Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Variation Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tentatively backs 10‑unit Central Street townhomes but neighbors press stormwater, scale concerns
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to approve major variations for a 10‑unit townhome project at 3233–3249 Central Street but requires five concurrent votes for a final decision, so the item will be continued; neighbors urged denial over drainage, alley safety, and massing, while the applicant offered design concessions and stormwater detention plans.
Developers told the Evanston Land Use Commission they scaled back a previously larger proposal for 3233–3249 Central Street to 10 townhomes, added green space and recessed portions of the façade, and offered $33,000 to the inclusionary housing fund plus a $12,000 contribution toward a bike station — but neighbors and several commissioners urged more design changes and more technical data on stormwater.
Applicant Anthony Kaplan (Crochet Properties) said the revised plan reduces unit count from 11 to 10, provides two‑car garages for each unit (including the inclusionary housing unit), increases on‑site green space by about 1,000 square feet, and lowers massing with a 35‑foot flat roof design intended to appear less imposing from the street. Kaplan said preliminary engineering has produced an underground stormwater detention design that will meet city standards.
Several commissioners praised design improvements but raised concerns about the project’s 215‑foot length, narrow 3‑ to 5‑foot corridors between garages, limited rear yards, unit light and livability, and potential for increased runoff into a narrow, largely unpaved alley. Neighbors additionally pointed to missing geotechnical data and said the alley is already prone to winter access and flooding; one neighbor described repeated basement waterlines and urged the commission not to approve rear‑yard coverage increases without more technical evidence.
After deliberation, the commission voted 4–1 in favor of approving the major variations with staff‑recommended conditions; however, the city’s rules require five concurring votes for a final determination in such cases, so the item will be placed on a future agenda for final action. Staff emphasized that engineering and permitting reviews remain to ensure compliance with stormwater and building standards.
What happens next: The item will be continued so absent commissioners can vote and technical submittals (final geotechnical report, final engineering for underground detention) can be finalized as permit conditions.
