McHenry Times

City of Harvard Community & Economic Development Committee met July 16

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

Chairman Dan Carncross called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Chairman Carncross called roll to establish a quorum. Committee members present: Chairman Dan Carncross, Alderman Jay Schulz, Alderwoman Rosa Luna, and Alderwoman Lori Lancaster. Also present were Mayor Michael Kelly, City Administrator Lou Leone, Alderwoman Lisa Haderlein, Alderman John Lavallee, Alderman Charlie Gorman, and Community Development Director Donovan Day.

Public Comment

Chairman Carncross opened the floor to public comment for any item not on the agenda. There were none.

Impact Fees

City Administrator Leone reviewed a proposal from a year ago regarding impact fees, which had been approved by both the committee and council to waive these fees in order to reduce permit costs for developers. Initially, permit fees were nearly covering full costs. However, as they have since risen to fully cover expenses, City Administrator Leone believes the current fee structure is appropriate and no longer necessitates lowering impact fees. He emphasized that the initial decision to waive impact fees was intended to lower overall City costs.

Alderman Carncross queried whether it was still necessary to lower impact fees to maintain competitiveness with neighboring areas, to which Leone indicated that staying at current levels seemed prudent.

Given the increased demand prompting the City to raise permit prices, Leone noted there has been no significant resistance from developers regarding potential increases in impact fees. Director Day added that developer demand had indeed risen over the past year.

Dan Carncross opened the floor to the public for comment:

• Superintendent of Consolidated School District 50, Dr. Corey Tafoya, expressed gratitude for considering local updates. He inquired about the status of development and when the development cycle would conclude. Leone responded that there are approximately 400 homes still to be built, with 80 homes currently developed. Tafoya then asked about the anticipated impact fees once development is complete. Alderman Carncross indicated that once that milestone is reached, a review of impact fees would be necessary, especially for any new subdivisions proposed. He noted that if demand for development increases, impact fees could potentially rise in response.

• Director Day mentioned that the City currently has agreements with 3 developers, while all other developers have been required to pay the impact fees.

No action is needed at this time.

Discussion on Proposed South TIF District

Director Day reported that he has been in communication with AWG, the owners of the new Sullivan Plaza, who are actively seeking tenants for available space. They are encountering challenges, particularly with a 13,000 square foot retail store tenant, as they work to balance necessary building improvements—both exterior and interior—with market rental rates. AWG has approached the City to inquire about potential incentives to attract tenants.

After discussions with the City Administrator Leone and Mayor, Director Day suggested exploring the creation of a TIF District, noting the area's significant need and advantageous business location due to the need of revitalization, there are many properties for sale in that area. He emphasized that without a TIF district, developing the area would prove challenging.

To proceed to the City Council, the next step would involve initiating an inducement resolution with AWG. This resolution would enable AWG to begin tracking costs. If the TIF district is subsequently approved, AWG could then seek reimbursement for these costs dating back to the resolution's initiation. Importantly, if the TIF District approval does not materialize, the City will not incur any financial loss.

Alderman Schulz inquired about the timeline for establishing the TIF District. Day estimated that the process would take around 6-8 months. Director Day specified that the TIF District would focus on renovations for the 13,000 square foot space, with no provision for improvements to parking lots. Schulz then asked why the area designated for the Starbucks location was not part of the TIF District proposal.

Director Day responded that it could potentially be included in the TIF District proposal to enhance the land value.

Alderwoman Haderlein raised concerns about the map presented for the TIF District, noting that she initially observed several parcels on the zoning map that appeared to be outside city limits. Upon further review, it was confirmed that all properties being considered for the TIF District are indeed within the City boundaries.

Alderwoman Haderlein then inquired about the incentives for developing flat, clear farmland located on the south end of the City. She pointed out that typically, TIFs are intended to spur development on underutilized land. Haderlein mentioned seeing significant farmland on the map that appears to be in good condition. Director Day responded that the TIF District proposal considers the entire area comprehensively.

It was discussed when the time came to approved the TIF District, which would be beneficial for the committee to look at the zoning areas.

Alderman Carncross opened the floor to public comment:

• Paul Hereley of 509 Old Orchard Rd observed that the area south of Sullivan's, which includes his property, is currently unincorporated. However, upon further investigation, it was determined that this area is within the City limits. He indicated that he would prefer his property not to be part of a TIF District. Alderman Carncross assured him that the TIF District approval process is still in its initial phases, and he would have an opportunity to participate in discussions when the time for approval arrives.

A motion was made by Alderman Schulz, seconded by Alderman Carncross to recommend the proposed South TIF District map to City Council for consideration at the July meeting All ayes. Motion Carried.

Submission of Planning & Zoning Commission Petition for UDO Text Amendments

Director Day reviewed his memo presented to the Community & Economic Development Committee concerning amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Staff are requesting consideration to submit a petition and hold a Public Hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission to amend specific sections of the UDO. Harvard's Unified Development Ordinance was officially adopted on August 28, 2018 (Ordinance 2018-121) with the goal of establishing land use regulations tailored to Harvard. Since its adoption and up to 2023, there has been limited residential or commercial development to implement the UDO effectively. However, with residential development now active in the Turtle Crossing, Oak Grove Crossing, and Autumn Glen subdivisions, staff has identified several sections of the UDO that are conflicting or in need of refinement. 

There is conflict between the illustration depicted in Section 8.3.H and the text found in Sections 8.3.H 1-5 and A-D. There is a clarifying section in the UDO that specifies what to use when there is text and an accompanying illustration or graphic. If there is any inconsistency between the text of the Ordinance and any such illustration, graphic, and/or photo, the text controls unless specifically stated otherwise.

Alderman Carncross opened the floor to public comment:

• Sarah Berg from 508 Old Orchard Rd mentioned the issue of measuring beyond the door opening because the garage door extends beyond it. Inside the garage door, there are rails that extend across, allowing for the opening through which vehicles pass. This does not create a discrepancy in the UDO. It states a garage door; if it needs to say something else, then the UDO needs to be revised. Director Day clarified to Ms. Berg that the discrepancy arises from the image and wording in the UDO. In the past, there was confusion regarding the building setback line, which was measured from the outermost points of the home. However, according to the definition, measurements should be made from lot line to lot line. This inconsistency between the image and the wording of the UDO causes the discrepancy.

Section 1.3.F of the UDO emphasizes that the text should be the primary guide when reviewing plans.

Therefore, it is logical to either amend or remove the illustration to align with the text, thereby preventing confusion.

Section 8.3.H.3, which mandates a minimum of 15% transparency on façades based on their entire area, staff and builders have encountered instances where this requirement seems unnecessary and impractical.

In many homes constructed since the UDO's adoption, this requirement has not been applied consistently.

Section 8.3.H.2 stipulates that street-facing façades must incorporate windows, entrances, porches, or other architectural features to prevent the appearance of blank walls. After extensive deliberation, the Committee reached consensus that the minimum transparency requirement should be revised, reducing it from 15% to a minimum of 5%. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

5.1.E defines R-4 - Two-family Residential District as “The R-4 Two-Family Residential District would accommodate two-family dwellings on standard sized lots of 8,712 square feet Table 5-1 Residential Districts Dimensional Standards states the minimum lot area per dwelling is 6,000 square feet. If the standard lot size for R-4 districts is 8,712 square feet, then the minimum lot size per dwelling conflicts with the text.” Staff recommends amending the Table to read the minimum lot size per dwelling is 4,356 square feet. The Committee recommended adding an additional line outlining the square foot requirement for duplexes.

Section 11.5.E states Decorative Metal Fencing requires that in any business district a four-foot-high decorative metal fence, painted black, shall be installed located one foot inside the parking lot. Under the accompanying illustration is further states: A decorative metal fence four feet high shall be installed within the landscape area one foot inside the parking lot. The requirement for the decorative metal fence applies only to parking lots in Business Districts. Staff would like to keep this requirement as it would create black metal fences around every new commercial business which may not look attractive over time. The UDO contains robust landscaping requirements that do not need additional features such as black metal recommending amending the section to allow for installation of fencing at a distance greater than one foot inside within the landscape area to accommodate bumpers of vehicles extending beyond a curb and not hitting the fence. The Committee agreed and recommended to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. 

Staff is recommending amending Section 9.6-Fences to add a requirement that the finished side of a fence must face out. Currently, residents are permitted to install a fence with the unfinished side of the fence faces in allowing for neighboring property owners to see the unfinished side of the fence. The Committee agreed and recommended to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

A motion was made by Alderman Schulz, seconded by Alderwoman Lancaster to submit the text amendment to City Council with proposed corrections discussed. All ayes. Motion carried.

Public Comment:

Lisa Haderlein of 904 N Jefferson expressed her concern that the UDO lacks the Anti-monotony provision, despite previous assurances from staff that it would be addressed. She noted its absence in the memo provided by Director Day and voiced disappointment in the committee for overlooking this issue. Director Day acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that he has drafted the Anti-monotony provision, which he intends to share with both the Committee and the City Council. This will be an agenda at the next City Council meeting in July.

Adjudication Hearing

Director Day explained the current process of Adjudication Hearings. Currently, when Code Enforcement or the Police Department issues a ticket for petty offenses or violations, these cases typically need to go to Circuit Court. However, Circuit Court judges do not approach municipal code violations in the same way as administrative adjudication judges. The effort required to bring a case to Circuit Court often outweighs the financial returns, as fine payments, if received, are minimal and the Circuit Court retains those costs.

To enhance efficiency in our code enforcement program, administrative adjudication hearings play a significant role. When a property is found non-compliant, it is directed to an adjudication hearing at City Hall with an administrative judge licensed by the State of Illinois. These hearings follow standard court procedures, including a clerk for roll call, a City attorney representing the municipality, and the option for the defendant to have legal representation. Both the City and the defendant present their cases, and the judge makes a ruling, with court costs remaining within the City. Harvard, being a non-home rule community, does not impose fines on defendants if compliance is achieved through the hearing process. The administrative adjudication judge has the authority to levy fines for non-compliance on the day of the violation, providing a more effective means of achieving property compliance.

The Police Department can utilize adjudication hearings in collaboration with the school district for issues like truancy. This approach avoids cases going to Circuit Court, preventing minors from acquiring permanent records and allowing fines to be settled during the adjudication process. Overall, this system enhances the efficiency of our code enforcement efforts.

• Alderman Gorman asked about the expenses involved. Director Day noted that typically, the cost for an administrative judge range from $150 to $250 per hour. Additionally, there are expenses for the Attorney’s office representative. Currently, administrative hearings are conducted at the Police Department for administrative tows.

• Director Day emphasized that if the City proceeds with adjudication hearings, it would be essential to interview and select Administrative Judges carefully. Without a dedicated and serious Administrative Judge, the process could risk devolving into a disorganized or ineffective proceeding. 

Alderman Gorman expressed that there has been ongoing discussion about the challenges of enforcing City ordinances. He believes implementing this approach is an excellent method to strengthen enforcement of the City's ordinances, stating his full support for it.

• Alderman Schulz inquired about the frequency of cases being sent to Circuit Court. Director Day responded that the City aims to minimize such occurrences, although he was uncertain of the exact frequency. He noted that there have been instances where individuals fail to appear in court, resulting in costs for the City.

Public Comment:

• Jennifer Garafol of 1209 Orchard Ln., who has 27 years of experience in law enforcement, pointed out that smaller towns similar to Harvard adopt the entire Illinois municipal code under their ordinance. They do this because they receive 100% of the revenue from every traffic ticket issued. She emphasized that moving forward with this approach makes sense and can be self-sustaining if implemented correctly.

A motion was made by Alderman Carncross, seconded by Alderwoman Lancaster to recommend to City Council a Creation of a Code Hearing Unit. All ayes. Motion carried.

Strategic Vision

Director Day expressed his desire for the Community & Economic Development Committee to establish objectives and set timelines for various agenda items. He suggested breaking down these items with clear objectives and measurable metrics to effectively prioritize them with an established timeline.

Alderman Carncross proposed scheduling a dedicated meeting for this purpose. It was suggested by Director Day to create a priority list outlining objectives and timelines. City Administrator Leone was advised to determine suitable times for discussing these items.

New Business

Director Day provided an update on the ongoing community development projects across the City.

City Administrator Leone noted that the Enterprise Zone Committee has undergone restructuring with new representatives, aiming to enhance consistency in its operations.

A motion was made by Alderman Schulz, seconded by Alderwoman Luna to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 8:29 pm. 

https://www.cityofharvard.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_and_economic_development_committee/meeting/14965/minutescommunityeconomicdevelopment2024-07-16.pdf