On the agenda: Wilmette meeting — Data Center (Jun 18)

1. HC 06-18-2026 Agenda
Documents:
06-18-2026 HC AGENDA.PDF
1.I. HC 06-18-2026 PACKET
Documents:
HC 06-18-2026 PACKET.PDF
1.II. Supplemental Materials
Documents:
JUNE 18 HC MEETING SLIDES.PDF

1200 WILMETTE AVENUE
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT

(847) 853-7550
TDD 711
EMAIL [email protected]

NOTICE OF MEETING
of the
HOUSING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
Wilmette Village Hall – Council Chambers
1200 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois
AGENDA
1.

Call to Order and Roll Call

2.

Approval of Minutes
a. Minutes from the April 30, 2026 Conversation with the Commission Meeting
b. Minutes from the May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Meeting

3.

Public Comment

4.

Old Business
a. Discussion of the Housing Plan to include draft strategies and initial priorities.

5.

New Business

6.

Adjournment

Kaine Osburn, Chair
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY AND NEED SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN AND/OR
ATTEND A VILLAGE OF WILMETTE PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE NOTIFY THE VILLAGE MANAGER’S OFFICE AT (847) 8537509 OR TDD 711 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

1200 WILMETTE AVENUE
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT

(847) 853-7550
TDD 711
EMAIL [email protected]

NOTICE OF MEETING
of the
HOUSING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
Wilmette Village Hall – Council Chambers
1200 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois
AGENDA
1.

Call to Order and Roll Call

2.

Approval of Minutes
a. Minutes from the April 30, 2026 Conversation with the Commission Meeting
b. Minutes from the May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Meeting

3.

Public Comment

4.

Old Business
a. Discussion of the Housing Plan to include draft strategies and initial priorities.

5.

New Business

6.

Adjournment

Kaine Osburn, Chair
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY AND NEED SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN AND/OR
ATTEND A VILLAGE OF WILMETTE PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE NOTIFY THE VILLAGE MANAGER’S OFFICE AT (847) 8537509 OR TDD 711 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

1200 Wilmette Avenue
Wilmette, Illinois 60091-0040
MINUTES OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2026
6:00 P.M.
Wilmette Public Library
1241 Wilmette Ave, Wilmette, Illinois
Members Present:

Kaine Osburn, Chair
Earl Chase
Stephen Miller
John Zurlo
Elissa Morgante
Ryan Shannahan
Caroline Goldstein

Staff Present:

Emily Egan, Director of Community Development
Jodi Luka, Deputy Director of Community Development

Others Present:

Michaela Kohlstedt, Deputy Director of Development and Planning,
Village of Northbrook
Jennifer Settle, Principal, Opticos Design Inc.
Ben Schnelle, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Nancy Firfer, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Jane Hornstein, BRicK Partners
Colin Goss, BRicK Partners

I.

Call to Order and Roll Call
Chair Osburn called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
1

II.

NEW BUSINESS
•

PART TWO OF CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS
SERIES- EXPLORING OPTIONS AND PRIORITIES
Chair Osburn began by thanking the attendees of the meeting for their presence. He
reminded the audience that the Conversations with the Commissioners Series draws
from the Housing chapter of the 2024 Village of Wilmette Comprehensive Plan.
He reiterated that the Housing Commissions’ role is to work through a process to
receive and reflect input into a more detailed set of recommendations for the Village
Board of Trustees that will ideally help achieve the goals and objectives set forth
in Chapter Eight of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Osburn stated that the second Conversation with the Commissioners will
build on the foundation established in the original Conversation- which was focused
on answering the questions- why have a housing plan, and what is included in the
plan? He pointed out that this meeting will explore potential strategies at achieving
the housing goals addressed in the previous Conversation.
Two guest presenters, Michaela Kohlstedt from the Village of Northbrook, and
Jennifer Settle from the private sector (Opticos Design) were introduced by Chair
Osburn. He also reminded the attendees of the mission of the partnering
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, and that the group, along with BRiCK, are key
partners in developing Wilmette’s next steps.
Chair Osburn went on to address the recent news surrounding Governor J.B.
Pritzker’s proposed legislation (the BUILD Illinois initiative) of zoning code
reform. He defined the potential changes and emphasized that these continuing
conversations had by the Village of Wilmette are not in response to, concurrence
with, or in contrast to the proposed state legislation changes. Wilmette’s process
began far prior to any conversations happening at the state level.
The structure and agenda of the meeting was then addressed and clarified by Chair
Osburn.
Ben Schnelle of the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus introduced himself and his
colleague Nancy Firfer, and provided a brief overview of the organization. He also
introduced Jane Hornstein and Colin Goss of BRicK Partners consulting firm.
Jane Hornstein greeted the attendees and provided background on herself,
remarking that she is a former Wilmette resident and former chair of the Housing

Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
2

Commission.
Ben Schnelle provided another overview of what the meeting agenda will look like,
notifying attendees that there will be ample time for public comment, in written or
spoken form. He reiterated much of the same background information as previously
touched on by Chair Osburn, defining the Housing Plan as a path to finding the best
way the Village can prioritize the goals set forth by the housing chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Schnelle encouraged all attendees to complete the Wilmette Housing Survey and
mentioned that there will be a thorough recap of the top priorities provided by the
survey during the July meeting of the Housing Commission. Continuing in his
roadmap, he clarified that the plan will ultimately go before the Village Board in
the Fall of 2026, after being reviewed by several Commissions.
Schnelle continued by identifying the first of three key trends that will be addressed
in this meeting: the fact that older adults and seniors make up a larger portion of
Wilmette’s population than in previous decades. He pointed out that in preliminary
reviews of the housing survey and focus groups the needs of these older residents
often include the option to downsize. Charts also showed a decrease in the
population of young adults, emphasizing the need for more affordable housing for
young families.
The second trend was introduced by Schnelle: housing costs are rising and more
homeowners than ever are “Housing Cost Burdened”- spending more than 30% of
their monthly income on housing. Additionally, roughly 15% of Wilmette residents
are “Severely Cost Burdened”- meaning they spend 50% or more of their income
on housing. As for renters, 18% spend 30% or more of their income on housing,
and 28% spend at least half of their monthly income to cover housing costs. Both
owners and renters are being stretched thin by housing costs and forced to sacrifice
and balance other needs.
Finally, the last piece of data concerned the demand for housing in Wilmette and
the surrounding area, leading to a decrease in home availability. Schnelle pointed
out that for both owners and renters, vacancy rates have fallen below stable levels
due to rising prices.
Jane Hornstein built on Schnelle’s points by bringing forth some potential strategies
identified in recent focus groups. Key themes included: the need for diversity of
housing needs, modifying zoning regulations, and the impacts on the local
economy. She brought up the necessity to bring Wilmette’s workforce home, that
teachers, first responders, and other employees who work in Wilmette should be
able to afford homes in the Village.
She then presented a list of various strategies- highlighted by solutions that include
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
3

increasing demolition fees and utilizing funds for housing initiatives, exemplified
by the funds raised in the Optima project.
Chair Osburn re-emphasized that the public session in July will be when the
Commissioners begin to determine which of the strategies will be presented to the
Village Board, and that this meeting will still serve the purpose of educating the
Commission on more strategies. The Commissioners have not made any permanent
decisions on which strategies they will favor and are seeking more input from the
public before beginning to select the most effective means.
NORTHBROOK PRESENTATION
Michaela Kohlstedt then introduced herself as another former Wilmette resident,
and that her current role as Deputy Director of Planning and Development with the
Village of Northbrook has allowed her to witness many of the same conversations
and issues addressed in Chair Osburn’s introduction and the Wilmette
Comprehensive Plan as a whole.
Kohlstedt began by providing a timeline of affordable housing’s history in
Northbrook, ranging from senior apartments created in 1984 to an Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance approved in 2020. She elaborated on the 2020 ordinance,
mentioning what caused its’ need, and that it included a demolition tax that helped
raise nearly $1M in five years.
Kohlstedt then took a step back to address that Northbrook also dealt with their fair
share of debate and compromise in establishing the Ordinance, similar to the
spectrum of discussion currently being experienced by Wilmette. She answered
questions like who can qualify for new affordable housing developments, what
percentage of affordable units should be required, and what size the units should
be. Kohlstedt drew another parallel, pointing out that Northbrook also had worked
with third party groups in developing this 2020 Ordinance update.
Going into greater depth, Kohlstedt provided a summary of Northbrook’s adopted
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Summary. She described that 15% of
development with 6 or more dwelling units are required to be affordable, but if you
are building 19 or fewer units you can qualify for a fee in lieu of $125,000.
Kohlstedt then backtracked and provided definitions of the terms “inclusionary”
and “Fee in Lieu”. Additionally, she described an example situation in which the
payment in lieu would be favorable, i.e., if certain circumstances prohibit a
developer from meeting the quota of affordable units, the $125,000 payment
towards the Housing Fund gives the Village more ability to diversify supply of
housing than trying to construct 15% affordable units in an environment where this
goal is unattainable would.
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
4

Alternate methods, beyond just paying in lieu, include the option to designate new
off-site development of affordable housing, or dedication of land to future
development of affordable housing. These methods are provided in hopes that new
or alternate development will give the same amount or even a greater amount of
affordable housing in the long run.
Kohlstedt elaborated on incentives included in the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Exemptions from the zoning code such as density bonuses, extended
design flexibility, waivers or fee reductions, or reduced parking requirements all
are written into the Ordinance to encourage new development of affordable housing
and housing in general.
Moving from the Ordinance itself to some of the observed outcomes, Kohlstedt
presented that approximately 70 new units of affordable housing have already been
approved and are moving forward in the development process. She provided some
specific examples that conform to the new Ordinance and also presented that
Northbrook has collected upwards of $818,000 in Fee-in-Lieu since 2020.
Following the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Village of
Northbrook additionally re-wrote their 40+ year old zoning code, hoping to focus
on housing for all, and the idea of missing middle housing. Some specifics of the
new code include: regulating size of mixed-use buildings by eliminating Floor Area
Ratio, while maintaining size and setback requirements, in hopes of encouraging
greater design flexibility.
Kohlstedt continued, explaining that the new zoning code also included a minimum
height of 2 stories for new developments in downtown Northbrook, with an intent
of capturing housing on the second floor in proximity to public transit. The Village
of Northbrook also eliminated minimum dwelling unit size, and reduced parking
requirements for multi-family housing.
Allowing attached accessory dwelling units in single family residential districts and
updating multi-family district regulations to be more friendly towards duplexes,
triplexes, and more are some of the other highlights of the new Northbrook zoning
code as addressed by Kohlstedt.
Another goal of the updated zoning code for Northbrook was streamlining the
process and allowing for a shortened timeframe of review before development.
Kohlstedt provided a graphic highlighting the simplicity of Northbrook’s new
process, including some optional sections and one single public hearing and
approval process. After explaining how successful this new code has been in
speeding up the steps needed for new development, Kohlstedt concluded her
presentation on the behalf of the Village of Northbrook.
COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS ON NORTHBROOK PRESENTATION
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
5

Chair Osburn then remarked that he will facilitate some questions from the
Commission before the next presenter. He reassured the audience that there will be
time at the end, following the final presentation, to ask more questions.
Chair Osburn began by inquiring about community members’ concerns, and asked
Kohlstedt to revisit what did or did not work well in the process of implementing
these new strategies to address housing concerns.
Kohlstedt pointed to issues with requiring affordable housing for all senior
developments, as it would not be feasible to mandate strict affordability
requirements in some cases, especially for Continuing Care Retirement
Communities (CCRC). These situations have led to Northbrook having to be
creative and adapt to unique circumstances and quick revisions to the zoning code
shortly after first implementation.
Another lesson learned as presented by Kohlstedt is regarding unit sizes. The code
originally stated that the affordable units should be the same size makeup of market
rate units, and this led to a large influx of bigger, affordable townhomes. An issue
that arose with this increase was utility bills approaching far too expensive levels
for residents. Kohlstedt attested that the Village of Northbrook is currently looking
into revising this portion of the new code as it pertains to size.
Chair Osburn reminded the presenters to explain any acronyms or potentially
confusing vocabulary, for the benefit of the audience to be involved and included
in these conversations. He then turned it over to the remainder of the Commission
for further questions.
Commissioner Goldstein asked about supportive affordable housing, or housing
with case management support, and/or additional services provided for people with
various disabilities. She asked Kohlstedt if any of the tools previously discussed
have helped address the community’s concerns regarding these supportive services.
Kohlstedt recommended the utilization of experts in the fields of inclusive housing
from groups like the Housing Opportunity Development Corporation. She pointed
out that Richard Koenig of the HODC taught her the concept of layered financing
and the importance of coordinating the levels of funding from various sources in
order to get supportive projects done.
Commissioner Zurlo asked if the residents moving into the new developments are
existing Northbrook residents looking to downsize in the face of rising housing
costs, or residents new to the community altogether. Kohlstedt stated these statistics
are not monitored but feels there is a significant number of existing Northbrook
residents who have taken advantage of these new housing options.
Commissioner Morgante asked if Northbrook has a significant amount of vacant
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
6

land, and how they have been able to attract some of the large, several unit
developments that were mentioned in the presentation. She commented that in
Wilmette, it is not the case where there is plenty of land readily available to be
developed into new multi-family structures.
Kohlstedt stated that a big reason that this Ordinance came to be in the first place
was because the Village was seeing an increase in residential developments on
available land, developments that did not exactly align with needs like middle
housing and affordable housing. She also commented that one of the developments
took place on the site of a former Catholic Church that was sold to a developer.
Kohlstedt mentioned Northbrook’s Comprehensive Plan, and how it designated
which areas of the Village are suitable for future development, many of which being
former industrial buildings or land. The Comprehensive Plan has guided much of
Northbrook’s targeted areas for new multi-family housing.
Commissioner Shannahan asked how many of the properties presented are up for
rental versus for sale.
Kohlstedt attested that the 48-unit supportive affordable housing is a rental product,
along with a 34-unit townhome with 5 affordable units. The remainder of those
presented are for sale properties. However, there are several new multi-family
developments on the horizon, and Kohlstedt claimed that these include a relatively
even split of rental and for sale properties.
Commissioner Shannahan followed up by asking if there is any relief of property
tax, especially with the for-sale units.
Kohlstedt remarked that the units would be taxed at their sale price. However, when
an affordable unit is purchased through the land trust, the land remains in the trust,
and the surrounding area’s taxes will not increase due to the affordable unit being
bought nearby.
Chair Osburn asked how long affordable housing units remain affordable.
Kohlstedt confirmed that affordable housing units will remain affordable in
perpetuity.
Chair Osburn cited statistics that suggested a 0.55% increase in total inclusionary
units in five years for Northbrook, and asked what Wilmette can do to include
inclusionary housing at a greater rate than the number calculated for Northbrook.
Kohlstedt responded that when only requiring 15% of new units to be affordable, it
is not likely that affordable housing will catch up exactly to market rate housing.
Some ways to close the gap even a little include working with entities, donors,
landowners, or Village owned land to find places to build solely affordable units.
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
7

Chair Osburn reminded the audience that in presentations like these, rates at which
single family housing and other types of housing are being built at the same time
are often not included, making direct comparisons difficult.
Osburn continued to ask if the goal in bringing affordable housing to Wilmette is
more centered around allowing new residents to come to the Village or about
allowing options for current residents. Answering his own question, he cited the
goals and objectives of the initiative, along with prior feedback from residents, and
stated that both are of similarly high priority to Wilmette.
Chair Osburn asked if affordable housing units will be constructed with high-end
materials.
Kohlstedt pointed to Northbrook’s code and the design alternatives that allow for
“contractor grade finishes” (this could include carpet rather than hardwood floors,
or hollow core doors rather than solid doors) as an incentive towards including
affordable housing units in new development plans. She added that there has,
however, been instances where developers have not used the design alternatives
offered to them. In many instances, developers have built the affordable housing
units with the same materials and finishes as the remainder of the units, as it’s made
more economic sense to keep uniformity.
Chair Osburn concluded the discussion on Michaela Kohlstedt’s presentation on
behalf of the Village of Northbrook.
OPTICOS DESIGN PRESENTATION
Jennifer Settle introduced herself as Principal of Opticos Design and gave a brief
introduction on who Opticos is and what they do. One main objective they have is
connecting the dots between oftentimes dense zoning codes and how to enable
communities to better themselves within the frameworks provided in codes.
Settle introduced the concept of “Missing Middle Housing” as house-scale
buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods. She provided a visual
with single family detached homes on one end, and large mid-rise apartment/condo
buildings on the other. However, Settle pointed out the gap between these two ends
of the spectrum as missing- everything from duplexes to townhouses and courtyard
apartments.
Settle defined “Middle” as applying to form, scale, and types. Form refers to how
providing middle housing is not necessarily about adding units on a lot. Middle
housing can take the form of pre-existing houses that preserve the character of the
neighborhood they are in, but provide more than just units for single families.
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
8

“Middle” also refers to being attainable by design to middle income households,
delivering multiple, smaller homes on the same sized lots as single family houses.
Settle emphasized that middle housing does not promise affordability, but it does
tend to produce more attainable units than single family homes.
Settle spoke on preferences, presenting data that backs the demand for walkable
neighborhoods and different demographics needing different housing styles than
the traditional black and white decision between single family homes and
condo/apartment style high rise and mid-rise buildings. She asked the audience how
many people had lived with roommates and/or in an apartment in the past, and
commented that giving people that option in their own communities is a big
objective of Opticos.
Settle provided visuals of housing choices including duplexes, cottage courts,
fourplexes, townhouses, 3-flats, multiplexes, and more. She also provided images
of specific examples of middle housing already in existence in Wilmette,
acknowledging that not every form of middle housing belongs in any
neighborhood, highlighting the importance of preserving community character and
feel.
Using more visuals, Settle argued that form matters more than density in terms of
creating zoning reform and walkability. She stated that simply allowing more
density at all costs is not the answer- providing options that fit with the rest of the
existing community can even increase property value and neighborhood feel.
Settle commented that Missing Middle Housing (MMH) makes the most sense in
walkable neighborhoods, and spoke to the process of prioritizing centers of activity
(downtown, walkable community centers) for MMH construction. She reiterated
the need for place-specific zoning, as there is no one-size-fits-all answer for every
community. Questions of infrastructure, civic, social, and utilities should all be
factored in when considering where to emphasize the inclusion of middle housing.
Settle presented that Middle Housing can be implemented into existing
neighborhoods that are currently dominated by typical detached houses. This
application is considered “Small” Middle Housing, and can be carried out by way
of duplexes, townhouses, and accessory dwelling units that fit into communities
without interrupting character or feel. In terms of zoning, Settle commented that
often codes will require any multi-unit development to include more parking, and
be completed on a bigger lot altogether. However, it is these types of restrictions
that actually disrupt community/neighborhood feel. When done correctly, most
neighbors do not even know that Middle Housing is there, and multi-unit buildings
blend right in.
Settle commented that she advises communities to look at development through the
lens of what is wanted, rather than what is dictated by code at the exact moment.
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
9

Another potential setting for Middle Housing is in transition zones between mixed
use, or commercial areas and single-family districts. These implementations of
“medium” Middle Housing can add units, boost density, walkability, and pedestrian
oriented development near downtown areas while providing a corridor between
taller, larger structures and single-family properties.
Larger Middle Housing types are often a great fit within commercial districts. Settle
also argued that the larger types can also fit within corridor areas, like where the
medium sized Middle Housing developments can be located. Larger Middle
Housing is where, according to Settle, Middle Housing “maxes out,” and provides
the largest properties before crossing into the large, mid-rise apartment or condo
buildings.
Next Settle presented some important takeaways, beginning with encouraging the
usage of the language of “housing types,” terms like duplex, fourplex, townhouses,
etc., as pure density numbers are not the best metric by which to explain Middle
Housing. Another takeaway presented was how we should discuss zoning, from a
lens of the question, “what do you want to see?”
Settle discussed more takeaways, all emphasizing better communication and
transparency of what Middle Housing means. She argued that the term multi-family
is used bluntly, and there is a need to designate differences between a three-unit
building and a three-hundred-unit building.
Settle promoted the use of test fits and Opticos’ Missing Middle Scan to effectively
inform zoning and set the stage for what can actually make sense in specific
locations within Wilmette.
Settle encouraged Wilmette to consider “house-scale” for duplexes and other MMH
types.
Settle restated that MMH is about finding what works for individual communities,
as there is no one size fits all approach. She concluded her presentation with a list
of potential implementation strategies, from expanding education on MMH to
zoning fixes and pilot projects.
COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS ON OPTICOS DESIGN PRESENTATION
Chair Osburn kicked off questions by asking about concerns communities most
often have about implementing plans like Middle Housing developments. He
wonders if, despite the MMH’s lack of a one-size-fits-all solution, Settle has seen
any frequently recurring issues or areas of concern for partnering communities. He
also reminded the audience that the Housing Commission cannot recommend
statutory changes to Wilmette’s zoning but can recommend a review of certain
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
10

aspects of the zoning code.
Answering Chair Osburn’s question, Settle began by commenting that oftentimes
communities have a fear of rentals, or multi-unit development of any kind. She
believes that this is because in the past, multi-unit development has only meant very
large scale properties, and this has led to concerns about scale, and who is going to
live in the new developments.
Settle also acknowledges valid concerns with the implementation of MMH. To
begin, she addresses questions of infrastructure, such as: is it realistic to support
four dwelling units on one lot? In terms of the potential influx of residents: How
will schools respond? Are the services in place to support these changes? How will
they impact parking and local traffic?
Commissioner Goldstein brought forth a question on outcomes- asking specifically
how the housing market has reacted and if incentives been needed in places where
MMH initiatives have been adopted.
Settle began by noting that in communities where codes and policies have been
updated, change has been incremental, not rapid or overwhelming. While larger,
200-unit buildings often bring tumultuous change, MMH implementation happens
more slowly. This is due to barriers like building codes treating them differently,
among other reasons that come with MMH being a new concept. However, in
communities at have opened up to MMH by allowing pre-reviewed plans or MMH
types by right, rent has stabilized and people have stayed in their neighborhoods.
Settle did acknowledge that incentives are given at the beginning of implementation
in many cases due to the barriers of building MMH in the first place and
construction costs remaining high. Leveling the playing field in communities that
have a long history of exclusively supporting single-family homes often does
require incentivization to get MMH initiatives off the ground.
Settle continued to connect her presentation and response to the previous question
to the Northbrook case study and mentioned that working with local land trusts and
nonprofit housing providers can go a long way in helping reduce costs and deliver
finished projects.
A Commissioner asked both Ms. Settle and Ms. Kohlstedt about commonality in
different communities when it comes to incentives to combat the cost of
construction and exploring different housing types.
Kohlstedt began by responding that incentives are needed because of the cost of
construction in the region. She remarked that Northbrook has been transparent in
their code that there are incentives for building affordable housing, and whenever
new developers come in, the Village asks what their plan will be to answer the
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
11

question of the affordable housing requirement.
Settle pointed out that Middle Housing is often financed more locally, using similar
bank and loan structures as a typical family house since it is the same type of
construction being completed. She also commented that most Middle Housing
developments are undertaken by people in the 80-120% of the Area Median Income
range, which means it does not become eligible for any federal loans or
requirements. They are more “naturally occurring” affordable according to Settle.
Chair Osburn joined in to clarify with a question about Wilmette’s AMI. The rest
of the commissioners commented that AMI varies by size of household. Kohlstedt
gave perspective on how Northbrook considers AMI, and specified that even
though 80-120% of AMI seems higher than some affordable housing, it is still
relatively affordable compared to median income of local communities. Kohlstedt
considers MMH to be more attainable housing, that could also be an asset in
bringing first responders who work in Wilmette to live in the village, because
oftentimes they do not qualify for the broader inclusionary housing. Settle pointed
out that Wilmette is higher than the provided statistical average. Chair Osburn
agreed.
Commissioner Miller asked a question regarding how Wilmette is nearly all builtout, and implementing Middle Housing will require demolitions to occur.
Settle acknowledged that costs for developing new Middle Housing units can be
high, especially when only spread among a handful of residents, versus very large
developments that spread costs out among far more units. She argues this is one of
the reasons that in the past the only alternatives to single family housing units have
been large scale multi-family buildings with far more units.
Settle reiterated that the best way to make these a reality and speed up the process
of implementing MMH is by allowing them in code and policy by right, while
defining code and scale.
Kohlstedt added that determining what the community wants in terms of specific
Middle Housing is extremely important, using the example of accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). If these are in high demand by the community, allowing ADUs by
right can save time and money.
Chair Osburn followed up by asking for a definition of the term “character” when
it comes to housing.
Settle commented that character means different things to different people, but she
defines it as a combination of form and scale that is specific to a community.
Considering width, height, roof, and “frontage type” which refers to the transition
space between yard and sidewalk, or curb appeal. Middle Housing provides a great
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
12

option because it is a multi-unit solution that offers some of the character benefits
provided by a single-unit lot.
III.

Public Comment
Chair Osburn, in reviewing questions submitted in written form, acknowledged that
some questions are to be answered by the Village, and made a distinction that he is
a volunteer serving on the Commission, who does not have the answer to all Village
related inquiries.
The first question from the audience read by Chair Osburn- “Will the Village sever
its ties with HODC due to problems with Cleland Place”
Osburn admitted that he does not know the answer to the question but will pass
along to the Village.
The next question read asked the Commission to what extent the Housing Plan will
focus on attracting African-American residents to housing possibilities in Wilmette.
Chair Osburn spoke regarding the strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan,
and that none of the current strategies brought forward are based on any specific
racial, ethnic, or linguistic outreach. He made an important distinction, however,
that despite not being included in the current housing strategies, that the community
does value diversity and attracting diversity to the community.
Osburn once again encouraged any concerns to be shared as feedback in the
available survey.
The next question written in (as Osburn mentioned- is for the Village) asked why
the meeting is not livestreamed or videotaped.
Chair Osburn answered by noting that the meeting is being recorded, minutes will
be posted to the Village website, and requesting the recording of the meeting is
allowed, in accordance with the Open Meetings Act in Illinois.
Chair Osburn moved on to a final question regarding young Wilmette residents who
are living in supported households, how can they age in place with their families?
Osburn remarked that questions like these will be further discussed and deliberated
before final suggestions are brought to the Village Board.
Audience member asked about potential housing strategies memo, had a concern
about increased building height, as four and five story buildings are being
considered. He also asked about parking, concerned with reducing parking
requirements and potential development on former parking lots near downtown.

Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
13

The same audience member asked about the past development of the Optima
Verdana building, where a two-story retail or office building was recommended,
but a 100-unit residential development was approved and constructed. The Imperial
Motors site was also brought into question, where more residential units than
originally recommended were developed. His final concern was regarding potential
development of the Wilmette History Museum, the historic original Village Hall.
Chair Osburn clarified that the specific building usage discussed does not come
before the Housing Commission but will be passed on to the Village. He also
reminded the audience that public comment is limited to three minutes.
Mark Weyermuller commented that he is a taxpayer advocate and supporter of the
free market. He promoted his Facebook page called Wilmette Connection with
13,000 followers and promoted his Twitter account and talk radio appearances. He
began by requesting the Housing Commission be renamed the “Subsidized Housing
Commission” and argues that nothing being discussed during the meeting will help
his housing situation. He also questioned why meetings like these are not
videotaped. Weyermuller has several issues with the Housing survey, stating that it
has “goofy” questions and he will not fill it out. He cites an example of the question
“Would you support demolition fees” and asks why there is no ability to select no,
I would not support that. He recommends people not fill out the survey, and states
that the questions in the survey should ask whether or not people want people want
to pay more taxes for subsidized housing, and things of the sort. Weyermuller states
he does not support demolition fees or tree removal fees. He also believes that
subsidized housing will not have to follow any zoning rules that he has to, and that
to speed up commerce that commissions like the Appearance Review Commission
should be eliminated.
Audience member brought up Illinois House Bill 1814 and Senate Bill 80 and
claimed that single family zoning will be eliminated in all of Illinois in the next few
years. He also claimed that this legislation is attempting to eliminate parking
requirements near public transport. Between these examples and his own past
experience, requests that the Commission consider taking proactive measures to
consider what Wilmette residents actually want Middle Housing to look like in their
communities, rather than be imposed from afar. Concerned about overstepping
from the state level, emphasizes need for Middle Housing in appropriate districts.
Chair Osburn confirms that the Commission is seeking to be proactive and give the
Village Board a better idea of what Wilmette wants rather than what the state
government wants.
Audience member asks Jennifer Settle if she has experience in transforming preexisting large homes (gives example of mansions East of downtown Wilmette) into
fourplexes or Middle Housing. Also brings up a point about community character,
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
14

and notes that there is subjectivity involved with determining character.
Chair Osburn spoke to the Comprehensive Plan’s inclusion of discussion on
character and quality of housing in Wilmette.
Settle spoke and commented that she does have experience with larger homes
turning into fourplexes or Middle Housing, and she also has experience working
with communities who have said no to repurposing old, large homes into multi-unit
developments. Settle mentioned that the example of large homes is the most
economical way to implement 3 or 4 unit building in Wilmette today, and it aligns
with shifting demographics towards smaller households that want to preserve
house’s overall structure.
Settle attested that because of the cost of land and construction, when single family
homes are built, developers are incentivized to push lot lines as far as possible. To
be proactive, Settle argues municipalities can right-size zoning to what fits in each
neighborhood, and allowing smaller units and flexibility.
Representative of Open Communities, a fair housing organization, spoke about his
group’s mission to secure safe, stable housing for all and is encouraged that this
process is taking place seeking to make increased diversity more of a cornerstone
of the Housing Plan going forward. Brings up segregation in the Chicago metro
area as one of the most divided between white and African-American residents in
the nation, encourages audience to research numbers for themselves. Next, he
encouraged audience to read GAP report that states there are only 34 available
affordable homes for every 100 low income families, emphasizes need for more
housing, and that it will bring with it greater racial integration. Views Inclusionary
Housing as the standard for the region. Wants Commission to look into providing
ADUs as a right for residents. Seeks to align with where the state is already going
in terms of the BUILD legislation.
Fred Wilson, a board member of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing
land trust model spoke next. His organization has already completed fifteen homes
in Wilmette and would seek to develop twenty more. Points out that people are
concerned about change, the best way to quell concerns would be to be proactive
rather than reactive. Cites Northbrook as a great example of being a regional leader.
An audience member asked how to submit a comment or letter to be reviewed by
the Village or Commission.
Chair Osburn defers to Emily Egan, Director of Community Development.
Emily Egan clarifies that the public can submit a form for commentary on the
Village web page under the Housing Plan, or fill out the survey to be reviewed by
consultants, staff, and Commission. She additionally provides her work email,
Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
15

[email protected] for the public to have if they would like to provide
commentary on the developments discussed in this meeting.
Wilmette resident introduces himself, gives family history including son having a
disability. The reason he moved to Wilmette is because they provided the most
support and resources, and seemed to be the best fit for his son. Emphasizes how
individuals with special needs should be taken under consideration when it comes
to making certain changes, how important it is to give them the ability/option to
age in place in a community that they already have familiarity with. Comments that
having a greater number of special needs individuals living in what was formerly a
single family home can be a better outcome for all parties involved.
Chair Osburn asked the crowd for any final public comment, then moved forward
with a reminder to fill out the housing survey. He encouraged the audience to stay
tuned, and gave a brief timeline of the next happenings for the Housing
Commission, including a preview of the next steps in July and beyond.
IV.

Adjournment
A motion to adjourn at 8:17pm was made by Commissioner Goldstein and seconded by
Commissioner Miller. Vote six ayes and zero nays. Motion Approved.

Respectfully submitted,
Jodi Luka, MPAP
Deputy Director of Community Development
Lucas Holubar
Community Development Intern

Tuesday, April 30, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
16

1200 Wilmette Avenue
Wilmette, Illinois 60091-0040
MINUTES OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
Thursday, May 21, 2026
6:00 P.M.
Wilmette Village Hall- Council Chambers
1200 Wilmette Ave, Wilmette, Illinois
Members Present:

Kaine Osburn, Chair
Caroline Goldstein
Stephen Miller
John Zurlo

Members Absent:

Earl Chase
Elissa Morgante
Ryan Shannahan

Staff Present:

Jodi Luka, Deputy Director of Community Development

Others Present:

Ben Schnelle, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Jane Hornstein, BRicK Partners
Colin Goss
Nancy Ferfer

I.

Call to Order
Chair Osburn called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

II.

Approval of Minutes from March 12, 2026

Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
1

The Commission reviewed the minutes of the March 12, 2026 Housing Commission
and voted unanimously to approve. Motion by Commissioner Goldstein. Second by
Commissioner Miller. Voice vote four ayes and zero nays.
III.

Public Comment
Chair Osburn opened the meeting to public commentary.
Pete Donough opened by stating his frustration with the proposed changes in Wilmette.
He claims that “subsidized” housing has led to deterioration of communities in other
parts of the Chicagoland area. He believes that these meetings should be broadcasted
on television so people can be made more aware of the conversations taking place. As
a longtime Wilmette resident, he comments that he never heard sirens in the Village
until 6 or 7 years ago when new developments began construction. He claims there has
been increased traffic and overcrowding recently, and that creating new housing is only
allowing people who do not pay taxes or their own rent to move into Wilmette. He
concludes with a final warning, comparing proposed housing changes to socialism.
Mark Weyermuller commented that he is recording himself. He also expressed
frustration that Housing Commission meetings are not televised, taped, or livestreamed
online for the sake of transparency. Weyermuller stated that he is an advocate for
Wilmette and for less taxes in the Village and promoted his “Wilmette Connection”
Facebook page. His concerns cited confusion with the all-inclusive Comprehensive
Plan. In his opinion, “subsidized” housing is only aimed to make developers more
money through taxes. He stated that the Commission is considering raising building
permit fees, and using already existing fees from tree removal permits to raise money
for new housing initiatives. Weyermuller touched on the Housing survey, arguing that
it is unhelpful and misleading, with a lack of yes/no questions. He believes the results
of the survey are tainted and discourages people from filling it out. He also expressed
his intent to ask the Village Board to dissolve the Commission or rename it the “Section
8 Housing Commission”. He concluded by citing history of failed housing projects in
the city of Chicago and cautioning the Village against proposed changes.
Chair Osburn clarified that the Housing Commission, while unelected and volunteers,
does not make any official decisions for the Village. The Village Board of Trustees,
made up of elected officials, is the only entity allowed to make these kinds of decisions
for Wilmette. He continued to state that the Comprehensive Plan is not being developed
by the Housing Commission, but that it has previously been drafted and adopted by the
Village. The Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on Housing, and the Housing
Commission’s role is to provide the Village Board with suggestions that can best
achieve the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. These suggestions may or may
not be accepted and adopted by the Board.
One audience member Mr. Donough expressed more frustration, stating that the
Housing Commission is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Chair Osburn encouraged

Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
2

him to express his displeasure with the process with the Village Board.
Chair Osburn confirmed that the Housing Commission is not in violation of the Open
Meetings Act.
Chair Osburn continued to clarify to the audience that among the strategies discussed
by the Housing Commission, none of which fall under the phrase: “Section 8 Housing”.
He encourages the public to express their opinions, however, to use the correct terms
and accurate information when discussing potential changes. Osburn emphasized that
the process of arriving at recommendations for the Village Board remains undergoing.
IV.

Old Business
Jane Hornstein of BRicK partners reintroduced herself and spelled out what the
timeline has looked like to this point in developing a Housing Plan, and what steps will
come next.
Hornstein dove into a discussion of the focus groups that have taken place as a part of
the process. Four group meetings occurred in April: one with Real Estate professionals,
one including several representatives of the public sector, one with the faith-based
community in Wilmette, and a final meeting with local businesses. She stated that a
fifth focus group is in the works for June 9th, specifically just for renters in Wilmette.
The first overarching theme reported on by Hornstein, as found in the focus groups,
was a demand for housing options in Wilmette. Attendees desired more affordable
housing for both existing and future residents. Secondly, Wilmette residents cited a
need for a diversity also in size and type of home, for seniors, empty-nesters, young
families, and people with special needs. The next theme discussed by Hornstein was a
comfort level in views on zoning reform, as residents were open to increasing the
development of diverse housing types as long as they are well designed and
appropriately located. Finally, focus groups emphasized concerns for the local
economy, as local businesses have had trouble hiring staff due to housing prices in
nearby communities and increased commutes as a result.
Hornstein presented graphs reflecting polling results from the 20 focus group attendees.
Major trends showed strategies like increasing the Village’s demolition fee and using
other funds raised to support housing initiatives being classified as a high priority.
Increasing allowable density in the Village Center, and townhomes/duplexes/triplexes
in certain single-family areas (Hornstein added- likely near transit) also received
several votes as high priority solutions to Wilmette’s Housing situation that should be
pursued within a year.
One of the solutions with varying levels of priorities among respondents was parcel
assembly facilitated by the Village. Chair Osburn asked for a definition of this strategy.
Hornstein described it as looking into Village owned land, whether it be owned by the

Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
3

Park District, Schools, or other Village entity, to see if those areas can be used for
housing.
Chair Osburn also questioned the definition of “appropriate” as it relates to certain areas
where different zoning codes could be implemented to allow for new types of housing.
Hornstein commented that most of the conversations have been centered around areas
such as the corridors of Green Bay Road, Ridge Road, and the Village Center.
A quick conversation ensued regarding who exactly made up the focus groups whose
answers are reflected in the data, Hornstein reiterated the four groups surveyed.
Hornstein discussed results of the broader community survey.
She displayed a graph including data on survey responses by date, and that 656 people
have filled out the survey so far. She spoke on outreach efforts and what her team has
planned in hopes of increasing survey participation. She pointed out that while renters
make up 12% of Wilmette’s population, only 4% of the total survey responses were
from renters.
Hornstein discussed responses to the survey question regarding personal experience,
commenting that 21% of residents said that their current housing situation will not meet
their future needs. She displayed a list of reasons that surveyed people selected as to
why their current homes will not meet their needs; and responses included physical
accessibility, homeownership costs, a need to downsize, maintenance requirements, a
lack of modern amenities, and others.
Commissioner Osburn asked a clarifying question about the data, Hornstein confirmed
that the percentages of people with each reason listed are out of the total number of
survey respondents.
A Commissioner asked if there is an exact number of responses that Hornstein and
company are looking for to achieve statistical significance in sampling Wilmette’s
population. Hornstein responded that ideally the survey can reach at least 10% of the
Village. It was stated that that the number of respondents already seems high for a
village with the population of Wilmette’s. Chair Osburn added that 656 respondents is
a good number, but efforts should continue to increase the number further.
Ben Schnelle of the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus introduced himself and displayed
responses to several questions in the community survey and explained what the visual
on page 11 of the slide deck represents. Priority levels are ranked from high to low, and
results vary based on housing strategy. He commented that preservation of already
existing affordable housing in Wilmette is a high priority strategy overall, along with
updating Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. He pointed out how focusing on where
this data is both similar to and/or different from the focus groups will be a very
important consideration.
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
4

Schnelle addressed these areas where the survey is in agreeance with, or in opposition
to the focus group results or Commissioner’s conversations. Chair Osburn asked for
additional clarification regarding where the strategy- “Allowing more density and
housing in Village Center and Business Districts” ranked for the different groups.
Schnelle reiterated that the above strategy was ranked first for the Commission, and
second for the focus groups, yet second to last amongst the survey of residents.
A Commissioner pointed out that when it comes to ADUs, oftentimes these new
additional units are used for AirB&B or VRBO rentals, rather than for long term
housing for residents. While he understands the demand, due to the lack of hotels in
the area, he realizes that being more lenient when it comes to ADUs may not have the
positive impact on the lack of housing that the Commission hopes.
Chair Osburn inquired about the split between the surveyed group and the focus groups
when it comes to increasing density further in the Village Center. He pointed out that
the recent changes to the business district have been successful, but he can see where
issues have arisen when it comes to parking in the area. He wonders if some folks who
have filled out the survey are considering increased density as causing more problems,
like difficulty parking, rather than serving as a solution to the lack of housing.
Chair Osburn then spoke to the question of what specific strategies the Commission
can recommend to address the clear concern of increasing housing resources for people
with disabilities. Acknowledges that the concern has come up multiple times, but seeks
more specific routes, maybe model examples, to make housing more inclusive for these
individuals.
Commissioner Goldstein followed up and agreed on the need for supportive services,
and asked Schnelle and Hornstein to provide some examples, if possible, of how they
can prioritize this issue through measurable strategies.
Schnelle expressed that they will follow up on this issue in greater detail at the June
meeting of the Commission and July meeting with the community.
Commissioner Miller asked a question regarding preservation of existing housing, the
top ranked solution thus far on the survey. He pointed out that Hinsdale and Glencoe
have both taken up efforts to address teardowns by incentivizing people to maintain
existing homes. He brought up the debate between demolition taxes and maintaining
whatever is left of mid-level priced homes.
A discussion ensued regarding specific case studies of demolitions of mid-price homes
being demolished and lots being re-used for new buildings that are sold for far higher
prices. Chair Osburn mentioned the creation of covenants with home owners for
restrictions on demolitions, and potentially working with the Land Trust.
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
5

Hornstein then moved on to more questions from the community survey. She provided
figures on which of the previously discussed strategies could directly benefit Wilmette
households. The data displayed some differing results to priorities, as pointed out by
Chair Osburn and the rest of the Commission.
In terms of open-ended questions, Hornstein described how 420 residents responded to
the optional question, and the leading “pressing housing need” as defined by
respondents was housing affordability. The next leader was a need for more diverse
housing types, which interestingly was ranked far lower in the priorities section. Also
of note, 65 residents answered by saying nothing, the Village should keep things the
same.
Chair Osburn once again brought up demolitions, as concern about demolitions was
answered as the biggest need/challenge for Wilmette by 54 residents. Hornstein
commented on her own personal experience of neighbors demolishing the few
remaining affordable houses in the village. She believes finding a way to de-incentivize
demolitions is an important piece of the puzzle.
Commissioner Goldstein emphasized the need to be coordinated with and aligned with
the Historic Preservation Committee with these matters.
Chair Osburn requested, if possible, an update on the Preservation Committee’s
progress could be included in the Housing Commission’s June meeting.
Ben Schnelle debriefed the April Conversation with the Commission. Schnelle
addressed the 11 questionnaire responses received in the April Conversation, and
identified major trends such as: considering importance of location when it comes to
allowing middle housing, demolitions needing to play a bigger role in discussions,
physically accessible housing needing to play a bigger role in these discussions,
concerns about unintended consequences like traffic and building height, and
increasing diversity.
Starting with Northbrook, Schnelle reiterated what was presented in April- from their
demolition tax to their zoning ordinance update, and the new Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Osburn asked clarifying questions about a few of the points touched on by
Northbrook.
Schnelle opened up the discussion to feedback on the entirety of the Northbrook
presentation.
Commissioner Miller brought up Floor Area Ratio playing a key role, along with lot
coverage, and minimum lot size, when it comes to factoring in lessons learned from
Northbrook into Wilmette’s plans. Commissioner Goldstein agreed that minor zoning
classifications can have large, impactful ramifications. She pointed out that Wilmette
does allow ADUs, but only for relatives, and that dropping the “only for relatives”
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
6

clause would be an easy course of action if the need continues to rank highly for
residents.
Commissioner Goldstein asked a clarifying question on whether or not Northbrook’s
new updated zoning district has actually been used in practice to create or build
affordable housing. Commissioner Miller brought up California as an example, saying
that in areas where people are allowed to build duplexes by right, there has not
necessarily been an explosion of duplexes and other missing middle housing
developments. He cites high land value as a driver behind this lack of immediate change
and thinks Wilmette may see the same fate if they choose to switch zoning requirements
without incentivizing increased density.
Commissioner Zurlo agrees that creating duplexes is tough economically, as you are
doubling up on the most expensive part of the home. Incentives are needed.
Chair Osburn brings up the conversation surrounding spot zoning and community
character. He asks what mechanisms exist to allow for increased density while not
sacrificing community character altogether. He understands both the benefits and
drawbacks of spot zoning. How can the Village balance increasing housing supply with
preserving what people love about Wilmette?
Transitioning, a conversation ensued regarding new developments from the state level
that stop municipalities from requiring parking minimums in areas within a certain
range of public transit.
Schnelle brought the conversation back to demolition fees. He wonders whether the fee
is more so focused on raising funds or working as a disincentive. If it is a disincentive,
Schnelle does not think $10,000 is enough. Hornstein clarifies, describing the tax as
more of a way to create a fund for the community land trust. The Commission provided
numbers on demolition taxes from other communities. A discussion ensued on the
importance of deciding where the funds should go once raised, with Cleland Place
coming up as an example.
Chair Osburn suggested providing a menu of strategies that includes projected impacts,
not only for where demolition tax revenue should go, but for all of the strategies that
may be presented to the Board.
Hornstein provided a statistic that approximately 23 demolitions take place annually.
Commissioner Goldstein asked a question referring to how developers in focus groups
reacted to a potential strategy of implementing an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Schnelle responded by mentioning that most developers did not like the idea of a onesize-fits-all inclusionary housing requirement. Since there are several different housing
markets within one community of Wilmette, developers emphasized the need for a
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
7

case-by-case basis. Goldstein followed up with a question on Fee-in-Lieu. Schnelle did
not recall any specific recommendations for appropriate fee in lieu prices.
Commissioner Miller commented that it seemed the public comment showed that
residents in general are not understanding the strategies brought forth. He stressed the
need for physical numbers being presented when speaking to the general public. Chair
Osburn concurred that concrete numbers would be helpful in conveying the message
of the Housing Plan to the public. Conversations continued about the best ways to
address the public, especially those who do not have a good understanding of the
presented strategies.
Chair Osburn spoke on personal experience towards the importance of finding actual
implementable solutions that the Village can carry out.
Commissioner Goldstein discussed the strategy used by Optima, both the advantages
and fallbacks generated. Chair Osburn wonders if channeling money raised from these
endeavors could be a cleaner path towards creating affordable, accessible housing. He
questions if requiring developers to build a percentage of their otherwise unaffordable
developments as affordable would be less effective than creating a fund to build
structures exclusively for affordability.
The Commission continued discussing how Wilmette is not exactly on par with
Northbrook in terms of land usage and availability, but there are lessons to be learned
in certain areas. Commissioner Goldstein reminded the Commission about larger sites
that will be a part of future conversations in Wilmette.
Hornstein added that inclusionary ordinances can be beneficial because they provide a
Fee in Lieu as well as negotiations.
Schnelle and Chair Osburn both added that for Wilmette, implementation of any kind
of inclusionary housing is a math problem. Osburn continued to add that the math is
very context-specific, and contrasted Wilmette with Highland Park.
Commissioner Goldstein believes that if Wilmette were to adopt an inclusionary
housing ordinance, it needs to include a Fee in Lieu option.
Schnelle returned to his presentation, referring to images of Northbrook’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance in practice. He then moved onto the presentation by Opticos design,
and listed the four main concepts from that explanation: prioritizing areas of activity,
ensuring house-scale, regulating housing types rather than using multifamily bluntly,
and using test fits to inform zoning.
Goldstein began with a reminder of the need for subsidizing these potential new
housing types. She also brought up the importance of pre-approving certain parts of
development in hopes of expediting the process.
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
8

Commissioner Miller commented that once again implementation of strategies
presented comes down to a math problem. In Wilmette, single family homes are worth
more than duplexes and appreciate at higher rates. Economically there are questions
raised.
Commissioner Goldstein drew on personal experience regarding a nearby duplex.
Chair Osburn asked if there is a way to effectively subsidize these missing middle
housing types.
Schnelle defined it as contextual to different places and different communities. It is
more related to fitting new housing types into existing neighborhoods, matching height,
setbacks, lot coverages, etc.
A Commissioner agreed and said that he thinks objective design standards make a lot
of sense. This would take a step of discretionary review out of the process but require
a lot of front-end work.
Commissioner Goldstein and Jane Hornstein discussed the case study of South Bend,
Indiana, as presented by Opticos, where government pre-approved a number of designs,
and developers only change certain aspects. Chair Osburn pointed out that current
feedback is going in a different direction.
Schnelle commented that there were two more strategies that have yet to be discussed
in depth yet. The first is potentially increasing allowable density in the Village Center
and Business Districts. Schnelle discussed how this goal corresponds with Wilmette’s
2024 Comprehensive Plan, which recommends evaluating commercial areas like Ridge
Road, Linden Square, Green Bay Road, and the Village Center.
Chair Osburn commented that traffic and other unintended externalities that come with
increased density need to be looked into when evaluating strategies such as these. He
argues that providing a study along with the recommendation is the best course of
action. While being for this strategy, he wants to make sure everything is considered
and researched that may come out of these changes. Osburn discussed youth in the
Village, and reminded everyone that the Village Center should remain accessible as a
valuable place for local children to come to, by bike or whatever mode of
transportation.
Hornstein brought up Skokie Boulevard, and Chair Osburn discussed the office
building north of the Chalet (the Chalet Office Center) as a potentially suitable place
for an apartment building. Osburn continued by agreeing that the Skokie Blvd. corridor
is a great place for increased density, and worth looking at. It would also be beneficial
to businesses in the area and has the added plus of a wider road that can handle more
traffic than areas further East in Wilmette.
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
9

The conversation shifted to a broader consideration of the West part of Wilmette. It
was pointed out that it is lower density neighborhood and deserves further inclusion in
these discussions. Osburn concurred that west side business areas such as Edens Plaza
and Westlake Plaza should be included in the map displayed by Schnelle and Hornstein.
A conversation ensued regarding the consideration of parking areas and buildings
owned by Edens Plaza, and how the Village can consider thinking creatively with these
areas in terms of zoning.
Chair Osburn reiterated the need to develop these recommendations with a full, allencompassing look at potential impacts on the community, not just in the world of
housing. Ben Schnelle concurred.
Schnelle presented another strategy, reviewing ground floor commercial requirements
in the Village Center and Business Districts. He cited Wilmette’s 2025 Housing Report
as recommending a reduction or removal for first floor commercial space in the Village
Center and other areas and allowing for full multifamily developments.
Commissioner Goldstein asked for clarification on how specific the Commission’s
recommendations to the Village Board should be, in the context of which areas in the
Village Center would benefit the most from zoning changes. Chair Osburn suggested
that their recommendation to the Board will be more of a nudge to re-evaluate
standardization in the VC, with a description of intended impacts. Conversation
continued regarding specificity or lack thereof needed in the Housing Commission’s
recommendations to the Board.
Chair Osburn asked about historical background as to why the Village Center has only
allowed commercial usage on the first floor. Jane Hornstein explained that the
requirement is mainly in place to promote foot traffic for downtown businesses.
However, she continued by saying it would be a good time to re-evaluate these
regulations. Goldstein noted that she has experience with several developments in her
professional life that require commercial use on the first floor, where that strategy is
ineffective and first floors struggle to find tenants.
Chair Osburn brought up office buildings above Village Center buildings and asked if
there is an incentive that could be used to turn these existing structures into housing.
Schnelle confirmed that questions like these are in fact the level of detail that will be
considered if a strategy such as reviewing ground floor requirements in the VC is
selected.
Schnelle thanked the Commission and noted that they will provide refined strategies in
writing to be reviewed in June. July’s meeting will get feedback on these strategies,
and September’s meeting will address a complete draft of the Housing Plan.
Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
10

V.

Adjournment
At the conclusion of the meeting, Commissioner Zurlo made a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Chair Miller seconded the motion. Voice vote three ayes and zero nays to
adjourn at 7:35pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Jodi Luka, MPAP
Deputy Director of Community Development
Lucas Holubar
Community Development Intern

Thursday, May 21, 2026 Housing Commission Minutes
11

Strategy 1: Help Preserve Wilmette’s Existing Stock of Affordable
Housing Options
Often referred to as “naturally occurring
affordable housing,” or “NOAH,” Wilmette has
a limited supply of housing in existing and
unsubsidized rental and homeowner markets
that is affordable to households with modest
incomes. Low vacancy rates and strong demand
have raised rents beyond the reach of many
Wilmette renters, particularly in older
apartment buildings that account for a
significant share of the Village’s affordable
housing stock. In the homeowner market,
Wilmette’s older and smaller homes are
increasingly unaffordable to all but affluent
households, and are sometimes demolished
and replaced with larger, more expensive
homes.
The preservation of these housing options
advances key priorities of Wilmette’s
Comprehensive Plan in an environmentally
friendly and cost-effective manner.
Alignment with Wilmette’s Comprehensive
Plan’s Housing Goals and Objectives:
•

•

•

“Undertake efforts to preserve the existing
affordable housing stock that enables
existing residents to remain in their homes
through tools such as a land trust,
rehabilitation grants or loans for incomeeligible residents.” (Goal 4, Objective 1)
“Continue to support the needs of older
residents to stay in the community either
in their current homes or other housing in
the Village.” (Goal 4, Objective 4)
“Study the impact of single-family home
demolitions on the supply of attainable
housing and ways in which to encourage
the retention of such housing.” (Goal 4,
Objective 7)

Housing Needs Addressed:
Wilmette’s older, affordable rental
apartments provide important housing
options for seniors on fixed-incomes, local
workers in the food service and retail
industries or other service-sector roles, and
young adults first entering the workforce.
Older, more attainable homeownership
options address needs of first-time
homebuyers and downsizing options for
empty nesters and seniors.

Additional Benefits:
Historic preservation: Renovating older
homes is often more cost-effective and
environmentally sustainable than
teardowns, while helping retain the scale
and character of Wilmette’s neighborhoods.
Supporting the local economy: Preserving
naturally occurring affordable housing helps
local businesses attract and retain
employees, particularly in retail and food
service industries that contribute to
Wilmette’s quality of life.

Tailoring this Strategy for Wilmette:
Moving quickly: Preserving existing
affordable housing – identified as a top
strategy in community survey and focus
group input - is most impactful and costeffective when action is taken early.
Providing continuous attention: Preserving
Wilmette’s naturally occurring affordable
housing will require the Village to monitor
and take advantage of external resources,
supplementing with Village funds where
necessary

1

Strategy 1.1: Leverage External Resources to Help Finance Essential Repairs and
Preservation of Affordability in Older Rental Buildings
Whether or not it has its own funds to contribute to these efforts, the Village can leverage
existing resources to assist multifamily property owners with renovations, property
management, and the preservation of affordability.
For example, the Community Investment Corporation (CIC) is a nonprofit community
development financial institution which helps preserve and upgrade existing affordable rental
housing throughout Chicagoland. CIC offers a variety of financing tools to help owners of
multifamily rental properties upgrade their property, including below-market financing options
for multifamily (5+ units) rental property owners who choose to rehabilitate or refinance their
building and maintain a portion of the apartments for income-qualified renters. Elevate Energy
similarly has an array of tools, including its Multifamily Energy Savings Program, that creates
energy efficiency and cost savings for property owners to pass along to renters.
Input from focus groups and the community survey reveal that many Wilmette residents are
concerned about the current condition of rental apartment buildings along Ridge Road and in
the 4th and Linden neighborhood – areas with high concentrations of affordable rental options.
Wilmette could support the physical maintenance and preservation of affordability in these
rental properties by educating property owners about these programs, potentially even
convening local owners and managers to meet with these area experts.
With additional local resources, the Village could further incentivize and supplement this
important work. As discussed below, through a new demolition fee and/or a significant
developer contribution recently negotiated as part of a recently approved multifamily
development, the Village can create a Housing Trust Fund and use some of this contribution to
preserve affordability in older rental properties.
Case Studies - Preserving the Affordability of Older Rental Housing: The Community
Investment Corporation’s funding has helped preserve affordability in older rental
properties in Evanston and Des Plaines. In Oak Park, CIC financing was paired with grant
funding from the Village’s Housing Trust Fund. Municipal Housing Trust Funds can be
provided for this purpose in the form of either grants or loans. Minneapolis, for
example, provides funding for the preservation of affordable rental housing in the form
of zero-interest deferred loans, allowing funding to benefit more properties over time.

2

Strategy 1.2: Leverage External Resources to Assist Seniors and Other
Homeowners With Home Repair and Accessibility Modifications and Consider
Establishing a New Program
One of Wilmette’s most pressing housing challenges is a growing number of senior residents
remaining in their single-family homes as they age, resulting not only in fewer homeownership
opportunities for young families but also a higher likelihood that those homes become less
maintained as their owners age. At the same time, a growing number of Wilmette homeowners
are spending an outsized amount of their income on the cost of homeownership, which could
lead to deferred maintenance of homes throughout the community.
In the short-term, the Village can assist both cash-strapped homeowners and senior residents
aging in place by connecting them with existing home repair and accessibility modification
programs.
Program

Administering
Organization

Home Repair and
Accessibility
Program (HRAP)

North West Housing
Partnership

Older Adults Home
Modification
Program (OAHMP)

North West Housing
Partnership

Senior handyman
Program

North West Housing
Partnership

Eligible Uses
•
•
•
•

•

Full home rehabilitation
Accessibility
modifications
Roof-only replacement
Home modifications that
increase safety and
improve the functional
abilities of seniors in
their homes.
Small home repair and
accessibility
improvements

Income Threshold
80% of the Area
Median Income (AMI)

Seniors (62+)
80% AMI
Seniors (60+) of any
income

2026 Area Median Income Limits
Household Size

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1

$34,040

$51,060

$68,050

$85,100

$102,120

2

$38,880

$58,320

$77,800

$97,200

$116,640

3

$43,760

$65,640

$87,500

$109,400

$131,280

4

$48,600

$72,900

$97,200

$121,500

$145,800

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Area Median Income Limits for the
Chicago Metropolitan Region.

3

Another option is for the Village to partner with a nonprofit administrator such as the North
West Housing Partnership or Community Partners for Affordable Housing and, if it creates a
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) as described below, use a portion of the Housing Trust Fund to create
and fund their own home repair and accessibility modification program, as has been done in
Skokie, Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights, Des Plaines, and several other Chicagoland
municipalities.
Having a program tailored to Wilmette might be preferable as it could offer a more flexible
range of income requirements, as both the Home Repair and Accessibility Program and Older
Adult Home Modification Program, shown above, are eligible only to households with incomes
at or below 80% of the Area Median Income. As there are approximately 813 homeowner
households in Wilmette with incomes above $100,000 that are considered “housing costburdened” (paying at least 30% of their income on the cost of homeownership), there are a
significant number of Wilmette households who could benefit from home repair and
accessibility resources but would likely not be considered income eligible. If Wilmette had its
own program, it could offer the same services to households with higher income thresholds,
perhaps up to 120% of the Area Median Income. The Village could also decide how to structure
the financing of the program, including dollar amounts, eligible repairs and modifications, and
the structure of repayment.
If Wilmette decided to move forward with its own program, the best approach to repayment
would be a zero percent deferred loan program, as in Arlington Heights, which offers 0%
interest loans up to $25,000 with repayment deferred until the owner is no longer the primary
resident of the home (typically when the owner sells), at which point the loan needs to be paid
back to the Village. This model, as opposed to a forgivable loan, may be best suited for
Wilmette as it could circulate funds back to a Housing Trust Fund, allowing those funds to be
redeployed to the community’s benefit.

Strategy 1.3: Increase the Village’s Demolition Fee to Create a Revenue
Generator for a Housing Trust Fund that Supports Community Goals
One of the most direct and effective ways that Wilmette leaders can facilitate the preservation
of the Village’s existing affordable housing is by creating a Housing Trust Fund and generating
revenue for the fund with an increased demolition fee. Neighboring municipalities such as
Evanston, Northbrook, Highland Park and Lake Forest, when faced with similar housing
attainability challenges, created Housing Trust Funds to use towards housing initiatives and
used demolition fees as one of the primary revenue-generators for their funds.
Wilmette currently charges a $4,500 flat fee for residential demolitions, with the funds
allocated to the general municipal budget. If the Village created a Housing Trust Fund and
raised the demolition fee to $20,000 – an amount in-line with Evanston and close to that of
Northbrook and Highland Park – then, based on Wilmette’s average of 23 residential
demolitions per year, approximately $460,000 could be raised annually for the fund.
4

In addition to the demolition fee, funds raised from developer contributions as part of
negotiated community benefit agreements or an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could also
contribute to the Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund could then be used with
discretion towards housing initiatives that advance the housing goals of the comprehensive
plan through this Housing Plan, as adopted, including preservation efforts. A new Housing Trust
Fund could be guided and deployed by the Housing Commission. Potential high-impact uses of
the Housing Trust Fund are expanded upon in strategies 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4.
Case Study – Formalizing a Housing Trust Fund: The Village of Oak Park recently
updated guidelines and procedures for its Housing Trust Fund. Applications are accepted
any time and, if compliant with guidelines, are reviewed by the Village’s Housing
Programs Advisory Committee. Proposals are evaluated using three criteria:
o

o
o

“Applications that provide for leveraging of funds for projects, i.e., that yield a
larger amount of housing provided or a larger dollar value for the level of
funding being sought;
Applications that provide the longest term of permanent affordability; and
Applications that provide housing to serve the needs of households with the
lowest incomes.”

The Village’s Housing Trust Fund has provided gap funding for new 36-unit affordable
development and a 6-unit supportive housing development, emergency rental
assistance to prevent evictions, and accessibility improvements for two properties that
provide affordable rental options.

Strategy 1.4: Expand Wilmette’s Community Land Trust
A top concern of Wilmette residents is the loss of Wilmette’s smaller, more attainably priced
homeownership options. Historically serving as entry-level homes for first-time homebuyers
and downsizing options for empty nesters and seniors, these smaller properties have risen in
value beyond the reach of households with modest incomes and are frequently demolished and
replaced with large and very expensive homes. The Village has already implemented one of the
most impactful ways to preserve these homes, and their ongoing affordability, by working with
Community Partners for Affordable Housing on a Community Land Trust model.
A Community Land Trust provides affordable homeownership options in high-demand markets
by utilizing federal, state, and local resources to develop new housing or acquire and rehab
existing housing; then selling those homes to income-qualified buyers while maintaining
ownership of the land underneath the home. By maintaining ownership of the land, a
Community Land Trust is able to sell homes at a price that does not include the land-value,
making it affordable to households that otherwise could not afford homeownership in the
community. While paying a modest land-lease (typically between $25 to $50 per month), the
buyer pays down a mortgage and builds equity on the value of the physical home but not on
the land underneath the home, allowing them to leave with some equity when they decide to
5

sell. With restrictions that the owner must sell to another income-qualified buyer, the home is
also ensured to remain affordable in perpetuity.
Wilmette’s existing Community Land Trust, established with a $1.6 million developer
contribution from the Optima Verdana development, has already made a significant impact
with the acquisition of 15 homes in the community. If the Village established a Housing Trust
Fund and generated revenue for it through an increased demolition fee, the Housing Trust Fund
could be used to add more (existing and new) homes to the Community Land Trust, preserving
and expanding affordable homeownership opportunities while also saving some of the older,
smaller housing stock from demolition.
The table below demonstrates the potential of Community Land Trust expansion if the Village
were to implement a $20,000 demolition fee, continue to see 23 residential demolitions
annually (the average since 2008), and develop Community Land Trust homes at a comparable
level of subsidy to its initial effort – providing just over $100,000 per home.
Number of
Demolitions

Fee Per Demolition

Amount Raised for
Housing Trust Fund

Community Land Trust
Homes Created

23

$20,000

$460,000

4

Strategy 1: Potential Next Steps
To leverage existing housing preservation resources:
•

•

•
•

Meet with the Community Investment Corporation and Elevate Energy to discuss available
resources for preserving the quality and affordability of older rental buildings and
understand how local funding could bolster this approach.
Start discussions with the North West Housing Partnership and Community Partners for
Affordable Housing to learn how their resources can assist Wilmette homeowners with
home repair and accessibility modifications.
Create a communications plan for these resources, including the Village Newsletter.
Convene local rental property owners with representatives from the Community
Investment Corporation to encourage the use of their programs.

To expand Wilmette’s investment in housing preservation:
•
•

•

Evaluate a modification to the demolition fee to support a Housing Trust Fund.
Consider local priorities for use of a Housing Trust Fund and how it could be used to
expand Wilmette’s Community Land Trust, preserve the quality and affordability of older
rental buildings, and assist homeowners with home repair and accessibility modifications.
Adopt an ordinance to establish guidelines, eligible uses, and procedures for the Housing
Commission’s guidance of a Housing Trust Fund.
6

Strategy 2: Allow More Housing in Wilmette’s Business Districts and
Village Center
Adopted in 2024, Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan
includes a careful evaluation of several of
Wilmette’s business districts such as Ridge Road,
Linden Square, and Green Bay Road south of
Village Center. Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive
Plan outlines how redevelopment opportunities
can address housing goals while also enhancing
the economic vitality of these areas.
Wilmette’s Village Center stands apart from other
business districts due to its strong retail and
restaurant base and large-scale developments in
recent years. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends maintaining architectural character,
height, and requirements for first-floor
commercial use in the historic center of Village
Center, while considering greater height along
Green Bay Road when public benefits are provided
such as contributions for affordable housing.
Compared to other housing strategies, allowing
for more multifamily and mixed-use
redevelopment in these areas can deliver a larger
number of homes, making it one of the most
impactful steps the Village could take.
Alignment with Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan’s
Housing Goals and Objectives:
•
•

•

“Encourage development of multifamily and
mixed-use developments along major
commercial corridors.” (Goal 3, Objective 1)
“Plan for the appropriate scale and location for
multifamily, mixed-use development in Village
Center to enhance the vitality of the area and
support retail and restaurants.” (Goal 3,
Objective 2)
“Encourage development of housing unit sizes,
such as studios and one-bedroom units, that
are attainable.” (Goal 5, Objective 1)

Housing Needs Addressed:
Multifamily and mixed-use housing can
provide downsizing options for seniors and
empty nesters who want to remain in
Wilmette while reducing housing
maintenance and costs.
These housing types can also help
accommodate young professionals and
local workers seeking housing near jobs,
services, and transit.

Additional Benefits:
Supporting local businesses: More
residents in business districts can increase
the economic vitality of these areas.
Transit-oriented development: Housing
near transit achieves goals of the Village’s
Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability
Plan.
Relieving pressure in the rental market:
Additional multifamily housing can increase
rental supply, reducing competition and
pressure on Wilmette’s older rental
properties.

Tailoring this Strategy for Wilmette:
Balancing feasibility and context: A key
consideration is allowing enough height to
support financially viable development
while maintaining the qualities that
residents value about Wilmette’s business
districts.
Supporting walkability: Residents
expressed a desire for business districts to
remain walkable, pedestrian friendly, and
safe for people of all ages to navigate. The
Village can monitor needs for pedestrianfriendly infrastructure, as described in its
Comprehensive Plan, at key intersections
of its business districts and in Village
Center

7

Strategy 2.1: Adjust Allowable Height in Business Districts as Recommended in
Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan
Wilmette's Comprehensive Plan provides recommendations to allow additional height and
more homes in three of Wilmette’s business districts to expand housing options, strengthen
commercial activity, and support transit use. Collectively, these recommendations represent a
targeted approach, tailored to each area, that would accommodate additional housing while
minimizing impacts on established residential neighborhoods.
Ridge Road: To support revitalization efforts along Ridge Road, the Comprehensive Plan
recommends allowing building heights of up to four stories along the corridor and rezoning
certain residential areas between major intersections to allow for new multifamily housing
development. These recommendations were made considering declining retail activity along
Ridge Road, lower foot traffic than other commercial areas in the Village, and the presence of
several long-vacant commercial properties.
Stakeholder input during the Housing Plan generally reaffirmed these recommendations, noting
that additional housing could help generate the customer base needed to support existing and
future businesses. Because Ridge Road is located within walking and biking distance of Village
Center, redevelopment could also support transportation and sustainability goals.
Linden Square: To encourage the addition of shopping and dining opportunities in the Linden
Square business district, the Comprehensive Plan recommends increasing permitted building
heights for mixed-use development up to five stories, helping make projects with ground-floor
commercial space more financially viable.
Linden Square is well positioned for additional housing due to its proximity to transit and its
gradual transition from a mixed-use district to townhomes and single-family neighborhoods.
Some residents expressed concern about the pace of redevelopment in this historic area,
suggesting that the Village could allow additional height while monitoring redevelopment
activity over time.
Green Bay Road South of Village Center: Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan recommends
allowing building heights of up to four stories along Green Bay Road south of Village Center.
The Plan notes that limited pedestrian activity presents a challenge for attracting new
businesses in the area, additional housing would bring in new residents and increased foot
traffic. The Plan recommends that, if heights up to four stories are allowed on these lots, the
Village can require that the backside of buildings adjacent to single-family homes step down in
height to provide an appropriate transition.
Because redevelopment opportunities can be more challenging in this corridor due to lots being
relatively shallow, providing greater certainty regarding allowable building height may help
improve the feasibility of future projects.

8

Strategy 2.2: Review Zoning Standards That May Be Barriers to Multifamily and
Mixed-Use Development
If Wilmette chooses to pursue the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for additional
height and housing opportunities in Ridge Road, Linden Square, and Green Bay Road south of
Village Center, several existing zoning regulations may continue to limit redevelopment
potential.
Floor Area Ratio: Wilmette applies Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards in the zoning districts that
apply to Linden Square, Green Bay Road south of Village Center, and portions of Ridge Road
near its intersections with Lake Avenue and Wilmette Avenue.
FAR regulates the total amount of floor space that can be constructed on a site relative to the
size of the lot. For example, a FAR of 1.0 allows a building to contain floor area equal to the size
of the lot. In practice, this means a building covering half of a property could only be
constructed to two stories before reaching the maximum permitted floor area.
Wilmette applies a maximum FAR of 1.0 to Linden Square, Green Bay Road south of Village
Center, and portions of Ridge Road near its intersections with Lake Avenue and Wilmette
Avenue. Increasing permitted building heights without also revisiting FAR standards would limit
the practical impact of those changes.
Some communities have moved away from FAR requirements altogether. Northbrook, for
example, removed FAR standards and instead regulates building scale through tools such as
height limits, setbacks, lot coverage, and design requirements.
Density Limits in the R-3 District: The Comprehensive Plan recommends evaluating the
rezoning of areas along Ridge Road to the R-3 Multifamily Residence District to allow additional
housing opportunities. However, the district's density limits may constrain the types of housing
that can be developed.
The R-3 district currently permits multifamily housing at up to 18 units per acre by right and up
to 30 units per acre through the special use process. While these limits control the number of
homes that can be built, they do not directly regulate a building's physical size, which is already
addressed through height, setback, lot coverage, and other dimensional standards.
Because density is measured by the number of units rather than the size of the building, this
regulation can discourage the construction of smaller homes. A three-story multifamily building
containing larger units may comply with the density limit, while a similarly sized building
containing smaller, more attainable homes may not. This is particularly relevant given that
smaller housing options were identified as a priority in Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan.
If the Village is comfortable with the physical scale allowed by the R-3 district's dimensional
standards, it could consider whether density limits remain necessary as an additional regulatory
constraint.

9

Parking Requirements: Wilmette currently requires 2 off-street parking spaces for every new
multifamily dwelling unit, and 1.5 off-street parking spaces for multifamily dwelling units in a
mixed-use building with commercial use on the ground floor.
In recent years, a growing number of suburban communities have updated parking
requirements to be more tailored to the needs that come with the size of units. Northbrook, for
example, requires one parking space per bedroom, with a maximum requirement of two spaces
per unit. Under this approach, studio and one-bedroom apartments may require only one
parking space.
Developers remain free to provide additional parking when they believe it is warranted.
However, requiring more parking than is needed can increase development costs, consume
land that could otherwise be used for housing or open space, and reduce the financial
feasibility of multifamily and mixed-use projects. These additional costs are ultimately reflected
in housing prices and rents paid by residents.
Keep in Mind: The State of Illinois’ People Over Park Act, which took effect in June 2026,
prohibits local governments from enforcing automobile parking requirements for new
developments located within a half mile of a public transit hub or an eighth mile of a
frequent transit corridor. Wilmette’s off-street parking requirements would apply to
other areas in the community.

Strategy 2.3: Consider Multifamily Buildings Without Ground Floor Commercial
Space in Business Districts and at the Edges of Village Center
A report used by the Village to inform its 2025 Affordable Housing Plan recommended that
Wilmette evaluate reducing or removing first-floor commercial space requirements in locations
where market conditions do not support retail demand. While ground-floor commercial space
can contribute to a vibrant mixed-use district, requiring commercial space in areas with weaker
commercial markets or existing vacancies may make housing developments infeasible.
This consideration may be particularly relevant in several business districts:
•
•

•

Ridge Road, which has experienced long-term commercial vacancies and lower levels of
foot traffic than other commercial areas in the Village.
Green Bay Road south of Village Center, where the Comprehensive Plan recommends
allowing multifamily housing but not requiring first-floor commercial space due to the
complexity of developing on smaller lots.
Linden Square, if allowing additional building height proves insufficient to support
financially viable mixed-use redevelopment.

Wilmette may also wish to carefully evaluate the role of first-floor commercial requirements
within different parts of its Village Center. While preserving active commercial uses remains an
important goal in the historic core of the district, there may be locations along the outer
portions of the corridor where allowing multifamily housing without commercial space could
support redevelopment opportunities. Potential areas for consideration include portions of
10

Green Bay Road north of Washington Avenue and south of Linden Avenue, where existing
development patterns and levels of pedestrian foot traffic differ from the central Village Center
core.
By aligning first-floor commercial requirements with market conditions in its business districts,
Wilmette may be able to encourage additional housing opportunities while adding population
to support the long-term economic vitality of these areas.

Strategy 2.4: Evaluate Whether to Allow More Multifamily and Mixed-Use
Development Along Skokie Boulevard
Many of the conditions that led Wilmette's Comprehensive Plan to identify redevelopment
opportunities along Ridge Road are also present along portions of Skokie Boulevard. The
corridor contains a mix of commercial uses, including restaurants, offices, spas, banks, autooriented businesses, and larger commercial buildings at Edens Plaza.
Skokie Boulevard is also served by Pace bus service, providing connections to destinations such
as Old Orchard and employment centers throughout the area. Additional multifamily and
mixed-use development along Skokie Boulevard could create new housing opportunities near
jobs, services, and transit.
Notably, the same zoning district that applies to key intersections along Ridge Road is also
applied to portions of Skokie Boulevard near Wilmette Avenue and Old Glenview Road. As a
result, if the Village implements the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to allow building
heights of up to four stories along Ridge Road, a similar approach could be considered at these
locations.
Likewise, if Wilmette determines that new multifamily housing is appropriate in selected areas
between major intersections along Ridge Road, it may find a parallel case for evaluating
multifamily housing opportunities in commercial areas along Skokie Boulevard.
Given the corridor's commercial character and location along a major roadway, additional
housing may be accommodated while minimizing impacts on established residential
neighborhoods. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for Green Bay Road
south of Village Center, Wilmette could consider allowing increased building heights while
requiring the rear portions of buildings to be lower when adjacent to single-family homes,
creating a more gradual transition to surrounding neighborhoods.

Strategy 2: Potential Next Steps
•
•

•

Utilize a zoning update process to evaluate increasing allowable height in business districts
as recommended in Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan.
During a zoning update process, examine potential barriers such as floor area ratio
standards, density regulations, minimum parking standards, and requirements for groundfloor commercial space in areas with weaker commercial markets.
Consider allowing more mixed-use and multifamily development along Skokie Boulevard.
11

Strategy 3: Craft a Wilmette-Specific Approach to Middle Housing and
Accessory Dwelling Units
Middle housing refers to housing types that fall
between single-family homes and larger
apartment buildings in terms of scale and
density. Examples include duplexes,
townhomes, and small three- or four-unit
buildings.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small,
independent home on the same lot as a singlefamily home. ADUs can be within a single-family
home, attached as an extension, or in a
separate structure.
Wilmette contains several townhomes located
along Ridge Road, Skokie Boulevard, and on a
few blocks near Linden Square and Village
Center. Expanding Wilmette’s stock of middle
housing and allowing for the construction of
ADUs can expand housing choices for people at
different life stages and income levels while
maintaining the scale and character of singlefamily neighborhoods.
While these housing types could meet a variety
of growing needs, an incremental and tailored
approach would be necessary to ensure
compatibility with Wilmette’s unique
neighborhood contexts and community goals.
Alignment with Wilmette’s Comprehensive
Plan’s Housing Goals and Objectives:
•

•

“Encourage development of housing types
that are more affordable to build than
single-family detached homes.” (Goal 5,
Objective 2)
“Review changes to Village’s current
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations
to provide greater flexibility and enhance
feasibility” (Goal 2, Objective 3)

Housing Needs Addressed:
Middle housing is attractive for seniors and
first-time homebuyers since these homes are
smaller and more attainably priced than
single-family homes.
ADUs can accommodate seniors, adult
children starting their careers, or adults with
disabilities of any age who want to live near
family while maintaining independence. ADUs
may also benefit local workers looking for
moderately priced housing.

Additional Benefits:
Supporting local businesses: Additional
residents near local restaurants, shops, and
services would benefit these businesses.
Access to transportation: When located near
train or bus routes, this housing helps
residents utilize more transportation options.

Tailoring this Strategy for Wilmette:
Compatibility with neighborhoods: Through
community survey input, residents expressed
a desire to maintain the scale and appearance
of the neighborhoods that attracted them to
Wilmette. Consideration of middle housing or
ADUs should emphasize compatibility with
Wilmette's neighborhoods. Key factors may
include building height, setbacks, lot
coverage, frontage design, parking location,
and overall site layout.
Taking an incremental approach: As reflected
in community survey responses, middle
housing and ADUs are less familiar concepts
than other housing strategies, resulting in
greater uncertainty about their potential
impacts. A gradual approach could help the
Village evaluate potential outcomes, reduce
uncertainty, and monitor results before
considering broader implementation.

12

Strategy 3.1: Modernize Wilmette’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations
Wilmette allowed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in 2001 through its Accessory Living Units
ordinance. Currently, Village regulations limit ADUs to units within the primary home, such as a
basement or attic, and allow occupancy only by a person age 55 or older or a person with a
disability. Over the last 25 years, only one ADU has been constructed in Wilmette.
Research by organizations such as the AARP has provided greater clarity on how municipalities
can better enable ADUs while avoiding unintended consequences:
•

•
•

•
•

Modifying occupancy requirements. The cost of constructing an ADU is significant.
Removing restrictions on who lives in an ADU would provide homeowners with greater
flexibility and make ADUs a more practical long-term investment that can be recouped
when the single-family home and ADU are sold at a later point in time.
Allowing additional ADU types. Currently, ADUs are permitted only within a singlefamily home. Suburban communities have seen greater success with detached ADUs,
such as coach houses located above detached garages.
Standardizing ADU size regulations. Wilmette currently limits ADUs to 25% of the size
of the principal structure. This can create challenges for smaller homes while allowing
relatively large ADUs on properties with large houses. A maximum square footage
standard would provide more predictable outcomes. Communities such as Geneva, Oak
Park, and Evanston use a maximum ADU size of 1,000 square feet.
Establishing a maximum height. This is particularly important for detached ADUs such
as coach houses. For example, Oak Park limits coach house ADUs to 20 feet in height or
the height of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.
Maintaining regulations that prevent negative impacts. Wilmette can carry forward its
requirements that either the principal home or the ADU be owner-occupied and that
properties adding an ADU not exceed maximum lot coverage regulations. The Village
could also consider prohibiting ADUs from being used as short-term rentals, as was
incorporated in Geneva's 2024 ADU ordinance.

Updating ADU regulations was the second most favored strategy in survey input, and one-fifth
of respondents indicated this strategy could benefit their housing situation or someone in their
household. It is important to keep in mind that ADU development is typically incremental. Since
allowing new ADUs in 2020, Evanston has seen just 14 constructed.

Coach house ADUs, which are located above a rear garage. Photos courtesy of AARP.

13

Strategy 3.2: Assess What Outcomes Wilmette Could Expect From Allowing
Development of Middle Housing Types in Certain Areas
Middle housing can take many forms, and
the types that would be feasible to build in
Wilmette will depend on factors such as
existing land values, lot sizes, construction
costs, and neighborhood context. Before
considering changes to local regulations, the
Village could explore what types of middle
housing may be realistic to develop in
different parts of the community.
In practice, this could consist of focused
discussions with local developers and the
preparation of a "pro forma" analysis – a
calculation used by developers to determine
whether anticipated sales prices outweigh
construction and development costs – for
different middle housing types in different
parts of Wilmette. Exploring multiple
scenarios would help illustrate which middle
housing types would be financially viable to
build, in what parts of Wilmette, under what
conditions they may be built, the price
points they may serve, and the pace at which
they might be developed if allowed.
By grounding discussions in local market
realities, this analysis can provide municipal
leaders and community members with a
clearer understanding of the outcomes
Wilmette could reasonably expect from
different middle housing approaches.

From top to bottom: duplex, triplex,
fourplex. Photos courtesy of Opticos
Design.

14

15

Strategy 3.3: Determine Which Middle Housing Types Are Most Needed and
Where They Would Be Appropriate in Wilmette
Different middle housing types meet different housing needs. Multi-story townhomes may
appeal to younger families or active empty nesters, while first-floor units in a duplex or fourplex
better meet the needs of older adults seeking physically accessible housing. While they may
take many forms, one commonality among middle housing buildings is that the homes they
create are often two- to three-bedroom homes, which are more attainably priced than larger
single-family homes.
The question of where middle housing should be permitted is as important as what types of
housing should be allowed. Demand for middle housing is strongest in locations near amenities
and transportation. Residents are generally more willing to trade a larger home and private
yard for a smaller home when it comes with convenient access to a park, a favorite coffee shop
or restaurant, or a public transportation route.
Several areas in Wilmette contain many of these characteristics. Blocks around Village Center
and Linden Square offer short walks to train stations, while Lake Avenue, Wilmette Avenue,
Skokie Boulevard, and Sheridan Road are served by bus routes. Many blocks surrounding Ridge
Road are also a short walk to transit, and added housing in these areas could support the
economic vitality of this corridor.
While these areas may be prime for middle housing, resident input about this strategy suggests
that the community would be better served by a measured, incremental approach rather than
sweeping changes. Wilmette could pilot middle housing in specific areas and could utilize a
development feasibility assessment, described previously, to inform this decision.

Strategy 3.4: Review Zoning Regulations to Ensure Middle Housing Blends in
with Existing Neighborhoods
Wilmette currently contains townhome developments in several areas of the community,
including on a handful of blocks near Village Center and Linden Square and in several areas
along Ridge Road and Skokie Boulevard. The Village’s zoning district that applies to these areas
– the R2 Attached Residence District – not only allows townhomes but also allows two to four
unit stacked flats, which are small multifamily buildings with two to four units.
If Wilmette chooses to pursue middle housing development, it should evaluate its existing
regulations to ensure that development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
•
•

Height, setbacks, lot size, and lot coverage standards for middle housing should be the
same as what is applied to single-family homes. A maximum height of 2.5 stories is
important for maintaining house scale.
Lot width requirements may warrant additional review. Wilmette currently requires
townhomes and stacked flats to have a minimum lot width of 100 feet. This requires
that multiple lots be combined – making middle housing stand out rather than blend in,
16

while also making middle housing more difficult to develop. As an alternative, Wilmette
could utilize the same lot width standards as is applied to single-family homes.
Wilmette has two potential barriers in its R-2 zoning district worth careful evaluation:
•

•

Removing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards. Wilmette applies a 0.7 FAR to its R-2
zoning district. In practice, this means a 2.5-story building would have a maximum lot
coverage of 28% - lower than what is allowed for a single-family home – which makes
development impractical.
Regulating by housing type rather than density. Wilmette's R-2 regulations allow a
maximum density of 14.5 units per acre, which is relatively low for middle housing. In
practice, this density limit means that developers interested in building townhomes or
stacked flats could build fewer homes on a given site and, in turn, often need to make
each home larger in order for a project to be financially viable.

Northbrook, which recently created a zoning district for middle housing types, removed FAR
and density standards for these housing types, recognizing that standards for height, setbacks,
minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, and lot width are more effective at ensuring housescale development.

Strategy 3: Potential Next Steps
•

•
•
•
•
•

Update zoning regulations to remove barriers to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction
while maintaining regulations that address potential negative impacts such as use for
short-term rentals.
Assess the development feasibility of various middle housing types in different parts of
Wilmette through discussions with developers and preparing “pro forma” analyses.
Consider which middle housing types are most needed to accommodate housing needs in
Wilmette.
Identify areas in Wilmette where new construction of middle housing types could be
piloted.
Review zoning regulations such as lot widths, height, setbacks, and lot coverage to ensure
that any middle housing types allowed are compatible in scale to single-family homes.
Consider removing barriers to middle housing development such as floor area ratio
standards and density limits.

17

Strategy 4: Encourage More Transit-Oriented and Pedestrian-Friendly
Development for Seniors, Adults with Special Needs, Local Workers
and Young Families
Previous housing strategies focus on improving
and increasing the supply of housing in
appropriate areas and creating a dedicated
revenue source to further ensure the
affordability and sustainability of homes for
current and future residents.
This strategy, on the other hand, recognizes the
range and consistency of efforts needed to
create more housing in Wilmette that
addresses both the shortage of housing options
and the affordability, design and service needs
of priority populations.
Whether through new development activity
and/or through new dollars leveraged from a
Housing Trust Fund, the strategies below can
address the needs of any households with
limited means, including seniors, special needs
populations, local workers, and young families.
Alignment with Wilmette’s Comprehensive
Plan’s Housing Goals and Objectives:
•

•

•

“Encourage development of accessible
housing for persons with disabilities.”
(Goal 2, Objective 4)
“Work with nonprofit organizations… to
provide a range of affordable housing
options including single-family,
townhomes, stacked flats, condominiums,
and rental units in multifamily buildings.”
(Goal 4, Objective 3)
“Seek affordable housing development
partners and support community
education to lead to a welcoming
development review process.” (Goal 4,
Objective 6)

Housing Needs Addressed:
Housing near transit and business districts can
create opportunities for affordable,
supportive, and accessible housing for seniors,
people with disabilities, local workers, and
young families.

Additional Benefits:
Adding vibrancy to Wilmette’s business
districts: Additional housing can increase foot
traffic and small-business viability, which
would be particularly beneficial to areas where
business growth has stalled, like the 4th and
Linden and Ridge and Lake commercial
districts.
Encouraging sustainable transportation
methods: Housing near transit, shops, and
services can support walking, biking, and
transit use, reducing vehicle trips and
emissions.

Tailoring this Strategy to Wilmette:
Using new and existing tools: Housing for
seniors, adults with special needs, and local
workers emerged as priorities during public
meetings and focus group discussions. The
Village could prioritize these needs when
considering tools such as inclusionary housing,
public land opportunities, and a Housing Trust
Fund.
Leveraging partnerships: Partnering with
organizations experienced in developing and
managing these housing types will also be
important for the long-term success of these
strategies. Residents noted that the Village has
many potential partners to lean upon.

18

Strategy 4.1: Help Facilitate New Affordable and Senior Housing
While the zoning strategies contemplated in Village Center, Business Districts and for Missing
Middle housing types can enable market-rate housing development that serves seniors and
middle-income households, the depth of affordability challenges faced by local renters,
workers, and lower-income seniors suggests the need for even more proactive measures.
New affordable and senior housing developments require viable sites, sufficient resources and
sophisticated development, property management and service partners. Often, opportunities
start with only one or two of these fundamentals, so the Village can be helpful in providing the
missing pieces, whether by assisting with parcel assembly, offering gap financing through a
Housing Trust Fund, or attracting talented and trusted development partners. The Village has
the capacity and experience to be proactive on all these fronts. Practical steps may include:
•

•

•

Given the limited number of appropriate sites available to support the Village’s housing
goals, the Housing Commission can help surface and track opportunities and barriers
related to parcel development, ensuring the proactive stance necessary to be nimble in
a fast-moving and competitive housing market. Current partners and ordinances already
allow the Village to be responsive to ownership and other changes, as demonstrated in
its work with nonprofit housing providers to date, but the Village may want to
contemplate further Acquisition Authority or Expedited Disposition to strengthen its
position. For example, Morton Grove’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Ordinance
permits the Village to acquire and assemble land for the preservation or creation of
needed housing.
Supporting the above approach, but an independent strategy, the Village can create a
Housing Trust Fund and authorize a range of uses, including acquisition and gap
financing. The Housing Commission can provide recommendations to the Village Board
on when and how to use its own resources to better leverage other public (federal,
state, county) and private sector financing.
If priority populations, zoning incentives, density bonuses and perhaps even some gap
financing were to be identified, the Village can increase its likelihood of attracting the
right kind of development and development partner by releasing a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) or a Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its objectives and
interest in a public-private-partnership. While an RFP would allow the Village to pick
from several proposals, an RFQ could be done early in the process, to attract a
development partner to explore the range of options and participate in discussions
about existing barriers and needed incentives. An RFP would be a better strategy once
the above steps were completed with internal partners, to select a more specific
development proposal.

Once the capital and construction components of these developments are underway, the
Village can also work with the developer to affirmatively market the new housing opportunities
to local residents and workers, in collaboration with faith-based institutions, other civic
organizations and employers, in compliance with Fair Housing Laws.
19

Strategy 4.2: Help Facilitate Community Integrated Living Arrangements
(CILAs) and other Supportive Housing
In several points throughout Wilmette’s housing planning process, key stakeholders and focus
group participants expressed concern for the number of aging residents currently caring for and
living with adult children with special needs. Fortunately, several area nonprofits have the
skillset and expertise to provide effective services and access to housing for these community
members in welcoming neighborhoods.
CILAs are specialized residential options for adults with intellectual or developmental
disabilities and typically serve eight or fewer unrelated adults in vibrant neighborhoods near
transit, parks, employment and other amenities. In Illinois, CILAs are designed to be
community-based settings, which can include single-family homes, townhouses, or apartment
buildings where eight or fewer unrelated adults with disabilities live with the supervision and
support of a dedicated agency.
To promote both independence and community, residents typically have private rooms and
receive tailored support services, including the thoughtful use of community space, through a
qualified agency and staff.
All the strategies in the Housing Plan can create opportunities for CILAs, but a Request for
Qualifications approach as described above, could help formalize the role of an experienced
partner. Primarily funded through Medicaid Waiver grants and Social Security, CILAs could be
considered as an eligible use of a Housing Trust Fund. Organizations providing CILAs could apply
to the Village’s Housing Trust Fund for gap financing to purchase a home or building in
Wilmette to be used as a CILA.
Beyond the frequent references to the need for CILAs, throughout Wilmette’s community input
process several people also identified the need for supportive housing more generally, to
provide housing and services for other special needs populations. While all of the strategies
proposed in this Housing Plan can lead to the kind of housing development that can become
supportive housing, as with CILAs, attracting proven developers, managers and service
providers is essential. To attract that talent, it would be wise to allow the use of some HTF
funds for gap financing and/or services for supportive housing as well.

Strategy 4.3: Continue the Village’s Approach to Inclusionary Housing and Adapt
it for Areas Outside Village Center
Wilmette has done well taking a negotiation approach through its planned development
process for Optima Verdana, Optima Lumina, and the Residences of Wilmette. This approach
remains viable for Village Center, where large developments typically necessitate the planned
development process. If Wilmette updates zoning in its business districts to allow multifamily
and mixed-use development by right, it should strongly consider establishing an Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance (IHO) for these areas. The Village could evaluate this tool in coordination
with general zoning updates.
20

Increasingly common in Illinois, IHOs are a tool that leverages private sector momentum and
profit to ensure that a percentage of new market rate development provides some new
housing at affordable rates. There is tremendous flexibility within each community to decide
the size of development that must comply with an IHO, the percentage of affordable housing to
provide, what density bonuses and/or other incentives are offered to participating developers,
how to offer in-lieu fees as an alternative to providing affordable housing on site, and whether
there will be any exceptions or tiering of incentives or fee options to ensure ample affordable
housing in particular sites.
Municipalities with IHOs seek to maximize and incentivize the potential for affordable homes
through incentives and a carefully set fee in lieu amount, while ensuring the ordinance does not
deter development. The Village can learn from staff at other municipalities with IHOs who have
led this process with the help of developer interviews, pro formas, and local and national
nonprofit organizations who excel in this area. Community Partners for Affordable Housing
(CPAH), already a key partner in Wilmette, helped craft and continues to administer IHOs in
several North Shore communities, and is also a valuable resource for future deliberations about
tailoring a Wilmette-specific approach.
Crafting an effective IHO is a balancing act where the success is in the details and can be
informed by market realities, which vary between business districts. The Village can learn from
other IHOs across the region that take into account the economics of building:
•

•
•

Building Size: Communities such as St. Charles and Evanston require a higher
percentage of affordable units in larger developments, a lower percentage in mid-sized
developments, and exempt smaller projects where an IHO could make development
financially infeasible.
Public Support: Some municipalities such as Arlington Heights require a higher
percentage of affordable homes if a development receives federal, state, or local
funding support.
Strength of Incentives: Highland Park offers the strongest zoning incentives among area
IHOs and as a result has one of the best track records of new developments including
affordable homes.

While developing an IHO requires upfront effort, a well-designed ordinance provides greater
predictability and is often more attractive to developers than case-by-case negotiations.

Strategy 4: Potential Next Steps
•

•
•

Determine whether to be more proactive with parcel development when it can result in
more affordable housing, or whether simply to utilize existing tools and to ask the Housing
Commission to help surface sites or barriers that warrant further Village input.
Formalize gap financing as an eligible use of a new Housing Trust Fund.
Determine if and when to utilize a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposals for
affordable workforce or senior housing or Community Integrated Living Arrangement
development.
21

•

Engage CPAH for guidance in pursuing an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Strategy 5: Utilize the Housing Commission to Guide the
Implementation of the Housing Plan
Comprised of volunteer community
members with expertise in a range of
professional fields related to housing, the
Housing Commission provides a valuable
repository of local knowledge which can
be continually tapped to assist the
Village’s housing efforts. The reestablishment of Wilmette’s Housing
Commission in 2019 has added
tremendous value to the Village’s
housing efforts over the past several
years and has represented a meaningful
step towards addressing the
community’s housing challenges.
Looking forward, to optimize the value of
the Housing Commission, and to build on
the momentum of the housing planning
process, the functions of the Commission
can be updated with the primary task of
guiding the implementation of the
Housing Plan as adopted.
Alignment with Wilmette’s
Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Goals
and Objectives:
•

“Develop a Housing Plan that
analyzes and develops strategies for
Wilmette’s housing needs.” (Goal 2,
Objective 5)

Housing Needs Addressed:
The Housing Commission’s engagement
throughout the implementation of the Plan will
be crucial in addressing all of the housing needs
identified in this Plan.

Additional Benefits:
Keeping the community involved: As community
representatives committed to a transparent
process, the Housing Commission’s guidance of
the Housing Plan’s implementation ensures a
level of community involvement in any future
decision-making from the Village Board.
Maintaining momentum: The Housing
Commission’s advisory role in its creation allows
the implementation of this Housing Plan to
maintain the momentum moving forward with its
continued leadership role.

Tailoring this Strategy to Wilmette:
Implementation support and flexibility: In focus
groups and community survey input, residents
recognized that Wilmette’s needs differ from past
decades and will continue to evolve over time.
The Housing Commission’s extensive knowledge
and range of professional backgrounds make it
well suited to assist the Village Board with
implementation of the Housing Plan, monitoring
progress and recommending adjustments over
time.
Partnerships and resources: The success of
several housing strategies will depend on
cultivating relationships with, learning from, and
leveraging resources offered by public, private,
and nonprofit housing partners. Hosting these
organizations at Housing Commission meetings
and seeking the Commission’s guidance on how
available programs, funding sources, and
technical assistance can be utilized will help the
Village Board make informed and impactful
d ii
22

Strategy 5.1: Assist Village Staff in Tracking the Implementation and Outcomes
of the Housing Plan, as Approved by the Village Board
In general, the Commission could provide guidance and leadership on the implementation and
tracking of the Housing Plan. In practice, each commission meeting could set aside time to
review the status of strategies and next steps, including new or modified ordinances, as well as
new housing opportunities created as a result of Village efforts. The Commission could also host
an annual meeting with the Village Board to review annual progress and potential next steps,
and/or host an annual “Conversation with the Commission” meeting with the community. In
doing so, the Commission would have several opportunities throughout the year to provide
input and insights on areas needing further attention, highlight successes worth showcasing,
and keep the public abreast and involved in the Housing Plan implementation process.
In addition, the Village could establish a process for the Housing Commission to regularly
monitor progress towards the Housing Plan’s implementation. This could include tracking the
status of strategies and next steps taken, as well as changes in key indicators such as
affordability, housing preservation and production, and demographic shifts.
The Housing Commission’s continued guidance of the Housing Plan would play a vital role in
ensuring the Plan does not “sit on the shelf” and can be adaptable over time. For example, if
certain challenges become much larger over time, the Commission could suggest a strategy be
explored sooner rather than later. Or if new challenges emerge, the Commission could suggest
new strategies to explore.
Case Study – St. Charles’ Housing Commission: The City of St. Charles’ utilization of its
Housing Commission is one model in which Wilmette can learn from. Several important
functions of St. Charles’ Housing Commission could be replicated in Wilmette, including
assigning one City Councilmember as a liaison to the Housing Commission, reviewing an
annual progress report prepared by City staff, and hosting an annual joint meeting with
City Council to discuss the annual progress report and further potential strategies to
explore.

23

Strategy 5.2: Monitor External Housing Resources While Maintaining and
Cultivating Relationships with Potential Partners
As there are several strategies outlined in this Housing Plan which will require external partners
and resources, the Housing Commission can supplement and review Village staff information on
the status of available leveraging opportunities and area expertise. The Commission may
choose to utilize time at some Commission meetings to learn from area nonprofit, public, and
private sector experts on their programmatic and/or financial resources. This intentional focus
and awareness will inform how best to use the Village’s limited staff time and funding. Potential
resources and partners include:
Organization

Potential Support

Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA)

IHDA offers several technical and financial
resources that can support either the Village or
nonprofit partners of the Village.

North West Housing Partnership (NWHP)

NWHP is an administering entity of home repair
resources (see Strategy 1) which the Village could
promote to local residents or expand with its own
funding.

Community Partners for Affordable Housing
(CPAH)

CPAH administers Wilmette’s Community Land
Trust and can help with the implementation of an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Housing Opportunity Development Corporation
(HODC)

HODC is a developer of affordable and supportive
housing that can bring housing for priority
populations to Wilmette.

Center for Independent Futures (CIF)

CIF is currently exploring the development of
supportive housing in Wilmette for adults with
special needs.

New Trier Township

While it has not ventured into housing, New Trier
Township could be a potential source of funding
for the Village’s housing efforts.

Housing Our Own

Housing Our Own provides rental and property
tax assistance to income qualified Wilmette
residents.

Cook County

Cook County has access to federal funding that
could be tapped by Wilmette.

Our Place of New Trier

Our Place of New Trier may have the potential to
create CILAs in Wilmette in future years.

24

Strategy 5.3: Guide the Establishment and Oversight of a Housing Trust Fund
As referenced in previous recommendations, the creation of a Housing Trust Fund provides a
critical and flexible tool for advancing the Village’s evolving priorities and needs. The Housing
Commission’s advisory role to the Village Board would be essential in both the initial
establishment of a Housing Trust Fund and its future implementation. In the establishment
phase, the Commission could help identify funding priorities, eligible uses and applicants, and
other guidelines. Once a Housing Trust Fund is created, the Commission could review funding
applications before they are advanced to the Village Board and make recommendations for the
Housing Trust Fund’s allocation.
Recognizing that other public and private sector funding will be essential to the success of most
housing strategies implemented in Wilmette, the Housing Commission could help Village staff
track where resources are available for leveraging and where the Village needs to fill in gaps,
whether for home repair, down payment or rental assistance, new affordable construction, etc.
An annual review of a Housing Trust Fund’s guidelines and outcomes is recommended for
continued review and refinement.
Case Study – Establishing a Housing Trust Fund: The National Low Income Housing
Coalition provides a best practice model for establishing and overseeing a Housing Trust
Fund which Wilmette can use as a guide during its Fund’s establishment phase and as a
structure for the Housing Commission’s role in its future oversight. The model suggests
that an advisory board be established particularly for the oversight and reporting of a
Housing Trust Fund, which, in Wilmette, is already established in the Housing
Commission. Beyond providing the Village Board with local expertise in determining a
Housing Trust Fund’s priorities – like eligible uses and eligible applicants, incomes
targeted, and length of affordability required, and how funds should be distributed –
what is considered the Housing Commission’s most critical role is in assisting with the
creation of an annual progress report that documents a Housing Trust Fund’s
expenditures, administrative costs and activities, and highlights the accomplishments of
the Housing Trust Fund’s awards. Such roles for the Housing Commission not only
provide the Village Board with valuable expertise, but also ensures a level of connection
and accountability to the community and its needs.

Strategy 5: Potential Next Steps
•
•
•

Establish a process for the Housing Commission to regularly monitor the Housing Plan’s
implementation and progress on potential next steps, as approved by the Village Board.
Identify funding priorities, eligibility criteria, and other guidelines for a Housing Trust Fund.
Maintain and monitor a list of entities whose resources and expertise the Village may want
to leverage.
25

Housing Commission
June 18

Agenda
6:00

Summary of Key Housing Challenges & Goals

6:15

Discussing Potential Strategies

7:00

Preparation for July 13 Conversation with the Commission

7:10

Closing and Next Steps

Housing Plan: Next Steps
Housing
Commission

Housing
Commission

Conversation
with the
Commission #3

May 21

June 18

Review community
input, discuss
strategies

Review written
draft strategies,
objectives

July 13

September

November

Community input
on draft strategies,
objectives

Provide feedback on
complete draft of the
Housing Plan

Approval of the
Housing Plan

Community
Survey
April – Early July
Understanding resident
needs and priorities

Housing
Commission

Housing
Commission

Presentations to Plan
Commission and Human
Relations Commission

Village Board Review
and Approval

5 Key Housing Challenges

1. Wilmette’s growing senior population needs more
downsizing options in order to remain in the community

Wilmette is home to about
1,000 more residents age
65+ than in 2000 (1)

Most residents age 65 or
older live in their long-time
homes

20% of Wilmette residents
are age 65+ (2)

Nearly 70% - or about 2,650
households – live in singlefamily homes or townhomes (2)

21% of all survey
respondents said their
home will not meet their
future needs (3)
8% of all respondents cited
physical accessibility, 7%
homeownership costs, 7%
maintenance, and 7% needing
to downsize (3)

Households in Wilmette are
smaller than in the past:
25% are 1-person
households, and 36% are 2person households (2)
In comparison, townhomes and
multifamily homes make up 23%
of homes in Wilmette (2)

1: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census, 2000 and 2020
2: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2020-2024 5-Year Estimate

3:Village of Wilmette Housing Plan Community Survey, 802 responses as of June 12

2. Many of Wilmette’s renter households experience
challenges affording their homes

28% of local renters – over
300 households – pay more
than half of their income
on housing (1)
Another 26% of local renters
pay between 30-50% of their
income on housing (1)

Rental vacancy rates in
Wilmette have remained
below 5% since 2018 (2)

27% of renters said their
home does not meet their
current needs, and 44%
said their home will not
meet their future needs (3)

A stable rental vacancy rate is
generally 5-8%

Nearly all who indicated this
issue cited high rental costs

Renters reported steep
rent increases in older
rental buildings (4)
The median rent in Wilmette’s
pre-1940s rental stock rose
from $1,185 in 2014 to $1,961
in 2024, a 6.5% annual increase
(2)

1: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimate, 2020-2024

3:Village of Wilmette Housing Plan Community Survey, 802 responses as of June 12

2: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates

4: Wilmette Housing Plan focus group input

3. Fast-rising home values, while tremendously beneficial, have
also led to affordability challenges for some homeowners

The vacancy rate in
Wilmette’s homeowner
market was 0.4% in 2023
and 0.3% in 2024 (1)

15% of Wilmette
homeowners – about 1,300
households - pay more
than half their income on
housing (3)

Wilmette has a shrinking
supply of downsizing and
starter home options

The median home sale price in
Wilmette rose from $658,500
in 2020 to $1,111,250 in 2025,
a 14% annual increase (2)

Senior homeowners in
Wilmette are more likely to be
cost burdened than other age
groups (3)

Wilmette averaged 23
residential demolitions per
year from 2008 to 2025 (4)

Mid-century homes have
seen some of the fastest
increases in values in
recent years
The median value of 1950s-era
homes rose from $443k in 2014 to
$640k in 2024
1960s homes: $457k to $569k
1970s homes: $403k to $533k (1)

1: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates

3: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimate, 2020-2024

2: RedFin Data Center

4: Village of Wilmette

4. Adult residents with special needs face a severe
shortage of housing options

Wilmette schools and services
attract and serve families of
children with special needs

Stakeholders report a severe and growing
shortage of housing for adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities

Wilmette Public Schools District 39
offers a full continuum of Special
Education services, and Our Place of
New Trier provides daytime support
and weekend activities

Across Illinois: (1)
• 10,896 adults live in Community Integrated Living Arrangements. This
figure has declined every year since 2015
• 17,203 adults are on the waiting list for housing and services
• An estimated 50,000 adults with intellectual and developmental
disabilities live with caregivers age 60+
1: The Institute on Public Policy for People with Disabilities, an Illinois Organization, 2025 Figures

5. A portion of the local workforce commutes longer distances
due to housing costs in nearby communities

Middle-income workers make up a
meaningful portion of the
Wilmette job base
Wilmette’s five largest job sectors: (1)
Education: 23% of local jobs
Food Service and Accommodation: 12%
Health Care and Social Assistance: 12%
Retail Trade: 12%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: 9%

An income of $60,000+ is needed to
afford the median rent in Wilmette
or a 5-mile radius (2)
(Evanston, Skokie, Morton Grove,
Glenview, Winnetka, Glencoe)

Stakeholders report challenges
recruiting and retaining certain
workers, particularly those in retail
and food service positions (4)

$60,000 is above median salaries for a wide
range of jobs including waiters, daycare
administrators, retail supervisors, nurse
assistants, and emergency medical techs (3)

Businesses have noted cost of living and
employee recruitment as factors affecting
their decisions to expand or relocate to
Wilmette (4)

1: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2023

3: Illinois Department of Employment Security, Median Salaries in Cook County, 2024

2: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimate, 2020-2024

4: Wilmette Housing Plan focus group input

Wilmette’s Comprehensive Plan’s
Housing Goals and Objectives
Housing Goals
A Community with Desirable
Residential Neighborhoods

Corresponding Objectives
Promote
Physical
Accessibility

Enforce Property
Maintenance

Housing That Meets the Needs of
Current and Potential Future
Residents

Encourage Development of
Housing for Various Ages
and Physical Abilities

A Diversity of Housing Stock in the
Village

Encourage Multifamily and MixedUse Development Along Major
Corridors Based on Appropriate
Height, Scale, and Public Benefits

A Broad Array of Housing
Opportunities in the Village

Housing that is Attainable to Diverse
Household Types

Preserve the
Existing Affordable
Housing Stock

Ensure Potential for Development of Various
Housing Types such as Townhomes and
Multifamily Structures, While Respecting
Neighborhood Character And Streetscape
Plan for the Appropriate Scale and
Location for Multifamily and MixedUse Development in Village Center

Continue to Support
Organizations that Help
Residents Afford to Live
in Wilmette

Encourage Development of
Smaller Unit Sizes such as
Studios or 1-bedoom Units

Work with Nonprofits
Such as CPAH to Provide a
Range Of Affordable
Housing Options

Encourage Development of
Housing Types that are More
Affordable to Build than
Single-family Homes

Review Changes
To ADU
Regulations
Plan for the Appropriate Scale And
Location of Multifamily and MixedUse Development in Village
Business Districts
Seek Affordable
Housing Development
Partners and Support
Community Education

Seek to Understand Demand
for Workforce Housing for
Area Employees

Study Single-Family
Home Demolitions and
Ways to Retain
Attainable Housing

Update on Community Survey Input on
Potential Strategies

Update on Community Survey Responses

802 responses
as of June 12
Renters are 4% of survey
respondents and 12% of
households in Wilmette

Update on Community Survey Input on Potential Strategies
Please indicate how much of a priority you believe each of the following housing strategies should be:
Preserving the Existing Stock of Affordable Housing in Wilmette

40%

21%

36%

2%

38%

3%

Updating Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations

32%

Requiring Affordable Homes in New Housing Developments

30%

20%

47%

3%

Funding New Affordable or Supportive Housing Development

30%

20%

47%

2%

Increasing the Demolition Fee and Utilizing Funds for Housing Initiatives

29%

24%

43%

4%

Allowing Housing Without Requiring Ground-Floor Retail in Some Areas

26%

Allowing More Density and Housing in the Village Center and Business Districts

24%

Allowing Townhomes, Duplexes, and Triplexes in Single-Family Residential
Areas

22%
0%

High
802 survey responses as of June 12

Medium

10%
Low

28%

37%

34%

26%

45%

21%
20%

30%

Not Applicable

3%
5%

52%
40%

50%

60%

70%

5%
80%

90%

100%

Update on Community Survey Input on Potential Strategies
Do you think any of the above strategies could improve your housing situation or that of
someone in your household? If yes, please select which strategy or strategies.

Percent of All
Responses

Updating Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations

170

Preserving the Existing Stock of Affordable Housing in Wilmette

21%

158

Allowing More Density and Housing in the Village Center and
Business Districts
Allowing Townhomes, Duplexes, and Triplexes in Single-Family
Residential Areas
Allowing Housing Without Requiring Ground-Floor Retail in Some
Areas

20%

130

16%

125

16%

121

15%

Funding New Affordable or Supportive Housing Development

103

13%

Increasing the Demolition Fee and Utilizing Funds for Housing
Initiatives

103

13%

Requiring Affordable Homes in New Housing Developments

99

12%

0
802 survey responses as of June 12

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Feedback on Draft Potential Strategies

Preparing for the July 13 Conversation
with the Commission

Proposed Goals and Process for the July 13
Conversation with the Commission
Goals
• Share updates on
community input
• Show connections between
housing needs and potential
strategies
• Provide opportunities for
feedback on potential
strategies

Process
Welcome and Introductions (5 minutes)
Presentation on Strategy 1 (5-10 minutes)
• Overview of the strategy, how it addresses identified housing needs, and its
alignment with the Comprehensive Plan
• Summary of key themes and differing perspectives heard during engagement,
and how those viewpoints were incorporated into the strategy
• Implementation considerations and potential next steps
Polling and Public Feedback (15-20 minutes)
• Real-time polling
• Brief public comment period
Repeat for Strategies 2 through 5

Closing and Next Steps

Housing Plan: Next Steps
Housing
Commission

Housing
Commission

Conversation
with the
Commission #3

May 21

June 18

Review community
input, discuss
strategies

Review written
draft strategies,
objectives

July 13

September

November

Community input
on draft strategies,
objectives

Provide feedback on
complete draft of the
Housing Plan

Approval of the
Housing Plan

Community
Survey
April - July
Understanding resident
needs and priorities

Housing
Commission

Housing
Commission

Presentations to Plan
Commission and Human
Relations Commission

Village Board Review
and Approval