Text of the Zoning Code Amendments
What follows are the relevant portions of the actual amendments to the zoning code that would severely restrict new construction of townhouses and apartments in River Forest. The specific language that will produce this effective is highlighted in yellow. Provisions that the amendments would delete from the zoning code are struckthrough. Commentary is in red.
For an amendment that threatens the right of all homeowners to restore their property after it is damaged by fire other other disaster, click here.
To provide perspective, an acre is 43,560 square feet. There are 640 acres in a square mile. In 1987, River Forest's zoning for single–family detached houses allowed five units per acre. A typical block in River Forest is 660 feet long.
Section 10–19–2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. No development of twenty thousand square feet or more of land area or gross floor area and no multi–family housing of any size shall per permitted unless approved as a planned development in accordance with this chapter.…
The reconstruction of any existing multi–family housing which is damaged to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of its value shall be governed by this chapter and not section 10–5–7(A)(3).
River Forest's current zoning allows apartments and townhouses as permitted uses — they do not require special approval or a public hearing — in the R3, R4, C2, and C3 districts as long as they meet the objective criteria in the zoning code. This is the normal, legal way to provide for multifamily housing. These amendments take away this status and require special approval even if a developer wishes to build a two–flat on a single lot. The planned development zoning tool was created for multiple–lot development, not single lots. The kicker is the requirements imposed under “Standards for Review” that will effectively prohibit new construction of townhouses and apartments.
Section 10–19–3: STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
O. Except as provided in section 10–19–4(B), no planned development containing multi–family housing shall be approved unless the following standards are met:
1. At least 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit are provided for. This requirement may be met by a contract, easement or other devise providing permanent rights to off–site parking; and
This requirement is excessive. To require so many off–street parking spaces, even for an efficiency or one–bedroom apartment, is illegally arbitrary and capricious. The number of parking spaces required is supposed to be based on the number of cars a dwelling unit is likely to produce — normally based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. Currently River Forest requires just 2 off–street parking spaces for single–family detached houses, even though they are known to generate more demand for parking that multifamily housing does. And River Forest now requires off–street parking for multifamily housing based on the number of bedrooms. Why change this to an arbitrary and unsupportable number?
2. The proposed development will not increase the total number of multi–family housing units in the Village, and;
This is the blatantly illegal limit on townhouses and apartments. It requires a developer to tear down the same number of units she wishes to build. No city has ever done this. While a town can indirectly limit the amount of multifamily housing by how much land is zoned for it and what the allowable densities are, a village cannot legally set a fixed cap on the number of multifamily dwelling units. It is almost certainly a violation of the “due process” clauses of the U.S. and Illinois constitutions and a violation of the nation’s Fair Housing Act.
3. No less than twenty–eight hundred square feet of land area shall be provided for each residential unit. A parking area which meets the requirements of paragraph one may be used in meeting this requirement, and;
This new minimum lot area per dwelling unit reduces the density allowed to 15 acres per unit in the R4 and C3 districts which currently allow 20 units per acre. In the past, the Village allowed as many as 50 units per acre. Very small areas of the Village allow multifamily housing. By further reducing the density allowed, these amendments guarantee than multifamily housing that is built (if any), will have to be very expensive since a developer could not build very many units under the lowered density limits.
4. One of the following criteria is met:
5. The requirements of this subsection O may be met using more than one site within the Village and as part of a master plan submitted by the applicant with the application.
Section 10–19–4: SITE DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCES
B. The following are examples of allowances which may be considered at the sole discretion of the Village Board:
Floor area ratio may be increased if all or part of the required parking is indoors, covered or underground.
Maximum allowable height may be increased if the increase is directly related to a reduction in the intensity of lot usage, thus providing additional open space.
Front, side and rear yards may be reduced if the applicant demonstrates that the effects of the reduction will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Parking requirements may be reduced.
Parking requirements may be reduced if the applicant demonstrates that public transportation will substantially reduce the number of vehicles required to service the project.
No explanation has been given why these forms of relief from strict application of the zoning code are being deleted. This is a shame because item 5 showed really good common sense and planning practice.
B. A site development allowance permitting a building height and/or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to thirty percent (30%) greater than permitted by the underlying zoning district regulations shall be granted any planned development containing multi–family housing if the criteria set forth in section 10–19–3(O) are met. A site development allowance exceeding these limits may be granted any planned development containing multi–family housing if the criteria set forth in section 10–19–3(O) are met.
This is the original “new” paragraph B was to be added, but we don't know what the ZBA decided. So what you see above may have been changed. There was some debate over the word “shall” when we left the ZBA meeting. The bottom line, though, is that no development allowances (variations from the strict letter of the zoning code) are allowed unless the proposed development meets the criteria set forth in section 10–19–3(O) — that the section that prohibits any multifamily development unless the developer also demolishes existing multifamily housing.
C. A site development allowance may be granted from the requirements set for in section 10–19–3(O) for any planned development containing multi–family housing which replaces an existing structure containing multi–family housing.
Section 10–5–7: NONCONFORMITIES
A. Nonconforming Buildings and Structures
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in this section establish that when a building that does not conform to the current zoning code in all respects is damaged, it must be repaired or replaced in full compliance with the current zoning code. Currently these provisions kick in when 60% of a property's value is destroyed by fire, explosion or act of God or the public enemy. The amendments to these paragraphs reduce that threshold to 50% (Village President Frank Paris had proposed reducing it to only 40%). Village officials concede that there probably isn't a residential property of any type built 20 or more years ago that complies with the Village's current zoning. Consequently, the proposed amendments to this section will increase the number of homeowners whose property is damaged who will not be able to restore their homes to their pre–damage condition. It may even require you to tear down your home and move the foundation. In the case of multifamily dwellings, it could force some condo owners to leave River Forest because it could prohibit rebuilding their units. See the discussion on the home page for details.
