City of Harvard Comprehensive Plan APPENDIX B: Existing Conditions Report

April 2015 Acknowledgements

Funding Acknowledgement This project was supported through the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (CMAP) Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, which is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the Chicago Community Trust. The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and CMAP would like to thank these funders for their support for this project.

Unless otherwise specified, all photos are by CMAP staff. 2 Table of Contents

Introduction 4 Housing and Population 41 Regional Context 9 Economic Development 56 Previous Plans 13 Transportation 69 Community Engagement 18 Natural Environment 89 Governance and Community Services 25 Looking Forward 112 Land Use and Development 31

3 1. Introduction The City of Harvard has decided to update its comprehensive plan, which will define the vision of the City’s future and the steps needed to achieve that vision. Having an accurate understanding of the existing conditions in the City is necessary in order to develop an appropriate and effective comprehensive plan that addresses the issues and concerns of the community.

Why Does Harvard Need a Comprehensive Plan? The history of the City of Harvard begins with its rich agricultural lands and the connection the railroad provided to the larger markets in the Chicago region. Responding to the demands of local farmers as well as the railroad, manufacturing industries took root and the community grew rapidly. Harvard continues to boast a small-town feel nestled in among farm fields and open spaces that is quite distinct from other places in the region. Both the agricultural and manufacturing economies continue to change and have impacts on housing and commercial demand. Today, there is potential for infill development and redevelopment, particularly within downtown, along Route 14, and at the site of a former Motorola facility.

To address these contemporary challenges, the City is looking to enhance its commercial corridors, industrial areas, residential neighborhoods, and transportation network. Building on its existing comprehensive plan to provide direction, the City sought out technical assistance for this project from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP).

The community’s physical, economic, and social character will be determined by decisions made today and in the future. Having an updated plan that clearly articulates the desired character of the community will help at all levels of the decision-making process. The updated Comprehensive Plan will serve as a guide for elected officials, municipal staff, community residents, business owners and potential investors, allowing them to make informed community development decisions affecting land use, transportation, infrastructure, and capital improvements. By following the plan, those decisions can help achieve the long-term goals and vision of the community.

Figure 1.1. Harvard, Illinois Figure 1.2. Harvard and the 1.5-mile planning boundary.

What is a Comprehensive Plan? A comprehensive plan outlines the vision of the community and the policies and strategies that will allow it to achieve that vision. In addition to providing a well-defined framework for the preservation and enhancement of community assets, the plan guides development and investment decisions in the best interest of community residents.

Typically a comprehensive plan is written to provide guidance for a community to work towards its vision over the next 10 to 20 years. Although the plan should be viewed as a long-term document, it should also be used daily by the community to assist in land use and development decisions. The comprehensive plan should also be considered flexible and adaptable to changes in and around the community. At any time, the City can update its comprehensive plan to match local needs, interests, or opportunities. It is typically recommended that a municipality update its comprehensive plan every five years to keep the plan as accurate as possible.

4 FigureFig 1.1 1.1.Study City Area of Harvard, - Municipal Illinois. Boundary

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

¤£14

k e e r C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement & Aquatic Center IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Harvard Milky Way Metra Park Station

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k 2 City of Harvard e I Metra Station US-14 e r C

e IL-23 Township Boundaryn Metra Rail u rib Rus ry t h e Creek UnincorporatedG Freight Rail

Open Space e Airport Community Research Cemeteries Forest Conservation Easement Water Bodies [ Van Maren 0 0.25 0.5 Conservation Streams Miles Easement 5 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. FigureFig 1.2 1.2. Study City Area of Harvard, - Municipal Illinois Boundary and 1.5-mile plus planningPlanning area. Buffer

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Chemung Alden C r township township

W B Bangert r P Conservation is c a s US-14 Easement a Stowe w Conservation High Point Easement Conservation Area t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

Beeson W Simon

B Conservation t r Conservation r P i Easement i b s Easement c M a L o ittle s Bea a k IL-173 ve w e Crowley r l e

C C 14 r

r ¤£ r C Sedge

e e

e r e e

k Meadow e k

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D Soucie C N Lions saw Conservation ca Park Pis Easement Beck's Woods Harvard HU NTER RD Conservation RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Area Milky Station

Way 2 D Park R

«¬173 U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

eek eler Cr Mok AIRPORT RD Conservation

S DIVISION S ST Area

reek Rush C Rush Creek D R Conservation N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR Gateway Area T A L F Nature Park

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

Community Research Forest Conservation Easement Van Maren U S Conservation -1 Easement 4

IL-23

yune Cree k tr Ger ib Ru City of Harvard 2 Metra Station sh Creek Woodstock Center 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Metra Rail Conservation

Easement

Township Boundary Freight Rail e Unincorporated Airport

Open Space N

trib B N r

K DEEP CUT RD

B Brookdale r i

Cemeteries s

[ K Conservation h

is w 0 0.5 1 hwa uk Area a Water Bodies Miles e u e k e e

Streams v

e r 6 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015.

Land Uses Policies and Regulations Comprehensive Plans provide a vision and policy framework to guide decision making for the community. They form the basis for establishing standards and regulations.

Zoning ordinances specify the type and intensity of land uses allowed on a given parcel, such as the type, size, and density of residential or commercial development.

Subdivision codes or ordinances specify development elements for a parcel: housing footprint minimums, distance from the house to the road, the width of the road, street configuration, open space requirements, and lot size.

Elements of a Comprehensive Plan Under the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS) 5/11-12-5(1)), a municipal plan commission is responsible for preparing and recommending a “comprehensive plan for the present and future development or redevelopment of the municipality.” A comprehensive plan is composed of a series of distinct yet interrelated elements defined within the Illinois Local Planning Assistance Act (Public Act 92-0768). The key elements addressed in the Harvard Comprehensive Plan will be based upon those outlined in the State Statute:  Land Use  Housing  Natural Resources  Transportation and Circulation  Economic Development  Implementation Strategies

In addition to the primary elements listed above, comprehensive plans commonly include additional elements that may either be unique sections in the plan or may be incorporated as common themes that run throughout the document. Additional elements that will be considered for the Harvard Comprehensive Plan include community facilities, governance, and community character.

Plan Implementation The Comprehensive Plan is intended to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the City. Here are some practical ways to ensure that future activities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan:

 Annual Work Programs and Budgets: The City Council and Administration should be cognizant of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan when preparing annual work programs and budgets.

 Development Approvals: The approvals process for development proposals, including rezoning and subdivision plats, should be a central means of implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning and subdivision ordinance should be updated in response to regulatory strategies presented in the Comprehensive Plan.

 Capital Improvements: Capital improvement projects should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use policies and infrastructure recommendations (water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and parks and recreation). Major new improvements that are not reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, and which could

7 dramatically affect the plan’s recommendations, should be preceded by a Comprehensive Plan update.

 Economic Incentives: Economic incentives should carry out Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.

 Private Development Decisions: Property owners and developers should consider the strategies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in their own land planning and investment decisions. City decision- makers will be using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide in their development-related deliberations.

Purpose of the Existing Conditions Report This Existing Conditions report – representing the accumulation of approximately three months of research, analysis, and public outreach activities – provides an overview of the current conditions in Harvard and is designed to provide a starting point for creating a shared vision of the future. The Existing Conditions Report is organized in the following sections: Section 1: Regional Context Section 2: Previous Plans Section 3: Community Outreach Section 4: Governance and Community Services Section 5: Land Use and Development Section 6: Housing and Population Section 7: Economic Development Section 8: Transportation Section 9: Natural Environment Section 10: Looking Forward

Planning Process The process to create the City’s Comprehensive Plan will last approximately 12-15 months and include multiple steps. The process was crafted with assistance from City staff and designed to include the input of City residents, business owners, and others. The key steps in the planning process are illustrated in Figure 1.2

Figure 1.2. Planning Process

Draft Community Existing Conditions Public Visioning Plan Completion Public Kick-Off Comprehensive Implementation of Report Workshop and Approval Plan Plan

Next Steps After the Existing Conditions Report is presented to the Steering Committee, CMAP and the City will conduct a visioning workshop with residents, business owners, elected officials, and City staff to create a shared vision for Harvard. The results of the workshop and information compiled in the Existing Conditions Report will be used to prepare a common vision with associated policies, which will form the basis of the updated comprehensive plan.

8 2. Regional Context

History of Harvard In 1856, Amos Page, Otis Eastman, and Eldridge G. Ayer planned the layout of a new town and named it Harvard. Ayer’s connection to the Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company helped bring the newly extended route from Cary to Janesville, Wisconsin through this newly platted town. In April 1856, the Harvard station opened and, when Northwestern’s Kenosha-Rockford line also entered Harvard in 1859, the railroad built engine-handling facilities there, creating employment opportunities. The population grew and voters elected to become a village in 1868.

Harvard quickly became the center of dairy industry, able to produce fresh milk products for Chicago markets via the railroad. Supplied by the corn-growing land to the north and “wet prairies called the Islands” where wild hay grew to the south, Harvard was well positioned.1 Agricultural equipment manufacturers responded to the growing need, including Hunt, Helm, and Farris, which later became the Starline Corporation. The population continued to grow and, in April 1891, Harvard became a city with aldermanic wards.

Figure 2.1. Historic photos of Harvard, Illinois

Ayer Street, Harvard, 1877 Armistice Day Parade, Ayer Street, 1937 Source: Greater Harvard Area Historical Society

What is now an annual celebration, Harvard Milk Days, got its start in 1942 as residents honored the area farmers and their commitment to the war effort to increase milk and food production for the U.S. military. With seven dairy companies in the area, Harvard proclaimed itself the “Milk Center of the World,” with a festival that later included cattle shows, milk maids, and a Holstein cow named Harmilda, which is still proudly on display at the corner of Ayers and Division Street.

More profitable demand for produce, as well as the decline of the railroads, brought changes to Harvard’s economy. In 1947, the Admiral Corporation opened a large radio assembly plant which stayed in operation until the 1970s. Area farmers found supplying metropolitan Chicago with produce a more

1 Pfannkuche, Craig. Encyclopedia of Chicago. Available at: http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/567.html

9 Figure 2.2. City of Harvard, Illinois and sub-regional context. Fig 2.2 Sub-regional context

Wisconsin Illinois ! Harvard Lake McHenry Michigan Lake Elkhorn

Chicago Kane Delavan DuPage Rock Walworth Darien County Cook County Kendall Williams Lake Bay Geneva I I n l l i d

Will n i o a i n s a

Fontana-on-Geneva Lake W iis c o n s iin Walworth Genoa Sharon City

IIlllliin o iis Hebron ¬«173 Richmond Harvard 2

Ringwood Capron ¬«76 Greenwood ¬«173 U P- Poplar N W Wonder Grove Caledonia Lake ¤£14 McHenry Loves Timberlane Park Boone McHenry ¬«120 Bull County County 2 Valley Woodstock

¬«23

U P- N W £¤20B

Garden Crystal ¬«176 Cherry ¤£20 Prairie Lake Belvidere Marengo 2 Valley Union

Lakewood

County Boundary Interstate City of Harvard Major Roads §¨¦90 Lake in the Hills Other Municipalities 2 Metra Stations Algonquin 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Metra Rail Huntley [ DeKalb Freight Rail Kane Miles Gilberts 0 2.5 5 County 10 Hampshire County Carpentersville

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. profitable proposition. As the agricultural economy changed so did employment practices and the Latino population grew in the community.

With suburban expansion spreading to McHenry County, Harvard was seen as a model town in a rural setting and many lobbied the county government to preserve agricultural areas. The City did annex land bringing in additional housing, shopping amenities, and industrial businesses. In 1996, the Motorola Corporation opened a 1.5-million square foot cellular telephone manufacturing plant, which employed 5,000 people. The plant subsequently closed in 2003. During the height of the housing boom, several housing subdivisions were also planned within Harvard; but the recession, which began in 2008, led to declines in Harvard’s housing market.

Regional Setting Harvard is located in McHenry County, approximately 68 miles northwest of downtown Chicago, 30 miles northeast of Rockford, and five miles south of the Wisconsin border. Surrounded by unincorporated land, Harvard’s eastern boundary follows Harvard Hills Road and the western boundary follows Lawrence Road. U.S. 14 and Illinois Routes 23 and 173 are some of the main thoroughfares in the community, providing connections to Woodstock, Marengo, Walworth, and Richmond. Harvard is home to the Dacy Airport, a privately operated airport with three runways. Metra’s Union Pacific Northwest Line provides service to Chicago, Pace Bus Route 808 provides service to Woodstock and Crystal Lake, and the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (I-90) is 30 miles to the south, see Figure 2.2.

Located in the upper reaches of the Kishwaukee River Basin, Harvard’s landscape was shaped by glaciers, which left moraines, outwash fans, and bedrock highs among other features. The Harvard West Geologic area is an example of a pitted outwash plain, while the Harvard East Geologic Area is an example of a moraine protruding down a valley. The City covers 5,337 acres and its extended planning area covers 23,022 acres or about 36 square miles. The planning boundary overlaps four subwatersheds – Piscasaw Creek, Lawrence Creek, Mokeler Creek, and Rush Creek. Harvard is home to several local parks and the Rush Creek Conservation area, managed by the McHenry County Conservation District, is just to the south.

Figure 2.2. Sub-regional context

Harvard and the GO TO 2040 Regional Comprehensive Plan The cumulative choices of 284 municipalities and seven counties determine quality of life and economic prosperity across our region. Local autonomy over land use decisions also requires communities to take responsibility for how those decisions shape a community’s livability, as well as impacts on neighboring communities and the region as a whole. As part of the larger Chicago metropolitan region, Harvard influences and is influenced by the region.

CMAP developed and now guides the implementation of GO TO 2040, metropolitan Chicago’s first truly comprehensive regional plan in more than 100 years. To address anticipated population growth of more than 2 million new residents, GO TO 2040 establishes coordinated strategies that will help the region’s 284 communities address transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and other quality of life issues. The GO TO 2040 plan strives to balance the need for local

11 autonomy and regional cooperation. It provides principles that municipalities and counties can apply when they decide how and where development should happen or which infrastructure investments to make in their communities. The plan recommends supporting local planning through grant programs, infrastructure investments to implement plans, technical assistance, and collaboration between municipalities on shared priorities. The Plan contains four themes and 12 major recommendation areas:

Livable Communities Efficient Governance 1. Achieve Greater Livability through Land 1. Reform State and Local Tax Policy Use and Housing 2. Improve Access to Information 2. Manage and Conserve Water and Energy 3. Pursue Coordinated Investments Resources 3. Expand and Improve Parks and Open Space Regional Mobility 4. Promote Sustainable Local Food 1. Invest Strategically in Transportation 2. Increase Commitment to Public Transit 3. Create a More Efficient Freight Network Human Capital 1. Improve Education and Workforce Development 2. Support Economic Innovation

The Livable Communities, Efficient Governance, and Regional Mobility chapters are most relevant to the Harvard Comprehensive Plan, particularly those that relate to:

 Collaborative planning and interjurisdictional  Commercial and residential revitalization communication  Consolidation of local services to improve  Water and natural resource protection and efficiencies enhancement  Farmland protection  Green infrastructure protection and  Open space and trail enhancements enhancement  Transit-oriented development  Innovative stormwater management practices that reduce water loss and flooding

GO TO 2040 states, “municipalities are critical to the success of GO TO 2040 because of their responsibility for land use decisions, which create the built environment of the region and determine the livability of its communities. The most important thing that a municipality can do to implement GO TO 2040 is to take this responsibility very seriously.” By undertaking this Comprehensive Plan, Harvard has taken responsibility for guiding its future, and demonstrated its commitment to helping shape the future of the region as well.

12 3. Previous Plans This section provides a summary and analysis of existing plans and studies that help to inform the updated comprehensive plan. Plans and studies that have been reviewed here are listed below. Additional plans, such as the McHenry County Green Infrastructure Plan, McHenry County Groundwater Resources Management Plan, and the Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan are covered in the Natural Environment section, see Chapter 10.

 Harvard 2015 Growth Plan, 1995  McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2010  McHenry County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, 2014

Harvard 2015 Growth Plan, 1995 Adopted in 1995, the Harvard 2015 Growth Plan was developed following the heels of the Motorola announcement to construct an industrial facility in the City. The Growth Plan is organized into the following chapters: population, natural resources and environmental constraints, economy, water and sewer, transportation, housing, community facilities, parks and recreation, and existing and future land use. The Plan provided three potential population projections by 2015, ranging from 12,400 to 20,100.2 The Growth Plan contains a future land use map that envisions large new areas of single-family detached housing and commercial development, in response to the projected growth in population and employment that would come with the Motorola plant. In addition, substantial areas are set aside for wetland protection.

The plan lays out a number of policies and strategies associated with each topic area. The following provides a sample of the larger policy goals.  Discourage growth and development outside of planning jurisdiction and work with McHenry County to limit rezonings.  Recognize the importance of the natural environment and seek to foster policies that will protect and improve the quality of that environment, including minimizing development impacts on wetlands, groundwater, and stormwater management and supporting alternative transportation as a means of reducing air pollution.  Reserve adequate lands for commercial and industrial uses in the next 20 years and to revitalize its downtown.  Study and plan for water and sewer capacity expansions.  Street design should retain the sense of scale and place as well as the ability to move traffic through the city. New road construction should be connected to the existing street grid.  Encourage single-family detached homes that are owner-occupied and minimizing new multi-family construction  Coordinate with partners (Harvard Fire Protection Department, schools, and library) so that adequate locations are reserved for new facilities to serve the growing population.  Create a linear greenway park along Lawrence creek that provides a connection between existing parks.

Figure 3.1. Future land use map of the Harvard 2015 Growth Plan, 1995.

2 As of 2010, the population was estimated to be 9,447.

13 McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2010 The McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan lays out a vision for managing and accommodating the anticipated population growth and needed economic development in the County while maintaining the same quality-of-life enjoyed by current residents and providing for the health of future generations. The 2030 Plan is composed of 7 main chapters: community character and housing, agricultural resources, greenways open space and natural resources, water resources, economic development, infrastructure, and land use. Each chapter outlines goals and objectives, provides an assessment of existing conditions, and then a set of recommendations.

For community character and housing, the plan identifies specific policy statements on the following topics: transit-oriented development, historic preservation and adaptive reuse, traditional neighborhood development, and conservation design, among others. The 2030 Plan also outlines a number of policies concerning the preservation of the most productive farmland; including utilizing the Land Evaluation component of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system to identify highly productive areas, supporting the diversification of agricultural goods, and encouraging protection of these areas through easements and other legislative incentives.

The natural and water resource chapters are focused on making wise land use decisions that recognized the value of these resources. In addition to best management practices to minimize the impacts of soil disturbance and stormwater runoff, the 2030 Plan promotes the preservation of native trees and vegetation, development ordinances that preserve and increase open space, link greenways, and maintain and enhance native landscaping. The 2030 Plan reflects the McHenry County Conservation District’s Trails Plan, which would create a bike and pedestrian trail into Harvard from the west along Route 173 and a conceptual trail has been proposed on the northeast side of town connecting to Hebron.

The 2030 Plan recognizes the growing concerns that future water supply demands will outstrip available groundwater supplies. The County is already exceeding its ‘share’ of withdrawal from the local deep sandstone aquifer. While substantial remaining capacity exists in the shallow aquifer, there may not be enough water to satisfy anticipated future demand in some areas of the county. The 2030 Plan provides information on the location of groundwater recharge areas and the land use and zoning techniques that could be used to protect the County’s drinking water supply. The policy statements cover recharge area protection, wastewater reuse and recycling, water supply and conservation, protection of groundwater dependent aquatic systems, coordinated groundwater and water supply planning, protection of surface water quality and hydrology, protection and enhancement of aquatic habitats, watershed-level planning, protection of floodprone areas, stormwater runoff reduction, and recreational uses. The 2030 Plan ends with a future land use map (Figure 3.2) that sees some room for additional residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses beyond the current Harvard municipal boundary. Large areas within Harvard’s planning area have been identified for open space and agricultural uses.

Figure 3.2. McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2010

McHenry County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, 2014 In 2014, McHenry County adopted a new plan for transportation, the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The planning process involved extensive outreach throughout the County and analysis of

14 Figure 3.1. Future land use map of the Harvard 2015 Growth Plan, 1995.

15 existing and future traffic demand. The LRTP evaluates the overall demographic trends of the County, noting that the population has become older, more ethnically diverse, and lower income. Citing national trends, the LRTP identifies growing income disparity, increases in local poverty rates, and typical wages below cost of living levels as factors that suggest a growing number of County residents may be searching to lower their transportation costs. At the same time, the LRTP projects that the County’s main highways will be nearly impossible to widen to accommodate additional traffic and, as a result, the length of time it takes to make the same journey today will increase significantly. In addition, the County anticipates much greater motorized traffic volumes on the local street network.

Given these conditions, the LRTP recommends additional capacity for motorized vehicles to be added to highways to accommodate peak hour volumes where possible. But it recognizes that these interventions will only go so far and identifies the need for additional capacity in the form of mass transit, sidewalks, and bicycle trails. Encouraging people to walk or bicycle to local destinations is likely to result in real declines in motor vehicle volumes in certain areas of the County. The LRTP recognizes that the pace of providing the necessary infrastructure for people to be able to drive less will depend on many factors including land use zoning changes and bicycle and pedestrian transportation infrastructure.

The LRTP identifies six goals to guide policies and project selection: mitigate highway congestion; make transportation safer; promote mobility for all residents; provide transportation choices; preserve environmental quality; and link transportation and land use. These goals are then reflected in number of projects in three different categories: bicycle and pedestrian, motorized vehicles, and transit. The recommendations that could impact Harvard and the surrounding area are summarized in Table 2.1. The LRTP devotes a significant portion of the plan reviewing the funding options, noting that the historic base for the County’s transportation funding – the local motor fuel tax – has been declining as residents drive less frequently and use more efficient vehicles.

Table 2.1. Recommended projects within and near Harvard, McHenry County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, 2014. Label Project Name Cost T1 Metra Union Pacific Northwest Line Capital and Capacity Upgrades* $584,000,000 B8 Woodstock to Harvard Trail $4,180,000 B17 Harvard to Hebron Trail $3,440,000 B18 Marengo to Harvard Trail $3,040,000 B22 Chemung to Boone County Connecting Trail $900,000 M6 Marengo Access to Interstate 90, South Bypass, IL 23 Intersections $93,900,000 * Identified in CMAP GO TO 2040 Fiscally-constrained list of transportation projects Source: McHenry County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, 2014.

Figure 3.2. Future land use map of the McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 2010.

STATE LINE ROAD STATE LINE ROAD STATE LINE ROAD

D ROAD ROAD

5 4 3 2 1 BUTTONS ROAD 1 6 BREEZY ROADLAWN 5 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

ALDEN ROAD ARMORY BURGETT ROAD

HILLSIDE ROA BURLINGTON BROADWAY ROAD GASCH ROAD SENMAN ROAD ZARNSTORF ROAD 7 8 9 LILJA ROAD YATES ROAD TWIN LAKES ROAD 8 10 11 12 HEBRON ROAD 11 12 7 WILLOW LAKES ROAD 7 8 9 10 KEYSTONE ROAD 8 9 10 WHITE OAKS ROAD 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 11

FREEMAN ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD LANGE ROAD YORK ROAD WILMOT ROAD McHenry County 173 W HILLSHIRE DRIVE

JOHNSON ROAD PERKINS ROAD 18 17 16 WEIDNER ROAD 15 HILL ROAD 13 18 14 13 18 PRICE ROAD 15 14 17 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 14 13 18 17 16 WINN ROAD

WRIGHT ROAD

KNICKERBOCKER ROAD 15 CLARK ROAD NORGARD ROAD RICHARDSON ROAD OAK GROVE ROAD Future Land Use

OKESON ROAD N SOLON ROAD

KEYSTONE ROAD

GLACIER RIDGE DRIVE

WHITE OAKS ROAD MILL ROAD OAK GROVE ROAD 20

MAXON ROAD 22 19 20 21 22 23 24 GREENWOOD ROAD 23 24 19 PADDOCK STREET 19 20 21 23 FINK ROAD 20 21 22 NILSEN COURT 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 PENNY LANE

REESE ROAD KEMMAN ROAD BERWYN STREET GRAF ROAD CROWLEY ROAD O'BRIEN ROAD REGNIER ROAD O'BRIEN ROAD IL 47 MAIN STREET Source: NOLAN STREET WHITE ROAD

TRYON GROVE ROAD WHITE STREET VIRIGINIA STREET

PEARL STREET STEWART ROAD LINDEN ROAD SPRING GROVE ROAD 30 29 28 26 30 29 McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan 27 25 26 25 30 29 27 BLIVIN STREET 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 MAY LANE 12 NORMA LANE RIGHEIMER ROAD SHIELDS ROAD

MANLEY ROAD JOHNSON ROAD BARNARD MILL ROAD RYAN ROAD Adopted April 20, 2010 ALTENBURG ROAD 31 H WHITE OAKS ROAD DURKEE ROAD VANDERKARR ROAD UN 47 T E R R O RITA DRIVE AD RAMER ROAD DIGGINS STREET PIONEER ROAD SUNSET ROAD 31 32 33 GREEN ROAD HARTS ROAD 36 32 36 31 32 34 35 31 32 33 34 35 31

34 35 33 36 32 33 34 35 36 31 KEYSTONE ROAD LAKE GENEVA HIGHWAY

MILLER ROAD

JOHNSBURG ROAD BRINK STREET QUEEN ANNE ROAD MILLER ROAD JOHNSON ROAD THAYER ROAD

GIANT OAK ROAD

WHITE OAKS ROAD PINE STREET

S SOLON ROAD BISON LANE LINCOLN ROAD HOWE ROAD

SCHULTZ ROAD HOWE ROAD

6 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 2 1 MARENGO STREET 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 Agricultural RINGWOOD ROAD

MILLER ROAD BROCKHAM COURT

D IRISH LANE A O R MCGUIRE ROAD ALLENDALE ROAD N COUNTRY BROOK LANE O IR

JOHNSBURG SPRING GROVE ROAD T DELLSHIRE LANE 12 A WONDER LAKE ROAD Open Space

L MCCAULY ROAD

ISLAND DRIVE F WINDY HILL ROAD OAK DRIVE 8 7 8 9 10 11 7 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 7

COUNTRYSIDE LANE

KING ROAD 7 STREIT ROAD

STREIT ROAD WILSON ROAD JANKOWSKI ROAD MCCULLOM LAKE ROAD Environmentally Sensitive Area

BILLINGSGATE LANE LINDWALLL ROAD

ST. PATRICK ROAD FARMINGTON LANE D W JOHNSBURG ROAD 18 17 OA 16 17 18 17 PAGLES ROAD R 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 AAVANG ROAD 18 17 16 15 14 13 N 14 18 16 15 14 13 RINGWOOD ROAD RO 13 I DEEP CUT ROAD AT FAWN LANE FL Estate (1 - 5 acre lots) LEMBCKE ROAD WEST ROAD NUSBAUM ROAD

FRITZ ROAD

MURRAY ROAD RAYCRAFT ROAD ARABIAN TRAIL BAY ROAD

PAULSON ROAD FLANDERS ROAD 24 AUGUST LANE 19 REICHE LANE 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 NELSON ROAD 20 21 23 22 23 24 19 VILLA LANE D 24 19 20 21 22 22 REGNER ROAD Residential (<1 acre lots) 19 A 23

PAGLES ROAD 20 ISLAND ROAD O CHARLES ROAD R

DUNHAM WOODS DRIVE UT WEST SHORE DRIVE BUNKER HILL ROAD C P RIVERSIDE DRIVE EE D 120

ORCHARD BEACH ROAD TINA DRIVE HIGHVIEW ROAD COONEY DRIVE MUSTANG TRAIL TIMBERLINE TRAIL Mixed Use KINGS WAY LAMB ROAD ROSE FARM ROAD 28 30 29 QUEEN ANNE ROAD 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 RAFFEL ROAD 27 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 WOODLAWN PARK DRIVE

DRAPER ROAD 25 CHAPEL HILL ROAD

HARTLAND ROAD MENGE ROAD

BROOKDALE ROAD HOGBAC ROAD 120 COUNTRY LANE TRAKK LANE RIVER ROAD DUNHAM ROAD TRAILECHO DUNHAM ROAD MARAWOOD DRIVE THOMPSON ROAD APPALOOSA TRAIL CRESTWOOD DRIVE BUSSE ROAD Retail

PARK LANE DRIVE 36

ROSE LANE 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 BANFORD ROAD 34 35 31 32 MCKINSTRY ROAD 33 34 35 32 33 35 36 31 32 33 36 31 RAFFEL ROAD RAFFEL ROAD 34 HICKORY ROAD TREY ROAD 32

BAUMAN ROAD EMERALD DRIVES

RIDGE ROAD

MULVENNA ROAD

MENGE ROAD

KENT ROAD Office / Research / Industrial TOMLIN ROAD

MINERAL DRIVE 14 CRESTHILL AVENUE SWARTHMORE ROAD COUNTRY DRIVE DIMMEL ROAD HIDDEN LANE

ROOT ROAD

BLACKHAWK LANE ROAD F ER HUGHES ROAD ILL L S J M E CHARLE

LILY LAKE ROAD SHANNON DRIVE M BULL VALLEY ROAD 1 6 5 6 5 4 3 OLBRICH ROAD BULL VALLEY ROAD 2 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 I 1 6 5 2 1 6 5 4 3 N 4 3

NOE ROAD G Government / Institutional / Utilities

H D R FOX FARM ROAD O KISHWAUKEE VALLEY ROAD A OLESON ROAD O O SAVANNAH LANE B A R KISHWAUKEE VALLEY ROAD E D E R K COUNTRY CLUB ROAD A

O COUNTY LINE ROAD L

A L A D T R S IV Y E DEERPATH ROAD R R C STATE PARK ROAD RIVERSIDE DRIVE R Incorporated Areas 12 7 8 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 VETERANS PARKWAY11 O 11 7 8 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 7 12 A RIDGEVIEW LANE BARREVILLE ROAD D 9 SOUTH STREET 7

OLCOTT ROAD

VALLEY HILL ROAD SULLIVAN ROAD BALLINA LANE CARMACK ROAD COLLINS ROAD COLBY DRIVE COLLINS ROAD ROSE FARM ROAD DAVIS ROAD COACHLIGHT ROAD HAWTHORN ROAD Isolated Estate Developments CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD

PRINGLE DRIVE D

A DOWELL ROAD BOCKMAN ROAD 14 13 18 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 O 17 16 15 LAKE SHORE DRIVE17 PARKVIEW DRIVE 16 15 14 13 18 R 14 13 18 17 16 15 IYPN ROAD POND LILY

17 MARITIME LANE T RIVERDALE ROAD N KERRY LANE

A ROADBAY DEERPASS ROAD M

MILLER ROAD

STIEG ROAD FOX RUN WRIGHT ROAD R SECOR ROAD C EDGEWOOD ROAD Isolated Residential Developments E

O JUSTEN ROAD

COX ROAD V U WOOD STREET

CONSTANCE LANE N T RIVER ROAD R 21 Y

RED BARN ROAD CASTLE ROAD C

L BERRY COURT KRISTEN TRAIL NISH ROAD 19 20 PERKINS ROAD U 21 23 24 19 20

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 B 19 20 22 DEAN STREET STANDISH ROAD R O

CHERRY VALLEY ROAD OAK RIDGE ROAD FOXFIRE DRIVE SANDHILL ROAD GARDEN VALLEY ROAD A D MILLSTREAM ROAD TOD Existing Station CRYSTAL WAY

FOX CREEK TRAIL SOUTH STREET

THORNE ROAD

FRANKLINVILLE ROAD WILDWOOD DRIVE RIDGEFIELD ROAD TAMARISK TRAIL WALKUP AVENUE SHERMAN BOULEVARD DEAN STREET ROAD LUCAS ROAD 29 KUNDE ROAD DOTY ROAD RIDGEFIELD ROAD30 WHIPPOORWILL DRIVE

KUNDE ROAD DERBY LANE 30 29 28 27 GEE ROAD 28 27 26 25 29 26 25 30 29 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 EAST DRIVE 30 28 GAYLE ROAD ROBERTS ROAD TOD Future Station DRAKE DRIVE

MAINE TRAIL BEHAN ROAD

COUNTY LINE ROAD

BUHL ROAD TERRA COTTA ROAD

MILLSTREAM ROAD LUCAS ROAD SUNNY SIDE ROAD SWANSON ROAD 176 TILE LINE ROAD

UNION ROAD EMERY LANE NORTH PARK DRIVE BRIARWOOD ROAD 33 36

MT THABOR ROAD RIVER RANCH ROAD TERRA COTTA AVENUE Existing Earth Extraction 31 33 34 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD 32 34 35 31 32 RITA AVENUE 35 36

31 HAMILTON DRIVE TTAO ROAD THABOR MT BUTTERNUT DRIVE U LANE BUR

176 STRONG ROAD SMITH ROAD

DUNHAM ROAD O'COCK ROAD O'COCK ROAD CRYSTAL LAKE AVENUE AMY DRIVE

JOHNSON ROAD STEEPLE RUN RAWSON BRIDGE ROAD

PLEASANT GROVE ROAD MEYER ROAD BALLARD ROAD VALERIE DRIVE Water LINDSAY LANE HICKORY GROVE LANE 1 JEFFERSON STREET HENSEL ROAD 1 6 6 5 4 3 2 RATFIELD ROAD 6 4 3 2 1 6 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 5

5 SANDS ROAD

MCCUE ROAD 5

MAIN STREET

SILVER LAKE ROAD

SMITANA ROAD PAULINE AVENUE FOSTER ROAD HUNTERS PATH

N UNION ROAD ROSE AVENUE

OLSON ROAD HEMMINGSON ROAD MINK TRAIL

BURMA ROAD PAULSON DRIVE STAG TRAIL SOMERSET DRIVE ROSE STREET OTTER TRAIL JACKSON ROAD 7 CORAL EAST ROAD 12 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 11 12 7 8 9 11 12 8 9 10 11 COVE DRIVE 7 MAIN STREET 10 BARLINA ROAD

HILL ROAD BLISSDALE ROAD 7 SADDLE OAKS DRIVE FROHLING ROAD CONLEY ROAD 10 WEST LAKE DRIVE Isolated Residential and Estate Developments CORA D VIRGINIA STREET L WEST R OA UNION ROAD DARTMOOR DRIVE

S UNION ROAD ES R RAKOW ROAD JAM

BURMA ROAD MAIN STREET are mapped for reference and are not to be used

COUNTY LINE ROAD 23

HICKORY NUT GROVE ROAD

LEECH ROAD ACKMAN ROAD

GRANGE ROAD ADAMSON ROAD HALIGUS ROAD MARY STREET HILL ROAD MARENGO - HUNTLEY ROAD 13 18 17 17 15 14 13 18 15 14 13 18 16 15 14 13 17 16 15 14 as precedent for future zoning requests. 18 16 17 16 17 18

PYOTT ROAD D A PRAIRIE DRIVE O R ANTHONY ROAD ERNESTI ROAD Y MAPLE STREET R HILLSIDE TRAIL OX BOW ROAD A BECK ROAD C ANTHONY ROAD - N 19 MARENGO I 24 HILLTOP ROAD 22 - H U RIVER DRIVE U BRAEBURN ROAD NT Q LEY N 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 22 23 24 R 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 O O G

A LAKEWOOD ROAD D L A RILEY ROAD BLACKHAWK TRAIL

STACY LANE

MCKEOWN ROAD PLOTE DRIVE

VOSS ROAD

BLUFF TRAIL CRESTVIEW ROAD CAPTAINS DRIVE FAIR LANE

COYNE STATION ROAD

PEBBLE DRIVE RANDALL ROAD ALGONQUIN - HUNTLEY ROAD HARMONY HILL ROAD CHURCH ROAD HUNTLEY - ALGONQUIN ROAD 25 30 29 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 25 30 29 28 26 25 29 28 27 26 27 RIDGE ROAD 27 30 GERINGER ROAD 26

RIDGE LANE 29 CHICAGO STREET CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD SEEMAN ROAD ALLEGHENY PASS CARLS ROAD ROYAL LANE HARTMAN ROAD MAIN STREET DUNDEE - HUNTLEY ROAD

PAYNE ROAD GETTY ROAD

GENOA ROAD

BURROWS ROAD 32 RUDOLPH ROAD HILLCREST LANE HARMONY ROAD 32 33 34 35 36 31 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 31 90 33 CARLS ROAD

HEMMER ROAD RIDGE STREET 62 COUNTY LINE ROAD 1 inch = 1 mile COUNTY LINE ROAD

POPLAR ROAD COON CREEK ROAD GETTY ROAD KREUTZER ROAD SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD

BRIERHILL ROAD

SQUARE BARN ROAD

EINEKE BOULEVARD HAMPSHIRE ROAD

17 4. Community Engagement A primary goal of the Harvard Comprehensive Plan is to ensure active engagement of all stakeholders throughout the planning and decision-making process. Engaging the community on the existing concerns and opportunities will ultimately strengthen the Comprehensive Plan and its coverage of the key issues facing residents.

Key Findings  Revitalize commercial areas to attract new businesses and jobs – downtown, Division corridor, and Diggins Road.  Maintain and preserve parks and open space, including natural amenities and agricultural lands.  Create a network of connected multi-use trials and sidewalks as an alternative mode of transportation to link residents to parks, natural amenities, and key places in and around town.  Celebrate the diversity and character of the community for the integration of cultures.  Create community housing programs and a range of affordable housing to meet the diverse needs of the community.

Outreach Activities To emphasize a broad-based inclusion of the community, the community engagement process has entailed close coordination with City Staff and the Steering Committee and involved several activities including stakeholder interviews, a community questionnaire, and a public kick-off meeting. The following provides a summary of what has been done so far: outreach activities will continue during the course of the planning process, including a focus group meeting with the Latino community in Harvard. Since the start of the formal planning process, 72 residents and stakeholders have participated, see Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Public participation numbers

Public Engagement Activities Number of Participants 1st Steering Committee Meeting 11 Community Questionnaire 13 Stakeholder Interviews 15 Public Kick-off Open House 33 Total 72

City Board Presentation CMAP staff met with City Board members during the June 24, 2014, Regular City Council Meeting. Staff gave a brief presentation outlining the purpose of the project, the proposed planning process, and the estimated timeline.

First Steering Committee Meeting The Steering Committee is tasked with providing guidance and feedback on existing issues and opportunities, developing central goals, reviewing plan documents, and identifying stakeholders who should be involved in the planning process. Composed of individuals representing a wide variety of interests and perspectives, the Steering Committee members include:

 Steve Creviston, Harvard Resident  Mayor Jay Nolan, City of Harvard  Richard Crosby, Harvard Community Unit  Carl Opper, City of Harvard School District 50  Steve Santeler, City of Harvard  Lisa Haderlein, McHenry County Land  Verne Sisson, Harvard Savings Bank Conservancy  Richard Stoxen, Harvard Community Unit  Lori Moller, City of Harvard School District 50  David A. Nelson, City of Harvard  Mark Stricker, Arrowhead Industrial Park

The first Steering Committee meeting was held on June 24, 2014, at City Hall to provide background on CMAP and the planning process and begin conversations about the specific issues and opportunities in the City. The steering committee then discussed the strengths of the community and what they would like to see addressed in the plan. Committee members recommended engaging Starline Factory, the Harvard Food Pantry, and the Harvard Chamber of Commerce as key stakeholders to include in the planning process. The committee discussed issues pertaining to housing stock, Route 14 improvements, and improvements around the downtown area. In addition, committee members agreed to provide feedback throughout the project, possibly act as facilitators at public meetings, share information about public meetings to community networks, and assist with community outreach efforts.

Community Questionnaire CMAP staff worked with City staff to promote a questionnaire to gather further insight from City Council members, steering committee, and staff. The answers to these questions helped CMAP staff garner a stronger and more-nuanced understanding of Harvard as well as identify a variety of community stakeholders to include in the planning process. Summary of questionnaire responses are included in the outreach results section below.

Key Person Interviews In order to gain further insight into the issues and opportunities in Harvard, CMAP staff conducted one- on-one interviews with 15 individuals representing a variety of interests throughout the community. Individuals were selected by City staff and the steering committee. These individuals ranged from institutional and neighborhood leaders to business owners to elected officials. Conversations and interviews were conducted with the following organizations and businesses:  Aero Plastics  Harvard Main Line  Brown Bear Daycare  Harvard Parks & Recreation  Harvard City Council  Harvard Residents  Harvard Chamber of Commerce  Mercy Health System  Harvard Community Unit School District 50  ReMax Realtors  Harvard Diggins Library  Starck Real Estate  Harvard Economic Development  Starline Factory Corporation  The Church of Holy Apostles

While the conversations were designed to be confidential in order to promote an open dialogue, several broad themes emerged. Collectively, these stakeholders brought up many needs and challenges, ranging from economic development to mobility and neighborhood improvements. Public Kick-off Meeting The public kick-off meeting for the Harvard Comprehensive Plan was held on Thursday, March 5, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. at the Harvard Diggins Library. There were approximately 33 people in attendance,

19 including several members of the steering committee. The public kick-off meeting was designed to outline the purpose and value of a comprehensive plan, and solicit information from community residents and stakeholders on the strengths and challenges of the city via different stations set up around the room and a live keypad polling exercise. There were four posters for participants to visit. Participants were divided into four groups and each group gathered around one of the four maps to discuss and respond to questions. Each group had a facilitator and participants were asked to locate their responses to questions on the map. The four maps covered open spaces, residential areas, commercial areas, and transportation. After approximately 10 minutes at a map, the groups rotated to discuss the next map. After completing the strengths and challenges exercise, participants were asked a series of questions about their priorities and preference using a live polling system.

Outreach Results Overall participants held many of the same concerns and generally expressed the desire to preserve the strengths of Harvard while adjusting to the changing economic and social conditions that exist today. The following section identifies the common themes, suggestions, and opinions that were gathered during the outreach activities, organized around five topic areas: parks and open space, commercial areas, homes and neighborhoods, community diversity, and transportation.

Parks and Open Space When asked about key parks and open spaces in Harvard, participants valued ones with amenities that they enjoyed such as playground equipment, sledding hills, sport fields, and other natural elements like trees. Included were Lions Park, Milky Way Park, Gateway Park, and Northfield Court. Participants also mentioned Mary’s Park as one needing the most help with vandalism control, repair equipment, and bathrooms. Participants would also like to see more landscaping in Milky Way Park and more active use of North Field Park. Other participants like to go to the Rush Creek Conservation Area and Beck’s Woods for more natural settings. Overall, participants would like to see these parks maintained.

The top two types of improvements that participants voted would improve their enjoyment of outdoor recreation space were community events and trails for walking and biking (Figure 4.1). Participants saw an opportunity for connecting Harvard’s neighborhoods and parks to the regional trails that exist to the east and west of the city, with the Mokeler Creek corridor as a possible route. Others advocated for an indoor recreation center while some participants saw the need for a civic square. Many participants would also like to see the gravel pit on the Northside of McGuire Road reclaimed and used as a park with lakes and ponds. In addition, Meyer Material also owns a 700-acre site located in the northwest corner of the community; once mined, this area could become a park.

Participants agreed that the farmlands contribute to the rural character of Harvard, add to the sense of open space that exists, and distinguish the community from other areas in the region. Participants see the farm fields as one of Harvard’s greatest assets and would like to see them retained over the next 20 years.

20 Figure 4.1. What are the top 2 issues that would improve your enjoyment of outdoor recreation spaces? 40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Community Trails for Park amenities Location and More events walking/biking accessibility recreation areas

*32 total participants (weighted count).

Commercial Areas Stakeholders are attracted to specific stores and locations, generally in the downtown or Division street corridor. While most participants stated that they do most of their shopping outside of town, others reported to shop weekly (69 percent of 32 public kick-off meeting participants) at stores in Harvard. Locations where participants travel to do their shopping include Woodstock, Crystal Lake, and Rockford among others (see Figure 4.3). Overall participants would like to see improvements made to attract a greater diversity of businesses throughout Harvard, with specific focus in Downtown, Division Corridor, and Diggins Road to spur and sustain commercial development (see figure 4.2). Future commercial growth should fit the size of the community and target mid-size businesses that complement those in neighboring towns. Participants see an opportunity to attract the summer vacationers using U.S. 14.

Downtown is highly valued; many see potential for additional retail and restaurants and believe it should be the focus of economic development efforts. Residents appreciate the contribution of the Starline and would like to build that entrepreneurial spirit. Many participants like the streetscaping improvements in the Downtown and see the need for similar improvements along Division Street, including lighting, landscaping, and sidewalks. Many participants discussed improving the aesthetics of the south entrance into Harvard, near the intersection of U.S. 14 and Route 23, as the gateway into the City.

Another idea that participants discussed was promoting tourism around agriculture, as they are a farming community. One participant identified an old farmstead on the north side of U.S. 14 that could be home to a farm museum. Other types of business that participants would like to see include:  Small clothing department store  Grocery store(e.g., IGA, Aldi’s,  National or regional chain family etc.) restaurants  Ice cream store  Entertainment options, like a  Indoor recreational gym with a small movie theater pool

Participants noted that the industrial businesses that are attracted to Harvard rely on local distribution and do not depend on close interstate access. Additional manufacturing business could potentially take advantage of the Diggins Road freight extension. Some participants believe that the vacant Motorola facility needs to be the priority for the City. One participant envisions it being reused as a mechanical engineering college to respond to the agricultural economy in the area.

Figure 4.2. What are the top 2 issues that need to be addressed to improve Harvard’s commercial areas? 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% More retail Diversity of Physical Access More Parking options retail options appearance employers

*32 total participants (weighted count).

Figure 4.3. Where do you shop for different types of merchandise? (select all that apply) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Harvard Woodstock Crystal Rockford Walworth, McHenry Other Marengo Lake Wisconsin

*32 total participants (133 counts)

Homes and Neighborhoods When asked about what they value about Harvard’s neighborhoods, participants noted the older unique housing stock, particularly in the Hart Street and Church Street areas. Residents appreciate the architecture and mature trees of their neighborhoods. Equally important were having schools located in the neighborhood so that students can walk to school.

The top two issues that participants agreed would need to be addressed at the neighborhood level were walkability and housing quality (Figure 4.3). Participants also discussed a number of ideas to improve and support the residential neighborhoods in the community, particularly those in the older parts of the city, ranging from housing assistance programs to prevent foreclosures, to financial assistance programs to help low-income families maintain their homes, to support services for senior citizens to remain in their home or the community. Improving residential building conditions was seen as priority for capital improvement projects. Overall residents would like to see a range of affordable housing to meet the diverse needs of the community. Participants like the live-in lofts that are part of the Starline building, and some see potential for additional townhomes or mixed-use buildings in the downtown and near the Metra station.

Other improvements that participants discussed were to provide support for the homeless, improve the mobile home park, addressing vandalism issues (particularly along Rt. 173 and behind the new gas

22 station), improving the drainage system to address flooding, installing streetscaping with natural landscaping, and connecting missing sidewalks. The following areas were identified locations to add or improve sidewalks:  Near the schools located along Garfield Road.  Missing sidewalks in the 4th ward.  Need sidewalk connections from the neighborhoods to commercial businesses along U.S. 14.  Sidewalk shoveling is an issue.

Figure 4.3. What are the top 2 issues that need to be addressed at the neighborhood level?

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Walkability Housing Access to Parks and Housing Flooding Safety quality commercial recreation type areas

*32 total participants (weighted count). Community Diversity Participants reflected on the growing diversity of the community and the need to include all members into the strong sense of community that is found in Harvard. Participants agreed the integration of cultures was important for the future economic prosperity of Harvard and urged local government officials to work in collaboration with institutions and businesses to create community-oriented events that celebrate the diversity and character of the community.

Transportation Participants generally value the character of Ayer Street as well as some of the neighborhood streets, such as Church, Hart, and Jefferson. While most reported that it is easy to get around the city, participants generally drive (76 percent) and less frequently walk (19 percent), bike (5 percent), or use transit. When asked what the top two issues that needed to be addressed to improve travel throughout the City, participants voted for sidewalks and bicycle lanes/trails (see Figure 4.4).

As drivers, they noted the need to improve road pavement conditions generally throughout the city. When asked about capital project priorities, roadway maintenance (43 percent) was identified as the top priority. While most intersections were deemed to be operating well, the Ayer, Division, and Diggins intersection can present some difficulties for people who are not used to navigating it. Most participants did not identify congestion as an issue; however, some noted that U.S. 14 can be congested during peak hours or during summer weekend evenings. School traffic, as people drop-off and pick-up students, can cause congestion and unsafe conditions for young residents. Participants find it is generally easy to park in Harvard, with Starline events on the fourth Fridays creating the need for additional or shared parking arrangements.

23 Bicyclists rely on residential streets and back roads to get around town, citing a lack of additional facilities. Some participants consider bicycling unsafe and nearly impossible to get around the city. However, there is a definite interest in biking and improved pavement conditions could also help bicyclists as well as drivers. Multiple participants agreed that there should be bike lanes, including locations on U.S. 14, Route 173, and downtown to help connect key community locations. Additionally, participants would like to see better connections to the regional trail system.

There is an overall consensus that the existing gaps to the sidewalk network should be completed so that it is easier to get around the community on foot. Participants often see large groups of students walking from Jefferson School to the Harvard Diggins Library walking down the middle of the road (along Garfield Rd. and E. McKinley St.) because there are no sidewalks. Some residents are concerned for how the elderly and disabled get around the community. In addition to sidewalks, safe crosswalks are needed along the major streets, including U.S. 14.

Residents are pleased with the recent expansion of McRide, and see potential for continued expansion of its service hours to accommodate late night workers. Many believe that residents may not be fully taking advantage of this service because they may not know it exists or do not understand how it works. Some would like to have a taxi service. Overall, participants feel there are not enough public transit options to help people access their everyday destinations; some were unaware of the existing Pace bus route that does travel along U.S. 14 to the Harvard Mercy Hospital. Others noted that the only way of getting to the food pantry, which is located on Route 173 at Harvard Hills Road, is to drive.

Participants would like to increase the frequency of Pace and Metra service, with a specific request to expand weekend Metra service to avoid having to drive to Crystal Lake to access the train. With the planned extension of passenger train service from Chicago to Rockford, one participant sees the potential for improved accessibility for residents and would like this service through Harvard to connect the community to Rockford.

Figure 4.4. What are the top 2 issues that need to be addressed to improve travel throughout the City? 35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Sidewalks Bicycle Road Bus services Traffic Parking lanes/trails conditions congestion

*32 total participants (weighted count).

24 5. Governance and Community Services The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the current governance structure as well as the system of services available to Harvard’s residents and businesses.

City Governance Harvard has a mayor-council form of government and is a non-home rule community. The Mayor and eight Aldermen are elected to serve four-year terms with staggered elections, requiring that half of the governing body is elected every two years. The Mayor, with advice and consent from the City Council, appoints the City Administrator, Treasurer, and Attorney. The City of Harvard is organized into four wards, with two Aldermen per ward, see Figure 5.1. To address the community’s needs, the City of Harvard has established six standing City Council Committees, see Table 5.1. By City ordinance, four Aldermen serve on each Committee. Committee meetings are held on an as needed basis.

Mayor, Jay Nolan City Council First Ward Third Ward City Clerk, Andy Wells Brian Leyden Mike Clarke City Treasurer, Deb Szczap Chuck Marzahl Raul Meza Second Ward Fourth Ward Phil Ulmer Carl Opper Crystal Musgrove Jeremy Adams

Figure 5.1. City of Harvard Ward Boundaries

Table 5.1 Current Aldermen Standing Committee Assignments, 2015

Standing Committees Leyden Brian Chuck Marzahl Phil Ulmer Crystal Musgrove Mike Clarke Raul Meza Carl Opper AdamsJeremy Finance and Personnel X X X X Parks and Recreation X X X X Public Property X X X X Water, Sewer, and Sanitation X X X X Zoning, Planning, and Ordinances X X X X Streets and Alleys X X X X Planning and Zoning Commission Harvard’s Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, appoints one chairman and six members to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission carries out the duties of a Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals; creating and revising Harvard’s Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the Illinois Municipal Code. The commission meets somewhat frequently, approximately 3 to 4 times a year. The commission is composed of the following members: Jim Carbonetti—Chairman Jim Hutchinson Tom Condon John Killeen Mike Grieshop Philip Smith

25 Figure 5.1. City of Harvard ward boundaries. Fig 5.1 City of Harvard Ward Boundaries

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O 1 R T

G S K A N

O I

S S

V «¬173 2 I

N Lions Park & Aquatic Center IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Harvard Milky Way Metra Park Station

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S 4 Mokeler Creek 3

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R N O R I t T r A ib L Dunham Hartland F N B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k e US-14 e r C 2

City of Harvarde Metra Station WardIL-23 1 n u rib Rus ry t h e Creek Township BoundaryG Metra Rail Ward 2

Unincorporated Freight Rail Ward 3 e Water Bodies Airport Ward 4 Streams 0 [ 0.5 1 Miles 26 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Community Services City Services The City of Harvard’s administrative office is located in City Hall at 201 West Diggins Street, see Figure 5.2. Directed by the City Administrator, the administrative office is responsible for the daily operations of the City and all departments. On behalf of City Council, the City Administrator and staff are responsible for executing policies, enforcing City ordinances and resolutions, and managing the affairs of the City. In addition, the following departments currently serve Harvard:

Police: The Harvard Police Department is located at 201 W. Front Street, and currently consists of 17 sworn officers and ten civilian employees.

Utilities: Harvard’s Utilities Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City's water and wastewater systems. Additional information can be found in Section 10: Natural Environment.

Public Works: The Harvard Department of Public Works is responsible for pothole and pavement repairs, sewer maintenance and repairs, downtown street light operations, street sweeping, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, tree maintenance, and water main and meter maintenance and repairs.

Parks and Recreation: The City of Harvard’s Parks and Recreation Department operates various recreational programs and maintains City park and recreation areas throughout the year.

Community Development: Harvard’s Community Development Department is responsible for issuing permits and ensuring zoning and building code compliance by the City’s residents and builders. The Department provides information services, application review, plan review, inspection services for new construction, remodeling, improvements to existing structures, and demolitions.

Figure 5.2. Community facilities. Other Governmental Services Harvard Fire Protection District The Harvard Fire Protection District is governed by a three-member board of trustees, works in collaboration with the City of Harvard, and is funded by ambulance user fees and property taxes.

Township Road Districts Four townships maintain and repair specific streets within the City and in the surrounding areas: Alden, Chemung, Dunham, and Hartland.

Harvard Events Committee The Harvard Events Committee was created to plan and execute community events, including community movie nights and seasonal festivals. The Committee consists of seven members, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council.

Harvard Diggins Library Harvard Diggins Library is located at 900 E. McKinley Street. In 1998, voters approved a referendum to construct this 19,000 sq. ft. facility on five acres that were originally donated to the City by Motorola.

27 Figure 5.2. Harvard community facilities. Fig 5.2 Community Facilities

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C Township w of Chemung nce Creek sa re a trib Law c s i li P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R Christ E V LAWRENCE Episcopal O Church R CEMETERY li Harvard G K Junior High A Jefferson liSchool Beck's Woods O S School Conservation Harvard High School «¬173 First li li Area Baptist li Soucie Church First Unitedli Conservation Methodist Mercy Harvard Lions Park Church Hospital li Delos F Easement liDiggins Public Trinity Library IL-173 Aquatic Post Lutheran Central Center Office Church RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST School li City Hall li liHarvard Historical Museum Milky Way CHEMUNG Police li liFirstli Presbyterian Church CEMETERY Park Washington Station School Saint Joseph School D li li li R Saint Joseph Catholic Church

Harvard Fire L

¬173 U Protection « li MOUNT H

District Station 1 C ST JOSEPH IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST AUBURN S CEMETERY CEMETERY

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD

S DIVISION ST DIVISION S JEROME CEMETERY Dunham Hartland township Rush Creek township D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L F N Nature Park B Wisconsin r K i s City of Harvard Community Facilities h w «¬23 Illinois a uk Township Boundary City Hall e li e Unit School Unincorporated Township Office District 19 li ¤£14 Water Bodies Police Station HEB ALD li GRW FIRE

Open Space k Fire Department Chemung Alden e li US-14 e township township r HARVARD C

Cemeteries e Post Office IL-23 n li u rib Rus ry t h HARVARD e Creek Streams G li Public Library FIRE DIST 2 Dunham Hartland Metra Station li School township township Community Research Unit School Metra Rail li Church Forest Conservation District 50

Freight Rail Hospital Easement WOODSTOCK

li FIRE RESCUE e Van Maren Airport li Museum Conservation Unit School Easement Miles Dist 200 0 0.25 0.5 0 2.5 5 Miles [ Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 28 Non-Profit and Community Services Harvard Economic Development Corporation Led by a volunteer Board of Directors, Harvard’s economic development services are provided by Harvard Economic Development Corporation (EDC). In collaboration with the City of Harvard, EDC is a non-profit partner responsible for facilitating economic vitality and opportunity throughout the Harvard community. Additional information is provided in Section 8: Economic Development.

Harvard Community Education Foundation The Foundation was established to increase learning opportunities in Harvard by generating donations to fund classroom initiatives in Harvard Community Unit School District 50.

High School Plus at McHenry County College High School Plus consists of three programs for high school students to explore college classes and careers at McHenry County College: Partnership for College and Career Success, Running Start, and College in High School (CIHS). CIHS currently offers Composition I and II for college credit at Harvard High School in Fall and Spring semesters.

Harvard Senior Center Operating out of Crystal Lake, Illinois on 360 Memorial Drive, Senior Care Volunteer Network provides services for McHenry County seniors, age 60 and over. This organization aims to help seniors maintain their independence, dignity, and quality of life by remaining in their own homes or the home of a loved one for as long as possible. Free for seniors, volunteers provide transportation services, friendly visits, minor home repairs, yard work, and short-term respite care.

Harvard Community Partnership Coalition Harvard Community Partnership Coalition partners with local organizations, community leaders, and Harvard residents to provide programs, events, and resources for Harvard’s families and youth.

Mary D. Ayer Committee The Mary D. Ayer Board of Harvard is a foundation charged with the duties of dispersing funds from an endowment left to the City by Mary D. Ayer, for not-for-profit organizations that improve the quality of life for the citizens of Harvard.

Harvard Chamber of Commerce and Industry Harvard Chamber of Commerce and Industry is a staffed business organization established to promote local businesses and to foster a prosperous climate for economic development and business growth in Harvard. The Chamber is comprised of a network of volunteers and local small business owners who support various community programs. Chamber membership currently consists of approximately 200 individual business firms.

Educational Institutions The City of Harvard is home to five public and one private educational institution. Harvard’s Community Unit School District 50 includes Washington School, Crosby Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary School, Harvard Jr. High School, and Harvard High School. St. Joseph’s School is the only private school in Harvard.

29 Table 5.2 provides an overview of enrollment characteristics for the schools in Harvard. Students are identified as low-income if they are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, live in substitute care, or their families receive public assistance. All of the public schools in Harvard, with the exception of Harvard High School, have a larger average class size and a higher percentage of low-income students when compared with the state average (52 percent). Also, ISAT Composite (Reading and Math scores combined) are low in comparison with overall scores for students in Illinois.

Washington School houses the District’s at-risk pre-kindergarten students, who have been identified through a screening process as being at risk of academic failure. Washington School provides Early Childhood Education and parental training programs.

Table 5.2 School Enrollment Characteristics and Performance Percent Average Class Percent Meeting and Enrolled School Low Size (no. of Exceeding ISAT Students Income students) Composite, 2013 State of Illinois All Public Schools 2,046,857 52% 21 59% Community Unit School District 50 Washington School (PK) N/A N/A N/A N/A Crosby Elementary School (K-3) 823 55% 24 35% Jefferson Elementary School (4-5) 407 59% 25 40.8% Harvard Jr. High School (6-8) 496 64% 24 43.9% Harvard High School (9-12) 697 50% 13 38.5% Private Schools St. Joseph’s School (PK-8) 86 N/A N/A N/A Source: Public Schools: Illinois State Board of Education, “Illinois Report Card,” 2014. See www.illinoisreportcard.com. Private schools: Institute of Education Studies, National Center for Education Statistics. Data is from 2012-13. See http://nces.ed.gov/ Healthcare Services Mercy Harvard Hospital and Clinics Harvard is home to Mercy Harvard Hospital, which is part of Mercy Health System. Mercy Harvard Hospital, located at 901 Grant Street, is a licensed Critical Access Hospital, which provides full-service inpatient and outpatient services and emergency treatment. Mercy Health System also operates two health clinics, at 1001 Grant Street and 348 South Division Street.

Harvard Community Health Partnership For migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, the Harvard Community Health Partnership, located at 62 North Ayer Street, operates a nurse-managed health clinic tailored to meet the special needs of this unique population.

McHenry County Crisis Program Administered by Centegra Memorial Medical Center of Illinois, and primarily funded by the McHenry County Mental Health Board, the McHenry County Crisis Program provides emergency mental health services to all McHenry County residents via a 24-Hour Crisis Line and a 24-Hour Onsite Crisis Team.

30 6. Land Use and Development This section describes Harvard’s existing land use and development patterns with a focus on types of uses, existing zoning, and the built environment.

Key Findings  Agricultural lands are prevalent within the City boundary and the planning area. More than half of the land in Harvard is being actively used for agricultural production. This contributes to the community’s rural character and the City has the opportunity to make important decisions about how and where it will grow.  Large areas of the City are zoned for residential. Despite significant vacancies in new subdivisions, large areas of the community are zoned for residential neighborhoods. In particular, much of the existing agricultural lands are zoned as single-family residential. The agricultural zoning district also allows for an array of uses and small minimum lot sizes (less than one acre) that may not be conducive for agricultural practices.  Updating the zoning ordinance and maps could streamline the development review process. Harvard’s zoning ordinance is older and could use an update to clarify the desired characteristics in the different areas of the community.

Land Use Figure 6.1 displays the City of Harvard's existing land use categories and their respective locations, and Table 6.1 provides the total acreage within parcels associated with each use. This data comes from CMAP’s Land Use Inventory, which is based on 2010 parcel-based data from McHenry County.

Figure 6.1. Existing Land Use in Harvard. Agricultural Agricultural land surrounds the City of Harvard and more than half (52.8 percent or 2,817 acres) of the land within the municipal boundary is utilized for agricultural purposes. Farmland is predominant across Harvard’s landscape and contributes to the character of the community.

Residential Residential uses, including single-family attached and detached, multi-family, and mixed-use or urban mix residential, compromise 12.6 percent of the land in Harvard. Residential neighborhoods are generally located close to the center of the community.

Single-Family Residential: Detached single-family homes, which make up 64.1 percent of the City’s dwelling units, occupy approximately 90 percent of Harvard’s residential land. Attached single-family homes comprise 13.5 percent of dwelling units and occupy four percent of residential land.

Multi-Family Residential: Northfield Court Apartments, Creekside Square Apartments, Autumn Glen, and apartment buildings along 8th Street make up most of Harvard’s multi-family dwellings.

31 Figure 6.1. Existing land use in Harvard. Fig 6.1 Existing Land Use in Municipal Boundary

DowntownW BLACKMAN ST Harvard

5TH ST 4TH ST

3RD ST3RD 2NDST

W DIGGINS ST W BRAINARD ST WDIGGINS ST IL-173

T W FRONT ST ST S N R N E A Y M A T S N T A S E E BRAINARD ST N N A M W PARK ST K C A N HART BLVD HART N J DIVISION N ST T CHURC W S H BLVD W E 2 E F ASHI G R A O P N N S T G S TO T N DEWEY ST S W THOMPSON ST T

k e HUTCHINSON ST e S r ST T E C S RA k W ER N IL w ree M Y O E RO C E A S P A a RD LAWRENCE ce T S A D s ren Z T N R ST a aw E S H K rib L N D c t N O S s S R J T i T N E P A S W O A M S T G H

S N IN

A E G E T

R O S MCCOMB ST A 0 N 500 1,000Feet

OAK GROVE RD S M

T DIVISION S ST S Lawrence Creek

1 -

k e re £14 C ¤ r le e k o trib M

D R E V O

R T

G S K A N

O I

S S

V «¬173

N Chemung Lions Park Alden township IL-173 township RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Way

Park R

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

reek eler C Mok

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Dunham Hartland Creek township Rush township D R N k O ree R C I e t T n r A u ib L y F r N e B G r K

i s h w a uk e Existing Land Use Open Space«¬23 e City of Harvard Single Family Residential Agricultural ¤£14 Township Boundary Multi-Family Residential Water US-14 Unincorporated

IL-23 Commercial Transportation/Utilities/Communication/Other Streams Urban Mix with Residential Component Under Construction 2 Metra Station

Industrial Vacant t Metra Rail rib Rus

h Cr

Institutional eek Freight Rail 0 [ 0.5 1 e Miles Airport 32 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Urban Mix with Residential Component: Mixed-use residential dwellings are primarily concentrated in Downtown Harvard buildings, on the second level above commercial developments. Additionally, there is a mobile home community adjoining multiple commercial uses at 1200 North Division Street, half of a mile north of Downtown Harvard.

Commercial Commercial development in Harvard, occupying three percent of the land area, is concentrated in the downtown near Harvard’s Metra Station and along Division and Brink Streets. In the downtown, many of the commercial buildings tend to have two stories, minimal front setbacks, with access to on-street parking or off-street parking located nearby. The commercial uses on Division and Brink Streets are in an auto-oriented format with larger parcels and off-street parking on the same lot. Institutional Institutional land in Harvard occupies 2.7 percent of its land area. The majority of this land contains religious institutions, schools, health care services, and government offices and facilities. While institutional land uses are generally distributed through the community, there are several schools and other institutions along Garfield Street. Industrial Nearly 11 percent of Harvard’s land is classified as industrial, with a majority in manufacturing uses. Existing industrial uses are found in three general areas: the Arrowhead Industrial Park and surrounding parcels, the former Motorola Plant (currently vacant), and the area southeast of the Brink and Division Street intersection, which includes a mineral extraction operation. Transportation, Utility, Communications, and Waste This land type comprises almost 10 percent of the City’s total land area. The primary areas of land dedicated to transportation are the rail lines owned by Union Pacific Railroad, along which freight and passenger (Metra and Amtrak) trains operate. As noted above, this land category does not include local streets. Open space Open space makes up slightly less than three percent of Harvard’s total land area, mostly in the form of neighborhood parks. The City maintains nine park areas within the community, see Section 10: Natural Environment for more information. Vacant Approximately 4.8 percent of Harvard is composed of vacant land, or land in an undeveloped state with no agricultural activities or protection as open space. Residential vacancies, specifically in unfinished subdivisions on the north side of town, make up the majority of vacant land (57.1 percent), followed by commercial vacancies primarily along U.S. 14 (19.6 percent). Vacant industrial land comprises 6.5 percent of all vacant land. In some cases, the land cover of vacant parcels includes grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, and/or other natural resources. For more information, see Section 10: Natural Environment and Figure 10.1. Water Less than one percent of Harvard’s land area is water. Mokeler and Lawrence Creeks are the major water bodies that flow through Harvard. Rush and Piscasaw Creeks are also natural water features within City limits.

Table 6.1. Harvard Existing Land Use, 2010 Land Use Acres Percent Agricultural 2817.2 52.8 Single-family residential 632.2 11.8 Multi-family 29.4 0.6 Urban Mix with residential component 8.8 0.2 Commercial 179.8 3.4 Institutional 143.8 2.7 Industrial 581.2 10.9 Transportation/Communication/Utility Waste 527.4 9.9 Under Construction 1.0 0.0 Open Space 148.6 2.8 Vacant 253.8 4.8 Water 13.9 0.3 Total 5337.2 100.0 Source: CMAP analysis of McHenry County Assessor data with input from the City of Harvard. *Total does not include local roads or non-parcel water. Land Use in Surrounding Communities Harvard is surrounded by agricultural land with scattered open space and single-family residential areas. Numerous creeks and surface waters stretch across the landscapes of Alden, Chemung, Dunham, and Hartland Townships. The 726-acre Rush Creek Conservation Area is along Harvard’s southern border, providing areas for recreation and the preservation of wildlife and natural features. Also to the south is Dacy Airport; a 100-acre airport established in 1945 that provides airplane service.

Figure 6.2. Existing land use in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area.

Zoning Harvard’s current zoning code dates from 1987, with the most recent update on December 16, 2014. The zoning map does not consistently reflect the current land use pattern found within the City of Harvard nor does it match the future land use map in the Harvard 2015 Growth Plan (Figure 6.3). Much of Harvard’s existing farmland is zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use, with the exception of the northwest corner of the city. Along Brink Street on the west side of Harvard, the zoning envisions commercial and industrial uses where there are currently farm fields and residential uses. Diggins Street near Milky Way Park is similar, with zoning for a larger industrial area than currently present and residential and commercial nearby. In addition, the blocks southwest of and running parallel with the railroad tracks in Downtown Harvard are all zoned industrial, despite their current residential and commercial use. No areas within Harvard are zoned as office or business park districts, despite the existence of these districts.

Harvard has 16 zoning districts, of which seven are residential. Some residential districts have different design requirements for different housing types within the same district. For example, R-2 allows for single family, two family, and non-residential uses and outlines different lot, yard, and bulk requirements. In addition, the ordinance is repetitive; single-family uses in R-2 are treated the same way as single-family uses in R-1B. Business Districts B-1, B-2, and B-3 allow apartments above the first floor as conditional uses. The number of residential districts could likely be reduced and simplified.

34 Figure 6.2. Existing land use in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Fig 6.2 Existing Land Use with Surrounding Areas

reek awrence C ALDEN RD W L Br Pis c t a r s ib a W w Br P is ca sa Chemung Alden w C

r township township US-14

t r ib N ipp ersink Cr LAWRENCE RD ee k

OAK GROVE RD ek t Cre r ib Lawrence

Little B W eav -173 er C B IL re r e P

k is c ¤£14 k a e s re a w C r C le r e e k e o k t rib M

D R E V O T R S G K N

A O O I

I S «¬173

N Lions Park

HU NT ER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky

Way 2 D Park R Z

T 173 L «¬ U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

Mokeler Cree k

Cr eek aw isc as

P AIRPORT RD S DIVISION S ST

Creek Rush

MCGUIRE RD

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

U FLAT IRON RD S -1 4

trib Rush Creek

IL-23

une Creek Gery

Existing Land Use 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Single Family Residential Open Space Township Boundary

k e e r Multi-Family Residential Agricultural Unincorporated C ryu n e trib Ge Commercial Water Streams DEEP CUT RD 2 N t Metra StationB Urban Mix with Residential Component Transportation/Utilities/Communication/Other rib N r

B K r K i is s hw h Industrial Under Construction au Metra Railw k a e e u k e

Institutional Vacant Freight RailR i

e e r 0[ 0.5 1 DUNHAMAirport RD Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Miles 35 The permitted uses in the zoning districts generally increase in intensity, starting with agricultural and ending in manufacturing (Table 6.3). However, this is not always the case. Most of the districts permit agricultural use, ranging from farming to intensive production. In turn, agricultural districts permit single-family uses on small parcels as well as larger scale agricultural uses, including food production and sales. Other inconsistencies are found throughout; for example, the office district actually allows fewer office related uses than other commercial districts. In addition, the permitted use table is designed to be easily interpreted by use, but it can be difficult to decipher what is allowed in a specific district. For example, a nursery business can immediately see that this use is allowed in 5 districts: A-Agriculture, B3 - Commercial, B4-Commercial Recreation, M1-Manufacturing, and M2-Manufacturing districts. But to understand the uses allowed in the B3 district requires review of 15 pages of tables.

Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in Harvard are established to encourage the design of coordinated land uses and to provide relief from the subdivision and zoning district requirements. PUDs are allowed in all districts. The only PUD within City limits is Shadow Creek, a subdivision in the southwest corner of Harvard. Harvard has a unique district, the Technology Development Campus District, which aims to foster the City’s industrial, technological, and manufacturing base and to encourage technological and industrial investment, modernization, and expansion. It has the same permitted uses as M-1 and M-2 manufacturing districts, with a larger minimum lot size.

Harvard’s zoning ordinance requires parking minimums for 13 of the 16 zoning districts. The remaining three districts have no required parking minimums; Agriculture (A), Office (O), and Business Park (B-P). The required number of spaces is described using a variety of methods for uses in different districts, which may not be consistent with the use itself or complement the surrounding land use pattern. The requirements are cumulative and require multiple calculations. For example, a restaurant in B-2 Central Business must provide one space per employee, 0.3 spaces per 100 square feet, and 0.3 spaces per seat, which may be hard to accomplish given the historical building pattern in the Downtown. If that same restaurant is located in B-3 Commercial, the parking calculation would be different – 0.8 spaces per employee and 0.5 spaces per 100 square feet with no requirement to provide a certain number of spaces per seat. Streamlining the requirements could make it easier to determine how much parking needs to be provided and allow parking requirements to respect the existing development pattern. The ordinance does not allow shared parking spaces between uses on the same parcel, which may lead to more parking being built than what is used on a daily basis. With the exception of B-3 Commercial, parking is not allowed in the front setback.

In addition, Chapter 17.12 of the zoning ordinance refers to a 1987 comprehensive plan instead of the Harvard 2015 Growth Plan that was adopted in 1995. This could be updated as part of this planning process.

Figure 6.3. Zoning Map of Harvard

36 FigureFig 6.3 6.3. Zoning Zoning map of Harvard.

DowntownW BLACKMAN ST Harvard

5TH ST 4TH ST

3RD ST3RD 2NDST

ST W DIGGINS ST W BRAINARD ST WDIGGINS IL-173

T W FRONT ST ST S N R N E A Y M A T S N T A S E E BRAINARD ST N N A M W PARK ST K C

A BLVD HART N J DIVISION N ST T CHUR W S CH BLVD W E 2 E ASH G FR A O I P N NG S T T S O T N DEWEY ST S W THOMPSON ST T

k e HUTCHINSON ST e S r ST T C reek S E R w ce C W ER N AIL en M Y O E R a RD LAWRENCE D r A OA s R Law E S PA D a trib TZ T S N R ST c E E S H K V N D S is N O O S R J T P T N E R A S W O A G M S K T G H S N IN

A A E G O E T

R O 0 S 500 1,000Feet N MCCOMB ST

A S M

T DIVISION S ST S Lawrence Creek

US-14

k e re Chemung £14 C ¤ r le e k o township trib M

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O I

S S

V «¬173

IL-173 Alden township RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

ek eler Cre Mok

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Dunham Hartland eek township Rush Cr township

D R N O eek R Cr I t e r T n i A u b L y F r N e B r G K

i s h w «¬23 a u City of Harvard k e R1 Single Family Residence District B2 Central Businesse District Township Boundary R1A Single Family Residence District ¤£14 B3 Commercial District Unincorporated R1B Single Family Residence District US-14 B4 Commercial Recreation District Water Bodies R2 Single Family & Two Family ResidenceIL-23 District TDC Technology Development Campus District Streams R3 Single Family, Two Family & Multi Family Residence District M1 Manufacturing District Creek 2 ush Metra Station b R R55 Residential Zoning District tri M2 Manufacturing District Metra Rail RT Townhouse Residence District A Agricultural District

Freight Rail B1 Neighborhood Convinience District PUD Planned Unit Development e Airport 0 0.5 1 [ Miles 37 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Table 6.3. Zoning Districts and Land Use Specifications

Districts Permitted Uses Intensity Setback (ft.) Height Parking A—Agriculture Variety of agricultural uses, including food Lot Size: 40,000 sq. ft. (0.91 Front: 50 2.5 stories N/A production, processing, and related acres) Rear: 100 or 35 ft. agricultural businesses. Single-family Width: 150 ft. Total Sides: 50 dwellings, commercial and public recreation, public facilities, and some health care facilities are also allowed. R-1—Single Family, Single-family dwellings; complementary uses Lot Size: 13,000 sq. ft. (0.29 Front: 25, 25 Same as A Residential uses: 2 parking spaces Non-Residential such as certain types of health care, public acres), 19,000 sq. ft. Rear: 30, 30 per dwelling unit (D.U.). facilities, and public recreation uses. Farming Width: 90 ft., 120 ft. Total Sides: 20, 24 All other uses: 1 space per is also allowed. employee, 0.2 per 100 sq. ft., 0.5 for overnight accommodations, 0.5 for assembly facilities, and 0.3 for eating facilities. R-1A—Single Family Same as R-1 Lot Size: 9,500 sq. ft. (0.21 Front: 25 Same as R- Same as R-1 acres) Rear: 30 1 Width: 75 ft. Total Sides: 15 R-1B—Single Family Same as R-1 Lot Size: 8,712 sq. ft. (0.2 Front: 25 Same as R- Same as R-1 acres) Rear: 30 1A Width: 66 ft. Total Sides: 15 R-2—Single Family, Same as R-1, plus two family dwellings and Lot Size: 8,712 sq. ft., Front: 25 Same as R- Same as R-1 Two Family, Non- condominiums. 12,300 sq. ft. (0.28 acres), Rear:30 1B Residential 12,000 sq. ft. Total Sides:15, 15, Width: 66 ft., 88 ft., 99 ft. 25 Non-Residential lot coverage (40%), F.A.R. (0.4) R-3—Single Family, Same as R-2, plus apartment buildings with 24 Lot Size: 8,712 sq. ft., Front: 25 Same as R- Same as R-1 Two Family, Multi- or less dwelling units, triplex and quad 12,300 sq. ft., 8,712 sq. ft., Rear: 30 2 Family 1st D.U., Multi- dwelling structures, and townhouses with six 5,000 sq. ft. (0.11 acres), Total Sides:15, 15, Family 2nd D.U., Non- dwelling units or less per structure. 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 acres) 15, 15, 25 Residential Width: 66 ft., 88 ft., 66+ ft., 10+ ft., 100 ft. Non-Residential F.A.R. (0.4) R-55— Single Family, Same as R-3, with more limited public Same as R-3 Same as R-3 Same as R- Same as R-1 Two Family, Multi- facilities, recreation, and utilities 3 Family 1st D.U., Multi- Family 2nd D.U., Non- Residential

R-T— Single Family, Same as R-3, excluding apartment buildings. Same as R-55 Same as R-55, Same as R- Same as R-1 Two Family, Multi- except Total Sides 55 Family 1st D.U., Multi- are all 15 ft. Family 2nd D.U. O—Office Office uses, with limited commercial and Lot Size: 15,000 sq. ft. Front: 40 Two stories N/A professional services. Width: 100 ft. Rear: 20 or 25 ft. Lot Coverage: 40% Total Sides: 20 F.A.R. (1.0) B-1—Neighborhood Retail sales and food services; in addition, the Lot Size: 20,000 sq. ft. (0.46 Front: 80 One story The same as R-1, except: Convenience full range of office uses and various acres) Rear: 20 or 20 ft. Office uses: 0.4 per 100 sq. ft. professional and government offices/services, Width: 100 ft. Total Sides: 20 and 5 spaces for medical public recreation, and commercial uses. Lot Coverage: 40% professional per 100 sq. ft. F.A.R. (0.4) Retail uses: 0.5 per 100 sq. ft. and excluding overnight accommodations and assembly facilities. All other uses: 0.3 per 100 sq. ft. and 0.5 for assembly facilities. B-2—Central Business Same as B-1 with an expanded list of retail F.A.R. (2.5) N/A Five stories All uses require at least 1 space sales and food services; various financial, or 55 ft. per employee and 0.3 for eating professional and government offices/services facilities. Residential uses require (including post offices), public recreation, 1 space per D.U. financial, commercial, and industrial uses. Office Uses: 0.2 per 100 sq. ft. and 0.5 for medical professional per 100 sq. ft. Retail Uses: 0.3 per 100 sq. ft. All other uses: 0.3 per 100 sq. ft., 0.5 for overnight accommodations, and 0.5 for assembly facilities. B-3—Commercial Same as B-2 with the full range of retail sales Same as B-1 Front: 40 Two stories All uses require 0.8 parking and food services, professional and F.A.R. (1.0) Rear: 20 or 25 ft. spaces per employee. government offices/services, public Total Sides: 20 Residential uses: 1.5 per D.U. recreation, financial, commercial, Office uses: 0.4 per 100 sq. ft. construction, and industrial uses (including and 0.5 for medical professional wastewater treatment facilities). In addition, per 100 sq. ft. agricultural uses, such as farming and related Retail uses: 05 per 100 sq. ft. businesses are also allowed. All other uses: 0.3 per 100 sq. ft. 0.5 for overnight accommodations, 0.2 for assembly facilities, and 0.1 for eating facilities.

B-4—Commercial Full range of commercial recreation uses; Lot Size: Five acres Front: 40 2.5 stories Same as B-1 Recreation complementary uses such as food service, Width: 200 ft. Rear: 40 or 35 ft. public recreation, and commercial service Lot Coverage: 0.05% Total Sides: 30 uses. In addition, various professional and F.A.R. (0.1) government offices/services (including resorts), industrial (including wastewater treatment facilities), manufacturing, and agricultural uses are allowed. B-P—Business Park Full range of professional and government Same as B-1 Front: 40 70 ft. N/A offices. In addition, various commercial Lot Coverage: 60% Rear: 20 service uses; complementary uses such as food and financial services. Airports and heliports are permitted, and only farming is allowed as an agricultural use. M-1—Manufacturing Full range of construction, industrial service, Same as B-1 Front: 40 Two stories Same ‘All other uses’ for B-1, with manufacturing, public utility, and Lot Coverage: 50% Rear: 20 or 35 ft. the exception of 0.1 spaces per transportation uses. Various commercial F.A.R. (1.0) Total Sides: 20 100 sq. ft. services and commercial recreation uses are permitted. In addition, agricultural uses, such as farming and related businesses are also allowed.

M-2—Manufacturing Same as M-1, excluding taxidermist services. Lot Size: 40,000 sq. ft. Same as M-1 Two stories Same as M-1 Width: 200 ft. or 35 ft. Lot Coverage: 50% F.A.R. (1.0) TDC-Technology All uses permitted in M-1 and M-2, including a Lot Size: 250 acres Front: 150 Rear: 100 ft. Same as M-1 Development Campus full range of manufacturing uses, professional F.A.R. (1.0) 150 offices, warehouse facilities, and various Total Sides: 125 laboratories or facilities for research, engineering, or product development. PUD-Planned Unit All residential uses are permitted (single- Lot Size: Four acres. Must be equal to 50 ft. The off-street parking regulations Developments family, two-family, multi-family, and Dwelling units are the required for the respective district and use townhouse). However, apartments above the determined by multiplying setback in the apply for all planned unit first floor cannot contain more than two the basic density allowed adjacent zone or developments. bedrooms. Retail, commercial, office, by the area of the site (less the setbacks religious, and manufacturing uses (allowed in than the area of any shown in the the M-1 district) are allowed. existing parameters). approved development plan.

7. Housing and Population The following section provides an overview of demographic, employment, and housing trends for the City of Harvard. Data was gathered and analyzed from a variety of sources, including a housing market analysis done by Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates.

Key Findings  Harvard’s families are younger and larger when compared to McHenry County and the region. At 29.2 years and 3.10 people per household, the median age and average household size differ significantly from the County (38, 2.81) and the region (35.5, 2.73).  Harvard is increasingly becoming more diverse. Over a ten year span, the Hispanic or Latino population increased by 41.3 percent. Over 45 percent of Harvard residents are of Hispanic or Latino descent, much larger than McHenry County (11.4) and the region (21.6).  Compared to McHenry County and the region, residents are less likely to pursue higher education. Only 9.5 percent of adults have attained a Bachelor’s degree, compared to 32.5 percent in McHenry County and 35.8 in the region.  Harvard residents are primarily employed in the manufacturing sector. Approximately 21 percent of Harvard residents are employed in the manufacturing sector, in contrast to McHenry County (13.3) and the region (9.9).  Underdeveloped subdivisions significantly contribute to Harvard’s residential vacancy and impact housing prices. Several subdivisions, including Oak Grove Crossing, Turtle Crossing, Autumn Glen, and Huntington, have undeveloped lots, have fallen into foreclosure, or have high vacancy rates. Despite a rise in home prices this year, the cost of building a new home cannot be recouped at today’s prices.  Foreclosures and short sales represent a sizable share of the re-sale market. The share of distressed sales has declined from 62 to 43 percent of all sales, but is still much larger than the rest of the Chicago region (28 percent).  Despite a recent rise in home prices, the cost of building a new home cannot be recouped at today’s prices. Completion of the underdeveloped subdivisions will likely have to wait until the overall housing market stabilizes and non-distressed sales no longer comprise a large share of total sales. Once that happens, existing home prices will increase and the cost of new construction will be economically feasible given the low lot prices.

Demographic Profile Similar to the rest of the County, the City of Harvard has experienced dramatic population growth and demographic changes between 2000 and 2010. Harvard’s population has increased by 1,451 people or 18.1 percent, which is more than five times the region’s 3.5 percent population increase, see Table 7.2. Harvard has a relatively young population with a median age of 29.2 in 2010, see Table 7.3. Over 45 percent of Harvard residents are of Hispanic or Latino descent, much larger than McHenry County (11.4) and the region (21.6), see Table 7.4. Over a ten year span, the Hispanic or Latino population increased by 41.3 percent, as well as those who identified as Black or African American (39.1), and Other (93.5). Subsequently, Asian residents decreased by 42.2 percent, see Table 7.5.

Harvard’s median household income is reported as $37,646 in 2010, which is much lower than McHenry County at $77,325, and the region at $71,198, see Table 7.6. However, ESRI (which relies on a different process) reported Harvard’s median household income as $49,544 for 2014. Harvard has lower educational levels than McHenry County and the region. Approximately 75 percent of the population has a high school diploma or higher and 9.5 percent have received a Bachelor’s degree or higher, see Table 7.7.

Table 7.1. Population, Households, and Household Size, 2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Population 9,447 308,760 8,431,386 Households 3,052 109,199 3,088,156 Average Household Size 3.10 2.81 2.73 Source: 2010 Census

Table 7.2. Population and Change in Population, 2000 and 2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Population, 2000 7,996 260,077 8,146,264 Population, 2010 9,447 308,760 8,431,386 Change, 2000-10 1,451 48,683 285,122 Change as %, 2000-10 18.1% 18.7% 3.5% Source: 2000 and 2010 Census

Table 7.3. Age Cohorts and Median Age, 2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Under 19 years 3,331 35.3% 92,162 29.8% 2,346,937 27.8% 20 to 34 years 2,273 24.1% 50,229 16.3% 1,790,049 21.2% 35 to 49 years 1,802 19.1% 75,036 24.3% 1,807,886 21.4% 50 to 64 years 1,255 13.3% 60,013 19.4% 1,534,488 18.2% 65 to 79 years 578 6.1% 23,782 7.7% 679,470 8.1% 80 years and over 208 2.2% 7,538 2.4% 272,556 3.2% Total Population 9,447 100.0% 308,760 100.0% 8,431,386 100.0% Median Age 29.2 38 35.5 Source: 2010 Census

Table 7.4. Race and Ethnicity, 2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent White 4,901 51.9% 258,584 83.7% 4,486,557 53.2% Hispanic or Latino* 4,270 45.2% 35,249 11.4% 1,823,609 21.6% Black or African American 64 0.7% 3,045 1.0% 1,465,417 17.4% Asian 63 0.7% 7,712 2.5% 513,694 6.1% Other** 149 1.6% 4,170 1.4% 142,109 1.7% Total Population 9,447 100.0% 308,760 100.0% 8,431,386 100.0% Source: 2010 Census * Includes Hispanic or Latino residents of any race ** Includes American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, and two or more races

Table 7.5. Change in Race and Ethnicity, 2000-2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Change Change Change Change Change Change White 160 3.4% 25,558 11.0% -200,702 -4.3% Hispanic or Latino* 1,247 41.3% 15,647 79.8% 414,407 29.4% Black or African American 18 39.1% 1,666 120.8% -72,117 -4.7% Asian -46 -42.2% 3,978 106.5% 137,701 36.6% Other** 72 93.5% 1,834 78.5% 5,833 4.3% Total 1,451 18.1% 48,683 18.7% 285,122 3.5% Source: 2010 Census * Includes Hispanic or Latino residents of any race ** Includes American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, and two or more races

Table 7.6. Household Income Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Less than $25,000 679 23.1% 14,025 12.9% 599,075 19.6% $25,000 to $49,999 1,108 37.7% 19,095 17.5% 640,942 21.0% $50,000 to $74,999 516 17.5% 19,787 18.2% 537,114 17.6% $75,000 to $99,999 404 13.7% 18,618 17.1% 402,300 13.2% $100,000 to $149,000 164 5.6% 22,369 20.5% 468,043 15.4% $150,000 and over 70 2.4% 15,056 13.8% 401,400 13.2% Total Households 2,941 100.0% 108,950 100.0% 3,048,874 100.0% Median HH Income $37,646 $77,325 $71,198 Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.7. Education Levels Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Population, 25 years and over 5,204 100.0% 200,749 100.0% 5,538,499 100.0% High school diploma or higher 3,887 74.7% 185,123 92.2% 4,771,543 86.2% Bachelor's degree or higher 493 9.5% 65,182 32.5% 1,982,346 35.8% Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Employment The five largest employment industries in the City of Harvard are Manufacturing, Retail Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, Educational Services, and Accommodation and Food Services. All five industries with the exception of Accommodation and Food Services are top industries for McHenry County and the metropolitan region, see Table 7.8. Approximately 21 percent of Harvard residents are employed in the Manufacturing sector, in contrast to McHenry County (13.3) and the region (9.9). Harvard has an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, 2.5 percent more than McHenry County, see Table 7.9.

Table 7.8. Employment of Harvard Residents by Industry Sector, 2011 Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Manufacturing 915 21.40% 19,053 13.3% 338,715 9.9% Retail Trade 471 11.0% 16,851 11.8% 360,760 10.5% Health Care and Social 435 10.2% 14,417 10.1% 436,605 12.7% Assistance Educational Services 313 7.3% 14,078 9.8% 338,389 9.9% Accommodation and Food 309 7.2% 8,941 6.2% 244,775 7.1% Services Administration & Support, Waste Management and 286 6.7% 8,333 5.8% 239,634 7.0% Remediation Wholesale Trade 255 6.0% 11,042 7.7% 201,327 5.9% Professional, Scientific, and 193 4.5% 9,672 6.8% 270,668 7.9% Technical Services Construction 190 4.4% 6,762 4.7% 101,639 3.0% Public Administration 170 4.0% 5,446 3.8% 134,679 3.9% Finance and Insurance 169 4.0% 7,221 5.0% 204,871 6.0% Transportation and 168 3.9% 5,104 3.6% 148,474 4.3% Warehousing Other Services (excluding 154 3.6% 4,640 3.2% 124,729 3.6% Public Administration) Information 67 1.6% 3,061 2.1% 80,261 2.3% Arts, Entertainment, and 51 1.2% 2,561 1.8% 61,695 1.8% Recreation Management of Companies 49 1.1% 3,300 2.3% 72,789 2.1% and Enterprises Real Estate and Rental and 28 0.7% 1,536 1.1% 50,602 1.5% Leasing Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 26 0.6% 434 0.3% 3,204 0.1% and Hunting Utilities 22 0.5% 597 0.4% 14,208 0.4% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil 1 0.0% 76 0.1% 1,283 0.0% and Gas Extraction Total Employed Population 4,272 100.0% 143,125 100.0% 3,429,307 100.0% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.9. Employment Status Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Population, 16 years and 6,510 100.0% 235,131 100.0% 6,573,191 100.0% over In labor force 4,588 70.5% 170,628 72.6% 4,498,245 68.4% Employed* 4,025 87.7% 153,749 90.1% 4,013,150 89.2% Unemployed 563 12.3% 16,702 9.8% 471,447 10.5% Not in labor force 1,922 29.5% 64,503 27.4% 2,074,946 31.6% Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau *Does not include employed population in Armed Forces

Housing Almost 40 percent of homes are renter-occupied, and approximately 78 percent of residents live in single-family attached or detached homes, see Tables 7.10 and 7.11. A sizeable portion of Harvard’s housing stock was constructed before 1939 and homes are valued between $100,000 and $250,000, see Table 7.12. Multi-family developments with more than five units are more prevalent in Harvard than the County, however still significantly less prevalent when compared to the region. Additionally, dwellings in Harvard are relatively smaller in size than McHenry County, see Table 7.13.

At $134,400, the median housing value in Harvard is much lower than the region and county (both are estimated over $233,000, see Table 7.14). In 2000, 4.1 percent of Harvard’s housing units were vacant. The number of vacant housing units grew to 8.7 percent by 2010, following the 2008-2009 recession. The City’s residential vacancy mirrors the region, but both are significantly higher than McHenry County’s at 5.9 percent.

Figure 7.1. Residential areas of Harvard.

Table 7.10. Housing Occupancy and Tenure, 2010 Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Occupied 3,052 91.3% 109,199 94.1% 3,088,156 91.6% Owner-Occupied 1,838 60.2% 90,722 83.1% 2,022,176 65.5% Renter-Occupied 1,214 39.8% 18,477 16.9% 1,065,980 34.5% Vacant 289 8.7% 6,841 5.9% 284,601 8.4% Total Housing Units 3,341 100.0% 116,040 100.0% 3,372,757 100.0% Source: 2010 Census

Figure 7.1. Residential areas of Harvard. Fig 7.1 Residential Areas

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Way Park

«¬173 L

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k 2 City of Harvard e Metra Station Residential Land Uses US-14 e r C

e IL-23 Township Boundaryn Metra Rail Single Family Detached u rib Rus ry t h e Creek UnincorporatedG Freight Rail Single Family Attached

Open Space e Multi-Family Airport Community Research Cemeteries Urban Mix with Residential ForestComponent Conservation Easement Water Bodies [ Common Open Space in ResidentialVan MarenDevelopment 0 0.5 1 Conservation Streams Miles Vacant Residential Land Easement

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 47 Table 7.11. Housing Type Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Single, detached 1,986 64.1% 90,256 78.3% 1,679,254 50.2% Single, attached 417 13.5% 11,666 10.1% 257,910 7.7% 2 Units 246 7.9% 1,809 1.6% 242,900 7.3% 3 to 4 Units 55 1.8% 3,226 2.8% 286,137 8.6% 5+ Units 393 12.7% 8,356 7.2% 876,492 26.2% Housing Units* 3,097 100.0% 115,313 100.0% 3,342,693 100.0% *Total, excluding mobile, boat, RV, van, etc. Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.12. Housing Age Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Built 2000 and after 705 22.0% 25,420 21.9% 388,157 11.5% Built 1980 to 1999 767 24.0% 41,479 35.8% 653,018 19.4% Built 1960 to 1979 428 13.4% 25,513 22.0% 867,250 25.7% Built 1940 to 1959 392 12.2% 13,269 11.4% 671,560 19.9% Built 1939 or earlier 909 28.4% 10,334 8.9% 789,923 23.4% Total Housing Units 3,201 100.0% 116,015 100.0% 3,369,908 100.0% Median age 1970 1986 1965 Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.13. Housing Size (Number of Bedrooms) Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 0-1 Bedroom 226 7.1% 6,575 5.7% 547,556 16% 2 Bedrooms 1,181 36.9% 25,149 21.7% 962,848 29% 3 Bedrooms 1,211 37.8% 47,475 40.9% 1,136,361 34% 4 Bedrooms 416 13.0% 30,936 26.7% 570,895 16.9% 5 Bedrooms 167 5.2% 5,880 5.1% 152,248 4.5% Total Housing Units 3,201 100.0% 116,015 100.0% 3,369,908 100.0% Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.14. Housing Value Harvard McHenry County Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Less than $100,000 356 19.9% 4,873 5.4% 158,890 7.9% $100,000 to $249,999 1,304 73.0% 46,224 51.2% 852,414 42.3% $250,000 to $399,999 85 4.8% 27,968 31.0% 594,859 29.5% $400,000 to $749,999 42 2.4% 9,684 10.7% 312,703 15.5% $750,000 or more 0 0.0% 1,518 1.7% 95,014 4.7% Total* 1,787 100.0% 90,267 100.0% 2,013,880 100.0% Median value $134,400 $233,400 $233,800 *Total owner-occupied housing units Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Like large parts of the region, the housing markets in the City of Harvard and McHenry County have been slow following the recession in 2008-2009. Harvard experienced a burst of new housing between 2000 and 2008; the City issued permits for 730 residential units, 72 percent of which were for single- family homes, see Table 7.15. New housing construction peaked in 2005, with 119 permits for new single-family homes and 39 permits for 78 multi-family units. This peak corresponds with the closure of HARVARD BUILDING PERMITS the Motorola facility. Only three2000-2013 new units were permitted in the city in the past five years.

Table 7.15. Harvard Building Permits 2000-2013 Year Single Family Multi Family Total Buildings Units Buildings Units Buildings Units

2000 40 40 4 50 44 90 2001 52 52 3 9 55 61 2002 65 65 9 24 74 89 2003 73 73 8 16 81 89 2004 80 80 4 8 84 88 2005 119 119 39 78 158 197 2006 65 65 9 18 74 83 2007 17 17 1 2 18 19 2008 11 11 0 0 11 11 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 2 2 0 0 2 2 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total 525 525 77 205 602 730

Annual Average 38 38 6 15 43 52

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ummit Subdivisions Since 2000, eight subdivisions were started and reached various degrees of completion, including Harvard Commons, Park Pointe, Countrybrook, Shadow Creek, Oak Grove Crossing, Turtle Crossing, Autumn Glen, and Huntington Ridge. Figure 7.2 provides the planned number of units and location of these developments within Harvard, with the exception of Park Pointe, which is located south of IL Route 173 on Galvin Parkway. Harvard Commons and Park Pointe subdivisions are built out and have

49 very few vacancies. Other subdivisions were left with undeveloped lots (Autumn Glen, Huntington Ridge, Oak Grove Crossing, and Turtle Crossing), have fallen into foreclosure (Huntington Ridge), or have high vacancy rates (Oak Grove and Turtle Crossings), see Table 7.16.

Nationally, cities with underdeveloped subdivisions have faced a number of common issues, including infrastructure maintenance, impact on existing property owners and property values, environmental damage, excess development entitlements, and emergency services coverage. Though not all of the originally planned phases were started, all subdivisions in Harvard have completed infrastructure, i.e. streets, sewers, lighting, and street trees. Sidewalks are installed on lots with completed homes, which results in gaps in the sidewalk network. Autumn Glen, Huntington Ridge, Oak Grove Crossing, and Turtle Crossing all have homes sprinkled throughout the development, often lengthy distances from more contiguous portions of the development or surrounding neighborhoods. For example, Autumn Glen has three single family homes that are constructed some length away from the multi-family units closer to U.S. 14. In Autumn Glen, the most recent sale of three lots was to the Harvard School District for a program in which high school students learn the building trades by constructing a home. Residential realtors believe that the Autumn Glen subdivision is considered too far from the heart of Harvard.

Developed under a PUD, Shadow Creek features smaller sized lots. A Special Service Area (SSA) or special taxing district was created to pay for the new street and sewer infrastructure. Some stakeholders believe this area is experiencing a higher foreclosure rate because homebuyers were unaware of the SSA prior to purchasing and now perceive their property tax bills as too expensive for a home worth $80,000 or less. Park Pointe also has a SSA and some believe this has contributed to resale problems.

Huntington Ridge, located just east of the vacant Motorola site, is far removed from the rest of the City. Some realtors believe it is an appropriate location for upscale houses given the country feel and the site topography. Originally priced at or above $250,000, realtors believe it would be difficult to get $175,000 for a house here at this time. The second, larger phase of Huntington Ridge was not platted due to a failure to meet the requirements of the development agreement. The property was foreclosed and is now bank-owned.

Figure 7.2. Developments in Harvard since 2006.

Table 7.16. Recent subdivision developments in Harvard Subdivisions Market Status Lot Status Sales Range Autumn Glen Very few homes built; 48 unbuilt lots N/A owned by a Texas-based investment firm Huntington Ridge Foreclosed, Bank-owned 51 unbuilt lots Less than $175,000 Oak Grove Crossing 30 lots unsold 46 unbuilt lots Low to Mid $100,000s Park Pointe Very few vacancies Completed Low to Mid $100,000s Countrybrook Very few vacancies 26 unbuilt lots Mid $100,000s Shadow Creek Many foreclosures and 3 unbuilt lots (multi-family) Less than $80,000 short sales Turtle Crossing Bank-owned, 50 lots 91 unbuilt lots Low $100,000s unsold Source: Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, 2010 CMAP Land Use Inventory.

Figure 7.2. Developments in Harvard since 2006. Fig 7.2 Developments 2006 - present

Chemung Alden township township

k e

re RD LAWRENCE C reek w ce C sa ren a Law c trib is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

US-14

Open 10 Open

8 k e e Open ¤£14 r C 6 r le e t rib Mo k

D Open R 9 E V O

R T

G S K A N

O I

S S

Beck's Woods I

V «¬173 Conservation I D Soucie Area N Conservation Lions Park Easement IL-173 4 Completed 3/1/2009 RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST 1 Completed 6/29/2006 Milky Way Harvard Park Metra D Station R

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Completed Mokeler Creek 6/29/2007 2 Open 7 Open 11 AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD

Completed S DIVISION ST DIVISION S 3 6/29/2008

5 Completed ek h Cre 9/1/2010 Rus D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

City of Harvard Harvard's Developments 2006-present ¤£14 Township Boundary Unincorporated 1, Harvard Commons, 12 Townhouses 7, Countrybrook, 170 Residential US-14

2, Shadow Creek, 243 Residential2 8, Oak Grove Crossing, 538 Residential Open Space - trib Rus L h I Creek Cemeteries 3, Wal-Mart Supercenter #1211, 156000 SF Retail 9, Turtle Crossing, 279 Residential

Water Bodies 4, City Hall, 14000 SF Rehab Community Research10, Huntington Ridge, 62 Single Family Forest Conservation Streams 5, Crosby Elementary School, 76250 SF School Easement11, Airport Road Plaza, 9 Ac Retail 2 Metra Station Van Maren 6, Autumn Glen, 115 Residential Conservation Metra Rail Easement ek re [ [ C 0 0.25 0.5

Freighte Rail

un Miles e ry Miles Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Ge Airport 0 0.25 0.5 1 51 Foreclosures Similar to other communities across the region, Harvard has experienced significant foreclosure activity in recent years. In 2014, there were 45 foreclosure filings in Harvard, the equivalent of 1.4 percent of its total housing units (Figure 7.3). A majority of those filings were single-family homes, representing 1.7 percent of this type of housing. Comparatively, in McHenry County as a whole, 1.1 percent of housing units received a foreclosure filing.

However, these numbers are significantly reduced from 2012, when 113 (3.6 percent) of Harvard’s housing units were involved in a foreclosure filing (Figure 7.3). Figure 7.4 provides information on completed foreclosure auctions, which means that a property has gone through the foreclosure process and has either been sold to a third party at auction, or, if no acceptable bid was made, the property was retained by the mortgage servicer. Auctions have been increasing in Harvard. In recent years, the completed foreclosure auctions have matched the number of filings, but there is still a backlog of foreclosures.

Foreclosures and short sales represent a sizable share of the re-sale market. Investors are buying foreclosed homes priced at under $100,000, rehabbing and renting them for $800-950 per month. This trend is likely to continue until the for-sale housing market fully recovers. At that point, the homes will be more expensive and they won’t be as profitable for conversion to rental housing. In addition, there will be more competition for the better homes from individual homebuyers.

Figure 7.3. Foreclosure filings in Harvard, 2008-14 120

100

80 Condo 60 Single Family

40 Total

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Woodstock Institute, http://www.woodstockinst.org/content/foreclosure

Figure 7.4. Completed foreclosure auctions in Harvard, 2008-14

50 Condo 40 Single Family 30 Total 20

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Woodstock Institute, http://www.woodstockinst.org/content/foreclosure

Market Trends Compared to the rest of the region, Harvard has affordable housing and realtors report it as one of the main reasons people buy homes in the city. Anecdotally, realtors have found that most homebuyers already live in the city and are upgrading their homes or they are moving from Woodstock for cheaper housing. Between the housing market crash, the widespread belief that Harvard is too far out from Chicago, and the more favorable home prices, real estate taxes, and income taxes for low-wage earners in Walworth, WI, there is a perception that fewer people now see Harvard as a desirable place to live.

Table 7.17 provides information on a sample of recent sales of existing single-family detached homes. From the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014, the share of distressed sales has declined from 62 to 43 percent of all sales. While representing an improvement, this share is still larger than the rest of the Chicago region (28 percent). While the median sales price for all homes in Harvard increased 8 percent over the past year to $100,000, the median price for non-distressed homes declined by 16 percent to $124,500. As a comparison, the median sales price in the first half of 2014 in Woodstock was significantly higher at $175,500 and the median for non-distressed sales was $199,900. Woodstock sales also include Bull Valley, which has more expensive homes than Woodstock itself. A slightly lower share of Woodstock’s sales was distressed (41 percent) compared to Harvard.

Investors are buying blocks of residential lots in underdeveloped subdivisions for as little as $5,000 per lot and are holding them until the market improves enough to sell at a profit. Prior to the recession, the cost of the infrastructure alone, excluding the cost of the land, was $30,000 per lot. Smaller homebuilders are not buying lots in Harvard at this time. National and regional homebuilders are buying platted lots with infrastructure in place in southern McHenry County, generally east of Route 31 and south of Route 120. Prices there are in the $50,000-60,000 per lot range, which is still below the original cost, but not too far off. They have not been interested in Harvard, citing that the community is too far out. Many people believe that the cost of building a new home cannot be recouped at current market prices, even with lots available at such low prices.

Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates (VSKA) believes it will take a few more years before the for-sale housing market stabilizes and non-distressed sales no longer comprise a large share of total sales. Once that happens, existing home prices will increase and the cost of new construction will be economically feasible given the low lot prices. At this point, the potential to finish the underdeveloped subdivisions will grow.

Following the 2008-2009 recession and the large number of underdeveloped subdivisions, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has researched best practices and strategies to help communities address the common issues seen in underdeveloped subdivisions and developed guidance on how to prioritize efforts. The City is already beginning to implement a residential rental registration program, which will build its understanding of who is renting property. In addition to preventative care and maintenance, some of the main recommended strategies include focusing reinvestment on land that is closest to the town center and established neighborhoods. Following this guidance, the two unfinished subdivisions on the northwest side of the city (Turtle Crossing and Oak Grove Crossing) could be prioritized for completion. Both are mostly contiguous to established neighborhoods and both have a large number of completed units already. Residential realtors believe that, while the Autumn Glen subdivision is considered too far from the heart of Harvard, the Huntington Ridge subdivision is more desirable for upscale housing. There are a number of additional strategies, such as redesigning subdivisions with fewer lots, providing incentives for developers, and municipal investment into empty lots, among others.

Some residents expressed a desire for multi-family housing. However, there is general agreement among local realtors that there is little to no interest in higher density townhomes, condominiums, and apartment buildings as people moving to Harvard are seeking large open spaces.. Transit- oriented development is less likely here than in communities closer in to Chicago. Given how it is easy to get to the train station within the community, living right by the train station is less important. In addition, since it is relatively cheap to rent a single-family house, it would be difficult to market new apartments near the station as they would require higher rents.

Table 7.17. Single-family detached residential sales in Harvard.

First half of 2013 First half of 2014 Percent change (%) Total Sales Number of units sold 66 67 1.5 Median sales price $92,250 $100,000 8.4 Sales price range $15,250 to $625,000 $23,500 to $660,000 Median days on market 65 124 90.8 Number of foreclosures 35 19 -45.7 Number of short sales 6 10 66.7 Distressed sales as % of all sales 62.10% 43.30% Number of sales by price Under $50,000 21 9 -57.1 $50,000 - $74,999 4 11 175 $75,000 - $99,999 12 13 8.3 $100,000 - $149,999 14 16 14.3 $150,000 - $199,999 4 9 125 $200,000 - $299,999 6 4 -33.3 $300,000 and above 5 5 0 Non-Distressed Sales Number of units sold 25 38 52 Median sales price $148,500 $124,500 -16.2 Sales price range $28,000 to $625,000 $45,000 to $660,000 Median days on market 180 109 -39.7 Number of sales by price Under $50,000 3 3 0 $50,000 - $74,999 1 3 200 $75,000 - $99,999 4 9 125 $100,000 - $149,999 5 8 60 $150,000 - $199,999 3 8 166.7 $200,000 - $299,999 4 2 -50 $300,000 and above 5 5 0 Source: RE/Max Realty Unlimited NW, Multiple Listing Service, Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc.

8. Economic Development This section examines key economic and market indicators in Harvard such as employment trends, dominating industries, equalized property values, and commercial property trends. Data was gathered and analyzed from a variety of sources, including a retail market analysis done by Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates.

Key Findings  Harvard’s retail development will be modest until the population of the city increases. Many commercial property owners who bought prior to the downturn are reluctant to lower prices since they would take a loss. Many property owners who own vacant commercial sites, including large tracts, are holding on to their property until prices increase to avoid selling at a loss. However, short- term demand exists for a wider variety of restaurants and grocery stores in the City that target lower and moderate price points.  Harvard’s high commercial property vacancy rate (36 percent) is largely a result of the 1.5 million square foot vacant former Motorola manufacturing facility. While efforts to fill the vacant property have not been successful over the past decade, once the facility does secure a permanent tenant it will be a major economic driver for the community.  Despite Motorola’s departure from the City in 2003, the manufacturing sector of the Harvard economy has done well in recent years. Five out of the top ten employers in Harvard are manufacturing companies and if the Motorola Facility is subtracted from calculations, the industrial property vacancy rate drops to about 8 percent. The relatively new Arrowhead Industrial Park has seen many new tenants move in over the past few years while other existing tenants have expanded operations.

Employment Harvard’s private sector employment base experienced significant decline between 2002 and 2011, losing over 300 jobs or 7.88 percent of the workforce. The employment decline can be attributed in large part to the closing of the Motorola facility in 2003. In contrast, both McHenry County and the Chicago Region experienced slight growth in their employment bases over the same period of time.

Table 8.1 Private Sector Employment, 2002-2011 Harvard McHenry County Region Employment, 2002 3,957 79,791 3,409,568 Employment, 2011 3,645 81,981 3,461,583 Change, 2002-11 -312 2,190 52,015 Change as %, 2002-11 -7.88% 2.74% 1.53% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau

Harvard’s jobs are highly concentrated in Health Care and Social Assistance, Manufacturing, and Retail Trade. Approximately 61 percent of Harvard’s jobs are in the above sectors, with the remainder distributed among several other sectors. Health Care and Social Assistance is the single largest private employment sector, representing 25 percent of all of Harvard’s jobs. The high level of employment in the Health Care and Social Assistance industry can in part be attributed to the presence of the Mercy Harvard Hospital within the City, which is one of the top employers in the community.

Table 8.2 Employment of Private Sector Workers in Harvard by Industry Sector, 2012 Harvard McHenry County Count Percent Percent Health Care and Social Assistance 768 25.0% 11.1% Manufacturing 694 22.6% 18.7% Retail Trade 411 13.4% 13.1% Transportation and Warehousing 245 8.0% 1.6% Accommodation and Food Services 189 6.2% 6.9% Other Services (excluding Public 175 5.7% 3.5% Administration) Wholesale Trade 137 4.5% 6.8% Construction 126 4.1% 6.2% Finance and Insurance 125 4.1% 2.7% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 54 1.8% 0.4% Administration & Support, Waste Management 47 1.5% 6.2% and Remediation Professional, Scientific, and Technical 42 1.4% 4.2% Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 27 0.9% 2.2% Utilities 0 0.0% 1.1% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0 0.0% 0.9% Information * * 1.4% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction * * 0.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing * * 0.7% Educational Services * * 12.3% Total 3,070 100.0% 100.0% *Numbers omitted by source to avoid disclosure of individual data Source: Illinois Department of Employment Security

With over 300 employees, the Harvard Community Unit School District 50 tops the list of the largest single employers. The second largest single employer within the City of Harvard is the Wal-Mart store located on Route 14, employing 200 people. Five of the other top ten employers are in the manufacturing industry, indicating that the industrial sector is important to Harvard’s local economy. The remainder of the list consists of medium-sized employers providing services in the health care, wholesale trade, and commercial banking industries.

Table 8.3 Top Ten Employers in Harvard, June 2013 Employer Type Count Harvard Community Unit School District 50 Elementary and Secondary Schools 304 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Discount Department Stores 200 Mercy Harvard Hospital General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 187 Dean Foods Company Fluid Milk Manufacturing 185 True Value Company Hardware Merchant Wholesalers 182 Textron Inc. Aircraft Manufacturing 180 All Other Plastics Product Consolidated Container Company, LLC 120 Manufacturing First National Bank of Omaha Commercial Banking 89 Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Catty Corporation 57 Paper Manufacturing

Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining Meyer Material Company 53 and Quarrying Source: Dun and Bradstreet, Market Insight

Existing Retail, Industrial, and Office Development According to data from the Illinois Department of Revenue, the majority of Harvard’s total equalized assessed value (EAV) comes from residential properties, which account for 63.8 percent of the City’s total EAV (Table 8.4). Most of the remaining total property value is split between commercial properties with 25.9 percent and industrial properties with 8.7 percent of total EAV. While residential properties account for the largest share of total EAV in Harvard at 63.8 percent, this share of EAV from residential properties is much lower than that of McHenry County at 80.6 percent. The high percentage of EAV from commercial properties in Harvard (25.9 percent) is unique, as commercial properties typically account for half that amount in most suburban communities. While the level of industrial property values in Harvard (8.7 percent) is high for McHenry County, it closely resembles the percentage of industrial EAV in the region as a whole (9.6 percent). The commercial and industrial EAVs are probably skewed higher than they normally would be due to the presence of the large vacant former Motorola Facility located in Harvard. The Motorola Facility campus is comprised of four buildings, two of which are assessed as commercial office space and two of which are assessed as industrial space.

Table 8.4 Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) by property type, 2012

Harvard McHenry County Chicago Region Property Type Estimated EAV Percent Estimated EAV Percent Estimated EAV Percent Residential $68,103,961 63.8% $6,355,476,388 80.6% $165,711,595,915 69.9% Commercial $27,617,557 25.9% $936,643,061 11.9% $47,335,909,556 20.0% Industrial $9,262,652 8.7% $326,075,383 4.1% $22,735,334,242 9.6% Farm $915,156 0.9% $246,686,423 3.1% $1,015,995,724 0.4% Mineral $466,584 0.4% $12,468,064 0.2% $12,468,214 0.0% Railroad $427,969 0.4% $9,222,423 0.1% $426,627,866 0.2% Total $106,783,879 100.1% $7,886,571,742 100.0% $237,237,931,517 100.1% Source: Illinois Department of Revenue

Harvard has approximately 5 million square feet of commercial space, with nearly 4 million square feet, or 78 percent being industrial space (Table 8.5). Retail and office space make up the balance. In McHenry County, industrial space is dominant, but only accounts for 59 percent of total commercial space, while in the region, industrial space accounts for just 54 percent of total commercial space.

Table 8.5 Commercial Real Estate Square Footage and Vacancy by Type, 2013

Harvard McHenry County Chicago Region Total Rentable Total Rentable Vacancy Vacancy Total Rentable Vacancy Building Area Building Area Rate Rate Building Area (SF) Rate (SF) (SF) Industrial* 3,912,368 30.7% 32,209,181 12.2% 1,066,974,725 8.8% Office 609,275 94.3% 5,542,927 20.7% 442,771,617 13.3% Retail 519,061 7.2% 17,061,012 8.9% 441,407,969 8.2%

Total 5,040,704 36.0% 54,813,120 12.1% 1,965,039,152 9.7% *Includes flex properties. Source: CMAP Analysis of CoStar data pulled on 8/28/2014

Over the last decade, Harvard has added approximately 288,000 square feet of commercial space, 95,000 square feet of industrial space and 193,401 square feet of retail space (Table 8.6). Vacancies increased across all three types of commercial space. The largest vacant industrial spaces in Harvard are located at the former Motorola Facilities #1 and #2, which together account for 80 percent of the vacant industrial space in the city. While the office vacancy rate appears extraordinarily high at 94.3 percent, almost all of this vacant office space can be attributed to the 572,952 square feet of vacant office space located at the former Motorola Facilities #3 and #4. If the Motorola Facilities #3 and #4 are subtracted from the total office space, the office vacancy rate drops to about 4 percent (1,547 vacant square feet out of a total 36,323 square feet of office space). Similarly, if the Motorola Facilities #1 and #2 are subtracted from the total industrial space, the industrial vacancy rate drops to about 8 percent (233,237 vacant square feet out of a total 2,957,463 square feet of industrial space).

The former Motorola campus, one of the largest commercial buildings in McHenry County with 1,547,917 square feet, remains vacant despite local efforts to attract tenants over the past decade. Since Motorola shuttered operations at the site in 2003, a variety of uses have been proposed by different investors, but nothing has come to fruition. Currently Optima International owns the facility, but Harvard’s Economic Development Corp has stated that the site is being marketed and a few foreign investors have expressed preliminary interest in the site. In 2014, Harvard and Woodstock submitted a joint application to create a new enterprise zone that, if approved, would affect the marketability of the former Motorola property due to increased access to state and federal financial aid.

The largest vacant retail space in Harvard is the former Sullivan Foods grocery store on Route 14 which has 33,744 square feet of space, accounting for 90 percent of the vacant retail space in the city. The property is being marketed; however the current owner is unresponsive to inquiries about the space. While the retail vacancy rate increased from 3.1 percent to 7.2 percent between 2006 and 2013, the total amount of retail space increased by nearly 60 percent during that time period.

Table 8.6 Trends in Commercial Square Footage and Vacancy in Harvard 2004 2014 % Change Industrial* Total Rentable Building Area (SF) 3,817,368 3,912,368 2.5% Vacancy Rate 3.0% 30.4% Office Total Rentable Building Area (SF) 609,275 609,275 0% Vacancy Rate 67.1% 94.3% 2006 2013 % Change Retail Total Rentable Building Area (SF) 325,660 519,061 59.4% Vacancy Rate 3.1% 7.2% *Includes flex properties. Source: CMAP Analysis of CoStar data pulled on 8/28/2014

Industrial Market Conditions Harvard’s industrial areas are key economic drivers for the community. Manufacturing, transportation, and warehousing industries dominate the industrial areas and are important industries for Harvard’s overall economy. The following summarizes the three main industrial areas in the community, see Figure 8.1. Former Motorola Facility The former Motorola Facility, which opened in 1996, has been empty for over a decade after Motorola shuttered operations at the site in 2003. The 1.5 million square foot campus contains eight manufacturing pods, over 500,000 square feet of office space, two day-care facilities, a 1,100-seat cafeteria, a 500-seat auditorium, a health club with a dance room, nine elevators, a keyless security system, indoor parking, and two heliports. Local officials have helped to market the campus to a variety of prospective investors that included a water park, veteran’s assistance, and manufacturers, but have not found a tenant for the facility thus far. Arrowhead Industrial Park The Arrowhead Industrial park is a relatively new industrial development area just to the northwest of downtown Harvard. Much of the industrial park has yet to be built out yet and is composed of ready to develop parcels with underground utilities and access to the Union Pacific Railroad. The companies that do currently operate out of the Arrowhead Industrial park range in size from 1.5-100 acres and contain an assortment of manufacturing companies that include an industrial-sized pet food bakery (Pound Bakery) that has expanded four times in the past twenty years, a business document print shop (AmeriPrint Corporation), and a large plastic manufacturing company (Consolidated Container Company). Brink and Division Street Area The Brink and Division Street industrial area is an older industrial development to the southeast of Downtown Harvard along the UPN railroad. As the fifth largest employer in Harvard, the True Value Company distribution center occupies the majority of the industrial space at this location. The Meyer Material Company, a crushed and broken limestone mining and quarrying company, and Hartwig Plumbing & Heating Inc. occupy the remaining space at the Brink and Division Street industrial area.

Figure 8.1 Industrial Areas

Retail Market Conditions The two major retail locations in Harvard are Downtown, primarily along Ayer Street, and the southern portion of Route 14 (Figure 8.2). According to data from CoStar, the retail inventory is over 500,000 square feet. Downtown has approximately 100,000 square feet of space, while Route 14 has over 400,000 square feet.

Figure 8.2 Commercial Areas Downtown Harvard Downtown’s retail mix is limited but does include two jewelers, bakeries, several Hispanic grocery stores, a resale shop, florist, floor coverings store, hardware store, indoor golf studio, Christian bookstore, gift shop, office supply store, children’s store, phone store, restaurants/bars, tanning salon and beauty shops. In addition, there are many office users occupying ground floor storefronts, including

Figure 8.1. Industrial areas of Harvard. Fig 8.1 Industrial Areas

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Way Park

«¬173 H

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k 2 City of Harvard e Metra Station Industrial Land Uses US-14 e r C

e IL-23 Township Boundaryn Metra Rail u Mineral Extractionrib Rus ry t h e Creek UnincorporatedG Freight Rail General Industrial <100,000 sq ft

Open Space e Manufacturing/Processing >=100,000 sq ft Airport Community Research Cemeteries Warehousing/DistributionForest >=100,000 Conservation sq ft Easement Water Bodies [ Under Construction, Industrial Van Maren 0 0.5 1 Conservation Streams Miles Vacant Industrial Land Easement 61 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Figure 8.2. Commercial areas of Harvard. Fig 8.2 Commercial Areas

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Way Park

«¬173 H

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k 2 City of Harvard e Metra Station Commercial Land Uses US-14 e r C

e IL-23 Township Boundaryn Metra Rail u Regional and Communityrib R Retailus Centers Hotel/Motel ry t h e Creek UnincorporatedG Freight Rail Single Large-Site Retail Office

Open Space e Airport Urban Mix Community Research Medical Facilities Cemeteries Urban Mix with Residential ComponentForest Conservation Independent Automobile Parking Easement Water Bodies [ Cultural/Entertainment Van Maren Vacant Commercial Land 0 0.5 1 Conservation Streams Miles Easement

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 62 insurance agents, doctors, dentists, lawyers, an accountant, Realtor, and stock broker. Harvard Savings Bank is also downtown, as are the Post Office and City Hall.

Downtown has a number of long time business owners, as well as some newer ones who have purchased existing businesses and others who have opened new ones in recent years. Some specialized businesses rely on customers from outside of Harvard, including the Starline Factory. Housed in two former industrial buildings with 278,000 square feet dating back to 1883, the Starline Factory hosts special events and attracts many people to the downtown for its monthly open gallery events. It is a popular location for weddings and corporate events, with space for up to 500 people, and also houses artist’s studios and offices. The owner has also received zoning approval to add 24 live/work spaces and/or overnight accommodations, as well as a coffee shop or restaurant.

Downtown rents are very reasonable, generally in the $200-800/month range on a gross basis. In 2008, the City of Harvard completed a number of streetscape improvements in the downtown area that were funded by TIF district revenues. These streetscape changes included new lighting, landscaping, and planters and sought to enhance the historic look and feel of the central downtown district.

The EDC owns a site just east of Ayer Street on Front Street and subsequently demolished a building at this location. It has been for sale for quite some time but has attracted little interest. Some consider its location off of Ayer Street a disadvantage, though it is only one block away. The parcel is zoned B-2 Central Business District, which would allow for mixed-use development up to five stories. Another half- acre site is available at the entry to Downtown, at the northwest corner of intersection of Division Street (U.S. 14) and Diggins Street (Route 173). It would be appropriate for a coffee shop or small restaurant, though there has been no interest in the site.

Route 14 Corridor Route 14 is characterized by auto-oriented retail development, primarily owner-occupied and single- tenant space or small shopping centers. The largest retailer is Wal-Mart, followed by Tractor Supply, both at the south end of Route 14. Other national and regional retailers include Walgreens, fast food and inexpensive chain restaurants, two car dealers, and gas stations. Local retailers include several restaurants, auto-related uses, a pet store, convenience stores, beauty salons, and dance studio.

There are many sites currently being marketed for retail use along Route 14 ranging from the former Sullivan Foods grocery store to out-lots of varying sizes in front of or near Wal-Mart. However, brokers report little interest at this time. Most agree that more households are needed before more significant retail development occurs. Additionally, the corridor is aesthetically cluttered and disjointed and could benefit from coordinated design and landscape guidelines. Construction is underway on small sites for O’Reilly Auto Parts and Casey’s General Store, and a Culver’s franchise is reportedly looking to build a free-standing restaurant on Route 14. Retail Sales in Harvard and Nearby Communities In 2014, Harvard generated slightly less retail sales per capita ($11,656) than the County ($12,861) or the region ($14,162) (Table 8.7). According to data from the Illinois Department of Revenue, Harvard’s total consumer retail sales were $103 million in 2013, a 12.7 percent increase since 2010 (Table 8.8). The largest self-reported retail sales category is automotive, which includes sales of cars, auto parts and accessories, and gasoline, and registered sales of almost $39 million in 2013. Sales for general merchandise were not reported in Table 8.8 because there are too few stores in this category (Wal- Mart), but are estimated at $30 million, making it the second largest retail category. Sales at drug and

63 miscellaneous stores totaled $14 million, followed by eating and drinking establishments at $9 million. Notably weak are the sales in food stores at only $8 million. However, Wal-Mart does have a grocery department and many people do shop there for food.

Table 8.7. Retail Sales, 2014 Harvard McHenry County Chicago Region Retail sales $110,115,773 $3,915,413,717 $119,402,944,937 General merchandise* $84,643,810 $3,118,263,406 $97,153,812,359 Qualifying food, drugs, medical $25,471,963 $797,150,311 appliances $22,249,132,578 Retail sales per capita $11,656 $12,681 $14,162 Source: Illinois Department of Revenue *General Merchandise as referred to in this table is a sales tax category and is distinct from the General Merchandise category found in Table 8.8

Retail sales in Woodstock and McHenry dwarf those in Harvard. In 2013, Woodstock’s sales totaled $317 million and McHenry’s was $538 million. However, both communities have more than three times the number of households as Harvard. On a per household basis, Harvard’s sales were comparable to Woodstock though considerably less than McHenry, as shown in Table 8.8.

It is useful to look at the retail sales potential of Harvard’s residents compared to the actual retail sales of the community. Harvard has a total sales potential or demand of $74.4 million for all categories of retail trade, food and drink (Table 8.9). According to ESRI’s estimates, retail sales were $106.4 million for 2013 (a slight difference from the state sales tax data), resulting in an overall retail surplus, meaning that sales were higher than the estimated demand. This results from people shopping in Harvard who live outside of the city. However, the only categories with a large surplus are general merchandise which includes Wal-Mart, automobile dealers, and lawn and garden equipment and supply stores.

The largest retail gaps are in gas stations, clothing, furniture, health and personal care stores, sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores, electronics and appliance stores, and limited service eating places. It will be difficult for Harvard to increase sales at gas stations until more people are living in the community, given the proximity of Wisconsin and its significantly lower gas taxes. Electronics and appliance stores are not expanding in communities such as Harvard at this time. Furniture stores are more likely to locate in areas with higher population density than Harvard and chain clothing stores such as TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Ross Dress for Less, Burlington Coat Factory, etc. require greater population density.

As such, the best opportunities for Harvard are in health and personal care, and limited service eating places. There is also a small gap in food and beverage stores which could be met by a smaller chain grocery such as Aldi or Save A Lot. Independent retailers can fill the gap in hobbies, sporting goods, clothing, gifts and other specialty merchandise. While the independents do not generate high sales volumes or high sales tax revenues for the city, they can diversify the existing retail base and thereby attract more shoppers. With 45 percent of the city’s population Hispanic, there is an opportunity to target more Hispanic specialty stores, including those that have been successful in other Hispanic communities throughout the region.

Table 8.8. Retail sales by store type in Harvard, McHenry, and Woodstock, 2010-2013. (See Maps)

Table 8.8. Retail sales by store type in Harvard, McHenry, and Woodstock, 2010-2013. Year Total Consumer General Food Eating and Apparel Furniture, Lumber, Automotive Drugs and Retail Sales Merchandise Drinking HH & Radio Bldg., HW Misc. Retail

Harvard 2010 91,398,033 NA 8,210,429 8,341,649 NA 193,243 1,808,677 30,403,145 12,880,115

2011 94,088,326 NA 7,620,085 8,490,611 7,529,055 NA 1,984,961 32,685,855 13,405,106

2012 97,594,561 NA 7,105,153 9,183,928 NA 116,664 2,153,282 35,072,239 13,148,789

2013 103,040,751 NA 8,066,102 9,352,271 NA 165,313 2,183,331 38,673,389 14,003,760

% Change 2010-2013 12.7% NA -1.8% 12.1% NA -14.5% 20.7% 27.2% 8.7%

2013 Households 3,009

2013 Per Household $34,244 NA $2,681 $3,108 NA $55 $726 $12,853 $4,654

McHenry 2010 540,005,843 91,025,848 48,929,780 51,060,056 15,174,166 27,873,037 27,558,852 206,926,171 71,457,933

2011 552,903,698 73,394,953 48,078,588 52,791,416 26,569,015 27,155,020 26,904,196 225,965,297 72,045,213

2012 522,694,048 45,210,933 45,069,740 55,303,125 18,268,366 25,550,724 25,913,509 234,567,599 72,810,052

2013 537,629,063 39,685,025 43,804,703 58,300,564 18,634,148 29,268,682 27,067,628 243,661,745 77,206,568

% Change 2010-2013 -0.4% -56.4% -10.5% 14.2% 22.8% 5.0% NA 17.8% 8.0%

2013 Households 10,143

2013 Per Household $53,005 $0 $4,319 $5,748 $1,837 $2,886 $2,669 $24,023 $7,612

Woodstock 2010 300,452,668 62,140,473 40,920,364 25,462,906 122,812 5,810,270 36,472,491 85,543,173 43,980,179

2011 303,408,937 46,489,623 41,773,023 27,446,674 15,256,636 6,002,243 35,020,793 85,271,003 46,148,942

2012 311,138,654 69,273,693 38,011,078 29,532,945 325,570 6,275,242 37,518,912 82,387,509 47,813,705

2013 316,931,574 68,852,338 39,593,885 31,078,622 165,283 6,619,511 38,115,780 84,354,032 48,152,123

% Change 2010-2013 5.5% 10.8% -3.2% 22.1% 34.6% 13.9% 4.5% -1.4% 9.5%

2013 Households 9,189

2013 Per Household $34,490 $7,493 $4,309 $3,382 $18 $720 $4,148 $9,180 $5,240

Source: Illinois Department of Revenue, “Report of Sales Tax Receipts by Standard Industrial Classification, 2010-2013;” Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc. The municipal portion of the sales tax is 1% of sales. This does not include the home rule sales tax. Number of households based on estimate by Esri. Table does not includes sales of manufacturers or agriculture subject to sales taxes. NA - Data not disclosed if fewer than 4 taxpayers to protect confidentiality.

Table 8.9 Comparison of retail sales potential with existing retail sales in select industry sectors in Harvard, 2013. Demand (Retail Supply (Retail Industry Group * Potential) Sales) Retail Gap Total Retail Trade $74,400,373 $106,417,981 -$32,017,608 Automobile Dealers $10,575,426 $16,241,588 -$5,666,162 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $4,239,320 $1,012,331 $3,226,989 Electronics & Appliance Stores $1,811,334 $478,217 $1,333,117 Food & Beverage Stores $11,044,953 $10,218,700 $826,253 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $1,424,358 $0 $1424,358 Gasoline Stations $6,855,599 $390,9051 $6,464,694 General Merchandise Stores $12,029,081 $61,733,978 -$49,704,897 Health & Personal Care Stores $5,582,613 $4,128,230 $1,454,383 Lawn & Garden Equipment & Supply Stores $352,002 $2,454,357 -$2,102,355 Limited-Service Eating Places $3,511,574 $1,213,787 $2,297,787 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores $1,750,570 $62,782 $1,687,788 Source: ESRI and Dun & Bradstreet *Only a sample of industry groups are presented here, total numbers are for all industry groups in Harvard

Existing Economic Development Programs The City of Harvard offers incentive programs and resources for local businesses in order to help retain them or help them expand within the municipality. These programs include:

Harvard Economic Development Commission (EDC): The EDC is a public/private partnership that exists to encourage and facilitate increasing economic prosperity and opportunity throughout the Harvard community through active programs, marketing, and outreach. It is led by a volunteer Board of Directors that includes representatives from three local banks, the Arrowhead Industrial Park, Harvard Mercy Hospital, Brown Bear Daycare, and the City of Harvard.

Façade Improvements: The City offers no interest loans for façade improvements to downtown building owners and has assisted approximately eight properties so far. Projects selected are designed to enhance the historic look and feel of the central downtown district, and could include tuck-pointing or refinishing of exterior surfaces, including paint, brick, and other ‘facelift’ projects. Building owners who qualify for the loans can borrow up to $50,000 per project, repayable in equal installments over five years.

Tax Increment Financing Districts: There are currently three active TIF districts in the City of Harvard, (Figure 8.3). These three TIF districts serve the Arrowhead Industrial Park (started in 2004), Airport Road Plaza (2005), and the Downtown area (2000). All the TIF districts have been used to pay for public infrastructure improvements. For example, the Downtown TIF district allowed the community to

1 Harvard stakeholders suspect that of the reported amount of retail sales from gasoline stations is artificially low. ESRI’s Supply (Retail Sales) values estimate sales to consumers by establishments, unlike the Illinois Department of Revenue retail sales values represented in Table 8.8 which are based on actual sales taxes collected by the State of Illinois.

66 invest $1.8 million in streetscape enhancements along Ayer Street in 2008. Many business owners spoke favorably about the impact of these changes in the downtown

Figure 8.3 TIF Districts

Land Use and Fiscal Impact In northeastern Illinois, many municipalities rely on state and local sales tax revenues as a major component of operating budgets. Local governments can maximize local tax revenues by orienting land use planning and decision-making toward development that generates additional sales tax, such as retail development. However, this incentive can result in decisions that discount other economic activities that may be more beneficial to strengthening the regional economy. While a retail center may generate significantly more tax dollars at the municipal level, industrial and office uses generate more and higher wage jobs and much higher regional economic output.

Further complicating the matter, the retail tax structure in Illinois rewards communities that have the point of sale of retail goods, but it does not reward other communities that were involved in the economic process, such as those housing a population that buys goods, or industrial and office uses that contribute to the production of those goods. Instead, most manufacturing, distribution, and corporate offices provide no sales tax revenues unless the point of sale coincides in these locations.

Because the region has a limit in its capacity to support retail, the ability to generate sales tax revenue may be one source of competition between local communities for retail development. Prioritizing retail over other uses can have unintended consequences, such as creating undesirable community traits and unforeseen traffic issues. Additionally, communities oftentimes have an overabundance of land allocated for retail development. While this allows for flexibility in the private marketplace, it may lead to long-term overbuilding of retail space. In particular, fast-changing consumer and retailer preferences for building size and configuration lead retailers to move to new structures, leaving behind old retail space that can be costly for communities to redevelop and reoccupy.

It is important for communities to adequately balance land uses to achieve broad benefits both locally and for the region as a whole. Communities that support access to local jobs, goods and services, open space, community facilities, and a diversity of residential living choices tend to be more sustainable, livable, and offer a high quality of life, and they contribute to the economic strength of the entire metropolitan region.

Figure 8.3. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts of Harvard. Fig 8.3 TIF Districts

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement & Aquatic Center IL-173

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Harvard Milky Way Metra Park Station

«¬173 U

C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek

D R Rush Creek N O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Dunham Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k e US-14 e r C

e 2 IL-23 City of Harvard n Metra Station TIF District u rib Rus ry t h e Creek Township BoundaryG Metra Rail Industrial Park TIF Unincorporated Freight Rail Rt 14/Airport Road TIF Community Research

Open Space e Downtown TIF Forest Conservation Airport Easement Cemeteries Van Maren Streams 0 0.25 0.5 Conservation Miles Water Bodies [ Easement

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 68 9. Transportation This section provides information on the existing transportation system within Harvard with a focus on streets, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and freight. The information in this section was obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), Metra, Pace, McHenry County Division of Transportation, McHenry County Conservation District, the City of Harvard, and based upon a visual assessment of existing conditions in the community.

Key Findings  Most of Harvard’s main streets are owned by partner agencies. These main arterials are how most people experience the City; however, influencing the design and character requires coordination with other transportation agencies.  Harvard residents largely rely on automobiles for travel. The vast majority of Harvard residents drive to work (approximately 92%), oftentimes traveling long distances. However, there are very high rates of carpooling amongst Harvard residents. With a high annual vehicle miles traveled per household (23,444 miles), transportation costs account for approximately 26 percent of total household income.  Harvard residents bike or walk to work at twice the levels seen for the rest of McHenry County. With a sizeable population of residents who work in the City, along with a compact development pattern with residential neighborhoods in relatively close proximity to employers, walking or biking is a viable transportation option for some.  Pace bus and Metra transit services have low ridership. Many factors contribute to this including infrequent service, low residential densities along existing routes, and long distances between destinations. Only three percent of Harvard commuters use public transit to get to work, likely because most employers are not located within easy access of existing transit routes.  Gaps in the sidewalk network are most prevalent along US 14 and in many residential areas of the community. These numerous pockets without sidewalks make it very difficult for pedestrians to travel around the community safely. In addition, signalized intersections without crosswalks are sprinkled throughout the community, which could deter pedestrians.

Roadways Functional Classification The City of Harvard contains a diverse network of streets, from local roads to U.S. highways (Figure 9.1). The City is situated along U.S. Route 14 and is located approximately 16 miles north of the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (Interstate-90) and 15 miles south of Interstate 43 in Wisconsin. Additionally State Route 173 and State Route 23 also run through Harvard and intersect with U.S. Route 14 in the city. Streets perform three vital roles in a community – they provide space for mobility, commerce, and civic life. The functional classification of a road describes the character of the road in terms of vehicular mobility and is designated by IDOT. Once the functional classification of a particular roadway has been established, flexible design parameters such as the design speed and basic roadway cross-section (lane width, type and width of median, and other design features) follow. The classification system is used to organize transportation budgeting, operations, and maintenance activities, with a substantial share of capital and operating resources going to the principal arterials. Other classification systems, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s urban thoroughfares, address the design characteristics of the

69 road and, along with the surrounding context, the physical configuration of the streetside2, travel way, and intersections.

Figure 9.2 depicts the IDOT functional classification of streets within Harvard. The classification identifies principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and local streets. Harvard’s principal arterials, U.S. 14, and Illinois Routes 173 and 23 are included in the region’s Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) system. The SRA system is intended to carry larger volumes of traffic at higher speeds as a complement to the region’s expressway system. Efforts are made to preserve the level of service on these roadways through appropriate access and traffic signal locations and spacing. Level of service describes a road’s operating conditions based on average travel speed, density, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. To ensure a high level of service for traffic on the SRA system, IDOT maintains more restrictive criteria in determining the need for and spacing of traffic signals and access points.

Figure 9.1. Sub-regional transportation network Figure 9.2. Functional classification and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Traffic Volumes Traffic counts are used to reflect the existing level of automobile usage on a street. Annual average daily traffic, or AADT, is regularly calculated for several roadways in Harvard based on the number of vehicles that pass along a road over an average 24-hour weekday period, excluding Fridays. Figure 9.2 provides the AADT for streets where IDOT performed traffic counts in 2012. As anticipated, the streets carrying the highest volumes of vehicles include the principal arterials of U.S. 14, and Routes 173 and 23. Significant traffic volumes are also seen along Ayer Street, Diggins Street, and Airport Road. Truck volumes are greatest along IL Rt. 173 (250-675 AADT); however, U.S. 14 (420-655 AADT) and IL Rt. 23 (495 AADT) are also designated Class II truck routes with substantial truck traffic. (Figure 9.4) Street Jurisdiction With several roads or road segments outside of the City’s jurisdiction, its ability to make improvements, control access, or unify the streetscape requires cooperation and coordination between the different entities and is limited to a certain degree. Figure 9.3 identifies which roads are maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation, McHenry County Department of Transportation, and the four Townships in the area, as well as the City of Harvard and private streets. IDOT and McHenry County maintain the primary arterials in and around Harvard. The four nearby townships generally maintain jurisdiction of smaller local roads located on the periphery of the community with the notable exception of Oak Grove Road.

Figure 9.3 Jurisdiction of Harvard streets. Street Characteristics The geometric design of streets is integral to how motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other street users behave on them. The width of the street, including the number of lanes and the width of those lanes, plays a large role in the feel and function of a street. The width will determine what design elements can fit within the given space, such as the position of vehicles, on-street parking, landscaped medians, and bicycle lanes. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recognizes that wide streets, such as those greater than 60 feet, can create barriers for pedestrians and encourage higher vehicular

2 Streetside is defined as the area from the back of the curb to the front property line.

Figure 9.1. Sub-regional transportation network of Harvard. Fig 9.1 Subregional Transportation Network

CR-O S W MAIN ST DR E R O W SH WI-50 E S L L Williams Bay S

S CR-F S T N BLOOMFIELD RD

CR-X CR-O

Walworth CR-H Rock CR-C County County CR-K Fontana-on-Geneva Lake CR-BB Wisconsin Walworth CR-B

Sharon WI-67 E WI-67 I2

MARTINST STATE LINE RD N IC H O RD L R S TE R S D HE NC MA

O BURROAK RD

N S Hebron O

LAWRENCER

N D

D R «¬173 R D N GROVE RD O AK T O

IllinoisE

A IL-173

B CAPRON RD OBRIEN RD

L V HUNTER RD ANDER e Harvard D KARR RD

D N R R

Z 2 D

S e N BOONE SCHOOL RD AIRPORTe RD D

R GREENWOOD RD

Y MCGUIRE RD E «¬173 L U

C 808 C Greenwood M «¬76 WILSONRD Wonder Lake

UP-NW RD IL-76 ON IR AT FL D

R T Poplar Grove U NELSON RD C

CHARLES RD THOMPSONRD EP DE

ANGLING RD £14 ¤ HARTLANDRD Boone DUNHAM RD IL-120

807 County McHenry «¬120 e Woodstock County Bull Valley 2

CR-11 D KISHWAUKEE VALLEY RD COUN R TR Y C «¬47 LU E B R B L A D O K H T E S A POPLAR GROVE RD W OUTH V

S US-14 E RUSSELLVILLERD

UP-NW

US-20-BR DEANST

DEERPASS RD

I2 ¤£20B FRANKLINVILLERD

176 IL-176 US-20 «¬23 «¬ M LOGAN AVE GARDEN PRAIRIE RD W GRANT HWY C Belvidere £20 C «¬176 Crystal Lake«¬176 ¤ U

Marengo R

GRANT HWY D Union

W UNION RD HALIGUS RD Lakewood RD

Other Municipalities W CORA L RD N

G A e

S UNION S RD HUNTLEY RD E

D N R S GRANT HWY E UnincorporatedO Areas E A T S

S M Lake in the Hills R Regional Greenways AR L E D NG 2 R O Metra Station and Trails Plan (2011) RD PEA MILLER RD Metra Rail Lines Existing §90 ¨¦ HARMONY RD Freight Rail Programmed & Planned ALGONQUIN RD MAIN ST Future DUNDEE RD Pace Bus Route Algonquin Interstate/Expressway IL-23 Major Road I Huntley Miles GLIDDEN RD DeKalb Local Road HIGGINS RD Kane Gilberts

0 KINGSTON RD 1.25 2.5 5 CHE RRY VALLEY RD County County Airport Runways NSTATE RD Hampshire

PEARL ST FREEMAN RD

71 e

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015.

e e Figure 9.2. Functional classification and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of Harvard streets.

Fig 9.2 Road Functional Classification with Average Daily Traffic Count 125

225 0 5

4 Chemung 4 Alden ¤£14 township township

425 K GROVE RD 6700

LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE A O k e re eek C ce Cr w 600 trib Lawren US-14 sa a c

is 275 P

Lawrence Creek

6950

575 275 LMNO 75 800

k e e r C LMNO r le e k trib Mo

T S N IO 3400 IS IL-173 IV D Beck's Woods N Conservation 500

850 1300 Area 9000 «¬173 700 Soucie 00 Conservation 1900 Lions Park 47 Easement

8 1300 RAMER RD 0 1550 2500 2200 400 0 W DIGGINS ST LMNO 900 Milky Way 150 2900 600 Park 2 950 D R Harvard OAK GROVE D

Metra R S 9850

550 Station 650 Z

6000 1450 950 U «¬173 H IL-173 «¬173 LMNO C 5300 S

Mokeler Creek

1300 2200 1350 3150LMNO 2600 2700

MCGUIRE RD 15500 550

850 LMNO Rush Creek D 700 R Rush Creek 2250 N O IR Conservation t T r A i 1400 LMNO Area b L F Dunham N Hartland B r K i township s township h City of Harvard w Road Function Class «¬23 a uk e e

Township575 Boundary LMNO Signalized Intersection Unincorporated ¤£14 Open Space Principal Arterial

k e Minor Arterial e Cemeteries 3 6150 r C 2 350 550 - 475 100 e 3250 L n Major Collector I u rib Rus Water Bodies ry t h e Creek US-14 G Minor Collector Streams 2 Local Road or Street Metra Station Community Research 5400 Average Daily Traffic Count Forest Conservation Metra Rail Easement Source: Illinois Roadway

Freight Rail Information System, 2013. Van Maren e Conservation 0 0.25 0.5 Easement Airport Miles [ Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 72 Figure 9.3. Jurisdiction of Harvard streets. Fig 9.3 Roads Responsibility

Chemung Alden

township township LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE

Creek rence trib Law

OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

US-14 LMNO

k e e £14 r ¤ C LMNO r le e k trib Mo

D R

E V Beck's Woods O R Conservation G K A Area O

S «¬173 k e e r Soucie C IL-173

w NST DIVISION Conservation sc a sa Lions Park Pi Easement

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST HarvardLMNO Milky Way Metra Park Station

173 U «¬ H

IL-173 W BRINK ST S «¬173 LMNO

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD LMNO MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S LMNO h Creek Rus D R Rush Creek N O IR Harvard Conservation T t A r GatewayLMNO Area ib L F Dunham N Hartland Nature Park B r K i township s township h City of Harvard Roads Responsibility w «¬23 a uk e Township Boundary Jurisdictional/Maintenance e Unincorporated IDOT ¤£14 Open Space County Township or Road District Cemeteries US-14

2 - rib Ru Municipality L t sh Water Bodies I Creek Streams LMNO Signalized Intersection 2 Community Research Metra Station Forest Conservation Easement Metra Rail Source: Illinois Roadway Information System, 2013. Van Maren

Freight Rail Conservation e [ Easement k ee 0 0.5 1 Cr Airportne Miles yu er G 73 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. speeds.3 In addition, the overall width of the street affects the building height-to-width ratio, which is a way to measure the spatial definition or sense of enclosure that is important component of urban thoroughfares.

Most streets in Harvard have two moving lanes, one in each direction. In addition to the two moving lanes, portions of U.S. 14, IL Rt.173, and Airport Road all have center left-turning medians as well as right-turning lanes at intersections. Harvard Hills Road and Crowly Road have landscaped medians that allow for left-turns. City subdivision ordinance specifies required roadway widths in residential subdivisions and industrial or commercial developments. In residential subdivisions, local streets are required to have 66 feet of right of way and be 28 feet wide from curb to curb. In industrial or commercial developments, local streets are required to have 70 feet of right of way and be 31 feet wide from curb to curb. These standards are a little wider than the local street dimensions seen in some of Harvard’s older neighborhoods, where curbs are between 20 and 25 feet apart.

Street characteristics are also heavily influenced by the speed a street is designed to handle as well as the posted speed. In addition, speed plays a large role in how safe a street is. Higher operating speeds do result in higher crash severity; higher percentage of injury and fatality crashes and more serious property damage. Safety will be discussed in more detail towards the end of this chapter. In Harvard, most local streets have posted speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less. Most of the arterials and collectors are posted with speed limits between 30 and 45 miles per hour. The primary arterials have higher speeds outside of the main areas of the community.

Transit Harvard is served by Metra’s Union Pacific Northwest Line and Pace Bus Route 808 that provide connections to nearby communities as well as downtown Chicago. The following is a discussion regarding the transit issues and opportunities within the City as shown in Figure 9.1. Metra Passenger rail service continues to be important to the development of Harvard. The City’s Metra station allows residents to travel relatively quickly across the region. The Union Pacific Northwest Line (UP-NW) running from the Ogilvie Transportation Center (OTC) in downtown Chicago to Harvard travels through the City with a station in downtown. The Harvard station serves as the end of the UP-NW line and is located at N Eastman Street.

The Metra runs three express Chicago-bound (inbound) trains during rush hour (5:47 am, 6:22 am, and 7:08 am) that save 9 to 15 minutes and one non-express train at 7:35am. After rush hour, there are inbound trains departing Harvard at 9:35 am, 1:35 pm, 4:35 pm, 5:35 pm, and 8:35 pm. Similarly, Metra runs four afternoon rush hour Harvard-bound (outbound) express trains that arrive from OTC at 5:24 pm, 6:46 pm, 7:19 pm, and 8:06 pm. There are normal outbound trains from OTC that arrive in Harvard at 9:20 am, 1:20 pm, 3:20 pm, 6:05 pm, 10:20 pm, 11:20 pm, and 2:20 am.

Table 9.1 summarizes boardings, access, and parking availability for the Harvard Metra station. As of 2014, approximately 275 passengers boarded commuter trains at the Harvard Metra station on an average weekday (Table 9.2).

3 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, an ITE Recommended Practice. 2010. P. 136

In 2014, parking utilization at the Harvard station reached 81 percent and has been gradually increasing overall since 1987, with some fluctuations. Parking capacity drastically increased between 2001 and 2003 when Harvard added 88 parking spots, resulting in a low parking utilization rate at 66 percent in 2003. Parking at the Harvard station is available for $2/day or $20/month for permit users and there are seven accessible (ADA) parking spaces available for free. In addition to an onsite pay machine and a pre- paid card, a mobile application allows users to pay for parking via their smartphone for $1.85/day.

Table 9.1. Metra Boardings, Alightings, Access and Parking in Harvard, 2014 Metra Station Rail Line Boardings Alightings Parking Capacity Parking Utilization Harvard UP-NW 275 208 221 81% Source: RTAMS/ Metra 2014 Station Boarding/Alighting Counts: Train-by-Train Detail

Table 9.2: Ridership at Harvard Metra Station by Time of Day, 2014 Metra Ridership Direction Time of Day Total Station Measure Ridership (to/from Chicago) AM Peak PM Peak Other Times (Boardings) Boardings Inbound 202 21 52 275 Harvard Alightings Outbound 7 141 60 208 Source: Metra 2014 Station Boarding/Alighting Counts: Train-by-Train Detail

Table 9.3 illustrates important transit trends in the City. The primary mode of access to the stations is driving alone (approximately 64 percent), followed by being dropped off at 15%. None of the passengers bus or bike to the Harvard Metra station, despite its relative proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Table 9.3: Metra Mode of Access in Harvard, 2006 Station Walked Drove Alone Dropped Off Carpool Bus Bike Other Harvard 8% 64% 15% 11% 0% 0% 1% Source: Metra 2006 Origin-Destination Survey

Overall, Metra ridership in Harvard has increased throughout the years. Between 1999 and 2002, the Harvard Station experienced a ridership increase of 37 inbound passengers. This was followed by an increase of 15 in ridership between 2002 and 2006. Between 2006 and 2014 ridership stayed about the same, adding one more inbound passenger. Pace Pace provides a variety of transit services for communities including fixed bus routes, vanpools, and Dial- a-Ride programs. Within the City of Harvard, Pace Bus Route 808 provides weekday rush hour service to Harvard Mercy Hospital, Memorial Hospital (Woodstock), McHenry County Senior Citizens Council, McHenry County College, and Metra Stations in Harvard, Woodstock, and Crystal Lake. Within Harvard, the bus runs along a number of local streets between the Harvard Metra Station and Harvard Mercy Hospital, Ayers Street, Highway 173, and along U.S. Route 14 as shown in Figure 9.1. Ridership is substantially low which may be affected by several factors including route accessibility, residential density, frequency, and connections to employment and service locations (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4: Pace Route Ridership, 2013* PACE Bus Route Scheduled Headways Weekday Ridership 50 – 60 min. 808 Crystal Lake-Harvard AM Service: 6:30-9 68 PM Service: 2-6 Source: RTAMS * Ridership numbers are given for the entire route, not just portions within the municipality.

Pace provides a variety of carpool programs including Traditional Vanpool, Metra Feeder, Employer Shuttle, and Advantage Van. The Traditional Vanpool and Metra Feeder programs provide a platform for interested employees to form a carpool or vanpool group to get them between work and Metra stations or home. The Employer Shuttle and Advantage Van programs provide vans to employers for work- related trips, or qualified not-for-profits for work-related transportation service to persons with disabilities. MCRide The MCRide Dial-a-Ride service is McHenry County’s shared-ride, curb-to-curb service covering the communities of Crystal Lake, McHenry, Woodstock, Marengo, Huntley, and now Harvard as of March 2015. The City used to run its own Dial-A-Ride service, which was limited to three days a week with limited hours. Under MCRide, service is available six days a week with weekday service hours from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm and Saturday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Passengers may schedule rides from one hour before the pick-up time and up to a day before, although reservations must be made on a weekday. Service is open to the general public, seniors, or persons with disabilities and discounted fares for seniors, disabled passengers, or students are available. Rides are $2.00 per trip each way for adults and $1.00 per trip each way for seniors, students, and people with disabilities.

Airport Harvard’s Dacy Airport is a private airport that has over 100 acres of land and its facilities include three landing strips, hangars, a repair shop, a tie down area, a fueling area, and an office complex. The longest airstrip is 3,700 feet long and runs east-west, accommodating larger aircraft up to light twin-engine planes. The shortest airstrip runs north-south and is 2,650 feet in length.

Bicycling Non-motorized transportation is a unique component of a community’s transportation infrastructure. Bicycle circulation plays an important role in improving the community’s connectivity, physical and mental health, and perception of safety. While there are a number of planned and existing regional bicycle paths and routes on the outskirts of Harvard’s borders, most of the City lacks bicycle facilities.

There are two existing bicycle facilities within Harvard’s community, the regional Udder Century Bike Route and the Stone Mill Trail. These bicycle facilities provide recreational opportunities to the residents and provide connectivity to the larger McHenry County region. The Stone Mill Trail is a multi-use path that follows the rail line and Ramer Road just west of Harvard’s borders and allows for various types of non-motorized activity such as walking, jogging, and biking. The Udder Century Bike Route is a designated on-street bike route that shares the road with automobiles along S. Oak Grove Road and Lawrence Road and is used frequently by the McHenry County Bicycle Club. Signage for these bicycle

76 facilities is sparse and these routes could benefit from additional or more prominent wayfinding markers. Table 9.5 highlights some additional components of the bicycle network in Harvard.

Table 9.5: Existing Bicycle Network in Harvard Location Type Maintenance Comment Stone Mill Trail Path McHenry County From Maxon Road to Lawrence Road Western McHenry County regional trail Udder Century Bike Route Bike Route McHenry County through dairy country Source: Bikeway Inventory System, CMAP

Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a way of evaluating roadways by determining the amount of traffic stress someone on a bicycle would experience. LTS assigns a value (1 to 4) to each roadway based on posted speed limits, number of traffic lanes, centerline location, and average daily traffic counts.4 LTS 1 identifies low stress and comfortable streets for bicyclists, while LTS 4 identifies high stress and unfavorable streets for bicyclists (Table 9.6). Most neighborhood streets in Harvard would fall into the low stress category. However, in order to effectively use bicycling as a viable transportation alternative, bicyclists will likely have to cross or use some of the larger, busier arterials in Harvard. While this may be fine for some of the “strong and fearless” cyclists, these conditions may keep the majority of “interested but concerned” residents off the street.5

Table 9.6: Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists in Shared Traffic Conditions Street Width Speed Limit 2 or 3 lanes 4 or 5 lanes 6 lanes or more 25 mph or less LTS 1* or 2* LTS 3 LTS 4 30 mph LTS 2* or 3* LTS 4 LTS 4

35+ mph LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 *The lower LTS value applies on two-lane, local neighborhood streets without painted centerlines.

Walking Sidewalks The City’s sidewalk network is extensive with many streets having sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. However, there are several areas that have large gaps in their sidewalk network and other areas that lack sidewalks completely. According to the municipal Subdivision code, Harvard requires four-foot wide sidewalks in most areas of the community. The residential streets that do have sidewalks are mostly lined with landscaped parkways that provide a visual and physical separation between the roadway and sidewalk. Such streets are generally safe, attractive, and inviting for pedestrians. As noted in Section 7: Housing and Population, Harvard has several new subdivisions with undeveloped lots. The sidewalk network in these subdivisions is incomplete, but with new development will be incrementally filled in.

4 Mekuria, M. C., Furth, P. G., & Nixon, H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute. 5 Geller, Roger. Four Types of Cyclists. Available at: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507

While the downtown area of Harvard has a robust sidewalk network, the commercial corridor along U.S. 14 is completely devoid of sidewalks. Driveway entrances, particularly those with larger turning radii, can make pedestrians feel unsafe as they disrupt walkways. If sidewalks were present, it still may be hard to access businesses due to large building setbacks and extensive surface parking Connectivity Connectivity measures how easily residents, workers, and visitors can take full advantage of services, public spaces, and transportation options within Harvard. Connectivity is often measured by intersection density because this metric is closely correlated with levels of walking, bicycling, and transit use. Areas with short blocks and frequent intersections can also relieve vehicle congestion on major arterials due to the numerous different route options to a given destination, resulting in shorter, more direct trips.

Harvard’s street network and level of connectivity varies by land use and age of development. The City’s older neighborhoods, such as downtown and the residential areas to the north and southwest of the train station, generally provides a connected and walkable street pattern with block lengths (on one side) between 300 and 550 feet.

Some of the newer subdivisions were designed in a more curvilinear street pattern with larger blocks. With fewer intersections, these designs are generally considered less walkable than some of Harvard’s older neighborhoods. For example, the blocks in Countrybrook and Turtle Crossing can be over 900 feet and 1,100 feet long on one side, respectively. The City’s subdivision ordinance calls for residential blocks with lots less than 100 feet in width to be 1,200 lineal feet and for the maximum length of blocks with lots 100 feet and over in width to be 2,000 lineal feet. No blocks should be less than 900 lineal feet in length unless approved by the Plan Commission. Intersections and Crosswalks In addition to sidewalks, the design and frequency of intersections plays a large role in walkability. Unmarked intersections or low frequency of signalized intersections pose a challenge to pedestrians wishing to cross, especially on streets with higher traffic volumes. In addition, there may be a signalized intersection, but no sidewalks leading up to portions of the crossing. Large curb return radii at intersections can increase the distance pedestrians have to cross as well as increase the speed of vehicles making right hand turns. Shorter curb return radii and bump outs can make crossing the street easier for pedestrians. Almost all of the existing traffic signals in Harvard are without crosswalks. While most intersections in the downtown area have crosswalks, crosswalks are very sparse throughout the rest of the City. There are a handful of crosswalks along Division Street on the east side of the road. Additionally there are crosswalks along Garfield Road on the east side of the street between Diggins Street and Bourn Street.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Figure 9.5 shows the most recent data on pedestrian and bicycle crashes in Harvard, showing that there have been relatively few crashes in recent years. Most of the accidents have been spread throughout the Harvard community, however, there is a cluster of two incapacitating and one non-incapacitating pedestrian crashes in the downtown area near the Metra station. This is an area that likely has more pedestrians. There was one fatal bicycle crash between 2008 and 2012 at the intersection of Maxon and Graft Roads, not shown on the map.

Figure 9.4. Bicycle Facilities, Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Incidents

Parking Real or perceived parking availability can be a key determinant in how residents and visitors choose which travel mode to use. On-street parking can create a buffer between moving vehicles on the street and pedestrians on the sidewalk. It can also reduce the need for off-street parking, which consumes buildable land, necessitates driveways, and interrupts sidewalks. Off-street parking can also increase distances between destinations, which in turn, reduces pedestrian-friendliness. However, off-street parking may be necessary, and when provided, it is ideally at the side or rear of buildings, allowing buildings to be adjacent to the sidewalk and street. On-street parking is generally allowed throughout Harvard, with exceptions made for the main thoroughfares, like U.S. 14, Rt. 173, Diggins Street, Brink Street, Airport Road, and McGuire Road. On-street parking is occasionally restricted to one side of the road for narrower right-of-ways and is not allowed overnight throughout the community. The City informally allows the use of its off-street parking lots if overflow parking is needed in the downtown, which occasionally happens during community events. See Section 6: Land Use and Development for a discussion of parking requirements.

Freight Harvard has over 580 acres of land dedicated to industrial uses and many of these businesses employ sizeable numbers of people, making efficient and safe freight movement an important component of the City’s economy. U.S. 14 and Routes 173 and 23 provide trucks with access to the national highway system and O’Hare Airport. With 67 percent of all freight movement in the Chicago region done by truck, how trucks move within Harvard is important to the local industrial businesses as it is likely their main method of transportation at present. Industry trends in container size stress the importance of having Class I and II roads accessing industrial land uses.

The State of Illinois has designated U.S. 14, Route 173, and Route 23 as Class II roads (Figure 9.5). Class II roads are designed to handle the same weight and size restrictions as interstate freeways. Harvard has identified a number of local roads for truck movement, including Frisco Drive, Kennedy Drive, Northfield Avenue, and sections of West Blackman Street, East Brink Street, Brown Street, West Burbank Street, West Diggins Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street, Eighth Street, South Jefferson Street, West Park Street, Railroad Street, Ratzlaff Street, Lawrence Road, and Crowley Road. Stakeholders noted that truck drivers do not consistently follow local truck routes and are seen driving on roads that are inappropriate for truck use.

Additionally, the Chicago Chemung Railroad (CCUO) and Union-Pacific (UP) Railroad operate within the City of Harvard and connect Harvard rail freight to the larger Chicago and Wisconsin region. The UP railroad typically sees four to six freight trains per day south of Harvard and one to three freight trains north of Harvard. The CCUO railroad is used intermittently.

Figure 9.5. Railroad, Truck Routes, and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for trucks on Harvard streets.

Figure 9.4. Bicycle facilities, pedestrian, and bicycle crash incidents, 2008 - 12. Fig 9.4 Roads Safety - Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Incidents

Chemung Alden

township township LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE

k e re eek C ce Cr w trib Lawren sa a c is P OAK GROVE RD

Lawrence Creek

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

Beck's Woods Conservation Area D R E ¬173 V «

O R IL-173 Soucie

NST DIVISION Conservation K Lions Park A Easement

RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST

Milky Way

2 D

Park R

173 U «¬ H

IL-173 W BRINK ST S «¬173

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Rush Creek D R Rush Creek N O IR Harvard Conservation t T r A Gateway i L Area b F Dunham N Hartland Nature Park B r K i township s township h w «¬23 a uk e e

¤£14

k 2 US-14 City of Harvard e Metra Station e r C Regional Greenway and Trails Plan (2011) Pedestrian Crash (2008-12)

e IL-23 Township Boundaryn Metra Rail u rib Rus *# ry t h Non-incapacitating Injury e Existing Creek G

Unincorporated Freight Rail *# Incapacitating Injury e Programmed & Planned Open Space Airport Community ResearchBicycle Crash (2008-12) Cemeteries McHenry Council Bikeway Plan (2007) Forest Conservation(! Property Damage Easement Existing (! Reported, not evident Injury Water Bodies [ Van Maren 0 0.25 0.5 Programmed & Planned Conservation (! Non-incapacitating Injury Streams Miles Easement Future (! Incapacitating Injury Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 80 Figure 9.5. Railroad, Truck Routes, and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for trucks on Harvard streets. Fig 9.5 Freight and Truck Routes

Chemung Alden township township

k RD LAWRENCE e re C w nce Creek sa re a trib Law c is P

OAK GROVE RD 550 Lawrence Creek

S-

k e e £14 r ¤ C r le e k trib Mo

D R E V UP Railroad O R T

G S K A N

O Beck's Woods O I

S S

V «¬173 Conservation I Area D 445 Soucie

N Conservation Lions Park Easement & 495 Aquatic Center IL-173 Chicago Chemung Railroad 250 RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Way Park 655

Harvard R

Metra Z

Station L

«¬173 U 675 H 520 C IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST S

Mokeler Creek

AIRPORT RD MCGUIRE RD S DIVISION ST DIVISION S

Dunham Rush Creek D R Rush Creek N township O Conservation R Harvard I t T r A Gateway Area ib L Hartland F N Nature Park B r K i 420 s township h City of Harvard w State Maintained «¬23 a uk e Township Boundary Truck Routes e

Unincorporated ¤£14 Average Daily Open Space Traffic Count k 495 e US-14 Cemeteriese r 520 C

e IL-23 n u Water Bodies rib Rus ry t h e Locally Maintained Creek G Streams Truck Routes 2 Metra Station Community Research Source: IRIS, IDOT, 2013. Forest Conservation Metra Rail Easement [ Van Maren

Freight Rail 0 0.25 0.5 e Miles Conservation Airport Easement 81 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Road Construction Projects Several streets have recently been updated or are scheduled to be improved in the short or long-term future. The City of Harvard maintains an annual resurfacing program that prioritizes local roads that need maintenance block by block. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is metropolitan Chicago's agenda of surface transportation projects. The TIP lists all federally funded projects and regionally significant, non-federally funded projects programmed for implementation in the next four years. The TIP is updated and amended regularly through the CMAP Transportation Committee. Major project changes with the potential to affect the region's air quality undergo a conformity analysis, and are approved by the MPO Policy Committee. The TIP helps both the transportation community and the general public track the use of local, state, and federal transportation funds. Table 9.7 identifies the active TIP projects in Harvard and provides more detail on the project type, cost estimates, and target completion year. A number of TIP projects completed in recent years include the replacement of the bridge on Ayer Road over Mokeler Creek, the resurfacing of US 14, and the resurfacing of IL 173 from County Line Road to Flat Iron Road. In March 2015, the McHenry County Board approved funding for preliminary engineering for a full Interstate 90 and Route 23 interchange. At this time, the Illinois Tollway and the Illinois Department of Transportation have not committed to the project.

Table 9.7 Active Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Projects in Harvard Project Location Project Type Programming Agency Cost Totals Estimated Completion McHenry County Flat Iron Road Bridge from Over Replace Bridge Division of $850,000 2017 Mokeler Creek Transportation (MCDOT) IL 173 Marengo Road from Reconstruct/Repair IDOT District 1 $615,000 Completed Mokeler Creek Bridge Lawrence Road from Lawrence Replace Bridge MCDOT $1,065,000 Unknown Creek Tributary Oak Grove Road from West of McHenry County Council Replace Bridge $2,313,000 2017 US 14 of Mayors Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning TIP Database (http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/programs-and-resources/tip/tip-data/tip- map). Projects listed as of June 2014.

Travel Behavior Transportation, Employment, and Affordability Harvard residents are employed in all areas of the seven-county northeastern Illinois region (Figure 9.6). While the highest concentration of residents work in the City of Harvard and the larger McHenry County area, a large number of residents also work in the City of Chicago, see Table 9.8.

While the workforce of Harvard is largely concentrated in McHenry County, the workforce does come from all parts of the seven-county Chicago region in addition to other nearby counties such as Winnebago, Boone, and Walworth Counties (Figure 9.7 and Table 9.9). Nearly half (43.22 percent) of the workforce lives and commutes to Harvard from various communities in McHenry County, with 12.78 percent of those living within the City of Harvard.

Figure 9.6. Where Harvard’s residents work. Figure 9.7. Where Harvard’s workers live.

FigureFig 9.6 9.6. Where Where Harvard's Harvard’s Residents residents Work work. Whitewater Mukwonago East Employees by Census Tract (2011)Wind Troy Point 0 Caledonia Waterford NorthCity of Harvard

I2 Bay Racine1 - 10 Metra Station Mount Pleasant Rochester County11 - 25 Metra Rail Lines I2 I2 Racine Burlington I2 26Union - 50 ElmwoodAmtrak Station Grove Park 51 - 200 Sturtevant Amtrak Lines Rock Elkhorn County 201 - 358 Interstate/Expressway Delavan Walworth Darien Williams Bay County Lake Paddock Geneva Lake Kenosha I2 Fontana-on-Geneva Silver Kenosha Lake Lake Bristol County Wisconsin Walworth Pleasant Genoa UP-N City Prairie Sharon Twin Lakes I2 Spring Antioch Wadsworth Grove I2 Winthrop Hebron Richmond I2 Harbor Lake Harvard Zion I2

Illinois NCS Villa

Lindenhurst Old e Beach Mill Park

I2 Greenwood Ringwood Round I2 Creek e Capron e Wonder Lake Beach UP-N McCullom I2Fox Grayslake Poplar Lake Lake Round Caledonia I2 I2 Waukegan UP-NW Lake Johnsburg Round Lake Heights Machesney Grove Volo Lake Gurnee Park Park I2 Bull Mil w- N Third City I2 McHenry Woodstock I2 Loves Lakemoor I2 NCS Lake Lake Valley Green

Park I2 Hainesville e I2 Boone County County Oaks I2 North Holiday I2 Timberlane Prairie Round I2 ChicagoUP-N I2 Mil w- N Libertyville County Grove Hills Lake Park I2 Island Hawthorn I2 Rockford Belvidere McHenry UP-NW LakeI2 Garden Lake Woods Mil w- N Cherry Marengo Wauconda Bluff I2 I2 Mundelein Valley Prairie Oakwood Lake Mettawa Lakewood Hills Vernon Lake I2 Barrington NCS Union I2 Port Indian Hills UP-N Lake in I2 Barrington Tower Forest UP-NW Creek Crystal Fox River Lakes I2

Lake Kildeer I2 I2 Highwood the Hills e Long I2 Grove Cary I2 Grove Mil w- N I2 Lake I2 §94 North ¨¦ Zurich Bannockburn Trout Barrington I2 UP-NW Barrington Lincolnshire Highland Valley Deer I2 I2 Park I2 Algonquin Deerfield I2 Glencoe I2 Park I2 I2 Huntley Barrington Riverwoods UP-N Gilberts I2 I2 Hampshire East UP-NW Northbrook

Hills Wheeling I2 Northfield Sleepy Inverness Palatine e I2 Winnetka NCS Kingston Dundee Buffalo Mil w- N Pingree South I2 Hollow I2 Kirkland Barrington Grove Kenilworth Grove I2 I2 I2 I2 Genoa Carpentersville Arlington I2 West I2 Glenview Rolling Heights Mount Prospect Wilmette I2 UP-NW I2 Burlington Dundee Prospect Heights Meadows I2 Golf I2 90 Elk Grove I2 Evanston I2 § Hoffman Estates ¨¦ I2 Village Morton I2 I2 Pa cif ic N orth we st Lin e Des Met ra Un io n Grove Skokie I2 I2 I2 Elgin Me tra ortN h enC tral Servi ce Li ne I2 Plaines I2

Streamwood Mil w- N Schaumburg Rosemont Niles UP-N I2 I2 Mil w- W Bartlett Roselle I2

Campton Park I2

South e Bensenville I2

I2 Ridge I2 e UP-NW Hills Elgin I2 I2 Mil w- W Lincolnwood I2 Itasca Harwood I2 I2 Sycamore Virgil I2 190I2 I2 Franklin § Heights I2 I2 Hanover ¨¦ Addison I2 Park I2 I2 I2 Me tra M il wau k ee Dis trict We st L ine Elmwood I2 Park Schiller Park Cortland Lily Bloomingdale Norridge Park I2 Kane I2 Mil w- N Lake I2 UP-NW UP-N Creston Maple I2 Mil w- W, NCS Malta Melrose I2 River Grove DeKalb Wood I2 I2 I2

Park Glendale Carol Park I2 I2 I2 I2 Mil w- W, NCS

County Dale YORKRD I2 St. e Wayne Northlake Heights Stream Elmhurst UP-N, UP-NW Charles I2 Oak Me tra U ni on Pa cif ic Wes t L in e Stone ParkBellwood DeKalb I2 I2 Park Winfield I2 Mil w- N, M ilw -W, NCS I2 Elburn I2 I2 I2 UP-W I2 I2 I2 Geneva I2 I2 River Forest I2 I2 UP-W UP-W Villa I2 I2 West ChicagoI2 I2I2 I2 County I2 Lombard Park North UP-W Forest I2 I2 Berwyn I2 I2 Glen Berkeley 290 Park Riverside Wheaton ¨¦§ I2 I2 I2 Warrenville Ellyn Hillside Maywood I2 Batavia Westchester Cicero BNSF Kaneville Oak RiversideI2 I2 DuPage I2 El ec tric, S. Sh o re North Oakbrook Broadview I2 I2 Stickney I2 Brook I2 La GrangeI2 ParkI2 Herit ag e Aurora Terrace La Grange I2 I2 I2 County Downers Western Springs I2 BNSF Lyons Forest I2

I2 I2 I Roc k s. I2

Lee Big Rock Grove I2 McCook BNSF View Lisle I2 I2 e 88 I2 I2 I2WestmontI2 Brookfield I2I2 Summit I2 § I2 ¨¦ BNSF Clarendon Countryside

Waterman Hinckley Hinsdale Hodgkins Chicago SW S I2 e I2 Shabbona I2 Hills Indian Head Park BNSF Naperville Burr Bedford Park I2 I2 I2 Aurora I2 Herit ag e I2 I2 94 I2 355 Ridge 294 Bridgeview I2 ¨¦§ I2 Montgomery ¨¦§ ¨¦§ Justice Evergreen I2 I2 I2 Burbank Park I2 I2 I2 WillowbrookI2 I2 I2 Sugar Woodridge SW S I2 I2 55 I2 I2 I2 ¨¦§ Chicago I2 Hometown Grove I2 Hickory I2

Willow Ridge I2 Oak I2 I2 e Palos I2 I2 Yorkville Darien Herit ag eSprings Hills I2 I2 Plano Hills I2 Lawn I2 I2 I2 I2 Calumet Park Plainfield Bolingbrook Elec tric I2 Roc k I s.- Ma in I2 I2 Merrionette I2ParkI2 I2 Oswego Palos I2 Alsip I2 I2 Somonauk Sandwich Palos Worth I2I2 Lemont S. Sh ore I2 Riverdale Park Heights I2I2 Elec tric- M ain L in e Burnham I2 Will SW S Blue Dixmoor I2 Crestwood RobbinsI2 Posen

Herit ag e Island I2 Lockport I2 Markham Dolton Leland County MidlothianI2 I2

Orland Oak Harvey Kendall e Homer I2 Park Forest I2 Romeoville Glen I2 South Earlville Millbrook 57 Phoenix Lansing County Orland ¨¦§ Holland I2 Roc k I s. I2 Crest Hills Thornton Calumet Millington I2 Country Club Hills I2 La Salle Hill East New I2 I2 Hazel I2 City Homewood Hazel Plattville Herit ag e Crest

I2 Newark Shorewood I2 Elec tric- M ain L in e I County Lenox §80 I2 Crest Ford e Roc k I s. ¨¦ Sheridan Mokena Flossmoor

Joliet Roc k I s. I2 Heights SW S Miles e I2 Tinley Matteson OlympiaI2 Lynwood I2 Fields Chicago Glenwood 02.5 5 10 I2 Park Frankfort Heights I2 Rockdale ParkI2 Forest Sauk Village I2

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. I2 83 e I2

FigureFig 9.7 9.7. Where Where Harvard's Harvard’s Workers workers Live live.

Mukwonago Whitewater Employees by Census Tract (2011) East Wind Troy 0 City of Harvard Caledonia Point North Waterford I2 1 - 5 Metra Station Bay Racine Metra Rail Lines 6 - 10 Mount Pleasant Rochester County I2 Amtrak Station I2 Burlington11 - 25 I2 Racine Union Elmwood Rock 26 - 100 Grove Amtrak Lines Park Elkhorn Sturtevant County 101 - 300 Interstate/Expressway

Delavan Walworth Darien Williams Bay County Lake Paddock Geneva Lake Kenosha I2 Fontana-on-Geneva Silver Kenosha Wisconsin Lake Lake Bristol County Walworth Pleasant Genoa UP-N City Prairie South Sharon Twin Lakes I2 Beloit Spring Antioch Wadsworth Grove Winthrop I2 Hebron Richmond I2 Rockton Harbor Roscoe Lake Harvard Zion I2 NCS Villa

Illinois Old Round e Beach Mill Park

Machesney I2 Greenwood Ringwood Lake I2 Creek e Capron e Park Wonder Beach UP-N I2Fox McCullom Round Lake HeightsGrayslake Lake Lake Round Caledonia Poplar I2 I2 Lindenhurst Waukegan UP-NW Lake Johnsburg Grove Volo Lake Gurnee Park 90 I2 ¨¦§ Mil w- N Bull Third City McHenry Woodstock I2 I2 Timberlane Lakemoor I2 NCS Lake Lake Valley Green

Loves I2 Hainesville e I2 Park Boone County County Oaks I2 North Holiday I2 Prairie Round I2 ChicagoUP-N I2 Mil w- N Libertyville Winnebago County Grove Hills Lake Park I2 Island Hawthorn I2 Belvidere McHenry UP-NW Mettawa LakeI2 County Lake Woods Mil w- N Cherry Garden Marengo Wauconda Bluff I2 I2 Mundelein Rockford Valley Prairie Oakwood Lake Lakewood Hills Vernon Lake I2 Barrington NCS Union I2 Port Indian Hills UP-N Lake in I2 Barrington Tower Forest UP-NW Creek Crystal Fox River I2

Lake Lakes Kildeer I2 I2 Highwood the Hills e New I2 Grove Long Cary Deer I2 Grove Mil w- N I2 Lake I2 94 Milford North ¨¦§ Park Zurich Bannockburn Trout Barrington I2 UP-NW Barrington Highland Valley Lincolnshire I2 I2 Park I2 Algonquin Deerfield I2 Davis I2 Buffalo I2 I2 Junction Huntley Barrington Riverwoods UP-N Gilberts Grove I2 I2 Hampshire East UP-NW Northbrook

Monroe Hills Wheeling I2 Northfield Sleepy Inverness Palatine e WinnetkaI2 NCS Kingston Dundee Rolling Mil w- N Center Pingree I2 Glencoe I2 Kirkland Grove Hollow Meadows I2 WilmetteI2 South I2 I2 Genoa Carpentersville Arlington I2 Ogle I2 Glenview 90 Heights Mount Prospect KenilworthI2 ¨¦§ Barrington UP-NW I2 Burlington Prospect Heights West I2 County I2 Dundee EvanstonI2 Elgin Hoffman Estates I2 Golf Cook Morton

I2 Pa cif ic N orth we st Lin e Des Met ra Un io n Grove Skokie I2 I2 Me tra ortN h enC tral Servi ce Li ne I2 Plaines I2 Streamwood County Mil w- N Niles Schaumburg Rosemont I2

Mil w- W I2

39 Campton Park I2 e Bensenville

¨¦§ South Roselle I2 I2 Ridge I2 e UP-NW Hills Elgin I2 I2 Mil w- W Lincolnwood Sycamore I2 Itasca I2 I2 Hillcrest Virgil I2 Elk Grove 190I2 Harwood I2Wood ¨¦§ Norridge I2 Hanover Heights Addison Dale I2 Village I2 I2 Park I2 Me tra M il wau k ee Dis trict We st L ine Elmwood I2 Creston Cortland Lily Bloomingdale Schiller Park Park I2 Kane I2 Mil w- N Lake Northlake River Grove Malta I2I2 Mil w- W, NCS Chicago Rochelle 290 Melrose I2 DeKalb Maple Bartlett § River I2 I2 ¨¦ I2 Park

Carol Franklin I2 I2 I2

Mil w- W, NCS County YORKRD I2 Park St. e Wayne Park Forest Elburn Stream Elmhurst Charles Glendale I2 Oak DeKalb I2Me tra U ni on Pa cif ic Wes t L in e StoneI2 ParkBellwood I2 Park I2 I2 I2 I2 UP-W I2 Geneva Heights I2 I2 UP-W I2 UP-W West ChicagoI2 Villa Hillside I2 County Winfield I2 Lombard Park Berkeley UP-W Berwyn I2 I2 Glen WheatonI2 Westchester Maywood Steward §88 Warrenville Ellyn Broadview ¨¦ Cicero BNSF Batavia North Forest I2 Kaneville Oak La Grange Park Riverside DuPage Park I2 North Oakbrook I2 I2 Brook Hinsdale I2 I2 Herit ag e Aurora Terrace RiversideI2 I2 Forest View La Grange I2 I2 County Downers Western Springs I2 BNSF Lyons

Big Rock I2 I2

Lee Sugar Grove I2 Stickney I2 BNSF I2 Lisle e I2 I2 I2WestmontI2 Brookfield I2I2

Waterman Hinckley Grove BNSF Summit McCook Shabbona e I2 I2 Bridgeview BNSF Clarendon Naperville 294 Bedford Park ¨¦§ Justice Lee Aurora I2 Hills Herit ag e Montgomery ¨¦§355 Indian Head Park Hodgkins Countryside Burbank I2 County Willowbrook I2 Hometown Woodridge Oak Lawn SW S Darien Burr Chicago I2 RidgeHickory Hills

Ridge I2 e 55 Palos Compton Herit ag e Paw Paw Plano Yorkville ¨¦§ Palos I2 Willow Hills I2 Plainfield Bolingbrook Springs Park I2 I2 Alsip Oswego I2 Somonauk Sandwich Lemont Palos Worth I2 Heights Will SW S Midlothian Herit ag e Lockport I2 Leland Crestwood I2

Kendall County Orland Oak e Homer I2 Earlville Romeoville Glen Park Forest I2 Millbrook County Orland Mendota I2 Hills Roc k I s. La Salle Crest CountryI2 Club Hills Millington Hill New I I2 I2 I2

County Herit ag e Lenox

I2 Newark Plattville Shorewood I2 §80 e Roc k I s. ¨¦ Miles Sheridan Mokena

Joliet Roc k I s. I2 SW S e I2I2 02.5 5 10 Rockdale Tinley Matteson I2 Frankfort Park I2

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 84 e Table 9.8: Employment Location of Harvard Residents, 2011

Count Percent City of Harvard 476 11.14% City of Woodstock 386 9.04% City of Chicago 296 6.93% City of Crystal Lake 209 4.89% City of McHenry 148 3.46% Other Locations In Cook County, IL 588 13.76% In McHenry County, IL 503 11.77% In Lake County, IL 249 5.83% In DuPage County, IL 198 4.63% In Walworth County, WI 165 3.85% In Kane County, IL 157 3.68% In Winnebago County, IL 150 3.51% In Will County, IL 82 1.92% In McLean County, IL 57 1.33% In Boone County, IL 49 1.15% In Other Counties 559 13.09% Total Employed Population 4,272 99.98% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Table 9.9: Residence Location of Workers in Harvard, 2011 Count Percent City of Harvard 476 12.78% City of Woodstock 160 4.30% City of McHenry 95 2.55% Village of Lake in the Hills 84 2.26% City of Chicago 73 1.96% Other Locations In McHenry County, IL 795 21.34% In Winnebago County, IL 244 6.55% In Walworth County, WI 235 6.31% In Boone County, IL 220 5.91% In Cook County, IL 190 5.10% In Kane County, IL 172 4.62% In DuPage County, IL 146 3.92% In Lake County, IL 115 3.09% In Will County, IL 104 2.79% In DeKalb County, IL 100 2.68% In Other Counties 516 13.85% Total Employed Population 3,725 100.01% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics

Harvard’s regional location, roadway network, and limited transit system reduces the City’s accessibility to jobs in the region. Regional models show that 2.0 percent of the region’s jobs are accessible within a 45-minute drive of the City, and 1.4 percent of jobs are accessible with a less than 75-minute commute via transit. As shown in Table 9.10, these percentages are slightly lower than McHenry County and significantly lower than the rest of the region. This indicates that a large portion of Harvard residents may endure long commutes to work and may rely more on driving as a means to access jobs.

Table 9.10: Access to Jobs in the Region, by Travel Mode Harvard McHenry County Chicago Region Regional Jobs Accessible by Automobile1 74,412 jobs 147,049 jobs 1,105,197 jobs (in absolute number of jobs and (2.0%) (3.9%) (29.1%) percentage of the region’s total jobs) Regional Jobs Accessible by Transit2 53,882 jobs 196,913 jobs 1,129,679 jobs (in absolute number of jobs and (1.4%) (5.2%) (29.7%) percentage of the region’s total jobs) Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014. Weighted travel model for roadway and public transportation, with the base number of Total Jobs in the region estimated to be 3,802,984. 1 Accessible by Automobile = Regional jobs accessible within a 45-minute drive of an average household 2 Accessible by Transit = Regional jobs accessible within a 75-minute transit trip (bus or train) of an average household

Mode Share Mode share indicates what percentage of trips are taken using a specific type of transportation, such as driving alone or transit. Table 9.11 specifically examines how Harvard residents get to their places of employment compared to McHenry County and the region. The vast majority of Harvard residents drive alone, at rates mirroring regional averages and lower than McHenry County averages. The level of carpooling is almost three times that of the County and twice as much as the regional carpooling levels. This may indicate the Harvard residents are in need of more frequent transit service or service to different areas. The level of transit use is low compared to the region, but in line with that of McHenry County. When comparing the number of residents who work in Chicago (Table 9.8) to the number of Harvard residents who take public transit to work, less than half are possibly commuting by train. Harvard’s high percentage of residents working within the community (11 percent) is reflected in the fact that twice as many residents walk or bike to work than they do within McHenry County as a whole.

A number of factors may be influencing higher rates of driving in Harvard. Located in the far northwest corner of McHenry County, Harvard residents have to travel further to get to their jobs in Chicago or other cities in McHenry County than people who live in other parts of the County. Although transit options do exist in Harvard, service is limited and it is possible that transit does not connect well to residence or employment locations or that it is not time effective for residents.

Table 9.11 Mode Share, as Percentage of Work Trips Harvard McHenry County Region

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Work at Home* 61 N/A 7,677 N/A 171,635 N/A Drive Alone 2,772 71.46% 124,413 86.73% 2,731,969 72.50% Carpool 814 20.98% 11,319 7.89% 348,682 9.25% Public Transit 116 2.99% 4,282 2.99% 489,131 12.98% Walk or Bike 124 3.20% 2,211 1.54% 154,848 4.11% Other 53 1.37% 1,218 0.85% 43,476 1.15% Total Commuters 3,879 100.00% 143,443 100.00% 3,768,106 100.00% Source: 2008-12 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau *Not included in "total commuters."

By looking at commuting habits of City residents, it may be expected that the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by Harvard households would be lower than the McHenry County average (Table 9.12) due to the lower percentages of people driving alone. However, Harvard households drive only 30 miles less than McHenry County as a whole. This likely reflects the longer distances Harvard residents have to travel to get to work than the rest of McHenry County. In addition, VMT data also includes travel for other daily activities in addition to commuting and may indicate Harvard residents travel more to reach non-work destinations.

Table 9.12 Total Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Household Harvard McHenry County Region Annual VMT per household 23,444 23,474 18,272 Source: CNT, calculated for Municipal Energy Profiles, “H+T Affordability Index”

Table 9.13 shows the percentage of total income a household earning the region’s average median income would spend on housing and transportation if that household lived in the average home in Harvard, McHenry County, or the Chicago metropolitan region.6 The combined cost of housing and transportation in Harvard is considerably lower than in other McHenry County communities and on par with the regional average. On average, Harvard households spend $1,172 on housing and $1,303 on transportation each month. Overall, a Harvard household with the region’s median income would spend 49.28 percent of their income on housing and transportation, making it an affordable place to live by both regional and County standards.

Estimated transportation costs include three components of travel behavior: auto ownership, auto use, and transit use. Auto ownership costs include full-coverage insurance, license, registration and taxes, depreciation, and finance charges; auto use costs include gas, maintenance, and tires to estimate an average operating cost per mile; and transit use costs are based on data collected from the National Transit Database for directly operated and purchased transportation revenue.7 The high commuting rate

6 The CNT H+T Index is based on the region’s Area Median income of $60,289, while the median household income of Harvard is $51,434. 7 H+T Index. Center for Neighborhood Technology. Accessed July 25, 2014 at http://htaindex.cnt.org/downloads/HTMethods.2011.pdf

87 of Harvard residents and lower access to regional employment opportunities are factors that likely influence this imbalance in transportation costs that is seen throughout McHenry County and the region.

Table 9.13: Housing & Transportation Costs as Percent of Income per Household Harvard McHenry County Chicago Region (MSA) Housing Costs 23.34% 32.84% 28.15% as percent of income Average Monthly Housing Cost $1,172.68 $1,649.84 $1,414.40 $ / month Transportation Costs 25.94% 25.98% 21.82% as percent of income Average Monthly Transportation Cost $1,303.17 $1,305.04 $1,096.06 $ / month “H+T” Costs 49.28% 58.81% 49.97% as percent of income Source: CNT, “H+T Affordability Index”: http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/ Note: Red text if the percentage exceeds the standard threshold of affordability: 30% for housing costs, 15% for transportation costs, and 45% for housing and transportation costs combined.

10. Natural Environment This section examines the water and land resources in Harvard and the surrounding area, including subregional green infrastructure, city parks, farmland, surface waters, watershed plans, groundwater resources, municipal water system, stormwater management, wastewater, and energy use.

Key Findings  Harvard and its surroundings are endowed with an abundance of green infrastructure. Centered on numerous riparian corridors, McHenry County Conservation District properties, and high-quality wetlands, the natural resources of the area are an asset and contribute to the character of the community.  Prime soils and farmland characterize the agricultural nature of the planning area. Agricultural land use as a working landscape adds to the economic, cultural, and aesthetic nature of the area. Farms have the potential to meet the diverse needs of the greater Chicago metropolitan region.  Aquifers, classified as sensitive to contamination, underlie the majority of the planning area. Development and other land-use activities have the potential to negatively impact the sensitive aquifers that Harvard and others depend on for drinking water.  Regional withdrawals from the deep-bedrock aquifers are outpacing recharge rates. Harvard depends on the deep-bedrock aquifer for a large portion of its drinking water supply; implementation of local and regional water conservation and efficiency measures will be essential for sustainable use of this resource.  Harvard’s energy and emissions profile shows the large impact of its commercial and industrial businesses. The City’s electricity and natural gas consumption per household are lower than those of McHenry County. But the share of consumption by commercial and industrial users is much higher. Focused work on efficiency improvements in the commercial and industrial sectors could lead to major improvements in overall energy consumption and emissions in Harvard.

Green Infrastructure The Harvard Green Infrastructure system is comprised of the network of land and water resources that perform natural ecosystem functions and provide a variety of services and benefits to people and wildlife. These resources are commonly referred to as green infrastructure to highlight the importance of these natural resources to society and the term can be used to describe natural processes at the landscape scale down to the building scale. At the broadest scale, green infrastructure is a network of land parcels, ideally interconnected, that are undeveloped and of a natural-community type (e.g., oak savannah, wetland, etc.). This network plays a key role in the local hydrologic cycle as well as in the functioning of other ecosystem processes. Green infrastructure provides a number of ecosystem services, such as clean water, stormwater management, flood control, clean air, wildlife habitat, soil retention, nutrient recycling, groundwater recharge (for provision of drinking water), climate regulation, among others.

As a compilation of resources, the green infrastructure of Harvard includes areas that are protected through existing laws and public ownership as well as areas not currently protected but are important resources to be considered in land use change and management decisions. Given that review of individual development proposals may miss the interconnected network of green infrastructure in the area, the regional Green Infrastructure Vision (GIV) and the McHenry County Green Infrastructure Plan (County GI) were developed to help decision makers see this larger context. Figure 10.1 illustrates green

89 infrastructure that has been identified at both the regional and county for the City of Harvard and its extended planning area.8 Green infrastructure encompasses 10,827 acres or nearly half (47 percent) of the Harvard planning area. The County GI plan, the result of a different planning process as described below, is a subset of the regional GIV and represents about 83 percent (8,952 acres) of the GIV identified at the regional scale. This is largely due to the County GI plan being more focused on riparian corridors, though not exclusively. The majority of Harvard’s green infrastructure is currently in private ownership.

Figure 10.1. Green infrastructure in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area.

Land Resources

McHenry County Green Infrastructure Plan Modeled after the regional GIV9, the purpose of the County GI plan is twofold: 1) to support the related objectives of the McHenry County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and 2) to provide a recommended approach to implementing green infrastructure by highlighting existing opportunities at every scale.10 The County GI plan offers insight into green infrastructure protection techniques and scale-specific strategies and applications. The plan features recommendations of implementation and makes clear that success depends on collaboration among many jurisdictions and individuals. The County GI plan features a wealth of information related to the natural resources that McHenry County is endowed with. For example, McHenry County represents one percent of the state’s land area, but it contains five percent (69 of 1,349 Illinois sites) of the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites, which are identified by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources as particularly high quality wetlands, prairies, woodlands, and streams. Several McHenry County Natural Areas Inventory (MCNAI) sites are located within the Harvard planning area (Figure 10.1). There are ten MCNAI sites (1,427 acres) that are at least partially situated in the planning area. Similarly, the County is among the leaders in the state for number of species listed on the IDNR database of endangered and threatened species.

McHenry County Conservation District The McHenry County Conservation District (MCCD) manages 25,104 acres of open space and wildlife habitat throughout the County for the benefit of the public. Nearly 950 acres of MCCD property lies within the Harvard planning area as two separate sites: Beck’s Woods and Rush Creek Conservation Area. Beck’s Woods, consisting of 283 acres, is situated along Piscasaw Creek and provides fishing opportunities, hiking trails, and campground facilities. Rush Creek Conservation Area, 664 acres, consists of a mixture of upland forest, oak and hickory woodlands, wetlands and sedge meadows, as well as recreational trails, fishing ponds, and campground facilities. The McHenry County Community Research Forest, a 92-acre oak woodland, is also within the planning area. In addition, MCCD maintains the Stone Mill Trail, a 1.5-mile trail located between Lawrence Road in Harvard near Milky Way Park to Maxon Road in Chemung. The Stone Mill Trail follows alongside a railroad right-of-way and Ramer Road. The MCCD plans to extend the trail 4.5 miles to the Boone County line.

8 The City and its extended planning area covers 23,022 acres or about 36 square miles. 9 The Green Infrastructure Vision (GIV) was developed by Chicago Wilderness and is a regional-scale plan that identified and mapped over 140 recommended resource protection areas that cover 1.8 million acres across the Chicago Wilderness planning area. 10 McHenry County Green Infrastructure Plan. McHenry County, Illinois. July 2012. Authors: D. Dreher and D. Moore. Available at https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/county-government/departments-j-z/planning-development/green-infrastructure-plan Accessed 1/22/15

Figure 10.1. Green infrastructure in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Fig 10.1 Green Infrastructure

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Chemung Alden C r township township

W B Bangert r P Conservation is c a s US-14 Easement a Stowe w Conservation High Point Easement Conservation

Area t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

Beeson W Simon

B Conservation t r Conservation r P i Easement i b s Easement c M a L o ittle s Bea a k IL-173 ve w e Crowley r l e

C C 14 r

r ¤£ r C Sedge

e e

e r e e

k Meadow e k

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D Soucie C N Lions saw Conservation ca Park Pis Easement Harvard HU Beck's Woods NTER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Conservation Milky Station

Way 2 D

Area R Park

«¬173 U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

eek eler Cr Mok AIRPORT RD Conservation k S DIVISION S ST ree h C Area Rus

D R Rush Creek N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR Gateway Conservation T A L F Nature Park Area

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

Community Research Forest Conservation Easement Van Maren U S Conservation -1 Easement 4

IL-23

yune Cree k tr Ger ib Ru City of Harvard Watersh BodiesCreek Tree Canopy Coverage Woodstock Center 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer ADID Wetlands (2005)Value High Conservation Easement Township Boundary Streams Medium 2 Low Woodstock Center Unincorporated Metra Station Conservation Easement

Green Infrastructure Vision (McHenry County) Metra Rail Source: National Land Brookdale N

trib B

Cover Database, 2011. N r Conservation K

B DEEP CUT RD r i

Green Infrastructure Vision (Chicago Wilderness) Freight Rail s

K Area h w e is hwa uk a Existing Oaks Coverage (2012) e u [ e k Airport e 0 0.5 1 e

Miles i McHenry County Natural Area Inventory (Land Conservancy) v

r 91 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Figure 10.2 features the MCCD properties and other types of open space. As shown in Figure 10.1, three of the ten MCNAI sites are either partially or entirely within an existing MCCD property. Seven MCNAI sites are in private ownership. Future acquisition plans by MCCD are likely centered on the MCNAI sites that are currently in private ownership.

Figure 10.2. Open Spaces in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area.

Two Illinois Land and Water Reserves exist outside of the Harvard Planning area, the Maunk-Sook Sedge Meadow and Savanna Land and Water Reserve (68 acres) and the Halo Hill Tree Farm and Artists Retreat Land and Water Reserve (445 acres). As conservation easements held by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, permanently registered reserves may qualify for reduced tax benefits in the form of a local property tax reduction and possibly a charitable contribution deduction on federal income taxes. In addition, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service maintains a 22-acre wetland reserve near the intersection of Lincoln Road and Irish Lane, which is just outside of the Harvard planning area. The Land Conservancy of McHenry County (TLC) also holds conservation easements for three sites in the planning area, a 121-acre site near the intersection of White Oaks Road and Graf Road which is actively farmed, two sites near the intersection of Crowley Road and Route 173 totaling 14 acres. In addition, TLC recently purchased 17.5 acres at the intersection of Route 23 and U.S. 14. Known as Gateway Nature Park, the property includes three remnant oak groves, sedge meadows, wet prairie habitat, and a portion of Rush Creek. Harvard Parks Harvard’s Parks and Recreation Department owns and maintains a number of recreation-oriented open space within the city. From the City website, Table 10.1 lists the parks by City ward and amenities available. With 9,447 residents and 129 acres of public open space within the City, a ratio of fourteen (13.65) acres per 1,000 people is currently in place. GO TO 2040 recommends at least 4 acres per 1,000 people in the densest areas of the region and 10 acres per 1,000 for less dense areas. Harvard exceeds this CMAP-recommended minimum ratio and should consider resident distance to nearest park during any evaluation of park property expansion.

Table 10.1 City of Harvard parks. Facility Name Acres Ward / Location Amenities 2 playgrounds; 2 shelters; McFarlin Field (3 softball diamonds with lights, HERS league games); aquatic center/swimming Lion’s Park 35 1 / Northeast pool; sledding hill, walking path; disc golf; ice-skating rink, washrooms; shelter/picnic area Jaycee Park 2.15 1 / Northeast Playground; shelter Northfield Avenue Tennis courts; playground; walking path; 2 gazebos; 7.92 2 / Northwest Park washrooms; open field 2 baseball diamonds with lights & batting cage; Boys league Moose Athletic Field 6.99 2 / Northwest games; shelter, washrooms Park Pointe 6.7 3 / Southeast Fishing pier, walking path, playground; basketball 3 soccer fields; 2 football fields; 4 baseball/softball diamonds; Milky Way Park 55 4 / Southwest playground; 2 shelters; walking path; washrooms; open fields Mary D. Ayer Park 1.9 4 / Southwest Playground; shelter; basketball Country Brook 3.2 4 / Southwest Playground; gazebo; open fields Shadow Creek 9.8 4 / Southwest Playground; tennis courts; basketball; open field Source: City of Harvard

FigureFig 10.2. 10.2 Open Open spaces Spaces in in Harvard Harvard and and 1.5-mile 1.5-mile planning planning area. area.

t r ib awrence Maunk-Sook Sedge W L Creek Br Meadow and Savanna ALDEN RD Pi sc Land and Water Reserve as aw Cr Chemung Alden township township

W B Bangert r P Conservation is c a s Easement a Stowe w Conservation High Point US-14 Easement Conservation t Area rib N ipp ersin

LAWRENCE RD k

e k

k e OAK GROVE RD e tr ek r ib e Cre C Lawrenc w a s a

P Beeson Conservation W Simon B

Easement r t r Conservation P i i b s Easement c M a L o ittle s Bea a k IL-173 ve w e Crowley r l

C C r

r ¤£14 r Sedge

e e C e e r

k k e Meadow e k

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S «¬173

Northfiled V

Park D Soucie

N Lions Park Conservation Easement Harvard HUNT Beck's Woods ER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Conservation Milky Station

Way 2 D Area Mary D R

Park Z

Ayer Park T 173 L «¬ U

IL-173 «¬173 C W BRINK ST S

r Creek okele M AIRPORT RD Conservation

S DIVISION S ST ek Cre Area sh Ru

D R Rush Creek N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR Gateway Conservation T A L F Nature Park Area

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

Community Research Forest Conservation Easement Van Maren U S Conservation -1 4 Halo Hill Tree Farm & Easement Artists Retreat Land and Water Reserve

IL-23 une Creek tr ery ib Ru City ofG Harvard Nature Preserves (IDNR, 2014) sh Creek McHenry County Conservation District Woodstock Center 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Conservation Township Boundary Conservation Easement Easement Unincorporated Open Space, Primarily Recreation Woodstock Center Conservation Open Space, Primarily Conservation Water Bodies Easement Brookdale Common Open Space in Residential Development Streams Conservation DEEP CUT RD

Non-Public Open Space tr Area v ib N i 2 B R

Metra Station r K e is e

Golf Course h k w u

Metra Rail auke a e w

Agriculture h

[ s i

0 0.5 1 K Freight Rail r Cemeteries Miles Shevel Conservation DUNHAM RD B Easement N Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 93 Agriculture McHenry County has a rich history of farming and approximately 57 percent of the County’s land area remains in agricultural production. Northwestward expansion of metropolitan Chicago and associated population growth resulted in the conversion of agricultural land to development; a trend that continued up until the recent recession of 2008-2009. Concern for the rapid loss of agricultural land, including the prime soils at its foundation, led to the passage of the Agricultural Areas Conservation and Protection Act (P.A. 81-1173; 505 ILCS 5) in 1980. According to this Act, a protected agricultural area shall only be used for agricultural production for a period of ten years and has to meet size and contiguity requirements. McHenry County is one of twenty-three counties in Illinois with local county board approved protected agricultural areas and, as of 2013, has nine voluntary agricultural areas for a total of 20,796 acres. There is one protected agricultural area of 121.5 acres within the southwestern portion of Harvard’s planning area (Figure 10.3). Stakeholders report that one benefit of this designation is protection against nuisance complaints.

Within Harvard, approximately 2,647 acres or 50 percent of the City is classified as agriculture and has the potential to be converted to other land uses. In addition, a larger majority of the planning area is agricultural land. Much of the planning area is considered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Prime Farmland, which is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food and other agricultural products largely due to the presence of Prime soils. The extent and location of Prime soils are illustrated in Figure 10.3. Where development has already occurred, these soils will have most likely been heavily disturbed and will no longer be present. At the County scale, prime soils comprise about 57 percent of the county’s area with an additional 20% considered potentially prime if drained.11 Figure 10.3 indicates where soils have Prime potential if drainage is implemented and those areas correspond well with the presence of hydric soils.

Hydric soils are soils that develop under sufficiently wet conditions such that they support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soils are sufficiently wet in the upper part of the soil profile to develop anaerobic conditions during the growing season. The presence of this soil type is used as one of three key criteria for identifying the historic existence of wetlands. Knowledge of hydric soils has both agricultural and nonagricultural implications in land use planning. An understanding of the location, extent, and pattern of hydric soils can inform planners, builders, and engineers and influence their project design and location decisions when land-use change is under consideration.

During the planning process, residents expressed a desire to preserve the agricultural lands surrounding the community, recognizing their value as a historic, cultural, and aesthetic resource. In addition, farming is recognized as a key component of the local economy and some residents support agricultural tourism as an economic development strategy. The viability of agricultural use is highly dependent on a number of factors, economic and otherwise, that determine whether agricultural operations are able to remain active either through the open market or through strategies that preserve agricultural use.

The nature and intensity of agricultural land-use also impacts other valuable resources in the community. For example, some agricultural practices can result in the introduction of pollutants into the environment, significant consumption of groundwater resources for irrigation, contamination of shallow

11 Soil Survey of McHenry County Illinois (2002) as cited in the McHenry County, Illinois 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Available at https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=7843 Accessed 1/22/15

94 groundwater resources by chemicals, the loss of topsoil and erosion into local waterways, and the degradation of surface water resources such as streams, wetlands, and lakes.

Figure 10.3. Prime farmland and hydric soils

Water Resources Watersheds Harvard is located within the north-central portion of the Kishwaukee River Basin. The city is roughly subdivided between the Lawrence Creek Watershed to the north and the Mokeler Creek and Rush Creek Watersheds to the south. A very small portion of the city includes the Piscasaw Creek Watershed in the northwest. Both Piscasaw Creek and Rush Creek Watersheds are more prominent in the 1.5-mile planning area (Figure 10.4).12

A watershed plan was developed for Lawrence Creek in 2008 and endorsed by the Harvard City Council by way of resolution in April 2009. The plan makes several recommendations to improve water quality including agricultural best management practices (BMPs), urban runoff BMPs related to stormwater management, and riparian ecosystem restoration.13 Four urban retrofit project recommendations are located within the City and four of six habitat restoration project recommendations are situated within either the City or its planning area. Most, but not all agricultural-related BMP recommendations are beyond the planning area (Figure 10.5). Figure 10.5 also identifies several Protection and Restoration Priority Areas that are recommendations made by the Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership, based on the presence of wetlands, good quality stands of native trees (oak stands of 25 acres or more), the presence of threatened or endangered species nearby, the MCNAI, and other factors. To date, no watershed plan recommendations have been implemented but likely remain viable strategies to improve watershed health. There are no other EPA-compliant watershed plans in the planning area, but the Kishwaukee Ecosystem Partnership has developed baseline assessments for each of the watersheds within the river basin.14

Figure 10.4. Sub-basins and watersheds. Figure 10.5. Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan recommendations, 2008.

Figure 10.6 illustrates the location and extent of waterbodies, wetlands, and floodplains within the Harvard planning area. One hundred-year floodplains lie primarily outside City limits and account for 3,561 acres or just over 15 percent of the planning area. Floodplains are dominant features of the Lawrence Creek and Piscasaw Creek networks in the northwestern part of the planning area, and Mokeler Creek and Rush Creek in the southern half of the area. Floodways have been delineated within the City following Mokeler Creek. Wetlands are a common feature of the planning area with high quality wetlands (as identified by the McHenry County Advanced Identification (ADID) projects) occurring near

12 These streams have been classified as 12-digit hydrologic units (subwatersheds) with the following codes (HUC): Lawrence Creek / HUC #070900060301, Mokeler Creek / HUC #070900060305, Rush Creek / HUC #070900060206, and Piscasaw Creek / HUC #070900060306. More information about hydrologic units can be found at: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html Accessed 2/12/15 13 CMAP, 2008. “Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan: Technical Report” See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/livability/water/water- quality-management/watershed-planning 14 Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership. http://krep.bios.niu.edu/index_files/page0003.htm Accessed 1/28/15

Figure 10.3. Prime farmland and hydric soils in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Fig 10.3 Prime Farmland and Hydric Soils

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Alden C r township

W B r P is c a s US-14 a w High Point Chemung Forest Preserve township t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

B r

P i s c L a k ittle s e Be a e IL-173 ave w r r C C C r 14 e r r ¤£ l e e e e e k k k o M trib

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D C N Lions saw ca Park Pis Beck's Woods Harvard HU NTER RD Forest RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Preserve Milky Station

Way 2 D Park R

«¬173 U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

eek eler Cr Mok AIRPORT RD Forest

S DIVISION S ST Preserve

reek Rush C

D R Rush Creek N MCGUIRE RD O IR Forest T A Preserve L Dunham F

township «¬23 Hartland township ¤£14

U S -1 4

IL-23 Farmland Types yune Cree k tr Ger ib Ru Citysh Cr eofek Harvard All Areas Are Prime Farmland

er 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Only Drained Areas Are Prime Farmlandiv wa R Kish u ee Br k Township Boundary Not Prime Farmland N 2 Metra Station Protected Agricultural Areas Metra Rail Hydric Soils trib N Brookdale B DEEP CUT RD

Freight Rail rWater BodiesForest

K e is Preserve hwa uk Airport ADID Wetlandsee (2005) [ Streams 0 0.5 1 Miles Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 96 Figure 10.4. Sub-basins and watersheds. 10.4 Major River Basins and Watersheds

Pike-Root

Crawfish WI IL Lower ! Upper Rock Harvard Fox Crawfish Kishwaukee River Basin White Des Turtle River Plaines Creek Watershed Lower Green Fox Watershed

Chicago Upper Fox IN River Basin Upper Illinois Walworth KaCnkaokeue nty

Rock Walworth Picasaw County County Creek Watershed Wisconsin

W B Illinois r P tr eC is ib wrenc reek Nippersink ca W Kishwaukee a s L a Br w P Creek is

a River Basin Watershed

w C

r Nippersink Creek

ek Cre ink t ppers ri Ni b rib L t a w re nceC r e W ek Little Bea B Beaver verC r

r P e

e Creek k c

s a

Watershed w

e e

k N BrK i s

h w

Harvard I2 a

k u

e k

re e

C e

w R a i

cas eek v r e Pis eler C Mok r k Cree Rush

k ree tr C ib Rus h S un e Cre lo ery ek ugh G C re e k

Rush Creek-Kishwaukee Boone McHenry River Watershed

County County tri b N

Br K

i K s trib is h h w w

a a u k u Major River Basins County Boundary ee k R ee

e Watersheds City of Harvard r Subwatersheds Water Trails

LakeMichigan Meterka Rail Lines Cre ud Miles I M 0 1 2 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Figure 10.5. Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan recommendations, 2008. Fig 10.5 Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan Recommendations, 2008 !( !(

t r i b rence ALD W !( Law Cr B eek E r N R P i sc D as Chemung Alden aw Cr Township Township !(!( Headwaters Piscasaw !( Bangert W Creek Subwatershed !( Conservation B r P !(!( !( Easement

-14 !( is !( c

a US s !( a Stowe w !( Conservation Easement !( !( LAWRENCE RD !( !( Lawrence Creek Nippersink tr Subwatershed !( ib Creek N i p

West Branch k !( !( p e !(!( !( Watershed

!(!( e e !(

r r !( s Piscasaw Creek i C OAK GROVE RD n tr k w ib reek a e C C Subwatershed s Law enc !( a !( r !( !( r Town of c !(!( !( e is e k P !( Alden !( Subwatershed Beeson

t Conservation r Wicker

i B !( !( b Easement r Conservation M P !( o Lit i Easement tle s !( k B c ea e ve a Crowley !( l r s e

a ¤£14 r

r w Sedge

e r

e C e

k Meadow

r e e k e k !( !( !( !( !( D R !(!( E Burr Oak !( V !( O 1 R G Cemetery K !( A 4 O Subwatershed S !(3 «¬173 Lions Soucie Conservation Park Easement !(2 North Branch H Mokeler Creek Kishwaukee River UNTER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky Subwatershed Subwatershed Way Harvard 2 Beck's Woods Park Metra Conservation Station «¬173

Area IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST

T S N

Creek O

I S ler I

oke V

M AIRPORT RD I Conservation

D S Area

k Cree D sh R Ru Rush N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR T Gateway A L Creek-Kishwaukee F Picasaw Nature Park «¬23 River Watershed Creek Watershed Rush Creek Rush Creek ¤£14 Subwatershed Conservation Area

Piscasaw Creek Dunham Hartland Van Maren U Township S Subwatershed -1 Conservation 4 Township Easement

trib Rush Creek

reek e C un ry 2 Citey of Harvard Metra Station !( Habitat Restoration Projects G 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Metra Rail !( Potential Urban BMP Retrofit Locations Woodstock Center

Township Boundary Freight Rail !( Potential Wetland Locations Conservation e Easement

Unincorporated Protection/Restoration Priority Areas Airport N RD T tr B CU

i r Open Space Cropland Within 100 ft Buffer b N EP B K DE

r i s

K h Cemeteries High Priority Buffer Needs ishw w au a Mud Creek ke u e k Water Bodies [ Subwatersheds e 0 0.5 1 e

Subwatershed R Miles i

Streams Watersheds e

r Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. streams and within floodplains as evident in Figure 10.6. High-functional value wetlands identified via the ADID process15 account for 2,048 acres or about 9 percent of the planning area. Farmed wetlands are not mapped, but undoubtedly occur throughout the agricultural land that dominates the planning area.

Figure 10.6. Waterbodies, wetlands, and floodplains.

Surface Water Quality Report The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) collects water quality data for Illinois streams and lakes to assess the status of designated-use attainment. Water quality has been assessed within or near the City for segments of Lawrence Creek, Mokeler Creek, Rush Creek, and Piscasaw Creek. According to the IEPA’s Section 303(d) List for 2014, five of ten assessed designated uses have been identified as impaired (Table 10.1). Specifically, both segments of Lawrence Creek are impaired for their designated uses and are categorized as a low to medium priority by the state. The impairments identified in Mokeler Creek (one of two segments assessed) and Lawrence Creek are connected to a range of potential sources, including municipal point source discharges, urban runoff/storm sewers, channelization and changes in flow regime, atmospheric deposition, and other unknown sources.

Table 10.1. Water quality status and impairments within Harvard planning area. Waterbody and Designated Use Status/Cause of Impairment Source of Impairment segment ID Alteration in stream-side or littoral Channelization; Municipal Point vegetative covers; other flow Mokeler Creek Source Discharges; Site Aquatic Life regime alterations; IL_PQEA-H-C1 Clearance; Urban Runoff/storm Sedimentation/Siltation; Cause sewers; Crop production Unknown Mokeler Creek Aquatic Life Fully Supporting N/A IL_PQEA-01 Mokeler Creek Not assessed N/A N/A IL_PQEA-H-A1 Lawrence Creek Aquatic Life Cause Unknown N/A IL_PQEC-A Lawrence Creek Industrial Point Source Aquatic Life Phosphorus (Total) IL_PQEC-C Discharge Rush Creek IL_PQH- Aquatic Life; / Fully Supporting; Fully Supporting N/A 01 Aesthetic Quality Piscasaw Creek Atmospheric deposition – Fish Consumption Mercury IL_PQE-07 toxics; Source Unknown Piscasaw Creek Atmospheric deposition – Fish Consumption Mercury IL_PQE-06 toxics; Source Unknown PiscasawCreek Aquatic Life; Fully Supporting; Fully Supporting N/A IL_PQE-06 Aesthetic Quality Source: IEPA, Section 303(d) List, 2014. See http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d-list.html

15 The ADvance IDentification of disposal areas planning process (ADID) is used to identify wetlands and other waters that are either suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged and fill material. Wetlands that meet certain criteria are deemed ‘high-functional value’ and thus, are unsuitable for accepting dredged and fill material. For more information, see http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact28.cfm

Figure 10.6. Waterbodies, wetlands, and floodplains in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Fig 10.6 Waterbodies, Wetlands, and Floodplains.

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Chemung Alden C r township township

W B Bangert r P Conservation is c a s US-14 Easement a Stowe w Conservation High Point Easement Conservation

Area t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

Beeson W Simon

B Conservation t r Conservation r P i Easement i b s Easement c M a L o ittle s Bea a k IL-173 ve w e Crowley r l e

C C 14 r

r ¤£ r C Sedge

e e

e r e e

k Meadow e k

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D Soucie C N Lions saw Conservation ca Park Pis Easement Harvard HU Beck's Woods NTER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Conservation Milky Station

Way 2 D

Area R Park

«¬173 U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

eek eler Cr Mok AIRPORT RD Conservation k S DIVISION S ST ree h C Area Rus

D R Rush Creek N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR Gateway Conservation T A L F Nature Park Area

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

Community Research Forest Conservation Easement Van Maren U S Conservation -1 Easement 4

IL-23

yune Cree k tr Ger ib Ru City of Harvard Floodway sh Creek Woodstock Center 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Floodplain Conservation Easement Township Boundary ADID Wetlands (2005) 2 Woodstock Center Unincorporated Metra Station Conservation Easement

Open Space Metra Rail Brookdale N

trib B

N r Conservation K

B DEEP CUT RD r i

Cemeteries Freight Rail s

K Area h

is w hwa uk a Water Bodies ee u [ k e 0 0.5 1 e

Miles i Streams v

r 100 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. Groundwater Resources Like other McHenry County communities, the people and economy of Harvard are 100 percent dependent on groundwater resources for their drinking water supply. McHenry County, recognizing the importance of protecting the quality and availability of their drinking water supply, led development of a multi-stakeholder effort that resulted in creation of the Water Resources Action Plan (WRAP) in 2007.16 The WRAP provides guidance for water use, management, and protection and should be an integral component of land management decision making and can be endorsed by local governments.17 The following summarizes what is known about the quality and quantity of groundwater resources and then reviews Harvard’s municipal water system.

Groundwater Quality Published results of groundwater quality studies are minimal, but there are two worth summarizing. The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) set out to characterize the variability of arsenic (As) concentrations in groundwater over relatively short distances – ten to hundreds of meters – to assess the feasibility of a process that a small water system could use to site a new well with low-As concentrations. The study included a number of private wells in and around Wonder Lake. While all samples from Wonder Lake exceeded the primary drinking water standard (MCL) for As – 10 micrograms / L – the study’s main conclusion was that As concentrations are highly variable over short distances. Thus, making predictions of concentrations from regional-scale models will be difficult if not impossible. This information will impact decisions made regarding the siting of new wells.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected groundwater quality data in 2010 for comparison to data collected in 1979 from a sample of 25 wells in McHenry County for a number of analytes and water levels (131 data points). Preliminary results reveal no statistical difference in water levels found from the comparison, but there is a statistically significant difference in chloride concentrations: five times greater in 2010 than in 1979.18 A heavy reliance on road-salt applications during the winter is implicated along with timer-based water softeners employed by private well owners. While road salt application is not regulated, McHenry County is a leader in deicing technology and ensuring proper management and judicious applications to minimize use of road salts. These are positive and necessary steps, but not likely to reverse a steady upward trend in chloride concentrations found in shallow wells throughout McHenry and the other counties of northeastern Illinois.19

The Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas (SARA) of McHenry County have been mapped using geological data from the Illinois State Geological Survey and soils data from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Surveys (Figure 10.7). 20 The map depicts the potential of aquifers within 100 feet of the land surface to become contaminated from activity and pollution sources on the land. Figure

16 McHenry County Government, 2007. Water Resources Action Plan. Available at, https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/county- government/departments-j-z/planning-development/divisions/water-resources/water-resource-action-plan Accessed 2/13/15. The WRAP was revised and updated in 2010. 17 Harvard has not endorsed the WRAP. McHenry County provides a model resolution for municipalities to adopt, found here: https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=8172 Accessed 2/13/15. 18 Amy Gahala, Hydrologist, USGS-IL WSC. 2014. Personal communication. 19 Walton R. Kelly and Steven D. Wilson, 2008. An Evaluation of Temporal Changes in Shallow Groundwater Quality in Northeastern Illinois Using Historical Data. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Scientific Report 2008-01. Available at: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubs/pubdetail.asp?CallNumber=ISWS+SR+2008%2D01 Accessed on 2/17/15 20 For more information, see the Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas Map Descriptor: McHenry County, Illinois. Available at: https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=8216 Accessed on 2/17/15

10.7 also shows an area delineated as a Community Water Supply (CWS) Phase 2 Wellhead Protection Area. This Phase 2 area surrounds the wells used for supplying drinking water and can be used for developing a wellhead protection program as this area represents a 5-year recharge area. A contaminant entering the ground in this delineated area can potentially move and reach the well intake within a five-year period.21 Lastly, a restricted groundwater use area is depicted on Figure 10.7 and reflects an ordinance that the City approved in 2003 to limit potential threats to public health from groundwater contamination.22 The ordinance restricts the installation or drilling of a new potable water supply well in this particular area.

With the exception of the northeastern portion of the city and planning area, much of Harvard and its planning area are situated atop a groundwater recharge area that is classified as either “high potential” or “moderately high potential” for aquifer contamination. Another notable exception is southeast of the city and Rush Creek. Groundwater Quantity At the regional scale, water withdrawals from the deep-bedrock aquifer continue at a rate that exceeds groundwater recharge.23 An area centered near Joliet in Will County has recently been shown to experience complete desaturation of the upper sandstone while a larger area of partial desaturation extends into eastern Kendall County, southeastern Kane County, and an extensive portion of northwestern Will County. Deep aquifer head levels are in decline in McHenry County too, particularly in the area of Marengo, just south of Harvard. Presently, head level measurements do not show any decline around Harvard, but all users of deep wells in the region should remain aware of ongoing studies by the Illinois State Water Survey, their findings,24 and the general conclusion that at the regional scale, the deep-bedrock aquifer is being mined.

The ISWS has also modeled natural groundwater discharge to streams in response to pumping of the unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers in the Fox River Basin to the east of Harvard. Model analysis indicates that natural groundwater discharge to steams in the Fox River Basin (Illinois portion) have declined from predevelopment rates by an average of 8 and 10 percent in 1985 and 2010 respectively. While variable across Fox River subwatersheds, demand scenarios out to 2025 suggest that change in natural groundwater discharge (i.e., stream capture) will range from -2 to -44 percent under a baseline demand scenario.25 The extent of stream capture occurring within the Kishwaukee River Basin where Harvard is situated has not been studied and is unknown. Should it occur, however, wetlands and headwater streams will be most vulnerable to impacts.

21 Phase 2 recharge areas are delineated by the Illinois EPA in coordination with the Illinois State Water Survey, US Geological Survey, Illinois State University, and private consulting firms. 22 http://epadata.epa.state.il.us/land/gwordinance/municipality.asp?Municipality=Harvard 23 CMAP, 2010. Water 2050: Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply/Demand Plan. Available at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/14452/NE+IL+Regional+Water+Supply+Demand+Plan.pdf/26911cec-866e- 4253-8d99-ef39c5653757 Accessed 2/2/15 24 The latest findings of synoptic measurement of the sandstone aquifers were presented by the Illinois State Water Survey at the Water 2050 Regional Forum held at CMAP on January 15, 2015. 25 Illinois State Water Survey, 2012. Opportunities and Challenges of Modeling Water Demand in Northeastern Illinois. Contract Report 2012-03. Prairie Research Institute. Available at, http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR2012-03sum.pdf Accessed 2/2/15

102

The Northwest Water Planning Alliance (NWPA) is the primary forum for groundwater-related discussion and activities in northeastern Illinois. Both McHenry County and the McHenry County Council of Government are parties to the intergovernmental agreement that codified the NWPA in 2010. The NWPA is guided by a Strategic Plan and one of the main goals is to develop sustainable water-use policies and practices that are widely adopted and protective of water supplies.26 The NWPA has pioneered a new monthly water use reporting tool, which Harvard is using. In addition, NWPA has created a model outdoor lawn watering ordinance; Harvard does not currently have water use restrictions in place.

Figure 10.7. Groundwater resources in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Water Source and Supply Harvard’s drinking water supply is provided by a municipal-run system. The City of Harvard, like all community water suppliers, is required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to produce a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) or annual water quality report according to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 2014 CCR shows no violations.

All of the city’s drinking water comes from three groundwater wells, two deep-bedrock wells and one sourced in the more shallow unconsolidated aquifer.27 The public water system serves 2,850 total accounts: 26 industrial, 217 commercial, and 2,607 residential. Figure 10.8 illustrates annual groundwater withdrawals by aquifer as reported to the Illinois Water Inventory Program of ISWS.

Figure 10.8. City of Harvard annual groundwater withdrawals (million gallons).

Source: Illinois Water inventory Program, Illinois State Water Survey.

Harvard’s drinking water facility can treat up to 3 million gallons per day. Currently, average daily consumption is about 800,000 gallons per day or approximately 27 percent of capacity. Water is stored in three above-ground towers with a total capacity of 1,550,000 gallons (i.e., T1 = 300k g, T2 = 500k g, nd

26 Northwest Water Planning Alliance Strategic Plan: 2014-16. Available at: http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/livability/water/supply-planning/nwpa 27 There are also two private wells still in operation within the City limits.

103

Figure 10.7. Groundwater resources in Harvard and 1.5-mile planning area. Fig 10.8 Groundwater

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Chemung Alden C r township township

W B r P is c a s US-14 a w

t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

B r

P i s c L a k ittle s e Be a e IL-173 ave w r r C C C r 14 e r r ¤£ l e e e e e k k k o M trib

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D C N Lions saw ca Park Pis

H UNTER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Milky

Way 2 D Park R Harvard Z

Metra L

«¬173 U

Station H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C S

r Creek okele

M AIRPORT RD S DIVISION S ST

reek Rush C

D R N MCGUIRE RD O IR T A L F

«¬23 Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

U S -1 4

IL-23

yune Cree k tr Ger ib Ru sh Creek

er iv R ishwau e r K k e N B Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas City of Harvard 2 Metra Station High Potential for aquifer contamination 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Metra Rail trib N DEEP CUT RD Moderately High Potential for aquifer contaminationB

Township Boundary Freight Rail r K e is hwa uk Water Bodies ee Airport Groundwater Restricted Use (IEPA, 2015) Streams 0 0.5 1 [ Miles CWS Phase 2 Wellhead Protection Areas (IEPA, 2014) Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 104 T3 = 750k g.) Total water consumption has decreased approximately 10 percent or 100,000 gallons per day since 2000. During this same time period, the city population has increased 18.1 percent.

Available data reveals a difference between water pumped and water sold of 17.8 percent per year on average over the past 44 months. This unbilled water is referred to as nonrevenue water and is typically categorized into three groups: unbilled authorized consumption, real losses, or apparent losses. 28 Unbilled authorized consumption includes normal maintenance (e.g., hydrant flushing, backwash of filters at treatment plant, etc.). Apparent losses include unauthorized consumption and inaccuracies associated with metering (customer metering or systematic data handling errors). Real losses are true losses of water from the utility system up to the point of customer metering (i.e., leakage from pipes, service connections, and storage tanks). At this time, it is not possible to determine how much of the nonrevenue water represent real water losses. Harvard does not appear to use the American Water Works Association’s water audit method, which is the industry standard and would help provide the community with more information to minimize water loss.

Harvard estimates the value of their nonrevenue water at prevailing retail prices. For the last 12-month accounting period (May 2013-April 2014) Harvard estimates the difference in value between water pumped and water sold at $262,402. While the value of apparent losses should be calculated using the retail rate, estimating the value of real losses is more accurately captured by assigning a cost-of- production per gallon dollar value. Therefore, the value of the city’s nonrevenue water is likely an overestimate.

Water rates paid by ratepayers are currently the same across all customer accounts (i.e., same for residential, commercial, and industrial accounts; Table 10.3). The rate structure employed by the City is uniform or flat (i.e. same rate regardless of volume of water consumed.) Water rates have increased annually during the period of analysis and are at least increasing in step with the rate of inflation. However, it is unclear if the water rates are set to also cover long-term capital costs, or costs associated with replacement and growth beyond the current operation and maintenance costs. Additional information, such as cost of production or marginal cost of last gallon produced, would assist in determining if water rates reflect full-cost of service pricing. With an understanding of the water system and an appropriately funded plan in place, the City could minimize nonrevenue water to a point where a dollar invested in water loss control returns no less than a dollar back to the City (i.e., economic level of loss.)

Table 10.3 City of Harvard water rates. Water rate ($ / Nominal Rate of Real Rate of Month/year 100 cubic feet)29 Increase (%) Increase (%)30 May 2011 5.46 --- May 2012 5.62 2.9 < 1 May 2013 5.72 1.8 < 1 May 2014 5.90 3.1 1.5 Source: City of Harvard.

28 Terminology is explained in “Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, Manual of Water Supply Practices M36, Third Edition” published by the American Water Works Association (2009). 29 100 cubic feet of water = 748 gallons 30 US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator. Available at, http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Accessed 2/2/15

105

Stormwater Management The City of Harvard does not qualify for regulation as an MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) under Phase 2 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Nonetheless, Harvard is a Certified Community, one of fifteen in McHenry County, and that means the City is responsible for upholding and implementing the McHenry County Stormwater Management Ordinance. Harvard, like all communities in McHenry County, is responsible for its participation and adherence to requirements in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Currently, there is no formal inventory of detention basins in the City and no process to assess these basins for their ability to provide a water quality benefit in addition to the more traditional runoff rate deduction. Retrofitting detention basins to be multi-objective are eligible for Section 319 funding if recommended in a watershed-based plan.31 However, the City does have an understanding of the ownership of the various detention basins with city limits (Figure 10.9, Figure 10.10, and Figure 10.11).A drainage study was performed for Harvard in 2000 to investigate street flooding on the west side of the city. 32 The study proposed a new system of curbs, gutters, and storm sewers which was partially implemented, but remains largely uninstalled. Error! Reference source not found.10.12, developed by the City’s consultant (2000), shows the five areas for which drainage improvements are recommend. Watersheds A and B have received the recommended infrastructure upgrades to date. Lack of funding is likely the cause of delayed project completion.

Figure 10.9. Stormwater detention basins: former Motorola facility and Huntington Ridge subdivision. Figure 10.10. Stormwater detention basins: Oak Grove Crossing, Turtle Crossing, and Autumn Glen subdivisions. Figure 10.11. Stormwater detention basins in Harvard: Shadow Creek and Countrybrook subdivisions. Figure 10.12. Proposed street and neighborhood drainage improvements, 2000. Wastewater The City employs one wastewater treatment plant that discharges effluent via two outfalls33 into Mokeler Creek under NPDES permit number IL0020117 issued in 2011.34 The permit will expire in February 2016. The design average flow for the facility is 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD) and the design maximum flow for the facility is 4.5 MGD. Treatment consists of screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, trickling filtration, rotating biological contactors, final clarification, chlorination, aerobic/anaerobic digestion, drying bed, and land application.

Harvard’s Facility Planning Area (FPA) was last revisited in 2006 with an amendment proposed then that garnered “partial support” from the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) Wastewater Committee. The amendment proposed and CMAP staff recommendations were as follows:  Support for the transfer of 585 acres of land into the Harvard FPA.

31 The Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan did not recommend retrofitting stormwater detention basins. Detention basins shown in Figures 10.9 and 10.10 are in the Lawrence Creek watershed. 32 Drainage Study: Ratzlaff, West Metzen, Ayer, and West Park Streets, 2000. Prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. for the City of Harvard. 33 Outfall 002 is typically not used until the treatment facility is receiving its maximum practical flow. 34 For more information on NPDES permit number IL0020117, see http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2011/harvard- wwtp/index.pdf

106

Figure 10.9. Stormwater detention basins in Harvard: former Motorola facility and Huntington Ridge subdivision.

Headline

Copyright County of McHenry 2015. All information is provided 'as-is' with no Figureguarantee 10.10. Stormwaterof accuracy, detention completeness, basins inor Harvard: currency. Oak Grove Crossing, Turtle Crossing, and Autumn Glen subdivisions.

Page 1 of 1

Copyright County of McHenry 2015. All information is provided 'as-is' with no guarantee of accuracy, completeness, or currency.

Page 1 of 1 34 107 Figure 10.11. Stormwater detention basins in Harvard: Shadow Creek and Countrybrook subdivisions.

Headline

CopyrightFigure 10.12. County Proposed of McHenry street and2015. neighborhood drainage improvements, from study performed in 2000. All information is provided 'as-is' with no guarantee of accuracy, completeness, or currency.

Page 1 of 1

108 35  Support for the expansion of the existing Harvard Wastewater Treatment Plant from 1.8 mgd to 2.4 mgd, contingent upon the City addressing the concerns identified by CMAP in the amendment request review.  Non-support for the construction of a second Harvard wastewater treatment plant.

Illinois EPA approved the two (of three) amendments that were supported by CMAP staff. The current FPA boundary is presented in Figure 10.13. Three other point-source dischargers are also featured on the map.

Figure 10.13. Harvard Facility Planning Area.

Energy and Sustainability Rising energy costs and changing energy needs raise economic and environmental concerns for local households, businesses, and governments. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) analyzed the City of Harvard’s energy and emissions profile as part of the Municipal Energy Profile Project for the Chicago Metropolitan Area.35 The information in CNT’s report can be used to provide baseline metrics as well as indicators of where to target strategies to reduce energy use and emissions.

Reducing energy consumption can strengthen economic development by lowering long-term energy costs for households and businesses and lessening environmental impacts by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Steps taken to achieve other community goals, such as creating a more walkable community and providing an array of different housing types, can also have the dual impact of reducing energy consumption and the associated costs.

The distribution of Harvard’s electricity and natural gas consumption is fairly similar to that of McHenry County as a whole (Table 10.4). Residential users consume 28 percent while Commercial and Industrial users use 72 percent the City’s total electricity. Harvard devotes a greater share of its natural gas consumption to residential uses. According to CNT’s analysis, the City of Harvard boasts lower usage of both electricity and natural gas than does McHenry County overall, resulting in lower household costs.

Different sources of energy yield different amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Generating electricity, often produced by burning coal, emits more greenhouse gas than does heating by natural gas. CNT calculated the emissions from the six major greenhouse gases and converted them into a standard metric known as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e (see Table 10.5). Per capita emissions in Harvard were 14.40 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2007, slightly higher than the 14.04 metric tons emitted per capita in McHenry County.

35 The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and Elevate Energy (formerly CNT Energy) authored the “Summit Energy and Emissions Profile” that examined energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions at a community- wide scale. This report was part of the Municipal Energy Profile Project (MEPP) that included the development of profiles for over 270 municipalities in the Chicago metropolitan region. The profiles serve as a baseline from which communities can develop more specific strategies and accurately measure progress in achieving reductions in energy consumption and emissions. The MEPP Guidebook examined both municipal and community scale best practices for strategies in energy and transportation. The project was funded by the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, and data partners included ComEd, Nicor Gas, Peoples Gas, North Shore Gas and the Illinois Department of Transportation.

109

Figure 10.13. Harvard Facility Planning Area. Fig 10.13 Facility Planning Area

re ALDEN RD wrence C ek t La rib W B r P isc as aw Chemung Alden C r township township

W B Bangert r P Conservation is c a s US-14 Easement a Stowe w Conservation High Point Easement Conservation

Area t ri b Nippe LAWRENCE RD rs

r e

e k

OAK GROVE RD t k ri Cree b Lawrence

Beeson W Simon

B Conservation t r Conservation r P i Easement i b s Easement c M a L o ittle s Be a k IL-173 a e ! v w ( e Crowley r l e

C C 14 r

r ¤£ r C Sedge

e e

e r e e

k Meadow e k

D R E V O R T S G K N

A O O I

I S k «¬173

e I

re D Soucie C N Lions saw Conservation ca Park Pis Easement Harvard HU Beck's Woods NTER RD RAMER RD W DIGGINS ST Metra Conservation Milky Station

Way 2 D

Area R Park

(! «¬173 U

H IL-173 «¬173 W BRINK ST C (! S

eek eler Cr Mok AIRPORT RD Conservation k S DIVISION S ST ree h C Area Rus (! D R Rush Creek N Harvard MCGUIRE RD O IR Gateway Conservation T A L F Nature Park Area

«¬23 Harvard FPA Dunham Hartland township township ¤£14

Community Research Forest Conservation Easement Van Maren U S Conservation -1 Easement 4

City of Harvard 2 Metra Station IL-23 ee k ryune Cr trib Ge Rush Cr 1.5 Mile Planning Buffer Metra Rail eek Woodstock Center

Township Boundary Freight Rail Conservation e Easement Unincorporated Airport Woodstock Center Open Space Conservation (! Self-reported discharge locations Easement Brookdale N

Cemeteries of NPDES permits (IEPA, 2014) trib B

N r Conservation K

B DEEP CUT RD

r i s

Water Bodies K Area h

Facility Planning Area (FPA) is w hwa u a ke u e k Streams e e [ R 0 0.5 1 i

Miles e

r Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2015. 110 Table 10.4. Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption, 2007 Harvard County Total electricity consumption (kWh) 95,542,274 2,882,500,685 Residential electricity consumption (kWh) 27,207,533 1,213,625,087 Commercial electricity consumption (kWh) 68,334,741 1,668,875,598 Residential electricity consumption (kWh) per household* 8,515 11,290 Annual electricity cost per household $916 $1,215

Total natural gas consumption (therms) 5,302,403 180,130,975 Residential natural gas consumption (therms) 2,928,063 112,427,313 Commercial natural gas consumption (therms) 2,374,340 67,703,662 Residential natural gas consumption (therms) per household 916 1,046 Annual natural gas cost per household $813 $929 Source: CNT, Municipal Emissions Profile *Calculations based on 3,195 households in Harvard and 107,497 households in McHenry County.

Table 10.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2007

Emissions Sector (MMT CO2E) Electricity 0.067 Natural Gas 0.028 Transportation 0.035 Other 0.009 Total 0.141

Harvard missions per capita 14.40 McHenry County Emissions per capita 14.08 Source: CNT, Municipal Emissions Profile

111

11. Looking Forward The existing conditions report has identified a number of issues, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that exist in Harvard. The Comprehensive Plan will utilize this extensive information to formulate recommendations for Harvard’s sustainable growth. Based on the data compiled, key issues emerged. This section identifies those key topic areas of the Comprehensive Plan, although it should be noted that the following summary does not include all the issues that will be addressed in the Plan. The Harvard Comprehensive Plan will provide recommendations in the following areas:

Preserving the community’s rural character The City’s rural setting distinguishes it from other municipalities in the region and is highly valued by its residents. The need to preserve this character is important and will be explored in the following ways:

Preserve agricultural land: Over the past two decades, subdivisions have taken over several acres of prime agricultural land, and while this pattern of development stalled in the late 2000s, it has the potential to re-emerge as the economy improves. The Comprehensive Plan will recommend strategies to ensure that prime agricultural areas be preserved and continue to serve the local and regional food system.

Avoid construction in environmentally sensitive areas: A critical element of maintaining the community’s rural character is to protect natural resources. The green infrastructure network in Harvard and the surrounding area is extensive and should be proactively preserved. The Comprehensive Plan will provide recommendations to help ensure that future development as well as any redevelopment project does not negatively impact green infrastructure including sensitive aquifer recharge areas, streams, wetlands, and oak groves.

Protecting the community’s water supply Harvard’s future depends on sustainable use and protection of the area’s groundwater resources. This will be explored in the following ways:

Minimize contamination and promote recharge: Connected to the strategy above of avoiding construction in environmentally sensitive areas, the Comprehensive Plan will provide recommendations to ensure that development activities minimize contamination of sensitive aquifers and do not hinder the natural recharge of the community’s drinking water supply.

Reduce demand: Local water conservation and efficiency measures will be essential for the sustainable use of the community’s water supply. One of the most important ways to reduce demand is to minimize water loss from the municipal water system. The Comprehensive Plan will recommend strategies for reducing water loss and promoting conservation and efficiency from residential, commercial, and industrial accounts.

Promote civic, cultural, and economic engagement Residents and community leaders have noted that the future of Harvard depends on greater community involvement and inclusion of Harvard’s growing Latino population. The Comprehensive Plan will identify ways that the municipal government and its partners can foster this engagement.

112

Enhancing Harvard’s neighborhoods Strengthening Harvard’s neighborhoods is an essential component of enhancing the community’s quality of life. This will be explored in the following ways:

Maintain housing quality: Harvard’s housing stock, including its historic homes, is one of its strongest assets. With older homes and nearly 40 percent of Harvard’s housing stock occupied by renters, maintaining the quality of the housing is a top priority. The City has already started implementing a rental registration program, to gather information from property owners. The Comprehensive Plan will present additional strategies the City can implement to better support the quality and longevity of its historic homes and the rental housing stock.

Stabilize the subdivisions: Several subdivisions have a significant number of unbuilt lots, have fallen into foreclosure, or have high vacancy rates. Completion of the underdeveloped subdivisions will likely have to wait until the overall housing market stabilizes and non- distressed sales no longer comprise a large share of total sales. The Comprehensive Plan will identify short-term strategies to maintain the existing housing in the underdeveloped subdivisions, as well as longer-term strategies, which may include redesigning the neighborhoods and updating the development process.

Update zoning and improve subdivision design: Harvard’s zoning ordinance and map could be streamlined to better reflect the community’s desired uses, intensity, and character of development. Residents highly value the original neighborhoods built on a grid street pattern, yet existing subdivision regulations hinder traditional neighborhood designs. The Comprehensive Plan will outline regulatory changes and policies that will encourage conservation design, traditional neighborhood design, and better street connectivity in future subdivisions.

Enhance the transportation system: Harvard has the potential of being a very walkable and bikeable community; but road conditions combined with crosswalk and sidewalk network gaps may deter residents from active transportation. The Comprehensive Plan will identify strategies for enhancing the transportation system, including engaging with IDOT, MCDOT, MCCD, Pace, and Metra.

Supporting economic development From jobs to goods and services, enhancing Harvard’s local economy is essential for residents as well as municipal government. The following steps should also be followed to ensure a sustainable strategy:

Build on the community’s strengths: Harvard’s natural and agricultural setting distinguish it from other parts of the Chicago region and have the potential to provide unique experiences for an urban population. In addition, the success of the Starline Factory shows the potential for an expanded arts and crafts role in the local economy. The Comprehensive Plan will identify strategies for supporting local entrepreneurism that builds on the natural, agricultural, and artistic assets of the community.

Continue to support the manufacturing base: Despite Motorola’s departure from the City in 2003, the manufacturing sector of the Harvard economy has done well in recent years. The relatively new Arrowhead Industrial Park has seen many new tenants move in while other existing tenants have expanded operations. While efforts to fill the former Motorola property

113 have not been successful over the past decade, once the facility does secure a permanent tenant it will be a major economic driver for the community. The Comprehensive Plan will present additional strategies for business retention and attraction including regulatory changes, marketing strategies, regional coordination, and site readiness for development/redevelopment.

Focus commercial development in key areas: Harvard’s retail development will be modest until the population of the city increases. However, short-term demand exists for a wider variety of restaurants and grocery stores in the City that target lower and moderate price points as well as the growing Latino population. Downtown Harvard, with its building stock and upgraded streetscaping, is a key area to focus revitalization efforts. Division Street is also a key commercial corridor that could benefit from improved aesthetics and pedestrian amenities. The Comprehensive Plan will outline strategies to build on these existing commercial centers.

114