The much anticipated plan commission public hearing process on the Shape Oak Park zoning recommendations finally arrived kicking off with a multiple hour meeting at the OPRF auditorium Thursday night, Oct. 8.
Village Planner Michael Bruce, with assistance from representatives of project consultants, went through every proposed change to nine articles of the zoning code outlined in Opticos’ recommendation and answered questions from the commissioners.
The village still has to present the feasibility study conducted by SB Friedman at the next meeting before the next phase of the process with public comment and cross-examination can begin.
Plan commission Chair Michael Sturino assured attendees multiple times that they want to hear from everyone who has something to say, when it is the appropriate time, and are committed to doing a thorough job in their review and recommendations to the village board .
“We want to be fair about this process. We can’t learn if there’s any disruption from the audience. Everyone who wants to be heard, ultimately, I can’t promise tonight, will be heard. We will listen to you too, but I’m going to ask for, you know, some civility and respect,” said Sturino. “We love Oak Park just like all of you do, and I just want us to be proud of this community from this public hearing.”
In between fast-paced back-and-forth discussion on intricate details of site development and design standards, property lot coverage and hypothetical compositions of total units versus primary dwellings, the audience would occasionally perk up with claps of support or heckles of disapproval. Sturino held no space for disruptions, quickly setting boundaries and expectations for not tolerating outbursts from the crowd.
The commissioners did not hold back with their questions, some showing obvious trepidation over what is being proposed and information that is still lacking.
Commissioner Jon Hale shared his discomfort with the very first recommendation of changing the term “family” to “unit” to align with more inclusionary terminology.
Commissioner Frank Sullivan later shared his unease with not having impact studies and feasibility strategy recommendations that will be discussed by the Ad Hoc Advisory Task Force separately.
“Coming down the pipe is okay if it is part of the decision process and integral to what we do, but at this point in time, to be having it in front of the planning commission without that identified, I find is somewhat problematic,” said Sullivan.
The public hearing will continue Thursday, Oct. 15, at 6 p.m. in the OPRF auditorium, and the plan commission website has more information on how to participate.
Outlined below are the highlights from the meeting with snapshots of key explanations, clarifications and questions left unanswered:
Explanations and clarifications
- What does affordability mean in the context of these recommendations?
There are two “Affordable Housing” types circulating in these discussions and often getting confused or adding to the confusion of the purpose of the proposed changes.
In the context of middle housing types, “affordable” is being less expensive than the current predominant housing types. It is referring to middle housing that is affordable to those with middle to high incomes, not what would be reasonable for lower incomes.
Current single-family homes can require up to 300% of the median income of Oak Park to afford, but the middle housing types would be affordable for those with closer to 80%.
Affordable housing developments that target low-income individuals, like the Grove Apartments which set a limit of 50% of the median income, are not what is addressed specifically in the recommendation.
- Why is the focus on just “middle” housing types and what exactly does that mean?
Middle housing types include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, and small multi-unit buildings up to five stories. This is what is between the single-family homes and large apartment structures like the Emerson or Albion in downtown Oak Park. Whether these housing types are “missing” is something that is still debated.
The consultant’s recommendations focus on the middle housing because the land-locked, already highly developed nature of the village make them some of the only options for new housing development while protecting the character of neighborhoods.
The village and consultants explained that if nothing is done to try to create more middle housing options, single-family homes will only continue to get more expensive and unattainable for those making even slightly above the median income. In theory, middle housing allows residents to have the neighborhood feel, without the extremely high neighborhood prices.
- What are the differences in Historic Preservation Districts?
Added restrictions currently in place in the Historic Preservation Districts and zoning codes exist in tandem as two layers. Protected homes, landmarks and contributing buildings, in these districts could not be torn down or externally modified without going through the review process and getting special approval from the historic preservation commission or a direct intervention from the village board. The same review does not apply for internal changes.
- What about parking?
The village has its metaphorical hands tied when it comes to changing the parking requirements in the zoning code as it has to be updated to comply with Illinois’ new People Over Parking Act. Village staff have previously confirmed changes to parking permits and overnight restrictions are not on the table at this time.
Jennifer Settle, project consultant with Opticos, said that neighborhood lot sizes and average alleys in Oak Park are able to accommodate up to four car stalls, and developers of new housing are likely to include parking on the property.
Unanswered Questions
- How will new development of middle housing types in residential neighborhoods impact surrounding property values?
Impact studies on property values are not available at this time which is a point of concern for many residents and some of the commissioners.
Village Planner Michael Bruce said the village hopes additional information and strategies being discussed by the ad hoc advisory task force are going to be presented to the board at the same time as plan commission recommendations, but Sturino, who also sits on the task force, did not seem to think the timelines would match up.
- How will, or can, affordability be regulated?
There are other tools that the village can use outside of zoning to regulate or encourage affordable units such as subsidies and strengthening the inclusionary housing ordinance. Those fall outside of the purview of zoning and the plan commission and have not been discussed in any decision-making capacities at the village board thus far.
- What percentage of all of Oak Park’s housing is non-single family?
Commissioner Juan Betancur repeatedly asked for the percent of housing units across the entire village which are not single-family. This information was not readily available from the consultants or village, and it was explained that the data in Opticos’ recommendations mainly looks at middle housing across neighborhoods, not accounting for the large high-rise developments.
According to Oak Park’s Strategic Vision for Housing, the breakdown for village housing types is as follows: 41% single-family, 26% 20 or more unit multi-family, 11% 5 to 9 unit, 10% 2 to 4 unit, 9% 10 to 19 unit, and 3% townhome. It is also of note that the majority of 2-4 unit buildings in Oak Park were built before 1940.
Opticos did clarify that the recommendations do not set a goal or threshold for increasing the middle housing types.
- Will a pilot program of the changes happen?
Commissioner Holly Bruce asked about implementing a pilot program where specific areas of the village would have the zoning changed to see what would happen on a smaller-scale.
A direct answer on whether this is up for consideration was not given. However, Fran Lefor Rood, a managing partner with SB Friedman, said the feasibility study will explain why rapid change and development is not expected from zoning changes, so one specific area in a pilot program would not experience much change.