1571-maple-proposed-looking-west

A plan to impose penalty fees on new rental developments to pay for affordable housing — rejected by Evanston aldermen last summer — will return to the City Council’s agenda later this month.

Last year aldermen rejected the plan developed by the Housing and Homelessness Commission and voted to form an aldermanic subcommittee to come up with their own proposal. Apparently no such committee was ever formed, but city staff plan to bring the inclusionary housing proposal back to the council for consideration on April 27.

In the meantime, next Monday, April 13, the aldermen are expected to get an updated proposal to extract fees from the developer of a planned 101-unit rental development at 1571 Maple Ave.

At a meeting March 23, aldermen concluded that an ostensibly-voluntary contribution of $120,000 from that developer to the city’s affordable housing fund wouldn’t be enough.

Wednesday night, Damir Latinovic, the city’s interim planning and zoning administrator, told Plan Commission members that details of a larger contribution were still being worked out.

A rendering of the 1620 Central St. development.

Latinovic also said that developers of a planned 47-unit rental project at 1620 Central St., which is to be introduced at the Planning and Development Committee meeting Monday, have agreed to include two one-bedroom units in their development that would be made available to persons earning no more than 100 percent of area median income.

The new push for an expanded housing ordinance in Evanston follows the adoption last month of an expanded affordable housing ordinance in Chicago. Evanston’s existing ordinance applies primarily to condominium developments and excludes rental projects.

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. fresh start

    "city staff plan to bring the inclusionary housing proposal back to the council for consideration on April 27."

    How many staff does Evanston employ to sit around and come up with ideas like this and the limits on nail salons?  A great cost saving measure would be to eliminate those positions….

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *