First, I would like to correct some mistaken impressions I conveyed in my last report. Members of the Housing, Planning and Student commissions who also serve on this committee have indicated that they will speak their own minds and not just report the views expressed by their respective commissions. Also, I had mistakenly believed that the meeting following this one (on the 28th) would NOT take up modifications to property as originally planned because of last minute requests for information on this topic. In fact, that was the topic taken up at the following meeting. Now, regarding the meeting of January 28th:

As noted in my last report, much of this meeting was taken up with the examination of maps that were given to us on the 28th. In the article on this matter that I wrote for the “Bailey Newsletter,” I noted that the Non Conforming Use Committee would be advancing its recommendations at the same time that the Planning Commission was discussing the new Comp Plan. This strikes me as unfortunate, because the committee’s recommendations might conflict with that eventual plan, which will probably not be finalized, and after forums for public input, until next Fall. However, the committee’s recommendations would influence the new Comp Plan.

You can see from the synopsis of the meeting provided that there was discussion at the meeting of the 28th about zoning matters. The crux of this was that certain types of modifications to single family rentals, or certain types of uses might be made ‘conforming’ in certain sections of the city by some form of rezoning. Right now, it is not legal for a non conforming rental house to add on to its house in any way (which is what some landlords want to do). So in this discussion, we considered the possibility that zones or mechanisms might be created where such additions could be made to what are now non conforming rentals, but not in other areas (perhaps those were more non rental houses, for example). In other words, some form of rezoning would make these rental houses ‘conforming.’ (Currently, you can add onto rental houses in RM32 zones, but not in areas zoned for single family.) This would constitute a compromise between those who did not want non conforming rentals to be have such modifications and those who do. This discussion was abstract, and there was no discussion of particular places/blocks where this would occur.

For me it is unfortunate that this matter precedes the finalization of the new Comp Plan, because it concerns possible rezonings of parts of the city that may conflict with the Comp Plan. Looking at the map of ‘future land use’ provided us, for example, the area between Bailey, Ann, and the alley to the west of Kedzie is shown to have up to 16 units/acre. So is the area along Grove street up to Linden. Images for these areas projected to have densities of R3 or R4 level show various types of apartments and townhouses. Currently these areas consist primarily of single-family homes.

I would hope the BCA board and members of the neighborhood seriously consider whether these types of serious upzoning (going from single-family to apartments) are desirable goals for the neighborhood. But most certainly they conflict with the idea of prolonging the use of single-family house rentals in such areas, which would overall have much lower densities/acre than these maps call for. In addition, if landlords are able to add to their houses (with second stories or new wings to their houses, for example), their properties will increase in value. That is a point landlords use in advocating for making such changes. That will increase property taxes, but not nearly as much as the building of apartments or townhouses. In addition, it will make it more expensive and more difficult for anyone seeking to assemble property to redevelop blocks (which is what these maps call for). If the rental houses bring in more income, their owners will be more reluctant to sell.

However, committee discussions have not taken up these potential conflicts with the comp plan. Certainly, I personally do not agree to some of the changes in density shown on the ‘future land use maps.’ But I find it unsettling to be considering making recommendations that may be at odds with these future land use proposals.