Itasca board reviews transit-oriented downtown zoning updates, flags state parking law implications

The Itasca Village Board heard a detailed presentation Nov. 18 on proposed zoning changes intended to encourage development and better connect the downtown to the Metro station.

Todd Benadilock, the urban planning consultant leading the project, told the board the grant-funded study—supported by the Regional Transportation Authority—focuses on a quarter- to half-mile area around the station and proposes updates to district maps, permitted uses and design standards to make downtown more walkable and transit-friendly. Benadilock said public engagement has included stakeholder interviews, an online comment map and a 178-response community survey.

The consultant summarized key survey findings: about 58% of respondents supported more housing downtown, but preferences skewed toward lower-density housing such as single-family homes and townhomes; apartments received the least support (about 33%). Respondents also cited parking, preservation of Itasca—s character and pedestrian/bike safety as recurring concerns.

Benadilock proposed consolidating six business districts into three, creating a new B1 downtown TOD district, and setting the B1 maximum building height at five stories or 65 feet. He also described potential parking-policy changes for development within the transit radius, including allowing reductions of up to 50% in parking requirements for projects within a half mile of the station.

Board members pressed the consultant about how to preserve the downtown—s look if the floor area ratio (FAR) metric were removed; Benadilock suggested that building height, setbacks, frontage and percent open space can provide comparable form controls. Several trustees asked to table proposed changes affecting R1 single-family districts and to consider shrinking the study boundary to better protect single-family parcels that currently fall inside the TOD study area.

The presentation touched repeatedly on recent state-level changes. Robert Morris, principal analyst with the RTA, briefed the board on a transit bill that the House and Senate had approved in Springfield but not yet signed into law. "What this new bill says is that a municipality does not have the legal authority any longer to require a parking minimum within that half mile area," Morris said, but he added municipalities may still adopt parking maximums and developers may choose how many spaces to provide.

Trustees asked whether the law would affect accessible parking requirements; Morris and staff clarified the bill addresses parking minimums for new development and does not eliminate ADA or other required accessibility spaces. Trustees voiced concern that removing local authority on parking will shift the parking-management burden to the village and could complicate potential redevelopment of village-owned lots that currently serve as Metro parking.

Benadilock and staff noted the parking figures shown in the presentation were visual estimates rather than a formal parking study. The consultant also recommended next steps: incorporate board feedback into draft ordinance language, present revisions to the Planning and Historical Commissions and schedule public hearings and a final adoption vote.

The board did not take final action on the zoning amendments at the meeting; trustees asked staff to provide the survey and comment-map transcripts and to return with revised draft language that clarifies which residential blocks would be carved out of any new TOD rules.