Category: Zoning

Zoning assessment: Old Town Canvas

December 14, 2024 / / 0 Comments

The alternative headline is “Zoning assessment: how to propose a large building outside downtown Chicago when the current zoning code doesn’t typically allow that and the current zoning code goes against historical development norms for the city”.

I’ve said many times on social media how the Chicago zoning code doesn’t allow many extant buildings to be built because a zoning district that would allow the height, bulk, or density (“size”, for short) doesn’t exist anymore. All of those examples were outside of the downtown district because the downtown district still allows the size of all the extant buildings there.

The Old Town Canvas development would replace the Walgreens building. The development’s size is in line with all the other nearby high-rise residential buildings.

I am going to describe how a building with the size of the proposed Old Town Canvas development is allowed outside of downtown (view the boundary). The development shows how to use multiple standards in the Chicago zoning code to build a lot of needed housing and serves as another example of the Chicago zoning code being much more restrictive than its previous iterations.

I won’t belabor the point any further, but it shouldn’t take “zoning cleverness” to build more housing in Chicago.

About the development

The Old Town Canvas development’s size – proposing 500 homes in a building 395′ tall – is largely possible because of two longstanding standards in the Chicago zoning code, neither of which are unique to the site – there are no loopholes here.

Those standards are:

  1. the “-5” zoning district’s allowance for nearly unlimited height if the property has a sufficient length of street frontage
  2. the ability to establish a Planned Development and shift zoning capacity from one parcel to another, even across a roadway

1. Height limits in “-5” zoning districts

In a B-5 or C-5 zoning district, the height limit is based on how much street frontage1 the property has. For a property that has 100 feet or more of street frontage the height limit is normally 80 feet. However, an exception2 in the zoning code allows buildings to “exceed the maximum height” if approved and reviewed as a Planned Development3.

This means there is no maximum height, but there are certainly influencing factors: the support of the local alderperson, the support of the city planning staff, and guidelines from the FAA.

2. Planned Developments can move zoning capacity between parcels

A basic zoning assessment of the parcels for the building results in an estimate that 179 homes would be allowed here. This is much fewer homes than previous Chicago zoning codes allowed, and much fewer homes on a similar sized parcel than the four nearest high-rises which have about the same or more than the proposed number of 500.

To be able to build 321 additional homes the developer has proposed incorporating the unused zoning capacity of Piper’s Alley, a mixed-use development, and Moody Bible Church, where the most recent community meeting to discuss the traffic study was held this month.

I can’t get into specifics because I don’t have knowledge of how much unused FAR and MLA per unit that each of those other properties can transfer. To do that I would need to see architecture drawings showing how much floor area the buildings have already.

In this case, the owners of the other properties must give their consent to the Old Town Canvas developer to be incorporated into a new – or in this case, an amended – Planned Development and show this consent to the City of Chicago4.

That process is essentially the definition of what many people would call “air rights” (which I think more specifically means being able to build above something, like a railroad or roadway) and municipal governments would likely call “transfer of development rights”.

Neither “air rights” nor “transfer of development rights” are commonly used terms in Chicago. There are several buildings, however, that use air rights granted to them by the railroads that own the tracks under Riverside Plaza buildings.

In New York City, to explain an alternative implementation of TDR, development rights include the ability for owners of landmarked buildings and of buildings in special districts to transfer the zoning capacity beyond the geographic limitations of the Chicago Planned Development standards. For example, a landmarked theater in the Special Midtown District can be a “granting site” of development rights to a “receiving site” within the Theater Subdistrict.

Notes

  1. In some other jurisdictions height limit is based on street width, and in Chicago’s first zoning code height was based on building depth and how much each upper section was set back from the street. ↩︎
  2. See 17-3-0408-A[1] in the Chicago zoning code. ↩︎
  3. There are codified standards regarding height in the Planned Development section of the Chicago zoning code, starting with the guideline, “High-rise buildings or towers should respect the context and scale of surrounding buildings with setbacks at appropriate heights which will also reduce the apparent mass from street level.” Other standards for high-rise buildings within Planned Developments are found in 17-8-0907-C. ↩︎
  4. Section 17-8-0400 of the Chicago zoning code has a regulation affecting ownership and site control and how Planned Developments can have multiple owners controlling multiple sites. ↩︎

Density bonuses in transit-served locations should be available by right

September 17, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Update October 23, 2024: I’m aware of one project that has been withdrawn in part due to complications complying with resident-requested changes that would have been lessened if the applicant did not have to also apply for a Type 1 zoning map amendment in order to take advantage of the Connected Communities ordinance’s density bonuses and the “ZBA bundling” streamlining that was adopted by City Council last fall. The applicant was requesting to rezone from the B2-3 to B3-3 (the new zoning district). If the new zoning district already existed and some of the changes I mention in the comment below were in place, then the applicant would have likely already applied for a permit.

This is the original version of a public comment I planned to give to the Chicago City Council zoning committee on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. Due to an overwhelming number of commenters the amount of time allotted to each speaker was reduced from three minutes to two minutes. I edited and cut the comment on the fly.

Video recording of my comment to zoning committee.

Hello, my name is Steven Vance, I’m a South Loop renter and a member of Urban Environmentalists Illinois.

The ordinances to proactively upzone Western Avenue from Howard Street to Addison Street will be voted on today in this committee. The ordinances will rezone nearly all of the 4.5 mile stretch to B3-3 zoning, allowing multifamily housing to be built as of right without further approvals from the local alderperson or this committee. I fully support this plan. 

However, there is a technical flaw in this plan that could hinder the initiative’s goal of adding more housing, both market rate and subsidized affordable. 

To take advantage of the Connected Communities bonuses that allow even more or larger homes to be built when a property is both in a B3-3 zoning district and a transit-served location, the property owner must still obtain a Type 1 zoning map amendment. To sail smoothly, such amendments need support from the local alderperson, most of whom require community meetings before deciding to offer such support. Thus, in some circumstances, the proactive upzoning may not have one of its intended effects of cutting the tape for building new housing. 

The greatest Connected Communities ordinance bonuses, that allow for the most additional housing and family-sized homes, only kick in when 100% of the proposal’s ARO requirement is built on-site. I’m concerned that that requirement combined with the need to get a Type 1 zoning map amendment might limit the number of additional homes added as a result of the upzonings. A solution would be to amend the Connected Communities ordinance to allow the bonuses to be granted by right as long as the other, existing standards about on-site ARO units are met. 

I would like City Council members to implement more proactive upzoning initiatives across Chicago, including on arterials like Western Avenue, Milwaukee Avenue, and Broadway, as well as on less busy streets like 35th Street in McKinley Park and designated Pedestrian Streets. Yet to fully and cost-effectively realize the benefits of housing abundance from this policy lever, further tweaks are needed so housing providers can get to construction sooner. 

The proactive upzoning of Western Avenue, as well as Milwaukee Avenue, reflects real leadership on the part of the alderpersons. It will result in more and better housing for Chicagoans, more affordable units for residents who need them most, and more tax revenue for the city. I’m hopeful that with some tweaks to the density bonuses outlined here, we can establish a model for a more affordable, welcoming and prosperous city. 

A new multi-family apartment building under construction on Western Avenue.

Additional reading

Comment to Chicago zoning committee about the insufficient number of Zoning Board of Appeals members

June 25, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Update: On July 19, 2024, Ald. Knudsen (43rd) introduced an ordinance that does what I suggested an ordinance could do. It’s very short: 7 new words and 1 changed word. Read the ordinance, O2024-0010982.

June 25, 2024

Hello members of the Chicago city council committee on zoning, landmarks, and building standards. My name is Steven Vance. I am a resident of the city of Chicago and an urban planner. I have spoken to this committee multiple times this year about matters that affect how much housing gets approved to be built in the city. 

I reiterate my comment from your April 8, 2024, meeting that the committee should amend the zoning ordinance to ensure that the Zoning Board of Appeals can function when there are not enough board members. Nearly three months later the ZBA is still incomplete. The City’s Municipal Code requires that the ZBA has five members and two alternates. Alternates fill in for members when they are unable to attend meetings, due to illness or personal matters. 

Screen grab showing a thumbnail of me speaking to committee.

In February, the ZBA was short two members which may have led to the failure to approve a proposed shelter in Uptown, as proposals require three affirmative votes and the proposal received two affirmative votes. The ZBA having incomplete membership puts the timely approval of applications for special use and variations at risk. This shortfall materially jeopardizes new development, especially matters involving new housing.

Since April, Mayor Johnson appointed two members, but only one, Adrian Soto, has been confirmed. 

The ZBA’s current state of four members is bound to affect more projects. I mentioned in April that at least two more shelter housing applications, which have support from the Chicago Department of Housing, are intending to be heard this year at ZBA but those projects have yet to come before ZBA. 

The proponents of those shelters could be feeling forced to wait until the ZBA has a full membership or else suffer the same fate as the shelter that failed at ZBA in February. This could push back construction and operations of the shelters, and further exacerbate the housing shortage and homelessness crisis in Chicago.

The Mayor and City Council should immediately take any reasonable steps within its authority to address housing and homelessness in the City, including:

  • First, prioritizing a fifth member.
  • Second, making pragmatic amendments to the code to allow alternates to sit in when there are fewer than five regular appointed ZBA members. The current code allows alternates to sit in only for regular members who are missing that day, and
  • Third, the committee should advance the Cut The Tape initiative which recommends revising zoning code requirements that “require all shelters and transitional housing developments to seek approval from ZBA, regardless of building size, form, or underlying zoning designation” – closer to an “as of right” situation that applies to most kinds of housing. 

 I speak for many when I urge this committee to legalize housing and adopt changes to effect such a strategy.

Prepared remarks: the ordinance to expand ADUs citywide has multiple benefits

June 11, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Alongside representatives from CMAP, Community Investment Corporation and Preservation Compact, ULI Chicago, and the Chicago Association of Realtors, I also spoke at a subject matter hearing on June 11, 2024, to the Chicago City Council’s zoning committee about the necessity to expand accessory dwelling units to be allowed citywide. Read more about the proposed ordinance.

Hello, my name is Steven Vance. I am an urban planner and consultant in Chicago. I am also a member of Urban Environmentalists Illinois. I have been studying, promoting, and collaborating around ADUs for six years. I was on ULI Chicago’s task force, have presented to various groups about building an ADU, and created a free directory on ChicagoCityscape.com that lists local architects and companies who can design and build ADUs. 

1st Ward Alderperson La Spata comments on the proposed ADU expansion ordinance during the subject matter hearing.

Given that background of some of my ADU work I feel that I understand a lot of how the adoption of ADUs in the last three years has fared and can point out future benefits that the city will gain if the proposed ordinance is adopted. I will highlight some of those future benefits.

Removing the maximum coach house size cap. The proposed ordinance would change the cap on how much floor area a coach house could have. Allowing larger coach houses on larger lots will allow more family-sized units with two or more bedrooms. Additionally, larger coach houses can make them more cost effective to build, because of the high fixed costs in building a coach house of any size. The proposed ordinance could facilitate more family-sized coach houses than are currently being built.

Allowing ground level coach houses through the administrative adjustment for parking. The proposed ordinance would allow property owners to build a coach house at grade, meaning it can be accessible. This would make it easier for families to decide to build a small house for an aging family member, who may very well be the current owner, as well as put a dent in the dearth of accessible housing. A second benefit of this change is that ground level construction is significantly cheaper than building atop a garage.

Allowing all-residential buildings in non-residential zones to participate. The proposed ordinance would allow thousands of residential-only buildings that are in B and C zoning districts to add an ADU. The Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University found that 25 percent of buildings with 5 or more units fit into this category but are currently ineligible. These are the building sizes that are most capable of adding two or more ADUs. If two or more ADUs are built, half must be rented affordably. Adopting this ordinance means those buildings would be able to add ADUs.

Allowing coach house and conversion units on the same lot can also be cost effective for property owners. Either one would likely require a water service or electric service upgrade so it makes sense to make one upgrade to serve multiple new homes.

I believe that the biggest gains in the city’s ADU policy will come from allowing them citywide, in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts. Citywide expansion makes it simpler for the departments to administer, makes all buildings capable of adding an ADU eligible to add an ADU, makes it easier for homeowners to add an additional home to fit their changing household needs, and lets other property owners add to the city’s housing abundance thereby slowing down rent increases that the city is experiencing.

Note: The plan, as explained in Crain’s and the Chicago Tribune, is to vote on the ordinance at the June 25, 2024, zoning committee meeting, and if approved there the City Council would vote at their July meeting. (City Council does not meet in August.)

Chicago’s zoning code doesn’t allow five (or more) roommates

June 4, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Can you guess how many people the Chicago zoning code allows living together in a typical apartment or house when all of them are unrelated to each other?

  • 2
  • 4
  • 3
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7 or more

The answer is in the following paragraph.

A four-bedroom co-living apartment
Living room at a four-bedroom co-living apartment

The Chicago zoning code allows an unlimited number of related people to live together along with three unrelated people. If you’ve got roommates and none of you are related, the zoning code says that there can be only four of you in a dwelling unit. (There are alternatives to this scenario which are not part of the discussion, comprising shelters and congregate housing and group living, which are separately defined and exclusive of a typical “roommate” scenario.)

If you want to have four roommates you may need a five-bedroom house, which you could easily find in Chicago and go ahead and rent, you’ll be fine. The city will not enforce the zoning code in this situation.

The city’s planning and buildings departments will, however, enforce the zoning code at the time of a Planned Development or building permit application if the proposal is for an apartment building (likely marketed as a co-living situation) with five-bedrooms apartments. I’m aware of two such proposals happening in Chicago; one of the proposed projects is under construction but was modified prior to approval to have only four-bedroom apartments.

How the zoning code regulates occupancy limits in housing

The Chicago zoning code has two definitions (or “defined terms”) that have to be read together to understand how the limitation works.

17-17-0248 Dwelling Unit. One or more rooms arranged, designed or used as independent living quarters for a single household [a defined term, see below]. Buildings with more than one kitchen or more than one set of cooking facilities are deemed to contain multiple dwelling units unless the additional cooking facilities are clearly accessory and not intended to serve additional households.

17-17-0270 Household. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption or guardianship, plus not more than 3 additional persons, all of whom live together as a single housekeeping unit; or one or more handicapped persons, as defined in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, plus not more than 3 additional persons, all of whom live together as a single housekeeping unit.

None of the terms in the household term are themselves defined terms in the zoning code, so a “single housekeeping unit” would take the definition from the “latest edition of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary”, or as interpreted by the zoning administrator.

Most apartments, and especially apartments marketed and used as “co-living” are considered dwelling units. Thus, each apartment can comprise one household and one household can comprise a single housekeeping unit and a single housekeeping unit can comprise an unlimited number of related people and up to three unrelated people.

However, there is an exception that an unlimited number of unrelated “handicapped persons” can live with up to three unrelated people.

Why occupancy limits don’t belong in zoning codes

Occupancy limits based on family relationship and familial status arose when parts of cities were becoming overcrowded during an era of industrialization and moving to cities (urbanization). I’m not going to elucidate this point but direct readers to the history described in “Full house: occupancy standards, normative zoning, and the responses of US cities to changing households” by Amarillys Rodriguez.

Putting occupancy limits in zoning codes instills moral values that are outdated, maintain segregation, and fail to respond to changing norms, family development patterns (think “chosen family” households), and having the choice to decide who one wants to live with. In fact, it may be “virtually impossible to satisfactorily define family, or develop an alternative to the term, in a manner that satisfies the competing
goals of maintaining privacy, allowing freedom of association, and protecting
community ‘character’ (itself a loaded term)” (Sara Bronin, “Zoning by a Thousand Cuts”)

In Nolan Gray’s terms, zoning standards like this are based on “elite norms and heuristics”. (A heuristic is a problem-solving technique used when devising an optimal solution or assessment is impractical.)

Occupancy limits, if there are any, should be based on demonstrated facts that show benefits or pitfalls of numerically limiting who and how many people can live together. A building code that’s based on ensuring occupants’ safety is likely where that can be achieved and regulated; I’ll discuss what the Chicago Building Code has to say about occupancy limits in the next section.

Colorado Governor Polis recently signed a law that strips municipalities of the power to set occupancy limits that aren’t based on reliable information about the safety of the number of people in an apartment.

An excerpt from Colorado House Bill 24-1007; it reads, “(3) a local government shall not limit the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationship. Local governments retain the authority to implement residential occupancy limits based only on: (a) demonstrated health and safety standards, such as international building code standards, fire code regulations, or Colorado department of public health and environment wastewater and water quality standards;”

Chicago building code sets a kind of occupancy limit

If Chicago – or Illinois – were to adopt a law similar to Colorado’s the existing Chicago Building Code would regulate the design of an apartment. It does not set a maximum, though.

Jamin Nollsch, a senior architect at UrbanWorks who analyzed the code on my behalf, said “For the purposes of discussion, the Chicago Building Code says that at least eight people could occupy a 1,000 sf apartment. The code commentary makes it clear that the 125 s.f. per occupant load factor for apartments is a design mechanism for the egress system, and not an absolute maximum.

“There are many code sections that set limits on the occupant load of an apartment, whether it is the 7 s.f. per occupant limit, or 10 occupants for spaces with 1 exit, or the width of the egress doors. The occupant load factor, however, is intended to be a design factor and not a maximum. With approval from the building official, the maximum number of occupants can be as high as the egress design allows.”

In other words, if an apartment can be designed with a sufficient number or size or type of exiting paths, there is not really a limit to the number of people who the building code indicates could safely occupy the apartment.

Do you think the Chicago zoning ordinance should be amended to defer to the building code in setting occupancy limits?