The rental home includes three bedrooms, free Wi-Fi, multiple smart TVs and separate downstairs game room, the couple said in their application.
Discussion ‘a little disingenuous’: Iles
The committee ended up tabling the request until their next meeting in two weeks to allow council member Jonathan Nieuwsma, in whose Fourth Ward the property is located, to participate.
Nieuwsma, who was absent from Monday’s meeting, had indicated that he had received some complaints from neighbors about the proposal, Third Ward Councilmember Shawn Iles said during discussion.
The couple indicated they were unaware of any complaints. Staff said in their memo on the issue that the applicant has complied with all applicable rules and regulations, including notification of their plan to all property owners within 250 feet of the property.
Iles, who serves professionally as the overnight homeless shelter director for Interfaith Action of Evanston, told the couple he didn’t have any problem with their application.
“My problem is that I think it’s a little disingenuous that we’re going to be be talking about our goals [an item for special discussion at the council meeting] and one of our first goals is affordable housing — the need to increase the number of units that we have in the city as we’re talking about Envision Evanston 2045, and yet we’re continuing to approve vacation rentals, which takes units away from Evanstonians.”
He noted that in the past the city had a moratorium on issuing licenses, and wondered whether it’s appropriate to have one now “with the city in the process of defining a more clean policy.”
Former moratorium
The city did have a moratorium on non-owner occupied vacation rentals, confirmed Andrew San Roman, the city’s Building & Developmental Services Manager, in response to Iles’ comment.
San Roman said that moratorium ended when the city acquired software that allowed officials to identify the different vacation rentals that are now operating in Evanston. The City Council previously approved “for us to send out notices to all the vacation rental owners so they could then apply for a license,” he told members of the committee, who are part of the new council elected to office in April.
“So at this point, there is no moratorium,” San Roman explained, “and so these vacation rentals are being judged based on the standards that are currently in the ordinance.”
Staff is working with the city’s Housing & Community Development Committee, he said, redrafting a new ordinance, “but for now we have the ordinance that has [these] standards in place.”
Those standards include a stipulation that the vacation rentals:
- Will not cause a negative cumulative effect when considered in conjunction with the effect of other vacation rentals in the immediate neighborhood;
- Will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties;
- Will comply with all the rules and regulations pertaining to the ordinance;
- Is not likely to have an adverse effect upon the public health, welfare and safety.
The subject property does not have any open zoning or property standards violations, San Roman noted in his memo. “The City is not aware of open nuisance issues specific to that site that could become concerns with the property owners as a vacation rental,” he said.
In discussion, though, Burns pointed out that “if we’re going off the current standards, that’s one thing. [But] I think it’s clear that there’s at least enough of us that don’t necessarily agree with the current standards and would like to do something different.”
He spoke in favor of tabling action, until a more spelled out kind of requirement is developed.
Rodgers: Unfair to stall applications
Council member Matt Rodgers (8th Ward), former chair of the Land Use Commission, which dealt with such issues before his election to council, spoke against tabling.
“We have people who have applied under the existing rules,” he noted. “They have met the standards. According to staff, it’s up to us to decide if the standards have been met. If we find the standards are met, we must approve it. This is the way it works with planned developments, with vacation rentals, with major, minor variations. We have a set of standards that it has to be approved.”
“There’s things that I don’t like about the current process that I think need to be changed,” he added, “but I think to hold up people who in good faith have moved forward using the process we have in place, it’s unfair for us to say, ‘Oh, well, we want to take the time to figure out how to make this work.’”
Committee members voted to table the issue for two weeks, with Rodgers and committee chair Juan Geracaris casting dissenting votes.
Committee members conversely voted in support of John Fell’s request for a license to operate a vacation rental at 3210 Colfax St., a home advertised in the literature he supplied the committee as a “Kitschy 2 BR House in Evanston.”
Unit doubtful as a long-term rental: applicant
Approaching the lectern right after the Zebels, Fell expressed wonderment at the decision just made and expressed hope committee members didn’t have the same problem with his unit.
Fell, a nearly lifelong resident of Evanston whose own home is on Harrison Street, told committee members that he wanted to license the residence as a vacation rental a year ago, but was told there was a moratorium.
“I have two other vacation rentals that are licensed, and the people who I’ve worked with in the city have been fantastic in making sure that everything we do in that vacation rental is up to your codes or requirements,” he told the committee members.
Further, he said, he hopes to obtain a license for the other unit, “because I think it bodes well for the people who are staying to know that the city has approved the unit, and also, I think might be helpful to you guys that you get tax revenue from us.”
Officials have their “head in the sand,” if they move to overregulate the issue, he suggested.
The Colfax residence he is seeking a license for was bought strictly with a vacation rental in mind, he said.
“We wouldn’t have bought it otherwise, because even to rent it as a regular house, it has no storage,” he said. “There’s no basement, no attic.”
As a long-term rental, he questioned whether he would find a tenant. “All it has is a few closets.”
He said, in conformance with a list provided by the city, he sent out some 50 postcards, notifying nearby neighbors of his plan.
“So were there any complaints about it, like you had for the other person?” he asked, referring to the couple before him. He suggested that when people fill out applications, “doing everything you want to do, I think you owe it to people to vote yay or nay.”
No negative feedback
Geracaris acknowledged that he hadn’t heard any negative feedback in response to the postcards.
Like Iles, “I will share with the public that I’m not a fan of these short-term rentals in general,” he said.
“I think fearing that something wouldn’t rent because it has too few closets — I think there are plenty of people in town that would be willing to make that sacrifice,” he observed. “I think it’s probably still a viable long-term rental for someone.”
He said he would vote yes in this case, “because that’s the way our rules are set out. “But I think we do have a problem in this town that we’re taking housing, which should be something that people have a right to, making it a commodity. And I hope that we can shore up our ordinance and make it more reflective of our town’s values.”
The committee voted in support of the proposal, with Iles and councilmember Parielle Davis, casting the lone no votes.
Voting in support were Councilmembers Clare Kelly (1st Ward), Burns, Rodgers and Geracaris.
City Council members later approved the request as part of the consent agenda in their regular meeting that followed.
