Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Small Lot Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission recommends rezoning two small parcels to R‑2 but denies lot‑size variance and requires paved parking

5965034 · September 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission recommended rezoning two small parcels from R‑1 to R‑2 but denied a variance that would allow two‑family development on undersized lots, approved certain setback relief, and required two paved parking spaces per lot.

The Kankakee City Planning Commission voted to recommend rezoning two small parcels from R‑1 single‑family to R‑2 two‑family residential but denied a requested variance to allow two family dwellings on lots smaller than the R‑2 minimum lot area.

Staff described the site context: lots are roughly 3,000 square feet, many neighboring buildings are multiunit, and existing parking is either on‑street or on a gravel strip along the alley. Planning staff recommended approval of rezoning to R‑2 but noted that the R‑2 code requires 6,000 square feet to build a two‑family dwelling; parcels under 6,000 square feet are limited to a single unit unless a separate minimum‑lot‑area variance is granted.

On the motions: the commission voted to recommend rezoning to R‑2 but to allow the structures to be used as single‑family units given the lot constraints. A separate motion to deny the lot‑size variance (the request to allow two‑family development despite the minimum lot area requirement) passed by roll call. Commissioners approved relief for rear yard setbacks as requested, with the proviso that each property provide two paved on‑site parking spaces; because the parking variance was effectively denied, the parties must provide the on‑site paved parking required by code.

Commissioners expressed concern about emergency access and the feasibility of parking and noted that denial of the lot‑size variance could affect purchasers who had offers contingent on two‑unit use. A planning staff member said the denied lot‑size variance would be consistent with the zoning code’s intent to limit two‑unit development on very small lots.

Recorded votes: rezoning recommendation carried (roll call recorded yes votes), the motion to deny the minimum lot‑size variance carried (yes votes by roll call), rear‑yard setback relief was approved, and the commission required two paved parking spaces per lot as the parking solution.