Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variations topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Land Use Commission grants setback and lot‑coverage variances for 2102 Grant Street addition

5751379 · August 29, 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 Land Use Commission voted to grant major variations allowing a modest first‑floor addition at 2102 Grant Street, finding the request met the zoning standards for relief despite a recusal from one commissioner.

The Land Use Commission on Aug. 27 voted to grant the requested variances that will let a homeowner build a small first‑floor addition at 2102 Grant Street.

The commission moved to grant variations from two zoning requirements — the minimum street‑side setback and the maximum building lot coverage — after hearing from the applicant’s contractor, who described the project as a modest four‑season room off the rear of an existing single‑family house. The commission found the request met the standards for practical difficulty caused by a substandard lot size and existing nonconforming conditions created by prior owners.

Planner testimony in the packet identified the relevant sections of the Evanston zoning ordinance cited for this case: section 6‑8‑2‑8 (street‑side setback), section 6‑8‑2‑7 (maximum building lot coverage), and section 6‑3‑8 (jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission). Applicant contractor Nate Rosalie described the proposal as an addition for plant and seating space with no increase in impervious surface; staff said some existing pavers would be removed to avoid increasing impervious coverage.

The commission closed public testimony, reviewed the five relief standards, and voted to grant the variation. One commissioner recused from the vote; the commission announced the result as six votes in favor, none against, and one recusal, and noted that the Land Use Commission was the final determining body on this application.

The commission’s action allows the homeowners to proceed with permits for the described addition, subject to any building‑permit reviews and inspections required by Development Services.

Votes at a glance: the commission recorded 6 votes in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 recusal (Commissioner Mangum).