In October, the Forest Park village council had a long-winded discussion about whether to approve amendments to Title 9, Chapter 3 of the village zoning code regarding R1, R2 and R3 zoning districts – low-, medium- and high-density residential areas, respectively. But all except Commissioner Ryan Nero voted to postpone the vote, citing questions about how code amendments would impact density and stormwater management.
Changes to R1, R2 and R3 districts
Changes to Title 9, Chapter 3 of Forest Park’s code would impact the three residential districts in the village.
In low-density R1 districts, zoning code updates would increase maximum impervious lot coverage from 40% to 50% to reflect the village’s current land-use practices.
The new code proposes that R3 districts can have 80% lot coverage, instead of the current code’s 40%, and defines no minimum setback to the front, side or rear of a property.
The current code also says two-family dwellings can be in R2 and R3 districts, while the updated code would allow them in R1. This would bring into conformity and eliminate future zoning relief for hundreds of Forest Park homes.
Director of the Department of Health and Safety Steve Glinke said 76% of the village’s lots don’t conform to the code, hundreds of which are 25-foot lots.
“This is about smart growth. This is about community development. This is about growing the local economy. This is about meeting our new buying demographic,” Glinke said at a May 27 council meeting. “Folks with school-age children are not buying in town or they’re buying at a much lower rate. Our buying demographic right now is young professionals with no kids and empty nesters from Oak Park and River Forest.”
The zoning code updates were brought back to the village council agenda at the May 27 meeting after over seven months of Nero and Director of the Department of Health and Safety Steve Glinke calling for Mayor Rory Hoskins to put them back on the agenda.
While Commissioners Nero and Maria Maxham voted to approve the residential zoning code updates, Commissioner Michelle Melin-Rogovin abstained from the vote, and Commissioner Jessica Voogd and Hoskins voted against the code changes. The code changes did not pass.
Melin-Rogovin started discussion around the agenda item, beginning with voicing her appreciation of the healthy discussion the ordinance created among the village council. But, she added, “I still don’t have information that I need to vote on this ordinance,” mainly documentation that led to the decision of the residential zoning code changes.
“I understand why we need to do this, and I want these regulations to be updated. I think we can do that, but there are things that, in my research and in my review, are missing.”
After asking Nero and Glinke questions, Melin-Rogovin told the Review in April that she had a better understanding of the zoning changes and was ready for Hoskins to put them back on the agenda. But at the May meeting, she said she’s still concerned with density, decreasing minimum lot sizes and increasing allowable building sizes. She said this will negatively impact housing affordability and climate change.
“The way that I read what is here is we have thinner lot sizes, less space between them and more space for building on those lots, and we are making those buildings slightly taller,” Melin-Rogovin said. “I don’t think we need to pack us in to the extent that we are proposing as allowable. And I know that these are guidelines. I understand that, but what we’re saying is allowable is what we say we will allow.”
Voogd said her previous questions about how the zoning changes would impact stormwater management have not been answered.
“My requests and questions have gone unaddressed. I’ve checked in numerous times, I’ve provided examples, but it seems like nothing has happened,” Voogd said. “When I did ask to know what information analysis data was used to inform these recommendations, I was never provided that.”
Voogd also asked for more public outreach, since fewer than five residents have attended village council meetings – none shared public comment at the three planning and zoning commission meetings before the group recommended the council approve the changes – to voice feedback about potential changes in density.
“We had the opportunity to do more outreach and to better explain what is proposed in these zoning changes, and none of that happened,” Voogd said of the seven months since the council first voted on the residential district amendments. “It’d be one thing if some of that community engagement and data analysis and collection and everything had happened and [residents] could say, ‘Forest Park has completely changed. We’re super excited to become more urban. We’re super excited to increase density. The bigger the better.’ If that was a resounding response from the community, I am here to represent the community, but we don’t have that information.”
“A lot of this seems a little haphazard,” Voogd added. “We haven’t seen an audit review that was done by anybody to say, ‘We’ve audited the whole code, and these are the recommended changes that we think we should do, and here’s the basis we’re going to do them.’ We don’t have any formal process that we can look at and consult with when we do have questions. That is sort of my biggest concern. These were the concerns we shared when we tabled this months ago and they haven’t been addressed.”
Maxham said she wasn’t blaming anyone, but voiced her frustration that commissioners are in the same place they were half a year ago. In October, though Maxham said she was in support of the zoning amendments, she voted not to pass them since Melin-Rogovin and Voogd had outstanding questions.
“I can’t speak at all to why it happened, but it’s very disappointing that we haven’t been able to get to a point where people feel comfortable that their questions were answered,” Maxham said. She added that, though previous PZC meetings weren’t recorded for the public, future ones will be, and a lack of public feedback shouldn’t be a reason to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”
During discussion, Glinke was called to answer commissioners’ questions and addressed these concerns.
When Maxham asked Glinke what the benefits of the code changes were, he said, “Successful communities need to grow. The towns that are growing are the ones that are putting concrete in the ground. The guard rails for development are in place, and they will remain in place if this passes.”
Glinke said Muse, the village’s woman-owned, urban planning and public engagement firm, is the group that provides direction to village staff and the planning and zoning commission. And any future building projects within the village will undergo review by third-party building and engineering consultants, which serve as a series of checks and balances.
“It’s easy to throw out that this is going to cause flooding, but that doesn’t show any insight into the full process: the zoning, the engineering, the third-party consultant reports,” Glinke said. “Simply put, if you can’t manage storm water on site, you’re not going to [be able to] build.”
Glinke noted that, 40 years ago, an inch of rain caused flooding in most Forest Park basements. But with the village’s two sewer separation projects and 15 years of a dedicated flood grant program where residents can get half the cost of a flood prevention system covered, Glinke said he hears fewer complaints about flooding.
As for density, Glinke said: “Density is not a boogeyman. There’s not a downside to density. It’s not going to make it harder to move around here. If you can quantify your concerns around density, I’d be happy to address them.”
Voogd responded with her own anecdotal evidence after disputing Glinke’s.
“Ultimately, you’re just telling stories about how no one calls and complains about water anymore,” Voogd said. “We’ve done a lot of really hard work to try to stop flooding and stop people’s basements from flooding. To say that it’s working is like going on a huge diet and working out and getting really fit, then saying, ‘I’m really fit now, so it’s back to pizza every day.’ This needs to be a formal, defined process. Cite these sources.”
She added that she’s seen several residences throughout Forest Park torn down and rebuilt into larger, more expensive homes, contributing to the density issue she’s worried about.
“These $800,000 homes are going up, which, certainly some people like that it’s increasing their property values, but it’s also hitting a little bit in the tax bill,” Voogd said. “We’re already seeing those get approved. I’ve noticed a lot of these houses where you can’t even get your lawn mower from the back yard to the front yard because they’re so close to the property line.”
Though Voogd agrees that the zoning code changes need to take place, she still wants the process to be clearer.
“I think we really need to reevaluate how we want to update this code going forward,” Voogd said. “I do think it needs to happen, but it needs to happen in a very transparent, defined way.
In a recent effort to break down the confusion surrounding local zoning, Forest Park resident Bob Cox developed the Forest Park Zoning Challenge, a free week-long online course consisting of independent readings and a group discussion. Sign up to take the challenge at https://www.robertcoxauthor.com/fpzoning.
Do you have questions or feedback about the village’s zoning code updates? Share them with me at jessica@forestparkreview.com
