I examined “Shape Oak Park” by Opticos to better understand the proposal to eliminate single-family zoning. A copy of the report can be found at: https://engageoakpark.com/shape
The proposal has numerous errors, omissions, contradictions, and misleading statements. Below are a few of the more egregious issues.
Errors and contradictions:
The proposal includes multiple statements, starting on page 7, that the minimum lot width in the village is 30 feet. This is incorrect. The minimum lot width is 25 feet and applies to many properties around the community. For example many of the lots on the 500 block of South Taylor, right in front of Violahe Hall, are 25 feet wide. This error continues to be perpetuated on all the work by Opticos.
Parking is addressed only briefly on page 26. Opticos does not make a recommendation but suggests “Overnight parking … changes should be studied carefully and discussed publicly as part of the village’s broader land use goals.” However during a board discussion on July 28, the impression from the board was contradictory, indicating that the overnight parking ban needs to be removed if these zoning changes are passed. The merits of overnight parking ban should be considered separately as part of this community-wide discussion.
There are contradictions between Article 4 and Article 8. Article 4 on Page 8 indicates only a maximum of 4 units per lot for all N zones (N-1, N-2, and N-3). Footnote 4 then adds “zoning lots that are at least 50 feet wide and 125 feet deep (i.e. 6,250+ sq ft) may contain up to six dwelling units” for zones N-2 and N-3 only. Article 8 on pages 20-21 then contradicts these limits by proposing several additional ways to allow six units, including for lots of 5,000 sq feet. For N-1 lots, the contraction is clear: Article 4 strictly caps units to 4 per, but Article 8 allows up to 6 for N-1 lots near public transit (which is nearly the entire village). For N-2 and N-3 lots, the contradiction is more subtle. An N-2/N-3 lot under 50 feet wide but still over 5,000 square footage and near transportation can build up to 6 units. These contradictions between Articles 4 and 8 need to be resolved.
Omissions:
On page 10, Optics references a “study to better understand and visualize how updated zoning standards could work” and the “focus of this pilot would be to show how new middle housing can maintain an appropriate relationship to nearby homes.” With proposed 5-foot side setbacks, this zoning change could lead to buildings as narrow as 15 feet wide that are 35 feet tall. This study and feasibility work should precede adoption.
The proposal discusses “cottage housing” as a “group of small, detached dwellings located on a single zoning lot or development site and organized around common open space” but does not define it in the context of Oak Park. It is unclear how to build cottage-style housing here.
On page 11, Opticos makes a critical recommendation that the trustees have not followed: “the village should test whether the revised dimensional standards complement the inclusionary housing requirements and how they can be effectively applied to new multi-unit and mixed-use development.” The suggestion is to ensure that the proposal “produces affordable units as part of new development projects.” If the goal of this zoning change is to create affordable housing, then this critical step cannot be skipped before approval of new zoning standards.
While the proposal implies that removing zoning barriers will produce more affordable housing, it supplies no financial feasibility model, rent/sale-price estimates, land/value analysis, affordability covenant, or anti-displacement assessment.
Misleading:
The goal of this proposal is to improve housing affordability, but is limited on detail as to what is meant by “affordable.” On the Engage Oak Park website, Opticos cautions “Middle Housing is not a guarantee of affordability.” Moreover they note, “Missing Middle Housing typically reaches 80% to 120% Area Median Income.” In other words, the Opticos consultants’ definition of affordable is average income plus or minus 20%. According to Cook County, as of May 2026 this range represents household income of $97,200-$145,800 for a family of four. Is this what we mean by affordable?
“Incremental” and “gentle” materially understate the scale of what is proposed. The recommendations permit four units broadly on all lots down to 25 foot width (pending correction of the error above), six units in several circumstances, five-story/55-foot residential buildings in N-3, six-story/70-foot commercial-corridor buildings, and multiple allowances for accessory dwelling units. Describing it as merely incremental is not a neutral characterization.
We deserve a better, more complete proposal for the $200,000 spent on this one. I advocate for slowing down this process to get it done right.
Grant Johnsey
Oak Park