Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincolnwood weighs code changes, TIF options and administrative rules to ease industrial‑district parking
Summary
Staff presented four options to address stacked and tandem parking in the MB (industrial) zoning district: enforcement/facilitation, targeted off‑street parking using capital/TIF funds, shared‑parking/tax amendments, and an administrative approval pathway (valet‑style criteria). The board directed staff to survey affected businesses and pursue option 4 with exploration of option 2.
The Committee of the Whole reviewed recurring parking and circulation problems in Lincolnwood’s MB zoning areas on Jan. 6 and gave staff direction to pursue targeted outreach and draft regulatory language.
Community Development Director Patrick Ainsworth told trustees staff observed tandem and triple‑stacked parking in both the Northeast Industrial District (NEID) and the Lincoln Devon area, which in some locations reduces truck access, increases on‑street parking and creates visibility concerns. Ainsworth said 2024 observations found roughly 110 municipally observed utilized spaces (about 46% utilization) and recent observations found about 130 spaces used (about 56% utilization); staff also noted approximately 50 stacked vehicles in the NEID area.
Staff presented four options: (1) an enforcement/facilitation approach to bring nonconforming properties into compliance, (2) pursue off‑street spaces at alternative sites (including potential use of TIF funds or an unimproved Arthur Avenue right‑of‑way), (3) amend shared‑parking tax‑amendment distances and recorded covenants, and (4) an administrative approval pathway with safety and operational criteria (a process similar in concept to valet‑parking administrative reviews) to allow stacked parking under defined conditions.
Trustees raised fiscal and practical concerns. Several asked staff to survey affected businesses about employee counts, parking practices and growth plans before pursuing capital expenditures. One trustee questioned using TIF funds without a demonstrated need; staff replied there may be roughly $3 million–$4 million remaining in the relevant TIF, but the exact balance should be confirmed in financial records.
Trustees and staff emphasized safety and fire access as a primary constraint: any approach that allows stacked parking would need review and buy‑in from police, fire and public works to ensure egress, loading and emergency access are preserved. Staff recommended peer review of draft administrative criteria by PD, fire, PW and the village attorney before taking language to the plan commission.
Next steps: The board asked staff to inventory and survey businesses with observed parking issues, refine option 4 criteria with departmental peer review, and continue to explore option 2 (off‑street sites) as a potential capital project. Staff will return to the plan commission and the board with proposed code language and recommendations.
