A City Council vote Monday to approve a 12-unit missing middle housing development on Grant Street may offer a clue about changes ahead in the new Evanston comprehensive plan and zoning code now under development.
The council voted 5-2, with two members absent, to overturn the Land Use Commission’s rejection of a plan to build a dozen 600-square-foot “efficiency homes” on two deep lots at 1915-1917 Grant St.
The no votes came from Ald. Clare Kelly (1st) and Ald. Tom Suffredin (6th).
During an extensive discussion of the proposal at the Planning and Development Committee meeting, even Kelly — a frequent critic of new development projects — said she believed that what she called the “pocket neighborhood” project should be considered.
But Kelly argued such projects should be required to go through the city’s planned development review process.
That’s a considerably more burdensome review than the special use process favored by the council majority — and one that can lead to expensive demands on developers for “community benefits” — for example paving an alley — relieving neighboring property owners of what normally would be an expense they would have to bear.
Ald. Eleanor Revelle, whose 7th Ward includes the Grant Street site, said that as a member of the affordable housing task force several years ago she heard frequent requests from residents for construction of smaller, more affordable homes.
She said she’s confident the comprehensive plan will end up supporting this kind of use.
Her support for the plan came despite opposition from many homeowners living near the site.
Ald. Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th) said he also believes that the new zoning code will support creation of pocket neighborhoods as a special use.
Such developments, he said “speak to current city council goals — climate action and affordable housing.”
And Revelle praised the all-electric buildings and lots of permeable surfaces in the proposal as fitting in with the city’s climate action plan.
Ald. Juan Geracaris (9th) said a lot of big shifts and changes have to be made to address the housing crisis.
Ald. Melissa Wynne (3rd) noted that years ago the city code barred people from renting coach houses to anyone but members of their own family, but it now encourages the creation of new rental accessory dwelling units.
She called the efficiency home development “an appropriate innovation” and said she expects to see many similar developments in the future.
The planned new market-rate homes on Grant Street would be priced around $350,000.
That’s not cheap enough to count as traditional “affordable housing” that generally requires government subsidies to create, but is in a price range that meets the need for what housing advocates call “missing middle” homes — ones that cost less than the average price for a detached single family home in the community.
The two council members absent from Monday’s meeting — Krissie Harris and Devon Reid — have generally been supportive of efforts to provide more affordable housing in the past.
The council is scheduled to take final action to approve the Grant Street project at its Feb. 26 meeting.
Update 2/18/24: Efficiency homes may now officially be a nationwide trend. The New York Times had lengthy story about them this weekend: “The Great Compression: Thanks to soaring housing prices, the era of the 400-square-foot subdivision house is upon us.”
Why even have a Land Use Commission? The Mayor and City Council continue to do whatever they want, regardless of what our Commissions and Committees recommend. Members of same likely feel useless and that it’s a waste of time to even volunteer to be a member.
Hi RJ,
My recollection is that an entity like the LUC is required under state law — to hold a hearing and make a recommendation to the council. But the council is free to accept, reject, or modify that recommendation.
Most of the time when people say the council should always follow the LUCs recommendation, it’s because that’s the outcome they would have favored in the particular case at issue at the moment.
OTOH, most other city committees are purely optional and could be disbanded if the council wished to do so.
— Bill
The LUC is valuable if it makes clear its reasons for its recommendations. While Council may disagree with the conclusions sometimes it is helpful to have certain aspects of each project considered.
OK, thank you, a teaching moment, much appreciated.