Mechanical Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Code

and

Regulation Committee meeting for Monday, April 27. We have 20 items on the agenda. 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 three eighteen feet north of Whitman Street to three forty eight feet north of Whitman Street. Is there a motion to approve?

Second. 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 73XX East Riverside Boulevard. Is there a motion to approve?

So

moved. 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 2532 Thousand 710, And 2720 South Main Street. The 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 2532 Thousand 710 And 2720 South Main Street. Is there a motion to approve? So I'll second. Any comments or questions on item three? Alderman Terina.

Yes. This does reside in my ward. I would like to make a motion to lay this item over, please. I have a lot of concerns with this one, especially after listening to 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. So we have a motion to layover and a second. I agree the testimony at ZBA was compelling, but I do want to just note for the record that on all of the aldermen's desks is a copy of the Voluntary Relocation Assistance Program that was sent to me by the attorney for the property owner today and it was I believe there were no specifics given at ZBA on what that would look like and so now you have that to consider assuming this gets laid over. Any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over?

Seeing none, clerk, will you call the roll? Thank you. So item three is laid over. Item 4 20 or 373207 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? Voting to just to remind everybody, voting yes means you are supporting the recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals for denial. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 5300321 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 I 3 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.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 6515 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? Elderwoman, Trena.

Thank you. I am going to be voting to not sustain the denial. I did not agree with the zoning decision. 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. Cavivilla, you tell me what the vote was? I don't know, I was there but I don't remember what the tally was.

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

Okay. There 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.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on your committee. I know there's been a lot of discussion, at least emails and so forth, against this project. But I sense there might be some way 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 layover so we can meet with the developer, meet with engineers and other things to see whether there is a way to come up with a compromise. So that would be my thoughts, mister chairman, if that's at all possible.

Thank you, Alderman Beach. Any other questions or comments? I'm going to be voting in favor of the zoning board recommendation for denial. I spoke against this at the ZBA. It borders the 14th Ward.

It's the 14th Ward on the opposite side of Alpine. And I don't want to belabor most of the points that I made there, but I think that the neighbors, some of whom are in 14th Ward and most of whom are in Alderman Beach's ward in the 10th Ward, have valid concerns about the possible detriment to their investments in their homes if a multifamily is allowed to be constructed on a parcel of land that is essentially surrounded on three sides by parkland and then that parkland and the remaining side of this parcel by single family housing. The property owner that whenever purchased this property 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 presumably the ZBA recommendation is what it is. And I just really, in defense of the property owners who spoke against it, really take exception with the ZBA chairman NIMBY shaming them and talking about 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.

I think that is the wrong way to go about addressing our housing shortage, so I'm going to be voting in favor of the ZVA recommendation. Alderman Thunberg.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak on your committee. Has there been any talk of a modification of this proposal in the meantime since this EBA's recommendation for denial? I just know that sometimes that there are 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 Alderman Beach wants to address that and then maybe staff.

I had thank you, chairman. Alderman Thunberg, I had placed a call to one of the engineers, in response to his call to me, and we've not been able to connect. But, I sensed 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, in fairness to the developer, I'd like to give them a chance to have that discussion.

You. Can Mr. Capavilla address that and then I'll go back to you alderman toomer and then alderman terina.

Mr. Chair so there there was 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 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 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 kind of a balancing act. We obviously want to see more development, housing development in our city, but we want to see it done smartly of course. Just would it be an easier process to have something like this laid over for I'm not on the committee, but would it be 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 recommend that Alderman Beach have those conversations between now and next week when this comes to counsel. Then if it looks like there's more work to be done to lay it over when it gets to counsel next week versus to lay it over now. That's just me. Alderman Trina, did you?

Yes. I would like for Mr. Capavela to explain why staff felt like this was Mr. A smart decision and ZBA did not. Please.

So this land has been sitting there with just one single family home on like a six acre site. 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. We looked at it as a good infill site 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. 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 going 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 listed as to what it was actually listed under before which was quasi public at the time I think that was there was a possibility that people were thinking that this might be acquired by the city or the park district in some time but it was not so but we were happy with the designs of the buildings the layout they're building a 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 the sidewalk to get down to Larson and provide sidewalks on Larson as well. So overall we thought it was a good fit especially with the townhomes that that were being proposed for that area.

I actually would ask Mr. Gabbivol one other question too that I don't believe came up at ZVA. So I assume 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?

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, a yes vote is to oppose the development and a no vote is to support it. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Yes. So motion fails. Legal? I knew this was coming. Yes?

Thank you, Chairman. In this situation, because there's findings of fact associated with ZBA's recommendation, I would recommend reversing ZBA's decision and adopting findings of fact associated with approving this application.

Sure. 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 counsel, it would need 10 votes to pass?

The ordinance would. That's

correct. The ordinance would.

Yes.

Okay. Does someone want to make that motion to reverse the ZBA recommendation? Motion and a second, to reverse the ZBA recommendation. Can you call the roll? Clerk please.

Bonnie?

No.

Terina? Franci? Wilkins? Aye. Bill?

Motion passes. Okay. Item seven is 1320 21st Avenue zoning board of appeals recommends approval for variation to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to nine feet in an r2 single in an r2 two family residential zoning district at 1320 21st Avenue. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. There any questions or comments on item seven? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Item eight. Seven thirty and 7XX 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 thirty by 90 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 730 And 7xx Lincoln Park Boulevard is our motion to approve. Are there any questions or comments on item eight? Alderwoman Trina.

I just have a comment. I'm really reading this before meeting the plaintiffs, you get a very different viewpoint of what this actually is going to be. But there are 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. 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? 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-one, Light Industrial Zoning District, to C-four, Urban Mixed Use Zoning District, at 2015325, and 423 South Madison Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.

Second. Are there any questions or comments on item nine? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 10818 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? Second. Are any questions or comments on item 10? Other woman, Terina.

No shocker here. There are a lot of liquor approvals this week. 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 just because of where it is. But this one in particular, it's definitely going to be a no. But again, it's just because I feel like they're in highly vulnerable areas where we do not absolutely need to be adding more liquor or tobacco to further diminish the quality of life for the people in the area. That's all. Thank you.

May I can I ask if this is your ward or is this the 11th Ward? 11th Ward? Well,

I care about the whole city, not just mine.

Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd agree with the fifth court alderwoman's statement about how we we need to figure out a way to take a liquor away from our communities, especially those that are vulnerable. There's an item on the agenda later on today in my ward for liquor and tobacco approval. I have a question for this specific one, though, just to mister Capavilla. Is this an ownership change, or is this a new business?

It's an ownership change of an existing business and to Alderman Terina's 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 and it was really bad and so we had recommended a closing of midnight the owner did not like that but he agreed to it The same thing was brought up this past Tuesday where the owner said no I want to be open until two a. And we said no we're going to stick with the twelve 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.

Thank you. I'd love to know kind of a map of and this is a big project. We can work on this offline, of course. But at least in my ward well, I'd like to know what businesses that sell liquor are required to close at midnight and or at one a. M. Or two a. M. Compared, you know, from West Side to maybe East Side. So we'll we'll work on that. Would love to get that list just to compare how the city has limited the time in which a business can sell liquor and for what reasons.

We'll work on that though, Mr. Capavilla. Thank you.

May I ask if the Alderman for the ward has an opinion on this?

So from my opinion at this point in time, it is an establishment already there. I continue to go and support this on this direction. However, there are some underlying issues there within that area. We got Carpenter's Place, which is right around the corner. So yes, there is a lot there where there is some congregation from that perspective, which kind of lures from that particular site.

However, from that perspective, I have talked to the owners on that. And they are trying really hard to clean their act. And they understand that some of the patriots that go there have some potential issues with alcohol abuse from that perspective. So from my standpoint, it is an existing business that's just renewing and getting the license to continue to operate, Causing potentially closure for this to happen potentially, huge revenue losses, a building, vacant building there, just going to add more to that site. So from my perspective at this point in time, and I do encourage Mr.

Capabilia's comments restricting them on certain time limits in order to reduce some of the calls that occur there. So that is my opinion and my comment.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments on item nine or 10 rather? Seeing none, clerk, could we have a roll call vote on this one? Aye. Motion carries.

Item 112975 North Perryville Road, Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2975 North Perryville Road. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. 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 twelve-two 914, West State Street Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of packaged liquor, class PKG, and the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in an I-one light industrial zoning district at 2914 West State Street. Is there a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item 12? Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Capa Villa, can you confirm that this is an ownership change, please?

It is an ownership change, yes.

So this this property, Whale Gas Station, in the 13th Ward, if you go from Johnston to Pierpont, there's there are three or four different liquor or tobacco shops all in a five block radius. This has been here for a while. I have a great relationship with the current owner. I know that they are selling it. I'd I'd like to, and I've made comments about this many, many times regarding access to fresh food, specifically in an area that is a food desert, to to say the least.

Would love to know kind of the process in which to go forth with a condition to ensure that they have access to fresh produce at least in their grocery section. I don't know if that has been done in the past, but would love to figure out a way to put that condition on this establishment. Is that possible?

That's an interesting proposal and I think any condition would be possible. I'm going to have to actually look. I'm looking at getting a yes from the legal director. 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 a council will vote on it? How would Either it

option would be available.

Sure. I'd like to make a motion to lay this over. I'll talk with the owner. I'm sure he'll buy into this. They seem to want to give back to the community in some capacity. So I'll make a motion to layover, and I'll have a conversation with the owner on this.

Second. Okay. There's a second. Can we have a roll call vote on this, on the motion to layover? Or is there any question or comment Sure. On the motion to

Thanks. There seemed to be a hesitation. I wouldn't use the word extreme, but I think it was very anyways, so I think we have to look at right? You have individuals in that corridor who have to walk, just say, from Rockford Ridge down to Save A Lot to get their groceries. They oftentimes stop into Waylo gas station halfway to get quick items that they may need.

And going in there, I think that they can do a much better job at providing some type of or a better option of fresh food. And so, in light of that, I'd like to have a conversation. So, I'd hope that I get your guys' support on this committee to lay it over 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. With respect to what happened, believe it was in a 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 push back a little bit on your comparison there. So, I'd hope that I can get 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 just want to make a comment that oftentimes layovers are needed to clarify. I asked this evening earlier the layover so that I could speak to our people to see if we can come up with a better deal and deny that privilege. So I just want to put that on record.

Are there any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over? Alder Ben Vella.

Thanks. I think just to put it back on the table, we are voting for me as the alderman of the ward to have conversations with the owner 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.

Motion carries. Item 12 is laid over. Item thirteen, three thousand five hundred twenty three 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 a 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 144225 Charles Street, Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of beer and wine by the drink, class WV50, in conjunction with a restaurant and video gaming terminals in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 4225 Charles Street. Is there a motion to approve item 14? So

moved. Second.

Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 152842 And 28 Xx 11th Street and 2845 Kinsey Street. Liquor 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 284228 XX 11th Street and 2845 Kinsey Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. So moved.

There any questions or comments on item 15? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Item 166565 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 172645 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?

So moved.

Second. 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 18901 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 terminals in 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. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 196275 East State Street, Liquor And Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink, class L50, in conjunction with a restaurant and outdoor seating area in a c two limited commercial zoning district at 6002 And 75 East State Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. 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 resolution, we have one item, proposed resolution establishing minimum standards, performance requirements, and community benefit obligations for a data center.

So it's my understanding that this proposed resolution as riddled with legal pitfalls and so before we discuss this I'm going to ask call on staff to actually I need a motion to approve first. Is there a motion to approve? So. Is there a second? Can't speak without a second.

Second it. You. With that, I want to ask Administrator Cagnoni to address these legal concerns with the resolution as well as walk us through it generally.

Thank you Chairman. Thank you to the Alderman that reached out to myself, Director Hammer, or Mr. Capavelo over the last week to talk about the legalities of the resolution and some of the existing status related to proposed development. Understanding that the proposed resolution changes a number of the City Of Rockford regulations, including including our our zoning ordinance, our building code. 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 city council for consideration.

Certainly, council has the authority to give staff direction to file tax amendments. And should that be the case, we certainly could advance that. Additionally, the building code is adopted by ordinance. So it couldn't be circumvented by resolution. And the Capital Development Board of the State of Illinois would require us to have a public notice for thirty days so that it could be reviewed and commented on.

And that certainly has been our practice. Additionally, as a non home rural community, we do not have the authority to go into a community benefits agreement without specific statutory authority from the state. That is being discussed, as I understand it. And it is in some proposed legislation. But as it currently stands, it's not authority that we would have.

Understanding that the resolution targets specific developer monarch, I thought it was important to probably provide a little bit of backstory as it relates to Monarch and our discussions with them. And certainly willing to answer any questions related to those ongoing discussions. We began our communication with Monarch at least going back to 2023. And it's called Monarch Air for a reason. At the time, Monarch was looking to do a waste to fuel waste to aviation fuel development 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 environmentally friendly aviation fuel. 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 of such a development. Unfortunately, that did not come to fruition. And that ultimately had Monarch pivot to other industrial developments.

And we've 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. All that property is zoned General Industrial I-two. It was annexed into the city of Rockford between 02/2011. At that point in time, it would have gone through the public hearing process to identify whether I, too, 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. We had worked directly with the Rockford Area Economic Development Council, now the greater Rockford chamber, in regards to whether this was of the appropriate size, of the appropriate land use for our ultimate efforts to drive additional investment into the city of Rockford, both as it relates to growing the tax base, but as well as creating job opportunities. Since then, we've been aligned with the Illinois Economic Development Council that has identified this as a mega site. We've worked with DCO. We've done studies with Fairgram, as well as studies related to market analysis for this property being industrial.

The reason I state all that information is that when the city of Rockford was annexed this property in 02/2011, we did it by means of an annexation agreement. So an annexation agreement is good for up to twenty years. And the annexation agreements governing these properties are for the full twenty years. So they are still active in existing annexation agreements. And because these are in existence prior to changes related to our zoning ordinance that are being discussed, changes in the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted uses would not be applicable to this property.

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 02/2011 when it was zoned I-two. However, 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 02/2011 in regards to how industrial development could impact the surrounding properties. So within those annexation agreements, there are certain development standards such as a 50 foot landscaping buffer adjacent to residential uses and other development standards that would have to be satisfied. Even with all that said, Mayor McNamara has continued to articulate his willingness to have a public meeting in advance of any data center advancing forward.

At this point in time, we have an actual data center. 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, we'd be happy to have that public meeting. Know, myself, zoning team, we've been evaluating best practices related to data centers, watching what has been taking place in other communities in regards to the type of concerns that we'd want to make sure are addressed and certainly understand how the community could be fully informed in regards to what would be proposing should there be a data center at that time. I guess I'd mention just one other thing.

Previous councils, certainly including Alderman Beach, former Alderman Bill Rose, had been advocates of us going after tech industry, specifically talking about microchip manufacturing, understanding that there was and continues to be a national shortage in that as a potential opportunity. We have also had those conversations on this particular property. Whether any of those opportunities are going to advance, it is unclear at this point in time. Certainly, will defer to Angela in regards to the appropriate statutes and legal processes 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. 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 Bell late last week about the limitations on our statutory authority as a non home rule community. And so we have engaged in the beginnings of those discussions and discussed how the resolution would need to be revised to stay within those parameters. And as Administrator Cagnoni mentioned, the statutory procedure outlined for changes to our building code and our zoning code.

Thank you. Elderwoman Wilkins, did you have?

Thank you, your honor. 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 public input, for maybe staff to come up with a proclamation, one that's legal, that we can start with. Like I said, that captures everyone's voices in this. Because I know there have been a lot of discussions behind the scenes and and even with 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. Like I said, a legal document from city staff.

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.

I believe it is. Director or Administrator Cagneyoni?

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

Yeah, I'd like to put a motion on the floor for staff to come up with a legal document for the proclamation for this that will help protect the city. For clarity, resolution. Resolution, I'm sorry. Proclamation.

So, would second that based on that we I I think it's important that we if we're going to have any resolution at all that tries to guide data center development, that it at least comport with our lack of home rule and that it not conflict with existing development agreements. I'll second that motion. Is there any question or comment on the motion to ask staff to develop a proposal? Alderwoman Terina.

I guess I'd like to know what so the resolution that was presented, 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 jumping to a new thing, and 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 what's on the agenda?

So it was 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 starting from scratch and putting forward one that is within our statutory authority. I thought that was 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 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 Alderman Wilkins' recommendation.

Either both are possible, but we essentially have two motions on the floor at Correct. The same time right Yes. Okay. So we can either Wilkins can either change her motion to become a motion an motion to amend Alderman Bells or we can vote on them individually?

I would recommend voting on them individually.

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. Alderman Bell.

Thank you. My arm started to get tired. Thank you, Chairman. Let me just say this, Mr. Cignoni. Appreciate the lengthy explanation. I would have to say that's probably the longest and most detail that at least I've received regarding the data center and now publicly here in the meeting 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 learning more about all of the details with this situation, the piece of land, what's in front of us, what's not in front of us.

So thank you for that. I'm just getting I mean, I'm just gonna call it what it is. I I think that political theater theater, well done. We've had several conversations, mayor, legal director, 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 we've had several back and forths, legal director, on what we are going to amend so that it is legal or taken out the provisions for home rule communities. So, looking forward to that. I mean, at the beginning of this, again, it was a draft proposal. I wanted to start the conversation. I'm glad that it's happening.

So, again, it's working. I'd also like to comment on the 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 we're going to make sure that we refine it to ensure that there is a proper standard when it comes to data center development in this community.

That's been 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 proposal. Personally, I don't care as long as the minimum standards are set and that this community benefits from any data center that should come before us if we don't have to take an actual vote here on city council. So, however, you all need to feel better about moving this forward. Again, my whole thing is I think we need to have the conversation and we're having it now. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Bell. So, again, we are talking about Alderman Wilkins' motion to ask staff to develop a resolution. Alderman Wilkins and then Alderman Salgado.

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 what's in front of us tonight. So thank you. I'll withdraw.

So the second also needs to be withdrawn?

It would not need to be withdrawn. Would just happen as a matter of right.

Okay. All right. So then we are back to Alderman Bell's proposed resolution, is on the agenda. Alderman Salgado and Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak in your committee. This resolution, I think, from my perspective, I've had conversations with Mr. Bell on this. And I'm a procedure guy. So I've asked a couple of questions. I talked to Mr. Capavelia. Text amendment's the way to go with this. And so I think laying it over, sending it, or sending it back to the zoning board of appeals, just like we did with your storage, chairman. Storage units trying to establish that change within commercial zones and so forth.

I think that's the proper way of doing this. And I can speak from a county board perspective. That's how we used to update our UDO code, as we call it. In this case, our ordinances regarding this. Now there's a lot of talk about, well, tech and this and that. We had a similar situation with our solar farms. The county experienced that. We experienced those popping up here and there. I doubt we're going to have 30 data centers within the city of Rockford limits. I understand that.

But there are concerns. Like with solar farms decommissioning, is there bonding for that? Who's going to 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, the text amendment, to look at the different 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 business viable, whether it makes sense for the city to collect $14,000,000 $13,000,000 $10,000,000 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. Whether it's a text amendment, whatever it is, administration can hold those meetings, debate it day in, day out.

That's what they're there for to make that recommendation up to your committee. And then we take a vote on that as a city council. So that's my recommendation. Ultimately, I was hoping Ms. Wilkins would we would add to that to say, hey, send it back to the Zorting Board of Appeals as a text amendment so we can hash these questions out. And then it funnels through as we have our process. So that's the only commentary I wanted to make on that. And I appreciate it.

Thank you. Alderman Salgado. So 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 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 it. Legal director, if you want to take that.

Thank you, Chairman. 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 counsel 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

it's the intent of the committee and council to direct staff to file a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, Director Hammer would be correct. It would be a resolution directing us to do that. This resolution it as it doesn't do that Correct. Right now. So I think that would be some of the amendments that would be needed to take place. But it certainly would, as Alderman Salgado stated, that would be the 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. Alderman Bell and then Alderman Durkee.

Thank you. And some of those statements obviously have been made, Mr. Cignoni, and 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, community and council members who have reached out over the past weeks regarding the 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 wanna be a part of the decision that will shape Rockford for generations to come. I also wanna 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 without clear 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 resolution this draft proposal seeks to begin answering.

And I also wanna 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 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 Elder 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 resolution that passes legal muster and bring that back to our committee. Question?

It's the

same thing?

Is that

It's the same thing?

No. A motion to table tables it in would table it indefinitely until staff comes back. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. I believe that is a nondebandable motion, correct? That's 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.

No.

Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned.