Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening everyone. Oh, there's Sarah. We'll just wait one minute. Hi Sarah. All right. I'd like to call this meeting to order, please. Uh take roll call. Kreger? Here. Johnson? Here. Mavis? Moline? Yes. Odeyemi? Here. Riggs is here. Saret? Whitten? Here. Wright? Here. Is there any public comment at this point? Hearing none, we'll turn to the minutes. Can I have a motion to approve the April 6th meeting minutes, please? Motion to approve. Second. Motion by Whitten, second by Odeyemi. Any discussion? Uh all those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Uh old business, 2026-08 a public hearing request from Mary Gordon to consider a special use permit from the Rock Island zoning ordinance for property at 702 20th Street in an R2 district. Um I believe that the staff report has not changed on this matter and really the only thing that was sort of pending on our last hearing was one of the residents had brought an ad about an advertisement for double rooms in this property and I think there was some concern from the commission and some of the residents that were here last time that that might put them over the requested eight people or residents, like eight total residents, I guess, right? Um so I guess Mr. Gordon, I see that you're here

tonight. Can Can you Do you Can you respond to that issue? Yeah, I mean I was not aware that that was posted and it was only up for Um there is I will Oh. Sorry. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. I thought I could hear myself. I thought it was on. Me, too. I can hear you. Uh she Like I said, she did post it on Facebook, whatever, and I wish I had time to monitor Facebook like this, but she took it down after 2 days and at but I'm going to comment that there is a room that has a husband and a wife in it. It's room number one, but there's also a vacant room. But the reason is is the the wife was living there. The husband went into hospice and he was They didn't think he was going to make it. He was released from hospice, so he is living with her in the room. It's a large room with a king-size bed and they're elderly retired couple. And I just I mean I don't see any So how many How many residents are in the house currently?

Sev- Well, there's seven right now. Total? Yes. Including your mother? As of No, eight with my mother. Eight with your mother. Yeah, with the couple. Um that's another So basically I after reading after what happened the last meeting that I was not available and I apologize for that. I was out of the out of the country, so and I didn't even know about it, so. But the um Well, that's why we wanted to give you an opportunity to come back, so that's why we set it over for today. Thank you. Um so I guess my understanding is is there's eight bedrooms if counting downstairs, seven upstairs, and then the lower level. So there's a total of eight people, period. I mean, so I guess I mean

And that I mean if that special use is approved, that would be okay, as long as that vacant room is not full filled at some point. As long as it didn't go over eight people. Yeah, which I mean I'm kind of I guess I'm confused cuz there is there's two large bedrooms. One has two beds, but it only has one person. There's a vacant room and then there's the large the second large room that has an elderly couple in it. Um is there the I guess uh the number's seven or eight or eight total cuz downstairs is huge. Right. There's only one bedroom, but I mean if there was a a fam- a couple living down there, that would put it over the eight, also. Right.

So I mean I just, you know, the the eight to me is an arbitrary number or whatever that, you know, when they went through and did the inspection, The application proposed to rent seven rooms out and that your mother would occupy the eighth unit herself. Correct. So our understanding was that was what was requested and that's all that's being considered. So it would be no more than eight people total, regardless of what where they're staying. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean I read that, but that's in stone. Pardon me? And that's in stone. Okay. If If

Because what I mean, you know, the downstairs is huge and it's got a eat-in kitchen and it's got several you know, extra rooms. It does have one bedroom, but I mean if if a husband and wife moved in there, I mean that would be that would put you over the eight. But if a husband and wife moved into the main level, would your mom move upstairs? No. There's a manager that lives on site. He occupies one room upstairs.

Okay. And according to what I read in this, as long as the the manager, applicant, or owner lives on property, that that's sufficient. My wife My My mean my wife. My mother's going to be there. I mean that's I'm just looking down the road. If she passes, whatever, and it comes to me, you know, what what are my options with it? It's just, you know, it's not just, you know, what happens today is the end of the world. It's I'm looking down the road. So So nothing is set in stone yet. Staff just based, you know, our report and what we notified the the neighbors about based on your request to us. So we thought that was going to be seven people plus your mom living there for a total of eight. If that's changing for some reason, I mean we or changes in the future, say, and this is approved, then you would need to come back and have that amended, but um the the request was for uh up to eight people there, so that's what we've been discussing so far. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean it's Like I said, I I wasn't involved in the the original draft and I'm not sure where it came from, but it's, you know, I'm trying to I'm in the middle now and I'm trying to figure out exactly where it is. But I mean to go on further, whatever that I mean if you if you go by the property, whatever, you can see that there's I mean huge improvement to the property. It's an ongoing process, whatever, and so I mean it's just, the we're just My mother stays on top of things. We also have a live-in manager, so he's, you know, he's on top of things, too. He communicates more with the tenants than my mother does because he's on the same level, but, you know, any problems they can address with him or my mother, either one. So there's actually two managers there, so. Okay. And I was open for any questions.

Yeah, any questions of the Mr. Gordon? Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this permit? Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak against this request? Is there any any other comments or questions by the board? If not, is there a motion on this matter? Yeah, I move that the recommendation be approved. I'll second. And you're talking about the staff recommendation, is that correct?

Okay. There's a motion by Moline, second by Wright. Is there any discussion? And I I can hear what I know what the neighbors are hoping for, uh but it seems to me one reason and I can't really make motion is that such an unusual house already with eight separate rooms and with eight bathrooms that there's not going to be an average family in Rock Island to buy the house to be more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And so actually I think if we would enforce only one family family in the house, the house could be vacant a long time. I just don't think there are any so that that's not the case. They the neighbors speak out about this. It's not like we're not hearing their point of view. It's just a single family home. And as you said, the special use permit means it's only for this circumstance and it's not a it's not a rezone Agree. Any other comment? Hearing none, let's take a roll call, please. Moline? Yes. Odeyemi? Yes. Riggs votes I. Uh Whitten? Yes. Wright? Kreger? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Seven I's, no nays. Motion carries. Okay, Mr. Gordon, thank you. And this will go to City Council on May 20th for a final final decision. I'm sorry. This will go to City Council on May 20th for a final decision. Thank you. Yeah, and we'll we'll send you something in the mail or email about that. Perfect. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thanks. Next item, 2026-09 public hearing request from Christina Caldwell, and there's a request to postpone this item until the July 6th meeting. May I have a motion to that effect? Motion. Second. Motion by Wright, second by Odeyemi. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed, nay? Motion carries. Uh same with 2026-10 public hearing request from Drake Fisher to postpone this item to the June 1st meeting. May I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Wright, second by Whitten. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Other business, the public hearing request from the CD department regarding establishing a land purchase and land sale policy and ordinance. Tanner, is that you? That's me. So, staff did make some changes to this since the last meeting, primarily in response I know Commissioner Moline gave some comments on this. So, we did update some things in both the policy and the ordinance. One of the updates in the policy was regarding a neighborhood lot sales, just some clarity in that language there. Just explicitly stating, you know, the main purpose of that is to offer that land to nearby residents who want to be good stewards of that property, but also wouldn't deter, you know, neighborhood groups like the Friends of Realtors Park or a group similar to that to buy to buy property. So, just wanted to be explicit about that change. The other one was infill housing lot sales. I know Commissioner Moline brought up some um suggestions for this as well.

So, we put in here that, you know, development of new housing units that are compatible with neighborhood character and align with the city's comprehensive plan and then blended that with the rest of that sentence there about increasing property values while stabilizing the surrounding neighborhood. As far as the ordinance, again, here just a reference to the the goals and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. You know, the city council decision makers should use that plan as policy guidance when selling city owned property. So, we included that reference there as well that was brought up by Commissioner Moline. So, I know there were a couple other things I I think Commissioner Moline might highlight here that he asked for last time that we didn't include. One of those was the city council's kind of latitude in selling property. I believe that's at the end of number number five in the in the policy, but nothing in these policies and procedures shall preclude the city council from approving development agreements that includes provisions accommodating alternative sale sale prices. That doesn't That's that's pretty typical language to include and staff stand by keeping that there. Gives us some flexibility if we were to enter into maybe a unique situation with a development agreement with a housing developer or something like that where we could negotiate that that purchasing purchase price and that's one of the incentives a city could offer to make a development like that happen. Again, you know, just kind of thinking towards towards the future and don't want to limit ourselves too much there. Believe the other reference that we didn't include was about

protecting the natural environment uh in the ordinance. Staff feel that that reference to the comprehensive plan covers that. Um Comprehensive plan includes policy guidance on what the city council should consider about protecting the natural environment. So, we are comfortable moving forward with that. And that's all that I have. Thanks, Tanner. Is there any discussion on this item? So, which one are we looking at first? Is it the one that's the policy for the sale, the one that was here also first? Is that correct?

Correct. Well, I think we went through both of them, but yeah, policy I think is probably where any changes would be made. I have I guess and thanks for making the changes that you did. So, I appreciate that a lot. I think on that with that document the real estate thing, let me see. I told Moline I think this is most of the time on the commission we're voting just for how high a fence should be or something, but I think what we're looking at here is a much larger thing just when we deal with land use plans. So, I hope some of the rest of you speak up too, but I think I have but one I I appreciate the comment that I made last time and sort of objected to that one you just discussed under five, nothing in these policies shall preclude other provision. I guess I can accept your argument that you didn't include it because it really said provisions accommodating alternative sales price arrangements. It doesn't deal at all with the the land itself. It's only sales price. And so there it seemed to me when I looked at that that that probably is an acceptable thing. Not that my opinion would make any difference on that, but you made a good point that you'd like to have some flexibility. It's not some flexibility on how they're going to use the land, it's flexibility on the sales price. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah, it's not saying that, you know, the policy can just be ignored and council can do what they want. It's just giving some flexibility with the sales price, basically to negotiate that down. In reference to the sales price, there is reference for donation of city property for donation of land That is not included in here, but that that would be covered by that um agreement thing. So, like if Friends of Realtors Park wanted to like they did come to the city and say, "Hey, we'd like to buy this land." We

could always enter in into an agreement with them to um negotiate that sales price down if there was good reason to. Yeah. Same with like Habitat. They wanted a lot to build a house on. And that's one of the main incentives a city can offer for new new housing construction because we're limited in the tools that we have, but sales price is one of those that we can always take a look at. And I think you explained it, but I didn't hear that part. What the purpose in the original one was what, nine, 10 lines long and here we're down to three. What was the reason that and I'm not opposed to that, but Sure.

again why you you got rid of all of those extra making such decisions in general, etc. Goal of all sales shall be What what was the reason? I again, I don't object to it. I'm just curious why you but that was a trimming down by quite a bit of words. So, I think that was an older draft that got presented to you all at that first listening session that I wasn't at. So, I'm not totally aware of what that said, but this is the one that I've been working off of since I got back. So, Miles may have other insight into that, but this is what we've decided to go with. So, that short version seems to cover it and avoid some maybe controversies. So, then I guess the only thing that I would that would put forward and I guess after some discussion I'd be prepared to make an amendment and that is if under under property acquisition the city may acquire properties for a variety of different purposes included but not limited to the elimination of safety hazards. I would like to suggest that we add after that the reduction of natural hazards. And I do and then continue with the removal of lighted structures and so on. And I do that because as you may know, Tanner, one of the ways in which a community can get extra points for the community rating survey which can lower flood insurance rates is a commitment to when possible buying lands and letting it be available for natural flooding. Ottawa, Illinois is one of the best places in the country, one of about five or six in the country that has reached a rating of two, which is very good. They've got a list this long of the things that they've done. And one of the things that they did was to buy properties which then explicitly were said, "This is going to be when the Illinois River floods at and they get a bunch of

points." Just like that. You save home individuals and and businesses some money. So, it seemed that doesn't weaken this at all. So, I would say the elimination of safety hazards, the reduction We won't eliminate natural hazards, but the reduction of natural hazards and then it can go on. I think Rock Island rates pretty highly in that because of the amount of land that they have Rock Island has not on this side off on a side tangent for a branch, but Rock Island has the city has not applied for that. River action in this Quad City Flood Resiliency Group is trying to get Rock Island to get in on it because as the state flood plain manager said, "We already would get so many points because we've got so many areas that are prone to flood like Sunset Park. If it floods, okay. Just we we don't have buildings there. It really gives us a lot of points." So, they wish the state wishes the Rock Island would develop All that land is already city property. Yeah. But but it's possible that you if you wanted to buy some property to prevent a suburban developer from doing that to help the flood situation. Rock Island, it seems like almost an innocent statement. So, I would rather rephrase it and then I'll make it a motion.

That community rating system process, we've actually started working on that. So, we we've engaged River Action and are going through that process now. Yeah, I know the person who's working with you. So, I'm glad it's in the works. in works. If we had a phrase even like this in a document, that may mean extra points. Yeah, I'm I'm Do you have any I'm fine with that. Yeah, I don't see any harm in adding it. Do you think it's Well, I have a question though, Norman. Do you think that's um explicit enough reduction Do you think the language that you're proposing is explicit enough to show a reduction, you know, for flood area?

I I had a I had it in here. The reduction of natural hazards such as floods. If I would I almost put that and I thought, "No, maybe something would say let's leave it more general." Okay, I like that I think we should include that.

Okay. So, then I move that we amend of this draft with the addition in that fourth line uh it's the second line under property acquisition adding the phrase the reduction of natural hazards such as floods. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Motion by Sutton I'm sorry. Motion by Maureen, second by Whitten. Do we need a roll call on this or a voice vote? Voice vote's fine. Okay. All those in favor say I. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, Norman, what else you got? In in the other one, [clears throat]

I have two points. And and the first is under the whereases, I would like to see something like I read at the last meeting where the city where whereas the city desires to make land use decisions which are not harmful to the natural environment. To insert that after the third one, so it would be the fourth one. And and I know that it it's maybe covered elsewhere, but so are some other points. And at least for the what land use law stuff that I've studied over the years, they say it's better to err on the side of repeating something rather than just in case to have it be omitted because then some good lawyer would say, "You didn't include that warning in this particular one." And they take So, they always urge us to do that. And there are some who would say, "Well, natural environment is kind of a vague thing." But my response to that always has been and still is to use the phrase highest and best use in the previous one, that's also about as vague as you can possibly be. Some people would say that means economic interest, but it doesn't say that. And so, for some people, the best use of some purchased property, as we heard, even though that was city property out along the expressway, best use of that land is to leave it simply as buffer zone to the eagle habitat. Others said, "No, it's better to have it as the other." And so, we already have that vague term in there, highest and best use. And it seems if we added the other, it's simply reaffirming as the city said regularly down in that case down the way, "Don't worry about" And I I didn't get involved in that at all. But there were some who were concerned and the city said, "You don't have to worry

because the city is committed to maintain a good environment." Jeez, that's almost the wording I'm proposing to go in here as we seek to buy properties. So, the other they're two very different things. So, I this is the only one I trust for discussion and probably the rest of you have some good thoughts on that. Yeah, so the just to clarify a bit, the highest and best use I mean, that's a phrase used in real estate analysis and that's what we're referring to there. So, it's you know, it's what appraisers typically look at. I know Tanja might have more insight to that, but some of that is legal permissibility. So, there are factors that they look at with zoning, environmental reg reg regulations and and whatnot on certain land, physical capability of that land for those uses, topography, that sort of thing. So, that's what we're referring to there. So, even though it does sound vague, it's a tool analysis technique used in used in uh real estate. So, that's that's what we're talking about. As far as the natural environment thing, I don't I don't necessarily, you know, outright oppose to it. I I just think the comprehensive plan um reference does that. In my my opinion is that if there is land that, you know, shouldn't um be used for particular purposes, zoning is the more appropriate tool for that sort of thing. And so, if we do think land is environmentally sensitive, we should zone it for conservation as opposed to business. And that's, you know, to me that would that would cover that uh sort of thing. But um open to any, you know, if commissioners feel feel differently, you can certainly recommend that amendment to the city council. Anyone else want to comment on that? If not, Norman, would you want to make a motion? Yeah, I I propose it that just to at least have it on record and again, I have to share as a one of the

concept for taking time to talk, one of the key concepts in all years teaching was something I didn't come up with it was designed by developed by a nationally very important planner was called the concept of design with nature. Uh and under that plan, and then we used to teach our students, you have to accommodate growth, but there are ways in which you can design environments which are completely compatible with natural processes. And so, therefore it isn't one versus the other. It's there are you Yeah, you want to have growth, you want to have development, but there are good ways to do it. So, the title of this famous book written by Ian McHarg, and so it came to be called as McHargian planning, was design with nature. Uh and that's by to me by adding this in. But again, some may have different views and there are good reasons to vote for it and against it. So, whatever you vote I'm fine with it. But I I will move that we add as a would be number four, whereas whereas the city desires to make land use decisions which are not which are not harmful to the natural environment, comma. Is there a second? I'll second. Motion by Maureen, second by Odeyemi. Is there any discussion? Yeah, I don't think it hurts to All those in favor vote I. Anyone want opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for that. Do you want to come and it's really I stressed this and then Tanner knows this this is not against growth. It's just there are good ways to do it. And then the last one is actually to give some This is on under the ordinance under sale of municipality on real estate section 11-156

where the city shall designate what real estate is and is not available for sale as well as what land uses are desirable. Staff shall and here's where I would like to suggest shall share its recommendation with the planning commission for reactions and then submit the final recommendation to the city council da da da da da da. It's a way of trying to urge the planning commission to at least hear this and to react to it. Um because we I said moments ago often we're dealing with reacting to a particular thing on this block and that's there. Should we have a special use for that? And here if we're if the planning commission is supposed to be concerned about the long-term bigger questions about planning for the city, that we don't we don't have decision-making, but we ought to hear about them. And so, it seems to me there'd be nothing and last staff shall share its recommendation with the commission for reactions and then submit the final recommendation to the city for reaction. I just this I it's not like I'm wanting to be in on it myself. I I would hope this ordinance is going to last much much much longer than my term on any planning commission. So, it's really just trying to say I wish the planning commission would at least hear these sale inquiries and plans for reaction, not to vote on, but then it goes to council. Are you referring to the homestead sales? No, he's So, it's section 11 156 near the It's of the ordinance, Sarah. So, just go Are you on the ordinance? So, it's down on Yeah, this one here, 11-156. That's the fourth line up from the bottom. Would you be open to the word comment instead of Would you be open to

the word comment instead of reaction? Um well, that's fine. Well, it's Well, with the Okay, no, that's fine. I agree. Oh, yeah, that's good. Yeah. Because typically like, you know, we for other cases, so the the Gordon case that we just heard here tonight, um it's a that property is a local landmark property. And so, we share that with the preservation commission for comment. That's just what we we call it. So, just for consistency there. But I'm fine with that. So, then you you wouldn't mind having the commission hear that stuff. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that. Yeah, we can share those designations. Okay, then I'll make that as a a motion that we change that line three of section 11-156 to add the phrase after staff shall add the phrase share its recommendate share its recommendation with the planning commission for comment uh and then submit the final recommendation to the city council. Is there a second? A second. Motion by Maureen, second by Odayemi. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for listening to all of that, chair.

fabulous. Really good. Yeah, I thought I appreciate your review. Anything else? We better get out of here then, Sarah. Let's go. We need to adjourn. [laughter] All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks. Do you want me to sign out of these? Sure. Thanks.