Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
Has anybody read the new TOD ordinance submitted by Emanuel?
I"m not very good at deciphering zoning code, but my understanding is that it will allow higher densities & lower parking ratios within 600' of all L stations. Not sure if it's just L stations or L and Metra stations as well.
In addition, I hear that it also essentially enforces pedestrian street guidelines (ie all buildings must abut the sidewalk) within that radius as well. That would be nice to see, as I think the city should put a stop to strip mall development altogether near rail stops. I'm looking at you, North & Clybourn!
|
No. This does not change or expand pedestrian street designations; it just gives the property owners within existing pedestrian areas greater rights (more FAR, less required parking) if they happen to be within 1200' of a rail station. However, for non-residential uses it essentially eliminates parking requirements within the radius, so it should reduce strip malls, but it won't stop the scourge of drugstores and drive-thru banks that insist on off-street parking.
For example, that recent vague proposal at Clark/Belmont is within the 1200' radius on a pedestrian street and is zoned in a dash-3 district. The area is 18000 ft^2 and the frontage is 150'.
Clark/Belmont Site (NW Corner)
Existing Zoning Rights:
45 units OR 60 efficiency units
FAR 3.0
65' height limit (~6 stories)
1 parking space per dwelling unit
0.5 bike parking spaces per auto parking spaces
Future Zoning Rights:
60 units OR 90 efficiency units
FAR 3.5
75' height limit (~7 stories)
1 bike parking space per
eliminated auto parking space
0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit
There are some clever provisions in the plan; developers can't get the increased FAR without also decreasing parking, so this should cut back on garages, rear parking lots, and podiums. Since a lot of NIMBY opposition revolves around parking and traffic, this should placate them to some extent. The 600' or 1200' radius is measured from the station entrance to the primary building entrance, so in some cases this may cause architects to move building entrances and developers to fund auxiliary station entrances. To the extent that this reduces walking distances and makes neighborhoods more livable, that's a good thing.
Unfortunately any developer seeking to increase FAR must go through the PD process and any developer seeking to eliminate nonresidential parking must notify their alderman, so there are still plenty of opportunities for NIMBY influence to creep in.