Submitted By
Emily A. Egan, Development Services Director
Agenda Item Title
Title
A Presentation and Discussion on Residential Single Family Zoning and Missing Middle Housing
End
Overview
Overview
At the Village Board meeting on March 19, 2024, the Board directed staff to prepare a report and presentation on missing middle housing. This presentation will provide the Village Board with staff recommended modifications based on the recently adopted Strategic Vision for Housing Plan’s recommendations and strategies. It will also provide information on a Missing Middle Housing Peer Network and Assistance Program (“Program”) provided by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Opticos Design in which the Village has been selected to participate.
End
Anticipated Actions/Commitments
Recommendation
Should the Board choose to concur with or modify staff’s recommendation, staff will work on the next steps of the process, including the Missing Middle Program with Metropolitan Mayor Caucus, commissions review, and public input before returning for Board action. If the Board selects an alternative to staff’s recommendation, staff will return with an implementation plan for review by the Board at a future Board meeting.
Report
On January 23, 2024, the Village Board adopted a Goals, Priorities, Key Projects, and Initiatives work plan. Within that plan, the chapter on Vibrant Diverse, Connected Neighborhoods outlines the goal of advancing affordable housing. Key projects and initiatives in achieving that goal include: (c, i) evaluating single-family zoning and missing middle housing opportunities, and (c, iii) considering additional housing types beyond ADUs and ways to allow additional units within the single-family zoning districts. This agenda item is the first step toward achieving those projects and goals.
The Strategic Vision for Housing Plan (“Housing Plan”) was adopted on April 11, 2024. It provides strategies to implement the Village Board’s key projects and initiatives regarding single-family zoning and missing middle.
In order to implement the Housing Plan and achieve Board goals, staff has prepared for Board consideration several single-family residential zoning district variations which include missing middle housing options. The options included are based on a combination of Board direction, best practices nationwide, and creative solutions developed by Development Services staff. This presentation is an exercise to examine opportunities that would eliminate single-family zoning classifications while increasing housing types in existing single-family residential zoning districts.
Zoning and housing reform considerations are on the rise in the United States and abroad. Many eastern and western coastal cities and states have already embraced this concept. This presentation will touch on cities and states that have proposed or have adopted actions relative to missing middle housing and zoning reform.
Staff recommends Option 1 which outlines proposed changes to five of the eight residential zoning districts. It proposes an increase in the maximum allowed number of dwelling units from one to two in three zoning districts (R-3-50, R-3-35 and R-4) and from one to three in two districts (R-1, and R-2). Three of these residential zoning districts currently allow two dwelling units, low-density townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. Essentially, this proposal is a change for detached single-unit houses which, if approved, would be permitted to add a second unit. This proposal eliminates zoning districts where only single-family units are allowed. Existing single-unit houses would be permitted to remain and if property owners choose to add a second unit, they would require an approved building permit and inspection.
In this option, zoning district boundary lines and bulk standards (e.g. setbacks, height, and density) remain the same. Table 8-1, the Use Matrix, in Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance would require corresponding updates and changes. An example of what that matrix would look like with redlines is attached.
While the Envision Oak Park Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate the elimination of single-family zoning classifications, it encourages housing variety in each neighborhood that responds to specific needs of residents of various ages, incomes, and levels of mobility.
DEI Impact
The proposed zoning reform concepts intend to provide more housing options - affordable housing opportunities, in particular - while promoting increased integration from an economic, racial and age perspective. These proposed changes seek to prioritize DEI within Oak Park’s housing stock, residential neighborhoods, and community.
Alternatives
Staff Recommendation - Option 1: Eliminate Single-Family nomenclature and add more housing choices to all former Single-Family Residential Districts.
Advantages:
• Enhances housing opportunities in all residential zoning districts.
• Retains all zoning district lines (areas) and the number of districts - no change to district boundaries.
• Increases housing types in all current single-family zoning classifications.
• Potentially more affordable housing units.
• Name changed for each zoning classification based on proposed density.
• Eliminate “Single-Family” nomenclature.
• Additional opportunities for more ADUs.
• Begins to implement the Strategic Vision for Housing Plan
Disadvantages:
• Potential impact to Village services; water, sewer, fire, police, schools, parks, parking and taxes.
• Potential pushback from neighboring residents.
Option 2: No action - Maintain status quo and continue the current requirements.
Advantages:
• This option would not impact current zoning classifications.
• No public discourse would be necessary.
• Retains ADU inclusion on single-family dwelling properties.
Disadvantages:
• This option would not advance similar zoning reform initiatives developing across the U.S.
• This option would not reclassify/re-designate single-family zoning districts.
• Does not attempt to advance affordable housing goals.
• No implementation of the Strategic Vision for Housing Plan
Option 3: Reduce Residential Zoning Districts to four districts
Advantages:
• Increases housing types in all current single-family zoning classifications.
• Name changes to each zoning classification based on proposed housing type increase.
• Eliminate “Single-Family” nomenclature.
• Additional opportunities for more ADUs.
• Potentially more affordable housing units.
• Reduced number of residential zoning districts from eight (8) to four (4).
• Begins to implement the Strategic Vision for Housing Plan
Disadvantages:
• Potential impact to Village services; water, sewer, fire, police, schools, parks, parking and taxes.
• Potential pushback from neighboring residents.
Option 4: Implement Land Use Type Housing
Advantages:
• Creates only one Residential Zoning District.
• Eliminates segregation aspect relative to residential housing type designation.
• Allows any residential land use type to be constructed anywhere in the residential zone, based on dimensional standards (lot size, setbacks, height, etc.)
Disadvantages:
• Potential impact to Village services; water, sewer, fire, police, schools, parks, parking, traffic and taxes.
• Potential pushback from neighboring residents.
Next Steps
Staff seeks input on the presented options. If staff is directed to move forward on any of these options (except for option 2, do nothing), they will conduct public engagement and stakeholder outreach with the assistance of the MMC and Opticos Design. The Peer Network Assistance Program provided by MMC and Opticos is a yearlong program that provides tailored support and technical expertise to municipalities at no charge. As outlined in the attachment, seventeen (17) communities in Illinois were to discuss challenges and successes regarding the missing middle. The program provides analysis of specific sites within the community and provides 3D models for review by staff, elected officials, and the community.
During this program, staff would review the selected proposal with Commissions, the public, and developers within the community. Staff would consider forming a Zoning Reform Advisory Task Force as suggested in the Strategic Vision for Housing Plan to compile and analyze the public engagement feedback. These activities would further refine the recommendation before it is brought to the Village Board for consideration and the possible adoption of an updated zoning map and zoning ordinance text amendments.