Submitted By
Emily A. Egan, Development Services Director
Agenda Item Title
Title
A Presentation and Discussion of Public Engagement and Development Entitlement Processes
End
Overview
Overview
At their June 5, 2023 meeting, the Village Board directed staff to prepare a study session presentation relative to public engagement pertaining to general development in Oak Park with special attention toward the H-Hospital District. This presentation will provide the Village Board with information on current public participation requirements and practices for various development entitlement processes, including by-right development, Planned Developments, Variances, and Special Uses. It will also describe the process within other communities and provide a staff recommendation for enhancing public participation in development approval processes.
End
Anticipated Actions/Commitments
Recommendation
Staff has been tasked with exploring how to maximize community input and ensuring public participation is collected and integrated with the development approval process. If the Board chooses to concur with staff’s recommendation, staff will begin to work on the outlined tasks and work products. If the Board selects an alternate to staff’s recommendation, staff will begin to prepare updated policies and proposed code revisions for review and review by the Board at a future Board meeting.
Report
Public participation is a critical component of the development process. Often, residents, business owners, and community members are the “experts in the field” and have a deep understanding of the site and how the community relates to the site. This in-depth understanding is complimented with technical expertise of staff and subject matter experts either on staff or acting on behalf of staff through a contract. Ideally, all of these elements come together to guide a development to the best outcome for the project and the community.
Staff received Village Board direction in June 2023 to evaluate the current public participation and engagement processes. This direction was, in part, attributed to the development process associated with a local hospital’s parking garage proposal.
Currently, a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing is not required for by-right developments, Special Uses or Variances. It is required for a Planned Development. This is in alignment with peer communities as shown in the “Peer Communities 2024” attachment to this agenda item. All Special Uses, Variances and Planned Developments require a public hearing prior to the Board review of the topic. All Public Hearings require three ways to notify the community: a sign placed on the property, a notice in the local newspaper, and a notice mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject site.
Staff’s recommendation is to develop communication and educational items in order to encourage public participation with development projects and provide a greater understanding of how and when to engage with the process. Staff’s recommendation aims to provide a greater understanding the predictability provided by zoning for by-right developments and does not recommend a public participation requirement for by-right development projects. Staff is not proposing to modify the code requirements for a development process, but to enhance the community’s awareness and understanding of the process through communication efforts and programmatic items. These items include:
• A Zoning 101 Video Produced by Oak Park
• A Public Participation for Developments Video Produced by Oak Park
• One Sheet Handouts on Zoning Districts
• One Sheet Handouts for Public Participation for Developments
• Enhance and Promote the “Community Portal” Site Specific Information
• Consider a partnership with other community organizations to provide an “Introduction to Planning” or “Citizens Planning Academy” course.
Examples of similar ideas with other communities are included in the links within the PowerPoint presentation as an attachment to this agenda item.
DEI Impact
Public participation is available to any individual or group within or outside the Village, however, some do not take advantage of the opportunity. Lack of public participation stems from a number of causes: lack of concern, disinterest, location of the development, or general distrust of the public hearing process. Historically, the Village sees fewer renters and minorities in attendance at public meetings and public hearings, regardless of the numerous required outreach efforts used by the Village (mailings, physical postings, and newspaper notices). This lack of diversity of voices in the public participation process is something staff seeks to change and the staff recommendation is in alignment with this goal.
Alternatives
Alternate 1: No Action - Maintain status quo and continue the current public participation requirements.
Advantages:
• No additional staff time or expense needed
Disadvantages:
• Potential for not capturing public participation from community members that may have an interest in the development process or proposals prior to the required Public Hearing
Alternate 2: (Staff’s Recommendation) Enhance public participation through communication efforts and educational opportunities without changes to code or policy.
Advantages:
• Advance understanding and awareness of zoning, planning, and opportunities to participate in the development process within the community
• Encourage all and empower residents to be engaged in decisions impacting their community
• Oak Park serves a regional example and leader on this topic
• Public Engagement Requirements are in-line with peer communities and developers or businesses can have a sense of predictability for timeline and deliverables as requirements are on par with other communities
Disadvantages:
• Increased demands on staff time and workload
• Nominal financial commitment for printing materials, event organization, and communications
• Reduced potential for not capturing public participation from community members that may have an interest in the development process or proposals prior to the required Public Hearing
Alternate 3: Change the code requirements to require a neighborhood meeting for Special Uses
Advantages:
• Developers are able to respond to resident comments and concerns
Disadvantages:
• Developers or business owners may see this as a real or perceived additional barrier compared to other communities