McHenry Times

City of Harvard Planning & Zoning Commission met July 5.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Attorney Brandy Quance, acting as hearing officer, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. City Clerk Moller called roll to establish a quorum. Commission members present: Steve Creviston, Tom Condon, Mike Grieshop and J Albertson. Commissioners Jim Carbonetti, Jim Hutchinson and Ian McCafferty were absent. Also present were members of the audience.

Public Comment

Attorney Quance opened the floor to public comment for any item not on the agenda. Gilbert Whaples was advised that he would be given opportunity later in the hearing for comments/questions related to the petition.

There were no public comments and this portion of the hearing was closed.

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2022 – Approved

A motion was made by Commissioner Condon, seconded by Commissioner Grieshop to accept the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 3, 2022, as presented. All ayes. Motion carried.

West Front Brewing LLC & Castcarr Properties LLC - Conditional Use Reception/Banquet Hall & Variation Required Off-Street Vehicle Spaces

Attorney Quance opened the hearing in the petition submitted by West Front Brewing, LLC (petitioner) and Castcarr Properties, LLC (property owner) for a conditional use permit pursuant to Table 8-1 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to utilize the subject property as a Reception/Banquet Facility on the second floor of the building. The petitioner is further seeking relief from the parking space requirements pursuant to the UDO, Section 10.3, Required Off-Street Vehicle Spaces. Subject property is located in Chemung Township and commonly known as 201 & 205 West Front St., Harvard, IL 60033. PIN 01-35-406-012

The parties of interest were present. All individuals presenting testimony were sworn in: 

• Attorney Mark Saladin, Zanck, Coen, Wright & Saladin, 40 Brink St., Crystal Lake, IL 60014 

• Sonia Castenada, 4516 Billingsgate Ln., Woodstock, IL 60098.

The Notice of Hearing was published per statutory requirements in the Northwest Herald. Certified notices were sent to property owners within 250’ of the subject property relative to the requested conditional use and variation. The Certificate of Publication, completed petition and staff report were entered into the record.

Presentation of Evidence by Petitioners

The petitioner distributed a handout depicting a sketch of the upper and lower levels of the building as prepared by CCI, Corporate Contractors, Inc. (as attached).

Attorney Mark Saladin addressed the Commission on behalf of Luis and Sonia Castaneda along with the company that will be operating the event venue and the owner of the property, Castcarr Properties. Attorney Saladin noted that the Commission saw the petitioners probably a month or so ago. When they came forward, the petitioners had produced the petition on their own and might not have used the correct words that are in the City ordinance relative to the request. Attorney Saladin spoke with the City Administrator who had gotten an opinion from the City Attorney that indicated that the notice at that time was correct for the petition. However, in considering what the City Council has to make their review on, the petitioner decided to come back and re-petition. It’s the same request, just using the correct language from the ordinance relative to the reception/banquet facility. The petitioner is also requesting a parking variance which wasn’t discussed at the last hearing. Attorney Saladin stated that the brew pub is a permitted use by right in the downtown B-1 zoning district which will be located in the first floor (basement) of the facility and the reception/banquet facility will be used in the upstairs space.

Sonia Casteneda presented testimony on what they intend to do and the nature of the business. The property is owned by Castcarr Properties, LLC of which she is a member. The brew pub would be operated by West Front Brewing LLC, of which she is a member. As a brew pub and banquet facility, the petitioner intends to have a space available to hold functions for the brew pub itself and also for small gatherings such as birthday parties, anniversaries and small weddings. The petitioner is looking to be a non-traditional venue, more like what you see in bigger cities, similar in concept to Ethereal in Woodstock. The petitioner is determining maximum occupancy based on the square footage of what the space will entail, but they are hoping to limit occupancy to 150. The handout provided to the Commission is just a sketch of the upper and lower floors of the building. Food will be provided by the brew pub which will be a full-service restaurant. Site deliveries for supplies and inventory will be delivered through the parking lot rather than blocking off the street. The petitioner has talked to the Fire Dept. who will be involved in the building permitting process. The petitioner further understands the requirements of the Fire Dept. relative to the building. There are 41 parking spots on site. There are additional public diagonal parking spaces located behind the building. The petitioner has been in communication with another business in town who will potentially lease the petitioners some parking spaces. This location is part of the Harvard Woodstock Enterprise Zone; the petitioners will take advantage of the requirements of said Enterprise Zone. The reception/banquet facility would not have set hours but will be based on the event and City ordinances. The petitioner agrees to comply with City ordinances. The petitioners anticipate having over 20 employees.

Questions/Discussion by Planning and Zoning Commissioners to Petitioners

Attorney Quance opened the floor to questions/comments from the Commissioners.

• Commissioner Albertson referred to the sketch and inquired about the total square footage for the brewery operations (two stories tall). The petitioner said total square footage for the brewery is about 1800 sq. ft., primarily it’s going to be in the lower level with part of it going up towards the upper level. The petitioner plans to cut out a portion of upper level to look down into the brewery. Commissioner Albertson noted that based on the square footage, he calculated parking space requirements would be 47-53. Part of the concern he has is that currently the parking lot has 2 handicap parking spaces and if the petitioner is required to have 53 parking spaces, they will need to have 3 handicap spaces by state law which will take more space.

• Commissioner Condon asked if the operation would only be for venues or will it be a walk-in brew pub. The petitioner responded that the brew pub will be open with hours of operation from Tuesday through Sunday from lunchtime to around 9 pm.

• Attorney Saladin clarified that he calculated the number of required parking spots at 51 based on total square footage and multiplying by the appropriate factor in the ordinance. There are 41-43 spots available on site, so the petitioners will need a variation regardless. Commissioner Grieshop noted at the last hearing, Mr. Santeler roughly equated a broad number of 6,500 square feet per level which came up to 41 spots, which is very close so he didn’t see the parking as an issue. There are also two nearby public parking lots. Code Enforcement Nutley indicated that the City Council approved putting in a handicap parking spot on the streetside of the building. Additionally, the streetside diagonal parking spaces will no longer be used for Metra overflow parking.

Attorney Saladin concluded the presentation and referred to the approval standards as outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance and indicated that the petitioners meet said standards:

1. The proposed conditional use will not endanger the public safety, health or welfare. The petitioner is trying to bring a vibrant use to the downtown area.

2. The proposed use is compatible with the general land use of adjacent properties and other property in the immediate vicinity.

3. The proposed conditional use in the specific location proposed is consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The proposed use will invigorate the area and will be a great addition to the City.

Staff Report

Attorney Quance asked if there was anything additional for the staff report. Code Enforcement Nutley stated only what has already been submitted in the staff report.

Identification of Objectors/Supporters/Witnesses/Audience Participation

Attorney Quance opened the floor to objectors/supporters from the audience.

Gilbert Whaples, 3318 Trebes Dr., Harvard, was identified as an objector. Upon being sworn in, Mr. Whaples addressed the Commission and noted his objections to the petition:

• The egress from the top floor: the ADA requires a 30’ travel ramp out into the parking lot. The national fire code requires that you must be 50’ from the building when you leave the building, so the available parking is not what you think it is. There is not enough space in that parking lot to be legal; following ADA requirements, the petitioners will lose 10-12 parking spots.

• According to his research, the brew pub is a receiver of the brew from an on-site brewery which will be located on the lower level of the building and you can’t have a brewery unless it is first zoned as a microbrewery.

• The whole building is non-conforming and way out of code. The building was built so long ago that every stairway will have to be replaced per ADA requirements. There are structural and other code and ADA requirements that need to be met.

• His research also shows that you cannot have the exit out front onto a public sidewalk, so another variance will be needed. The elevator cannot be used as an egress.

• Mr. Whaples commented that this is the second hearing and plans haven’t been submitted to see if the concept is feasible. Mr. Whaples stated the Commission shouldn’t act on the petition until plans are received to see if the petitioners can do it up to code.

At Attorney Saladin’s inquiry, the petitioner responded that they have hired an architect who will be supplying the City with appropriate building plans pursuant to the code. The petitioner also indicated that whatever City plans are required pursuant to a building permit, they would be able to obtain. Attorney Saladin noted that the Commission is here for the purposes of zoning.

Attorney Quance asked for any additional comments from the audience

Upon being sworn in, Charles Eldredge, 10510 Main St., Richmond, IL addressed the Commission in support of the petition. Mr. Eldredge stated he has been the Economic Development Director for the City of Harvard for the last 10 years. He has also been involved with the McHenry Co. EDC as a director and committee chairman since its founding more than 30 years ago, a member of the county zoning board for a dozen years, chaired two plan commissions for McHenry Co. and is vice chairman of the current county long range planning commission. He has also been involved in adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for more than 50 years. Mr. Eldredge stated he is familiar with the subject of the petition and was in attendance to support the petition. He felt that the use that will be desirable for the City of Harvard and there is synergy with other businesses that will attract not only local members of the community but visitors. He commented that dealing with buildings of this age, there are almost always variances and accommodations that are needed because they were built to a different building standard when they were created. You have to make some accommodations to that usually when they are located within a center of a municipality as the proposed use is. Mr. Eldredge noted that it is a good petition, the variances are reasonable, the standards for conditional use before this board are quite similar to what he deals with at the county, and from his understanding of the petition, he believed that the petitioners have met those standards.

There being no further audience comments, Attorney Quance closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The hearing was then turned over to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for additional questions/comments.

Additional Comments from Planning/Zoning Commission

Commissioner Grieshop made observation that the Commission was here due to language, as the petitioner’s attorney pointed out, that wasn’t defined well at the last hearing. There was a little more definition presented at tonight’s hearing. The Commission didn’t have any objections at the last hearing. It’s been redefined as a banquet facility for a conditional use. The parking area was a little more defined. Commissioner Grieshop noted that Mr. Whaples’ comments were well taken but that is up to the Building Dept. not up to the Commission. The Commission’s job is to determine if it fits the area and the plan, and it does. Commissioner Grieshop noted he was also in support of Mr. Eldredge’s comments.

Commissioner Grieshop made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Albertson to recommend to the City Council approval of a conditional use for a Reception/Banquet Facility for a B1-M and a variation from the parking space requirements. Attorney Quance asked for any additional discussion. • Commissioner Condon concurred with Commissioner Grieshop that how the building is redone/remodeled is up to the City Building Dept. and not the Commission. At Commissioner Condon’s inquiry, Code Enforcement Officer Nutley noted that the plans would be reviewed by the Building Fire Code Academy to ensure life safety and that all codes are followed.

• Commissioner Grieshop stated that the petitioners cannot move in and alter a remodel of that degree and not go through that type of review. He further noted if the LLC’s want to choose to invest their money into this opportunity, that is their prerogative to do so if they do it according to how its supposed to be done; it is their choice to make that investment.

• Commissioner Condon further remarked that Mr. Whaples’ comments are points well taken. Everything he brought up was well presented and some of those things have to be addressed but that is not for the Commission to talk about. He is content that everything will be done right once everything is approved and they move forward.

Attorney Quance stated the motion is to recommend to the City Council to grant the petition for a conditional use pursuant to Table 8-1 of the Unified Development Ordinance to utilize the subject property as a Reception/Banquet Facility and a variation from Section 10.3, Required Off-Street Vehicle Spaces. Roll call vote: Condon, aye; Grieshop, aye; Creviston, aye and Albertson, aye. Motion approved four to zero.

The Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation will come before the City Council at their meeting on July 26, 2022, at 7 pm, to be held in the Community Hall.

Clerk’s Report

No report.

Chairman’s Report

No report.

At 7:40 pm, a motion was made by Commissioner Condon, seconded by Commissioner Creviston to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Motion carried.

https://www.cityofharvard.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_and_zoning_commission/meeting/14546/planningzoningminutes2022-07-05.pdf