Oak Park trustees have begun taking steps to add more affordable, “missing middle” housing options to the village.
“Missing middle” housing is defined as “a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units – compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes – located in a walkable neighborhood.”
“Affordable housing,” according to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, is housing in which the occupant is paying no more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs, including utilities. In Oak Park, the area median income is $103,264, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, but that’s mostly homeowners. Renters would need to make $61,958 each year to afford a monthly $1,548 rent.
The move comes amid the board’s efforts to create vibrant, diverse and connected neighborhoods, according to village officials. Part of achieving that goal includes evaluating single-family zoning in Oak Park, missing middle housing and other housing types for the village. The first step is to amend residential zoning restrictions, which trustees discussed Tuesday.
At the village board meeting Tuesday, village staff presented four key options to potentially reconfigure residential zoning districts in Oak Park. But trustees did not seem in agreement about which direction to take, and instead asked for deeper analysis first.
The overarching goals, according to Emily Egan, the village’s development services director, are to increase affordability, include more housing options, diversify housing stock, and promote racial, age and socio-economic integration.
“[Missing middle housing] is not going to be the one action and one strategy that achieves the goal of affordability and integration in the community,” Egan said. “Missing middle is working in tandem and related to the other nine strategies [in the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus housing study].”
Four options before the board
Village staff recommended eliminating single-family nomenclature in its zoning codes and adding more housing options to the formerly single-family districts. Under this recommendation, five of the eight residential zoning districts would have changes, but the district boundaries would not change.
This option would eliminate zoning districts where only single-family units are allowed and rename districts based on density. Single-unit homeowners would be able to add a second unit if desired, after obtaining a permit and inspection. Other restrictions would remain, including setback, height and density requirements, according to village officials.
“Missing middle housing is not intended to be more high rise, more dense, multifamily,” Egan said. “Missing middle really focuses on that house scale, and that walkable residential neighborhood.”
Some disadvantages to this recommendation, according to village officials, are potential impacts to village services such as water, sewer, fire, police, schools, parks, parking and taxes, as well as potential pushback from neighbors. This option, however, would be the least disruptive to the residents, said Craig Failor, the village planner.
“I think that this is a place where I’m interested in being more disruptive,” Trustee Brian Straw said.
The second option is to take no action and maintain the current zoning requirements. No trustees appeared interested in maintaining the status quo.
The third option is to reduce residential zoning from eight to four districts. This would increase housing types in formerly single-family zoning districts and could also add more affordable housing units. Egan said shrinking the number of districts would simplify the zoning codes and be more transparent for developers and property owners. The same negative impacts could apply.
The fourth option is to implement land-use type housing. This would create only one residential zoning district, meaning any type of housing would be allowed anywhere in the single residential zone. The same disadvantages are possible.
Failor explained village staff were seeking input on which option to flesh out and pursue. But trustees said they felt they need more information first.
“The underlying development of missing middle housing would be consistent throughout the village regardless of what the zoning is,” Failor said. “It’s just how you organize it, describe it and promote it.”
Inclusive, affordable options?
Trustee Cory Wesley, however, said he wasn’t sure about any of the options presented Tuesday. He said he was disappointed race wasn’t initially mentioned in the village staff’s presentation, because housing and zoning both impact racial integration.
Certain demographics, such as those who can’t afford a home in Oak Park, are still excluded, Wesley said, while others who have been prioritized continue to be. Artificial housing scarcity, he pointed out, can lead to homelessness and racial discrimination.
“Housing is a capitalist market but the only way that you get prices down in capitalism is to increase supply or decrease the desirability,” he said. But no one wants to create a worse village, he pointed out.
“We have a zoning code that we know is racist, unambiguously,” he said. “If we do nothing but change the label, it’s still going to be racist. I’m not going to vote for that. I’d rather labor under the racism of my ancestors than create some for my kids.”
He said he’d like to see more options.
“When you really are building for an inclusive, affordable, diverse community, you’re breaking down systems of oppression,” Village President Vicki Scaman said. “We really have our work cut out for us to match our intentions with what actually is doable.”
“I want to be a leader in this area the way we were in 1968,” Scaman also said, referring to the village’s 1968 fair housing ordinance. “If that’s going to mean extra work, then so be it.”
Straw suggested a hybrid of options three and four, possibly implementing only two residential zoning districts. Straw, like Wesley, pointed out that certain restrictions might need to change alongside the restructuring of residential zones. Parking was one Straw mentioned.
Trustee Lucia Robinson, who said Tuesday she was leaning toward option one, also said she’d like to understand how changes to zoning could affect the inclusionary zoning ordinance and historic preservation. She said she doesn’t want to inadvertently make areas more exclusive.
Trustee Ravi Parakkat agreed he was comfortable with the village staff’s recommendation but wants more information about how to increase affordability while still protecting home values, how living conditions might change and the impact on historic preservation. The board needs to understand the number of new residents or units Oak Park can support based on school sizes and other village services, he said.
Trustee Chibuike Enyia also said he wants to understand more about how zoning changes might impact residents. Trustee Susan Buchanan said she was open to option one or three.
More information is expected to come back to the board at a later date.
Clarification, July 29, 2024: This story has been updated to more accurately reflect Trustee Cory Wesley’s comment about housing scarcity.