The Evanston Environment Board on Thursday signed off on a letter to the Land Use Commission on the proposal to do away with parking minimums, but not before a long discussion about what type of properties that would apply to.
Last spring, the city asked the Environment Board to develop an ordinance that would do away with longtime requirements that new developments include a certain number of off-street parking spaces. The request was one of the changes to be considered under the Envision Evanston 2045 comprehensive plan.
The board decided to ask the Land Use Commission to form a joint parking reform subcommittee to investigate the issue. But the commission said it was too busy with other aspects of Envision Evanston planning to take up the request.
Instead, Environment Board member Jexa Edinberg, who would’ve been the subcommittee’s chair, drafted the letter to the Land Use Commission summarizing the board’s position.
The board reviewed the letter during the Oct. 10 meeting, which was held at the Morton Civic Center. While the other members agreed with the letter’s argument, it soon became clear they weren’t on the same page about parking minimums. The majority believed it applied to parking in residential buildings, but board member James Cahan noted that nothing in the letter specified that, and board co-chair Matt Cotter wondered why this shouldn’t apply to parking minimums for commercial and office developments as well.
Are parking minimums really necessary?
Like many other cities, Evanston requires residential, commercial, recreational and office developments to have a certain minimum number of off-street parking spaces, whether they are in their own dedicated garage or as part of a larger parking lot or a parking garage. But there has also been an increasing movement to either reduce or eliminate the requirements, especially in areas well-served by transit. Chicago, for example, reduces parking requirements for developments near rail stations and major bus routes.
In their letter, Edinberg laid out several arguments for getting rid of the minimums. They noted that, according to city data, city-owned parking structures have an average peak occupancy of 50%, so it made no sense to require developers to add parking space on top of that. They also argued that it would reduce reliance on cars, encourage public transit, cycling and other sustainable transportation, and reduce construction costs.
“We believe that eliminating parking minimums is a progressive and necessary
step to foster a more sustainable, equitable, and vibrant city,” the letter states. “It will encourage smarter land use, reduce our environmental impact, and improve the quality of life for all residents, particularly those who do not rely on private vehicles. We urge the Land Use Commission to move forward with this initiative and look forward to working together to create a more sustainable future.”
Board member Katarina Topalov said that she heard from residents worried that removing the minimums would make the parking situation worse, and she wanted to make it clear that the change wouldn’t take away existing parking, or prevent developers from building more new parking.
Cahan wondered whether the changes would apply to commercial developments such as “a new Walmart,” leading Council member Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th Ward) to say that it would apply to residential and mixed-use multi-unit developments, not purely commercial ones.
Cahan said that Edinberg’s letter doesn’t explicitly indicate that.
“A lot of that clarification needs to go into that letter, so people understand what’s being proposed,” he said.
Board co-chair Michelle Redfield said that it was her understanding that it would mostly apply to residential parking, but she didn’t mind adding language to the letter clarifying that.
Her fellow co-chair Matt Cotter said that his understanding was that they would get rid of parking minimum everywhere.
“From the data we have i think it’s very clear there’s a glut of parking, on which, if we look at parking service funds, we’re losing $100,000 a year,” he said.
Redfield suggested what she described as a compromise language — have the letter specify that they would support getting rid of parking minimums across the board and leave it as residential/mixed use elsewhere in Evanston.
After some further discussion, the board broadly agreed to add the language describing the current state of parking and explicitly state the getting rid of the minimums won’t get rid of existing parking.
Cahan abstained from the vote, saying that he was still uncomfortable with the language not explicitly stating what kind of developments will be affected.
“There’s precision of the language and I want to maintain it,” he said.
Environment Board signs off on parking minimum proposal letter is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.