Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends rezoning at 831 South Washington to R‑3; variances discussed with off‑site parking condition
Summary
The commission recommended rezoning 831 South Washington from R‑1 to R‑3 and discussed major variances; commissioners asked the applicant to secure off‑site parking or formalize acquisition/lease arrangements before variances are finalized.
The Kankakee City Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve a map amendment to rezone 831 South Washington Avenue from R‑1 single‑family residential to R‑3 multifamily residential.
Applicant Julio Munoz (represented by Elizabeth Barbosa) told the commission he purchased the property from the land bank to rehabilitate it and rent units. Staff and commissioners expressed concerns about on‑site parking: the existing lot includes a double garage and a gravel area that historically was used for parking, but the space is tight and may only accommodate two off‑street vehicles without paving or acquisition of adjacent city‑owned property.
Commission discussion focused on the parking constraints and on requiring the applicant to demonstrate a legal arrangement for off‑site parking if the variances are to be approved. Staff noted the city typically does not retain vacant lots long‑term and that an agreement could take the form of a purchase or lease. One commissioner suggested continuing the hearing until the applicant secured a parking arrangement; the applicant and his representative preferred to proceed if the commission would condition variances on procuring parking.
The motion to recommend rezoning to R‑3 and to attach the findings in the staff packet was moved by Deb Terrell, seconded by Jose Arturo Barajas, and carried on roll call. Commissioners discussed that variances for setbacks and parking could include a condition that the applicant procure off‑site parking (paved within the code‑specified distance) or acquire the adjacent lot; staff said paving would be required if parking were on the applicant’s property.
The applicant agreed to the condition to procure parking. The commission left the variances subject to the condition that an off‑site or otherwise lawful on‑site parking arrangement be secured; the transcript indicates the applicant elected to proceed under that condition rather than continue the hearing.
