Welcome to the code and regulation uh committee meeting uh for Monday, April 27th.

Um we have a 20 items on the agenda.

So uh clerk, would you please call the roll?

Here thank you.

Under committee reports, item one is North Court Street and Whitman Street, traffic commission recommends approval to establish a no parking any time except paratransit restriction on the west side of North Court Street from 318 feet north of Whitman Street to 348 feet north of Whitman Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Any questions or comments on item one?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item two is the final plat of Bell School Crossing Subdivision located at 73 XX East Riverside Boulevard.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item two?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item three is 2530, 2710, and 2720 South Main Street.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a special use permit for planned unit development for an RV and fifth wheel only community in an R1 single family residential zoning district at 2530 2710 and 2720 South Main Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So I'll second.

Alderwoman Torina.

Yes.

Um this does reside in my ward.

Um I would like to make a motion to lay this item over, please.

Um I have a lot of concerns with this one, especially after listening to uh public comments at zoning.

So I just want to make sure that I do thorough due diligence before making any decisions on this one.

So thank you.

Second.

Um so we have a motion to lay over and a second.

Um I agree the testimony at um at um ZBA was compelling, but I do want to just note for the record that um on everybody on all of the aldermen's desks is um a uh copy of the voluntary relocation assistance program um that was sent to me by the attorney for the property owner today, and um it was uh I believe there were no specifics given at ZBA on what that would look like, and so now you have that to consider um assuming this gets laid over.

Any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over?

Uh seeing none, uh clerk will you call the roll?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Aye.

Thank you.

So item three is laid over.

Item four, twenty or thirty-seven thirty-two oh seven, North Main Street.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial for a variation to decrease the minimum side yard setback for a covered entrance from six feet to one foot in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 3207 North Main Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item four?

Okay.

So voting to just to remind everybody, voting yes means you are supporting the recommendation from the zoning board of appeals for denial.

Um those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item five, 3321 Integrity Drive.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a zoning map amendment from C3 General Commercial Zoning District and I 1 light industrial zoning district to I3 airport industrial zoning district at 3321 Integrity Drive.

Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Are there any questions or comments on item five?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 6, 515 South Alpine Road, Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial for a special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of four four-unit buildings and two eight-unit buildings in an R1 single-family residential zoning district at 515 South Alpine Road.

Is there a motion to approve second?

Are there any questions or comments on item six?

Alderwoman Trina.

Thank you.

This particular item did come through as a city staff recommendation.

So I'm just letting you know I will be voting no on this one.

However, Mr.

Cobbville, can you tell me what the vote was?

I don't I was there, but I don't remember what the tally was.

There was uh four people that voted against it and two that voted for it.

Okay.

That was no abstentions on that one.

No.

Okay.

I believe there was one ZBA member absent, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Alderman Beach.

Uh thank you for me to speak on your committee.

Um I know there's been a lot of discussion, at least emails and so forth, uh, against this project.

Um but I sense there might be some way uh for some compromise here.

And I before we completely throw it away, I'd like to at least discuss some of those possibilities, or if not, to allow it to lay over so we can meet with uh the developer uh meet with engineers and other things to see whether there is a way uh to come up with a compromise.

So that would be my thoughts, Mr.

Chairman, if that's at all possible.

Thank you, Alderman Beach.

Any other questions or comments?

Um I'm gonna be voting in favor of the zoning board recommendation uh for denial.

I uh spoke against this at the ZBA.

Um it borders the 14th ward, it's the 14th ward on the opposite side of Alpine, and I don't want to um belabor most of the points that I made there, but I think that um the neighbors, some of whom are in 14th ward and most of whom are in Alderman Beach's ward in the 10th ward, um, have valid concerns about the um possible uh detriment to their investments in their homes if uh multifamily is allowed to be constructed on uh parcel of land that is essentially surrounded on three sides by parkland and um and then that park land and the the remaining side of this parcel by single family housing.

The property owner that when whenever purchased this property uh knew or should have known that it was zoned for single family construction for single-family homes, and there's no automatic right to instead develop it as multifamily.

That's why it is before us, and that's why you know presumably the ZBA recommendation is what it is, and I just um really um in defense of the property owners who spoke against it, um, really take exception with the ZBA chairman um NIMBY shaming them and talking about uh how they don't have the right for their neighborhood to remain under glass and that because the city needs more housing that they should just have to accept that.

And I think that is the wrong way to go about addressing our housing shortage, and so I am gonna be voting in favor of the ZBA recommendation.

Alderman Toonberg.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak on your committee.

Uh has there been any talk of a modification of this proposal in the meantime since uh the ZBA's recommendation for denial?

I I just know that sometimes that there are uh cases where developers will come back with a modification.

I'm not aware of any, but I think that that's what Alderman Beach is alluding to.

And so maybe if Almond Beach wants to address that, and then maybe staff.

I had thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Alderman Toomer, I had uh place to call to one of the engineers in response to his call to me, and we've not been able to um connect.

Um but um I sense there was a willingness to perhaps look at some other alternatives there.

And I thought before it just went away, we should do that.

Now, if it's not going to go away, then I would be supporting the denial is the way it sits right now.

But on the other hand, you and I have been around here long enough to know that sometimes when you get a denial like this, there are other modifications that come up for people to look at.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm just saying that uh in fairness to the developer, I'd like to give them a chance to have that discussion.

Thank you.

Can Mr.

Capavilla address that and then I'll go back to you, Alderman Toomberg, and then to Alderman Terina.

Okay, Mr.

Chair.

So there wasn't a an email that I did receive saying that there was going to be consideration to possibly change it.

It was recommended by one of the um board members that he might be in favor of it if the two eight families became four families like the other four that were proposed.

And um so they were considering that.

Now, if they've reached out to you, Alderman Beach, then I think that's a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Alderman Thunberg.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yeah, I know it's uh it's kind of a balancing act.

We obviously want to see more development, housing development in our city, uh, but we want to see it done smartly, of course.

Um just would it be would it be an easier process to have something like this laid over for I'm not on the committee, but would it be uh easier to have it laid over for them to the developer to possibly propose something in the meantime or just continue ahead as so I would I would recommend that Alderman Beach have those conversations between now and next week when this comes to council, and then if it looks like there's more work to be done to lay it over when it gets to council next week versus to lay it over now.

But that's just me.

Alder Woman Trina, did you?

Yes.

Uh I would like for Mr.

Capavilla to explain why staff felt like this was a smart decision and ZBA did not.

Please.

So this this land has been sitting there with just one single family home on like a six-acre site.

Um I don't want to say it seems like a waste of land, but it's all surrounded by park to the west, north, and to the east, and to the south, we have a commercial area and single family.

Uh we looked at it as a a good infill site uh that could develop and provide housing, which is desperately needed in the city and it would create that middle housing that we keep talking about that's missing in the city.

Uh also as a part of our future land use plan, we did designate this area for medium density residential.

Now that does not, I'm gonna say right now it does not show up on the staff's recommendation because that was written written a couple months ago before we adopted that, so we have it listed as to what it was actually listed under before, which was uh quasi public at the time.

I think that was they were there was a possibility that people were thinking that this might be acquired by the city or the park district at some time, but it was not.

So but we were happy with the designs of the buildings, uh, the layout, uh they're building a private road, but it would be built to public standards, and they were providing necessary pedestrian access north and south so that people can use a sidewalk to get down to Larson and provide sidewalks on Larson as well.

Um so overall we thought it was a good fit, uh that especially with the townhomes that that were being proposed for that area.

I actually would ask uh Mr.

Capaville one other question too, that I don't believe came up with ZBA.

So I assume as a neighbor as a neighboring contiguous property owner that the park district was notified of this.

Has the park district indicated any support or opposition to this or communicated with us at all?

Uh no, they usually they don't object to anything like this or take any stances.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments on item six?

So in this case, again, uh a yes vote is to is to oppose the development, and a no vote is to support it.

Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Yes.

No.

Aye.

No.

No.

So motion fails.

Legal?

I know that I knew this was coming.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um in this situation, um, because there's findings of fact associated with CBA's recommendation, I would recommend uh reversing ZBA's decision and adopting findings of fact associated with approving this application.

Sure.

And but to clarify, that does not reverse the requirement at council of a two-thirds majority vote because of the ZBA recommendation, correct?

That's correct.

So when this gets to council, it would need 10 votes to pass.

The ordinance would.

That's correct.

The ordinance would.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

Does someone want to make that motion to reverse the ZBA recommendation?

I'll make the motion to reverse the recommendation.

Aye.

Motion and a second uh to reverse the ZBA recommendation.

Can you call the roll clerk, please?

Bonnie.

No.

Karina?

Aye.

Frankie?

Wilkins?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Okay, item seven is 1320 21st Avenue.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a variation to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 9 feet.

And then R2 single and an R2 2 family residential zoning district at 1320 21st Avenue.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item 7?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item eight.

730 and 7x Lincoln Park Boulevard.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of a working farm and education center with pole barns for community meeting place and equipment storage.

Two 30 by 90 feet foot passive solar greenhouses, a storage shed, a gazebo, and a gravel parking area and gravel driveway and an R1 single family residential zoning district at 7.30 and 7XX Lincoln Park Boulevard.

Is our motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments?

An item eight.

I just have a comment.

I I really reading this before meeting the plaintiffs, you get a very different viewpoint of what this actually is going to be.

But they're conservationists that are taking land that ultimately would just probably be dumped on and nothing happened to, and making it like this prairie and just promoting the love of nature and it doesn't want I can't even use the terms, the right terminology, but I love the use of this, so I'm happy to support this item.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on item eight?

Uh seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item nine, two fifteen, three twenty-five, and four twenty-three South Madison Street.

Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a zoning map amendment from I-1, Light Industrial Zoning District to C4, Urban Mixed Mixed Use Zoning District at 2015 325 and 423 South Madison Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item 9?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 10, 818 6th Street.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products and the sale of packaged liquor in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in a C3 General Commercial Zoning District at 818 6th Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item 10?

Elderwoman Torina.

No shocker here.

And so many of these are in highly, highly vulnerable areas.

So I'm not going to be voting yes for this one.

And if you hear me say no for any other ones, it's probably because of where it is.

But this one in particular, um it's definitely going to be a no.

Um but again, it's just because I feel like they're in highly vulnerable areas where we don't do not absolutely need to be adding more liquor or tobacco to further diminish the quality of life for the people in the area.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Can I ask if this is your ward or is this the 11th ward?

11th ward.

Yeah.

Well, I care about the whole city, not just mine.

Um Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Umlerwoman's statement about uh how we we need to figure out a way to uh take a liquor away from our communities, especially those uh and that are vulnerable.

Um there's an item on the agenda later on today in my ward for liquor and tobacco uh approval.

Um I have a question for this specific one though to Mr.

Capavilla.

Um is this an ownership change or is this a new uh business?

It it's an ownership change of an existing business.

And um to Alderman Turina's uh uh comment, or I would like to point out that the last time this came through we saw the police calls and they just skyrocketed from midnight to two in the morning, uh and it was really bad.

And so we had recommended a closing of midnight.

Uh the owner did not like that, but he agreed to it.

Um the same thing was brought up this past Tuesday, uh, where the owner said no, I want to be open until 2 a.m.

and we said no, we were gonna stick with the 12 a.m.

closing time for liquor sales because it's proven that it had reduced the number of police calls.

So I just want to point that out.

I'd love to uh know kind of a map of uh, and this is big project.

We can work on this offline, of course, but um uh at least in my ward, well, I'd like to know what uh businesses that sell liquor are required to close at midnight and or at 1 a.m.

or 2 a.m.

Um compared you know from west side to maybe east side.

So we'll we'll work on that.

Um would love to get that list just to compare um uh how the city has uh limited the time in which a business can sell liquor, um, and and for what reasons.

I won't we'll work on that though, Mr.

Capavilla.

Thank you.

Um may I ask if the alderman for the ward has an opinion on this so uh from my opinion at this point in time, so it is an establishment already there.

I'm continue to go and support this on this direction.

Um, there are some um underlying issues there within that area.

We got Carpenter's Place, which is right around the corner.

Um, so yes, there is a lot there where there is some you know congregation um from that perspective, which you know kind of lures from from that particular site.

However, uh from that perspective, I've have talked to the the owners on that, and they are trying really hard to clean their act, and they understand that some of the um patriots that go there are have some potential issues with alcohol use from that perspective.

So from my standpoint, uh it is an existing business that's just renewing and getting the the license to continue to operate um causing potentially closure for this to happen potentially uh huge revenue losses, uh building vacant building there, just gonna add more to to that site.

So from my perspective at this point in time, and I do encourage uh Mr.

Capavilia's uh comments um restricting them on certain time limits in order to reduce some of the calls that occur there.

So that is that is my opinion, my comment.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments on item nine or ten rather?

Seeing uh seeing none, uh clerk, could we have a roll call vote on this one?

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries item 11, 2975 North Perryville Road.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with the gas station and convenience store in a C to limited commercial zoning district at 2975 North Perryville Road.

Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Are there any questions or comments on item 11?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 12, 2914, West State Street Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of packaged liquor, class PKG, and the sale sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in an I-1 light industrial zoning district at 2914 West State Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So are there any questions or comments on item 12?

Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um Mr.

Capavilla, can you confirm that this is an ownership change, please?

It is an ownership change, yes.

So this uh property, whale gas station in the 13th ward.

Um if you go from Johnston to Pierpont, there's there are three or four different liquor tobacco shops, all in a five block radius.

Um this has been here for a while.

I have uh great relationship with the current owner.

I know that they are selling it.

Um I I'd like to, and I've made comments about this uh many many times regarding access to fresh food, specifically in an area that uh is a food desert to say the least, um would love to uh know kind of the process in which to go forth with a condition to um ensure that they have access to to fresh produce uh at least in their groceries section.

I don't know uh if that has been done in the past, but would love to figure out a way to uh put that uh condition on this establishment.

Is that possible?

That's uh interesting uh proposal and I would I think any condition would be possible.

I'm gonna have to actually look I'm looking I'm getting a yes from from the legal director.

So I think we could craft a condition that would meet your concerns.

Would that require us to lay over so that we can look at the verbiage that you present or can we push this forward with the condition and then at council will vote on it?

How would it work?

Either option might be available.

Sure.

I I'd like to make a motion to lay this over.

I'll talk with the owner uh I'm sure he'll buy into this.

Um they seem to want to give back to the community in some capacity.

So I'll make a motion to lay over and I'll have a conversation with the owner on this.

Okay, there's a second.

Um can we have a roll call vote on this on the motion to lay over?

Or is there any question or comment?

Yeah.

Sure.

It's thanks.

There seemed to be a hesitation.

Um I wouldn't use the word extreme, but I think it was uh very anyways.

Um so I think we have to look at right, you have individuals in that corridor who have to walk just say from uh Rockford Ridge down to save a lot to get their groceries.

You have individuals in that corridor who have to walk just say from uh Rockford Ridge down to Save a lot to get their groceries.

Um they oftentimes stop into Waylow gas station halfway to get quick items that that they may need.

Um in going in there, I think that they can do a much better job at providing some type of uh or a better option of fresh food.

Um and so in light of that, I'd like to have a conversation.

So I'd hope that I get you guys' support on this committee to lay it over uh so that I can have the conversation with the owner.

Thank you.

So I would just I guess express the same thing that I did with Alderman Beach's suggestion on the previous layover, which is that you could work on these things with the owner over the course of the week and then lay it over at council instead.

So I am not going to support the layover.

Alderman Bell.

Thank you.

Um with respect to what happened uh, I believe it was in a uh well, it was in this committee.

But I think those are two completely different things.

We're putting a condition on a business in this regard, and so I'd I'd push back a little bit on your comparison there.

So I'd hope that I can get uh enough support to lay this over and we can come back in two weeks and talk about it.

Thank you.

Which you could do at council and get two weeks on the two alderman rule.

Alderman Beach.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I just want to make the comment that oftentimes layovers are needed to clarify.

And uh I asked this evening earlier to lay over so that I could speak to our people to see if we come up with a better deal and denied that privilege.

So I just want to put that on record, okay.

Are there any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over?

Alderman Bell.

Thanks.

I I think just to put it back on the table, we we are voting for uh me as the alderman of the ward to have conversations with the owner to for them to provide access to fresh food in an area that has very little.

Thank you.

Is that actually part of your motion that the committee is directing you to do that, or are we simply laying it over?

Chairman, we're laying it over.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over?

Seeing none, can we have a roll call vote, please?

No.

All right.

Motion carries item 12 is laid over.

Item 13 3523 Auburn Street, liquor and tobacco advisory board of appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products and the sale of packaged liquor, class PKG, and the sale of liquor by the drink, class L50, in conjunction with the liquor store, tavern, and video gaming terminals in a C3 general commercial zoning district at 3523 Auburn Street.

Is there a motion to approve item 13?

Second.

Are there any questions or comments on item 13?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 14, 4225 Charles Street.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of beer and wine by the drink, class WB50 in conjunction with the restaurant and video gaming terminals in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 4225 Charles Street.

Is there a motion to approve item 14?

Second.

Are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 15, 2842 and 28 XX 11th Street and 2845 Kinsey Street.

Liquid and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for a modification of an existing liquor license for a 100% stock purchase in a C3 General Commercial Zoning District and R1 single family zoning district at 2842, 28 XX 11th Street, and 2845 Kinsey Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Second.

Are there any questions or comments on item 15?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 16, 6565 Lexus Drive.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class NGL in conjunction with the restaurant in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 6565 Lexus Drive.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll second.

Are there any questions or comments on item 16?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 17.

2645 20th Street.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a convenience store in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2645 20th Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item 17?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

One no.

Motion carries.

Item 18, 901 West Riverside Boulevard.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class L50 in conjunction with the Tavern and Restaurant and Video Gaming Termination and a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 908 West Riverside Boulevard.

Is there a motion to approve?

Are there any questions or comments on item 19?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 19.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class L50 in conjunction with the restaurant and outdoor seating area in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 6275 East State Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Second.

Are there any questions or comments on item 19?

Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Under our resolution, we have one item.

Proposed resolution establishing minimum standards, performance requirements, and community community benefit obligations for a data center.

So it's my understanding that this proposed resolution has riddled with legal pitfalls, and so before we discuss this, I'm going to ask call on staff to um actually I need a motion to motion to approve first.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll second it.

Thank you.

With that, I I will um I want to uh ask uh administrator Cagnoni to address these um legal concerns with the resolution as well as um walk us through it generally.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um thank you to the aldermen, you know, that reached out to myself, Director Hammer or Mr.

Capaville over the last week just to talk about the legalities of the resolution and some of the existing status related to proposed development.

Um, on understanding that the proposed resolution uh changes a number of the City of Rockford regulations, including our zoning ordinance, our building code, um we cannot circumvent the public process related to the adoption of the resolution as it's currently drafted, understanding that any time that there's a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, it would go through the zoning board of appeals, the public hearing process, and then come before codes and regulations committee, and then um city council for consideration.

Certainly um council has the authority to give uh staff direction to file tax amendments, and should that be the case, we certainly could advance that.

Um additionally, the the building code you know isn't is adopted by ordinance, so it couldn't be circumvented by resolution in the Capital Development Board of the State of Illinois would require us to have a public notice for 30 days so that that could be reviewed and commented on, and that certainly has been our our practice.

Um as a non-home rule community, uh we do not have the authority to go into a community benefits agreement without specific statutory uh authority from the state.

Um that is being discussed as I understand it, and it is in some proposed legislation, but as it currently stands, um it's not authority that we would have.

You know, understanding that the the resolution targets uh specific developer monarch.

Um I thought it was important to probably provide a little bit of of you know backstory as it relates to Monarch and our discussions with them, and certainly willing to answer any questions related to those ongoing discussions.

You know, we we began our communication uh with Monarch at least going back to 2023, um, and it's called Monarch Air for a reason.

Um at the time um Monarch was looking to do a waste-to-fuel waste to aviation fuel um development you know south of the airport.

The hope was to have some synergies with the landfill as well as have the airport as a purchaser of this more environmentally uh friendly um aviation fuel.

Um you know, so we are heavily involved in those conversations, and we certainly had a lot of conversations with our federal delegation related to some of the rules related to tax credits on the establishment uh of such a development.

Unfortunately, that did not come to fruition and that ultimately had uh Monarch pivot to other industrial um developments, and we've you know certainly had lots of conversations with them related to data centers, related to rail yards, related to multiple industrial uses on the property south of the airport.

And there's approximately 1,100 acres that is south of the airport.

Um all that property is zoned general industrial I-2.

Um it was annexed into the city of Rockford between 2008 and 2011.

Um at that point in time, it would have gone through the public hearing process to identify whether I-2 was the appropriate land use for this property.

At the time it was consistent with the then comprehensive plan of the city of Rockford, the 2020 plan, as well as the county's 2030 plan.

Um we had worked directly uh with the Rockford Area Economic Development Council, uh now the Greater Rockford Chamber, in regards to whether this was uh of the appropriate size of the appropriate land use for our ultimate efforts to drive additional investment into the city of Rockford, um, you know, both as it relates to growing the tax base, but as well as you know, creating job opportunities.

Um we've been aligned with the Illinois Economic Development Council that has identified this as a mega site.

Uh we've worked with DCO.

Uh we've done studies with Fairgram as well as studies uh related to market analysis for this property being industrial.

Now the reason I I state all that information is that when the city of Rockford was annexed, annex this property in 2008 and 2011, we did it by means of an annexation agreement.

So an annexation agreement is good for up to 20 years, and the annexation agreements governing these properties are for the full 20 years.

So they are still active in existing annexation agreements.

And because the these are in existence prior to changes related to our zoning ordinance that are being discussed, um, changes in the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted uses would not be applicable to this property.

Um if it's the intent to look at uses on this property, I want to make sure that it's understood that those were decided in 2008 and 2011 when it was zoned I-2.

However, um we recognize the concerns that have been brought forth by the community more recently.

These are very similar to concerns that were brought forward in 2008 and 2011 in regards to how industrial development could impact the surrounding property.

So within those annexation agreements, there are you know certain development standards, such as a 50-foot landscaping buffer adjacent to resonute residential uses and other development standards that would have to be satisfied.

Even with all that said, you know, Mayor McNamare has continued to articulate his uh willingness to have a public meeting in advance of any data center advancing forward.

At this point in time, we don't we don't have an actual data center, uh or at least it has not been relayed to Monarch that they have a data center or a data center developer under contract to advance that project.

But once there is one in place, uh we'd be happy to have that public meeting.

Um, you know, myself, our our zoning team, we've been evaluating best practices um related to data centers, watching what has been taking place in other communities in regards to um you know the type of concerns that we'd want to make sure are addressed and certainly understand how the community could be fully um informed in regards to what would be proposing should there be a data center at that time.

Um, I guess I would mention just one other thing.

You know, you know, previous councils, um, you know, certainly including you know Alderman Beach, uh former Alderman Bill Rose had been advocates of us going after tech industry.

Um, you know, specifically talking about um, you know, microchip manufacturing, understanding that there was an and continues to be a national um shortage in that as a potential opportunity.

We have also had those conversations um on this particular property.

Um, whether any of those opportunities are going to advance, it is unclear at this point in time.

Um certainly I would defer to Angela in regards to the appropriate statutes and legal processes uh related to any amendments to our ordinances, but that would be in a nutshell just a brief explanation of our review of the resolution.

Thank you, Administrator Cagnoni.

Um would the legal director like to add to that at all?

Just briefly, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I did have an opportunity to speak with Alderman Bellate last week about the um limitations on our statutory authority as a non-home rule community.

And so we have engaged in in um the beginnings of those discussions and and discussed how the resolution would need to be revised to stay within those parameters.

And um, as Administrator Cagnoni mentioned the the statutory procedure outlined for changes to our our building code and our our zoning code.

Thank you.

Did you have a um thank you, Your Honor.

Um in lieu of this information, I almost feel like it's appropriate for us to maybe ask city staff along with the mayor and city council, especially with um uh public input for maybe staff to come up with um uh a proclamation um that one that's legal that um we can start with.

Um, like I said, that captures everyone's voices in this, because I know there have been a lot of discussions um behind the scenes and and even with um constituents, and I know the mayor has committed to you know holding those public sessions to get that input before anything is even written down.

So I'd like to see something come back.

Um, like I said, a legal document from uh city staff.

So that is that a motion, Alderwoman Wilkins.

I guess that is a motion.

Is that a motion to get a proclamation going from city staff?

Is that appropriate?

I don't know if that's appropriate where we are in this juncture in the conversation, but I believe it is.

I mean, I don't know if it needs to be a motion, but we're happy to take that direction.

Yeah, I'd like to I'd like to um put a motion on the floor for staff to um come up with a legal document for the proclamation for this that will help protect the city.

For clarity, resolution.

Resolution, I'm sorry.

I said proclamation.

So I would second that um based on you know that we I mean I think it's important that we um if we're gonna have any resolution at all that tries to um guide um data center development that it uh uh at least comport with our lack of home rule and that it not conflict with existing development agreements.

So I'll second that motion.

Are there is there any question or comment on the motion to ask staff to develop a proposal?

Alder woman Terina.

I guess I'd like to know what so the resolution that was presented is it is it just null and void?

Are there pieces that could be pulled from it to be incorporated into this new proposed resolution?

I'm trying to understand.

It's almost like we're trying to we're jumping to a new thing, and I'm I'm trying to settle the old one.

So where are we at with the status of the current resolution?

Legal director, do we need to take a vote on the what's on the agenda?

The red line is that we understand what I think.

So it it was um I started the conversation with Alderman Bell late last week, and as I was going through the process, it became clear that it was difficult to redline it just because of the number of provisions that were geared towards a home rule community versus us as a non-home rule community.

So I reached out to Alderman Bell today to discuss um starting from scratch and um you know uh putting forward one that is within our statutory authority.

I thought that was a a more productive use of the time.

Is it does if Alderwoman Wilkins were to make her motion in the form of an amendment to the motion that Alderman Bell made, it would then supersede the motion to approve Alderman Bell's proposal, correct?

Yes.

However, I don't know that that they're mutually exclusive.

It's possible to work with Alderman Bell to move forward on his vision for what the resolution looks like within our statutory authority, and then staff could well have a recommendation as well, pursuant to Alderwoman Wilkins' recommendation.

So either both are possible, but we we essentially have two motions on the floor at the same time right now.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so we can either Alderman Alderwoman Wilkins can either change her motion to become a motion, an amend motion to amend Alderman Bells, or we can vote on them individually.

Correct.

I would recommend voting on them individually.

Um I let's then have conversation on the most recent motion on the floor first, which is the motion to ask staff to develop a policy.

If we can have any questions or comments on that first.

My arms start to get tired.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um let me just say this.

Uh Mr.

Cignoni, I I appreciate the lengthy explanation.

Um I would have to say that's probably the the longest uh and and most detail that that at least I've received uh regarding the data center and now publicly here in the meeting uh shared with the community.

So thank you for that.

I think the proposed resolution, the draft resolution that was proposed, is doing its job.

We are uh learning more about uh all of the details with this uh situation, the piece of land, uh what's in front of us, what's not in front of us.

So thank you for that.

Um I mean, I'm just gonna call it what it is.

I I think that uh political theater theater well done.

We've had several conversations, Mayor, legal director, um, Mr.

Cignoni, I'm sure it was passed up to you that there was a desire for this to be laid over and have more conversations, and uh we've had several uh back and forth uh legal director on uh what we are going to uh amend uh so that it is uh quote legal uh or taking out the provisions from uh uh for home rule community.

So uh looking forward to that.

I mean, at the beginning of this again, it was a draft proposal, wanted to start the conversation.

I'm glad that it's happening.

Uh so again, it it's working.

I'd also uh like to comment on the uh motion that's before us to create a new resolution.

I think that is kind of what we're doing.

I sent a proposal of a lot, of course, and uh we're gonna make sure that we refine it to uh ensure that there is a proper standard when it comes to uh data center development in this community.

That's been uh my guiding compass all along.

Residents have voiced their opinion for months now here at City Council.

It was time for the conversation to be had around the horseshoe.

And so again, it's a step in the right direction.

So I'll just say this, regardless of whose name is on the on the proposal.

Personally, I don't care as long as the minimum standards are set uh and that this community benefits from uh any data center that should come before us if we don't have to take an actual vote here on city council.

So uh however you all need to feel better about moving this forward again.

My my whole thing is I think we need to have the conversation and we're having it now.

Thank you.

Okay, Alderman Bell.

So again, we are talking about Alderwoman Wilkins motion to ask staff to develop a resolution.

Alderman Woman Wilkins and then Alderman Salgata.

I apologize, and I don't want it to go down this road.

So I would like to withdraw my motion for us to amend it.

I'm ready to vote on uh what's in front of us tonight.

So thank you.

I'll withdraw.

So does the second also needs to be withdrawn?

It it would not need to be withdrawn, it would just happen as a matter of rate.

Okay.

All right.

So then we are back to Alderman Bell's proposed resolution, which is on the agenda.

Um Alderman Salgado and Alderman Bell.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak in your committee.

Um this resolution, I think uh from my perspective, I've had conversations with Mr.

Bell on this.

Um, and I'm a procedural guy.

So uh I've asked a couple questions.

Um I talked to Mr.

Capavilia.

Uh text amendments the way to go with this.

And so um I think laying it over, sending it um or sending it back to the zoning board of appeals, um, just like we did with your storage uh uh chairman, um uh storage units trying to establish you know that change uh within commercial uh zones and so forth.

I think that's the proper way of doing this.

And uh I can speak from uh county board uh perspective, that's how we used to update our UDO code as we call it, um, in this case our ordinances um regarding this.

Now uh there's there's a lot of talk about well, you know, tech and this and that.

We had a similar situation with our solar farms, right?

Uh the county, you know, uh experienced that, we experienced those popping up here and there.

I doubt we're gonna have 30, you know, data centers within the city of Rockford limits.

Um I understand that.

But there are concerns, you know, like with solar farms decommissioning.

Is there bonding for that?

Who's gonna pay for that if they go belly up?

Those are concerns that we have, and we need to address those.

Just like the water consumption, the electrical rates, you name it, the whole list that goes with that.

And I think that's where it should start is with the zoning board of appeals, text amendment to look at the different uh structures that we need to set those standards in order for us to protect our city, our residents, and whatever we want to.

And then ultimately, City Council is the one that makes that decision whether it's a business viable, whether it makes sense for the city to collect 14 million, 13 million, 10 million, whatever it is, if it makes sense, then we move forward on that direction.

But I honestly think that it needs to go to the zoning board of appeals, uh, whether it's a text amendment, whatever it is, administration can can hold those meetings, debate it day in, day out.

That's what they're there for, uh, to make that recommendation up to your committee, and then we take a vote on that as a city council.

So uh that's my recommendation ultimately.

I was hoping um Ms.

Wilkins would we would add to that to say, hey, send it back to the Zording Board of Appeals as a text amendment, so we can you know hash these questions out and then it funnels through as we have our process.

So that's that's the only commentary I wanted to make on that.

And I appreciate it.

Thank you for the Alderman Salgado.

Um to clarify, we're not this isn't getting sent back to ZBA because it didn't come from ZBA, but I'm wondering if either the legal director or the city administrator can explain the difference between this resolution.

I think it's I think I know the answer, it's because it's a resolution versus a proposed text amendment to begin with, which would get referred automatically to ZBA before it comes back to codes and regs.

Is that correct?

I don't know who wants to take legal director if if you want to take that.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh the way a text amendment begins is council adopts a resolution authorizing the zoning officer to apply for that modification with the zoning board of appeals.

So if this were to pass council, it would it would then that would be the path.

It would then go to ZBA.

Correct.

As it relates to modifications to the zoning.

But it but it's not being sent back to ZBA.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

One second.

If it if it's the intent of the committee and council to direct staff to file a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, uh Dr.

Hammer would be correct.

It would be a resolution directing us to do that.

This resolution as it doesn't do that.

Correct.

Um right now.

So I think that's would that would that would be some of the amendments that would be needed to take place, but it certainly would, you know, as Alderman Salgado stated, that would be the proper play, proper way to advance forward a text amendment to the zoning ordinance.

I would note that there's a number of other, if the intent is to fully adopt that, there's a bunch of a number of other proposals in here that are outside zoning ordinance.

Correct, good point.

Umderman Bell and then Alderman Durkey.

Thank you.

And some of those statements obviously have been made uh Mr.

Cignonian that that is why we need more time or the legal team needs more time to make those amendments so that this body can adopt something that we can move forward with.

But I just want to say thank you to the residents and the advocacy groups, community stakeholders and community and council members who have reached out over the past weeks regarding the RBOS, our voice, our future data center resolution.

The response from the community has made one thing clear.

People care deeply about the future of our city, and they want to be a part of the decision that will shape Rockford for generations to come.

I also want to acknowledge the advocates and individuals who have spent time reviewing this proposal, sharing ideas, raising concerns, and helping strengthen the document.

This has been a collaborative effort, and I appreciate every person who has engaged in good faith.

Over the past few days, I've worked to incorporate information best practices and lessons learned from communities such as Aurora and other municipalities across the country that are navigating similar conversations around large-scale data center development.

This resolution is not about being for or against any one project.

It's about being proactive.

Right now, cities across America are being approached with transformational developments tied to technology, infrastructure, and data.

Some have moved forward with outclear standards, public public engagement, and measurable community benefits.

Others have taken time to build a framework first.

I believe that Rockford should be among the cities that lead with a framework.

This resolution is intended to establish safeguards and guardrails around future data center development in the city of Rockford.

It calls for transparency, accountability, community input, and a serious review of what benefits these projects brings to our residents.

That means asking important questions.

How will these developments impact utilities, water usage, land use, and infrastructure?

What protections are in place for neighborhoods?

What opportunities will exist for local hiring, apprenticeships and workforce development.

What tax benefits or incentives can be requested?

And what is the return for our people?

How do we ensure that the public has a voice before major decisions are made?

Those are responsible questions, and those are the questions this this resolution, this draft proposal seeks to begin answering.

And I also want to be clear.

This is the beginning of the conversation, as I stated earlier, around data center development in this horseshoe.

As leaders, it's our responsibility to be proactive and thoughtful on this issue.

Right now, we often have more regulations on how a homeowner builds a fence in their backyard or how a small business must follow strict code requirements than we do for developments of this scale.

As technology advances and our communities evolve, this is the moment for this council to come together and ensure that these projects are guided by responsibility, accountability, and the best interest of our residents.

I've heard from many of you on ideas on how to improve this proposal, suggestions on what to take out, and also real concerns on whether or not we can implement each proposed item.

Again, this was meant to get the conversation started, and I'm pleased with the progress this far.

Our legal team has been working on amendments that, as stated earlier, that were suggested by many of you.

And with with respect to time and to ensure a productive conversation around this item, I make a motion to lay over this item so that our legal department is able to complete the necessary revisions.

If you have any suggestions or ideas on how to enhance the quality of this resolution, please reach out to me or our legal department.

Thank you.

Is there a second on the motion to lay over?

Seeing none, I would instead make a motion to table this.

While we I think Alder Woman Wilkins was on the right track.

This nine-page proposal is riddled with legal pitfalls.

By Alderman Bell's own admission, it needs more work, but I think that work needs to be done by our professional staff, and so I would make a motion to table and to direct staff to come up with an alternate uh resolution that passes legal muster and bring that back to our committee.

Question thing.

Is that same thing?

No.

A motion to table it tables it in would table it indefinitely until staff comes back.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

I believe that is a non-debatable motion, correct?

Okay.

So we now have a roll call vote on the motion to table and to ask staff to develop an alternate resolution.

Clerk.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Motion carries.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Meeting is adjourned.