Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission

Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission Monday, July 14, 2025 7:00 P.M. Skokie Public Library, 5215 Oakton Street, Skokie, IL, Radmacher Room I. Call Meeting to Order/Declaration of Quorum II. Approval of Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 III. Update and Discussion of Housing Chapter Implementation Items (3) a. Housing Gaps and Needs Assessment b. Housing Design and Skokie Home Addition Plan Book c. Addressing Zoning Code Gaps IV. Consideration of Recommendation to Plan Commission to establish Accessory Dwelling Units as habitable space V. Next Steps VI. Public Comment VII. Adjournment Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may contact Justin Malone with the Community Development Department at 847-933-8411 or publiccomments@skokie.org. The Village, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe or participate, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, contact the Village’s ADA Coordinator Angel Schnur at Angel.Schnur@skokie.org or 847-933-8400. 627575  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Meeting Minutes for Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission April 10, 2025 | 7:00 PM Skokie Public Library | 5215 Oakton St, Skokie, IL 60077 | Radmacher Room Members Present: Peter Levavi, Chair Jeff Burman Cindy Franklin Jonathan Lavin Katherine Niedorowski Erin Ryan Charles Saxe Paul Schroeckenstein Ellen Weber Joe Maschek Members Absent: Dr. Edward Linn Maegen Akers Howard Meyer Presiding Officer: Peter Levavi, Chair Staff Present: Johanna Nyden, Community Development Director Justin Malone, Neighborhood & Housing Coord. Kate Portillo, Planning Manager 1) Meeting Called to Order / Declaration of Quorum A quorum being present, Chairman Peter Levavi called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. 2) Approval of Meeting Minutes A motion to approve the minutes as presented for the January 2, 2025 meeting was made by Jeff Burman, seconded by Charlie Saxe. The votes were 10 in favor, 0 opposed. 3) Discussion of Housing Chapter Implementation Items (3) and Work Plan Chair Levavi asked about the status of Implementation Area 1 and what steps are still needed in order to get the right information. Mr. Schroeckenstein stated that they are still in the information gathering stage and looking at what data is available. Ms. Niedorowski stated that there is still data to be gathered as well as determining what should be extracted. 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Chair Levavi asked if the group would be able to find the data sources and missing gaps by the next quarterly meeting. Ms. Niedorowski stated that finding out what Skokie’s housing goals were would help guide this task. Mr. Burman stated that we should be asking Skokie residents what their goals are with a Village-wide survey. He also noted that previous efforts have not been as successful as they’d like. Chair Levavi stated that this Sub-Committee’s task is to guide efforts to find goals and that this is a good starting place. Ms. Weber stated that it might be helpful to survey realtors who are working with clients who are looking for homes in Skokie to find out what is missing or difficult to obtain. Mr. Schroeckenstein stated that it would also be helpful to look at Zillow for data and supply and demand. Ms. Ryan stated that we’d need to look at both rentals and ownership in efforts to consider a more diverse range of family groups in Skokie. Mr. Maschek stated that diversity is important but we are looking for what the next housing type that is needed. Chair Levavi stated that there needs to be a consideration of what housing is available for multiple groups such as seniors and the disabled and to include those groups when considering diversity of housing. Ms. Franklin stated that aging in place needs to be considered. Chair Levavi stated that the group looking at this Implementation Area can look at what data is missing, for example how difficult it is to find a 3-bedroom condo. Mr. Saxe stated that while we can look at available data and those trends, it would help to have community engagement through this process. Chair Levavi stated that it might be helpful to have some information in front of the public before asking the larger question of what they want. Mr. Burman stated that a survey could ask correct questions. Mr. Lavin stated that in the Housing Sub-Committee’s previous engagement efforts, they received over one hundred different answers as to what people want and it would be difficult to please everyone. 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Mr. Schroeckenstein stated that they have not yet looked at the survey results from the previous Housing Sub-Committee’s survey and would like to. Chair Levavi stated a possible next step could be a survey or focus group, but it would be helpful to have an idea of what we are looking to find. Ms. Nyden stated that there is good data out there regarding the existing conditions, however we’d be interested in finding what is missing out there. Mr. Saxe stated that the data can help but getting first-hand accounts would greatly help with what is missing. Ms. Weber stated that we could look at building permits that may have been turned down for data. Ms. Nyden stated that “turned down” may be the wrong word as many applicants may have conversations early on with contractors or the Building Department staff, but were informed that their project could not move forward, due to the current code. Ms. Nyden stated that it would be helpful to look into focus group discussions as to what common requests are, but it is also important to understand that there are many processes along the way during a project and that the Village’s part may be only one part of it. Mr. Maschek stated that there could be data available from Evanston, Oak Park, or Chicago about ADUs and how it has worked out. Ms. Weber stated that Skokie has one of the widest ranges of housing in the area compared to other nearby suburban communities. She stated that property maintenance is a housing need in Skokie as well. Chair Levavi stated that when thinking about housing gaps we should be mindful of which groups are not in the room with us. Ms. Ryan stated that we should also think about other factors influence housing, such as schools and transportation. Mr. Burman stated that school and transportation data might be available, however it is important to keep in mind that the Village does not influence what happens within school districts. Ms. Nyden stated that Illinois might have report card scoring for certain factors that may lead to housing, such as walkability scores. Ms. Niedorowski asked if this group is looking at how to bring diverse people to Skokie or looking at more diversity in housing? 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Chair Levavi stated that diversity of housing stock brings diversity of people. He also stated that the objective of the research into housing diversity, such as ADUs, is one way to fill in housing gaps in Skokie. Mr. Lavin stated that he has started looking at the ADU initiatives from communities such as Oak Park, Chicago, and Evanston can help address questions that Skokie may have such as how to address parking and height requirements. Chair Levavi stated that the Housing Sub-Committee should lay out the case for ADUs for the Plan Commission to see how it would work out in Skokie, making the case before the conclusion. Ms. Nyden stated that Evanston had many existing ADUs and carriage houses with archaic rules such as limiting residency to related individuals. She also stated that Evanston looked at ADUs in terms of accessibility, including internal ADUs. She stated that Evanston’s ADU adoption process was piecemeal, first addressing detached ADUs then internal ADUs. She stated that the common issues for ADUs anywhere continue to be parking and utilities. Mr. Lavin stated that the Evanston ordinance seemed to address many of those issues. Ms. Nyden stated that the Evanston ordinance was adopted over the course of many years. Mr. Burman stated that Skokie’s lot sizes and housing stock is different than Evanston. Ms. Ryan stated that it seems as if the direction for the ADU conversation is more of a how, not if. She stated that if Skokie allows ADUs, they should make sure they do it well, but they also do not need to reinvent the wheel. Chair Levavi stated that we need to explore how likely ADUs will be used in Skokie and we have to be smart about what we are advocating for. Mr. Maschek stated that internal ADUs may be more tangible than external ADUs at the moment, but from a planning point of view, ADUs may look different in different neighborhoods due to zoning and lot sizes. He also stated that there are different ways of looking at ADUs than just garage ADUs. Ms. Ryan stated that she does not agree with ADUs being only for “the people who are already here”. She also stated that density is a good thing and it allows affordability. Mr. Saxe stated that how people live in their homes has changed and that some are looking for workshops, studios, or additional family rooms and they may even put these spaces in their garages, which may not be legal. He also stated that we need to think of accessory structures not just for living. 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Chair Levavi stated that public input could be solicited, asking them how they might use the allowable space. Ms. Ryan stated that secondary or Kosher kitchens are already in many homes. Ms. Nyden stated that when ADUs were permitted in Evanston, lot coverage was allowed to increase, however the parking requirements did not change. She stated that while the code requires a homeowner to provide parking, but checking to see if the parking is being used does not always happen. Ms. Nyden called out a written comment from Lauren Grodnicki that the Village’s Sustainability Plan calls for an increase in density. Ms. Weber stated that for her ADUs are still a question of “if”. She stated that she feels the Village should go slowly with them. She stated that she sees the need, but is more open to internal ADUs than external ADUs. She stated she is interested in who would be using them. Mr. Lavin stated that while we may not look into an ordinance right away, it may be worthwhile to at least look into some examples. Ms. Weber stated that we should look at Northbrook’s ordinance, which allows ADUs within the principal structure. Mr. Maschek stated that from a developer’s standpoint, there has been a recent push for new build to rent townhouses, however many clients are concerned with storage since garage space is limited. Ms. Franklin asked if there were any conversations regarding allowing the conversions of attached garages for dwelling units. Ms. Nyden stated that there was a recent case that was brought to the Appearance Commission that was a good example of how take advantage of the space between the garage and the home, which could potentially work as an ADU. She also stated that Skokie homes are lived in differently and many code and regulations may hinder that livability or limit investments in a home. Mr. Saxe stated that in his personal experience, he needed a variance to put a second level in his home and had to determine if the value was worth the expense of going through the process. Mr. Lavin asked if the Sub-Committee has move too far forward with their work as compared to the goals as listed in the memo. Chair Levavi stated that the group could take a step back to find the goals and get public input on what things are holding homeowners back from accomplishing their goals. He also stated that there should be information shared within the Sub-Committee as there is a lot of overlap between the implementation areas. 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED Ms. Weber asked what the difference between zoning gaps and housing gaps are. Ms. Nyden stated that the group can sit down with the Village’s Zoning Administrator and architects in town for a focus group as to what the common challenges are. Ms. Nyden stated that people may night be able to move homes due to their lower than current interest rates and some might not even apply for home modifications due to limitations allowed and the process. Chair Levavi stated that one implementation area is focused on what is missing, while the other is focused on the reasons. He stated that the final implementation area is to look into a home modification plan book for residents to know in advance what may be approved. Mr. Maschek stated that the goal was to create an efficient system to help residents with timing, costs, and predictability. He stated that the Chicago Bungalow guidelines are great, however bungalows are only a small part of Skokie’s housing, so there is a need to increase the range of houses within the guidelines. Mr. Maschek characterized some important Skokie housing types as the split-level ranch, Georgian, bungalow, or corner lots. He stated that with a set of approved plans, a homeowner could possibly bypass the Appearance Commission if there were no concerns with sprinkler codes, visibility or materials which would allow the homeowner to apply for permits sooner. He stated that municipalities such as Naperville had adopted design guidelines for commercial corridors that would be worth looking into, although the goal is not to hinder creativity. Chair Levavi stated that this sounds like a sort of form-based code. Mr. Maschek stated that the previous Housing Sub-Committee noted the lack of efficiency and predictability as major concerns for homeowners. He also stated concerns about stifling change within certain communities in Skokie. Chair Levavi stated that the plan book could be a sort of menu that homeowners could pick from, or could decide to go off-menu and go to the Appearance Commission. He also asked the Housing Sub-Committee to be on the lookout for examples of well-done additions to use as a starting point for the plan book. Mr. Maschek stated concerns about making this efficient but also not burdensome toward homeowners or their neighbors. He stated that if things are too efficient they could go off the rails. Ms. Nyden stated that it might help to think of it as helping people write the scopes of work for their projects. She also stated that the goal is to make additions look like a completed house and preserve home designs. 4) Public Comment 625890  DRAFT NOT APPROVED LyLena Estabine from Chicago stated that she is a Housing Policy Researcher and noted that the price of housing is growing. She also stated that Illinois is behind on building housing supply and the allowance of additional dwelling units can help. She stated that additional dwelling units can help provide flexible housing options, boost home values, and support home worth. She stated that the city of Chicago allows ADUs but they are heavily regulated which makes them more difficult to implement. Cori Brown from Skokie stated that she is a current resident and is looking to purchase a home in Skokie. She stated that she is in favor of ADUs, but would suggest increasing the allowable height maximum. She stated that if she purchased a home, she would like to build an ADU and live in it. Lauren Grodnicki stated that parts of the current building code become expensive to homeowners, such as when they need to add sprinkling to their home. She stated that some of these codes should be updated. Mr. Maschek stated that there are differences between the zoning code versus the building code versus the fire code. Ms. Nyden stated that there is a push and pull between the fire department. She stated that parts of the code may hinder home modifications for some applicants, however life and safety codes are in place for a reason. 5) Adjournment A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Jeff Burman, seconded by Charlie Saxe. The votes were 10 in favor, 0 opposed. Meeting adjourned at 8:24 PM Respectfully Submitted, Justin Malone, Neighborhood & Housing Coordinator 625890 Memorandum Community Development Department TO: Chair Peter Levavi and Members of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission FROM: Johanna Nyden, AICP, Community Development Director Kate Portillo, AICP, Planning Manager Justin Malone, Neighborhood & Housing Coordinator DATE: July 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Update for Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission Presentation on Housing Gaps and Needs Assessment in Skokie Overview The Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission will be presented with updated information on the implementation of a housing needs assessment to understand Skokie’s housing gaps and needs in order to guide policy work. Background At the April 10, 2025 meeting of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission, staff provided a white paper and work plan for the Housing Sub-Committee that outlined the recommendations which aim to understand the Village’s current housing conditions, identify unmet needs, and propose strategies to meet Skokie’s future housing demands, particularly in terms of diversity, affordability, and accessibility. As a part of the Housing Sub-Committee’s ongoing research, a presentation focusing on key questions and analyzing data will be shared to provide a summary of key findings, including but not limited to: • Meeting the needs of current Skokie residents • Meeting the needs of the people who would like to move to Skokie • Where people are moving in order to get the housing they need • Housing data that identifies gaps in housing affordability, size, and type Next Steps The Housing Sub-Committee will continue to focus on identifying specific data gaps and housing needs, including zoning code modifications that hinder home modifications or development, creating a summarized report of findings. Attachments: Presentation and Appendix: “Identifying Gaps in Available Housing” 627716  7/11/2025 HOUSING SUB COMMITTEE IDENTIFY GAPS IN AVAILABLE HOUSING THE CONTEXT 1  7/11/2025 Agenda THE CONTEXT 01. Key Questions to Address 02. Types of Data Examined 03. Village Officials – Draft Survey 04. Summary of Key Findings THE DATA - Appendix 05. Skokie Community Survey (2024) 06. CMAP Data (2024) 07. Building Permit Data 08. Zillow & Redfin Data 09. Demographic Data 3 Key Questions to Address Gaps between housing available and housing needed? TODAY: TOMORROW: MIGRATION PATTERNS: Are we meeting the needs of the Are we meeting the needs of the How does the housing available in current residents of Skokie? people that we would like to Skokie compare to the housing welcome to Skokie? available in neighboring areas? Who is currently living here?  Who do we want to attract to Skokie and Are people leaving Skokie for the housing How are their needs changing? what are their housing needs? available in neighboring areas? Relevant Data: Skokie Community Survey, What is the strategic plan of the new Are people coming to Skokie from RCLCO Report (Westfield), CMAP, PlacerAI administration? neighboring areas because of the housing (Westfield), Village Board Survey available here? Relevant Data: Village Board Survey, CMAP, 4 2  7/11/2025 Village Official - Draft Survey Anonymous Survey Form Purpose: To ask the Village Board 3-4 key questions that will help the Housing Sub Committee articulate their visions for the future of housing in Skokie. What is your vision for the future of housing in our community? What are you hearing from your constituents about housing? Who would you like to see move to Skokie in the future? o How are you considering the housing needs of current residents with the goal of attracting new ones? What do you want the sub-committee to consider to ensure housing development supports equity and reflects the diversity of our community? 5 Summary of Key Findings Affordability • Housing affordability was a concern for Skokie Residents but not their number one priority – Safety, Mobility, and more Downtown businesses were larger issues Housing Size • Household size is split equally between 1, 2, and 4+ (25-30%) with slightly less 3 person households (17%). This is not aligned with size of housing present (large volume of 3-bedroom homes) suggesting a benefit in increasing 1 bedroom and 4+ bedroom homes • CMAP indicates a large volume of 3 bedroom (42%) but only 34% of those are available on Zillow/Redfin. This could suggest that 2 person households are staying in 3-bedroom homes due to limited inventory to downsize. Housing Types • Skokie residents rated the variety of housing options available higher than 83% of similar communities 6 3  7/11/2025 Housing Present vs Available Comparison of CMAP Data and Zillow/Redfin COMPARISON OF PROPERTY TYPE BETWEEN CMAP AND COMPARISON OF HOUSING SIZE BETWEEN CMAP AND ZILLOW/REDFIN DATA ZILLOW/REDFIN DATA 7 THE APPENDIX 4  7/11/2025 05 Skokie Community Survey Residents of Skokie Skokie Community Survey Top 3 Issues Design of Residential + Commercial Housing affordability showed up in top 3-4 for each issue but was not the highest priority problem Homelessness was a very small concern Overbuilding was not a concern Rate the Cost of Living  Rated similarly to other community benchmark  Ranked 82 of 310  73% of communities had a lower rating than Skokie  44% positive (% of people rated excellent or good) 10 5  7/11/2025 06 CMAP Data Snapshot of Skokie CMAP Data 2024 Skokie’s total population: 67,076 Total households: 24,049 o Family households make up 73% of households  Single parent with children make up 6.5% of family households o Non-family households make up 27% of households o 10% of the Skokie population lives with a disability  It is estimated that 2,796 individuals have independent living difficulty * Average household size: 2.8 3-bedroom homes make up 42% of the housing stock 73% of Skokie's housing was built before 1969 1. CMAP Data 2024 2. * This does not include residents of nursing homes or skilled nursing facilitates that provide long-term, nonacute care 12 6  7/11/2025 Who is Here Currently Ages of Skokie residents 1. CMAP Data 2024 13 Who is Here Currently Race & Ethnicity 1. CMAP Data 2024 14 7  7/11/2025 Who is Here Currently Age over time in Skokie 1. CMAP Data 2024 Who is Here Currently Income 1. CMAP Data 2024 16 8  7/11/2025 Household + housing data Size of household compared to number of bedrooms 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 35.0% 30.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 or 1 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4 or more Person bedroom bedrooms Household Household Household Household Size of Housing Household Size 1. CMAP Data 2024 Housing Data Housing Size 1. CMAP Data 2024 18 9  7/11/2025 07 Building Permit Data Building Permits New Units Added 2016 - Present Already Built • Since 2017 the Village has permitted and built 615 housing units • Mix of apartments, townhomes, and single-family homes Approved, Not Yet Built • The Henry - 5400 Old Orchard Rd (245 apartments, 49 townhomes) • 8047 Skokie Blvd (56 apartments) • 5202 Old Orchard Rd (office to residential conversion, 245 apartments) • Westfield Old Orchard development (600+ apartments) • 1,195+ housing units on the way 20 10  7/11/2025 08 Zillow & Redfin Data Zillow & Redfin Most Recent Properties Sold SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LIVING AREA PER RECENT NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER RECENT ZILLOW/REDFIN SALES ZILLOW/REDFIN SALES 22 11  7/11/2025 09 Demographic Data Current Skokie Demos - PlacerAI and PersonaLive Predominantly Wealthy Suburban Families, Educated Urbanites, Suburban Boomers 24 12  7/11/2025 Migration POPULATION CHANGE — Zip codes surrounding Skokie have seen growth over the last year. — The bulk of people are moving to the CBSA from within Illinois, while Skokie pulls the greatest population from Chicago. 1. Data source: Placer.ai, Census 2. R12 months as of Apr 2025 Trade Area ABBVIE ABBOTT LABORATORIES FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES W.W. GRAINGER | TENNECO | PACKAGING CORP OF AMERICA 30 FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES IN GREATER CHICAGO SECOND ONLY TO NEW YORK CDW TRI STATE INT’L WALGREENS BOOTS | CATERPILLAR | DISCOVER FINANCIAL MONDELEZ INT’L | BAXTER INT’L 4747 ALLSTATE ANIXTER GLENVIEW 3031 ARTHUR GALLAGHER ITW 25 23 22 20 2020 1918 1616 1514 US FOODS HOLDINGS 1414 1414 OLD REPUBLIC | MOTOROLA | NORTHERN TRUST | JONES LANG LA SALLE | UNITED CONTINENTIAL HOLDINGS | ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND | BOEING | CONAGRA BRANDS |RR DONNELLEY & SONS | LKQ | MCDONALD’S | EXELON TREEHOSE FOODS DOVER CORPORATION INGREDION UNIVAR NAVISTAR INT’L 2024 Fortune 500 Headquarters 2025 Fortune 500 Headquarters  ULTA BEAUTY CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT 26 Fortune 500, Realpage (Link) 13  7/11/2025 Migration DRAW FACTORS — Skokie is highly appealing for community-centric attributes such as schools, fit for families, diversity and housing. — Access to nightlife, and options for eating out are trade-offs for those moving to the area, likely due to the number of people coming from Chicago. — Weather is one of the largest obstacles for this overall CBSA. Solutioning during winter and being sure to “win” the favourable weather months is key. 1. Data source: Placer.ai, Census 2. R12 months as of Apr 2025 Development BY CATEGORY OFFICE HOTEL RESIDENTIAL 28 1. Data source: Placer.ai, BCI BuildCentral 14 Memorandum Community Development Department TO: Chair Peter Levavi and Members of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission FROM: Johanna Nyden, AICP, Community Development Director Kate Portillo, AICP, Planning Manager Justin Malone, Neighborhood & Housing Coordinator DATE: July 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Update for Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission Housing Design and Skokie Home Addition Plan Book Overview The Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission will be provided with an update regarding recommendations to streamline the home modification process by creating a Skokie Home Addition Plan Book. Background At the April 10, 2025 meeting of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission, staff provided a white paper and work plan for the Housing Sub-Committee that outlined a goal to make home modifications more accessible and cost-effective for homeowners. As a part of the Housing Sub-Committee’s ongoing research, further updates surrounding the focus on zoning code modifications and the creation of a “Skokie Home Addition Plan Book” will be shared, including but not limited to: • How to allow home modifications that maintain neighborhood aesthetics? • How to streamline the approval process for modifications? • What barriers prevent home modifications, such as zoning restrictions and parking requirements? • What are the most common home modifications for each specified housing type in Skokie? Next Steps The Housing Sub-Committee will continue to focus on identifying potential code modifications and recommendations, especially zoning and administrative hurdles and limitations, and create a guidebook for simplifying the approval process for common home types in Skokie. Attachments: Presentation: “Housing Design and Skokie Home Addition Plan Book” 627723  7/11/2025 Housing Design and Skokie Home Addition Plan Book Housing Sub-Committee Group 3 Goal A. To make the home modification process more accessible, predictable, and cost-effective for Skokie residents. B. To create a more streamlined approval process. C. To create a “Skokie Home Addition Plan Book” which would help homeowners navigate the modification process easily, specifically for common home types. 1  7/11/2025 Appearance Commission A. New Construction B. Size of addition/modification • Falls within Fire Code requirement for sprinkling C. Asking for any relief on project D. “Architecturally Unsuitable” • “Hodgepodge” or multiple architectural designs Commissions Not Required A. Conforming project B. No relief C. Meets material requirements D. “Architecturally Suitable” E. Falls under pre-approved design standards • Ex: Chicago Bungalow Association Guidebook 2  7/11/2025 What’s Next? A. ADUs or workspaces B. Porches and other projections C. Neighborhood / Corridor plans or studies D. Submittal Standards • Reviewing and revising 3 Memorandum Community Development Department TO: Chair Peter Levavi and Members of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission FROM: Johanna Nyden, AICP, Community Development Director Kate Portillo, AICP, Planning Manager Justin Malone, Neighborhood & Housing Coordinator DATE: July 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Action Item for Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission Recommendation on Draft Code Language for Permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Skokie Overview Staff recommends Housing Sub-Committee recommend approval of draft code language for permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Skokie. Following the recommendation, the draft language will be brought to the Plan Commission for further review and ultimately recommendation to the Village Board for adoption. Background At the April 10, 2025 meeting of the Housing Sub-Committee of the Plan Commission, staff provided a white paper and work plan for the Housing Sub-Committee that outlined the recommendations which aim to identify gaps in Skokie’s zoning code. As part of the Village’s goals of making zoning regulations more flexible, the Housing Sub-Committee was tasked with determining the feasibility of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Skokie. In order for ADUs to become permissible in Skokie, some items within the Village code would need to be modified, including but not limited to: • Defining an Accessory Dwelling Unit • Allowing ADUs in residentially zoned districts • Reassessing maximum allowable heights for accessory structures • Requiring ADUs to be subject to the Village’s Residential Rental Unit Registration • Establishing a maximum square footage and basic design standards for ADUs • Addressing parking requirements Next Steps The Housing Sub-Committee will continue to implement the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by exploring zoning code changes that could reduce barriers to home modifications, particularly those related to lot coverage, height restrictions, and parking requirements. Attachments Draft code language for permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 627719  Highlighted text indicates language to be added Strikethrough text indicates language to be removed Sec. 118-60. Accessory building, structures and uses. Definitions: “Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)” means an attached or detached residential living unit on the same parcel on which a single-family dwelling is present or may be constructed. The ADU provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The ADU may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling, and is subordinate to the principal structure. (a) Accessory structure classifications in districts. (1) Accessory structures shall be allowed in all districts, except those structures specifically prohibited. (2) Accessory buildings and uses are allowed only in residential zoning districts. (b) Maximum height. An accessory building cannot exceed 1 story or 15' in height. The distance from grade to the top of eave or to the top of the highest point on a flat roofed building cannot exceed 10' above grade, except that an open roof deck railing cannot exceed 15' above grade. (c) Area. The ground floor area of all accessory buildings must not exceed the ground floor area of the principal grade. (d) Rear yard coverage. The total area of all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 30% of the rear yard. (e) Use of accessory buildings in residential districts. In residential districts a motor vehicle garage or other accessory building shall not be used as a residence, temporary residence, or in conjunction with a commercial or business activity, except that commercial vehicles may be parked or stored in the garage. (f) Setbacks. Except for legal fences or as otherwise provided, an accessory building or structure erected, altered, enlarged, or moved must conform to the following: (1) International Residential Code, as amended in Chapter 22, as if all accessory buildings are garages. 1 627071  Highlighted text indicates language to be added Strikethrough text indicates language to be removed (2) An accessory building less than 50 ft.2 in area and of noncombustible construction is permitted to abut the principal building. (3) An accessory building or structure is prohibited in a required front or side yard or within 60' from a front lot line. (4) An accessory building or structure in a rear yard shall be at least 3' from a lot line except that the setback required shall be at least: (a) The distance required for a side yard abutting a street on corner lots. (b) The distance required for a front yard on through lots. (c) 5' from the lot line abutting the alley. (g) Colocation. Accessory buildings and Accessory Dwelling Units shall occupy the same lot as the principal use or building. (h) Accessory Dwelling Unit classifications in districts. (1) Accessory Dwelling Units use shall be compatible with the principal use. (2) Accessory uses shall not include a kennel or an accessory building for the keeping or propagation of livestock or outdoor storage. (i) Special Regulations Applicable to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (1) Rental Registration. Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to Residential Rental Unit Registration (Section 22-501). Prior to rental, property owner of the ADU shall pay the annual registration fee, provide up to date contact information for owner, and attend the Village Residential Rental Property Landlord Seminar. (2) Number of Units: One (1) ADU is permitted per zoning lot. (3) Minimum Lot Size: None (4) Minimum ADU Size: 150 square feet (5) Maximum ADU Size: May not exceed 1,00 square feet of livable space, and smaller than the primary residence. (6) Maximum F.A.R. or Building Lot Coverage: For both attached and detached ADUs, the maximum F.A.R. or lot coverage of all structures on the zoning lot shall be that of the underlying zoning district. (7) Yard Requirements: For both attached and detached ADUs, the maximum F.A.R. or lot coverage of all structures on the zoning lot shall be that of the underlying zoning district. 2 627071  Highlighted text indicates language to be added Strikethrough text indicates language to be removed (8) Maximum Height: (a) For an attached ADU, the maximum height shall be that of the underlying zoning district. (b) For a detached ADU with a flat or mansard roof, the height shall not exceed (20) feet, measured from grade to the highest point of said structure, or two (2) stories, whichever is less. (c) For a detached ADU without a flat or mansard roof, the height shall be no taller than twenty-eight (28) feet, measured from grade to the highest point of said structure, or two (2) stories, whichever is less. (9) Design Standards: For attached ADUs, only one (1) pedestrian entrance to the structure may be located on the front facing façade of the principal building. (10) Off-Street Parking: The required off-street parking for residences, as determined by the zoning of the primary structure, shall be provided on the same lot as the principal building. Relief from any parking conditions may be granted through the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3 627071