Mechanical Board - Regular Meeting

Here. Here.

Present.

Here. Hi, President. We have three items for us under committee reports. Item number one, request for the annexation of 14XX, Export Road, 34XX, Export Road, 36XX, Prairie Road. Is there a motion on the floor? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, could you please call the roll? Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Chairman, point of clarification, I don't think we had a discussion over this item. I think we skipped past that part. We went right to a vote. Sure.

I guess we can hold the vote. Any discussion?

Yeah, I just wanted to ask Mr. Capovilla. This states there's a proposed solar farm subject property has requested annexation. He told us a little bit about the solar farm and how it could potentially impact the area. I know the last time I think we talked about a solar farm was in the 13th Ward, and that was off of Kilburn Avenue. So if you could just give us an update or a summary of this, please.

This is a piece of property that the owner's name is Mark Momsen, and he's been actively marketing it, and he's been talking to various people at the city over the last few years. He came to us because he's got a very unusual shape property. It's very triangular up on the north part of it, and so solar made sense, and we worked with him on this agreement, and he had a solar company that approached him named SolAmerica, They just went through the ZBA in July. And if this is approved, then the solar farm will come to committee next. But staff was in favor of it. So strategically, it's a good move for us. It keeps the development under control of the city, and instead of allowing it to just happen in the county. So having annex to the city gives us greater control, and it will help us grow in the future.

Thank you. Chair? Mr. Kignoni. Mr. Kignoni, sorry to interrupt your conversation. A quick question on this. When we talk about the solar industry, I've talked about it many, many times. We even passed, I think it was last week or two weeks ago, a funding agreement with IBEW to better prepare our young individuals in our community for better career opportunities. Was there any conversation with this developer to include the CEJA hub cohorts to possibly get some of our certified students into this project?

Alderman, I haven't had any conversations with the developer of the solar farm.

So no. had any conversations with the developer of the solar farm okay i i do plan to support this uh however i'd love to reach out to i'll be reaching out to the developer to see if he has any interest um and that ultimately would determine my support at council but i'm i'm in favor of moving this forward and not delaying uh the layover during committee so thank you thank you any further discussion

Clerk, could you please call the roll? Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Item passes. Item number two, annexation agreement for 14XX Export Road, 34XX Export Road, 36XX Prairie Road. Is there a motion on the floor? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Holderman Bell.

Thank you. For this annexation agreement, Mr. Cognoni, would it be appropriate, and we can lay this item over, but my desire is to make a motion to amend this annexation agreement to require workforce development for this project. And if that is out of order, I'd like to lay it over to see what we can do to include some sort of workforce development on this project.

Thank You alderman, I you know items one and two are Connected to one another so it would make sense if there's going to be a layover that you'd lay them both over But that certainly at your discretion the agreement can catch up with the annexation at some point in the future I should note that there's also a special use permit that's gone through the zoning Board of Appeals process and that will catch up should the annexation and annexation agreement and advanced forward. Understanding that we have an executed annexation agreement with the property owner, we would need to re-engage with the property owner and the developer to see what their efforts are related to workforce connection and what they would be willing to do so that we would have a package that could be implemented if there's an amendment.

Thank you. I guess, you know, I don't know what's better to lay it over now and get it set in committee and then bring it to full council or push this through and have it amended at council. So just to pump the brakes on this, I'll make a motion to lay this item over.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk, I believe we need to do a roll call vote for the layover. No.

I think that we're waiting for discussion.

Yeah, again, we didn't have discussion on the motion.

I guess we could back up and have discussion on the motion.

alderman bonnie uh well first of all um i i guess i'd ask if the alderman making the motion wouldn't want to amend it to include item one um as mr cagnone just suggested that they are related and um Mean I'm also I I don't I guess I don't really see the point in the in the layover because we we do still have special use permit Coming before council and as mr. Capavilla Noted that and annexing gives us control of the property and You know the rest can be worked out later and as the 13th ward alderman noted, you could amend this at council. I don't see the need to lay it over now at committee.

Alderman Bell.

Thank you. I mean, if I go back a few weeks, there have been, on the same topic of bridging the gap between our workforce opportunity in our community and the projects that we approve here on council, and ensuring that our trained workforce development graduates through the CJ Hub, a state-funded program in our community, one of just a few in the state, have an opportunity to be a part of these projects. moving it out of committee to council previously just has not worked for me. And so I have some pause with moving this forward out of committee with less control from individuals on the Code and Regulations Committee. And so I'd not make an amendment to my motion. Should it fail, we can continue the conversation. But I'll call the question. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Aye. Nay. No.

Aye.

No. So we will now vote on item number two. Any further discussion on the item? Alderman Bell.

Thank you. I'm sure it's clear now. I'd love to work with you guys on ensuring that the CJ hub is brought up to speed and connected, at least with the developer. And would love, as this goes to council next week, more conversation or a report back, Mr. Cognoni, what conversation was had maybe with the developer. And I'll also reach out to you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Clerk, could you please call the roll? Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

No. Aye. Aye. Item passes. Finally, item number three, the proposed landmark designation for the property located at 1202 Eddy Avenue. Is there a motion on the floor? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Alderman Prunty.

I just had a question. In the description, it said that there was a packet, and my attachment didn't appear to have the packet.

Thank You chairman all the woman you are correct There is a reference in the memo related to the packet from the Historic Preservation Commission in the application However, when I checked the agenda it was not on there so understanding that you didn't get the packet if you We'd like to lay the item over. That's certainly understandable. If you want to advance it forward and have us provide to the packet via email tomorrow, we're happy to do that as well. Certainly, Scott can talk to the details in regards to the application and the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the outstanding code violations on the property that our code enforcement team has been pursuing, including up to demolition of the structure.

So this item was brought forward by mr.

Hood class he owns the property at 1202 Eddie and The application was filled out as any other historic landmark application would be there was a couple of things that were I checked on the box of significance, one being exceptional example of historic or vernacular style and one of the few remaining in the city of Rockford, which this would be because it is a picturesque work or considered streamlined modern architecture. But the second one property most closely associated with life or activities of a major historic person organization or group the historic preservation Commission had that stricken from the actual Approval because they don't feel that just being a toy factory in Rockford was something of significant event historically so But it did meet all the rest of the criteria. And yes, we had been pursuing a code case against this property initially. The owner of this property, due to that, came forward with this application and has pulled a permit to fix the roof now. And he's intent on restoring the property and hopefully restoring it to the way it used to look when it was constructed. Currently, you know we consider it a vacant property. I know that the owner is storing some materials there But technically we would consider it a vacant property

Any further? Olderman Bonney.

Thank you. Mr. Capoviglia, I wasn't present for this. I am on the preservation commission. And again, while I was on medical leave, this went through there. a building can be considered for landmark status based on its cultural significance, not just its architectural significance, correct? Correct. If this, you know, Rockford does have a notable history in toy manufacturing, and I guess, and my understanding is that the name of the toy manufacturer that used to be headquartered there is escaping me at the moment, but I guess I don't understand why the commission felt that that wasn't a valid reason. I understand it's a unanimous recommendation for landmark approval, but I would think that that would be a second strong reason to approve it.

So Alderman Rivani, yes, unfortunately, you weren't there. And I know how much you love landmarks. So it would have been great to have you in on the discussion. But the commissioners all were in agreement that it's Midge Toys, by the way. It was the name of the toy company. But we also had Nylund toys in the city, and we also had Tester. So it wasn't like this was the only toy maker in Rockford. If it was the only toy maker in Rockford, it might carry a little more significance. And that was one of the reasons why the commissioners decided that they wanted that stricken, and they only wanted to go with the architecture.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Would this, oh, go ahead.

Thank you. In what way would this determination, this distinction as landmark, would that help this funding-wise? Or would it help them give funding to do some of the repairs?

All the women frontier would make him eligible to apply for historic tax credits and then he would have to follow all the guidelines with Shippo on the redevelopment of the property and He also then would have to come forward to our historic preservation commission for any improvements He would make to the outside of the property earning on any of the grounds as well and get approval what we call a certificate of appropriateness for that landmark

And is it just the commission who would look at that, or it would also be staff, right, who would look?

it's no it's just the Commission Historic Preservation Commission the only thing that comes forward to City Council is what we're discussing this evening all other things and people want to fix the porch replace the door replace the window those all just go to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval that those approvals don't have to come to Council I think you'd be really bored if you had to review all of the things that we review for Historic Preservation

I'm just kidding. I actually spoke with one of the commissioners regarding some things. But I really can wait for the more information to come. But can we get the rest of the package soon so that?

my apologies I I thought that there was attached to this and I'll I'll make sure that it goes out tomorrow to everybody all right thank you so there's a motion and a second for approval any further discussion seeing none clerk could you please call the roll aye aye Aye. Item passes. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Motion to second. Meeting adjourned. Code and Regulation Committee adjourned.