Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planned Development 1621 Chicago topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning committee approves minor redesign for 1621–1631 Chicago Avenue, sends to council

5078438 · June 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Evanston Planning and Development Committee approved an ordinance to introduce a reduced-height redesign for the mixed-use development at 1621–1631 Chicago Avenue, cutting one floor, shrinking basement retail and parking, and moving amenities to lower levels; the item will be introduced to the full City Council.

EVANSTON, Ill. — The Evanston Planning and Development Committee on June 23 approved sending an ordinance to the City Council that introduces minor adjustments to the planned development at 1621–1631 Chicago Avenue, a project by Horizon Group 13 LLC.

The committee approved a revised design that reduces the tower from 12 stories to 11, eliminates a basement retail level, reduces parking, and shifts amenity space from the top floor to a lower level. The vote during the committee’s June 23 meeting was recorded as four ayes and the motion passed; the item will be introduced to the full City Council for consideration.

Zoning attorney Michael Esgar, representing Horizon Group 13 LLC, told the committee the changes came while preparing construction documents and described the adjustments as reductions or maintenance of previously allowed development allowances. “It’s a reduction in height of from 12 to 11 stories,” Esgar said, and he explained that removing the top-level amenity and other changes produced opportunities to improve the building’s base and architectural expression.

Project architect Tim Kent of Papa George James Architects said the redesign shortened the retail podium and moved some building functions to create a clearer base. “The amenities are now on the roof of that space as opposed to being at the very top of the building,” Kent said, describing how a shorter brick podium and rounded columns tie to the tower’s curved glass corner.

The developer reduced gross commercial space from just over 10,000 square feet in the earlier design to a little over 6,000 square feet, according to the presentation to the committee. That reduction in floor area ratio and commercial area lowered the parking requirement; the project now provides 41 spaces within the building and commits to lease an additional three spaces in the nearby Church Street garage, for a total of 44 vehicle spaces committed by the applicant.

Committee members raised design and pedestrian-experience questions during discussion. Council member Kelly said she supported the changes and praised the return to vertical emphasis at the podium, noting pedestrian-level details matter for downtown storefronts. “I did appreciate what you did in the previous iteration ... I feel like this has returned to that verticality again on the podium,” Kelly said. Council member Davis commented on unit mix, noting approval that the plan now includes three-bedroom units: “I did notice that we added in the 3 bedrooms, and I’ll say I appreciate that because ... we very rarely see 3 bedrooms.”

Esgar also said the lobby entrance was moved to the north side, the building was separated from an adjacent structure on Marion to resolve ingress and egress and code issues, loading and trash arrangements were reorganized, and storefront canopy and sidewalk-cafe features remain unchanged from prior commitments.

The committee approved the motion to move the ordinance forward by roll call (Kelly, Rogers, Davis and Jauregui recorded as voting aye). The vote was recorded as passing and the ordinance will be introduced at the next City Council meeting for further consideration.

The presentation noted the project had previously received approval in November (prior planned-development approval), and the committee’s action on June 23 represents only a minor adjustment to that approved development; any final approvals or permits required beyond City Council introduction were not decided at the committee meeting.