale and must accurately and completely reflect the current conditions of the property. ●Building plans must be drawn to scale and must include interior floor plans and exterior elevations. ●Application Fees may be paid by cash, check, or credit card. ●Mailing Fees also apply and will be provided to the applicant from the City’s mailing vendor. Page 2 of 8 Page 70 of 216 6. OTHER PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION Attorney Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Architect Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Surveyor Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Civil Engineer Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Traffic Engineer Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Other Consultant Name: _______________________________________ Organization: _______________________________ Address: _____________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________ Phone:____________________ Fax: ____________________ Email: _______________________________ Page 3 of 8 The professional representatives are the same as in the original planned development application. Page 71 of 216 Page 5 of 8 7.MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS Use this page if the petition is on behalf of many property owners. “I understand that the regulations governing the use of my property may change as a result of this petition. By signing below, I give my permission for the named petitioner on page 1 of this form to act as my agent in matters concerning this petition. I understand that 1) the named petitioner will be the City of Evanston’s primary contact during the processing o f this petition, 2) I may not be contacted directly by City of Evanston staff with information regarding the petition while it is being processed, 3) I may inquire the status of this petition and other information by contacting the Zoning Office, and 4) the property owners listed below may change the named petitioner at any time by delivering to the Zoning Office a written statement signed by all property owners and identifying a substitute petitioner.” NAME and ADDRESS(es) or PIN(s) CONTACT INFORMATION of PROPERTY OWNED SIGNATURE (telephone or e-mail) _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ ________________________________ _________________________ Copy this form if necessary for a complete listing. Status or property ownership remains unchanged from the original planned development application. Page 72 of 216 Page 6 of 8 Application Procedure (A) Pre-Application Conference: Pre-Application Conference: Prior to application submittal, an applicant shall meet with the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning staff, and the Alderman of the ward in which the proposed planned development is located. Where applicable, a representative of the Preservation Commission shall be present. The purpose of the conference is to present the concept of the proposed plan and discuss procedures and standards for approval. No representation made by City staff or the representative of the Preservation Commission during such conference or at any other time shall be binding upon the City with respect to the application subsequently submitted. The pre-application conference shall be scheduled within 15 calendar days after receiving the applicant's request. (B) Information Needed for Pre-Application Conference: The applicant shall include the following information at the time of request for the meeting: 1. Narrative summary of proposal. 2. Conceptual site plan. 3. Plat of survey (including the location of utilities). 4. Proposed elevations. 5. Photographs of the subject and surrounding properties. 6. Description of adjacent land uses and neighborhood characteristics. 7. Description of critical historical structures, details or characteristics (if applicable). (C)Zoning Analysis Application: Prior to review of the project, the applicant must submit the project for “zoning analysis.” The Zoning Division’s response to this application is a Zoning Analysis Review Shee t addressing specific regulatory areas, and indicating compliance or deficiency. (D) Results of Pre-Application Conference and Zoning Analysis: Following the pre-application conference, the Zoning Administrator shall be available to suggest modifications to the site plan as discussed during the pre-application conference. Within 7 calendar days, minutes of the pre-application conference shall be sent to the applicant and shall be available upon request to interested parties by the Zoning Administrator. Review Procedure - Decision (A) Review Procedure: Upon the review of an application for a planned development the Zoning Administrator shall notify the developer of any deficiencies or modifications necessary to perfect the planned development application. (B) Public Hearing: After determining that the application is complete, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule a public hearing to be held by the Plan Commission at which time a formal presentation of the planned development application will be presented. The public hearing shall be held not less than 15 calendar days and no more than 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the complete application. In addition, a sign shall be posted on the property for a minimum of 10 working days prior to the public hearing indicating the place, time and date of the hearing. (C) Mailed Notices Required: Notice shall also be given by first class mail to all owners of property within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property as provided by the City. The failure of delivery of such notice, however, shall not invalidate any such hearing. The City, through its Geographic Information System, will supply the names and addresses of the owners of property within the 1,000-foot radius. A third party mailing service mails notice of the hearing to the neighboring property owners. The applicant must pay any and all fees and postage associated with mailing this notice. The City publishes a notice of the hearing in a locally circulating newspaper, generally the Evanston Review, no less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to hearing. (D) Recommendation: The Plan Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation, based on findings of fact, to the City Council within 60 days of the close of the public hearing. The Planning and Development Committee of the City Council considers the Plan Commission's recommendation and forwards it to the full Council with or without a recommendation. The City Council considers the Plan Commission's recommendation and may introduce an ordinance granting the planned development. The City Council may adopt an ordinance granting the planned development at the following or any subsequent City Council meeting. The developer shall record the ordinance granting the planned development and the development plan with the Cook County Recorder. Submittal Requirements 1)Planned Development Application Form. 2)Certificate of Disclosure of Ownership Interest Form listing each individual lot contained within the proposed development identified by parcel identification number and each owner having legal or equitable interest in each Page 73 of 216 Page 7 of 8 individual parcel. Connection to the ownership interest in the property must be documented in the form of a title insurance policy, deed, lease or contract to lease or purchase. 3)Exhibit illustrating the boundaries of each individual parcel contained within the property(ies) proposed for development with coincide parcel identification numbers. 4)Plat of Survey, drawn to scale, showing dimensions and areas of the parcel(s), lot(s), block(s), or portions thereof, according to the recorded plat of the subject property(ies). 5)Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, if necessary, showing the development consists of, and is coterminous with, a single lot legally described in a recorded plat of subdivision or proposed subdivision or consolidation. 6)Pre-application Conference Materials: a)Conceptual site plan, showing parking and bicycle facilities where appropriate; b)Plat of survey showing location of utilities; c)Elevations; d)Photographs of the subject and surrounding properties; e)Description of adjacent land uses and neighborhood characteristics; and f)Description of critical historical structures, details or characteristics. 7)Zoning Analysis Results Sheet, if available. 8)Development Plan showing: a)Location, dimensions and total area of site; b)Location, dimensions, floor area, construction type and use of each structure; c)Number, type and size of dwelling units, and the overall dwelling unit density; d)Number and location of parking spaces and loading docks, with means of ingress and egress; e)Traffic circulation pattern, location and description of public improvements, streets and access easements to be installed or created; f)All existing and proposed dedications and easements; g)Drainage plan; h)Locations, dimensions and uses of adjacent properties, rights of way, easements and utilities serving the site; i)Significant topographical or physical features, including trees; j)Soil or subsurface conditions; and k)Historical structures or features. 9)Landscape Plan, including: a)Location, dimensions and total area of site; b)Locations, dimensions and uses of adjacent properties, rights of way, easements and utilities serving the site; c)Landscaping location and treatment, plant material types, size and quantity, open spaces, and exterior surfaces of all structures with sketches of proposed landscaping; d)Topographic and physical site features including soils and existing trees and vegetation; e)Location, type and size of trees to be removed, and preservation plan for existing trees to remain through construction; and f)Location, type, height and material of all fences and walls. 10)Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Application. 11)Statement addressing how the planned development approval will further public benefits including: a)Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, open space, topographic and geologic features, and historic and natural resources; b)Use of design, landscape, and architectural features to create a pleasing environment; c)Provide a variety of housing types in accordance with the City's housing goals; d)Eliminate blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation; e)Business, commercial, and manufacturing development to enhance the local economy and strengthen the tax base; f)Efficiently use land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets, schools, public grounds, and other facilities; and g)Incorporate recognized sustainable design practices and building materials to promote energy conservation and improve environmental quality. h)Additional benefits related to transit alternatives, public art, public space improvements, etc. Page 74 of 216 Page 8 of 8 12)Statement describing the relationship between the proposed development and the Comprehensive General Plan and other City land use plans. 13)Statement describing the developments compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and any other pertinent city planning and development policies. 14)Statement addressing the site controls and standards for planned developments in the subject property’s zoning district regarding the following: a)Minimum area b)Tree preservation c)Landscaped strip d)Open space e)Walkways f)Parking and loading g)Utilities h)Stormwater treatment 15)Statement of proposed developments compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 16)Statement of proposed developments compatibility with the design guidelines for planned developments. 17)Statement describing provisions for care and maintenance of open space and recreational facilities and, if owned by an entity other than a government authority, proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws. 18)Restrictive Covenants to be recorded against proposed development. 19)Schedule of Development phases or stages stating beginning and completion time for each phase. 20)Market Feasibility Statement indicating the consumer market areas for all proposed uses in the development, the population potential of the area to be served by the proposed uses and other pertinent information concerning the demand for such uses of land. 21)Traffic Circulation Impact Study showing the effect of the development upon adjacent roadways, anticipated vehicular trips and traffic flow, and what road improvements and traffic control upgrading might be necessary. 22)Statement addressing the development allowances for planned developments in the subject property’s zoning district regarding the following: a) Height increases b) Density increases c) The location and placement of buildings varying from that otherwise permitted in the district d) Floor area ratio increases Standing The applicant must own, lease, or have legal or equitable interest in the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Division requires the applicant to demonstrate his or her connection to the ownership interest in the property. Documentation can be in the form of a title insurance policy or a deed, and a lease or contract to lease or purchase. Page 75 of 216 32 2. Page 76 of 216 33 Page 77 of 216 34 Page 78 of 216 35 Page 79 of 216 36 Page 80 of 216 37 Page 81 of 216 TheEmerson:Amixed-incomeseniorbuilding PlannedDevelopmentSubmissionBinder DevelopedBy:TheHousingAuthorityofCookCounty                                                  PROOFOFOWNERSHIP 38 Page 82 of 216 39 Page 83 of 216 40 Page 84 of 216 41 Page 85 of 216 42 Page 86 of 216 43 Page 87 of 216 Housing Authority of 175 w. Jackson Blvd., Suite 350 Ch'cago, IL 60604 I www.thehacc org I (312) 663-5447COOK COUNTY.--------------- The City of Evanston Attn: Planning and Zoning 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, IL 6020 l Re: 1900 Sherman Avenue To Whom It May Concern: September 16, 2021 The Disclosure Statement included within this application for major adjustments to the approved planned development for the 1900 Sherman A venue property is accurate and true as of the date of this letter. However, the Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC) has made it known that it intends to form a partnership with private-sector developer Related Midwest to develop, own and manage the new building, to be called The Emerson. The details of this partnership have not been finalized, thus the ownership of the property is as represented in the Disclosure Statement. However, HACC would like to share with the City of Evanston the basis of its intended partnership with Related Midwest, which is that Related Midwest will serve as a co-General Partner to the HACC in the ownership structure, with HACC serving as the majority member. Wendy Walker Williams Chair Dr. Normah Salleh-Barone r.ommissiom r Polly Kuehl Vice Chair Very Truly Yours, de c_W Jon A. Duncan General Counsel Nilda Soler Commissioner Saul H. Klibanow Commissioner ElalneKroll Richard J. Monocchio Hll':ICC r.ommissinm r F xAr.utivA IJirP.r.tor tit EQUAL HOUSING nD01"'10TI lkUTV C Page 88 of 216 The Emerson: A mixed-income senior building Planned Development Amendment Developed By: The Housing Authority of Cook County 3. Plan of Site PINs The Subject Property is comprised of a single PIN: 11-18-109-052 1900 Sherman Property PIN: 11-18-109-052 Page 89 of 216 The Emerson: A mixed-income senior building Planned Development Submission Binder Developed By: The Housing Authority of Cook County DOCUMENT #4 Plat of Survey Page 90 of 216 Zoning Analysis – Summary Page 1 Zoning Analysis Summary Date: 8/20/21 Case Number: Case Status/Determination: 21ZONA-0127 – 1900 Sherman Avenue NON-COMPLIANT Proposal: Zoning Analysis in anticipation of Major Adjustment to a Planned Development approved by ordinance 109-O-20 which granted a Special Use for a Planned Development and a Map Amendment to rezone the property to the C1a District. The applicant proposes to reduce the number of dwelling units in the new building from 168 to 152, reduce the number of below grade parking spaces from 37 to 25, and make minor changes to the exterior design of the building. Zoning Section: Comments: Major Adjustment to Planned Development Required 6-11-4-6 One Dwelling Unit per 350 square feet of lot area allowed in C1a District (128 allowed based on 44,922.50 SF Lot Area, plus an additional 6 8 units allowed as IHO Bonus = 196 allowed. 78 additional units may be requested as a Site Development Allowance (40%). Total of 252 dwelling units requested does not exceed Maximum Eligible Site Development Allowance of 274. 6-10-3-9 67’ building height allowed, 97’ as a Site Development Allowance. Proposed: 168’-4” to top of roof. Previously approved height was 172’-8”. Exceeds maximum site development allowance. Super-majority (2/3) vote of City Council not required because IHO is met. 6-16-3-5 Table 16B 0.55 spaces per bedroom required in TOD area. 192 new bedrooms proposed = 106.7 spaces – 18.7 spaces per IHO Bonus (no parking for 34 IHO 1 BR units). A total of 88 additional spaces are required. New Proposed: Removal of 22 existing surface parking spaces to be replaced with 25 below-grade parking spaces. A net addition of 3 spaces where 88 additional parking spaces are required. Eligible site development allowance. Recommend exploring long-term lease of off-site parking. 6-10-3-7 6-10-1-10 Reconfiguration of new building leads to increase in overall FAR from 4.33 to 4.37. Max. Base FAR in C1a is 4.0. W ith IHO Bonus an, additional 1.0 is provided for a total of 5.0. FAR is therefore, still is compliant despite the increase. Additional Comments: Please ensure all measurements of parking spaces and loading area clearance heights are labeled Page 91 of 216 City of Evanston ZONING ANALYSIS REVIEW SHEET APPLICATION STATUS: August 10, 2021 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Non-Compliant Address: Applicant:William James Phone:3123994063 District:C1a Overlay: Reviewer:Meagan Jones Purpose:Zoning Analysis without Bld Permit App Preservation District: 21ZONA-0127Z.A. Number: 1900 Sherman AVE THIS APPLICATION PROPOSES (select all that apply): X New Principal Structure X New Accessory Structure Addition to Structure Alteration to Structure Retention of Structure Change of Use Retention of Use Plat of Resubdiv./Consol. Business License Sidewalk Cafe Home Occupation Other Proposal Description: ANALYSIS BASED ON: Plans Dated: Prepared By: Survey Dated: Existing Improvements: 8.2.21 Pappageorge Haymes Multi-family building (Perlman) Major Adjustment to a Planned Development approved by ordinance 109-O-20. Proposing a reduction in units from 168 to 152, reduction in below grade parking from 37 to 25 spaces, and some exterior changes to the building. ZONING ANALYSIS Does not apply to I1, I2, I3, OS, U3, or Excluded T1 & T2 Properties. See Section 6-8-1-10(D) for R's; Section 6-9-1-9(D) for B's; Section 6-10-1-9(D) for C's; Section 6-11-1-10(D) for D's; Section 6-12-1-7(D) for RP; Section 6-13-1-10(D) for MU & MUE; Section 6-15-1-9 for O1, T's, U's, oH, oRE, & oRD. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 1. Is the request for construction of substantially new structures or a substantial rehabilitiation or substantial addition as defined by increasing floor area of principal struction by 35% or more? If not, skip to 2 & 4 below. Yes 2. Does the zoning lot area exceed 30,000 sqft?Yes 3. Does the proposal entail more that 24 new residential, commercial, business, retail or office units in any combination? Yes 4. Does the proposal entail the new construction of more than 20,000 sqft of true gross floor area at or above grade including areas otherwise excluded from defined gross floor area? Yes The following three sections applly to building lot coverage and impervious surface calculations in Residential Districts. Open Parking Debit (Add 200sqft/open space Addtn. to Bldg Lot Cov. # Open Required Spaces Paver Regulatory Area Pavers/Pervious Paver Exception (Subtract 20%)Total Paver AreaTotal Elibigle Front Front Porch Exception (Subtract 50%) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CALCULATIONS Front Porch Regulatory Area PRINCIPAL USE AND STRUCTURE Standard Existing Proposed Determination USE:Dwelling - MF Dwelling - MF No Change Comments: Minimum Lot Width (LF) USE: NA Multi Family Comments: 350 sf/ d.u.Minimum Lot Area (SF) USE:Multi Family 44922.5 44922.5 sf No Change Comments: Dwelling Units:128 + 68 (IHO Bonus) = 196 100 252 Non-Compliant Comments: 274 permitted with a site development allowance Page 1 LF: Linear Feet SF: Square Feet FT: Feet Page 92 of 216 Standard Existing Proposed Determination Rooming Units: Comments: Building Lot Coverage (SF) (defined, including subtractions& additions): Comments: Impervious Surface Coverage (SF, %) Comments: Accessory Structure Rear Yard Coverage: 40% of rear yard Comments: Gross Floor Area (SF) Residential Compliant 4.37 143202.35 1.18 4 (or 179690 sf) + 1 (IHO Bonus) = 5 Use: Comments: Height (FT)67 ft (97 ft w/ s.d.a.)Non-Compliant168 ft 4 in Comments: mechanical penthouse excluded from calculation Front Yard(1) (FT) Emerson Compliant11 ft 10 1/8 in0 ft Street: Direction: S Comments: Front Yard(2) (FT) Street: Direction: Comments: Street Side Yard (FT) Sherman Compliant20 ft 8 5/8 in0 ft Street: Direction: E Comments: Interior Side Yard(1) (FT)Compliant5 ft5 ft Direction: W Comments: Direction: Interior Side Yard(2) (FT) Comments: Rear Yard (FT)No Change10 Direction: Comments: PARKING REQUIREMENTS Standard Existing Proposed Determination Use(1):Multi-family (Nonres District) .55/br 39 (14 existing surface + 25 below grade) Non-Compliant Comments: 88 new spaces required where a net increase of 3 is proposed Page 2 LF: Linear Feet SF: Square Feet FT: Feet Page 93 of 216 Standard Existing Proposed Determination Use(2): Comments: Use(3): Comments: TOTAL REQUIRED: Comments: Handicap Parking Spaces 4 (2 existing moved + 2 new)2 CompliantSec. 6-16-2-6 Comments: Access:Sec. 6-16-2-2 Comments: Vertical Clearance (LF)7' Comments: Surfacing:Sec. 6-16-2-8 (E) Comments: Location:Sec. 6-4-6-2 Comments: Angle(1): 90 Degree Comments: Width(W) (FT)Compliant8.5 Comments: Depth(D) (FT)Compliant18.0 Comments: Aisle(A) (FT)Compliant24.0 Comments: Module (FT)CompliantSL 42.0, DL 60.0 Comments: Please provide measurements on plans Angle(2): Comments: Width(W) (FT) Comments: Depth(D) (FT) Comments: Aisle(A) (FT) Comments: Module (FT) Comments: Garage Setback from Alley Access (FT) Comments: LOADING REQUIREMENTS DeterminationProposedExistingStandard Loading Use:1 Compliant with VarianceMulti-family 1 short 30K to 100K, 1 short each addtl. 200K. Comments: number of loading berths approved with ordinance 109-O-20 Page 3 LF: Linear Feet SF: Square Feet FT: Feet Page 94 of 216 Standard Existing Proposed Determination TOTAL (long): TOTAL (short): Long Berth Size (FT)12' wide x 50' deep Comments: Short Berth Size (FT)10' wide x 35' deep 10 ft X 25 ft Compliant with Variance Comments: Loading berth size approved with ordinance 109-O-20 Vertical Clearance (FT)14' Comments: Please confirm height on plans Sec. 6-16-4-1 CompliantLocation: Comments: MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS Standard Existing Proposed Determination Requirement (1): Comments: Requirement (2): Comments: Requirement (3): Comments: Analysis Comments COMMENTS AND/OR NOTES See attached comments and/or notes. Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee approval is: Required Results of Analysis: This Application is Non-Compliant RESULTS OF ANALYSIS SIGNATURE DATE Page 4 LF: Linear Feet SF: Square Feet FT: Feet Page 95 of 216 6. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Page 96 of 216 Cover Page 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Preliminary Architectural PlanPage 97 of 216 Site Plan 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1" = 30' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 602015321597 140 GRASSW. Emerson StreetN. Sherman Avenue Parking Garage Entrance Property Line151.00'297.50' Jane Perlman Building Existing 11-Story Residential Building w/ a Mat Slab Foundation Below Grade All to Remain Loading Dock Existing 16' Alley Existing Driveway to remain 151.00'1 Bike Racks 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 FLAG POLE 14 Parking Stalls 25 Parking Spaces in Basement Garage Proposed New Building 136'-103/8" 137'-21/8"21'-43/8"61'-41/4"108'-71/8"Property Line297.87' Existing 10-Story Residential Building Property Line151.00'Existing curb cut to remain Property Line Preliminary landscape layout – tobe updated prior to the design &appearance review committee.N Proposal for 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL Zoning District Current C1a Proposed C1a Area (sf) 44,961 SF Area (acres) 1.03 Acres Construction Type IA or IB Use of Structure Residential Total Site Area: (Combined) 244,130 sf (Emerson) 169,591 sf (Perlman) 74539 sf Number of Dwelling Units 252 (combined) Type of Dwelling Units Studio, One and Two Bedrooms Overall Dwelling 245 units / acre Unit Density Parking Spaces 39 Spaces (see plans) Loading Dock 2 (see plans) Proposed Area of Building Addition Existing Jane Perlman Apartments The Link ApartmentsPage 98 of 216 Proposed Addition / 1st Floor Plan 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 101.47° 168.53° 5321 597 140GRASS125 Parking Spaces inBasement GarageProposed New Building12'-41/2"6'-73/4"89'-0"5'-0" 95'-31/2"29'-117/8"20'-85/8"14'-6"4'-113/4"146'-01/4"98'-3"10'-33/8"108'-71/8"ProposedPorteC ochereProperty Line151.00'Existing curbcut to remainPreliminary landscape layout – to be updated prior to the design & appearance review committee. N Loading Dock Access Egress stair exit Ingress / Egress for Basement Parking Two Way TrafÀFDW$OlH\Two Way TrafÀFTwo Way TrafÀFDW(PHUVRQ6WUHeW Approximate location for proposed sign - refer to signage sheet First ÁRoUH[WHULRUZDOl Exterior wall above (ÁRoUV Exterior wall above (ÁRoUV Exterior wall above (ÁRoUV Exterior wall above (ÁRoUV Exterior wall above (ÁRoUV Page 99 of 216 Parking / Basement 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 602013'-23/8"93'-83/8"1'-6"125'-5"24'-1"2'-81/4"70'-103/8"22'-10"24'-0" 8'-6"18'-0"14'-51/4"35'-17/8"-12'-6" -12'-2" -12'-6" Mechanical Room Parking Garage 25 Parking Spaces Water Meter Room Elevator Lobby Building Engineer's OfÀFH Ramp up @15% Typical for all drive aisles Typical Parking Space Accessible Parking Space Up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 25 8 24 Common Area: 1,040 sq ft Stair 01 Stair 02 1'-6"144'-9"4'-9" N Basement Garage PlanPage 100 of 216 Residential Floor - Level 2 & 3 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 9,470 sq ft 1,069 sq ft 1,030 sq ft 1,437 sq ft 630 sq ft 701 sq ft 470 sq ft 626 sq ft 804 sq ft 616 sq ft 616 sq ft Common Area: 1,385 sq ft10'-3"Jane Perlman Building Existing 11-Story Residential Building Stair 01 Stair 02 Mech. Chase Trash Chute Unit 01 2 Bedroom Unit 03 1 Bedroom Unit 02 2 Bedroom Unit 04 1 Bedroom Unit 05 1 Bedroom Unit 08 2 Bedroom Unit 07 Studio Unit 06 1 Bedroom Unit 09 1 Bedroom Unit 10 1 Bedroom Electrical Room Data Room Elevator Shaft N Residential Floor Plan - Level 2 & 3 Roof of 1st ÁRoUEHORZ (w/ 12" roof curbs)Page 101 of 216 Residential Floor - Level 4-15 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 10,211 sq ft 1,112 sq ft 1,030 sq ft 693 sq ft 1,334 sq ft 710 sq ft 670 sq ft 470 sq ft 626 sq ft 804 sq ft 616 sq ft 616 sq ft Common Area: 1,385 sq ft10'-3"Stair 01 Stair 02 Mech. Chase Trash Chute Jane Perlman Building Existing 11-Story Residential Building Electrical Room Data Room Elevator Shaft Unit 01 2 Bedroom Unit 03 1 Bedroom Unit 02 2 Bedroom Unit 04 1 Bedroom Unit 05 1 Bedroom Unit 08 2 Bedroom Unit 07 Studio Unit 06 1 Bedroom Unit 11 1 Bedroom Unit 09 1 Bedroom Unit 10 1 Bedroom N Residential Floor Plan - Level 4-15Page 102 of 216 Amenity Floor - Level 16 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 7,802 sq ft Mechanical Penthouse Common Area: 6,458 sq ft Roof Deck Mechanical N Amenity Floor Plan - Level 16Page 103 of 216 Auto-Turn Diagrams 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1" = 40' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 6020125' Truck25' Truck(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. 25' Truck Lock to Lock Time 25' Truck Width Track Steering Angle 4.00 15.00 feet : : : 6.0 8.00 8.00 31.8: 25.00 20' TruckCustom(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Lock to Lock Time 20' Truck Width Track Steering Angle 3.00 12.31 feet : : : 6.0 7.00 6.33 31.8: 20.00 20' TruckCustom 20' TruckCustom20' Truck(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. 20' Truck Custom PAASHTO 2011 (US)(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. PAASHTO 2011 (US) Lock to Lock Time Width Track : : : feetP 6.0 6.00 7.00 11.003.00 19.00 Steering Angle 31.6: Auto-Turn Diagram - 25' Moving Truck - Alternate Approach Auto-Turn Diagram - Passenger Vehicle Auto-Turn Diagram - 25' Moving Truck Auto-Turn Diagram - 20' Moving Truck West Emerson Street 16' wide alley along west side of property West Emerson Street 16' wide alley along west side of property West Emerson Street 16' wide alley along west side of property West Emerson Street 16' wide alley along west side of property Alley Setback - Approximately 5' Alley Setback - Approximately 5' Alley Setback - Approximately 5' Alley Setback - Approximately 5'Page 104 of 216 Street Elevations 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1" = 50' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 SCALE: 1" = 50' South Street Elevation SCALE: 1" = 50' East Street Elevation Sherman Gardens 1900 Sherman (Proposed) Jane Pearlman Building Emerson Street 1900 Sherman (Proposed) THE LINK Apartments 16' Alley Sherman Avenue Residential Buildings South North EastWest CTA Elevated RailPage 105 of 216 East & North Elevations 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1" = 20' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 1st Floor ±0" 2nd Floor +16'-4" 3rd Floor +26'-0" 4th Floor +38'-0" 5th Floor +47'-8" 6th Floor +57'-4" 7th Floor +67'-0" 8th Floor +76'-8" 9th ÁRoU +86'-4" 10th Floor +96'-0" 11th Floor +105'-8" 12th Floor +115'-4" 13th Floor +125'-0" 14th Floor +134'-8" 15th Floor +144'-4" 16th Floor +156'-4" Roof Plan +168'-4" Upper Roof Plan +175'-0" 12'-41/4"PROPERTY LINE+184'-1" Top of Screen 1st Floor ±0" 2nd Floor +16'-4" 3rd Floor +26'-0" 4th Floor +38'-0" 5th Floor +47'-8" 6th Floor +57'-4" 7th Floor +67'-0" 8th Floor +76'-8" 9th ÁRoU +86'-4" 10th Floor +96'-0" 11th Floor +105'-8" 12th Floor +115'-4" 13th Floor +125'-0" 14th Floor +134'-8" 15th Floor +144'-4" 16th Floor +156'-4" Roof Plan +168'-4" Upper Roof Plan +175'-0" 4'-73/8" 8'-43/8"12'-41/4" +184'-1" Top of Screen PROPERTY LINEEast Elevation North Elevation THE EMERSON Proposed signage - name and font is a placeholder Potential low-scale monument signage at corner THE EMERSON Outline of Jane Perlman Apartments Screen Wall for Open Air Mechanical Equipment Amenity Roof DeckPage 106 of 216 South & West Elevations 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1" = 20' 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 1st Floor ±0" 2nd Floor +16'-4" 3rd Floor +26'-0" 4th Floor +38'-0" 5th Floor +47'-8" 6th Floor +57'-4" 7th Floor +67'-0" 8th Floor +76'-8" 9th ÁRoU +86'-4" 10th Floor +96'-0" 11th Floor +105'-8" 12th Floor +115'-4" 13th Floor +125'-0" 14th Floor +134'-8" 15th Floor +144'-4" 16th Floor +156'-4" Roof Plan +168'-4" Upper Roof Plan +175'-0" 4'-73/8" 12'-41/8"8'-43/8" +184'-1" Top of Screen 1st Floor ±0" 2nd Floor +16'-4" 3rd Floor +26'-0" 4th Floor +38'-0" 5th Floor +47'-8" 6th Floor +57'-4" 7th Floor +67'-0" 8th Floor +76'-8" 9th ÁRoU +86'-4" 10th Floor +96'-0" 11th Floor +105'-8" 12th Floor +115'-4" 13th Floor +125'-0" 14th Floor +134'-8" 15th Floor +144'-4" 16th Floor +156'-4" Roof Plan +168'-4" Upper Roof Plan +175'-0" 12'-41/4" +184'-1" Top of Screen West Elevation South Elevation THE EMERSON Proposed signage - name and font is a placeholder Potential low-scale monument signage at corner Open Roof Deck Screen Wall for Open Air Mechanical Equipment Screen Wall for Open Air Mechanical EquipmentPage 107 of 216 Massing Diagram 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:0.88, 1:154.04 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Semi-public landscaping at corner Note: as this is a diagram to identify components of the project, most trees and landscaping are not shown in full Setback at lower ÁRoUV GDVKHG Porte cochere / drop off Adjacent Jane Perlman building Rooftop amenity deck (refer to landscape plans for preliminary design) Screen for mechanical equipment and elevator override Massing diagram to show primary components of the proposal Adjacent apartment building - The Link Evanston E m ers o n Stre et S h e rm a n A v e n u e Sherman GardensPage 108 of 216 Context comparison 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:0.99 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 Subject Property 16 Stories Optima Horizons 16 Stories Perlman Building 11 Stories LINK Evanston 10 Stories E2 Apartments 16 Stories Optima Views 28 StoriesSherman Plaza Condos 25 Stories Albion (behind Sherman) 15 Stories Chase Building 22 Stories Context diagram to compare proposed project with other towers in the vicinityPage 109 of 216 Aerial Rendering - from the south 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:2.34 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 This is an aerial rendering of the project from the southeastPage 110 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the south-west 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:0.88 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 This is a view of the proposed project from the west taken along Emerson Street. The landscaping within the setback and semi-public space can be seen in the foreground and along Emerson StreetPage 111 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the north 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:1.03 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 This is a view of the proposed project from the north taken along Sherman Avenue. The Jane Pearlman project can be seen in the foreground.Page 112 of 216 Street Level Rendering - from the west 9/16/21 © COPYRIGHT PAPPAGEORGE HAYMES PARTNERS 2021Scale: 1:1.02 1900 Sherman Ave Evanston IL 60201 This is a view of the proposed project from the west taken along Emerson Street. The LINK project can be seen in the foreground on the left and Sherman Gardens is across the street on the rightPage 113 of 216 i ;aEvaiislon" Community Development Department 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, n. 60201-2798 Ph: 874 448-4311 Email: IHO@cityofevanston.om www.cityofevanston.org INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSAL Submission Date: .,8:fA=V.1$. .. _______ _ Applicant Name: Willia m Ja mes , Ca mlros , Ltd. Phone: (3121879-9518 Applicant Address: 411 Sout h We lls S tre et, Ch i ca go , IL 60607 Applicant Phone: ___________ _ Cell Phone: 312 399-4063 Property Owner Name: ..:..:H:;;;o u s=i :;;;i.;.;,=;.;.;.:L-..::..:....:= ='-Phone: m-1.3 544:E ----- - - - - - Property Owner Address: ..:.1.:...:75:...:J:.=a =:c k.:::s .:;.:o n:.:...B::;o::u:.:.:le:..::v a=rd=i,...:S:.=u ::.=i te :=z..;==::r..::=-== - -- - ----- Property Owner Phone: s..3 1 2 -6 6 3 -5 4 4 7 Cell Phone: _312-479-2988 E-Mail: rm o n lo @t heh c c .o rg _______ Website: www.h a cc .o rg ________ _ Project Name: R._ 8!1'!1 n - R !1.ffl e p- v e lo pmen Expans i o n Project Address: 1900 S ha nna n Av enue , Ev a nsto n, ILSl2Dl ______________ _ Parcel Identification Number (PIN): # 11 -'U..!.1 o 9 -o 5 2 Project Type: ew Construction □Co nvers ion/ Addition of Residential Units Project Located ii: ®TOD Area Please list: Fos ter Pu rp le Line Stati o n □ Non-TOD Area Project Description: 17-Story addition to the Jane RPerlman a parhne nts on the existing paoong lr:tfrontlng Emers o n S tree t with 152 new dwell i ng u nits a nd rem o v al of 22existing parking spaces and repl a ce d w Ith 2 5 be lo w• ground parking spaces. lnclusionary Housing Compliance: On-site Units O Fee in Lieu Page 1 o f4 Page 114 of 216 Project Funding Type: iBPrivate iBPubllc If publicly funded (Federal, State, Local), ll!taD sources of governmental assistance, Induding TIF, low income housing tax credits, bond financing, public grants, land disposition programs and other: (IAtflt} 51ate Donation Tax � .IHOA Trust Fmds Affordable Units: l! Rental o For Sale Market Rate Units: U lt...S<uuu:.e .. F.o_o t.ag.e ---.---------__ 1'9.1.'k.et.Bin-Illl---+--Studio o -------1--1 Bedroom 676 It Rental o ForSale Affordable Units 16 18 2 Bedroom ,1.,.1.SL--. ___ __. ___ _ 0 3Bedroom L-----· Describe general location of each affordable unit within the development (attach plans including floor plans, specify size and location of affordable units) AffordablEt 1mlls wl pe mixed among � market rate units on the various floors of the building Page2ct4 _ Bent Amount_ none --.1,959 Page 115 of 216 For Development l"I TOD Areas On-site Affordable Rental Units -Number at each Income Level and Estimated Rents Units at !ilD/o AMI Units at SP/o AMI #of Units Rent #of Units Rent studio 16 J1J85------1 Bedroom 18 $1,27 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom -'"rintwn be -·u•10 01 tenanrs income· m.wmum tenanflncome 'Ml'loi:Wfo AMI On-site Affordable For-Sale Units -Number at each Income Level and Estimated Sale Price Units at &P/o AMI Units at 1000/o AMI #of Units Sale Price #of Units Sale Price Studio -----t--1Bedroom --�--2Bedroom 3 Bedroom I - Fee l"I Lieu of On-site Units: $100,000 x ___ (number of units) = $ ____ _ For Development in Non-TOD Areas On-site Affordable Rental Unit&. -Number at each Income Level and Estimated Rents Units a: SP/o AMI Units at &Pio AMI #of Units Rent #of Units Rent studio ------:I.Bedroom ---2Bedroom 3Bedroom On-site Affordable For-Sale Units -Number at each Income Level and Estimated Sale Price Units at &P/o AMI #of Units Sale Price Studio -----11 Bedroom -I 2Bedroom -----I 3 Bedroom � -- Units at 13)0/o AMI #of Units Sale Price -- Fee in Lieu of On-site Units: $75,000 x ___ (number of units) = $ ____ _ - :lthe project construction will be done in phases, provide a construction schedule for market rate and affordable units. Page3 ct4 Page 116 of 216 A'lhe developer proposes tD meet the lnduslonary Housing Ordinance requirements through theattached alternative equivalent action. ( The pro_posal must show that the ahematjye proposed will increase affordable housing apportunitieio the Citv to an e,zuaJ or greater extent than compllance with the BXJJress reguirements oflnc/usionmy Hwsiag QrdinaOCfl). For further information visit: www.cityofevanston.org/lHO I certify that the above information is true and con-ect: POlltionlTltle: kR/V6pt,v?,,.q Tf} Wile£. Date: t>fa-/-z; > Page4 of4 Page 117 of 216 ID NameDuration Start Finish Predecessors1Permit submittal and PD Tracking210 daysFri 9/17/21Tue 7/12/222PD Submission50 daysFri 9/17/21Fri 11/26/213Issue for Permit Drawings99 daysMon 11/29/21Mon 4/18/2224Submit For Building Permit60 daysWed 4/20/22Tue 7/12/2235Receive Full Building Permit0 daysTue 7/12/22Tue 7/12/2246Receive Right of Way Permit0 daysTue 7/12/22Tue 7/12/2257Construction378 daysWed 7/13/22Fri 12/22/238Substructure119 daysWed 7/13/22Mon 12/26/2221Superstructure Construction125 daysTue 12/13/22Mon 6/5/23221st Floor - Supported Slab8 daysTue 12/13/22Thu 12/22/2220232nd Floor15 daysFri 12/23/22Thu 1/12/2322243rd Floor10 daysTue 1/10/23Mon 1/23/2323FS-3 days254th Floor 8 daysThu 1/19/23Mon 1/30/2324FS-3 days265th Floor 8 daysFri 1/27/23Tue 2/7/2325FS-2 days276th Floor6 daysMon 2/6/23Mon 2/13/2326FS-2 days287th Floor6 daysFri 2/10/23Fri 2/17/2327FS-2 days298th Floor6 daysThu 2/16/23Thu 2/23/2328FS-2 days309th Floor-15th35 daysWed 2/22/23Tue 4/11/2329FS-2 days31Roof Mechanical Floor6 daysMon 4/10/23Mon 4/17/2330FS-2 days32Elevator PH Roof5 daysTue 4/18/23Mon 4/24/233133Dismantle Tower Crane10 daysTue 5/16/23Mon 5/29/2332FS+15 days34Close Crane Openings5 daysTue 5/30/23Mon 6/5/233335Exterior Enclosure148 daysFri 2/17/23Tue 9/12/2351Elevators120 daysTue 5/16/23Mon 10/30/2353Inside Elevator Operation39 daysTue 10/31/23Fri 12/22/2356Finishes211 daysMon 2/13/23Mon 12/4/23674Hoist196 daysFri 2/10/23Fri 11/10/23677Infill Hoist Area30 daysMon 11/13/23Fri 12/22/23676678Punchlist Common - Listing2 daysTue 9/19/23Wed 9/20/2357679Punchlist common work5 daysThu 9/21/23Wed 9/27/23678FF+5 days680Install hook-up and start-up MEP Equip 100 daysTue 6/6/23Mon 10/23/2346681Substantial Completion0 daysFri 12/22/23Fri 12/22/23366FF,410FF,454FF,498FF,542FF,586FF,630FF,67711/264/187/1212/221/121/231/302/72/132/172/234/114/174/245/296/512/229/209/2710/23AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFeb202220232024CriticalCritical SplitTaskSplitMilestoneSlippageSummaryProject SummaryRolled Up CriticalRolled Up Critical SplitExternal TasksExternal MilestoneInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyDeadlineProgressSchedule of DevelopmentPrepared by McHugh BowaThe Emerson, 1900 Sherman Ave, Evanston ILDeveloped by; The Housing Authority of Evanston1Thu 9/16/21 Page 118 of 216 The Emerson: A mixed-income senior building Planned Development Amendment Developed By: The Housing Authority of Cook County 10. Statement on Site Development Allowances Three of the requested major adjustments require revisiting the Site Development Allowances approved in the original planned development application, as presented below. 1.An allowance for on-site parking is needed because 3 net new parking spaces are provided whereas 88 spaces are required. The City has assisted the Petitioner in identifying surplus parking spaces in nearby buildings that could be leased for use by future residents of The Emerson, which was recognized as part of the original planned development approval. This major adjustment involves a reduction of 12 parking spaces, which is largely offset by the reduction of 16 units. The Petitioner has been in contact with the owners/managers of the other nearby buildings to lease parking spaces and has a letter from the E2 Building offering to lease up to 50 spaces. The Petitioner intends to help all residents of The Emerson who want parking to find parking. Importantly, the Petitioner has made a commitment to residents of the Jane Perlman Building to provide any resident who has a car and needs parking to provide parking free of charge. 2.A major adjustment for building height is required because a building height of 168.34 feet is proposed whereas 67 feet is allowed and 97 feet is allowed with a Site Development Allowance. This application for a major adjustment in building height seeks to reduce the building height 6’-4” from that approved the plan development application. No apparent rationale exists to deny this major adjustment to reduce the building height from 172.66’ in the approved planned development to 168.34 feet. 3.A major adjustment for maximum lot density is needed. Since proposed development on the site complies with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a total of 196 dwelling units are allowed as of right. 252 units are requested, a reduction of 16 units from the approved planned development. A Site Development Allowance of 56 units is needed. The maximum Site Development allowance for lot density on this site is 78, thus the request is substantially less than the maximum. All of the public benefits that were part of the original planned development approval remain in the amended application, so there would be no basis for denying a lesser Site Development Allowance for lot density than that allowed in the approved planned development. Page 119 of 216 [ti:MGEWALTHAMILT ONASSOCIATES.INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 625 Forest Edge Drive,Vernon Hills,IL 60061 TEL 847.478.9700 I FAX 847.478.9701 www.gha-engineers.com Page 120 of 216 Page 121 of 216 Page 122 of 216 Page 123 of 216 Page 124 of 216 Page 125 of 216 Page 126 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 127 of 216 a____,m_§.a com._mEm_L:om..mEm_.pm._.3mo..u._3wo..u_ ._.|E¢En_o_¢>oo m:_.....:o_._ Page 128 of 216 Page 129 of 216 Page 130 of 216 Page 131 of 216 ZO_._.ODm._.wZO0 .cU :o=u:...m=oU ._m..:2z 352 202292 mm_s_><I «M.U momom_o<%_<m ,......?_ macawEmEowmm_ :_moomqmmc_¥_wn_mm m_.___u__:m_262 uwmon_o._n_ K 6 Page 132 of 216 a____§,mm Page 133 of 216 Page 134 of 216 Page 135 of 216 Page 136 of 216 Page 137 of 216 Page 138 of 216 zE___2<=:<3.._¢.2:.mm._.<_oomm<— Page 139 of 216 [ti GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 140 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 141 of 216 a____W_§mm Page 142 of 216 a____W_§mm l ‘‘Va. _/;?w5:g;3§‘?3 Page 143 of 216 a____W_§mm Page 144 of 216 a____W_§mm 025$ 55:OE Page 145 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 146 of 216 Page 147 of 216 Page 148 of 216 Page 149 of 216 Page 150 of 216 Page 151 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 152 of 216 Page 153 of 216 Page 154 of 216 Page 155 of 216 Page 156 of 216 Page 157 of 216 Page 158 of 216 Page 159 of 216 Page 160 of 216 Page 161 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 162 of 216 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 800 Chicago Metropolitan Chicago,l||inois 60606 Agency for Planning 3‘“5“°“°° www.crnap.i||inois.gov Page 163 of 216 GEWALTHAM ASSOCIATES.INC. Page 164 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 165 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 166 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 167 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 168 of 216 Page 169 of 216 A$< Page 170 of 216 A$< Page 171 of 216 A$< Page 172 of 216 A$< Page 173 of 216 Page 174 of 216 A$< Page 175 of 216 A$< Page 176 of 216 A$< Page 177 of 216 A$< Page 178 of 216 Page 179 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 180 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 181 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 182 of 216 |‘~13. V42 Q Page 183 of 216 Page 184 of 216 A$< Page 185 of 216 A$< Page 186 of 216 A$< Page 187 of 216 A$< Page 188 of 216 Page 189 of 216 A$< Page 190 of 216 A$< Page 191 of 216 A$< Page 192 of 216 A$< Page 193 of 216 Page 194 of 216 RE: Link Parking Evanston Rachel Goldstein <RGoldstein@ca-ventures.com> Fri 9/24/2021 7:08 AM To: Daniel Brinkman <dbrinkman@gha-engineers.com> Dan, 210 units are currently leased. Best, Rachel Goldstein Regional Manager Property Management 130 E. Randolph Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Direct: +1 312 561 6328 Email: RGoldstein@ca-ventures.com www.ca-ventures.com From: Daniel Brinkman <dbrinkman@gha‐engineers.com> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 7:07 AM To: Rachel Goldstein <RGoldstein@ca‐ventures.com> Subject: Re: Link Parking Evanston [ALERT * External Email * ALERT] Rachel, Thanks so much for the quick response. One last quesƟon. How many units are currently leased? Dan From: Rachel Goldstein <RGoldstein@ca‐ventures.com> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 6:58 AM To: Daniel Brinkman <dbrinkman@gha‐engineers.com>; Logan Hollensteiner <lhollensteiner@ca‐ventures.com> Cc:NGuzman@thehacc.org <NGuzman@thehacc.org> Subject: RE: Link Parking Evanston Daniel, Please find the requested informaƟon below. Number of Units ‐ 211 Page 195 of 216 Unit Mix (2 bed,1 bed, studio) – 71 ‐ Studios, 39 ‐  1 bedrooms, 92 – 2 bedroom, 39 – 3 bedroom # of units market rate 211 units are market rate # of affordable units (if applicable). ‐0 # of parking spaces provided 161 # of parking spaces leased/rented/ etc. – 61 Best, Rachel Goldstein Regional Manager Property Management 130 E. Randolph Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Direct: +1 312 561 6328 Email: RGoldstein@ca-ventures.com www.ca-ventures.com From: Daniel Brinkman <dbrinkman@gha‐engineers.com> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:45 AM To: Logan Hollensteiner <lhollensteiner@ca‐ventures.com>; Rachel Goldstein <RGoldstein@ca‐ventures.com> Cc:NGuzman@thehacc.org Subject: Link Parking Evanston [ALERT ** External Email ** ALERT] Rachel and Logan, Nancy Guzman with HACC provided me your contact informaƟon. As part of the study for the expansion of the 1900 Sherman building, we are being asked to review parking demand for buildings in the area. I'm hoping you can provide the following informaƟon regarding the Link building in Evanson: Number of Units Unit Mix (2 bed,1 bed, studio) # of units market rate # of affordable units (if applicable) # of parking spaces provided # of parking spaces leased/rented/ etc. We are trying to establish what the actual demand for parking is for buildings like Link vs what the City code may require. Page 196 of 216 Your aƩenƟon to this inquiry is appreciated. Should you have any quesƟons at all please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly. Thanks in advance Dan Dan Brinkman, P.E.,PTOE Assistant Director of TransportaƟon Services An Employee Owned Company 625 Forest Edge Drive | Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 Office: (847) 478-9700 | Fax: (847) 478-9701 Direct: (847) 821-6222 | Email:dbrinkman@gha-engineers.com www.gha-engineers.com P Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message may contain informaƟon that is confidenƟal, legally privileged, or subject to other restricƟons on use or redistribuƟon. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if you have received this message in error, you are hereby noƟfied that any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or duplicaƟon of this message or the informaƟon contained within it is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please so noƟfy the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the original message. This message may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, or subject to other restrictions on use or redistribution. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this message or the information contained within it is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please so notify the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the original message. Page 197 of 216 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PROJECT: GHA PROJECT # : DATE: TIME: Name of Caller: Representing: Phone Number: Name of Person Called: Representing: Phone Number: Discussion: Recommendation and/or action to be taken: Copies / Distribution Page 198 of 216 APPROVED Page 1 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 MEETING MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle Council Chambers Members Present: George Halik, John Hewko, Brian Johnson, Matt Rodgers, Kristine Westerberg Members Absent: Jeanne Lindwall, Staff Present: Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Alexandria Ruggie, Assistant City Attorney Presiding Member: Matt Rodgers 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Commissioners Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Jones called the roll and a quorum was established. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that Chair Lindwall is recusing herself from this evening’s agenda item and he will be acting as Chair for this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: August 11, 2021. Commissioner Halik suggested minor edits. Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 11, 2021 as amended . Seconded by Commissioner Halik. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes were approved, 5-0. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Major Adjustment to a Planned Development – 1900 Sherman Avenue 21PLND-0076 The Housing Authority of Cook County submits for a Major Adjustment to a Planned Development at 1900 Sherman Ave, previously approved by ordinance 109-O-20, to construct a 16-story residential building in the C1a Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District. The applicant proposes changes to the following site development allowances: 1) a decrease in the number of dwelling units from 168 to 152, 2) a decrease in the number of below grade parking spaces from 37 to 25, and 3) a decrease in zoning height from 172 ft. 8 in. to 168 ft. 4 in. Page 199 of 216 APPROVED Page 2 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 Ms. Jones provided a brief overview of the proposed adjustment to the planned development detailing project characteristics, proposed changes to approved site development allowances and staff’s recommendation. Mr. William James of Camiros, representing the Housing Committee of Cook County, asked for clarification on the parking recommendation. Ms. Jones responded that recommendation to increase the number of off-site parking spaces was meant to offset the loss of on-site parking. The Commission can agree with that recommendation or suggest a different number of spaces or parking solution. Mr. Monocchio of the Housing Authority of Cook County provided a n introduction of the project and development team and shared that the Board’s Vice-President, Polly Kuehl was present at the meeting. Mr. James then explained the need for the three proposed adjustments and emphasized that none of the approved public benefits are being changed . He detailed that structural issues unearthed due to the existing Perlman building’s foundation lead to the need to separate the existing and new building by 10 feet in order to ensure structural stability and reduce the parking levels by one floor. He added that the Covic-19 pandemic also changed what people want with regards to units: larger personal space and less shared space. Mr. Greg Klosowski, Pappageorge Hames, explained the reduction in units, stating the reconfiguration of the building lead to 1 unit reduction per floor and an increase in the square footage of the units. Mr. James stated that this is a needed change and decreases impacts with regards to traffic and parking demand. The approved on-site affordable units will be maintained. Mr. James and Mr. Klosowski then explained the height reduction for the building. Mr. Klosowski stated with the further design of the building the space was able to be tighten ed up and lead to a slight reduction in the height. Mr. Klosowski then explained the need to reduce the parking. There was an initial assumption that the Perlman building was built on caissons, however it was not and was built on a thick slab of concrete. This changes the spread of the weight load and lead to the need to reconfigure the garage space and pull it away from the Perlman building. Mr. James added that there is a reduction in units by 16 and the parking by 12 spaces. He mentioned that staff noted the underutilization of parking of nearby buildings. The Link at 811 Emerson only has 61 of its spaces being leased and there is capacity in nearby buildings. HACC is in discussion with The Link and has an agreement with E2 at 1890 Maple. HACC has promised the Perlman residents that parking will be provided to them. The hearing was then open to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Halik stated that there have been a number of projects that have mentioned that recent projects have more parking than they need. He then stated it would be god to keep track of the parking utilization. Ms. Jones stated that this is noted. The recent TOD Page 200 of 216 APPROVED Page 3 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 parking study showed the underutilization and there are recent projects that have requested a reduction in their required parking. This is something that staff will look into in the future. Commissioner Westerberg asked for clarification on the number of units and number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. James clarified that 152 units will be provided with a total of 39 on-site parking spaces. He added that with the population being seniors there will likely be less demand than at a building such as The Link. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the parking lease. Mr. James responded that currently HACC has an agreement with E2 to lease 50 parking spaces and is talking with The Link to lease additional spaces (up to 80 spaces) as there are unutilized parking spaces that are available to be leased. Commissioner Halik asked if there is a cost for residents to lease those parking spaces. Mr. James responded that existing Perlman residents would not have to pay for parking. Residents of the new building would have to pay for parking spaces. He sensed that those who are in the affordable units would not need the parking. Commissioner Halik added that understands that the need for parking is decreasing but that a n argument sometimes used is that people do not want to pay for parking and demand is low due to those residents not wanting to pay then end up parking on the street. Mr. James clarified that part of the approval of the development was that residents not be eligible for on-street parking permits Commissioner Westerberg inquired if data had been gathered on how many seniors actually may need cars. Mr. James responded that the traffic study provided analyzed anticipated demand; however, he believes the need is overstated, showing a higher utilization than what is currently seen at The Link. Due to more senior tenants, there is less parking demand. Commissioner Westerberg if there is a plan that could be shared for addressing caregivers needing a space to park and ensuring they do not park on the street . Mr. James responded that the development team has looked into the demand. Mr. Monocchio added that as it relates to caregivers, HACC will pay for that parking in The Link building. Chair Rodgers asked for information on the parking report summary requested by Plan Commission. Ms. Jones provided a brief summary stating that generally, the summary showed that there is less demand for parking spaces especially if the development is near public transit options. The hearing was then open to public question and testimony. Chair Rodgers stated that the Plan Commission’s purview is the adjustments being requested by the applicant and questions and comments should be related to those items. Mr. Bruce Enenbach requested a continuance due to some nearby residents not receiving public notice for the meeting, he had concerns and questions on the possible needed remediation of the soil, the building structural issues, and the need for the C1a zoning that Page 201 of 216 APPROVED Page 4 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 was granted since the buildings are now separated and there is no commercial space provided. He added that there should be an ability to participate in the meeting remotely Chair Rodgers asked for clarification on the noticing requirements and actions. Ms. Jones stated that, per the code, a legal notice was published in the Evanston Review, notices were sent to residents within 1,000 feet of the property and signs with public hearing information were posted on the property. Ms. Ruggie confirmed that this met noticing requirements. Chair Rodgers then stated that items related to soil remediation and structural issues are outside of the purview of the Commis sion. The C1a rezoning was previously approved by Council and is not something that is under consideration. The meeting format is something that is determined by the City and can be discussed. Ms. Cecile McHugh also requested a continuance in order to rebut the claim that the development meets Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and calculations for the site development allowances as well as raise concerns regarding soil testing information. The Link site and parking lot behind it had to remediate soil prior to construction and that should be addressed. Chair Rodgers stated that the Inclusionary Housing is not what being looked at this evening. They are not proposed to be changed. Parking is under review and can be discussed. Ms. Clare Waistell requested a continuance to rebut the adequacy and accessibility of parking and mentioned concern over the inability of renters to request a continuance. Chair Rodgers asked if this was indeed the case. Ms. Ruggie stated she will confirm if that is the case. Chair Rodgers explained that a number of the items being mentioned are items that City Council has previously approved. The Commission is reviewing the items where there is a proposed major adjustment but if City Council wishes to refer items back to the Commission it is able to do so. Commissioner Westerberg stated she is inclined to grant the continuance explaining that he Commission was split on the vote for the approved development and proceeded to Planning and Development Committee without a recommendation. She expressed some concern regarding the C1a zoning issue raised. Commissioner Halik agreed. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on granting the continuance. Chair Rodgers responded that Plan Commission rules are a bit different than Zoni ng Board of Appeals and state that continuances are for the purpose of rebutting territory. He then asked Legal staff if testimony could still be taken from the public once a continuance is presented. Ms. Ruggie and Ms. Jones provided clarification on procedures stating that testimony could still be taken at the meeting following the submission of a written continuance. Rules are not clear if the continuance has to be immediate. Ms. Jones stated that the Rules do stated that testimony can be taken if those individuals know they will be unable to attend the continued hearing. Page 202 of 216 APPROVED Page 5 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 Mr. Enenbach stated that Mr. Monocchio has stated that “no one is building this type of building” and this shows that this is not a financially viable building and no t what the County is paid to do. The County provides needed services but speculative real-estate is not their job. He then asked the Commission to reject the proposal. Mr. Enenbach then emphasized the structural issues stating that moving the building seems to be inefficient and there should be shoring done of the existing Perlman building. This was done to the condominium building that stands next to the southern Mather Building in Evanston. He added he is not satisfied with the structural review and stated it should be done by an independent structural engineer. Ms. McHugh stated that the new building will be on the southernmost section of the lot. She calculated the FAR relative to its section of the lot and the Perlman building relative to its portion of the lot. She does not think that if both buildings were new that they would be approved and this should be taken as an opportunity to stop the development in exchange for something that is closer to the design of the building. Chair Rodgers then provided clarification on when Mr. Steve Morrison clarification on if the proportion of units and unit size has changed. Mr. Klosowski responded that the unit sizes are larger with the exception of the units that were adjacent to the existing building. Mr. Morrison then asked if there was information on where data on tenant preference changes due to the Covid pandemic. Mr. James responded that this information was brought forward by the applicant and their partner, Related Midwest which has expertise in private market housing. Ms. Jones then read comments from Ms. Kiera Kelly into the record. Expressing concerns of the C1a zoning, emphasizing that half of the Commission was not in favor of the original development when it was presented. She also mentioned that a precedent is being set with regards to building size and lack of parking. Additional concerns included traffic already being untenable and rental pricing concerns. Ms. Jones stated that these comments will be included in a comment addendum she will include with the next meeting packet. Additional discussion occurred regarding what will be discussed at the next meeting and the ability to grant a continuance for this agenda item. Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to continue this agenda item to the October 27, 2021 Plan Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1. Ayes: Hewko, Johnson, Rodgers, Westerberg Nays: Halik Page 203 of 216 APPROVED Page 6 of 6 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 Councilmember Kelly asked if the next meeting could be held in a hybrid manner. Mr. Rodgers responded that City staff determines how the meeting would be held. Ms. Ruggie stated that this could be done if the Commission chooses for the meeting to be held in that manner. Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to hold the meeting in a hybrid manner . Seconded by Commissioner Hewko. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 4-1. Ayes: Halik, Hewko, Rodgers, Westerberg Nays: Johnson Councilmember Kelly asked for clarification on the Plan Commission’s purview since there were items brought up during the meeting that were stated as not being under the Commission’s purview. Those items should be considered. Chair Rodgers stated that once an application is received, staff outlines those items that are to be reviewed. Ms. Jones responded that the zoning code does outline what the Commission’s responsibilities are and overtime Legal staff has stated that there are items that are not under the Commission purview, such as public benefits. Ms. Ruggie added that the Commission is restricted to the applicant’s application and not dictated by staff. The purview is pursuant to the application that is provided, especially since this project has already been approved. Halik stated that he does not believe the structural integrity of a building and soil has been under the Commission’s purview and are building permit issues. Commissioner Westerberg responded that zoning is under the Commission’s purview and if there are development changes that triggered the zoning change that should be looked at. Mr. James stated he believes many of the topics mentioned have been off -topic and should be limited to the requested adjustments. He clarified that comments will be limited to the parking. Mr. Enenbach stated that the building is not structurally the same and should start over. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT No public Comment 6. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Halik seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved. Meeting w as adjourned at 8:22 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner, Community Development Department Page 204 of 216 Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org> Comments on planned development at 1900 Sherman Avenue 1 message Judith Segal <judywsegal@gmail.com>Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 5:24 PM To: mmjones@cityofevanston.org Attention: Meagan Jones Neighborhood and Land Use Planner As per your recent e-mail, I am writing to offer comments on the planned development at 1900 Sherman Avenue. One of the changes being proposed is a reduction in the number of underground parking spaces. The 25 spaces allotted for parking will not be sufficient for the number of expected residents in the building. Having the residents park elsewhere will create congestion in the neighborhood. I understand that the number of parking spaces has been reduced because of safety issues. I am concerned about having such a large building erected close to my current residence that may pose safety issues. I am also concerned that none of the affordable units in this building will have two bedrooms. I understand that this is not consistent with the inclusionary housing ordinance for the City of Evanston. Even though the affordable units are expected to be occupied by seniors rather than families, a second bedroom may be needed in one’s unit if a senior requires help from a caregiver. I am also concerned about the fact that initial approval for the building required a relaxing of local zoning regulations. I purchased property in the City of Evanston five years ago believing that these zoning regulations would protect me. Much to my surprise, every time a new high rise is proposed that violates existing zoning regulations, the zoning regulations are relaxed to accommodate the developer ’s request. I would like the City of Evanston to have dependable zoning regulations that are enforced and serve as a protection to residents. Sherman Avenue going north from the proposed development is presently an area of two story houses and low rise apartment buildings. A sixteen story building at 1900 Sherman would change the nature of this neighborhood. As a resident living in this area, I would like the neighborhood to retain its current nature. Judith Segal Page 205 of 216 Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org> Proposed adjustment to 1900 Sherman 1 message Mickey <mjp3483@comcast.net>Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:11 PM To: mmjones@cityofevanston.org I question the wisdom of allowing a building of such height be approved in an area that abuts a residential neighborhood. In addition parking is already very problematic in this area and a building with multiple units will only make it more difficult. Please reconsider these factors in your decisions. Thank you. Mal and Mickey Poland. 800 Elgin Road 801. Sent from my iPhone Page 206 of 216 Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org> Please deny today's submission (was denied ability to comment remotely) Kiera Kelly <kiera.kelly@k2-pr.com>Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 7:26 PM To: Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org>, Johanna Leonard <jnyden@cityofevanston.org> Cc: Clare <clareangelakelly@gmail.com> Meagan and Johanna, Please forward the following to the Plan Commissioners. I am sorry that the public is being denied the ability to participate remotely tonight under the circumstances of a pandemic and to the exclusion of seniors and others (like me) who are not able to attend. Hello, I was stunned not to be able to attend the meeting virtually to share my public comment, being that we are still in a pandemic and because it is much more exclusionary. In any case, here are my comments. I ask you also to remember that in the last Plan Commission, half of the members denied this application because of the two-part zoning changes and the impact and precedent to the fragile neighborhood (on the edge of downtown and in Northwestern's backyard.) Comments: “The primary reason for the request to change the zoning is that a Planned Development in a Residential District requires a 12-foot separation between buildings, which cannot be altered via a site development allowance.” (Taken from the developer ’s presentation to Plan Commission on 9/9/2020.) We are here today because the applicant no longer needs the 12-foot separation between buildings, which was the primary rationale for having requested two absurd zoning classification changes: 1. A “map amendment” to change this parcel from RESIDENTIAL R6 to C1a COMMERCIAL, but once that is approved… 2. Ask for a “special use” so this COMMERCIAL property can be flipped back to a “RESIDENTIAL” use. Since this separation is no longer needed, neither is the grounds for the “zoning gymnastics” (the developer ’s words) required for the building, which undermines our zoning code and led to a building that was nearly twice as tall -- 16 stories -- as the original zoning allows in this RESIDENTIAL AREA. The submission today should be denied. Otherwise, we are beginning a precedent where developers simply select the type of zoning they need in order to get the building they feel like they want and then inform the city accordingly (city staff, city commissions, City Council) accordingly. As we know, our zoning is supposed to guide developers -- not have developers guide our planning. Not only does it give us a building that is nearly twice as tall as it should be, but the city creates a situation where another developer can use this case as a precedent. Flash forward to the next developer ’s power point presentation slide given to another Plan Commission in a few years. (See: the LINK building that was promised as a one-off, now used as precedent.) Today’s requested changes are an important lesson for us: developers’ “rationales” for outrageous asks beyond our zoning is the absolute only way to make a building work — is false. Here we were told that the spacing and the exact number of units were firm and there was absolutely no wiggle room. We hear similar claims all the time. Yet the very few times the city denied a proposal for exceeding zoning, such as The LINK right next door, the developer miraculously comes back with a plan . Another example – – the 34 story office building tower on Davis that the developer said was absolutely the only way it was economically viable, yet came back later with a proposal that was Page 207 of 216 nearly half as high — and met our zoning. Or Northlight Theatre saying the only way they could come back to Evanston was the 37th St. tower on Sherman. They are now back with a three-story building. The rationale has disappeared for the Emerson’s egregious zoning changes, so please re-double your duty to uphold the normal zoning classifications and the zoning we have. More shifting false claims are happening time and time again because developers it works in this City and a zoning code is completely adjustable. We also know they do not care about our neighborhoods, they don’t care about gentrification or people being priced out of town as what is the cycle with these luxury buildings, but we hope you do. Please remember that at the last plan commission meeting half of the members recognized that this building being nearly two times too tall for a residential neighborhood was it too much to ask, especially forever changing the precedent in this fragile area outside of downtown and stressed by the developers creating northwestern housing. Also, the public benefits have been greatly reduced as this is a 70% luxury building with only the required number of affordable housing. The $1666 rent for a 1 bedroom is hardly providing any “missing middle.” Hundreds of currently available units in Evanston offer rents much lower. Finally, the traffic on Emerson is untenable as is -- people waiting 2-3 times through a traffic light when traveling west. Any analysis showing otherwise is yet another falsehood. Please deny this change today as it undermines the integrity of our zoning code and as the Plan Commissioners said at the last vote, it asks too much of the existing neighborhood, Thank you. Kiera Kelly Page 208 of 216 Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org> Plan Commission Public Comment Sign Up Form noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 9:25 PM Reply-To: noreply@formstack.com To: mmjones@cityofevanston.org Formstack Submission For: Plan Commission Public Comment Sign Up Form Submitted at 10/25/21 9:25 PM Name:Judith Segal Address of Residence:800 Elgin Road, Unit 1603, Evanston, IL 60201 Phone:(224) 307-2448 How would you like to make your public comment?: Written (see below) Provide Written Comment Here: I am opposed to the proposed changes to the plan for 1900 Sherman. I am concerned about the lack of parking at the site. Requiring that most of the residents of this building park elsewhere in the neighborhood will create congestion. I am also concerned that the number of parking spaces was reduced because of safety issues. I wonder if there are continuing safety concerns associated with this project. In general, I do not like the idea of having a building of this size erected in this neighborhood. It will change the character of the neighborhood, which presently consists entirely of two story homes and low rise apartment buildings. I think the City of Evanston should use this land to build a facility that consists entirely of low income housing units and that is similar in overall size to the public housing building next to it which will share the same lot. This would represent a more effective use of the land for low income housing. Agenda Item (or comment on item not on the agenda): 1900 Sherman Position on Agenda Opposed Page 209 of 216 Item: [Quoted text hidden] Page 210 of 216 Meagan Jones <mmjones@cityofevanston.org> Plan Commission Public Comment Sign Up Form noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:48 PM Reply-To: noreply@formstack.com To: mmjones@cityofevanston.org Formstack Submission For: Plan Commission Public Comment Sign Up Form Submitted at 10/27/21 6:48 PM Name:Toni Rey Address of Residence:1020 Grove St Phone:(847) 847-7644 How would you like to make your public comment?: Written (see below) Provide Written Comment Here: I support changes to the Emerson building, and are proud that Evanston is planning a senior multi income building with many affordable units. I'd like to live there in a full fee unit and I qualify agewise. Agenda Item (or comment on item not on the agenda): 1900 Sherman Position on Agenda Item: [Quoted text hidden] Page 211 of 216 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Page 1 of 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 MEETING MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle Council Chambers Members Present: George Halik, John Hewko, Brian Johnson, Matt Rodgers, Kristine Westerberg Members Absent: Jeanne Lindwall, Staff Present: Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Brian George, Assistant City Attorney Presiding Member: Matt Rodgers 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Commissioners Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Jones called the roll and a quorum was established. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that Chair Lindwall is recusing herself from this evening’s agenda item and he will be acting as Chair for this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: October 13, 2021. Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of October 13, 2021. Seconded by Commissioner Halik. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes were approved, 5-0. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. Major Adjustment to a Planned Development – 1900 Sherman Avenue 21PLND-0076 The Housing Authority of Cook County submits for a Major Adjustment to a Planned Development at 1900 Sherman Ave, previously approved by ordinance 109-O-20, to construct a 16-story residential building in the C1a Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District. The applicant proposes changes to the following site development allowances: 1) a decrease in the number of dwelling units from 168 to 152, 2) a decrease in the number of below grade parking spaces from 37 to 25, and 3) a decrease in zoning height from 172 ft. 8 in. to 168 ft. 4 in. Page 212 of 216 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Page 2 of 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 Cecile McHugh stated that the proposed parking is not adequate. Staff determined that 88 spaces needed. The City recommends leasing additional spaces. HACC’s analysis uses weighted analysis for E2 and The Link. Students at the Link do not need cars. The net new parking spaces are 2% of what is required. She added that The Link and Focus are in talks to develop the parking lot north of the Link. The E 2 development is too far away from the site and too much street and alley crossing would be needed. Clare Waistell stated she lives within 500 ft. of the site and she rebuts that the parking is adequate. The Zoning Analysis and the Applicant show that the re is a need for more parking. She added that key fobs are needed to access parking at The Link and questioned access. She then questioned the accessible spaces and where staff will park, adding that there are 25 spaces for 152 new units. Bruce Enenbach stated he has concerns regarding what is under consideration. He expressed that the developer is deciding what is under consideration and “the tail is wagging the dog” and nothing of something was discussed. He then stated that the changes proposed should lead to the zoning reverting back to R6 and that an independent structural analysis needs to be conducted. Kiera Kelly explained that additional parking was found to be needed in the parking study. She then stated that the comparable buildings nearby, The Link and E2, are largely student living and questioned how those buildings were used versus the new building on Howard Street and the Avidor. She stated that it is not accurate to use the Perlman building to predict parking and there is a big assumption of bikes being us ed by seniors. She expressed that residents in the area would have to live with the consequences of approval of the development and urged the Commission to deny the proposal Bill James of Camiros stated that there are a number of comments being made by people who are not experts. The applicant used a consultant, Gewalt H amilton Associates, to conduct its study. Dan Brinkman of Gewalt Hamilton Associates stated that there were preliminary discussions done with E2 and The Link to determine their need for parking. The study stated that 101 spaces would be needed which is greater than the 88 required by the City. He added that the site itself is under-parked. Mr. James stated that the parking utilization is comparable and useful. Mr. Brinkman stated that the market rate is probably not but is accurate in terms of usage. It is helpful to have spaces nearby. Mr. James stated that the request for continuance was granted for the purposes of discussing parking. Relevant information is what requested deviations from the Code are. The underground parking needed to be redesigned. Utilization in nearby buildings has been shown. There has been a deletion of 16 units which co mpensates for the loss in parking spaces. Mr. James added that the original approval provided a letter with a commitment from E2 to lease 50 parking spaces. The Link currently has up to 70 parking Page 213 of 216 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Page 3 of 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 spaces to lease. The applicant is compensating for the loss o f on-site parking spaces with leased spaces. He added that there will not be a perfectly comparable building for this project. Commissioner Westerberg inquired if the applicant had a chance to check the ratio of parking spaces to residents in other nearby senior spaces. Mr. Brinkman responded that The Link and E2 were the only properties consulted. Commissioner Hewko asked if residents would be prohibited from obtaining on street parking permits as is done for other developm ents. Staff clarified that this was one of the conditions of the original approval and would carry over with the Major Adjustments. Sue Loellbach asked that the Commission support the proposed changes. Both staff and other organizations have vetted the changes. She asked the hearing be brought to a close and the project move forward. Ms. Kelly stated that caregivers are foreseen and it was mentioned that the applicant stated they would pay for the caregivers and asked if the agreement to cover the costs of caregivers to park would be put in writing as it could get expensive. Mr. James stated that HACC made a statement that spaces would be leased at The Link building. Mr. Brinkman added that there was no specific data on caregivers using spaces but that 23 visitor spaces were included as 101 spaces referenced in the parking and traffic study. Richard Minnocchio, Executive Director stated that this information is not known but he did make the commitment that caregivers would not pay for parking if their agency did not cover that cost. Mr. James stated that this could be a condition that the Commission makes. Ms. Kelly asked if undergrad dorm parking needs are similar to what is seen in a typical luxury building. Mr. Brinkman responded that there is not a lot of information on dormitory type parking, nor is there much information on parking demands for affordable units. Generally if a building is more than 5 or 6 stories the parking need is typically about half the number of units. National standards were used and there is not a ton of information on this specific use. Ms. McHugh stated that there are errors in math and that it is not in question if The Link is a student dorm. There is a different utilization for students that live a few blocks away from their university from a TOD building. E2 matches the City’s requirements for parking and the zoning analysis stated 88 parking spaces are required in addition to existing parking spaces. Mr. James stated that parking demand varies from building to building. The Housing Authority will make sure that Perlman residents will have parking onsite or in the adjacent building. Residents of the new building will purchase parking either in the underground parking garage or nearby building and it is to the developers advantage to make sure this parking is secured. Ample off-site parking is not a question as there are buildings nearby that have overbuilt parking and have more than they need. He added that the loss of 12 Page 214 of 216 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Page 4 of 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 spaces along with the reduction of units by 16 does not change the original premise for consideration of parking or project approval in the applicant’s opinion. The public hearing was closed and the Commission began deliberation. Commissioner Westerberg stated that parking was a problem at the initial review and percentages can be difficult to ascertain. She then inquired how solid the agreements to lease the parking spaces are and how to ensure residents will not park in the surrounding neighborhood. She added that seniors will not want to wal k 3 blocks. Parking is adjacent but is it still accessible. Commissioner Halik stated that there are 90 spaces available at the Link so there would be no need to go to E2 for parking. Commissioner Rodgers stated that, per staff, there is possibility of development on the lot adjacent to The Link development so parking is not necessarily firm. He expressed concern of a new development coming in and saying they have no parking. Commissioner Hewko stated that the developer could lower the building height but that would have economic impacts. With regards to parking, if residents are prohibited from obtaining on-street parking permits, that alleviates some of the concern. Some residents will do this, some will not but that is not a basis to deny the project. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is not concerned about the height or number of units which are lower than what was originally approved. The main concern is parking. Without residents being able to get on-street parking permits they risk getting tickets. Parking is also available elsewhere. The Commission then reviewed the standards. Standards for Special Use were found to be met with some additional discussion occurring surrounding parking impact being offset by prohibiting on-street parking permits to building residents and requiring 12 additional parking spaces. Standard for Planned Development was found to be met with a reduction in impact relating to height and number of dwelling units. Standards for development in the C1a District were found to be maintained noting that an extension is being requested to the amount of time provided to obtain building permits. Commissioner Halik made a motion to recommend approval of the major adjustments as stated by staff with additional conditions that 1) 12 additional parking spaces are leased to offset those lost in the underground facility and 2) parking for caregivers is paid for, if requested, by the Housing Authority of Cook County. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1. Page 215 of 216 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Page 5 of 5 Plan Commission Minutes 8.11.21 Ayes: Halik, Hewko, Johnson, Rodgers Nays: Westerberg 5. PUBLIC COMMENT No public Comment 6. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Halik moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Westerberg seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved. Meeting w as adjourned at 8:17 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner, Community Development Department Page 216 of 216