Evanston committee approves extension for Grant Street efficiency-home project

The Evanston Planning and Development Committee voted unanimously March 31 to introduce Ordinance 25-025, which extends the deadline for the developer of the efficiency-home project at 1915–1917 Grant Street to obtain building permits.

The ordinance, described at the meeting as an extension of time for a special-use authorization previously adopted by Ordinance 18-024, was moved by Council Member Ravel and passed on a roll-call vote. Council members recorded aye votes from Harcaras, Ravel, Burns, Nussbaum and Reid. The committee chair said the item is being introduced to City Council and, if adopted there, will return to the committee for further action.

The extension request drew sustained public comment from nearby residents who urged the committee to deny more time and raised questions about the developer's financing and the project's size and price. Pamela Powell Rosenbusch, a nearby resident, said the project had not started construction while other developments were proceeding and asked the committee to "do a little more homework on this project." Cynthia Beebe told the committee the city had treated the proposal inconsistently and asked aldermen to "please vote no." Jomatius Shelbert, who said he lives two doors from the site and works in commercial real estate, told the committee he believed the project had not obtained financing and told aldermen, "Please vote no."

The developer, identified in the record as Mr. Wallach of Blue Paint Development, responded at the meeting. Wallach said the project "has received approval from both planning development and city council," that the team had applied for permits and "timely applied for an extension of time," and that the request for six months was based on uncertainty about how long the city's permit reviews would take. Wallach said the project requires roughly 17 separate permits and that the development team had engaged extensively with city staff in design and inclusionary-housing discussions.

Committee discussion touched on several procedural and substantive points. Council Member Burns said the homes represent an ownership option that could be attainable for some households in the 80%–100% area median income (AMI) range, saying, "Depending on your household size, this is affordable, period." Council Member Ravel asked staff how the required inclusionary (affordable) unit would be sold; staff said the developer would coordinate with the city program identified in the record (referred to in the meeting as SEPA) and that affordability would be set at the 80%–100% AMI range.

Staff also clarified technical details of the extension and the project's timeline: the new ordinance language requires construction to be completed within 24 months after issuance of building permits (staff noted that timeline extends the completion deadline to Oct. 18, 2027, based on the ordinance/publishing dates discussed at the meeting). City staff said a surety or completion bond was intended as part of the prior council decision to guarantee project completion; staff and Corporation Counsel will verify whether the bond language is correctly reflected in the ordinance text and correct any scrivener's errors before final enactment.

Committee members and residents also discussed other points raised at the meeting: a missing traffic study was identified as the only routine plan-development element not included in the special-use package; questions about owner-occupancy rules and short-term rentals (staff said owner-occupancy for more than six months is how the city's short-term-rental rules have been administered, and that potential loopholes would require council clarification); and neighbor concerns about site maintenance while construction has been delayed.

The committee's vote on Ordinance 25-025 was unanimous. Committee members noted that if City Council adopts the ordinance at introduction, the item will return to the Planning and Development Committee for any required follow-up.

What happens next: The ordinance moves to the full City Council for consideration. Staff indicated they will confirm whether the completion-bond requirement is properly included in the ordinance language and can make corrections if necessary before final council action.