McHenry Times

City of Harvard Planning & Zoning Commission met Sept. 3

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Chairman Carbonetti called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. City Clerk Moller called roll to establish a quorum. Commission members present: Jim Carbonetti, J Albertson, Steve Creviston, Paul Hereley, and Elvis Patnaude. Commission Members Mike Grieshop and Ian McCafferty were absent. A quorum was present. Also present were City Administrator Lou Leone, Community Development Director Donovan Day, Code Enforcement Officer Anne Nutley, Deputy City Clerk Jannette Nunez and members of the audience.

Public Comment

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

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2024 - Approved

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Creviston to accept the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 7, 2024, as presented. All ayes. Motion carried.

Public Hearing – City of Harvard

Chairman Carbonetti opened the hearing in the petition submitted by the City of Harvard. The petitioner is seeking several text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

Staff Reports

Director Day did not have anything further to add to the staff report.

Presentation of Evidence by Petitioners

Staff expressed appreciation to the Commission for its thorough review of the proposed text amendments and highlighted pending considerations regarding city aesthetics and the easing of developmental constraints in new subdivisions.

A detailed report on various unified developments was presented, offering clearer expectations. Director Day discussed previous submissions and the challenges faced by petitioners due to inconsistencies. Unresolved issues were addressed, and petitioners were advised to seek written guidance from the administration, followed by establishing agreements on housing.

Director Day reviewed his memo outlining the proposed text amendments to the UDO.

1. Amend Section 8.3.H, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family

2. Amend Section 8.3H.3, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family Regarding Transparency Requirements

3. Amend Table 5-1, Residential Districts Dimensional Standards

4. Amend Section 11.5.E, Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape Yard, Decorative Metal Fencing

5. Amend Section 9.6, Fences

6. Staff is seeking the Commission’s input to include anti-monotony language in the UDO. The previous City of Harvard Zoning Code included an anti-monotony section that didn’t transition into the UDO.

Discussion/Questions by Planning and Zoning Commissioners

1. Amend Section 8.3.H, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family There is conflict between the illustrations in Section 8.3.H and the text in Sections 8.3.H. 1-5 and A-D.

Staff recommends that the illustrations should match the text to avoid confusion.

● At Commissioner Hereley’s inquiry, Director Day reviewed definitions in Section 2.3, Definition of General Terms, relating to building line and building wall.

● Discussion centered on improving the alignment between textual definitions and the accompanying illustrations in the ordinance to avoid inconsistencies identified since the last update.

● Commissioner Albertson raised inquiries regarding the need for clearer standards for multi-family and townhouse developments.

● Commissioner Hereley initiated a discussion on the principal use standards for single-family and two-family dwellings, with a particular focus on garage widths in relation to building line definitions. The discussion highlighted inconsistencies between textual descriptions and the accompanying illustrations, especially regarding attached garages and their alignment with the overall facade. Concerns were raised about potential misinterpretations of the current definitions, suggesting the need for revisions to ensure the regulations align with their intended application.

2. Amend Section 8.3.H.3, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family Regarding Transparency Requirements

Staff recommends, with agreement from the Community Development Committee, to reduce the amount of transparency from 15% minimum transparency to no less than 5% and maintaining Section 8.3.H.2 which states “Windows, entrances, porches, or other architectural features are required on all streetfacing facades to avoid the appearance of blank walls.”

● Director Day provided insights, reinforcing that guideline texts supersede graphical depictions when interpretations conflict. Commissioners revisited previous deliberations, reflecting community input and diverse perspectives to validate ordinance applicability to intended city district areas.

3. Amend Table 5-1, Residential Districts Dimensional Standards

Staff recommends amending Table 5-1 to clarify the lot dimension standards for different residential district types, to read as follows: the minimum lot size per dwelling is 4,356 square feet, or as recommended by the Community Development Committee, and to include an additional line in the table specifically for two-family dwellings and the minimum lot size as 8,712 square feet.

● At Commissioners Hereley’s and Albertson’s inquiry, Director Day clarified the proposed lot dimension standards per dwelling unit.

● There was consensus that the text concerning lot allocations for two-family dwelling units needed adjustments to ensure consistency with the City’s developmental goals and intentions.

4. Amend Section 11.5.E, Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape Yard, Decorative Metal Fencing

Staff, along with the Community Development Committee, is recommending amending the section to allow for installation of fencing at a distance greater than one foot inside the parking lot to accommodate bumpers of vehicles extending beyond a curb and not hitting the fence. The following is recommended:

A decorative metal fence four feet high shall be installed within the landscape area of the parking lot.

5. Amend Section 9.6, Fences

Staff presented a proposal to mandate that the finished, aesthetic side of fences face neighboring properties. Concerns were raised about situations where the less attractive side faced outward, which contradicted earlier interpretations. The text amendment was deemed necessary to ensure consistency across the town under the current UDO.

6. Anti-Monotony Provision for Existing Vacant Lots and Future Subdivisions

The previous City of Harvard Zoning Code included an anti-monotony provision that did not transition into the UDO. The prior ordinance specified that no more than one dwelling of a similar exterior design could be constructed on either side of the street within 330 feet. Significant changes in exterior design were required beyond minor alterations. Staff recommends including an anti-monotony section for existing vacant lots and future subdivisions that would prohibit multiple dwellings of the same style being constructed next to each other.

● There was discussion whether to allow ‘snout houses’ and if so, to further define. Current language indicates snout houses are discouraged which is rather vague from an enforcement perspective.

● Commission members would like additional information on this section. Director Day will provide examples of different styles for the next meeting.

Public Comment

Chairman Carbonetti opened the floor to public questions or comments. The following individuals addressed the Commission:

Joel Berg, Harvard, IL, addressed the Commission, expressing his concerns about the ongoing discussion.

He noted that previously, he was told the matter was settled and irrelevant, yet it has resurfaced. Berg emphasized that if the goal is to prevent 'snout homes'—where garages extend beyond the main building line—then simply prohibit them. He expressed concern that the current approach might benefit slumlords rather than ensuring affordable land for development. Mr. Berg, who has built and invested in multiple properties in Harvard, stressed the importance of clear and accurate language in the UDO. He criticized the ambiguity created by attempts to rubber-stamp past mistakes and pointed out that Harvard’s UDO is among the weakest in the county. Weakening it further would be a significant error. He also highlighted the waste of taxpayer money on retroactive approvals that could have been avoided with proper initial documentation.

Berg concluded by urging the Commission to make the language look like the picture. City Administrator Leone added that Joel Berg built his home based on the 2006 code, whereas the UDO being discussed was approved in 2018. While pictures and diagrams can sometimes be off, there’s never been a discussion about changing the language to match a diagram. If the diagram is incorrect, it should be fixed to align with the language, not the other way around. Changing the language to fit a flawed diagram could potentially weaken it. The wording has been in place since 2018, and our goal is to make the diagram match the verbiage.

Sarah Berg, Harvard, IL, addressed the Commission, emphasizing that the verbiage in question is accurate.

She pointed out that the definition of a building line is clearly outlined in two sentences that refer to the building wall, not the lot line. If it were simply about the lot line, the wording would reflect that. She clarified that the building line is defined by the building wall, as stated in the text, and that the verbiage does not support the idea that 60% of a lot line can be occupied by a garage door. Ms. Berg urged the Commission to carefully read the definition, emphasizing that the language is correct, and the only issue is that some may not agree with it.

Vote on Petition

Attorney Clifton advised the Commission on the procedure for motions: to approve as recommended, approve with conditions, or deny.

The Commission made the following recommendations to the City Council:

1. Amend Section 8.3.H, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family

A motion was made by Commissioner Hereley, seconded by Commissioner Creviston to deny the text amendment to Section 8.3.H, Principal Use Standards, Single-Family or Two-Family. Attorney Clifton clarified the motion is to “deny,” so if you vote yes, you are in favor of denying the text amendment. Roll call vote: Albertson, no; Creviston, ayes; Hereley, yes; Patnaude, no, Carbonetti, no. Motion to deny text amendment was defeated three to two.

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Patnaude to approve the text amendment to Section 8.3.H, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Family.

Roll call vote: Creviston, aye; Hereley, no; Patnaude, yes; Carbonetti, yes and Albertson, yes. Motion approved four to one.

2. Amend Section 8.3.H.3, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling - Single-Family or Two-Regarding Transparency Requirements

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Patnaude to approve the text amendment to Section 8.3.H.3, Principal Use Standards, Dwelling-Single-Family or Two

Family. Roll Call vote: Hereley, no; Patnaude, yes; Carbonetti, yes; Albertson, yes; Creviston, no. Motion approved three to two.

3. Amend Table 5-1, Residential Districts Dimensional Standards

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Creviston to approve the text amendment to Table 5-1, Residential Districts Dimensional Standards to read the minimum lot size per dwelling is 4,356 square feet and adding an additional line specifically for two-family dwellings and the minimum lot size of 8,712 square feet. Roll call vote: Hereley, no; Patnaude, yes; Carbonetti, yes; Albertson, yes; Creviston, no. Motion was approved three to two.

4. Amend Section 11.5E, Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape Yard, Decorative Metal Fencing

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Hereley to approve the text amendment to Section 11.5E, Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape Yard, Decorative Metal Fencing. Roll call vote: Patnaude, yes; Carbonetti, yes; Albertson, yes; Creviston, yes; Hereley, yes.

Motion was approved five to zero. 

5. Amend Section 9.6, Fences

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Patnaude to approve the text amendment to Section 9.6, Fences. Roll call vote: Patnaude, yes; Carbonetti, yes; Albertson, yes; Creviston, yes; Hereley, yes. Motion was approved five to zero.

6. Anti-monotony provision for existing vacant lots and future subdivisions

A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Patnaude to refer the proposal back to the Community and Economic Development Committee for further review. All ayes. Motion carried.

Clerk’s Report

City Clerk Moller introduced Jannette Nunez, who will replace her following retirement in the coming weeks.

Chairman’s Report

No Report.

At 7:47 pm, a motion was made by Commissioner Hereley, seconded by Commissioner Albertson to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Motion carried.

https://www.cityofharvard.org/media/23621