Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're good to go. Okay. Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. First, I'll take roll call. Kger here. Johnson here. Mavis. Molen here. Od here. Sards here. Whitten right here. Uh public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a public comment at this time? Do I have to comment now or can I wait and see what what if it's if it's pertaining to a specific item, you can wait and you can speak for for this specific item if you'd like. I don't mean to create a problem. I just like to hear what's going on. Maybe I won't have anything to say.

Sounds good. All right. the uh minutes. Approval of the January 5th, 2026 meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Motion by Sar, second by Molen. Discussion. Hearing none. Uh all those in favor say I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Uh there being no old business, we'll turn to the public hearings for tonight. The first is 202603 public hearing request from Tim Finanella of Modern Woodman to consider a variance from the Rock Island zoning ordinance for property at 1701st Avenue in a B2 downtown business district. Ununice the applicant informed staff about wanting to install an 8 foot tall fence along the trail. Staff informed the applicants of Vance will be needed to install the fence at the height. The RA's request is to install an 8 foot tall metal fence at the property. The affected zoning ordinance um fences shall be no more than 6 ft in height in any side or rear yard. The variance shall only be authorized if two of the three conditions as provided in article 8 section 6A of the zoning ordinance are found. The commission will make a recommendation to the city council for this request since the property is on business and is over 20,000 square feet. The staff analysis is as follows. Condition one, staff conclude that the property can yield a reasonable return without a variance as a 6' tall fence would still provide the security needed. So this condition is not met. Condition two, the property has an existing 8ft tall fence along parts of the property. Staff reason that allowing the 8ft tall fence particularly along the trail will provide some buffer against activities of the railroad and the trail. So this condition is met. Condition three, staff reasoning the fence height will alter the character of the neighborhood. The property already utilizes 8 foot fencing um in other areas. Allowing the same height for the new section ensures a cohesive appearance across the property. So this condition is met.

the community development department to commence that the planning and zoning commission pass a recommendation to the city council that the variance for the fence height be approved as there is a unique circumstance and the fence height will not alter the character of the neighborhood thank you are there any questions of staff regarding this item

yes I have a a question the fence that's there the metal fence is good and that's what you know that's what they wish to do. But when it comes time for the recommendation, uh it simply says the variance for the fence height. And my question would be if when this comes up for discussion and vote, um would that prevent by by not having the word metal also in the recommendation? Would that allow modern woodman to decide, well, we used to have that, but now we'd like to put up an 8-foot solid wood fence. uh would they be able to do that or would this recommendation be specific only to the kind of metal chain uh kind of fence that they currently have?

Um based off of the requested action under the requested action and affected requirements we would um believe that they should install a metal fence throughout the property and in the analysis we also indicate they already have similar fencing um on the property. So the similar fencing being the metal fence would what staff is what staff would require them to have now and in the future.

So it would only be a height variance for the kind of fence they currently have not for so if they would once get this variance if if somehow corporate would decide in three years you know we've got a really nice design for a wood fence there instead they would not be able to do that. the the uh the request is they're requesting a the 8 foot metal fin. So that's our our intention to that's what we're approving. The commission can always be more specific and add a stipulation that that's you know

what the fence should be. Uh but the intention is that's what it's it's allowing. It's not allowing like a solid vinyl fence or solid wood fence or something like that. So that again that I know that's the assumption but sometimes once something like this is passed then it becomes the legality people would pick out what does it actually say and so that's the thing I worried about that yeah this is the intention now but if modern woodman executives would decide in a few years would would there be any way to stop there they would say no you gave us the the variance understood so if that's the if that's a concern the commission can add a stipulation in be specific about that. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Ununice.

Okay. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this item? Good evening. Hi, my name is Tim Finanella. I'm the facility manager over at Modern Woodman. And I just want to take a minute thank Ununice uh for her help in presenting this to the commission. And you guys have all of the material in front of you. So, I won't take up too much of your time. I just want to thank the commission too for considering this today. Um I guess as a followup to kind of the discussion we had. So the intent is to put up the the same fence that you have now there. That is correct. There is a 4ft black chain link fence that runs along the railroad bike path.

Um and so we're just replacing that with an 8ft chain link fence. Okay. Is it for security? Yeah, it's uh it's addressing some security concerns, employee employee concerns. Yes. And you said it was also for protection of activities of the railroad. Well, I I was using the railroad as an example, just that's where it's by. It's right on the property line of the bike path in our property and then you'd have to jump over the bike path to get to the railroad. Any other questions for this applicant?

Yeah, my wife and I walk that path a lot and we love your building and the fences as they are that black it fits in. You can see through the public can gain an appreciation of your landscaping. So when I raised the questions, it's not like I was speaking against it, but if suddenly we were to hike the trail and suddenly somebody had decided, no, we're going to go with a solid one, then that would change the whole character of that trail. And so I guess that's a way of asking you if I would move later to add the word that the variance for the metal fence height be approved. Would that be okay with you? Absolutely. We're just looking to do a metal chain link fence. Yep. It's a great great spot here. So thank you.

Anybody else? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor of this item? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone wish to speak against this item hearing? None. Is there a motion? I'll move that we uh approve the uh recommendation with the addition of the word metal before in line two. So it would read that so commission pass the recommendation to the city council that the variance for the metal fence height be approved and everything else as worded. Is there a second? I'll second it.

Motion by Molen, second by Kger. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a roll call vote. Johnson, hi. Molen, I Sards, yes. Uh, Wright, Kger, I. Riggs votes I. Motion carries. Thank you. You don't have to stay if you don't want. This will go on to city council on the 23rd for approval. So thank you.

Okay. So that vote was seven eyes, zero nays. Motion carries. Next item 202605 public hearing request from the city of Rock Island's community development department to consider a reszoning from C2 district to I1 district for properties uh with the following pins listed on the agenda. Ununice

um the city is interested in seeing industrial development on the subject properties that take advantage of the city's recent designation as a regional port district. This area has been called out in the ongoing port district master plan, noting its potential for distribution, logistics, and warehousing uses. The site also has the potential for real service. City staff has spoken with the various property owners and they are generally interested in supporting that type of development. Since the properties are zone C2 district, a reszone is needed to help facilitate future development. Access to the sites could be made available on 31st Avenue and 24th Avenue. No signs have been proposed at this time. No landscaping or lighting have been proposed at this time either. The comprehensive plan identifies employment land use for the properties. The employment's land use category is intended for highquality office, service, retail, institutional, research, light manufacturing, and distribution land uses with generous landscaping and limited signage. The city's 01, O2, and I1 zoning districts are among the zoning district appropriate for areas mapped under this future land use category. staff reason that the proposed reasonzoning fits this description and is generally consistent with the intent of the category. The light industrial zoning district is intended to provide for the development of most types of industry with regulations designed to protect adjacent properties. Uses may generally include the processing or manufacturing of products or parts including fabrication, assembly, treatment and packaging of such products and the incidental storage, sales and distribution of such products. Provided that all activity besides loading and unloading is contained entirely within a fully

enclosed building. Any heat, glare, dust, smoke, fumes, odors, or vibration are confined to the building with no external impact detectable beyond the build. The property line staff reason that the reasonzoning of the subject properties to light industrial is compatible with adjacent properties. Properties to the south and west are already zoned light industrial. Additionally, the subject properties have historically had industrial uses on them. Lastly, the subject properties are capable of handling a variety of users allowed by the light industrial district. The properties have the potential again for real service and some are currently used for industrial purposes. The I1 light industrial district allows for a broad range of industrial uses while setting standards to minimize impact on neighboring properties. Overall, the proposed reszoning from C2 to I1 represents an appropriate land use transition that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context and supports the city's long-term goals. Based on the analysis, the community development department recommends that the commission pass a recommendation to the city council that the reasoning request be approved.

Thank you, Ununice. Are there any questions of the board to Ununice? Yes. Um on that property again, like many here, I've been around long enough to remember that that was an industrial site and some of the pollutants going that caused some problem in that wetland to the west were coming from that property. Well, that's been cleaned up and phased out. But for these many years now, much of that has been just dirt and some vegetation has come up on top of that. So, it's almost like an undisturbed area. And my question is, if there's development on this and if it would require increased pavement or impermeable surfaces, would that property be subject to the storm water detention pond requirements that are in other so-called undeveloped areas? Would they have to put in detention ponds on that surface if they put in any parking lots or flat rooftop things?

I believe that would be the case. Um, as we said, there's no landscaping requirements at this time, but most landscaping um requirements would also include showing certain portions or certain areas of the property that might um require that. So those those will be part of if there's any development as the site plan reviews happens staff would recommend that they provide um documentation on that. So they so they would need then just to make sure they would need to put in if they're impermeable surfaces there they would have to put in the detention so that you're not getting pavement runoff going right into the river to the west.

Yeah. I don't know exactly what they would be required to do. It's of course based on the development, but if they're adding imp permeable surface, that would be subject to the storm water ordinance and and things there would kick in. I don't know exactly what that would be. It's of course based on the development, but it would apply. Yeah. Thank you.

I have a question. Is this the same company that has the the location where the dump the Rock Island dump used to be that has the 100 foot tall uh mountain of concrete? Are they going to uh remove part of that concrete that's been piled up there for years and doesn't seem like they've ever done anything except pile more onto it. And I thought there was going to be a uh a limit on that a long time ago. So this is the it's it's not it's not associated with the same

parcel of land, but it's the same company that has the concrete mountain that everybody sees when they when they drive down the uh parkway. Yeah. Where are you talking about? Pardon me. I think that's this property between 31st Avenue and 18th Avenue. Yeah, that's this that's this property. That's not this property. It's too far to this this is too far to the south. We're on the We're on the reszoning um request. The special use permit was withdrawn. Excuse me. You're talking about the old Del property?

We're not sure. So the special is I understand about one out of 20 words. I is the property that you're talking

repeating. What is your response? So, so, Commissioner Crager, we we skipped over the special use permit because they withdrew that request. So, we're on the resoning now. So, that that is the that property with the the concrete pile. I believe that's what you're you're talking about. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this item? And if you do, please come up to the podium and state your name, please. I apologize my hearing stinks. It's the acoustics in here are very poor. It's hard to It's hard to hear in here. So, don't feel My wife will tell you I don't listen too. Uh, so we we're talking about the old dump property where the concrete grinding plant is today. I believe that's true. Yeah. So, what's on the map highlighted in blue there? That's that's the property we're talking about. So, it's on the other side of 92 but adjacent to Lake on the east side of 92. Correct.

Okay. Am I restricted to what I can say or can I ramble for a short? You got Sure. Go ahead. There's no restrictions. You got five minutes. Okay. You can shut me off whenever you want. That was guaranteed by the city council many years ago to be a park when it was done being a uh a happens when we get old, Jim.

Yeah. They used that to dig out sand and everything else to make 92. I came down here myself to a meeting. The alderman said that that when that was done and dug out, it would be used as a dump. Then it would be covered over and it would be a park for the citizens of Rock Island. Uh a borrow plant, a borrow pit is what they called it. So that's a great idea. They got people behind them because it was going to be a big park. I mean, it was 75, 85 acres. So, when it got done being a dump many, many years later, they put it up for sale. Charlie Arnold bought it. I was going to come down the meeting. I got called out of town. Couldn't make it. But Charlie Arnold bought the property. 275 28,000 for that approximately 80 acres. It was guaranteed by the alderman to make a park for the citizens. Didn't get done. Charlie was a pretty good steward of it. He had the EPA on his butt all the time. You got to have more dirt here. You got to do this. You got to fix that. But he was good for it. He ended up selling it when he got sold that he couldn't take care of it, right? He sold it to Rick from Tri City Blacktop. Rick from Tri City Black Dot sold it to [clears throat] to consumers. Consumers ended up selling it to Chuck Lane that was supposed to be a park. I believe it's a park now earlier. What were the words you use that that is that it is today?

The the property is zoned C2 nature conservation. Nature conservation. Okay. To my mind that pretty much says what it is. [cough] Excuse [snorts] excuse me. How did we get a concrete cement plan on it? Was that given a pass on a what do you call that? um like a special use or something. Special use. Has that plant got a special use or did it just get on there and nobody said anything?

That's a question I have. I'm not aware of any zoning history for the property besides the use being I'm sorry. I'm not aware of any zoning history on the property as far as that besides the use being grandfathered in. Um so today we don't even know if that's a legal plant on that property. To my knowledge it is. Yes. Okay. It is to my knowledge. Yes. Well, then it would have had to had a special use voted on. It could have been illegal non-conforming use prior, but I don't know.

Okay. Well, now we're about to turn it into a complete industrial property, right? just so that somebody can sell it and hopefully get some value from this new boy, I'm getting old. Get some value from this new designation and I'm against that. The city of Rock Island deserves to have something out of that. Uh, I would ask that you would go back and find out if it's even a legal con concrete plant. I'm okay with concrete plant being there, but I am curious if it's legal or not. I don't have anything against Langman, but to turn it into a light industrial for the entire thing. Uh he tried there was on the docket tonight to put one in my backyard and I'm completely against that. But if there's one down there and it's a half a mile from my store, I guess that uh I'll go along with that to try to keep the peace. But it would sure be nice if the city stood up for what they told the people it was going to be, which was a park. I don't know how you get it back from Langman or Rick from Tri City or Consumers or Charlie Arnold, but that's what they stood there in the said in that.

Do you know when that would have been like what year? Oh, 30 years ago. 30 years ago. Oh, yeah. When when 92 was being built, uh they needed that for the borrow pit for 92. Okay. Thank you. Everybody's just ignored it. I'm okay with ignoring it some, but I sure don't want to turned in an industrial plant just to line somebody's pocket. Thank you. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't catch your name at the beginning. Jim Davies. Okay. Thank you. Been in Rock Island for almost 74 years. Thank you very much. All right.

Any questions? I'd like to respond. I've been on the commission a long time and I don't recall the details of when about the special use permit, but I'm confident that when the decision was made, there would not have been approval for them to create the concrete pile that that's near I92 that we now see. I that would not have been under any planning commission that they would have authorized a special use and it's okay to leave the degree there. So I think going back to your question, it might be that it simply happened and nobody enforced that you can't do that on that kind of propert.

I would agree with that. Just like the uh pile of steel at 18th Avenue in ' 92 that's grown out halfway to the 92, way past the fence line. I'm for businesses having it easy and and as easy as they can, but I think that uh politicians need to stand up for what they told people to don't mean to be a instigator or piss Chuck off or anything else, but Okay. Thank you. All right.

Anyone else wish to speak against this matter? Any other questions or comments from the commission? Excuse me. Can I summarize? Yeah. Would somebody tell me if there was a special use permit for the cement pile, would someone look that up? Would someone Sir, I already have and I there's not there's not one on record. That's what I'm saying. Oh, there's not one. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yeah. My question is like if you put a an asphalt plant there, um this is really close to residential areas. I mean it's anywhere from 28 actually 18th Avenue to 31st Avenue. Is this going to put out um noxious odors? Um I don't know. So the the uses that are already there are are are grandfathered in staff's opinion. The light industrial zoning district wouldn't allow for things like an additional asphalt plant or those types of heavy industrial uses. this um staff is hoping to reszone the properties to Light Industrial uh to help facilitate some warehouse distribution logistics development that the the city is hoping to see on that property.

And Tanner, was there something about like a port designation? So that's that's just some background on kind of how this came to be.

The city became a regional port district in 2024. uh basically, you know, that looks at how um goods are moved throughout the city, kind of a vehicle for industrial development. We started a port district master planning process through a grant we received from the state uh la earlier last year. We're wrapping that project up. They had identified this site as one site that had potential um you know for uses that would use rail service to a greater extent. So that you know typical distribution warehouse type type uses it was identified in that plan that's ongoing um as having potential for that. So the city um is interested you know of course in seeing that type of development take place and the zoning you know needs to align with that for that to happen.

Okay. Thank you. My my concern of this is that that parcel it gets flooded especially where the trees are there and events. So we did not

Yeah. I do have some concerns as well number of months ago. I can't tell you the others right there at Bill Street Avenue. They came in. They wanted to resone. They were was cutting, welding. Slipkins, is it Bill? It's a business name. You're talking about Dell's Dell's right. Yeah, right there.

And I think that was a valid concern concern of mine. What are they going to be doing with this? Another one is I don't think there's a time that my wife and I drive by. I don't say hardly anything, but she'll comment. When people come into Rock Island, that's the first thing they see. Probably a 100 foot high. It's tall. Very high. Just a mass of nothing. What what it additionally is going to go onto this property. And then the runoff would be another consideration, too. That would be my

So, just to be just to be clear, the the reasoning isn't going to impact any uses that are already already there. the concrete processing isn't even conforming to the the light industrial zoning district. So that that doesn't change that or give them any additional permissions to do, you know, anything else that they would want to do. The light industrial district is fairly, you know, restrictive. It focuses more on um industrial uses that, you know, have impacts that are contained to the site. So any new uses that would go there would have to abide by that. Um, typically, you know, that's distribution, that's transload facilities, warehouses. Uh, the special use permit, uh, that Dell's Metal submitted, uh, that was, you know, a heavy industrial use and a light industrial zoning district. Um, and staff, you know, and the commission recommended denial of that. Uh, so that that's kind of a different case where they were doing the activity and they needed approval for that activity. This, you know, is is just resoning land. the activity that's already there is grandfathered in. It's a legal legal non-conformity.

Tanner, did did uh I see um nobody's from Langman's is here. Did they give an ex or a reason why they wouldn't uh I'm here. Yeah. So, so, so, okay, she is here. But just to be clear, this is a city initiated request, so they're not necessarily required to Okay.

be here. the fact that this has come up even more when they the city is making this request and if they have ideas for potential use of that. Could the desire to have it be used be an incentive for the city that what approval for the new uses would be approved if the city cleans up the concrete that's visible from 92 and then what part of that use that incentive in other words tell the city council we know if this is what Russ if if the city really wants to see this as new development we want it to look nice at least get rid of of the eyesore from 92 of the piles of concrete Otherwise, if now that goes bad, we don't use this occasion to make correction, then okay, it gets resed and well, those piles are going to remain there for decades. This be an incentive to get it done now. That's not our job. It's the council's. But would that how do you think the economic development people or the council would react to that as a suggestion? I think they'd they'd think that's a barrier to, you know, development probably won't happen if we if we put a ton of restrictions like that into any approval.

That's kind of my question because if it's a legal non-conforming use now and the reasonzoning makes it more marketable for transit uses or the like, which is kind of what you're talking about, right? Isn't that give us a greater chance of that eyesore going away and allowing a different use

only if they would choose to move the concrete. There's a lot of it's a big pile and you look at it carefully. You haven't looked at before. It's it's not it's tucked behind the vegetation for part of the year, but even then you can see through it and it is as he mentioned you would hope that the people are coming to Rock Island and once you pass 31st Avenue just don't look out the right window of your car, [laughter] but at that point you're looking out on the wetland. So it's actually not bad. The other problem gets to be on the next Avenue. Are there proposed plans for development? Right now,

there's there's conceptual things, but nothing, you know, nothing solidified at all. Um, but it again, it's just kind of more planning related as far as, you know, what's recognized in the port plan um as a site with strong potential for that type of development. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?

I can see you know, having partial of this property for light industrial um and the rest towards conservation just because I know that that's it's heavily wooded there and because of the flooding issue, water has to have a place to go. I don't know if that that could be part of the motion. You can make one. Okay.

Are you suggesting rather than the whole parcel divided in some way approved for some parts but not the other part? That's what you're thinking, right? So like subdividing the I don't I'm not sure if we could really Yeah. The problem is there's the one parcel is very large. Isn't it like 80 acres or something? The main parcel and then there's just a few other small ones on the east side.

So I don't know that I don't know if that would really accomplish what you're looking for, Sarah. Is this the only road access on 30thish? 31st Avenue is the main main road access. There is some access into the site. When I say this site, I'm talking the multiple parcels here, but off of 24th Avenue. I would Okay,

not going to make a motion quite yet, but I would propose everything from the access road towards P Lake Potter um be sectioned off for C2 and the rest of the property for light industrial. I would suggest sectioning off everything from the access road towards Lake Potter as C2 and the rest of the property to the right of that access road as light industrial. I mean, I think the issue with that though is if if you look at the parcel lines, I mean, it would require half parcel to be zoned one thing and half the other. And I don't know that you can really do that. We don't t we don't have the ability to really do that because in a sense we're subdividing somebody's property in a way or split zoning it. Um

so it's a little hairy. Yeah. It's either or you're saying kind of I mean unless you go by parcel. If you look there's kind of like a triangular parcel on the [clears throat] southeast side and another sort of trapezoidal parcel a little bit further north and then those smaller ones. I mean, you could do something different with those than the main one, but I don't know if that really accomplishes what planning zoning is looking to do.

I'm not sure, Sarah, how much of that C2 I like your idea of, but I don't think that portion of C2 actually does flood that much. Much more flooding occurs what's south of 31st Avenue. you know, rather than north. So, but if that is subject to flooding, the 200year flood limit rule should be in place that there should be no new development in the city within the 200-year flood line or maybe officially it's all still only one. So, you think therefore that that rule would be in place. So what you maybe are hoping that you don't have an encroachment onto an environmentally sensitive area. The city already has an ordinance where there should be no new I think the I thought they had this that there should be no new development within the 100redyear flood line. And so if you're if part of that property, if you are correct that some of that that southwest portion C2 actually is subject to flooding, then they wouldn't be able to develop it anyway if the city enforces what is the expected interpretation of that flood rule.

I think the bank would pay attention if it's in the flood lane. Yeah, you might not get financing. Well, and also wouldn't the storm water ordinance come into play then too if you're looking to develop and there's you're going to some impermeable surfaces. So there might be protections in already that would maybe address your concerns. Hard to I mean it's hard to say folks bear with me. I can pull up a plane map

flood hazard map here. I guess I understand everyone's concern, but it seems to me like the reasonzoning is not going to make that area any more industrial than it already is with the non-conforming use. And so I guess my thought is that if we think that resoning is going to help business development in town, then we should approve it.

So I pulled up a map here that the sites protected by by the levy, the the uh yellow and pink, I guess, if you look on the big screen. Um that's that's the area protected by the levy. The um blue area is the the flood area that doesn't line up with the parcel boundaries exactly. Um but it it goes along 92 there.

Yeah, I can see the access road from there. Actually, it's kind of what I thought. So yeah, that would be protected anyway. Yeah, you can see the accent right on there. Yeah, it looks like that. What's What does the pink denote, Tanner? Pink is just another protected by the Levy category. I'm not exactly sure why one is one color, one is the other color. The green the green is actually on the line there. Like this is No, that's not the green is this color. If you look on the It's the blue.

That's Yeah, it's that lighter. That's the ponding area. Yeah, the colors don't line up perfectly or

any other discussion hearing. None. Is there a motion? Just to get it out there, I will make a motion to approve this request. Is there a second? Hearing none, I would say my motion dies for lack of a second. Is there any direction that the commission would like to give to staff?

I guess you've heard some concerns expressed and I don't know that this is an absolute end forever, but it's there seem to be some other issues that might be talked over with the developer with your colleagues on council. You've heard Yeah, you've heard some of the things brought up and I I don't have specific check on this, but you've heard the things that different people have brought up and see what [clears throat] maybe it might come back with a little bit more clarification. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Yeah. So staff staff's my opinion on this is that the reasonzoning itself isn't going to give you know the uses there that the commission I don't you know thinks you know should be there any additional permission or any ability to do anything else. It's it's just illegal non-conforming use basically you know they maintain it the same as is that's fine. Um but the light the light industrial um zoning district you know that's that's the those are the uses allowed in that zoning district are the uses we would you know like to see there in the future on parts of that land that is not not developed. Can you restrict the reszoning to the parcels that do not contain the the operation the current operations

the commission could make that recommendation certainly I don't know what that gets to though Sarah because with whether it's under the C2 or the I1 that current operation can continue to exist as a legal non-conforming And they couldn't create a new Can they expand though? No, they can't. Right, Tater? Correct. Yeah, maybe like slightly different to repair. It would need it would need some sort of special use permit at that time if there was going to be a substantial expansion.

I guess that was kind of my point. probably like change special use permit. Typically use but it still is a case though that if that's zoned I1 then if the current occupant even leaves and who knows who what else would come in but it means means that whole parcel somehow is going to be available for light industrial as opposed to currently where it's only that operator and that special use that we know be there and if we change it to I1 then C2 is gone forever.

Correct. Yeah. And that's maybe there's a concern about that. Okay. Is there any other business or new business this evening? Hearing none, we are not people about it. It's gone forever.