Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds Central Street inclusionary-exception request after debate over $33,000 contribution

Evanston Planning and Development Committee · August 25, 2026

Summary

Developers asked the Planning & Development Committee to accept an alternative-equivalent to the updated inclusionary housing ordinance for a Central Street project; council members said the Land Use Commission's suggested $33,000 contribution is far below the ordinance's in-lieu estimate and held the item to Sept. 14 for staff follow-up.

Developer Anthony Kaplonov told the Planning & Development Committee that the Central Street project began under the previous inclusionary-housing rules and that the team had invested time and money based on those requirements. "We're not asking to avoid our affordability, housing responsibility," he said, asking for approval of an alternative-equivalent that would keep one on-site affordable home and a supplemental contribution.

Several members questioned the basis for a $33,000 in-lieu contribution recommended during the Land Use Commission review. One councilmember noted the ordinance's calculation: "0.5 would be $736,650," and said the $33,000 figure was "a nonstarter" compared with the ordinance requirement. Staff (Community Development) reviewed a prior exception at 1611 Church Street and said that circumstance was different because that project was already in construction when changes were required.

Councilmembers signaled a split: some said they could not support an exception without a substantially larger payment or different affordability terms, while others urged staff to return with financials and negotiation options. Rather than vote on the exception, the committee agreed to hold the item in committee until the September 14 Planning & Development meeting to allow staff and the applicant to provide clearer financial justifications and potential alternatives.

What happens next: Staff and the developer are expected to provide additional financial detail on how the $33,000 number was reached, comparisons to the ordinance in-lieu calculations, and options that could satisfy the committee before the Sept. 14 meeting.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source