Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates simpler lot-coverage rules and impervious-surface caps
Summary
Kankakee City planning staff presented analyses and peer comparisons and the board discussed moving from 'buildable area' calculations to a simpler footprint/impervious-surface cap (examples included 50% for new development or 55% total). No ordinance change was adopted; staff will prepare redlines for future hearings.
On Feb. 10 the Kankakee City Planning Board spent an extended portion of its meeting discussing proposed changes to lot-coverage and accessory-structure regulations. Staff presented an analysis comparing current allowances, random lot samples across wards, and peer-community approaches (examples cited included Mantina, Bourbonnais and Belvedere).
Staff explained the current code separates principal building footprint allowances (e.g., 50% buildable area) and accessory-structure allowances (typically 25%), and itemizes some exemptions (decks, patios, sheds up to a specified size). That structure, staff said, can allow a property to accumulate high overall impervious coverage through multiple separate permits. The planner said a simpler approach — a single total impervious-surface percentage for lots, with grandfathering for legal nonconforming properties — would reduce complexity for staff and residents. Board members discussed several options, including a 55% total impervious cap advocated by one member and the idea of keeping separate principal and accessory limits to control house size.
Board members raised recurring implementation issues: how to measure coverage reliably (aerial imagery versus plats of survey), the treatment of legal nonconforming properties (current code allows maintenance but not expansion), the potential for owners to add multiple small accessory structures over time, and whether a phased compliance period should be provided so owners could avoid immediate enforcement. Staff said it will produce redlined ordinance language for further discussion at future meetings and suggested at least one more meeting to refine details.
No formal vote was taken on ordinance language at this meeting; the discussion will continue as staff prepares draft amendments.
