I'll call the code and regulations committee meeting for July twenty-seventh, twenty twenty-six to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Here.

Thank you.

Um, we'll go to committee report.

Um Palo Verde Drive, Calderwood Drive, the traffic commission recommends approval, establishing a restriction requiring that the traffic on Calderwood Drive be required to stop prior to entering the intersection with Palo Verde Drive, thus appealing the existing traffic control for Collarwood Drive, yielding for Palo Verde Drive.

Is there a motion to approve?

And a second.

Second.

Sorry, second.

Okay.

All right, is there any discussion?

All right.

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Great.

The matter is approved.

Item number two, no action item.

Traffic commission recommends that no action be taken on the following item.

Request for additional street lights on six on sixteen forty Albany Lane.

That's me.

Sorry about that.

Is there a motion to approve?

Okay, thank you.

Second.

It's been moved and second.

Is there any discussion?

All right.

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay.

Um okay.

This matter is approved.

Um item number three uh one three four North Main Street.

Zoning Board of Appeal recommends approval for a special use permit for six residential units on the ground floor in a C4 urban mixed use zoning district at one thirty-four North Main Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed, same sign.

Okay.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Or that matter is approved, rather, I'm sorry.

Um three twenty-five South Main Street, zoning board of appeal recommends approval for a special use permit for residential units on the ground floor in a C4 Urban Mixed Use Zoning District at 325 South Madison Street.

South Madison Street.

Uh is there a motion to approve?

Second?

Second.

All right.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed.

That matter is approved.

Uh twelve thirty-two Soper Avenue zoning board of appeal recommends denial for a variation to reduce the side yard setback for a covered patio from six feet to zero feet in an R1 single family residential zoning district at twelve thirty-two Soper Avenue.

Is there a motion to approve the denial?

Second.

Second.

Uh is there any discussion?

All those in fact.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even look up.

Thank you.

Yes.

But just really quick, this this item, this uh property is my ward.

Mr.

Capavilla, can you just give us some background on this, please?

This gentleman uh built this uh covered porch over his back patio without a permit, and it's literally at zero dot line.

Uh so his only way to rectify this was to apply for the variation, and the zoning board of appeals uh unanimously denied it.

So thank you.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All right.

My apologies, Alderman Bell.

All those in favor of the denial say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, that is approved.

210 North Longwood Street Zoning Board of Appeal recommends approval for the special use permit for body body art services in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 210 North Longwood Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Second, it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay.

That matter is approved.

219 South 2nd Street.

Uh number 7, 219 South 2nd Street.

Zoning Board of Appeal recommends approval for a special use permit for a planned mixed use development consisting of 10 apartments, a restaurant, banquet hall, and an R2 two-family residential zoning district at 219 South 2nd Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So I move second.

Is there any discussion?

Here now, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right.

That matter is approved.

Number 8, 1010 East State Street.

Zoning Board of Appeal recommends approval for a special use permit for body art services in a C2 limited commercial district at 1010 East State Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

Second.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Is there any discussion?

Here now.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Same sign?

All right.

That matter is approved.

Item number nine, 3218-11th Street.

Zoning Board Appeal, or excuse me, zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a zoning map amendment from R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to C3 General Commercial Zoning District and a variation to increase the maximum allowed business identification wall signs from 2 to 3 in a C3 General Commercial Zoning District at 3218 11th Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Alder Woman.

Sorry.

Terina?

I have a question from Mr.

Capavilla about the increase from two to three signs.

Can you give a little explanation, please?

So we by ordinance we only allow two wall signs for business identification.

This applicant because they're basically taking up an uh three-sided frontage wanted to have a third wall sign, and they agreed that as a part of that they would only install one freestanding assign as well.

But obviously, staff usually will recommend uh denial on a variation like this, but the zoning board on a five to one vote approved the increase in the number of signs because they uh they felt that the size of the signs were a lot smaller than they could be, and they were strategically placed and wouldn't look like there was too many signs because the fact that there's a three-sided lot with frontage on uh Johnson 11th Street and Myron.

Thank you.

Alder Woman, or excuse me, Alderman Bonnie.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Um Mr.

Capavilla, can you I know we've this has come up before?

Uh the one that I recall is uh wasn't the Mercy Health wanted a third sign for the Cancer Center.

Um can you refresh my memory on what was the staff ZVA recommendations on that and what did we approve?

I I don't recall, but uh normally staff would not support a third sign.

Uh the only time I believe we supported additional signage uh for a business was uh the BMO Center uh because it takes up an entire block and they wanted signage on all four streets, which totally made sense because of the mass of that building.

Alderman Thunberg.

I believe that this would still meet the four sign maximum, right?

With they're just essentially taking what what could be a sign from somewhere else under that four sign maximum and just putting it over on another spot.

Maybe would that be somewhat accurate?

Not entirely.

Um I mean, because they're on a corner lot, they would be allowed two freestanding signs.

Um we only allow two wall signs.

So in this case, they said we're only going to put up one freestanding sign, but we'd like to have a third wall sign.

And that was their criteria that they used to the zoning board and explaining that and the layout of their site as to why they wanted a third wall sign.

Yeah, so it sounded like due to the due to where the building is and the streets that now they would have some visual of the name of their business from each street that is that runs along.

That would be correct, yes.

And they so they still would not be over, they would still not be over the four sign maximum at all.

No.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Okay, hearing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Madam Chair.

Oh, I believe all the woman to read.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Are we able to uh split the voting on this so we can vote for the zoning change but not the variation?

Second yes.

We are able to do that.

Okay.

All right.

Can we do that, please?

Yep.

Any other discussion?

All right.

So we're gonna split this up.

Um the first one, let's vote on A.

All those in favor for A say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay.

Um item or 9A is approved.

All right.

Now let's go to item 9B.

Um those in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oh, let's do a roll call.

No.

Aye.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Aye.

No.

Okay.

Um since okay.

That item, that matter is failed.

All right, moving on to number 10, 1603 North Alpine Road.

Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for modification of an existing liquor license to add package liquor sales in conjunction with the restaurant and a C3 General Commercial Zoning District at 1603 North Alpine Road.

Is there a motion to approve?

So is there any discussion?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh opposed, thanks aye.

Okay.

Um that matter is approved.

Item number 11.

Recommends approval of the following text amendments.

You want me to go through all of them?

Okay.

Um is there a motion to approve um as listed.

Some of them.

Second.

Is there a second?

Not second.

Is there any discussion?

Yes, Alderman Bell.

Do I have the thank you, Chairwoman?

Um there's a bit of a silence and pause there, so maybe I'll turn it to Mr.

Capavilla to give us an explanation on this item.

Well, there's a series of text amendments.

Um many of these have to do with uh housing.

And so uh when you when you look through these, I think one of the biggest things is in-field development uh overlay district.

Um by allowing uh two new two-family construction within our one districts.

Um we'd have to designate the actual uh overlay district somewhere in the city.

Uh but it would only be for new construction, it would not be for conversion of existing single family homes into two families.

Um of the reasons we want to do this is to help boost construction and help with bank financing because a lot of people are not able to get um loans for just a single family home, but a lot of times the bank will look more favorably on a two-family because they'll be able to they someone could live in you know one of the units and they could rent the lower level or top level, whichever they prefer out on a duplex.

And this would provide uh for some extra income and it would be hopefully take your time.

And hopefully it would be good from a financing standpoint, but also help with uh the uh boosting our tax base, etc.

So the other thing is uh in our R2 districts uh allowing um three family and four family units.

Uh there's a large, there's a couple of larger areas, uh, ones on the southwest side of R2.

There's a very large one on the southeast side as well.

Uh but any vacant lots that were available there, then we would allow the three and four family units to be constructed on those as well.

But once again, you couldn't convert an existing building.

It'd have to be new construction only.

Um those are two of the biggest changes of housing uh from that aspect.

Um there's other changes in here in reference to mandatory PUDs as well as uh you know boosting the uh or increasing the threshold before someone would have to come forward on that.

Uh there's discussion about parking for fast food restaurants, reducing those from 13.3 spaces to 10, and um and just reducing overall parking requirements.

One of the things I should point out is with new construction in this overlay district we're looking at, we would not require um the new construction to have a garage.

We would just require a number of spaces that would be provided.

So it would just be two spaces.

They could just build a pad off of an alley and provide construction.

Um part of the construction, and then uh three spaces if it was a two-family.

So this would reduce the expense and make it more affordable for someone so they wouldn't have to build that attached garage or that detached garage to provide those enclosed spaces that are required by the ordinance right now.

But it wouldn't change any of the existing ordinances for you know uh other areas.

Um I think there was one other thing based uh oh the uh we're just codifying um the engineering design standards with driveways.

Uh, there's a lot of confusion when people ask for driveway permits as to how many curb cuts they can get and things of that nature.

And it's pretty specific in the engineering design criteria, but it's not listed in the zoning ordinance, and since we're kind of the front line of defense when it comes to the public calling, we thought it was best to just uh take that section from the engineering design design standards and put it into the ordinance, the zoning ordinance as well, so that we can just tell people here here it is in the zoning ordinance, so they don't have to go searching from the zoning ordinance to the engineering design standards because a lot of people don't even know what the engineering design standard criteria are.

Um a lot of that stuff is pretty technical.

Um those are those are the big major changes um in inside of this, and so that would be my my brief summary.

Thank you.

And the other discussion we'll go with and then we'll come to you all the minutes.

I'll let other Bonnie.

Thank you.

Um just uh follow up with from with Mr.

Capavilla without going back to look myself.

Are all the the two family, three and four family um changes that uh you mentioned, are those all contained in Article 35?

No.

Um those those would be under the use classification table in table 20-1.

And none of them are under Article 35?

No.

Article 35 is the um the infill overlay district.

Okay.

Um we can approve not if you were to oppose the use classification table, it wouldn't affect any of the follow of the other items, would it?

No.

Okay.

So like the uh other issue earlier, I would like to vote separately on use of classification table.

Each one?

No.

Just table 20, is it?

I don't know.

We need a motion to do that.

I'm just gonna vote no on table 20 and yes on everything else.

20.

Um could we hear from legal please?

Thank you.

This one is is a little bit more complicated because this recommendation is for the the text amendments.

So Alderman Bonnie, it's your um wish to vote no on one of the listed items, but support the remaining items?

Is that correct?

Okay.

So can we just indicate um when the vote is called?

Um anyone who wishes to vote no um to specify which portion they're voting no on.

Okay.

All right, Alderman Salgado.

Thank you, Chairwoman, for allowing me to speak in your committee.

Um Scott, real quick, um the Article 20, the rear setbacks.

Um, can you explain what the change was there?

Um, did we decrease it or increase it just from general purposes for the um in fill?

Good question, Alderman Salgado.

Um so that in looking back at a lot of older lots in the city, especially.

Uh people wanted to put additions on their house, and we want to encourage people to continue to improve their property, and a lot of times they would run into the issue of not having a 30-foot setback in the rear yard, maybe 25, 22, whatever.

So, in order to avoid coming to the zoning board every time with those, we decided to reduce the re-yard setback to 20 feet, and that would apply to all residential districts.

But uh just real quick, so it was 30 is what's the standard?

30 feet.

30 feet.

Thank you.

On toomberg.

Uh I'd like to say I actually appreciate that uh very much the city for Chicago.

Uh that's very uh makes a lot of sense.

Uh on the uh on the parking pad issue uh regarding making it less expensive for uh housing without having to build a garage.

Uh if at later time they wanted to build a garage, there's ample room to do that.

So is that correct?

Because I would see where we yes, we have a parking pad, we have parking pads there, but if they do want to build a garage, all of a sudden the city says, well, there's not enough setback and et cetera.

But we're we're planning.

So in the infield overlay district, where where we we would basically be waiving the enclosed garage requirement?

Um yeah, there still should be plenty of room on some of these lots to build a detached garage in the future.

Um that's our belief anyway.

So uh it's it's for those smaller lots that are the ones where we're trying having the trouble with the 20-foot setback.

So but a lot of the vacant lots that are out there for infill that we're looking at, they're you know, they're anywhere from 120 feet deep to 150, 160 feet deep in some cases.

So it would be fairly easy to build have new construction on that lot.

Many of these lots have alleys as well, so you'd have your parking right off the alley.

Um and and you could probably easily put a detached garage there in the future.

Should not be that problem whatsoever.

Um since we're talking about parking pads, um, do you see foresee any um issues as it relates to um street parking and and the impact that having multiple units that what that might have, uh the impact that might have on street parking as well as traffic?

So it uh obviously uh there's a lot of people that even though they have garages, they still park in the street and they use their garages for storage, etc.

So and we see this a lot in older areas of Rockford.

Um I know that during uh snow season it's troubling um with the uneven parking.

I think we've all talked about that at nausea many times.

Uh but uh I don't I don't see it as a problem.

And as our traffic engineer would tell you, if there's a few extra cars on the street, sometimes that just kind of helps slow traffic down, which would create an overall a little bit more safety for the neighborhoods as well.

So thank you.

Is there any other discussion?

Okay, here in all those.

Oh I'm gonna do this kind of special.

So um when you share your vote, if there is an item that you are voting no on, or a section set a segment of this that you are voting no on, please indicate.

So okay.

So all those in favor, but let's do a roll call.

There we go.

Hearing aye.

Aye.

Bill.

Aye.

No on table 20-1, aye on the rest.

I'm sorry, 20-1 is your no.

20-1.

Okay.

And four eyes and all the rest.

Okay.

This matter is approved.

Thank you.

All right.

Number 12.

There uh is a request for a moratorium on data centers and directing the city administrator and design to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of best practices for evaluating the development, expansion, and operational data centers within the city of Rockford.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll make the motion.

Is there a second?

Hearing none.

That matter is to if there's no motion and second.

Okay.

So all right.

So that matter did not receive a second.

It is not.

Okay.

Next we move on to resolutions.

A request from the traffic commission for the city of Rockford to approve the installation of a street light near 2415 Quincy Circle.

Is there a motion to approve?

So move.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Is there a discussion?

All right.

Um hearing now.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right.

That matters approved.

Uh number two, 815 day block party.

This event is scheduled for Saturday, August 15th.

The location of the event is 100 block of North First Street.

And the event time is from 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

Is there a motion to approve?

Some of them.

Second.

I'll second.

Is there any discussion?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Same sign.

All right.

That matter is approved.

Number three, the Polish Fast.

This event is scheduled for Sunday, August 16th.

The event will be held on the grounds of the St.

Stanislaus.

I don't want to butcher it.

So it's uh it's the church located at 201 Buckby Street.

Costco.

Um 201 Buckley Street, and the event is 10 from 10 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

Is there a motion to approve?

So move a second.

Second.

Okay.

So move and second.

Is there any discussion?

Could you please say the name for me correctly?

For the the name of the church.

So I know Stanislaw.

Um I believe it's Costca.

Costa.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Is there any other discussion?

All right.

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign.

All right.

This matter is approved.

Number four.

PCI employee picnic.

This event is scheduled for Tuesday, September 15th.

The location of the event is 4545 assembly drive and will take place during open business hours.

Assembly drive will be closed from research parkway to Airport Drive during the picnic.

Is there a motion to approve?

Some move.

Second.

Second.

Is there a discussion?

You know, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign.

Oh.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That matter is approved.

Before we adjourn.

Oh, yes.

Yes, Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak.

We had an item, item 12.

Uh an item for discussion about uh data centers.

And we've been talking about it for months now.

Um I just want to say thank you to Director Hammer.

Um I proposed a resolution.

I believe it was April 11th.

Alderman Bell.

I'm sorry, we are the our next item.

Uh I apologize.

Our next item is to adjourn.

Are you asking to go back to item 12?

No.

I am I'm making comment before we adjourn.

Um is that appropriate?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh just wanted so I received uh the the revised draft on I believe July 2nd, July 1st or July 2nd after working with legal.

Uh just wanted to go on record to ask legal to um uh have that be read in in petitions and communications at our next city council meeting so that we this committee can discuss uh the revised resolution um from legal.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um thank you.

All right, we'll oh yes, yes.

Uh before we do that, excuse me, Alderwoman Torino.

Yes, Alderman Biden.

I've been mistaken for Alderwoman McNeely in the past.

I guess it's appropriate.

Um is it possible?

I'm gonna ask the legal director, is it possible for me to second the chairman's motion on item 12 after all?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

All right, it's been moved and moved again and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

This meeting is adjourned.