Greater Rockwell Organization(GRO) members showed support for downsizing an area of their community in an advisory vote taken Tuesday, May 7. Vote tallies showed 85 residents in favor of changing the zoning from R-4 to R-3, compared to 36 in opposition and one abstaining vote.
Those voting had to prove residence within the affected community, which is bounded by Lawrence Ave., the Chicago River, the CTA tracks, and Western Ave.
GRO replaced their normal meeting with the vote in order to “take the temperature of the community,” according to Lars Gingery, president of GRO. Ald. Gene Schulter (47th) attended the meeting which included an explanation by Eileen Lunkes of the Alderman’s office of the differences in the R-3 and R-4 zoning regulation. Now that the community has voted, Schulter will initiate the process of getting the area downzoned. In order for that to become a reality, it will have to be approved by the full city council.
In Schulter’s address at the beginning of the meeting, he spoke of how zoning regulations can “give the power back to the community in regards to land use.” Schulter was adamant that this would be a community decision. “All I can do is give you the best facts in the world so you can make your own decisions.”
The downzoning vote was preceded by a lively and lengthy debate of the issue. Those in favor of downzoning often spoke of increased density issues, parking problems and worries about single family homes being replaced with condo developments which would tower over other residences and not allow for much green space. “I don’t see any way more density will benefit the neighborhood,” is how resident Abbey Bokin summed up his opinion. Another resident who described himself as “one of the evil condo dwellers,” stated that despite his status as a condo owner he would vote for the downzoning and spoke of the increasing parking problems in the area. Many residents agreed that they had a right to set limits within their own community for the good of their neighborhood.
Those who were opposed to the change worried over the loss of their individual rights in regard to property. “This is a society based on individualism,” argued resident Peter Garbis. Garbis is a native of the community and wanted to know if the downzoning would affect his hopes of expanding the three-flat currently occupied by members of his family. In this case, Lunkes explained that it would require weighing a variety of factors, including the amount of living space currently in the building, to decide whether expansion would be within the parameters of the R-3 zoning. Joshua Surgal, resident and owner of a single family home, said that he felt the downzoning was unfair to other owners like him. “Small single family homes are in the minority,” he stated. “It seems like a punishment.”
R-3 and R-4 zoning uses a formula involving the amount of living space allowable on a city lot. Using a standard city lot size as an example, R-4, the zoning currently in place, would allow three residences on one lot, and also a basement residence if that basement is at least 50% below ground. Due to the increased square footage of living space allowable under R-4, builders can build farther back on the lot, leaving only the minimum required 30 ft. of non-residential space in back. This 30 ft. minimum exists in both R-3 and R-4 zoning.
R-3, the proposed zoning, involves a minimum square footage per residence which on a standard city lot only allows for a single dwelling construction. The downzoning would only affect currently standing buildings if the owner decides to do a complete teardown. In this case, the rebuild would have to be done under the new zoning rules. However, in case of a loss due to fire, or in the case of remodeling or expanding, the owner would be able to rebuild under the old zoning code.
When an area is downzoned, existing structures are not required to meet the new codes. Linkes stressed, however, that in the case of those having unregistered basement apartments, those apartments would not be legal under the new zoning. Also discussed at the meeting was the possibility that proposed changes to the zoning code in Chicago could allow for other alternatives to the existing R-3 and R-4 options. The code has not been changed since 1957.
Printable Version