Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

okay it's 5 30 p.m i'd like to call this meeting to order please a roll call johnson mcqueen here mavis here moline oda yemi here riggs is here sourds witten here right Public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak at this time? If you're here on a specific item, you'll have an opportunity to speak when that specific item comes up. Hearing none, we'll move to the minutes. May I have a motion to approve the August 3rd, 2026 meeting minutes, please?

Motion.

Motion by Witten. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mavis. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those that are opposed say nay. Motion carries. There being no old business, we'll move to the public hearings. The first is 202621, public hearing request from Drake Fisher of Fisher Construction to consider a special use permit from the Rock Island Zoning Ordinance in an R3 district for property at 634 42nd Street. Someone units or Tanner staff report.

Yeah, so we can go ahead and read the staff report, but it doesn't look like the applicant is here tonight.

Should we skip it or should we just go ahead with it?

That's up to the commission.

Is that him?

I don't believe so, no.

Table it or?

Why don't we skip that one till the end?

Okay. Am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.

Okay, let's move on to 202622, public hearing request from Dino Malani to consider a variance from the Rock Island Zoning Ordinance in an 01 district for property at 3059 30th Street. Eunice.

So the request is to allow an existing 94 feet by 25 feet accession structure to extend approximately 16.5 feet beyond the front of the principal building, which has caused a reduced front yard setback along 30th Street. The property is used for the preservation and display of historic dolls, books, games, and other related items. The applicant previously obtained a building permit and submitted a site plan showing the structure aligned with the principal building along 30th Street, which complied with the zoning setback. An on-site inspection following a subsequent inquiry revealed the structure was constructed approximately 16.5 feet beyond the principal building. Staff informed the applicant that variance from Article 11, Section 6A is required to allow the structure to remain in its current location. The subject property is located in a mixed residential and office area, measuring approximately 30,927 square feet. The site slopes approximately four feet from the street and sits slightly above street level. The property is developed as a one-story commercial building, which was constructed in 1955 and contains approximately 5,145 square feet of usable area. The primary facade and acla access is provided on 31st Avenue. The 2014 comprehensive plan designates the site as a single-family residential. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north, south, and east, and a church, 01, to the west. The site is a former Rock Island Fire Station No. 4 and former 3031 Public Library branch, which was re-zoned from R2 to 01 in 2021 as part of the city's comprehensive zoning code and map update. Past zoning actions include a planning commission case 1990-13, which was a special use permit for vehicle storage in a woodworking shop. And a board of zoning appeals case 2020-05 for a special exception to substitute a nonconforming library use for the museum, both of which were approved. The variance will only be authorized if it meets two of the three conditions found under Chapter 8, Section 6A of the zoning ordinance. The Commission will make the final decision regarding this request. Condition one, the property is currently used as a commercial museum and office and can continue to be used for those purposes under existing zoning regulations. The applicant's need for additional storage does not require construction of an accession structure that encroaches into the required setback. The structure could have been constructed to be consistent with a previously approved site plan or otherwise designed to comply with applicable setback requirements. Inability to construct an accessory structure in this particular location does not prevent the property from yielding a reasonable return. This condition is not met. Condition two. Staff has not identified any physical characteristics of the property, such as unusual topography, lot dimensions, or other site constraints that necessitate the requested variance. The site plan originally submitted to and approved by staff showed a structure that complied with applicable requirements. The need for the variance results on the placement of the structure as constructed rather than a unique circumstance or condition of the property. This condition is not met. Condition three. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and office-owned. Nearby properties generally maintain the required front yard setback and building lines along 30th Street. Allowing the accessory structure to project approximately 16.5 feet beyond the front building line will be inconsistent with established development pattern and visual character of the surrounding area. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood, so this condition is not met. The Community Development Department recommends that the Commission deny the variance as the property can yield a reasonable return without the variance. There is no unique circumstance and the accessory structure alters the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you, Eunice. Are there any questions of the staff on this?

Do you have a question, Eunice? So the variance is just specific to the 16 feet it's sticking out towards 30th Street, okay? It's not against how close it is to the north property or the size of it overall?

No. All those requirements were met. It's just how far that sticks out.

So if it was still 96 by 21, but it was flush with the building, we wouldn't be here? No.

Looking at the, I drove by a couple different times and I noticed it right away. A couple of questions I had was, is there ordinances about the secondary building being higher than the original building?

In terms of height, usually, especially structures, maximum heights would be 20 feet. So depending on what would have been provided.

I thought there was a couple times in front of the commission that we had to give a variance because a person wanted to build a garage or a structure that was taller than the original building.

It was usually if it's bigger than the principal building. So essentially structures have to be smaller than the principal building. So that would be what previous variances might have been.

Yeah, the square footage. Square footage, yes. Not necessarily the height, the square footage.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come to the podium and is there anything you'd like to say to the board?

There we go, turn that out too.

Sir, would you say your name again? I didn't...

Sorry, it's loud. Dino Milani, and I'm one of the owners of the American Doll and Toy Museum. My wife and I started that. We bought the building from the city of Rock Island in 2020 with our own funds. We're the only ones who finance it. And we've got to the point where in the last two years we've had over 5,000 extra donations. Even one Saturday afternoon, a woman with a 42-year-old doll that she made, This last week and we are at the point. There is no room for anything We can't allow people to build them because our aisles are literally full So we needed to build a storage building just to shed on the property So we I started actually with the permits department back in October last year. And I actually want to thank the people of the permits department. They've been very helpful, just about everything. And so I got the paper permits at the time. We found a good steel building through American Steel Carports in Kewanee. A good cement contractor, which is Jason West Concrete. And then I went to turn in the permit and I was told that two weeks before they had actually, there we go, there's some of the pictures coming up, that two weeks before they'd actually put everything up online. And so I couldn't use the paper permit and they gave me a link and they said go ahead and use this. It took me a week and a half, two weeks to try to get through on it. There were lots of problems. There's no help files on that at all with the online permit process, nothing. And then eventually I came back to the permits department and I said, all right, why isn't this working? He said, well, are you a contractor? I said, no, I'm the building owner. He says, well, you have to be a contractor to do this. So I got Jason West from Jason West Concrete to go ahead and try it. Turns out he wasn't on the approved list either, even though he'd been doing work here for many years in Rock Island and elsewhere. They finally got him signed up so that he could do it. And we were able to finally get our items up. We only sent up three items at a time, and that was it. If you tried to add anything else, you'd have to delete the old ones and remove them. So we got it up. Now, we needed a space which was fairly large for everything. We considered last year buying shipping containers and putting them on site, but they would have been ugly. They would also have been temporary, of no use. So we decided the steel building was the best thing. It would look good for the public and all around. Let's see. So anyway, Mr. West was able to, yes? I'm just listening. I'm sorry. Mr. West was able to finally get online and get the permits up. He then came in, removed the asphalt from the north side of the building where we wanted the building and set up the wooden barriers for the concrete. So before the concrete was actually poured, he wanted to make sure we had a good, we had the cement permits person come in and make sure everything was good. So he did that. He came in. We looked at everything. And at that point, the gentleman said, yes, it looks good. You can go ahead and build your building. Now, part of this too, I originally wanted 22 feet by 90 feet, but the fire marshal said we had to be 10 feet from the building. And when I did that, it put us over another cement wall on the north side, which is a retaining wall to hold up a hill on the north side. So we couldn't fit it. So we had to make the building shorter, 21 feet instead of 90. If I did that, I lost 90 feet of square feet, and every space was needed. So we went to instead 94 feet by 21 feet. Okay, again, this is all trying to get this up to the permits department so everyone saw it. Okay, there's a corner there. You can actually see the red building on the corner there is sticking out partially. As we go around, we'll see some more. Okay, so anyway, we got the approval from the cement person, from the permits department, go ahead and build it. Now, I'm assuming that he knew the dimensions of the building going in, which was listed at this point 90 by 22 feet, or the actual dimensions 94 by 21, when he gave his approval. So Mr. West poured the concrete. We got it all in. About eight days later, we got the building up. Had the building up in about three days. The very day after the building was completed and before we finished all the little bits around the corners, adding rock on the open areas and that sort of thing, we had this posted on the building, stop work, saying that the structure is not being built in the location on the site plan. Now, One issue with the online process. As the owner, I could never see what was up on the site. I could never see what was there. Except the one thing we could see is if I made payments for the permit, $975. And it was the same with the contractor, too. He could not see any of the items up there. So we don't know what the city had. It should have had the right ones, but it did not. Anyway, we've got this. Now, if we take a look at the building, I took a number of photographs going all the way around the building. This is one. Can we advance to see a few more of them? Let's see if we can.

There we go.

Now, this is actually stepped across the street with a camera, walking down 30th Street so you can see what the building looked like. That would have been the first photo. And keep going. that's one of the originals and again that's the wrong location because it's showing that's the old format and it shows 10 feet from the building but the old dimensions which is not right okay keep going please that's uh no let's go up instead let's go up okay there we go that's a side view from the back actually you can see the retaining wall there that's from the corner keep going Okay, that's across the street on 30th Street. Keep going. Okay, we'll stop there at this point. And then this is into our parking lot area. Now, had the cement contractor at any point, excuse me, the person from the permits department, if he had come in at any point and said, the dimensions are wrong, this should not extend past the building or anything else, we would have stopped. There's actually a tree. If you go up one more, you'll possibly see it. Maybe not. I don't see that. Anyway, there's actually a tree that we'd have to remove and we could try to put it in further into the buildings and take up a good chunk of the parking space that we have there. If we did that, though, the people across the street from us on 31st Avenue, there's two houses there, would then see the red structure. They wouldn't see the trees or the other things there. Where it's at now, they can barely see the beginning of it, and so it doesn't interfere with their views, which is a nice thing for that. On the other side of the street, when we go back out to 30th Street, it does extend out But we still have 16 feet from the structure to the sidewalk. So we still have a number of feet going there. There's a view from the south side looking up towards the north. So it does extend out that way, but it does not cause any problems with views or anything like that. Now, Mr. and I had a telephone conversation right after the notice was given, and he said, well, can't you just have the contractor remove 16 and a half feet of the building? The building has just finished. For that, it's going to cost us quite a bit more. I talked to the people who did the construction work, and it'll be another $1,972 just for the labor to take the old building out. Plus, we then have to get rid of all the materials they took down. Plus, I then also would have to have the concrete grooved, take about four inches off the top right where the new portion would be, right where the new wall would have to go in order to make it waterproof. Right now it's waterproof and finished. But for that, if we had to move it, take out 16 1⁄2 feet, I'd have to remove that much concrete in order to get the overhang on the metal so the water would get into the building. This building is used for, again, the donations from in our museum. We're going to try to rotate things in and out, but they have to be waterproof. Currently, there's no electricity or AC or anything else in it. Eventually, we'll add that when we can afford to do it. Again, this came out of our own budget. So what I'm asking is fairly simple. That we be granted this so that we can keep the building in its current structure without having to remove 60 and a half feet of it. Leave it as is. And if we do that, then everything should work quite well. And I don't think it'll cause any problems for the neighbors or anyone else. Our church is literally right across the road from it, so we hear from our people who go there. Nobody's seen anything of any problems with that, too. We haven't heard anything complaining about it. And the neighbors across the street don't mind it, so it's not caused problems with them. And we do try to pay attention to what they think is good or not.

Thank you, sir. Is there anything else I can think of? Can I say a couple things? Sure.

This is my wife, Ellen, as well. She's also on it. Thanks.

Okay, first of all, the donations my husband mentioned, they are from families in the area who were artists and ceramicists. We have some from rolling metals from a family that was related to the Adler Planetarium. Their name is Adler. So they have historic value. We took them and we promised that we would take care of them and not sell them. We are completely not for profit. This museum began as a teaching museum. With two little dolls that belonged to my grandmother, when she was growing up, she had no toys, no dolls. She and her sister wore mourning from the time they were six to the time they were married in their 20s. My family traveled and worked all over the world, and they brought the initial collection back. So in many ways it is a love letter to my family, but we are also there to conserve and preserve the history of the Quad Cities. And we have things that belonged from cousins of Robbie Krieger from The Doors, to the daughter of Rutherford B. Hayes, to Dr. Tweet and other people from Augustana who left me their airplanes and their models. And we have blimps, we have something for everyone. We just want to expand. We are lucky that we have been able to expand from a little less than 1,000 foot space to the library building. And as word gets out about us, people trust us with their things. We just want to keep doing that. So thank you for considering us and for having us here tonight.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of the variance request?

I'm having a hard time hearing what you're saying.

Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of the variance request? Any other persons?

I'm sorry, what did she just say?

I didn't bring anyone else with us.

No, we could.

No, that's okay. I just have to make sure that no one else in the audience wants to speak in favor. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak against this request? Please come up. Will you state your name for the record, please, sir?

My name is Tim ,, and I reside at 3933 31st Avenue in Rock Island. And so this particular property is nearby. And I believe the intended use and purpose of this pole barn is for storage. So questions I have is, why would this pole barn require seemingly such a high bay height? And what could a doll and toy museum require that would require a building with this bay height? The area, as has been indicated, is a mixed residential and office area. And the only properties zoned as 01 in this office in this area are two churches and a school, each of which would normally be found in a residential neighborhood. The pole barn would seem to be only a large storage facility, which would be the same use as the existing building that's already there. There seems to be a storage facility and never open as a museum, even though it has a property tax exempt status as if it was a museum. The applicant states that a modification of the building would have created a loss of a portion of the parking lot. The existing building really serves no beneficial purpose, is rarely used, and is never open to the public. So losing a portion of the parking lot really would not have created a hardship. The structure is completely out of character for the neighborhood as the pole barn is unsightly. A storage facility such as this would normally be classified in the B category neighborhood business. And this is completely out of character for this property and the surrounding residential properties. The pole barn was not constructed in accordance with the plan submitted and approved and is in clear violation of the setback. If this pole barn is used as a storage facility, then it presents the same threat as the existing building as items in it appear stacked from the front door with barely a walking path to enter and haphazardly stored throughout the facility. A fire in one of the structures would create a fire in the adjacent structure. And I've also provided Eunice a picture of the front of that. The applicant states that local residents state that the shed looks good in its current position and does not cause any issues about how it looks. The applicant further states that per the local residents, they like the shed as it is in place. Not one person I've spoken to with has anything but negative comments about the existing building and the pole barn. Many have asked what is going on with this property and offer their opinions without even being solicited. So to conclude, if this building had been constructed according to the plan submitted and approved, none of this conversation would be taking place. So I request that the commission follows the community development department's recommendation to deny this variance request.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak against this item? Please come to the podium. Will you state your name for the record, sir?

My name is Dennis Samen. I live at 3008- Hold on a second, sir.

Okay, go ahead.

I live at 3008 30th Street. We are diagonal to the front of this new building, this new structure. We find it unsightly. There are weeds growing around it already. It's really obtuse. And we don't like looking at it. And then to further this, in the past, the Baptist Church has had two structures built and we received notification from the city saying, if you object to this, please let us know. Well, we never received anything like that this time. In fact, it just went right past us. We were on vacation. We came home, and this building is sitting there, and my wife and I are looking at one another. Do you remember getting anything from Rock Island? No. So I came down and asked Eunice about this, and she said, Rock Island doesn't need your permission to do this for a small office. This is news to us. We've always received notification anytime anyone else did this, especially the Baptist Church, two times. So we were a little bit dismayed about that. We had a garage built in Rock Island, and we wanted our garage to be out closer to the street simply because of the driveway costs. We were denied that luxury. We built the garage the way that we were supposed to, and everything's fine that way. To go on with this, I have a couple of concerns that I really want to expound upon. One of them is that what I understand about this museum is that it is a 501 not-for-profit business or an enterprise that is solely funded by contributions, private donations, admissions, and tours. And I must say, in all the time that they've been here, I have never once seen anyone come into that building or leave that building. And now all of a sudden, they need all of this storage space for inventory that wasn't there before. And I'm not going to get into why or how they obtained it. She made it clear that they had some donations. Looking towards the future, if this is a nonprofit organization and if they don't have the funding to continue operating this business and they pull the plug and they take all of their inventory with them and leave that building sitting where it is. My thinking is somebody's going to come along, somebody with deep pockets, and they're going to say to the city of Rock Island, I want to build a quick shop. I want a gas station. I want gambling. I want a liquor store. And while we're at it, let's put a laundromat at the far end of the laundromat. So my concern is that this building, sitting where it is, is going to be a problem if they move or if they sell out and leave. I think in the future, it's gonna cause some type of illegal promise or premise for somebody to use some leverage to put another type of zoning on that corner. That's my biggest.

I appreciate your comments, but we really are just focused on the variance request itself. So if you could keep it to that.

That is my concern. This is why I came down here. I thank you for listening to me, I do.

Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this request?

Hi, my name's Annika Amelia and I live in 32nd Street Court. So my kids actually walk by this every day on their way to Eugene Field. My concern in general, I've actually emailed the nonprofit before because the general upkeep for the property is not great. And so like the weeds are overgrown, the trees haven't been trimmed. There's a lot of just general maintenance that needs to happen. And so for them this building to jet out when my kids walk by it, there's this kind of narrow and very long pathway. And it is, I don't think it's only 16 feet from the sidewalk, it seems much closer than that. So if kids ride their bikes through there and come out at the end, it's just very hidden. And it's so close up to the sidewalk that it just makes me uncomfortable with my kids walking by it every day. Sometimes kids do cut through, I tell mine not to, but they're now going all the way down that long path. back into the neighborhood behind, and it's just very hidden. And also, we live close to this, so we've tried to go to the Dahl Museum over the years, or looked in the front door, it looks like a fire hazard, and it looks like it's storage. And it looks like they've run out of storage, and now they're building more storage. And so if they can't responsibly take care of the materials they've already received, why keep growing this? I mean, I could see them needing another storage unit next year to fill, and the existing building doesn't seem safe. There's stuff like pushing up against the glass doors, and it's been that way for years. So I also was here a few weeks ago when Steven Zabornik was trying to get a variance to build a garage, and it was like, If we set a precedent where one person is allowed to do something, what does it say for the next person? So if you don't have the variance and you build, that just seems like a bad precedent of fairness and might encourage people to say, I'll do it first and ask for permission later. And I think that might cause other problems down the road. Mostly, my kids walk right by it twice a day, and it's closer up than anything else, and it creates this little blind spot in their walking path. It's right next to the crossing guard, so lots of kids are in that area. And yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this matter?

Yeah, I'd make a comment as well.

Yeah, but you gotta keep it to two minutes, please. Yeah, come to the microphone, please.

First of all, we are not going to close.

We fund it ourselves. We are a 501c charity. We don't get that many donations. We had to close to make the plans for this building. And it took us six months longer than we thought it would, with a lot of research and a lot of attempts to comply with everybody. We have had the scouts, church groups, 4-H, the Quad City History Hub. We've had families call and come from out of state. We're quiet. We try to be good neighbors. But it's not true that we are just a storage building. We have displays inside. We want to have better displays. And as I said, a lot of things are historic. We have not heard from our neighbors until tonight, really. We've heard from the ones who've come through the museum and said that they enjoyed it, and from people who want to make tours. We tried to be open 11 to 3 Saturdays. We will be open by appointment from now on. We do hire someone to maintain the lawn and the premises. We're seasonal, I'm going to cut down my Hibiscus plants, because summer is over. We have maintenance to do, and we take care of it, but we are not overrun by weeds. And the two years that it was there before we took it over, it was much worse. So I just want to say that we're not going anywhere. We are not using our museum for storage. We're trying to use the storage so we can rotate and have better displays and pinpoint things. We've done African American Heritage Month, Hispanic Heritage Month. We've done holiday displays, all kinds of seasonal things. We've done things focusing on elections. We will continue to do that. And as for what's at the glass door. My husband put some things there because he did not want people trespassing, and there is some trespassing going on, we know that. He didn't want people looking in and jumping to conclusions before we could rearrange and move things. So up to now- Okay, ma'am, you're- I'm done. Yeah, up to now, we've been fine and the neighbors were fine. So I just wanted to answer some of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there a motion by the board? I'll make a motion to deny.

We'll go. I second.

Motion by Witten, second by Mavis to deny. Is there any discussion?

Basically, we're not going to hear talk about the small amount of hours that are open or the small amount of traffic that would take up no problems in the parking lot. It's strictly the 16 feet. It does stick out. I live on 36th Street. As soon as you guys put it up, I saw it. It was right there. It's right in your face. So it would have been better if it would have been behind the building versus right on 30th Street. So I think it's... To me, it sure looks like a pool barn, not a shed.

Yeah, I... I don't know. I guess I got... All we can talk about is the setback today.

Correct, it's just 16.5.

We can't talk about whether or not the city approved it to be on the property line or a setback on the property line or anything like that?

No, it's just the fact that it was built 16.5 feet past the building.

Okay, I agree. I mean, it's too far away from the building. If they had came to the city to begin with, they had known the rules. Good chance that the way this board operates, a lot of times we'll approve, sometimes we'll disapprove them, but you just can't do it without permission. You just can't do it.

Any other? Are we ready for a vote?

We provided an alternative as well, didn't we? Was there an alternative option for that setback, correct?

Well, it's either we approve the variance or he'll have to take a piece of the building off to become flush with his current building or physically move it back. So there are other options?

There's options. Okay.

They're not free. You're right.

They can keep the building as long as they bring it back to the flush with the existing building.

all right we require a roll call vote on this so the motion is to deny the variance request mavis yes riggs votes yes whitton yes bomb queen yes yes five eyes no nays motion to deny variance is granted is that correct correct all right is there an appeal to this Just probably under administrative review.

Under administrative review, there is.

Sir, we've already made our ruling. We're not enlisting anymore. We have three other items here. We've already gone through it. Under the Administrative Review Act, you can appeal to Circuit Court.

Circuit Court.

Circuit Court. Thank you. Next item is 2026-23, public hearing request from Fresh Films to consider variances from the Rock Island zone ordinance in the B3 district for properties at 2016 and 2001 Fifth Avenue. Eunice.

The request is to construct a soundstage facility at 2016 Fifth Avenue with associated parking across the street at 2001 Fifth Avenue. At 2016 Fifth Avenue, the applicant is requesting variances to allow zero foot front and rear yard setbacks, including the elimination of the required tagby buffer yard along the south property line. And to eliminate required ground floor windows along street facing facades. At 2001 Fifth Avenue, the applicant is requesting a variance to eliminate required landscape islands within the proposed parking lot. The proposed sound stage, which currently sits vacant, and is approximately 34,848 square feet. The property is zoned B3, community business, and sits immediately adjacent to B2, downtown business. The parking site at 2001 Fifth Avenue is also zoned B3, and is approximately 18,295 square feet, and it also sits vacant. Both sites are designated urban mixed use by the city's comprehensive plan. The 2016 Fifth Avenue property was historically occupied by Bear Manufacturing Company. It was later acquired by the city and demolished in 2023 due to structural issues. Surrounding land uses include commercial office and six units residential properties. Many nearby properties in the downtown area are developed at or near property lines. There is no known zoning history on file. Reveillance will only be authorized if it meets at least two of the three conditions found under Chapter 8, Section 6A of the zoning ordinance. The commission will make a recommendation to the city council regarding this request. Each condition has three breakdowns. So condition 1A, a sound stage and production studio is a permitted use within the B3 district, but requires a substantially different building configuration than conventional retail or office development. The proposed use requires a large contiguous interior production area to accommodate production sets and lighting and sound equipment. Applying the standard B3 setbacks and associated rare buffer yard will substantially reduce the buildable area and limits the building footprint necessary for the proposed use. This condition is met. While windows are appropriate for traditional commercial uses that benefit most storefronts' visibility, a sound stage requires a controlled production environment. Requiring the windows will introduce exterior lights and create additional challenges for soundproofing. Staff reasons that this condition is met. Condition 1C. The required interior landscape islands would reduce space for parking and equipment maneuvering. The proposed site plan eliminates the interior landscape islands, but provides ample landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot, which currently exceeds the minimum requirement. So this condition is met. Condition 2A. The sound stage again requires a larger and more contiguous interior building area. That would not necessarily be what typical traditional retail office uses would have. Staff find that the use presents a unique circumstance and the standard setbacks and associated buffer create constraints that do not generally apply to other uses in the B3 district. So this condition is met. Condition 2B. The specialized needs of the soundstage also differ from traditional commercial development with respect to windows. Retail, office, and similar uses generally benefit from visibility and install from windows, while a soundstage requires a more controlled environment. Staff find that this is a unique circumstance, so this condition is met. Condition 2C. The relatively limited size of the site and its use as parking for the sound stage creates a need to efficiently use the available area for parking related equipment storage. Required interior landscape islands will reduce the usable area of the site and constrain the proposed parking arrangement. This constraint will generally not apply to other uses allowed within the B3 district. So this condition is met. Condition 3A. The property is located near the B2 downtown business district, where zero foot setbacks are permitted. Nearby properties also reflect a development pattern where buildings are near property lines. Allowing zero foot setbacks and eliminating the rare buffer yard is consistent with the area's character and the comprehensive plans urban mixed use designation. So this condition is met. Condition 3B. Having no ground floor windows differs from the character typically associated with development near downtown. However, the applicant has proposed incorporating architectural elements, public art, and other design treatment to provide visual interest. Staff find that these measures will adequately mitigate the lack of ground floor windows. So this condition is met. Condition 3C. Eliminating interior landscape islands will not alter the essential character, especially with the parameter landscaping which exceeds minimum standards. So this condition is met. The Community Development Department recommends that the commission pass a recommendation to the city council that the variances be approved because they are necessary for a reasonable return. There are unique circumstances and they will not alter the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you, Eunice. Is there any question of staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here, would you like to speak in favor of this item?

No, I mean, I just want to say that We're excited about the property. I think that basically the idea is the sound stage is effectively a box that things are built inside of, and they want to keep it as quiet as they can. But really, we want to make sure that it fits in with the feel of the Art Deco building, which we're trying to get across the street, which is the Metro. So it'll have kind of that look and feel. So that's kind of what I wanted to say.

What's your name for the record, please?

Eslyn. Eslyn Fegley.

Thank you. Yeah. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? No? Anyone here against this variance request? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

I second.

Motion by Witten, second by Odeyemi. Any discussion?

I think it's a great thing that we got businesses expanding in downtown Rock Island. Agree. It's awesome. For sure. And then for kids.

And for the kids, that's why.

It's always for the kids. It's always for the kids.

Okay, roll call, please. Mavis?

Yes.

Riggs votes yes. Winton? Yes. McQueen? Yes. Odeyemi? Yes. Five ayes, no nays, motion carries for all those in variance. Thank you. Thank you, good luck. Next item, 2026-24, public hearing request from Scott Burkhead to consider a special use permit from the Rock Island Zoning Ordinance in an R4 district for properties. I won't say all the pins, but in Rock Island Zoning.

He is not in attendance.

Okay, so do we want to skip it?

I'd say let's, yeah, that's up to the commission, but we can. Why don't we postpone this one for the next meeting? And Mr. Fisher is here for the first case.

Okay, we'll do that one at hand then. Okay, well, we're going to postpone 2026-24, so let's move on to 2026-25. Public hearing request from Susan Madison to consider a variance from the Rock Islands of New Ornans in an R1 district for property at 9311 Ridgewood Road. Eunice.

Susan. The request is for the variance to allow an above ground swimming pool to remain in the front yard at 9311 Ridgewood Road. Staff discovered during an inspection that the pool had been installed in the front yard without a permit. Staff informed the applicant that variance from Article 11, Section 6A, which prohibits accessory structures in any front yard or closer to the front property line than the principal building is required. The subject property is approximately 41,817 square feet, and it's in an R1 one unit residential district. It contains a one story single family house, which was constructed in 1954. The west side slopes approximately two feet from the street, while its rear yard on the east side slopes down approximately 15 feet. Regular access is provided from Ridgewood Road. The city's comprehensive plan designates the property as single-family residential. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north, south, and east, and then vacant land under county jurisdiction. There's no known zoning issue. A variance will only be authorized if it meets at least two of the three conditions under Chapter 8, Section 6A of the zoning ordinance. The commission will make a final decision regarding this request. Condition one, the property is currently developed and used as a single family residence and can continue to do so reasonably under the current regulations. While an underground pool is a permitted accessory use, The inability to locate it in the front yard does not prevent a reasonable return for the property, so this condition is not met. Condition two, the sloping terrain of the property creates some constraints on accessory structure placement. However, similar conditions are present on surrounding properties and throughout much of Southwest Rock Island. While grading and site preparation will be needed, the property has an open rear and side yard where the pool could potentially be placed in compliance. Staff find no unique circumstances necessitating placement in the front yard, so this condition is not met. Condition three, the surrounding area is predominantly developed with single family residences. Allowing an above ground swimming pool in the front yard is inconsistent with established development patterns and alters the neighborhood character. So this condition is not met. The Community Development Department recommends that the commission deny the variance as the property can yield a reasonable return. There is no unique circumstance and the pool alters the character of the neighborhood. If approved under different findings, however, staff recommend a stipulation requiring a privacy fence not exceeding four feet and hides being installed around the pool.

Thank you, Eunice. Any questions of staff on this item?

So it does say that she has a side and backyard. That is... doable still need to be graded but doable okay uh is the applicant here would you like to speak in favor of your application

Would you state your name for the record, please?

I'm Sue, and I put a pool in. I had called my insurance company first to make sure, you know, what I had to do in order for my insurance not to go up. And then I just went ahead and put it in. I didn't realize I lived out in the country, so you didn't have to have anyone tell you. About the roads. And I have no, everything's ravines. There is no spot level but in my front yard.

Anything else, ma'am? Is there anything else you'd like to say? Is there anything else you would like to say? Sorry, the acoustics are bad.

I know, it's echoing.

Is there anything else you want to say? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that's against this request? Is there a motion on this item?

I think she can. Would it be allowed in the side yard?

It would be.

It would be allowed in the side yard or the rear yard.

Do we have a motion? Sorry. Do we have a motion here? Don?

I'll make a motion that the variance be denied because as a homeowner myself, I know I had to grade my yard in the backyard to get a pool put in to stay within city ordinances.

Second.

Motion by Mavis, second by Witten to deny the variance. Is there any discussion?

It appears that there's ample side yard and maybe some backyard that this thing could be moved to.

you know to be in compliance my backyard backyard or side yard or something there it really there isn't it's just completely if you look at the pictures there is no no level i've got trees there's no level spot but right there if you look at the picture of it

Is next to the garage and that parking and that driveway, there seems to be a bunch of flat space of yard over on that side?

By the garage up there?

Yes, coming out from the garage and the driveway, it looks like a suitable spot.

Well, it would have to be right on my line. The line, because it's called the easement to the other place on over, and it would be right on the easement if I- Otherwise, I'd tip over, you know, there wouldn't be.

Ma'am, I was looking at the photos here. Do you have a shed in your backyard?

It's all hills.

I guess you have a little shed, though, in your backyard. A shed? Yeah.

Yeah, clear, right in the timber.

Okay.

Because that was the only level spot that I could put that little shed was down in the timber.

Okay. There's been a motion and a second. The problem is it's in the front yard.

Speaking to the board, I mean, we've been through this just last month.

We did.

And, you know, I wish that we could educate the city to come to the city and ask for these decisions to be made before. We're not in the business of making people tear down their buildings or tear down their pools. But sooner or later, people have got to come in and do the right thing and Speak with the city before they build.

Okay, roll call vote. So the motion is to deny the variance. Mavis? Yes. Briggs votes yes. Witten? Yes. Odiemi? Yes. McQueen? Yes. Five ayes, no nays. Sorry, ma'am, we denied your variance. Next item is 202621, public hearing request from Drake Fisher of Fisher Construction to consider a special use permit from the Rock Island Zoning Ordinance in R3 district for property at 634 42nd Street.

Nunes. The request is a special use permit to park and store construction vehicles and equipment at 634 42nd Street. The applicant proposes to maintain the gravel area and the six foot chain link fence along 42nd Street. The applicant states that the hours of operation will be all days of the week at all hours of the day, all year round, with at least one employees and an unexpected daily visit from at least two employees and two tenants. A special use permit is required because construction business operations are not permitted in residential zoning district under the city zoning ordinance. The subject property is located in a predominantly residential neighborhood and it's approximately 7,405 square feet. It's situated in an R2 1-6 unit residential district. The site slopes approximately two feet from the street and sits slightly above street level. The property is currently gravel and fenced with a primary facade along 42nd Street and vehicle access provided from the alley. The applicant owns approximately 14 properties on this block and states that the intent of storing vehicles and equipment on site is to facilitate maintenance and work on these properties. Surrounding zoning includes R2 and R3 residential properties along with an O1 small office district. The city's comprehensive plan designates the subject property and the surrounding properties within 250 feet as single family residential on the future land use map. There is no known zoning history. The zoning ordinance states that a special use permit must meet all the standards identified in Article 9, Section 7 to be approved. Standard A, the subject property is located within an established residential area. Commercial vehicle movement, equipment activity, and associated noise have the potential to adversely affect nearby residences, particularly during the evening and overnight hours. Allocating equipment near the applicant's rental properties provide convenience. That convenience does not make the proposed use compatible with a residential district. Business zone properties are located nearby, including immediately north of 6th Avenue, where the proposed use will be more appropriate. Staff find that the characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with the residential character of the surrounding area and would negatively affect the comfort and general welfare of neighboring residents. So this standard is not met. standard two the property is zoned r3 which provides for multiple unit housing opportunities while surrounding properties include r2 and r3 zoning along with o1 property for long fellow elementary school the future land use map identifies the area for residential development a construction business operation is substantially different from established and intended future resident residential uses staff reasons that the proposed construction vehicle and equipment storage will have a negative impact on adjacent residences. So the standard is not met. Standard 3, the comprehensive plan designates the site and surrounding properties for single-family residential use to preserve single-family character while permitting complementary uses like parks, schools, places of worship, duplexes, and small neighborhood businesses. The proposed use dedicates a residential use zone lot to outdoor storage of commercial equipment rather than a residential complementary use. The application does not demonstrate that Ongoing maintenance of nearby rental properties requires a separate residential lot as a permanent equipment storage area, and business zone properties are available nearby. Establishing this use will be inconsistent with the city's intended development pattern, so the standard is not met. Standard four, the applicant has already established a gravel parking and storage area on the property. While the proposed use has limited utility demands, the existing parking area has not undergone necessary city review for grading, drainage, access, surfacing, and other site improvements. If the request were approved, the applicant would be required to submit the necessary plans to the city engineer to demonstrate that the existing Existing parking area complies with applicable city requirements. Based on current information, staff cannot determine that all necessary facilities and site improvements have been adequately provided. So this standard is not met. Standard five, the applicant proposes to access the property from the existing alley rather than directly from 42nd Street. While this limits additional commercial traffic on 42nd Street, the alley currently serves as primary access for residential properties on the block. Introducing commercial construction vehicles and equipment into an alley serving residential traffic fails to demonstrate that adequate measures have been taken. This standard is not met. For standards six and seven, Staff is recommending denial. If the commission decides to recommend approval under different findings, staff have provided a draft ordinance with recommended stipulations. The special use will be required to comply with all other applicable city ordinances if approved. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission pass a recommendation to the city council to deny the request as it does not meet the standards for approval.

Thank you, Eunice. Would the applicant like to address the board? Hi, are you Drake Fisher?

I am.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the process, but I think, you know, judged by the rest of this, I can catch up to speed on it and try to stick to the topic here. I was busy today, so I'm unprepared for it. But... You know, I think it seemed like I hit the standards when I applied for it, when I was aware that I'm supposed to be pulling permits for this kind of stuff. You know, I run a construction business, not a fencing business and stuff. So when I called the people and had them build it, I assumed everything was copacetic. So... And essentially, when I filled out that form, it seemed like I hit all those markers, you know, when I bought the property, there was a six foot chain link fence, I just carried that out, you know, 30% of what is there now, I just carried that out to be like kind of quality, you know, rather than drop it to a different size or anything like that. The size didn't matter to me. But we did a proper approach, graveled it, all that kind of stuff. By no means am I trying to run a construction business out of this at all. I have a construction business down the street in Moline. I don't need this for overflow. I have a guy that rents a garage from me that does all of my landscaping for like 100 properties right in that Rock Island area. and he parks his trailer there every night and like two different occasions there's been it's very popular right there's two kids stealing cars and they steal cars and they drop them off in my parking lot over there it's been multiple occasions there's probably police reports on it and one of the times they smashed his truck and there's no type of recourse on that stuff So he can't park his equipment there anymore, and now he has to park it all the way in Davenport and just wants to drop me as a client on the stuff. So I've also had tenants that have had their vehicles stolen right there that have asked for some type of security or they have to move, and they did move. So I put a lot of money into these properties and into these streets and all that kind of stuff and cleaned it up, organized it. A lot of the people that rent from me do work for me, and they have their trailers on the street or in a yard. Nothing's ever said. The second I throw up a fence, try to clean it up and organize it, make it look professional, keep it off the street and not in the way, red flags. It makes no difference to me. I can take the hits or whatever. It's fine. I was trying to do something clean, nice, organized. We have our trailers set aside like that. Like I said, not running construction business out of this. We're paper contractors at that point. We're not running equipment and stuff. So I couldn't remember all the points on that.

So I guess I have a question for staff. So is the fence height a problem? Or is that in compliance? Are we just talking about using the lot as a lot?

It's for the use of the lot to store construction trailers and equipment, which normally wouldn't be allowed in a residential area. Yep.

Okay, but you're saying really it's not used for your construction business, just your landscaping guy uses it?

Yeah, I put it generally there because we have, you know, I buy and renovate. I did buy and renovate a lot of houses in that area. This makes me want to stop doing it. Uh, we would put, this is my landscaping guy. He has multiple enclosed trailers. Like I said, they're clean. He just has lawn mowers in them, but needs to put them somewhere out of the alley off the street. So they're not getting smashed by kids with stolen vehicles and no recourse on it. You know, he's taken two vehicles just in that alley that have gotten completely destroyed with no type of financial recourse on it. So, okay. No construction equipment. Trailers enclosed, parked. It would be one person coming in. It's not all day, every day. It's not, you know, he mows sometimes on Saturdays. But it would be one guy coming in and grabbing that stuff. Or a dump trailer for renovating a house nearby.

Okay. And I guess the board, and sir, have you seen the draft ordinance that staff prepared in case the board wants to approve the special use?

I didn't. Like I said, very busy, quick scan of the email, and I just wanted to show up.

So there's a lot to it, but the staff anticipated in the case that maybe the board would approve your request that it would come with certain stipulations. And there's a draft. I don't know if you can read that from there. Do you have an extra hard copy, anybody?

I don't think so. If you have your phone, too, Mr. Fisher, it should be emailed to you.

I didn't know if I could bring it in. I can read it from here.

So basically, they're just saying that the activities should be restricted Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Yep. Ingress and egress limited to the rear alleyway for unloading and loading or coming in and out, and that you would put down an improved surface so asphalt or concrete instead of leaving it gravel.

Unfortunately, there's actually an ordinance in Rock Island. You cannot use gravel as a driveway in any part of the city.

Yeah, I think, like I said, like kind of quality followed suit. My entire alleyway of both sides of the street that I own are all gravel. So you would just assume that's what it is.

We understand. We understand.

And it says maintain a six-foot fence. So there's a fence there that already meets the requirements.

Yeah, we suggested a solid fence of putting like privacy slats in it or something like that. To buffer.

And then limited it to four commercial vehicles or trailers and two pieces of construction equipment at any time. That they have to be within the screen storage area and shouldn't be taller than six feet. The six foot privacy fence. And that you can't maintain, repair, store hazardous material, lose bulk debris, or any salvage items. And there would be a 6-foot buffer yard. Can you explain what that would be?

That's just basically our landscaping requirements for this sort of thing. So with any parking lot or any type of use like that next to residential property, there is a landscaping buffer yard requirements. So it's perimeter landscaping that would go around the lot.

Take care of it? Just take care of the property? Is that what you're saying? Landscaping?

It's a little more than that. I mean, it's plantings, it's trees, it's based on... how many feet you share with the neighboring property line. We have a matrix that details that. There's something to follow? Yes. OK. Yes.

Do you, well, I guess the board hasn't voted on this one way or another. I guess my inclination would be to, it does seem to me like there are some unique circumstances here that might make the variance request something that we would consider. and i don't know if it's worth just voting on it now or if you want to because the the restrictions on if they do approve it what the staff's proposing are pretty restrictive i mean they're pretty there's a lot to them because they want you to have proper plans for the parking to include the asphalt or concrete and proper drainage and that kind of thing and so i don't know if that's something that you want to think about or and have a chance to review before we vote or if you want us to go ahead and vote now and then and make it because it'll go to council it's just a recommendation right especially this permit goes to council for actual approval it would still go to yeah so we just make a recommendation on a special use permit So it's kind of up to you how you want to proceed. I guess my inclination would be to approve it subject to those conditions. I haven't gone through every one of them, but I don't know how the rest of the board feels about it.

I guess another way to look at it is that if we vote no, then that goes to the city council. But if you want to go back and think about it and revamp and see what you can do to improve on this and bring it back, then we'll hold off on our vote.

the options are you could vote no and then it's we haven't voted yet i mean nobody made a motion we have no idea how we're going to go yet regardless of if they approved it or right or denied it it would still go on to city council because they're just making a recommendation here sure um and you'd be able to speak up there as well yeah um i would say take a vote on it i guess go ahead and vote on it yeah okay so um then board

if we do find that this oh i guess it's not the same as a variant so we don't have to find that the conditions certain conditions are met the same we don't have to make the finding on here like we do for variances right no i mean if you're recommending approval you're you're basically saying that you are under the opinion that all the conditions for the special use all the standards are good okay so there's no changing or omitting some of the

Oh, you can definitely, you can definitely do that. Yeah. So you can, you can make that motion and say like, we, we recommend approval minus or any of this condition.

Um, I would say that it's a lot of conditions for a lot.

Well, some of it, too, is that, like, if this use was to be located on a business zone property adjacent to residential property, it would require a type C buffering yard. It would require parking lot landscaping. It would require pavement. So some of these are just bringing the property up to the basic standard and allowing it in a location where it normally wouldn't be allowed. One thing I didn't. The screened area, I think staff would be comfortable with the privacy fence. If the vehicles go over the six foot height, that's fine. That can be omitted from there.

I'm more in discussion.

I was going to do a motion, and then you can discuss if you'd like based on my motion. I would move to approve the special use permit subject to the conditions that staff has set forth.

Second.

So what happens if I don't agree with all the conditions?

Just talk about it.

You can amend the motion. All right.

I'll give you a second in one minute.

Did everyone have a chance to look at these? Are there any of these that are problematic for you? I didn't really see.

The only thing is the expense. And then where does that lead from here with inspections and all that kind of stuff? Insanity, probably. Just spend $90,000 for a couple trailers. Or what's the alternative to it? Make an amendment to that? What's realistic?

And then I guess, yeah.

Was there any letters or anybody that said anything about this property?

No, there's no one here to object. Did you get any objections from any neighbors?

No. One. One neighbor. And to be, I know Mr. Fisher owns a lot of the surrounding property. We send it to the, we send the notice to the property owner. So there's not a lot of notices. A lot of notices. Do you like to object to yourself? I'm just kidding.

No objections.

And a lot of the others are college rental properties. I recognize my old landlord on that property owner maps. The residents living there wouldn't necessarily see the notice.

Got it.

I don't want to start a trend of something either where people start to, you know, do the same thing and do more. Because it looks like they cleaned it up around there, like made the people that did have above ground pools and stuff all over their yard fence it and put, you know, stuff.

In the city, I want to be clear, the city very much appreciates your investment in cleaning up those properties. Yeah, I agree. It looks good. There's not a lot of people who take that work on and we're very appreciative of that. It's not profitable. This has nothing to do with that. It's just a process we have to go through.

Yep, absolutely.

Yeah.

all right so there's been a motion in a second is there any more discussion or can we vote can i one second sorry you know i'm gonna put my two cents in i'm anti having an asphalt or concrete i am anti privacy fence if there was some kind of privacy screen i think that would be adequate as long as there's something that people just can't look right inside um and i'm pretty opposed to the typical landscaping requirements that are needed i'm just saying well you're saying about the asphalt concrete i don't think i think it's necessary I don't think it should be required.

But we require it for any driveway. Well. And any parking lot. Is that right?

I mean, everything is. Yeah, any commercial parking lot is required.

Well, for instant time.

I would have rather left it a grass lot, to be honest with you. But, yeah.

We've seen improvement. It's just that, I mean, it's an industrial business in a residential area. You know, that's what we're trying to struggle with. Yeah. Yeah.

All right, I'm going to take a roll call now, unless you're moving to amend. No. I'll let City Council amend it. All right, Mavis?

Yes.

Briggs votes yes. Yes. Swinton, yes. McQueen? Yes. Odiemi? Yes. Okay. Motion is approved, subject to those conditions. Thank you.

All right, thanks.

I appreciate it. Have a good night.

Good luck, sir. Yes.

Yeah, we do appreciate all you've done. We really do.

I grew up one lot north of that lot. They're duplexes.

No, he out there.