HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal - Ord 36-O-26 Approving Major Variations at 1103-05 Emerson St (1) (3)
05/11/2026
36-O-26
AN ORDINANCE
Approving Major Variations for 1103-1105 Emerson Street in the R6
General Residential District
WHEREAS, the City of Evanston is a home-rule municipality pursuant to
Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and
WHEREAS, as a home rule unit of government, the City has the authority
to adopt legislation and to promulgate rules and regulations that protect the public
health, safety, and welfare of its residents; 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
WHEREAS, by submitting an application for Major Variations to the City,
the Applicant, Walter Matan of PM Properties, LLC, (the “Applicant”), requested approval
of a Major Variation to City Code Section 6-8-8-4(C), for the property legally described in
Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, commonly known as
1103-1105 Emerson Street (the “Subject Property”) in the R6 General Residential
Page 1 of 42
36-O-26
District, to allow twenty-four (24) dwelling units (including three (3) on-site inclusionary
units) plus six (6) market rate IHO bonus units for thirty (30) total dwelling units where a
maximum of twelve (12) dwelling units is allowed; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant additionally requested approval of a Major
Variation to City Code Section 6-16-3-1, Table 16-B, to allow a total of nine (9) off-street
parking space (four (4) onsite + five (5) offsite) where a total of thirty (30) off-street
parking spaces are required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also requested approval of a Major Variation to
City Code Section 6-4-6-3(A)1, to allow accessory uses to cover 60% of a rear yard
where accessory uses are restricted to no more than 40% rear yard coverage; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Commission (“LUC”) met on February 25,
2026, pursuant to proper notice, and again on March 25, 2026, to consider case no.
25ZMJV-0053, the application filed for Major Variations at the Subject Property (the
“Zoning Application”); and
WHEREAS, after having considered the evidence presented, including the
exhibits and materials submitted, and public testimony provided, the LUC made the
following findings per Section 6-3-8-12 of the Zoning Ordinance:
1.The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on
the use, enjoyment, or property values of adjoining properties. The
proposed use is allowed in the underlying zoning district and is
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density
functions as a transition between the higher density developments to
the south and lower density developments to the north. The condition
of approval relative to leasing 6 off-site parking stalls will ensure that
the proposed parking supply will accommodate expected demand. The
proposed rear yard coverage is similar to existing properties in the
vicinity and the LUC found that this standard was met.
2.The requested variation is in keeping with the intent of the zoning
ordinance: The purpose of the R6 district is to provide for high density
Page 2 of 42
36-O-26
residential development, primarily multi-family dwellings, in and around
the downtown area. Given the adjacency of the site to downtown, the
proposed density is appropriate and similar in scale to density
variations granted in comparable R6 locations. The proposed
variations have been shown to be practical given historical
development patterns in the vicinity, and for these reasons, this
standard was met.
3. The alleged hardship or practical difficulty is peculiar to the property:
The location of the property near Northwestern University means that
many of the potential tenants will be students, who are less likely to
own a car and so enforcement of the parking regulations is not
practical. The location of the Subject Property on the edge of
downtown and as a transition between higher and lower densities
warrants additional density beyond the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The development is providing larger units that are
suitable for families, and for these reasons, this standard was met.
4. The property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical
difficulty as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter
of the regulations were to be carried out: Requiring the development to
include 30 parking stalls would likely result in the need for underground
parking, which would significantly add to the development costs.
Alternatively, to provide a 30-car surface parking lot would mean the
building would have to be taller to achieve the same number of
proposed units, resulting in significant structural costs and a less
compatible height. Reducing the number of units to comply with the
density regulations would lead to the elimination of many of the
positive attributes of the development, such as the rooftop amenity
area and site landscaping, and would disable the Applicant from being
able to charge more affordable rents. Compliance with the rear yard
coverage regulations would result in a reduction to either the building
footprint or onsite parking area, which would impact the financial
viability of the site. The LUC found that this standard was met.
5. The variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract
additional income from the property, or while granting of the variation
will result in additional income to the applicant and while the applicant
for the variation may not have demonstrated that the application is not
based exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the
property, the Land Use Commission has found that public benefits to
the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole will be derived
from approval of the variation, that include, but are not limited to, any
of the standards of Section 6-3-6-3 (Public Benefits) of this Chapter:
The Applicant has testified that they intend to keep the development as
affordable as possible and the proposed number of units is needed to
maintain the financial viability of the property and the LUC found that
this standard is met.
Page 3 of 42
36-O-26
6. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person
having an interest in the property: The variations are requested relative
to Zoning Ordinance requirements that are not aligned with historical
development patterns in the vicinity and recent comparable
developments approved in the R6 district. The current Zoning
Ordinance requirements do not take into consideration the additional
development costs resulting from recent amendments to City goals,
policies, and codes. Analysis of the Zoning Ordinance to align it with
desired future development is going to begin in 2026, and for these
reasons, the LUC found this standard was met.
7. The requested variation requires the least deviation from the applicable
regulation among the feasible options identified before the Land Use
Commission issues its decision or recommendation to the City Council
regarding said variation: The proposed building is not out of scale
when taking into account its transitional location and recent
comparable R6 developments. In consideration of the condition of
approval to lease additional off-site parking stalls, the development will
be in general alignment with the expected parking demand and ratios
at similar developments in Evanston. The extent of the rear yard
coverage variation is less than existing rear yard coverage at several
residential properties in the vicinity, and for these reasons, the LUC
found that this standard was met.
WHEREAS, the Land Use Commission recommended approval of the
Zoning Application with three (3) “yay” votes cast in favor of approval and two (2) “nay”
votes against approval, with four (4) commissioners absent, of the application for
approval of Major Variations at the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2026, 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
Application for Major Variations at the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, during said meeting, the P&D Committee received input from
the public, carefully deliberated, and recommended approval thereof by the City
Council; and
Page 4 of 42
36-O-26
WHEREAS, at its meetings on May 11, May 26, and June 22, 2026, 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, on June 1, 2026, Senate Bill 2111 (the “People Over Parking
Act”) took effect, which prohibits Illinois municipalities from imposing or enforcing any
minimum off-street private parking requirements for new residential and commercial
developments that are within one-half mile of a public transportation hub, whereby
negating the need for a Major Variation to City Code Section 6-16-3-1, Table 16-B, to
allow a total of nine (9) off-street parking space (four (4) onsite + five (5) offsite) where a
total of thirty (30) off-street parking spaces are required.
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 approval of the following major variations requested at the
Subject Property:
1.Major Variation to City Code Section 6-8-8-4(C) to allow twenty-four (24)
dwelling units (including three (3) on-site inclusionary units) plus six (6) market
Page 5 of 42
36-O-26
rate IHO bonus units for thirty (30) total dwelling units where a maximum of
twelve (12) dwelling units is allowed.
2. Major Variation to City Code Section 6-4-6-3(A)1, to allow accessory uses to
cover 60% of a rear yard where accessory uses are restricted to no more than
40% rear yard coverage.
SECTION 3: Pursuant to Subsection 6-3-8-14 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the City Council imposes the following conditions on the aforementioned Major
Variations granted hereby, and violation of any of which shall constitute grounds for
penalties and revocation of said Major Variations pursuant to Subsections 6 -3-8-14 and
6-3-10-6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. Residential tenants of the Subject Property shall be prohibited from obtaining on-
street residential parking passes for street parking in the vicinity of the Subject
Property.
2. The site plan shall be modified so as to not exceed the maximum impervious
surface coverage of 80% as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Future increases
to impervious surface coverage shall be permitted subject to compliance with the
regulations in effect at the time of any proposed increase.
3. If the proposed transformer is required, the Applicant shall explore further
reduction of the pavement to the north of the transformer to increase greenspace
and discourage the use of this area for non -conforming parking that would
encroach into the alley. Should the t ransformer not be required, the Applicant
shall explore elimination of the paved area to the east of the eastern most
parking space to enhance greenspace and potential preservation of the sixty-inch
(60”) Cottonwood tree on the abutting property to the east.
4. The front yard improvements (e.g. landscaping, location of servicewalk leading
from the public sidewalk to the recessed front entryway, and bike parking area),
shall be installed in substantial compliance with the landscape plan prepared by
Kettelkamp & Kettelkamp, dated February 2026.
5. If trash receptacles are permanently stored on the exterior of the Subject
Property, a fenced enclosure (or comparable equivalent screening) shall be
installed for their storage.
6. Prior to any trimming of the trees that encroach on the Subject Property and are
located on the abutting property to the east, the applicant shall undertake best
efforts to coordinate with the abutting property owner prior to any tree trimming.
7. Pursuant to Title 5 Chapter 7 of the Evanston City Code, the proposed
development is a “covered development” and the Applicant shall comply with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In particular, the Subject Property shall be
operated in substantial compliance with the following:
Page 6 of 42
36-O-26
a. Inclusionary Housing Application: Deemed compliant on February 6, 2026
and is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance effective on that
date. The Applicant proposes three (3) onsite Inclusionary Housing units.
b. Modifications: The Applicant may comply with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance in another manner than above if an updated Inclusionary
Housing Application is submitted and deemed compliant. Modifications to
overall project plans may require the Applicant to resubmit an updated
Inclusionary Housing Application.
8. The Applicant shall sign and agree to a Construction Management Plan (CMP)
with the City of Evanston prior to issuance of a building permit. The CMP shall
include, but is not limited to, the following: construction phasing/staging plans;
construction hours; site access including traffic and pedestrian safety plans;
contractor parking; damage control and vibration monitoring (if warranted);
construction exhibits; and project communications/signage to address concerns
from adjacent property owners.
9. The Applicant shall meet with the neighboring property owners on an ongoing
basis prior to, during, and after construction to address impacts of the proposed
development.
10. The Applicant shall work with City staff to finalize exterior building materials and
colors prior to building permit issuance
11. City staff is authorized to administratively replace the building elevations attached
to this Ordinance, dated 01/15/26, with updated elevations that mirror the
renderings submitted by the applicant on June 17, 2026, before recordation of
this Ordinance.
12. The applicant shall be required to implement the following items and submit
documentation to City staff before building permit issuance or prior to FCO as
noted below -
Prior to building permit issuance:
a.Pre-construction Condition Survey: The Church will photograph and
document the conditions of the Church structure and property. The Church
is encouraged to consult a structural engineer or an architect to help
determine what areas of the structure and property should be focused on
for the photographic survey.
b.Property Manager Engineering Assistance: PM Properties offered to
provide access to its civil engineers to assist with the Pre-construction
Condition Survey and to help identify areas of focus and potential
concerns prior to the commencement of construction.
c.Vibration Monitoring During Construction: PM Properties agrees to
implement vibration monitoring during construction activities, particularly
during demolition, excavation, and foundation work, to help identify and
address any construction-related impacts to adjacent properties.
d.Rodent Abatement: The City of Evanston requires professional rodent
abatement prior to the demolition of the existing structures. PM Properties
Page 7 of 42
36-O-26
agrees to ongoing rodent abatement throughout construction. The Church
acknowledges rodent movement will occur due to the movement of dirt
during construction and is encouraged to take proactive steps within their
own ordinary rodent abatement program.
e. Insurance Review: PM Properties agrees to provide a copy of pertinent
construction insurance policies for review by the Church to further clarify
insurance coverage details.
f. Stormwater Plan: PM Properties agrees to provide a clear and concise
stormwater drainage plan to the Church that explains how stormwater will
not be directed towards or impact the Church property.
g. 24-Hour Contact: A 24-hour emergency contact will be listed on the
construction fence throughout construction.
Prior to FCO -
a. Amplified Noise: PM Properties agrees not to install an amplified sound
system at the property or on the rooftop deck.
b. Privacy Fence: PM Properties agrees to remove the old 4 -foot tall wood
fence that is located along the Church parking lot and the 1105 Emerson
property line and construct a 6-foot tall wood privacy fence in the same
location.
c. Noise Monitoring: PM Properties agrees to look into on-site noise
monitoring that provides instantaneous notification to the property
manager upon violation by a tenant.
13. The Applicant shall construct the proposed improvements to the Subject Property
in substantial compliance to the application materials, the development plans
attached hereto and incorporated therein as Exhibit 2, the terms of this approval
ordinance, all applicable City Code requirements, and the Applicant's testimony
and representations to the Land Use Commission, the P&D Committee, and the
City Council.
14. The Applicant shall record this Ordinance authorizing Major Variations with the
Cook County Clerk and provide to the City a copy of the recorded Ordinance
prior to permit issuance for the proposed development.
SECTION 4: 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”, and any and all successors, owners, and operators
of the Subject Property.
SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
Page 8 of 42
36-O-26
SECTION 6: 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.
SECTION 7: All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are in conflict with
the terms of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 8: 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 9: 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:_________________, 2026
Adopted:___________________, 2026
Approved:
__________________________, 2026
_______________________________
Daniel Biss, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
Stephanie Mendoza, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
Alexandra B. Ruggie,Corporation Counsel
July 13
Page 9 of 42
May 11
36-O-26
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE EAST 10 FEET OF LOT 16 AND THE WEST 20 FEET OF LOT 17 (EXCEPT
ALLEY) OF COUNTY CLERK'S DIVISION OF UNSUBDIVIDED LANDS IN THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 14, EAST OF
THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
ALSO, THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF LOT 17 (EXCEPT ALLEY) OF
COUNTY CLERK'S DIVISION OF UNSUBDIVIDED LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 14, EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
KNOWN AS: 1103 -1105 EMERSON STREET, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS.
PERMANENT INDEX NUMBER:
11-18-108-028-0000
11-18-108-029-0000
Page 10 of 42
36-O-26
EXHIBIT 2
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Page 11 of 42
N
60'-0"
16
6
'
-
7
"
21
'
-
3
"
3'-0"
12
0
'
-
4
"
25
'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"4'-0"11'-0"8'-6"8'-6"
10,008 LOT AREA
1519 SF IMPERVIOUS
6498 SF BUILDING COVERAGE
8017 SF TOTAL GROUND COVERAGE
1991 SF LANDSCAPING
6498 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SITE PLAN
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
PUBLIC ALLEY
EMERSON ST.
11 22 33 44
EV CHARGING STATION
TRANSFORMER
BUILDING FLOOR AREA
5 FLOORS @ 6,498 S.F.
GROSS BUILDING AREA
- 32,490 S.F.
ACCESSORY AREA (TYPICAL FLOOR)
ELEVATOR SHAFT - 69 S.F.
STAIRWAY - 167 S.F.
STAIRWAY - 176 S.F.
ELECTRIC PANELS - 18 S.F.
TOTAL ACCESSORY AREA/FLOOR - 430 S.F. X 5 FLOORS - (2150) S.F.
ACCESSORY AREA (1ST FLOOR)
BICYCLE/GARBAGE - 490 S.F.
WATER/FIRE PUMP - 107 S.F.
ELECTRIC ROOM - 125 S.F.
MAIL/PACKAGE ROOM - 92 S.F.
TRASH CHUTES (25 S.F./FLOOR) X 4 FLOORS - 100 S.F.
TOTAL
GROSS FLOOR AREA OF BUILDING LESS ACCESSORY USES
- (914) S.F.
-29,426 S.F.
WOOD UTILITY POLE
54'-0"
3'-0"
Page 12 of 42
UP
UP
M
BOOSTER PUMP
FIRE
PUMP
WATER/FIRE PUMP
21
'
-
6
"
3'-10"
7'-6"7'-6"
60'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
21'-2"
6'
-
2
"
6'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
1
"
5'
-
0
"
6'-0"10'-7"
11'-10"
7'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
7'
-
7
"
5'-10"
3'
-
8
"
16
6
'
-
9
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
5'-3"
3'
-
0
"
5'-2"
3'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
12
0
'
-
4
"
12
'
-
6
"
10'-0"3'-6"
0'-6"10'-0"3'-6"
13'-9"
10
'
-
6
"
8'-6"
4'
-
9
"
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
6
"
6'
-
3
"
9'
-
7
"
2'
-
7
"
12
'
-
8
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'
-
1
0
"
12'-4"
8'-5"
3'-0"
8'-6"
3'-0"
9'
-
9
"
10
'
-
0
"
3'-6"
1'-6"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
8
"
2'
-
1
0
"
2'
-
8
"
9'
-
1
0
"
8'
-
3
"
5'
-
5
"
3'
-
0
"
4'
-
1
0
"
6'
-
3
"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
6'-0"
3'-0"
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
8
"
3'-0"5'-10"2'-0"11'-5"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
3'
-
0
"
3'-9"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
3'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
7
"
6'
-
3
"
4'
-
1
0
"
10'-7"
3'-0"5'-10"2'-0"11'-5"
6'
-
9
"
3'-6"6'-3"
3'
-
0
"
6'
-
3
"
3'
-
0
"
7'
-
5
"
4'-0"
3'-6"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
5
"
10'-6"2'-0"10'-1"
2'-0"
3'-0"3'-0"
MANAGEMENT OFFICE/
MAINTENANCE
MAIL & AMAZON ROOM
TRASH
ELECTRIC ROOM
11 22 33 44
INTERCOM
RECYCLING
EV CHARGING
STATION
EV CHARGING
STATION
FURNACE
BATH 1
LAUNDRY
1-BR
447 S.F.
KITCHEN
LAUNDRY
1-BR
452 S.F.
KITCHEN
1ST FLOOR:
(4) 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS
(1) 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS
(1) 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS
1ST FLOOR
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
1ST FLOOR AREA = 6498 S.F.
LIVING ROOM
LIVING ROOM
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 1
152 S.F.
1349 S.F.
TOTAL GROUND COVERAGE = 8017 S.F.
BUILDING COVERAGE = 6498 S.F.
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 3
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
STUDY
BATH 2
BATH 3
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 1
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
BATH 2
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
BATH 1
KITCHEN
LAUNDRY
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
LIVING ROOM
BATH 1
KITCHEN
STUDY
3-BR+STUDY
1120 S.F.
2-BR+STUDY
919 S.F.
BATH 1
1-BR
472 S.F.
NOTE:
PROVIDE BLOCKING
FOR GRAB BARS
REMOVABLE CABINET
REMOVABLE CABINET
FU
R
N
A
C
E
60/48 36/48
36
36
60
1-BR
427 S.F.
FURNACE LAUNDRY
TYPICAL FUTURE
GRAB BARS
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
LIVING ROOM
BEDROOM 1
REMOVABLE CABINET
REMOVABLE CABINET
REMOVABLE CABINET
TRANSFORMER
Page 13 of 42
DN
DN
UP
UP
5'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
7'-6"
10'-0"3'-0"
21'-2"
12'-0"
10'-0"3'-0"9'-1"
10'-0"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
12
'
-
8
"
13'-3"
10
'
-
6
"
4'
-
0
"
5'
-
9
"
8'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
10
'
-
7
"
2'
-
0
"
9'-11"
9'-0"
0'
-
4
"
13'-3"
3'-0"
6'
-
0
"
16
'
-
6
"
3'
-
1
0
"
4'
-
0
"
16
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
6
"
5'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
"
3'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
2'
-
1
1
"
12
'
-
8
"
10
'
-
0
"
13'-6"
10'-0"3'-3"8'-10"
5'
-
6
"
13
'
-
4
"
5'
-
6
"
5'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
14
'
-
1
1
"
9'-1"
12'-4"
2'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
8'-5"
2'-0"
3'-0"
6'
-
0
"
9'-2"
3'-0"
5'
-
6
"
3'-0"
9'-1"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
1
0
"
10'-1"2'-0"10'-0"
3'-1"5'
-
6
"
4'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
3'-0"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
9
"
3'-0"
5'
-
8
"
5'
-
8
"
6'
-
1
"
3'-0"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
2'-0"2'-0"
5'-2"4'-6"
10
'
-
0
"
7'
-
5
"
FLOORS 2-5:
(2) 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS X 4 = 8
(2) 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS X 4 = 8
(2) 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS X 4 = 8
TOTALS 4 24
2ND FLOOR
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
TYPICAL FLOOR AREA = 6498 S.F.
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 3
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
STUDY
BATH 2
BATH 3
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 1
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
BATH 2
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
BATH 1
KITCHEN
LAUNDRY
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
LIVING ROOM
BATH 1
KITCHEN
STUDY
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
KITCHEN
BATH 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
LIVING ROOMKITCHEN
STUDY
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 3
LAUNDRY
FURNACE
WATER
HEATER
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
BATH 1
BATH 2
3-BR
1058 S.F.
3-BR+STUDY
1113 S.F.
2-BR+STUDY
923 S.F.
1-BR
472 S.F.
BATH 1
TOTAL
FLOORS
TOTAL
UNITS
2-BR+STUDY
904 S.F.
1-BR
472 S.F.
BATH 3
FU
R
N
A
C
E
WA
T
E
R
HE
A
T
E
R
BATH 2
LAUNDRY
Page 14 of 42
DN
DN
DN
ROOF PLAN
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
ELEVATOR
SOLAR PANELS
ROOF DECK
1880 S.F.
PORCELAIN TILE
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS
TYPICAL TREE IN 30"X54" PLANTER
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
AC
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
E
R
S
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
Page 15 of 42
EAST ELEVATION
¼"=1'-0"
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
10/15/26
FACE BRICK
ALUMINUM GUARD RAIL
T/GRADE & 1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
T/2ND FLOOR
+9'-4"
T/3RD FLOOR
+18'-8"
T/4TH FLOOR
+28'-0"
T/5TH FLOOR
+37'-4"
T/ROOF
+48'-8"
T/PARAPET
+52'-8"
T/ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE
+60'-0"
EIFS TRIM
ALUMINUM COPING
GLASS
GUARDRAIL
EIFS CLADDING
Page 16 of 42
FACE BRICK
EIFS TRIM
ALUMINUM COPING
ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL RAIL
NORTH ELEVATION
¼"=1'-0"
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
T/GRADE & 1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
T/2ND FLOOR
+9'-4"
T/3RD FLOOR
+18'-8"
T/4TH FLOOR
+28'-0"
T/5TH FLOOR
+37'-4"
T/ROOF
+48'-8"
T/PARAPET
+52'-8"
T/ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE
+60'-0"
EIFS CLADDING
Page 17 of 42
FACE BRICK
EIFS CLADDING
LIMESTONE COPING
SOUTH ELEVATION
¼"=1'-0"
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
T/GRADE & 1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
T/2ND FLOOR
+9'-4"
T/3RD FLOOR
+18'-8"
T/4TH FLOOR
+28'-0"
T/5TH FLOOR
+37'-4"
T/ROOF
+48'-8"
T/PARAPET
+52'-8"
T/ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE
+60'-0"
EIFS TRIM
GLASS GUARDRAIL
ALUMINUM CANOPY
FIXED GLASS
ALUMINUM COPING
EIFS CLADDING
EIFS TRIM
ALUMINUM CLAD PATIO
Page 18 of 42
WEST ELEVATION
¼"=1'-0"
1103 EMERSON ST.
EVANSTON, IL 60201
01/15/26
T/GRADE & 1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
T/2ND FLOOR
+9'-4"
T/3RD FLOOR
+18'-8"
T/4TH FLOOR
+28'-0"
T/5TH FLOOR
+37'-4"
T/ROOF
+48'-8"
T/PARAPET
+52'-8"
T/ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE
+60'-0"
FACE BRICK
ALUMINUM GUARD RAIL
EIFS TRIM
ALUMINUM COPING
EIFS CLADDING
GLASS
GUARDRAIL
Page 19 of 42
Page 20 of 42
Page 21 of 42
Page 22 of 42
Page 23 of 42
Page 24 of 42
Page 25 of 42
MINUTES
Land Use Commission
Wednesday, March 25, 2026 @ 7:00 PM
Lorraine H. Morton City Hall, 909 Davis Street, Suite 240, Council Chambers
COMMITTEE MEMBER
PRESENT:
Jeanne Lindwall, Commissioner Vice-Chair
Brian Johnson, Commissioner
Darush Mabadi, Commissioner
Loren Berlin, Commissioner
Luke Harris-Ferree, Commissioner
COMMITTEE MEMBER
ABSENT:
Max Puchtel, Commissioner Chair
Kiril Mirintchev, Commissioner
Myrna Arevalo, Commissioner
Jameika Mangum, Commissioner
STAFF PRESENT: Meagan Jones, Staff Liaison
Jeremiah Bebo, Staff Liaison
Sam Hubbard, Staff Liaison
Brian George, Assistant City Attorney
Taylor Gendel, Staff Liaison
A. CALL TO ORDER/DECLARATION OF A QUORUM
B. APPROVAL OF VIRTUAL COMMISSION MEMBER PARTICIPATION
C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
D. OLD BUSINESS
A. Major Variations | 1103-1105 Emerson Street | 25ZMJV-0053
Walter Matan, applicant, of PM Properties, LLC, requests Major Variations to allow
construction of a 5-story multi-family residential building with 30 dwelling units (including 6
bonus dwelling units per the IHO) and 9 parking stalls (4 onsite + 5 leased offsite) in the R6
General Residential District. The applicant requests approval of the following Major
Variations:
Section 6-8-8-4(C), to allow 24 dwelling units (including a minimum of 10% on-site
inclusionary) and 6 bonus dwelling units for a total of 30 dwelling units where a
Page 1 of 8
Draft
Page 26 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
maximum of 12 dwelling units are allowed.
Section 6-16-3-1, Table 16-B, to allow a total of 9 off-street parking space (4 onsite +
5 offsite) where a total of 30 parking stalls are required.
Section 6-4-6-3(A)1, to allow an accessory use (open off-street parking) to cover 60%
of a rear yard where accessory uses are restricted to no more than 40% coverage.
The applicant may seek and the Land Use Commission may consider additional Variations
as may be necessary or desirable for the proposed development. The Land Use
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, the determining body for this
case in accordance with Section 6-3-8-10 of the Evanston Zoning Ordinance. PINs: 11-18-
108-028-0000 and 11-18-108-029-0000.
Chair Lindwall opened Public Testimony to the two property owners who were granted
continuances at the February 22, 2026, meeting.
Tina Paden, owner of multiple properties on Emerson Street, opposed the variations, arguing
that the five-story structure would erase the block's Black history and cast permanent
shadows over her remaining green space. She characterized the parking and loading plans
as deceptive, stating that providing only four spaces for 30 units would force illegal parking
and loading onto her property and the narrow alley. Additionally, she presented evidence of
existing property line encroachments and expressed fear that the increased density would
lead to sewage backups and rodent issues similar to those experienced after the E2
development.
Commissioner Mabadi asked what the witness considered an appropriate density for the site
given its R6 zoning.
Tina Paden stated that the developer should build as of right with 12 units rather than the
requested 30.
Commissioner Mabadi thanked the witness for the historical context regarding the YMCA.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the specific ownership and current use of the
adjacent properties to better understand the existing residential density on the block.
Tina Paden clarified that her vacant commercial space at 1025 Emerson Street remained
unoccupied due to zoning challenges and noted that nearby properties to the east also
contain rental units.
Reverend Mitchell Smith, representing Ebenezer AME Church, requested that the city
uphold the existing 12-unit zoning maximum, noting that the 30-unit proposal represents an
unprecedented density increase for the area. He expressed concern that the project lacks a
dedicated loading area and will exacerbate existing alley congestion, trash buildup, and
unauthorized use of the church’s private parking lot. He argued that the influx of market-rate
units could drive up local property values, placing financial pressure on long-standing Fifth
Ward residents and institutions. He requested that any approval include strict conditions for
alley management, a resident parking permit ban, pre-construction property documentation,
and a designated local contact for ongoing operational issues.
Page 2 of 8
Draft
Page 27 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
Acting Chair Lindwall inquired whether the existing issues with parties and late-night activity
primarily stemmed from residents on Emerson Street or those to the north of the alley.
Reverend Smith clarified that the activity is largely attributed to student housing north of the
alley and expressed concern that increasing density to 30 units will exacerbate these issues,
placing further administrative and maintenance burdens on the church.
Commissioner Mabadi asked if the church would consider a compromise involving a shorter,
wider building with fewer units, even if it required a larger lot coverage variance, to mitigate
the "shadowing" and density concerns. He noted that under current R6 zoning, a developer
could build an 85-foot-tall luxury building by right, which might be more "punishing" to the
neighbors than the current proposal.
Reverend Smith stated that he was wary of discussing hypotheticals and that meeting code
"on paper" does not solve the practical, day-to-day operational issues the church faces. He
emphasized that the focus should remain on how the current 30-unit density will realistically
hinder the church and the surrounding community.
Commissioner Mabadi expressed discomfort with the proposed density, noting that the small
lot size prevents the inclusion of necessary amenities like green space or a dog run.
Melissa Klotz, representing the applicant, stated that the five-story design serves as a
transitional "cake layer" from downtown and noted that the requested density is financially
necessary to maintain lower rents and provide affordable units at 40% AMI. She clarified that
a 12-unit "as of right" development would likely result in a taller luxury building with higher
rents to accommodate on-site parking and infrastructure costs. Addressing neighbor
concerns, she disagreed that there was insufficient loading by noting the units will be
furnished and expressed a willingness to accept a formal condition requiring ongoing
communication with Ebenezer AME Church to mitigate operational impacts.
Commissioner Berlin asked about specific rent projections to clarify the target market, noting
that descriptions like "missing middle" remained vague without a baseline comparison to
nearby luxury developments like E2.
Melissa Klotz stated that exact numbers were unavailable at this stage due to pending
construction bids but emphasized that the lack of high-rise amenities would naturally keep
rents below downtown luxury prices.
Walter Matan, property owner, stated that the building’s reduced unit sizes were designed to
ensure rents are at least 20% to 30% lower than luxury developments like E2.
Commissioner Berlin expressed appreciation for the clarification, noting that the projected
pricing for three-bedroom units helped define the target market.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the capacity of nearby garages intended for leased
parking, expressing concern over the cumulative consumption of off-site parking by multiple
Page 3 of 8
Draft
Page 28 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
developments.
Melissa Klotz confirmed that the garages have verified excess capacity and noted that a
taller, more slender building was avoided because it would require cost-prohibitive concrete
construction and would not significantly alter the shadow impact established by the adjacent
E2 building.
Commissioner Berlin suggested disentangling the variance requests from neighbors'
operational concerns, asking if the Commission could establish firmer conditions to protect
adjacent properties during and after construction.
Department Services Supervisor Jeremiah Bebo clarified that many neighbor concerns are
already addressed by the eleven conditions in the staff report, including mandatory
construction management plans and refuse screening requirements.
Melissa Klotz noted that the applicant has agreed to nearly all of the church's specific
requests in prior correspondence and reiterated her support for a formal condition requiring
continued meetings with the church.
Commissioner Harris-Ferree inquired about the enforcement and intended use of the four
parking spaces in the rear of the property.
Melissa Klotz clarified that the spaces are unassigned and intended for short-term use, such
as deliveries and grocery drop-offs, to minimize street impact.
Senior Planner Sam Hubbard confirmed that providing these spaces on-site satisfies code
requirements regardless of their short-term designation.
Commissioner Mabadi argued that the development likely requires significantly more parking
than proposed, noting that even if the project is not "luxury," new buildings with higher rents
typically attract tenants with vehicles. He expressed skepticism regarding the applicant's
projected .3 parking ratio, suggesting that the "dorm-like" nature of the project would still
result in student tenants bringing cars to the area.
Melissa Klotz responded that the applicant’s data from six other nearby properties shows a
consistent surplus of unused on-site parking. She emphasized that the project is specifically
designed for tenants who do not wish to own vehicles and noted that, per city conditions, any
resident who does own a car would be prohibited from street parking and required to lease
off-site spaces.
Commissioner Berlin highlighted the discrepancy between the applicant's claims of
underutilized parking and neighbor testimony regarding existing trespassing and illegal
parking on private lots.
Melissa Klotz agreed that the applicant could install signage explicitly stating that the
neighboring church and residential lots are private property and that unauthorized parking
constitutes trespassing.
Page 4 of 8
Draft
Page 29 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
Melissa Klotz provided a closing statement, asserting that the property owners aimed to align
with the "Envision Evanston" goals by providing more housing, inclusionary units at 40%
AMI, and family-sized units without seeking property tax breaks. She detailed extensive
neighbor outreach efforts since 2025. She emphasized that the project represents an effort
to address the housing crisis and create a legacy property that supports the community’s
long-term vibrancy..
Acting Chair Lindwall Closed public testimony and opened commissioner deliberations
Commissioner Mabadi stated he does not support the project in its current iteration, arguing
that 30 units on a 50-foot-wide lot exceeds the site's natural design tolerance. He
characterized the development as a "high-end dorm" for students and noted that the city
should prioritize density that serves a broader range of residents rather than just one market
segment.
Commissioner Harris-Ferree expressed support for the project, noting that the three-
bedroom inclusionary units could serve families in transition or those moving out of shelters.
He argued that increasing the supply of dedicated student housing frees up existing larger
apartments for families and stated that the current design remains within the character of the
surrounding area.
Commissioner Johnson opposed the project, stating the site’s size and shape are
inappropriate for the proposed density. He expressed skepticism regarding the claim that
students do not bring vehicles and cautioned the Commission against approving a 200%
density variance, which he noted significantly exceeds previous area precedents and risks
permanently lowering zoning standards.
Acting Chair Lindwall supported the project, emphasizing that the inclusionary and family-
sized units address a long-standing housing deficiency in Evanston. She dismissed lot
coverage concerns by noting that modern storm detention requirements mitigate flooding
more effectively than dated zoning codes. Additionally, she argued against excessive
parking mandates, stating that the associated costs are passed on to tenants and undermine
the goal of creating affordable market-rate housing.
Commissioner Berlin commended the 40% AMI units but questioned why a significant
density variance didn't yield more affordable housing. She acknowledged the site's proximity
to downtown while insisting on firm protections for the neighboring church against
construction impacts and trespassing.
Commissioner Mabadi argued that the 57-bedroom proposal is an extreme application of R6
zoning that exceeds the lot's natural capacity. He cautioned against ignoring parking needs
and stated the project’s intensity could negatively affect the neighbors' quality of life.
Commissioner Harris-Ferree suggested that parking is self-regulating, as car owners will
avoid buildings without stalls. He expressed skepticism that a taller design would reduce
density and concluded that the project provides a necessary middle-ground for rent prices.
Page 5 of 8
Draft
Page 30 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
Acting Chair Lindwall suggested reviewing the proposed conditions to determine if they
sufficiently address neighbor concerns. She noted that many of the existing neighborhood
issues are caused by current residents in surrounding buildings rather than the proposed
project, and cautioned that the Commission cannot fully resolve longstanding challenges
regarding student behavior through this single development approval.
Condition 1: Acting Chair Lindwall opposed the condition, however, the four other
commissioners desired to keep the condition as is.
Condition 2: Acting Chair Lindwall noted that the Commission appeared to be in unanimous
agreement on this condition.
Condition 3: No specific dissent.
Condition 4: No specific dissent.
Condition 5: No specific dissent.
Condition 6: No specific dissent.
Condition 7: No specific dissent.
Condition 8: No specific dissent.
Condition 9: The Commissioner discussed the Construction Management Plan that will be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to approving a building permit. After discussion, the
Commission added, “to address concerns of neighboring properties and city code
requirements,” to the end of the sentence of the condition.
Condition 10: After discussion, the Commission added a new condition (Condition 10) to
require the applicant to meet with the neighboring property owners on an ongoing basis prior
to, during, and after construction to address impacts of the proposed development.
Condition 11: No specific dissent
Condition 12: No specific dissent
Acting Chair Lindwall then reviewed the Standards for approval
Standard 1
The project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property
values of adjoining property.
Acting Chair Lindwall found that the project serves as a logical transition between high-
density developments to the south and lower-density areas to the north. She noted that the
off-site parking lease condition (six stalls) would satisfy expected demand, and that the rear
yard coverage is consistent with neighboring residential properties.
Commissioner Mabadi disagreed, stating that the project would have an adverse impact on
the use and enjoyment of the property values of the adjoining properties.
Standard 2
The requested variation is in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Acting Chair Lindwall stated the purpose of the R6 district and its location in relation to
Page 6 of 8
Draft
Page 31 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
downtown supports the density and that the requested variations are practical given the
development patterns of the area.
Commissioner Johnson disagreed, arguing that the large degree to which the project
exceeds the ordinance means the variations are not in keeping with it. Commissioner
Mabadi concurred, calling the project "a step too far."
Standard 3
The alleged hardship or practical difficulty is peculiar to the property.
Acting Chair Lindwall stated that location of the property being in close proximity to
Northwestern means that tenants will likely be students and have fewer cars. And the
transitional location of the site warrants additional density.
Commissioner Johnson disagreed, noting the property is a standard shape without unusual
topography or "peculiar" hardships. He expressed deep skepticism regarding the
"speculation" that students don't have cars. Commissioner Mabadi added that while R6 is
transitional by design, this proposal goes too far beyond that baseline.
Standard 4
The property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished
from mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out.
Acting Chair Lindwall stated that requiring code-compliant parking would result in a project
with significant project costs or would result in a taller building and a building that would be
less compatible.
Commissioner Johnson disagreed, stating that additional project costs resulting from
compliance with City codes is not a "particular hardship," but is simply "the law."
Standard 5
The variation is not based exclusively on upon a desire to extract additional income from the
property.
OR
While granting the variation will result in additional income to the applicant, and while the
applicant for the variation may not have demonstrated that the application is not based
exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the property, the Land Use
Commission has found that the public benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the city
as a whole will be derived from approval of the variation that include but are not limited to
any of the standards in section 6-3-6-3 public benefits of this chapter.
Acting Chain Lindwall stated that the applicant is not using the variations as a way to extract
additional income and are necessary to make the project work.
Standard 6
The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having and interest in
the property
Page 7 of 8
Draft
Page 32 of 42
Land Use Commission
March 25, 2026
Acting Chair Lindwall stated that the variations are requested relative to Zoning Ordinance
requirements that are not aligned with historical development patterns in the vicinity and
recent comparable developments approved in the R6 district. She found that the current
Zoning Ordinance requirements do not take into consideration the additional development
costs resulting from recent amendments to City goals, policies, and codes and analysis of
the Zoning Ordinance to align it with desired future development is going to begin in 2026.
Standard 7
The requested variation requires the least deviation from the applicable regulation among
the feasible options identified before the Land Use Commission issues its decision or
recommendation to City Council regarding said variation.
Acting Chair Lindwall stated that proposed building is not out of scale when taking into
account its transitional location and recent comparable R6 developments. Furthermore, in
consideration of the condition of approval to lease additional off-site parking stalls, the
development will be in general alignment with the expected parking demand and ratios at
similar developments in Evanston and the extent of the rear yard coverage variation is less
than existing rear yard coverage at several residential properties in the vicinity.
Commissioner Berlin moved to recommend approval of the major variations for 1103-15
Emerson Street (Case No. 25ZMJV-0053), based on the findings of fact and the set of
conditions included in the packet as amended by Acting Chair Lindwall.
Motion: Berlin
Second: Committee Member Harris-Ferree
For Action
Motion Passed 3-2-4
Ayes: Lindwall, Berlin, and Harris-Ferree
Nayes: Johnson and Mabadi
Absent: Puchtel, Mirintchev, Arevalo, and Mangum
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
G. STAFF UPDATES
H. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Harris-Ferree moved to adjourn the meeting
Commissioner Mabadi seconded
Page 8 of 8
Draft
Page 33 of 42
Preservation Commission
City of Evanston
909 Davis Street
Evanston, Illinois 60201
(847) 448-8231
csterling@cityofevanston.org
May 13, 2026
Comments on Ordinance 36-O-26 Approving Major Variations for 1103-1105 Emerson
Street in the R6 General Residential District
Members of the City Council,
The Preservation Commission appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed plans for
construction of a 5-story, 30 unit multi-family structure at 1103-1105 Emerson Street. The
Commission understands that the subject property is not designated as a landmark nor
located within a historic district. The Commission recognizes the rights of the property
owner to construct an as-of-right development without input from the Preservation
Commission. However, as the developer requests major variations from the City ’s Zoning
Ordinance, although not required, advisory review by the Commission is permissible under
City Code Section 2-8-3 (G) 15.
Summary:
The Commission believes the specific combination of zoning variations sought, most notably
the variation related to density, causes the proposed structure to become significantly out of
scale with its surrounding built context. The Commission believes the proposal in its current
form results in an adverse effect to the landmark designated Ebenezer A.M.E. Church and its
integrity of both setting and feeling.
To mitigate these effects, the Commission recommends revisions to the current design and
scale of the proposed structure in addition to other measures and monitoring before and
during demolition and construction including:
1. Introduction of a ziggurat setback of meaningful depth after an initial height of
between 2 and 3 stories.
2. Introduction of additional horizontal and vertical articulation and facade modulation
at both the south and west facades.
3. Improve overall material quality and continue the use of face brick and other
authentic materials on the structures west elevation.
4. Develop a documentation report of existing conditions of the historic church.
5. Perform continual crack and vibration monitoring.
6. Perform water monitoring, dust abatement, and debris protection.
7. Perform continual structural monitoring.
Each recommendation is expanded upon on subsequent pages of this report.
Page 34 of 42
1
Visual contrast and scale:
Being immediately adjacent to the landmark property, the proposed development is readily
visible from the exterior and interior of the historic property. The proposed development
constitutes a strong contrast, where the proposed projects' design vocabulary, massing, and
scale demand attention, cannot be overlooked, and are dominant on and incompatible with
the surrounding context in which the historic church exists.
The physical form of the proposed structure results from the specific zoning variations being
sought. Although within the allowable range of building lot coverage and height, significant
limiting factors within the code intended to check the overall scale of the development are
otherwise bypassed. It is not evident what hardship or peculiar site conditions exist that
make compliance with the zoning ordinance infeasible.
The Commission recommends the following treatment approaches to mitigate the
inappropriate visual contrast and reduce the scale of the proposed structure:
1. Introduce a ziggurat setback of meaningful depth after an initial height of between
2 and 3 stories. Reducing the height, mass, and overall scale of the structure as it
approaches the street would be more compatible with surrounding design
vocabularies and built context, including the treatment of the E2 building to the
south which activates the street with low-rise townhomes on the Emerson frontage.
A stepback would further reduce the vertical mass of the proposed structure and its
dominance on the streetscape, improving its visual relationship with the church.
2. Introduce additional horizontal and vertical articulation and facade modulation at
both the south and west facades. Introduction of genuine horizontal articulation
including sills, stringcourses, beltcourses, and an improved cornice will add overall
visual interest and more importantly break down the scale of the proposed
structure. In addition to the proposed fenestration, additional vertical articulation
and modulation of the facade at the west elevation is critical to reduce its current
monumental and flat visual quality.
3. Improve overall material quality and continue the use of face brick and other
authentic materials on the structures west elevation. Given its visual prominence,
and relationship with the design vocabulary of the historic church, the west elevation
should also be considered primary and the use of higher-quality materials should
follow to respect its context.
Construction management:
Demolition and new construction activities can cause immediate harm to the physical
integrity of a historic structure. Both demolition, new foundation work, and subsequent
construction are common sources of vibrations, water infiltration, debris, and dust that can
affect adjacent structures. To mitigate these impacts, the Commission recommends that a
mutually agreeable protection plan be developed prior to the start of demolition activities
and continue through construction and up to occupancy.
Page 35 of 42
2
The Commission recommends the following be included in a construction management and
protection plan:
1. Develop a documentation report of existing conditions of the historic church. An
objective and accurate report prepared by a third-party should be commissioned by
the developer that documents the existing physical conditions of the historic church.
The report will provide a baseline from which changes to the building during the
adjacent demolition and construction can be identified, monitored and assessed.
This document benefits both the historic church and the developer. For the church it
may be used to substantiate claims that damage occurred as a result of the
neighboring construction work by illustrating the previously sound condition.
Conversely, if the damage existed prior to construction work, the record can show
that it was not caused by the developers negligence.
2. Perform continual crack and vibration monitoring. Demolition and new foundation
work are common sources of vibrations that affect adjacent structures. Vibrations
may also be caused by increased truck traffic or other heavy machinery. Historic
structures are particularly vulnerable to the effects of vibrations. Historic finishes
including plaster walls and ceilings, and stained glass and leaded glass are
susceptible to damage due to fragility or a lack of flexibility to accommodate
abnormal or consistent movement. Installation and continual monitoring of
seismographs or other electronic monitors is recommended.
3. Perform water monitoring, dust abatement, and debris protection. Debris and dust
originating from the adjacent demolition and new construction often finds its way to
the gutters, downspouts and drains. Regular visual inspections should be conducted
to ensure drainage systems continue to function in working order. Moisture sensors
should be placed at vulnerable locations within the church. Additionally, placing
protective barriers over vulnerable exterior features, including the stained glass
windows may provide protection against misdirected and damaging debris especially
on the churches east facade which is directly exposed to the adjacent new
construction. Layers of cushioning material can be placed between plywood
coverings and particularly fragile windows including stained glass. Low pressure
water washes and misting should be considered as well as use of water or other
chemical suppressants to minimize air pollution and dust from traveling off-site. The
church may also consider relocating or covering culturally significant artifacts due to
increased dust. Windows may need to be temporarily sealed or taped on the interior.
4. Perform continual structural monitoring. Electronic monitors should be placed that
track the movement of existing cracks and other structural deficiencies discovered
during the documentation report. It may also be necessary to install optical or other
videographic monitoring devices that use control points to measure changes. In all
instances, regular visual inspections should be performed.
Page 36 of 42
3
Significance:
Ebenezer A.M.E. Church is one of the City’s most significant landmarks with deep historic,
cultural, political, and architectural significance. The church was one of the first Black
congregations in Evanston, and one of the first to have its own house of worship. Formally
organized on October 30, 1882, by its first minister, the Reverend George H. Hann, who had
come to Evanston to attend Garrett Biblical Institute. Almost immediately the small
congregation undertook to erect on Benson Avenue its own house of worship designed by
the then-prominent Evanston architect, Asa Lyon, to seat 250 congregants. Although
repeatedly enlarged as the congregation grew, the Benson Avenue church continued to be
used until it burned in 1907. The congregation decided to build anew a few blocks away on
the present site on land that it owned rather than on land leased from Northwestern
University. The present building was designed in 1907 by prominent Evanston architect
Charles R. Ayars, and dedicated in 1909. By 1923 the congregation had grown sufficiently
that an addition was made at the rear, designed by yet another important Evanston
architect, Robert S. DeGolyer.
Since its founding, Ebenezer A.M.E. Church has been a highly significant center of cultural,
social, economic, and political leadership in the Black community. Over the years the
congregation grew to become the largest Black religious congregation in Illinois outside
Chicago. Ebenezer A.M.E. Church is an example of late Gothic Revival architecture, and
contains significant artistic value in its architectural expression and visual design vocabulary.
Submitted by members of the 2026 Preservation Commission
Carl T. Klein, Chair
Thomas Ahleman, Vice-Chair
Amanda Ziehm, Secretary
Stuart Cohen, FAIA
Lesa Rizzolo
John R. Jacobs
Sarah M. Dreller, PhD
Joshua Bowes-Carlson
Charles Smith
Matthew Johnson, PhD
Jeanne Sylvester, JD
Cade W. Sterling, Liaison
Page 37 of 42
Page 38 of 42
I!1.3ami;1II:5-E;E,!rEM
Page 39 of 42
Page 40 of 42
Page 41 of 42
Page 42 of 42