Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evanston council declines to introduce Kensington daycare special-use; neighbors cite traffic and scale
Summary
After hours of public comment both for and against, the council voted down a motion to introduce a special‑use ordinance for a proposed Kensington childcare facility at the former Unity Church site, citing traffic safety, building scale, and neighborhood fit.
Evanston — Council members voted down (3–6) a motion to introduce a zoning ordinance to allow a Kensington childcare center at 3434 Central Street, a proposal that drew dozens of public speakers both supporting and opposing the project.
Supporters — including Unity on the Northshore leaders and numerous neighbors — said the congregation had waited years to sell a deteriorating building, that Kensington had responded to neighborhood concerns and reduced impacts, and that the proposal would return the property to the tax rolls and provide needed childcare.
Opponents testified at length about a complex, high‑volume intersection at Central/Gross Point/Crawford that they said cannot safely absorb the drop‑off and pickup traffic the proposed 19,000‑sq‑ft, two‑story facility could generate. Multiple residents and planning professionals noted the proposal required variances and said comparable suburban facilities were much smaller. “There are a lot of red flags with this project,” neighbor Larry Raffle said, citing a personal crash at that intersection.
Council discussion focused on traffic, scale, engagement and precedent. Some council members noted that the property had been marketed and that Kensington’s offer may be the practical option available; others concluded the project did not fit the site. Council Member Sephan summarized skepticism that the site could safely accommodate the proposed building and said the degree of change requested was too great for the location.
What happens next: The motion to introduce the special‑use ordinance failed, so the council will not take action this cycle on the Kensington proposal. Neighbors and the church have been encouraged to continue engagement with planning staff; the item may return if the applicant substantially revises the proposal and addresses the traffic and scale concerns.
Key quote: "The kind of contortion required to make Kensington fit here does not strike me as worth it," Council Member Sephan said during deliberations.
Provenance: Public comment began at SEG 381 and continued with pro and con testimony through SEG 3438; the council vote failing introduction is recorded at SEG 3436–3438.
