Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Street Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning committee rejects extension for 1915–1917 Grant Street efficiency development, 4‑2
Summary
The Evanston Planning and Development Committee on March 10, 2025 voted to deny Ordinance 25‑O‑25, an extension to obtain a building permit for a 12‑unit efficiency home project at 1915–1917 Grant Street, rejecting the proposed extension by a 4‑2 vote.
The Evanston Planning and Development Committee on March 10, 2025 voted to deny Ordinance 25‑O‑25, a request to extend the time to obtain a building permit for a 12‑unit efficiency home development at 1915–1917 Grant Street. The motion to approve the extension was moved by Council Member Ravel and seconded by Council Member Wynne; after debate the committee rejected the extension by a vote of 4 to 2.
The applicant, David Wallach, told the committee he has submitted for permits and said, "We are in for permit currently. We have all of our financing in place for the project. Not just for a few units but for all 12 units in place." He said demolition and tree removal would begin as soon as the permit is issued and said Sotheby’s, which is marketing the project, had strong interest: "We have 2 presales, we have 6 reservations and more people chomping in the bit just waiting for us to break ground." Wallach characterized the project as market‑rate "missing middle" housing and acknowledged that one unit was to be offered as an inclusionary (affordable) unit.
Public commenters urged denial. Pamela Powell Rosenbusch, who identified herself as a nearby resident, said the developer "has not built anything on Grant Street" and urged the committee to vote against the extension, citing bankruptcy history and concerns about the project starting. John Mathis Shelbert, who said he lives two doors east of the site, urged the committee to reject the extension and called the proposed prices “extremely expensive and outside the norm of Evanston sales.” Cynthia Beebe, speaking for neighbors and citing a petition of 117 signatories, asked the committee to deny the extension, noting concerns about a new LLC and whether prior approvals carried over.
Several council members pressed procedural and oversight questions. Council Member Kelly argued the project should be reviewed as a planned development so the design, landscaping and drainage would receive fuller review; she said she would not support the extension in its current form, noting the Land Use Commission had signaled concern earlier. Liz Williams of the city’s planning staff explained that the City Council had adopted a text amendment that changes the review pathway for these homes from planned development to a special use, and that reverting to a planned‑development process would require a separate referral and zoning text changes.
Corporation Counsel Alex Ruggie answered procedural questions about suspending the rules and the moratorium mechanics and confirmed that to extend the moratorium or change the review process would require separate council action.
A roll call in committee recorded "Council Member Ravel? No. Council Member Wynne? No. Council Member Kelly? No. Council Member Nussma? Aye. Council Member Reid? Aye. Council Member Hanna Karas? No." The clerk announced the item failed by a 4‑2 vote and will not advance to City Council from committee.
The denial preserves the special‑use permit’s expiration and leaves the applicant to consider next steps, which could include seeking a planned‑development pathway if the council changes the zoning text or re‑submitting under existing special‑use requirements. Staff noted new internal tracking procedures so future expiring approvals will be flagged earlier.
