McHenry Times

City of Harvard Planning & Zoning Commission met Nov. 1.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Attorney T.J. Clifton, 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: Tom Condon, Steve Creviston, Mike Grieshop and J Albertson. Commission members absent: Jim Carbonetti and Ian McCafferty. Also present were Alderwoman Haderlein, Alderman Schulz, Alderman Gorman, City Administrator Dave Nelson, Code Enforcement Officer Nutley and members of the audience.

Public Comment

Attorney Clifton opened the floor to public comment for any item not presently on the agenda. There were no public comments.

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2022 – Approved 

A motion was made by Commissioner Grieshop, seconded by Commissioner Condon to accept the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2022, as presented. All ayes. Motion carried.

Public Hearing - CAI Manufacturing Essential Asset, DST

Attorney Clifton opened the hearing in the petition submitted by CAI Manufacturing Essential Asset. City Clerk Moller called roll to establish a quorum. Commission members present: Tom Condon, Steve Creviston, Mike Grieshop and J Albertson. Commission members absent: Jim Carbonetti and Ian McCafferty.

The City Clerk confirmed that the Notice of Hearing was published per statutory requirements in the Northwest Herald on October 8, 2022. Certified notices were sent to property owners within 250’ of the subject property.

The petitioner is requesting annexation of property to the City of Harvard and that upon annexation, the property be classified for zoning purposes as “T-C Technology Campus”. The subject property consists of approximately 12.984 acres and is located on the west side of Harvard Hills Road, approximately 3,000 feet north of its intersection with Illinois Route 173, in Chemung Township, McHenry County. PIN 01-25-376-003

The petitioner is further requesting a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to amend Section 8.2 of the UDO to add the following as permitted uses in the T-C Technology Campus District: Solar Energy System; Industrial, General; Nursery/Greenhouse - Retail; Outdoor Storage of Trucks and Trailers; Parking in Designated Parking Areas; School – Trade or Vocational, including short term and long term overnight accommodations; Vehicle Operation Facility; Vehicle Repair and Warehousing.

The parties of interest were present.

Presentation of Evidence by Petitioners

Upon being sworn in, the following parties presented testimony to the Planning and Zoning Commission: 

Attorney Bernard Papp representing the petitioners, 18 N. Ayer St., Harvard, IL 60033 

Matthew Tucker, CAI Investments, 9325 West Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89117 

Zachary Beavor, CAI Investments, 1326 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60605

Attorney Papp indicated the petitioners are present for two purposes: a petition for annexation and a petition for a text amendment to the provisions of the Harvard Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) pertaining to the T-C Technology Campus (T-C).

Attorney Papp gave a brief history of the former Motorola property which was purchased by CAI Investments based out of Nevada in September, 2021. The first petition is to annex a 12.984-acre vacant parcel on the west side of Harvard Hills Rd., in the southeast corner of the former Motorola property now owned by CAI Investments. The parcels to the south of what the petitioners are asking to annex were donated to the City and School District by Motorola. The subject parcel is basically an orphan parcel. When the petitioner approached the City about the possibility of a text amendment, the City requested that the petitioners annex the property at this time. Once annexed, the property will have the Technology Campus zoning designation. The petitioners don’t have any plans to construct anything on the parcel; it is just being annexed.

The main property consists of approximately 308 acres, and when it was annexed to the City of Harvard, the zoning designation of Technology Campus was created basically for the purpose of the Motorola property for the building and the use they were going to make of it. The building has been vacant for a long time and hasn’t been heated for some time. It’s a deteriorating asset and needs a substantial amount of work in order to be put to productive use. It’s unlikely there will be a single owner with a technological manufacturing purpose such as Motorola. The petitioners have contacts and companies interested in occupying the building, and when those companies went through the permitted uses for the Technology Campus in the UDO, there were some questions whether certain things would be allowed. The petitioners use of the property will essentially be a logistics campus.

Matthew Tucker, CAI Investments, gave a high level about CAI, how they bought the property, what they’ve done since they purchased the property and their go forward plan of action with the property. CAI is a vertically integrated development company; they typically derive their revenue off publicly traded brands or strong credit tenants. CAI has two buckets of capital and activities they operate in. One bucket is a balance bucket where they purchase triple net assets and own about 3 million sq. ft. in Illinois and multiple million sq. ft. all across the country. CAI also has a growth bucket where they purchase distressed assets as well as ground up development. CAI has the experience, know-how and knowledge to execute the project. CAI purchased the property in September, 2021 and over the last year has invested significant capital into different miscellaneous repairs to keep the facility going. CAI is in deep discussions with a potential large manufacturing tenant who specifically asked for different nine zoning changes to the permitted use section of the UDO, including:

• Solar – the facility is currently underpowered. CAI has developed a power solution via solar.

• General Manufacturing – there is over 1,000 million sq. ft. of industrial space that can’t be used as manufacturing, distribution or warehousing because it is currently not a permitted use.

• School/Trade and Vocational – this is already an approved use, but the petitioner requests clarification to the text that will allow overnight accommodations for student dormitories.

• Vehicle Repair – the manufacturing tenant may have trucks who come into the facility to take shipments out that may need repairs.

Questions/Discussion by Planning and Zoning Commissioners to Petitioners 

Commissioner Albertson inquired how the Nursery/Greenhouse comes into play, specifically with retail sales for customers driving up to the building to purchase product. Mr. Tucker related that they are in discussion with a tenant who manufactures various different consumer products, one of which is food products and different snack products that involve potatoes and different vegetables. The tenant may have greenhouses for different testing and may grow potatoes and different vegetables that go into their product. Mr. Tucker indicated that retail sales was in the original zoning definition for nursery/greenhouse and they just added that in; the tenant’s intention at this time is not to have any retail sales.

Commissioner Grieshop inquired about the petitioner’s desire to annex the parcel at this time when they have in excess of 300 acres at their disposal. Mr. Tucker noted that the annexation is being done at the request of the City of Harvard. He further confirmed that the petitioner doesn’t have plans to develop the parcel. Attorney Clifton requested that City Administrator Nelson address the annexation. City Administrator Nelson confirmed that the annexation was being done at the request of the City. He related that the annexation of the subject parcel opens up the opportunity for the City Council, under the law, to be able to get into a Developer Agreement to regulate controls that will dictate how the entire site is developed over the next 20 years. The Developer Agreement could include language that the 12-acre parcel would not be developed for the next 20 years. The proposed annexation also cleans up the zoning map. The subject 12.984-acre parcel is currently under the jurisdiction of McHenry County. Attorney

Clifton clarified from a City standpoint, the concern if it’s not brought into the City, the City then has no zoning control; there is inconsistent zoning and in turn inconsistent regulation of a property. Putting it all together as one development provides uniformity to the zoning so you can’t have a use the City wouldn’t otherwise allow right next to this property.

Staff Report

There was no additional staff report. There were no questions from the Commission to the staff.

Public Comment

Attorney Clifton opened the floor to public questions/comments either in favor or opposition in the matters before the Commission. There were none. Public comment was closed at 7:27 pm.

Discussion by Planning and Zoning Commissioners

The Commission discussed the list of proposed permitted uses to the T-C District. Areas of discussion:

• Solar Energy System is currently a conditional use; after discussion, the consensus was there would sufficient oversight/regulations through the Building Dept. permit process if it were a permitted use. Administrator Nelson related that solar panels are an allowable use in the Manufacturing District and reviewed by the Building Dept. When PetDine added on their solar field to accommodate their facility, no public hearing was required.

• Industrial, General is currently a conditional use. There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

• Nursery/Greenhouse Retail Sale is currently not a classification in the T-C District. The petitioner previously clarified their use as far as retail. There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

• Outdoor Storage of Trucks and Trailers It is not the current intention as a principal use to solicit other companies to store their trucks and trailers. The spirit of the request is more for the tenant’s specific use while loading and unloading trucks. Commissioner Condon noted a concern about refrigerated trailers which could pose a noise nuisance to the neighbors. The petitioner indicated there may be refrigerated units, but he did not think the tenant’s intention would entail storing their goods and refrigerating them for extended periods of time. There is a 150’ setback requirement which would provide an adequate buffer.

• Parking in Designated Parking Areas The petitioner said the potential tenant wanted clarification that employees could park in their area. It is not their intent to have a pay to park or commercial type parking lot but for people staying at the campus. City Administrator Nelson indicated there is a possibility this facility could be multi-tenant. It has the ability to also be a condominium type use where you would have multiple tenants/owners in the building but the ground outside would be commonly owned and that’s where the complication comes in whether it’s an allowed use as an accessory with multiple owners. It could possibly be handled through a condominium association. After discussion, the consensus was to approve being a permitted use with a stipulation that it pertains to multi-tenant parking rather than for commercial uses.

• School/Trade or Vocational The petitioner previously clarified their use. There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

• Vehicle Operation Facility There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

• Vehicle Repair The petitioner previously clarified their use. There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

• Warehousing There was no objection to it being a permitted use.

Attorney Clifton recommended as best practice, two separate motions, one for the annexation and one for the text amendment. As it pertains to the second matter regarding the text amendment, he referred the Commission to Section 14.2.E.2, Approval Standards for Text Amendments and recommended that any motion include a reference that those standards had been considered and the recommendation is based upon the review of said standards.

After discussion, the consensus was not to recommend any additional guidance to the City Council with respect to the annexation that the parcel could not be developed over the next 20 years.

A motion was made by Commissioner Grieshop, seconded by Commissioner Albertson recommending approval of the annexation of the property itemized in the petition to the City of Harvard, and that upon annexation, the property would be classified for zoning purposes as the T-C Technology Campus. Roll call vote: Condon, aye; Grieshop, aye; Creviston, aye and Albertson, aye. Motion approved four to zero.

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Condon recommending approval of text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to amend Section 8.2 of the UDO to add the following as permitted uses in the T-C Technology Campus District: Solar Energy System; Industrial, General; Nursery/Greenhouse; Outdoor Storage of Trucks and Trailers; Parking in Designated Parking Areas with a caveat that it pertains to multi-tenant parking; School – Trade or Vocational; Vehicle Operation Facility; Vehicle Repair and Warehousing based upon a review of the Approval Standards of Text Amendments as outlined in Section 14.2 of the UDO. Roll call vote: Grieshop, aye; Creviston, aye; Albertson, aye and Condon, aye. Motion approved four to zero.

The Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation will come before the City Council at their meeting on November 22, 2022, at 7 pm, to be held in the Community Hall.

Clerk’s Report

No report.

Chairman’s Report

No report.

At 7:43 pm, a motion was made by Commissioner Grieshop, seconded by Commissioner Condon to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Motion carried.

https://www.cityofharvard.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_and_zoning_commission/meeting/14550/planningzoningminutes2022-11-01.pdf