Moline officials likely to pass an ADU ordinance – Quad-City Times

Council members passed the first of two approvals needed to establish the ordinance at the April 23 meeting by a 6-2 vote. A final vote on the ordinance is likely to come before the council in May.

Debbie Murphy, 1st Ward, and Anna Castro, 7th Ward, voted against the ordinance. 

Castro told the Dispatch-Argus/Quad-City Times she is not completely against ADUs, but residents of her ward brought multiple concerns to her attention regarding the proposed ordinance. She sees the value in ADUs, she said, with letting people family age-in-place and for college kids but could not vote for it based on concerns in her ward. 

“Several residents (in the 7th Ward) oppose the ordinance,” she said. “I serve my ward by representing them.”  

Murphy, who also voted no, did so because of constituents’ concern. A lot of residents in her ward, she said, were not in favor and expressed concerns with parking and the lack of space already available in the 1st Ward. Lots are smaller compared with other areas in Moline, Murphy said, and houses are already close enough to each other. 

An accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, is an an additional living space on a single lot with an existing home. To meet the definition, such dwellings must be on the same lot as a single-family home and contain areas for sleeping, cooking and bathing.

Moline is not the first in the Quad-Cities to consider an ADU ordinance. Rock Island, Bettendorf and Davenport have ordinances pertaining to ADUs.

Matt Timion, 4th Ward, told the Dispatch-Argus/Quad-City Times, ADUs already exist in Moline. Establishing an ordinance for ADUs, he said, allows the city to ensure they are up to code and safe for those living in them. 

“I think this is a step in the right direction for the city,” Timion said. “This is a smart addition to offer different housing types.” 

This also is not the first-time the council has been one step away from establishing an ADU ordinance.

In February 2023, the then-council tried to pass an ordinance for ADUs without the planning commission’s approval. At the time, the ordinance faced opposition from residents and the planning commission because of parking, inspection and overall zoning concerns. 

There also was no rental housing licensing and inspection program. That program, passed in November 2023, aims to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of Moline renters. It is expected to go into effect sometime this spring. 

Alvaro Macias, 2nd Ward, and Timion reintroduced the ADU ordinance during a council informational session in December 2023.

Macias said that not having a rental housing program was one of the reasons why the council did not pass the ADU ordinance last year. There have been a handful of people, he said, who have spoken out about thinking of building something like this for themselves or a family member to age in place. 

More than a year later, the planning commission unanimously approved recommending the current proposed ADU ordinance on Wednesday, April 10. The commission’s recommended ordinance does not have additional parking requirements; states the dwellings cannot be used as vacation rentals (rented less than 30 days); are subjected to rental inspections unless occupied by a family member; and their design must relate to the principal structure’s.  

Chris Mathias, community and economic development director, said the dwellings could be attached, a coach house, detached or interior. A coach house is defined in the proposed ordinance as above a garage. The property owner is required to reside in the single-family home or the dwelling unit and only one ADU is allowed per property. 

Mathias said housing options in Moline had been decreasing for decades and there was a lack of affordable housing. Accessory dwelling units, he said, are another option to address housing needs. 

“ADUs offer the option for senior citizens to age in place and stay in close proximity to their family,” Mathias said. “And they do promote more dense development contrary to urban sprawl.” 

Residents speak for and against

Three people spoke in favor of the ordinance during public comment at last week’s council meeting. 

Jozzett McCoy said there was a need for more housing and buying land was not always on option. An ADU, she said, will provide a unique way to add homes to neighborhoods rather than something like a multi-story apartment building and can offer a space for a family member or friend.

“I have a friend who has a young college student who is coming to the Quad-Cities to do an internship and needs housing,” McCoy said. 

As she thinks of herself and her husband as they age, she said, they are not going to need a big house. If they wanted to build an ADU, she said, they would be able to downsize and rent out their house. 

Susana Aguilar said if she ever had the chance to build on to her house, she would. An ADU would allow her mother to age in place with nearby support. 

She also mentioned how in a couple of years she will have a college student, and whether she moves out or stays home, an ADU could provide privacy while she can still provide the resources her daughter would need. 

“This one decision covers our seniors, our young adults, our children,” she said.

Craig Loken also spoke in favor Tuesday evening. He moved to Moline in 2021 and said they were able to have some older family move in with them. When a family member who was living with them was diagnosed with cancer, he said, they were able to provide any help they needed. 

At the planning commission’s public hearing, Tim Minor said he has five children and his daughter recently moved backed in because she was in a situation where work was not paying enough for her to afford where she was living. As a real-estate agent, he also said he was seen numerous people priced out of buying homes.

“If you are not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem because we have to figure this out for future generations,” Minor said. 

Diann Moore was the only public commenter to speak against ADUs at last week’s council meeting.

Moore said she had concerns for what they could be used for based on how the ordinance was written. She said there was a chance someone could use it as a barbershop or some other type of commercial space. 

The ordinance only allows for ADU’s in residential areas. The ordinance does allow for minor occupations since current code allows them in the main dwelling. Major home occupations are allowed only by obtaining a special-use permit. 

Mathias said staff’s thought process on the matter was if it was something that was allowed in a home already, it should be considered OK for an ADU. 

Moore also was worried about parking and more cars taking up space.

There are no parking requirements in the proposed ADU ordinance,but if someone is converting an existing detached or attached garage to an ADU, the required parking for the main house must be replaced on site, according to the proposed ordinance.  

Others who spoke against the ordinance at the planning commission’s public hearing expressed concerns with parking, disrupting already established neighborhoods, lack of space, possible lack of maintenance and enforcement. 

Barbara Sandberg expressed concern with the aesthetic and livability of neighborhoods. Given the close proximity of homes in the neighborhood she lives, she worries that if her neighbor were to build an ADU it would be within feet of her property and infringe on her backyard. She also expressed worry that additional cars could also cause further congestion. 

Former alderman Dick Potter said he was torn on the issue, acknowledging some ADUs already existed but saying he was concerned with how the city would enforce rules and regulations pertaining to these properties. Potter said he was glad the council passed a rental housing inspection program but would be more inclined to support the ADU ordinance if the inspection program was up and running.