Zoning Commission Packet 2012 05-23-12 United City of Yorkville
'`'` 800 Game Farm Road
EST. , _ 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
-4 Telephone: 630-553-4350
0� a 2p� Fax: 630-553-7575
AGENDA
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
7:00 P.M.
City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road
1. Welcome
2. Roll Call
3. Citizen's Comments
4. Approval of April 25, 2012 meeting minutes
5. Old Business:
a) Continued review and Commentary of Proposed Revised Zoning Chapters
• Chapter 11: Residential Districts
• E-1, Estate District
• R-1, Single-Family Suburban Residence District
• R-2, Single-Family Traditional Residence District
• R-2 Duplex, Two-Family Attached Residence District
• R-3, Multi-Family Attached Residence District
• R-4, General Multi-Family Residence District
6. New Business:
a) CDD, Conservation Design District
7. Adj ournment
8. Next meeting date: June 27, 2012
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday,April 25, 2012
7:00 p.m.
Yorkville City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560
Committee Members in Attendance:
Jeff Baker
Gary Neyer
Phil Haugen
Pete Huinker
Michael Crouch
City Officials in Attendance:
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Meeting Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. (estimated -time not
officially stated) and Mr. Crouch welcomed everyone.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken. A quorum was established.
Citizen's Comments
There were no guests in attendance.
Previous Minutes
Mr. Baker moved to accept the April 25, 2012 minutes and it was seconded. It was
moved and seconded. There were no discussions, corrections or additions so a vote to
accept was made,unanimously accepted and the motion was carried.
Mr. Crouch thanked Mr. Millen for leading the last meeting then turned the meeting over
to Ms. Noble to cover Old Business.
Old Business:
Ms. Noble said she attached a copy of the subdivision control ordinance because there
was a question about the spacing of street lights. Mr. Crouch offered that would depend
on how the development was arranged. She then directed them to Resolution No. 2004-
39 page S-6 (in the back of the packet)—"Street Lighting System." Currently, street light
requirements are a maximum spacing of 300 feet at all intersections, curves and ends of
cul-de-sacs; and 500 feet in Estate-residential subdivisions. That is the standard reflected
in D-1. If the committee would like, they can look at revising those standards.
Mr. Baker had concerns about a street light in a cul-de-sac in an Estate area. There was
then much discussion about street lights and cul-de-sacs. (8.11) Mr. Neyer then asked if
there was a chapter covering this in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Ms. Noble said
it had its own chapter within the code enforcements. It is Title 11 of the entire Municipal
Code, and it is separate from Zoning.
Mr. Crouch asked if they were merging it into, and Ms. Noble and Mr. Baker said they
would like to do exactly that. Apparently, most communities keep them separate because
if you amend anything in your Zoning Ordinance, you are open to a Public Hearing.
Ms. Noble said since Engineering now falls under Community Development, anything
she amends in this ordinance (such as PUD) that affects the subdivision control ordinance
will be amended. If they want to amend here and they feel they may be a contradiction
elsewhere, they can definitely amend that as well.
Mr. Neyer asked if the majority of this Ad-Hoc committee wants to review the
Subdivision Control Ordinance as past of their commission, how would they go about it?
Ms. Noble said it would go through Plan Commission.
Mr. Crouch then said he thought 500 feet was pretty close if you're talking about cul-de-
sacs that may only be 1,000 feet long in Estate Zoning.
Moving on to Chapter 11, Ms. Noble said Commissioner Baker had earlier questioned the
wording `suburban' vs. `traditional' and Ms. Noble changed R-1, Single Family from
`Suburban' to `Traditional' and changed R-2, Single Family from `Traditional' to
`Suburban.' She also removed all of the Site and Development Standards. The
commission agreed to not lower the current 12,000 square foot minimum.
There were no other critical changes—only the wording on R-1 and R2.
Mr. Baker made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Huinker seconded and agreed by all. The next
scheduled meeting is Wednesday, May 23 at 7:00 p.m. at Yorkville City Hall in the
conference room.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. (estimated by length of tape; time not officially
stated).
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Bonnie Olsem
o car
Memorandum
EST. 1836
To: Zoning Ordinance Commission
pFrom: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
�oa 5as
+� tl��o Ty `• CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
y<<E 1`►� Date: May 15, 2012
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Update—Old & New Business Items
Staff has prepared the attached revised Chapter 11: Residential Districts for the Zoning
Commission to review based upon the April 251i' meeting discussion. The proposed revisions and
additional information are detailed below:
Old Business:
Chapter 11A: E-1,Estate District
• Removed Section 11-11A-4: Site and Development Standards which were taken in
whole from the Subdivision Control Ordinance's Standard Specifications for
Improvements.
Chapter 11B: R-1, Single-Family Suburban Residence District
• No changes made to the previous revisions presented at the April 25th meeting. Clean
copy of the renamed and revised Chapter 1113: R-1, Single Family Traditional
Residence District is attached.
Chapter I I C: R-2, Single-Family Traditional Residence District
• No changes made to the previous revisions presented at the April 25t1i meeting. Clean
copy of the renamed and revised Chapter 11C: R-2, Single Family Suburban
Residence District is attached.
Chapter 111): R-21)Duplex, Two-Family Attached Residence District
• No changes made to the previous revisions presented at the April 25'h meeting. Clean
copy of the revised Chapter 11D: R-2, Duplex, Two-Family Attached Residence
District is attached.
Chapter 11E: R-3,Multi-Family Attached Residence District
• No changes made to the previous revisions presented at the April 25'h meeting. Clean
copy of the revised Chapter 11E: R-3, Multi-Family Attached Residence District is
attached.
Chapter 11F: R-4, General Multi-Family Residence District
• No changes made to the previous revisions presented at the April 25th meeting. Clean
copy of the revised Chapter I IF: R-4, General Multi-Family Residence District is
attached.
Additional Business:
The Zoning Commission asked staff to provide additional research on the following items:
o Section 11-4-8-B of the Subdivision Control Ordinance (Ord. 2004-52) related to paved and
fenced pedestrian crosswalks not less than ten (10) feet wide which may be required by the
Plan Commission through the center of blocks more than nine hundred (900) feet long,
where deemed essential to provide circulation or access to schools, playgrounds, shopping
centers, transportation, and other community facilities. Continuous chain-link fencing four
(4) feet high will also be required on both sides of the walkway on an easement.
➢ Staff has determined that this section of the Subdivision Control Ordinance refers to
what is commonly known as a"mid-block walkway or crosswalk"sometimes seen in
planned residential developments of long continuous blocks. An example is seen in
the following image below. The fencing would most likely occur along an easement
perpendicular to the roadway on either side of the walkway, but not within the
roadway.
V
tl
o With regards to the City's current smallest minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet for a
single-family detached residential lot, staff has complied data of five (5) surrounding
communities to compare the minimum lot area requirements for residentially zoned districts:
Community Residential Zoning District Minimum Lot Sizes'
E-1 Estate Res. 43,560 SF
Sugar Grove R-1 Low Density Res. 18,750 SF
R-2 Single-Family Detached 10,000 SF
R-3 Medium Density 10,000 SF
R-1 One-Family Res. 108,900 SF(2.5 AC)
R-2 One-Family Res. 43,560 SF (1 AC)
Plano R-3 One-Family Res. 20,000 SF
R-4 One-Family Res. 12,000 SF
R-5 General Res. 9,000 SF
R-E Residential District 40,000 SF
Plainfield R-1 Low-Density Single Family 12,000 SF
R1-O Overlay District 12,000 SF
R-2 Single-Family& Two-Fam. 6,000 SF
E-R Estate Residential 18,500 SF
R-1 One-Family Res. 14,000 SF
Montgomery R-2 One-Family Res. 11,000 SF
R-3 Traditional Neighborhood 9,000 SF
R-4 Traditional Neighborhood 7,200 SF
R-1 Single-Family Res. 15,000 SF
R-2 Single-Family Res. 11,000 SF
R-3 Two-Family Res. 15,000 SF
Oswego R-4 General Res. 11,000 SF
R-E Residential Estate 87,120 SF(2 AC)
R-L Large Lot Res. 30,000 SF
Single family detached dwelling units only used in this comparison table.
➢ The smallest single-family detached residential lot of the communities listed above is
6,000 square feet; largest is 108,900 square feet; average lot size is 23,941 square
feet.
• The average lot size for a single-family residential lot within the United City of Yorkville is
25,000 square feet.
• Affordable Housing — Attached is information related to the Affordable Housing Planning
and Appeal Act of Illinois which came into effect on January 1, 2004.
➢ The Act requires that all county and local municipalities provide at least 10% of their
year-round housing units as affordable housing.
➢ Affordable housing under the Act is defined as "housing that has a sales price or
rental amount that is within the means of a household that may occupy moderate-
income or low-income housing".
• Moderate-income housing = housing that is affordable by households with a
gross household income greater than 50%, but does not exceed 80% of the
median gross household income for households of the same size within the
country in which the housing is located.
• Low-income housing =housing that is affordable by households with a gross
household income that does not exceed 50% of the median gross household
income for households of the same size within the country in which the
housing is located.
➢ According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census, the United City of Yorkville had
a median gross household income of$82,007.00.2 Refer to the attached U.S. Census
Economic Report for Yorkville, Illinois.
• A moderate-income household in Yorkville would be an annual income
between$41,003.50- $65,605.60
• A low-income household in Yorkville is an annual income less than
$41,003.50
o Infill Housing Opportunities — Staff was requested to identify infill areas within the city
which can be developed with smaller lot sizes.
➢ A map of infill lots within the older parts of the City will be provided at the meeting.
New Business:
Chapter 11G: CDD, Conservation Design District
• Proposed new residential zoning chapter meant to address the desired sustainability
elements of "green" land design and as well as provide the opportunity for the
clustering of smaller lots not permitted in the standard residential zoning districts,
without having to go through the PUD approval process.
2 Source:httn://factfinder2.census.mov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhttnl?pid=ACS_10 5YR DP03&prodType=tab1e
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE A. E-1,ESTATE DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11A-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11A-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11A-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11A-4: Site and Development Standards
11-11A-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The E-1 Estate District zoning designation is intended to accommodate large-lot, single-family residential
land uses within a rural setting. Other permitted land uses within this district are deemed compatible and
conducive to the low-density,tranquil and open space environment provided in the E-1 Estate District.
11-11A-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building, structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11A-3:Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected, altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
11-11A-4: SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. All streetlights shall be required at intersections with a minimum spacing of five hundred feet (500')
with lights also placed at curves or dead end streets as required by the city.
B. No sidewalks are required. However, in the event sidewalks are not provided, paved trails must be
provided that meet the city's standards, specifically a ten foot (10') width with an exit and entrance
identification consisting of two inches (2") of asphalt on eight inches (8") of CA-6 aggregate.
Dedicated easements at least fifteen feet(15')wide must be provided for the trail.
C. All driveways must be paved with brick, asphalt or concrete, and must have a concrete culvert with
flared end sections.Culvert diameter shall be twelve inches(12")or greater,as required by the city.
D. Streets will require a seventy foot (70') minimum dedicated right of way with a fifty foot (50') front
yard setback.Twenty eight feet(28')of actual asphalt with a twenty five foot(25')driving area marked
by thermoplastic reflective strip is required. Thirty two foot(32') width of full depth stone to provide
two foot(2')wide stone shoulders at least twelve inches (12")thick. A ditch shall be required on both
sides of the street and shall have a minimum profile slope of one percent (1%) (side slope 4:1 on the
street side, and 3:1 on the lot side). Mailbox turnouts will be paved, using driveway specifications to
determine thickness.
E. Private wells are allowed if the subdivision or lot is not within two hundred fifty feet (250') of
municipal water service provided that public sanitary sewer mains serve the lot or parcels for which
permission for a private well is sought. Private septic systems are allowed if the subdivision or lot is
not within two hundred fifty feet (250') of public sanitary sewer provided that public water is being
used to serve the lot or parcels for which permission for a private septic is sought. However, if a
private well is allowed on the lot or parcel then a septic field is not allowed on the lot or parcel; and
conversely if a private septic system is allowed on the parcel then a private well is not allowed on the
lot or parcel. A newly platted subdivision must have either all private wells or all private septic
systems, but not a mix of both and only when the municipal water or sanitary sewer service is more
than two hundred fifty feet(250') away. If a lot is within two hundred fifty feet(250') of public water
or sanitary sewer service,that lot may maintain its private septic or private well only until failure of the
private septic or private well. At that time the lot must be connected to the public sanitary sewer or
public water service as the case may be at the lot owner's sole expense. After connection to the city
sanitary sewer system, individual private septic fields shall be abandoned by pumping out the tank,
knocking in the cover and filling with dirt or stone. After connection to the city water system,
individual private wells shall be properly capped as provided under the Illinois public health code. All
public improvements shall conform to the city standard specifications for municipal water and sanitary
sewer improvements.
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE B. R-1, SINGLE FAMILY TRADITIONAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11B-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11B-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11B-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11B-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The R-1 Single Family Suburban Residence zoning designation is intended to create a spacious suburban
residential neighborhood environment on parcels of at least 18,000 square feet. To protect the character of
the district, permitted uses are limited to single-family detached housing yet accommodate other
compatible and complimentary cultural,religious,educational and public uses.
11-11B-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building,structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11B3:Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected,altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE C. R-2, SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN RESIDENCE DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11C-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11C-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11C-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11C-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence zoning designation is intended to accommodate smaller,
more conventional suburban residential neighborhood on lots of at least 12,000 square feet. The district's
moderately-low density allows for flexibility in site design, and creates a transitional land use between rural
and suburban residential settings. The primary permitted uses are single-family detached housing, in
addition to compatible and complimentary cultural,religious,educational and public uses.
11-11C-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building,structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11C-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected,altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE D. R-2 DUPLEX, TWO-FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCE
DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11D-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11D-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11D-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11D-1:PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The R-2 Duplex, Two-Family Attached Residence zoning designation is intended for moderate density
duplex dwelling structures on lots of at least 15,000 square feet. This district is primarily located off of a
major thoroughfare or as a transitional land use adjacent to single-family residences. Therefore, the R-2
Duplex district is intended to accommodate single-family attached dwelling structures of a size and
character that is compatible with the surrounding single-family detached residential districts and adjacent to
commercial,office and retail space.
11-11D-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building,structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11D-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected,altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
NOS J °.
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE E. R-3,MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCE DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11E-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11E-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11E-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11E-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The R-3, Multi-Family Attached Residence zoning designation is intended for moderate density dwelling
structures on lots of at least 9,000 square feet and a maximum density of five (5) units per acre or six (6)
units per building. This district also accommodates a roadway wide enough to park on both sides of the
street.
11-11E-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building,structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11E-3:Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected,altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
r
f^
r
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE F. R-4, GENERAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11F-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11F-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11F-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11F-1:PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The R-4, General Multi-Family Residence zoning designation is intended for moderate-to-high density
dwelling structures on lots of at least 15,000 square feet and a maximum density of eight(8)units per acre.
This district is suitable for creating a transition between the business/commercial uses and the surrounding
lower density residence uses. This district may accommodate other compatible and complimentary cultural,
religious,educational and public uses.
11-11F-2:PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
No building,structure,or parcel of land shall be used,erected,altered or enlarged for any use other than the
uses identified as permitted or special uses in Chapter 6 of this Title. All special uses on property within
this district shall be approved in accordance with Section 10-4-9 of this Title.
11-11F-3:Dimensional and Bulk Requirements:
Any building,structure or apparatus constructed,erected,altered or enlarged on property within this district
shall comply with the dimensional and bulk regulations in Chapter 7 of this Title.
lag
R4
�t -
U.S. Census Bureau
AMERICAN r
Faeffinder
DP03 SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Supporting documentation on code lists,subject definitions,data accuracy,and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey
website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures(including coverage rates,allocation rates,and response rates)can be found on the American Community
Survey website in the Methodology section.
Although the American Community Survey(ACS)produces population,demographic and housing unit estimates,for 2010,the 2010 Census provides
the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation,states,counties,cities and towns.For 2006 to 2009,the Population Estimates
Program provides intercensal estimates of the population for the nation,states,and counties.
Subject Yorkville city,Illinois
Estimate Estimate Margin Percent Percent Margin o
of Error Error
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Population 16 years and over 11,270 +/-451 11,270 (X)
In labor force 8,172 +/-421 72.5% +/-3.5
Civilian labor force 8,105 +/-414 71.9% +/-3.5
Employed 7,694 +/-420 68.3% +/-3.4
Unemployed 411 +/-138 3.6% +/-1.2
Armed Forces 67 +/-73 0.6% +/-0.6
Not in labor force 3,098 +/-449 27.5% +/-3.5
Civilian labor force 8,105 +/-414 8,105 (X)
Percent Unemployed (X) (X) 5.1% +/-1.7
Females 16 years and over 5,786 +/-307 5,786 (X)
In labor force 3,904 +/-293 67.5% +/-3.7
Civilian labor force 3,904 +/-293 67.5% +/-3.7
Employed 3,743 +/-305 64.7% +/-3.7
Own children under 6 years 1,281 +/-273 1,281 (X)
All parents in family in labor force 679 +/-215 53.0% +/-12.4
Own children 6 to 17 years 2,806 +/-360 2,806 (X)
All parents in family in labor force 2,154 +/-329 76.8% +/-6.3
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over 7,565 +/-431 7,565 (X)
Car,truck,or van--drove alone 6,480 +/-438 85.7% +/-3.1
Car,truck,or van-carpooled 387 +/-140 5.1% +/-1.8
Public transportation(excluding taxicab) 68 +/-59 0.9% +/-0.8
Walked 68 +/-75 0.9% +/-1.0
Other means 116 +/-142 1.5% +/-1.9
Worked at home 446 +/-137 5.9% +/-1.8
Mean travel time to work(minutes) 33.8 +/-2.1 (X) (X)
OCCUPATION
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 7,694 +/-420 7,694 (X)
Management,business,science,and arts occupations 2,882 +/-323 37.5% +/-3.5
Service occupations 1,175 +/-247 15.3% +/-3.1
Sales and office occupations 2,117 +/-304 27.5% +/-3.6
Natural resources,construction,and maintenance 700 +/-162 9.1% +/-2.2
ccu ations
1 of 4 05/18/2012
Subject Yorkville city,Illinois
Estimate Estimate Margin Percent Percent Margin of
of Error Error
Production,transportation,and material moving 820 +/-196 10.7% +/-2.5
occupations
INDUSTRY
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 7,694 +/-420 7,694 (X)
Agriculture,forestry,fishing and hunting,and mining 24 +/-27 0.3% +/-0.3
Construction 594 +/-164 7.7% +/-2.2
Manufacturing 1,080 +/-197 14.0% +/-2.5
Wholesale trade 282 +/-105 3.7% +/-1.3
Retail trade 836 +/-228 10.9% +/-3.0
Transportation and warehousing,and utilities 394 +/-155 5.1% +/-2.0
Information 325 +/-166 4.2% +/-2.1
Finance and insurance,and real estate and rental and 557 +/-140 7.2% +/-1.8
leasing
Professional,scientific,and management,and 704 +1-169 9.1% +/-2.1
administrative and waste management services
Educational services,and health care and social 1,637 +/-292 21.3% +/-3.5
assistance
Arts,entertainment,and recreation,and 607 +/-275 7.9% +/-3.5
accommodation and food services
Other services,except public administration 272 +/-107 3.5% +/-1.4
Public administration 382 +/-120 5.0% +/-1.5
CLASS OF WORKER
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 7,694 +/-420 7,694 (X)
Private wage and salary workers 6,247 +/-433 81.2% +/-3.3
Government workers 1,030 +/-219 13.4% +/-2.6
Self-employed in own not incorporated business 417 +/-168 5.4% +/-2.2
workers
Unpaid family workers 0 +/-119 0.0% +/-0.4
INCOME AND BENEFITS(IN 2010 INFLATION-
ADJUSTED DOLLARS
Total households 5,422 +/-276 5,422 (X)
Less than$10,000 64 +/-47 1.2% +/-0.9
$10,000 to$14,999 105 +/-66 1.9% +/-1.2
$15,000 to$24,999 309 +/-120 5.7% +/-2.2
$25,000 to$34,999 291 +/-115 5.4% +/-2.1
$35,000 to$49,999 779 +/-193 14.4% +/-3.5
$50,000 to$74,999 852 +/-201 15.7% +/-3.5
$75,000 to$99,999 1,097 +/-256 20.2% +/-4.7
$100,000 to$149,999 1,338 +/-225 24.7% +/-4.2
$150,000 to$199,999 328 +/-119 6.0% +/-2.2
$200,000 or more 259 +/-115 4.8% +/-2.1
Median household income(dollars) 82,007 +/-6,227 (X) (X)
Mean household income(dollars) 89,647 +/-5,421 (X) (X)
With earnings 4,707 +/-260 86.8% +/-2.4
Mean earnings(dollars) 90,402 +/-6,037 (X) (X)
With Social Security 963 +/-172 17.8% +/-3.0
Mean Social Security income(dollars) 17,536 +/-1,745 (X) (X)
With retirement income 709 +/-158 13.1% +/-2.9
Mean retirement income(dollars) 24,560 +/-5,364 (X) (X)
With Supplemental Security Income 136 +/-86 2.5% +/-1.6
Mean Supplemental Security Income(dollars) 5,732 +/-2,772 (X) (X)
With cash public assistance income 145 +/-97 2.7% +/-1.8
Mean cash public assistance income(dollars) 2,498 +/-2,222 (X) (X)
With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12 months 224 +/-123 4.1% +/-2.3
Families 4,063 +/-289 4,063 (X)
Less than$10,000 7 +/-12 0.2% +/-0.3
$10,000 to$14,999 45 +/-45 1.1% +/-1.1
$15,000 to$24,999 123 +/-75 3.0% +/-1.8
$25,000 to$34,999 169 +/-85 4.2% +/-2.1
$35,000 to$49,999 488 +/-173 12.0% +/-4.1
$50,000 to$74,999 694 +/-193 17.1% +/-4.5
2 of 4 05/18/2012
Subject Yorkville city,Illinois
Estimate Estimate Margin Percent Percent Margin o
of Error Error
$75,000 to$99,999 923 +/-196 22.7% +/-4.6
$100,000 to$149,999 1,061 +/-205 26.1% +/-4.9
$150,000 to$199,999 302 +/-120 7.4% +/-2.9
$200,000 or more 251 +/-114 6.2% +/-2.9
Median family income(dollars) 88,405 +/-5,049 (X) (X)
Mean family income(dollars) 99,423 +/-7,230 (X) (X)
Per capita income(dollars) 33,324 +/-2,362 (X) (X)
Nonfamily households 1,359 +/-227 1,359 (X)
Median nonfamily income(dollars) 46,064 +/-6,690 (X) (X)
Mean nonfamily income(dollars) 56,186 +/-6,511 (X) (X)
Median earnings for workers(dollars) 39,912 +/-3,013 (X) (X)
Median earnings for male full-time,year-round workers 70,334 +/-5,068 (X) (X)
dollars
Median earnings for female full-time,year-round 42,839 +/-2,854 (X) (X)
workers dollars
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
Civilian noninstitutionalized population (X) (X) (X) (X)
With health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
With private health insurance (X) (X) (X) (X)
With public coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
No health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
Civilian noninstitutionalized population under 18 years (X) (X) (X) (X)
No health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 to 64 years (X) (X) (X) (X)
In labor force: (X) (X) (X) (X)
Employed: (X) (X) (X) (X)
With health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
With private health insurance (X) (X) (X) (X)
With public coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
No health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
Unemployed: (X) (X) (X) (X)
With health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
With private health insurance (X) (X) (X) (X)
With public coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
No health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
Not in labor force: (X) (X) (X) (X)
With health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
With private health insurance (X) (X) (X) (X)
With public coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
No health insurance coverage (X) (X) (X) (X)
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE
INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE
POVERTYLEVEL
All families (X) (X) 1.7% +/-1.3
With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 2.4% +/-2.0
With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 3.8% +/-6.6
Married couple families (X) (X) 0.9% +/-1.1
With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 1.0% +/-1.5
With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 0.0% +/-9.7
Families with female householder,no husband present (X) (X) 6.2% +/-6.3
With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 8.9% +/-8.8
With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 16.5% +/-28.4
All people (X) (X) 3.1% +/-1.5
Under 18 years (X) (X) 2.2% +/-2.0
Related children under 18 years (X) (X) 2.0% +/-1.9
Related children under 5 years (X) (X) 4.7% +/-5.5
Related children 5 to 17 years (X) (X) 1.0% +/-1.0
18 years and over (X) (X) 3.4% +/-1.7
18 to 64 years (X) (X) 3.1% +/-1.7
3 of 4 05/18/2012
Subject Yorkville city,Illinois
Estimate Estimate Margin Percent Percent Margin of
of Error Error
65 years and over (X) (X) 6.0% +/-4.2
People in families (X) (X) 1.4% +/-1.2
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over (X) (X) 13.5% +/-5.9
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error.The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error.The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error(the lower and upper confidence bounds)contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability,the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error(for a discussion of nonsampling variability,see Accuracy of the Data).The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
There were changes in the edit between 2009 and 2010 regarding Supplemental Security Income(SSI)and Social Security.The changes in the edit
loosened restrictions on disability requirements for receipt of SSI resulting in an increase in the total number of SSI recipients in the American
Community Survey.The changes also loosened restrictions on possible reported monthly amounts in Social Security income resulting in higher Social
Security aggregate amounts.These results more closely match administrative counts compiled by the Social Security Administration.
Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week.
Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the North American Industry Classification System 2007.The Industry categories adhere to the
guidelines issued in Clarification Memorandum No.2,"NAICS Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S.Statistical Agencies,"issued by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Occupation codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the Standard Occupational Classification(SOC)2010.The 2010 Census occupation codes
were updated in accordance with the 2010 revision of the SOC.To allow for the creation of 2006-2010 and 2008-2010 tables,occupation data in the
multiyear files(2006-2010 and 2008-2010)were recoded to 2010 Census occupation codes.We recommend using caution when comparing data
coded using 2010 Census occupation codes with data coded using previous Census occupation codes. For more information on the Census
occupation code changes,please visit our website at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ioindex/.
While the 2006-2010 American Community Survey(ACS)data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget(OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas;in certain instances the names,codes,and boundaries of the principal cities shown in
ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population,housing units,and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data.
Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000.As a result,data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily
reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source:U.S.Census Bureau,2006-2010 American Community Survey
Explanation of Symbols:
1. An—'entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to
compute a standard error and thus the margin of error.A statistical test is not appropriate.
2. An'-'entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an
estimate,or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
3. An'-'following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
4. An'+'following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
5. An`*`entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.A
statistical test is not appropriate.
6. An'"""""'entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled.A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
7. An'N'entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
8. An'(X)'means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
4 of 4 05/18/2012
XVIII. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNING
AND APPEAL ACT—THE NEW ILLINOIS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HOUSING PROGRAM
The Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act became effective
January 1, 2004, This Act requires that all local governmental bodies having
zoning authority provide that at least 10% of their year-round housing units
constitute affordable housing. Affordable housing under the Act means
moderate- or low-income housing. If a municipality fails to meet this standard,
then it must submit a plan to the Illinois Housing Development Authority
showing how it will come into compliance. In addition, if a developer of low-
or moderate-income housing believes that he or she was "unfairly denied or
unreasonable conditions were placed upon approval of a development, that
developer may appeal the decision of the local governunental body to a newly-
created State Housing: Appeals Board challenging the decision. This newly-
created Board would then have the power to "affirm, reverse, or modify the
conditions of, or add conditions to, a decision made by the approving authority."
in short, this Board would take over from local government zoning authority as
it relates to low- and moderate-income housing. This affirmative action plan to
mandate low- and moderate-income housing in every jurisdiction is extremely
far-reaching.
A. Historical Perspective
This issue has a history dating back to ,Metropolitan Housing Development
Corporation v. Village of Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. 252 and on remand, 558
Fed.2d 1283 (7th Circuit 1977). In this case, the District Court found that the
Village's motivation in denying the application for rezoning for low-income
housing was based on its concern for property values and the integrity of its
zoning plan and that there was no act of invidious discrimination that would
require the showing of a compelling state interest to uphold the zoning. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 517 Fed.2d 409 (7th Circuit 1975).
In doing so, the Court sought to assess the Village's decision in light of its
historical context and ultimate affect. The Court found that Arlington Heights
had exploited a long history of segregated housing patterns in the metropolitan
area by failing to integrate its community and was attempting to avoid its
responsibility by rejecting "the only present hope of making even a small
contribution toward eliminating the pervasive problem of segregated housing."
This decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Arlington
Heights had an affirmative duty to alleviate the problem of segregated housing.
The United States Supreme Court, in reversing the Seventh Circuit, stated:
Our decisions last term in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (11976)
made it clear that official action will not be held unconstitutional solely
because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.
"Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole
touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination.,, Id at 242. Proof of
148
racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation
of the equal protection clause.
429 U.S. at 265.
There was no evidence which required a finding that Arlington Heights had
administered its zoning policy in a discriminatory manner. Therefore, there was
no constitutional requirement of providing for low- and moderate-income
housing even where the effect of not providing for that housing perpetuated
racially segregated housing.
In New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court tried a different tack and
held that, under that state's Constitution, the Township of Mount Laurel had an
obligation to act affirmatively to alleviate segregated housing patterns and to set
aside certain amounts of land for the encouragement of low- and moderate
income housing. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount
Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A2d 713 (1975). Indeed, the New Jersey Supreme
Court, in a remarkable display of judicial activism, decided that the entire region
had an obligation to provide for low- and moderate income housing.
Interestingly, this decision had little effect on encouraging municipalities to fall
into line with the policies of the Court. Instead, it became necessary in the case
of Mount Laurel II, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount
Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A2d 390 (1983), for the New Jersey Supreme Court to
take further action. In a 248-page opinion, the Chief Justice reaffirmed the
Court's earlier Mount Laurel holding and then set about to judicially legislate
what the Court believed to be the necessary affirmative measures to realistically
provide for low-income housing. In that case, the Court established panels of
trial judges to oversee housing needs for particular municipalities as well as
special masters (fact-finders to serve the Court)to assist in this operation.
Here in Illinois, it is a majority of the State Legislature which has taken up
the reasoning of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the views of the plaintiffs in
the Metropolitan .Housing case and has mandated municipalities to engage in
affirmative action toward integration. The Affordable Housing Planning and
Appeal Act is an affirmative action housing plan to achieve the same ends
denied by the federal courts. The new Act reflects this same theme of seeking to
obtain low- and moderate-income housing scattered throughout suburban areas
by requiring that such housing be built throughout the State, with each suburb
taking on its "fair share" of such housing. Under this new Act, there is obviously
no need to prove that segregated housing is a result of an intent to discriminate.
Instead, the legislature is simply putting the burden on each municipality to take
action to promote integration and, if it fails to do so, upon a complaint by a
"developer" to have a super zoning board of appeals created by the State, order
that such integration take place.
B. Home Rule
The Act does not specifically preempt home rule. While there are
arguments being made by the Illinois Housing Development Authority that the
149
Act was intended to preempt home rule, the Act does not contain the preemption
language. Under the Illinois Constitution (111. Constitution Article VII, Section
6(g)), the General Assembly may pass a law which preempts home rule
municipalities. However, the cases hold that the General Assembly must include
an explicit statement restricting the power of home rule municipalities. See,
Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 111.24 164, 197 (1992). The Act does not
contain any such specific language. Therefore, as the Act is presently
constituted, it does not apply to home rule units. The General Assembly
would have to preempt home rule authority. Therefore, home rule
municipalities are not required to comply with the Act.
C. What Must a Non-Exempt Municipality Do?
1. Do a Survey
First, the municipality must do a survey of all housing units within its
borders and then determine which of those units qualify as affordable housing.
Under the Act, affordable housing means "housing that has a sales price or
rental amount that is within the means of a household that may occupy
moderate-income or low-income housing." Moderate-income housing is
defined as "housing that is affordable, according to the Federal-Department-of_
Housing-and-Urban--Development for either home ow_ nership g
d r rental, that-i&l
occupied.- or marketed for occupancy by households with a gross
household income that is greater than 50% but does not exceed 8Q%-of-the
median gross household income for households of the same size within the
county in which the housing is located." Low-income housing is defined as
"housing that is affordable, according to the Federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development for either home ownership or rental, that is occupied,
reserved, or marketed for occupancy by households with a gross household
income that does not exceed 50"/o of the median gross household income for
households of the same size within the county in which the housing is located."
At the initial stage, the municipality is required to determine the total
number of affordable housing units necessary to exempt it from the Act. It is up
to the municipality to conduct this survey and to, apparently, assign personnel
within the municipality to carry out the mandate of the Act. Beginning
October 1, 2004, the Illinois Housing Development Authority is required to
determine which "local governments are exempt . . , from the operation of. . .
the Act . . ."
2. Make Up a Plan
In addition to doing the survey, and, perhaps more difficult, is the
requirement of identifying properties within "the jurisdiction that are most
appropriate for the construction of affordable housing and of existing structures
most appropriate for conversion to or rehabilitation for, affordable housing . . ."
This, of course, requires a process very similar to the process a municipality
follows when it prepares a Comprehensive Flan. Many communities are already
150
completely built so that there is very little vacant land available. Some of the
vacant land may be extremely valuable industrial or commercial sites. In regard
to property that may be converted or would be suitable for rehabilitation, this
most clearly envisions rundown or dilapidated properties or even vacant
properties. It is unlikely that the owner of an existing apartment complex within
the community who has units fully-rented at market rates would be prepared to
convert that building into affordable housing units. Much depends on the
housing stock of the particular community.
It is clear, however, that what the State is requiring is considerable time and
effort and, undoubtedly, the services of a planner and persons within the real
estate community to assist in the process. In a community where single-family
homes are selling at say, a minimum of $300,000 per home and the only
remaining vacant land is either for commercial, industrial, or single-family
residential use, it is not likely that the municipality will be able to readily
identify any of that property for affordable housing. It would require not only
"identification" but a determination of converting those properties into another
zoning district classification, which would allow for highly intense multiple-
family residential housing. This is a costly process, and it is unlikely that most
municipalities have planned their budgets in such a way as to allow for this
expenditure. it requires diverting funds which would otherwise be used for
salaries or some other public purpose to carry out the requirements of the Act,
3. Financial Incentives
The municipality is also required to set forth:
. . .incentives that local governments may provide for the purpose of
attracting affordable housing to their jurisdiction; and din addition set
forth] a goal of a minimum of 15% of all new development or
redevelopment within the local government that would be defined as
affordable housing in this Act; or a minimum of a three percentage
point increase in the overall percentage of affordable housing within its
jurisdiction every five years as defined in Section 20 of this Act; or a
minimum of a total of 10% of affordable housing within its jurisdiction.
(S.H.A. 310ILCS 67125(b)(ii)(iii)(iv)).
The following are specific financial incentives which might be employed:
(a) Waiver of developer donation fees to schools and park districts. This,
of course, would require the cooperation of the school districts and the
park districts, which might be extremely reluctant to waive such fees if
a large number of school children or park users were to be generated
from the development.
(b) Bond financing. The bonds can be issued by the local government or
through IHDA, the Illinois Housing Development Authority, which can
issue the bonds on behalf of local government. There are statutory
151
procedures set forth for the issuing of low and moderate income
housing bonds.
(c) Tax Increment Financing. TIFs can be created in areas which ate
designated as blighted areas. Under this process, any incremental tax
generated by the development can be used to help fund the project. The
use of this financing method requires the expertise of attorneys and
other consultants. Certainly in areas where a municipality is looking at
the need for redevelopment because of blighted conditions, this
could be a valuable tool while, at the same time, encouraging
affordable housing.
(d) The use of special service areas. Where a subdivision of multiple-
family housing is to be created, the use of a special service area to help
finance public improvements can also afford a developer substantial
financial incentive.
(e) State and federal tax credit programs. These are available to
developers of affordable housing. They provide an equity contribution
to affordable housing through the sale of tax credits to investors,
thereby generating non-debt funds that can be added to the
development's overall funding.
(f) The Illinois Affordable Dousing Trust Fund. This is administered by
IHDA. This State funding source assists in the provision of affordable
housing for low- and very-low-income households.
D. Inclusionary Zoning
In addition to the foregoing financial incentives, there is a tool which has
been suggested and which is being employed in various municipalities around
the country, which is referred to as an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. This
type of ordinance is very much like an affirmative action plan adopted by the
municipality. Because it seems to be the principal tool being suggested by
advocates of affordable housing, it needs to be addressed in some detail.
1. What is lnclusionary Zoning?
The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has available a model Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to seek to "fulfill the policy
goal of the State of Illinois as stated in the Affordable Housing Act" It also
includes other purposes, including; "to achieve a diverse and balanced
community with housing available for households of all income levels as a
matter of basic fairness. . ." The basic function of the ordinance is to require
that, wherever a development of a certain minimum number of residential units
are to be constructed, that the developer must include a certain percentage of
affordable housing as defined by the Act. Therefore, under the ordinance, no
development will be approved for construction unless the developer includes
152
this percentage of affordable housing. For example, under the ordinance
provided by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, any new residential development
meeting a threshold number of units, for example, ten or any substantial rehab
or a condominium conversion, must include a percentage of affordable housing,
say, 20%. It is pointed out in the ordinance referred to that "communities often
require 20% of affordable housing when a developer receives financial
assistance, say, in the form of TIF funds or, where there is no financial
assistance, 15% of affordable housing units.
There is also a provision for so-called density bonuses. What this means is
that, if a proposed development is covered by the Act, say, it's a multiple-family
development of the minimum size, a density bonus is provided equal to one
regular "market-rate dwelling unit for each affordable dwelling unit." So, for
example, if it is necessary for the developer to agree to include two affordable
housing units within the development, the developer would be allowed to build
an additional two units above and beyond what the zoning would otherwise
allow. If ten units were proposed, then the developer would be allowed to build
12 units, of which two would have to be affordable housing. Whether the
additional two units make up the cost to the developer of having to sell two units
at substantially below market is, of course, a question dependent upon the
economics of the particular development. There might also be additional cost
offsets in the form of increasing the maximum floor area ratio and the height of
the development.
It might also be the case that a developer of market units would pay a fee in
lieu of having to provide affordable housing units, which would go to an
affordable housing trust fund for use in assisting with the construction of
affordable housing.
2. There are at Least Two Serious Problems with the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance.
As has already been discussed, the Affordable Housing Planning and
Appeal Act does not preempt home rule. Yet, it would seem clear that only
home rule municipalities would have the authority to enact an Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance. Since home rule municipalities are not covered by the Act,
they need not enact an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the burden
of enacting such an ordinance would fall on a non-home rule municipality, yet
there is nothing in the Act which cedes to non-home rule municipalities the
type of zoning authority necessary to pass an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Non-home rule municipalities derive their power to enact zoning laws from the
Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5111-13-1). This Act does contain some
general language regarding the promotion of the "public health, safety, comfort,
morals and welfare . . ." however, that language is followed by a specific litany
of the types of actions that may be taken. There is nothing in the Act which
authorizes zoning considerations based upon the social and economic
considerations referenced in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Whether or
not such an ordinance would be sustainable would await a court test.
153
In a Virginia case, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. DeGrofjr'
Enterprises, Inc., 198 S .E.2d 600 (Virginia 1973), the Virginia Supreme Court
considered an amendment to a county zoning ordinance that required
developers to set aside 15% of their residential units for affordable housing. The
Court held the zoning amendment invalid,stating the following:
The amendment was improper because it constituted "socio-economic
zoning."
According to the Court, the county only had the authority under the statutes
to pass traditional zoning ordinances, which were directed to the physical
characteristics of the land. 198 S.E.2d 600 at 602. Furthermore,the Court found
that the amendment violated the Constitution, which prohibits taking property
for public purposes without just compensation. The Court stated that, because
the amendment required rental and sales prices that were not fixed by a free
market, there was a taking of the differential in values.Id.
As to the payment of a fee for a development in lieu of setting aside 10% of
the units as affordable, the Court in Dacey v. Town of Barnstable (Barnstable
Supreme Court 2000) held that this was a tax which the municipality could only
apply if granted specific authority by the state legislature. The Court held it was
not a permissible fee. As the Court noted, the charges were not intended to
compensate Barnstable for services provided in reviewing the plans and other
services of the municipality but to provide for a fund for affordable housing.
However, in the case of Homebuilders Association of Northern California
v. City of Napa, 90 Cal App. 4th 188; 108 Cal Rptr. 60 (2001), a City of Napa
Incluusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring 10% of all residential units to be used
for low- and moderate-income housing was upheld primarily because the
ordinance contained a provision which allowed the developer to appeal to the
City for a reduction or adjustment or even a complete waiver of the
requirements of the ordinance "based upon the absence of any reasonable
relationship or nexus between the impact of the development and . . . the
inclusionary requirement." 90 Cal App. 4th at 199. See also, the United States
Supreme Court decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994),
which is a case dealing with what constitutes a taking when an involuntary
contribution is required to obtain a building permit.
However, in Illinois, in order to impose an impact fee or to impose a similar
type of economic condition upon a developer, it is more likely that a more
stringent Illinois test would be applied. In Illinois, the exaction required of the
property owner must be "specifically and uniquely" attributable to the
development. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 22
111.2d 375, 176 N.E.2d 799 (1961). See also, Krughoff v. City afNaperville, 41
I1l.Ap3d 334, 354 N.E.2d 489 (2d Dist, 1976) affirmed 68 I11.2d 352(1977).
154
Therefore, there is the rather paradoxical situation that the Act does not
apply to home rule units and yet only home rule units may have the authority
under their general powers to enact a so-called Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
It has not been determined, but it is certainly probable, that a court would find
that non-home rule municipalities do not have the authority under the zoning
enabling legislation to enact the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
In any event, the ordinance would have to pass muster under the
constitutional standards of the State, and there might weil be a question as to
whether the exaction being required of the developer to provide either units of
affordable housing or to pay a fee in lieu thereof is specifically and uniquely
attributable to the particular development. For those who might argue that
providing an equivalent number of bonus market units is a form of
"compensation," it should be pointed out that the compensation may not, in fact,
be a fair measure to the developer of the amount of loss or taking and, that in
any event, the taking comes first and,under the Illinois Constitution, the amount
of compensation is later to be determined by a court proceeding unless agreed
upon by the property owner.
E. Enforcement of the Act
1. The State Housing Appeals Board
The Act calls for the creation of a Housing Appeals Board consisting of
seven members appointed by the Governor. In addition, the Chairman of the
Illinois Housing Development Authority is an ex officio member. The Act also
authorizes the Illinois Housing Development Authority to adopt such "other
rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the Board's
responsibilities under the Act and to provide direction to local governments
and affordable housing developers." S.H.A. 310 ILCS 67150. The Board has
the authority to "affirm, reverse, or modify the conditions of, or add conditions
to, a decision made by the approving authority. The decision of the Board
constitutes an order directed to the approving authority and is binding on the
local government."
Z. Who is an Affordable Housing Developer?
Any non-profit entity, limited equity cooperative, public agency, private
individual, firm, corporation, or other entity "seeking to build an affordable
housing development" is an affordable housing developer who can bring an
action before the Board. What exactly constitutes "seeking to build an affordable
housing development" remains to be determined. May it be someone who has
sent a letter to a municipality advising that he or she is desirous of building an
affordable housing development even though that individual does not have the
financial ability to build such a development? May it be a not-far-profit
organization which advocates the building of affordable housing but does not in
itself build affordable housing? May it be someone who has taken an option on
155
property within the municipality subject to obtaining a zoning change, say from
commercial or industrial to high-density residential?
3. What Is the Burden Placed on the Developer in an Appeal to the
Board?
The developer must bear the burden "of demonstrating that he or she has
been unfairly denied or unreasonable conditions have been placed upon the
tentative approval (whatever that is to mean) for the application for an
affordable housing development." The question of what is "unfair" or
"unreasonable" is certainly up in the air and appears to give the Board extremely
wide leeway. The Act further provides that the Board is to consider "facts and
whether the developer was treated in a manner that places an undue burden on
the development due to the fact that the development contains affordable
housing as defined in the Act." Again, the question might reasonably be
asked as to what is "an undue burden?" On one level, any zoning restriction
which requires that only single-family residential units be built on a
particular parcel of land where, of course, due to the economic
circumstances, it is necessary to transform the land into multiple-family
housing might be deemed "an undue burden."
Whether the Act is truly intended to give this State board unfettered
discretion to interpret the words "undue burden" or "unfairly denied"
remains to be seen. If, in fact, traditional zoning considerations must give
way to the economic and social considerations of affordable housing, then it
might well be that no zoning restriction which prohibits the density
requirements needed for affordable housing will pass muster before the
Board. On the other hand, if traditional zoning cases may still be applied in
determining the validity of the zoning under the Zoning Enabling Act, (e.g.,
the LaSalle factors, LaSalle Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook, 12
Ill.2d 40, 145 N.E.2d 65 (1957)), and if the zoning classification is valid
under those factors, then the Board and, ultimately, an appellate court would
have to decide whether these new, rather vague standards, are intended to
trump the traditional zoning standards. While the case before the Board is
considered to be de novo there is nothing in the Act which incorporates any
reference to the validity of the zoning ordinance in question under a
traditional view. However, it might well be argued that, if the zoning is valid
under the traditional view of zoning, the municipality did not act "unfairly"
or "unreasonably" in refusing to give tentative approval to the development,
4. Grounds for Dismissing the Appeal
The Board is required to dismiss the appeal if the local governmental
body: has adopted an affordable housing plan, as defined in the Act; has
submitted the plan to the Illinois Housing Development Authority within the
time frame required by the Act; and has implemented its plan so as to meet its
goal. Its goal might be that a minimum of 15% of new development be
affordable housing, or a minimum of a three percentage point increase in the
156
overall percentage of affordable housing every five years beginning January
1, 2005, or 10% of its total year-around housing units are affordable.
The Board is also required to dismiss the appeal if the municipality is
exempt from the Act (this simply means that the Act is not applicable because
the 10%requirement is satisfied).
The Board is required to dismiss any appeal if the reasons for denying the
application related to so-called "non-appealable local government
requirements under the Act." These nom-appealable requirements are defined
under the Act to mean "all essential requirements that protect the public health
and safety, including any local building, electrical, fire or plumbing code
requirements or those requirements that are critical to the protection or
preservation of the environment."
Significantly, zoning is not listed as one of the non-appealable local
government requirements.
F. The Power of the Board
The Board has the authority to "affirm, reverse or modify the conditions of
or add conditions to, a decision made by the approving authority." This is a very
broad mandate which could include, in effect, rezoning property within the
municipality. This is very different from the authority given to the courts which
are limited to determining whether or not a particular zoning classification is
valid. A court has no authority to rezone the subject property. As the court
stated in LaSalle National Bank v. City of Chicago, 130 I11.App.2d 457, 264
N.E.2d 799 (Ist Dist. 1970);
The issue here is how a decree in a zoning case is to be framed.
While the courts possess the authority to pass upon the validity of a
zoning ordinance, this authority does not include the power to
determine the ultimate zoning classification. Reeve v. Village of
Glenview, 29111.2d 611, 195 N.E.2d 188 (1963).
Since the practical effect of declaring an existing zoning ordinance
void in regard to a particular piece of property is to leave that piece
of property In an unzoned condition, the court may frame its order
in reference to a specific proposal before it and find that the
contemplated use would be a reasonable one. .. However, the court
must exercise this authority with extreme care to avoid any
encroachment into the legislative function of zoning. . .
The present legislation is not as scrupulous in regard to the authority
delegated to the State Housing Appeals Board. The ability to "modify the
conditions of, or add conditions to, a decision made by the approving authority"
appears to go well beyond the authority vested in a court.
157
Therefore, not only does local government lose its zoning authority under
this Act, but that authority, legislative in nature, is now being delegated to an
appointed State board which appears to have almost unfettered discretion as to
how it will act. Whether this discretion would be tempered by an appellate court
interpretation of the Act remains to be seen.
G. Appellate Court Review
The Act allows for an appellate court to review a decision of the Board. The
Act does not spell out how that review would be taken, but one might assume
that it would be in the form of an administrative review with the record of the
Board going to the appellate court. Whether the decision of the Board is to be
given the same deference as an administrative agency is yet to be determined,
but that would be the normal process if the Board is deemed to be an
administrative agency.
H. Intergovernmental Agreements
The Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act provides that the goals of
the Act may be met, in whole or in part, by the creation of affordable housing
units under intergovernmental agreements. 310 ILLS 67/25(e). The Act permits
"regional cooperation" between any non-exempt local government and local
governments within 10 miles of the corporate boundaries of an exempt local
government to create affordable housing units to meet the goals of the Act. A
non-exempt municipality may not enter into such an agreement with any local
government that contains more than 25% of affordable housing. 310 ILCS
67/25 (b)(e). The intergovernmental agreement is required to specify "how
many of the affordable housing units created will be credited to each local
government participating in the agreement for purposes of complying" with the
Act. The same units may not be counted by more than one local government.
This provision opens up a variety of possibilities for the zoning and financing of
affordable housing units on a regional basis. It is a sensible approach,
especially for those units of local government which are land-locked or which
are almost exclusively made up of expensive single family housing units.
158
Ancel, Glink,Diamond, Bush, DiCianni&Kraf hefer, P.C.
Zoning Administration Handbook
Page -39-
7, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNING AND APPEAL ACT
Illinois recently joined several other states in making provisions for affordable housing a
matter of statewide concern by passage of the Illinois Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal
Act ("AHPA'�.69 Section 10 of the Act sets out its purpose:
The purpose of this Act is to encourage counties and municipalities to
incorporate affordable housing within their housing stock sufficient to
meet the needs of their county or community. Further, affordable
housing developers who believe that they have been unfairly treated
due to the fact that the development contains affordable housing may
seek relief from local ordinances and regulations that may inhibit the
construction of affordable housing needed to serve low-income and
moderate- income households in this State.65
This purpose statement serves as an introduction to the state of Illinois' more direct
involvement in municipal zoning matters as they pertain to provisions of affordable housing.
A. OXerview of AHPA.
At the outset, AHPA provides a technical definition of what is "affordable housing."
Under AHPA, "affordable housing" is that housing with a sale price or rental value that is within
the means of a household that may occupy:
(1) Moderate-income housing that is marketed for occupancy by households with
gross household income that is greater than 50%, but does not exceed 80% of
the area median household income; or
(2) Low-income housing that is marketed for occupancy by households with a gross
income that does not exceed 50% of the area median household income.
For "for sale"housing, affordability means that housing costs (i.e. mortgage, taxes, insurance,
amortization, and homeowners association fees) do not exceed 30% of the gross annual
household income for a household of the size occupying the house. For rental housing,
affordability means that the rent and utilities constitute no more than 30% of the gross annual
household income for a household of the size occupying the rental unit. The term "area median
household income" is established throughout the state annually by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.`
310 ILCS 67/1
bs 310 ILCS 67/10
66 310 ILCS 67/15
Ansel, Glink,Diamond,Bush,D/Cianni B Krafidhefer, P.C.
Zoning Administration Handbook
Page -40-
In August of 2004, the Illinois Housing Development Authority ("IHDA") contacted all
municipalities that were not-exempt from the requirements of AHPA—this was based on an
analysis of certain data set forth in the AHPA. To be exempt from the provisions of AHPA,
IHDA's analysis must have established that 10% or more of a county's or municipality's year-
round housing stock is affordable housing, as defined in AHPA. Municipalities with population
under 1,000 are automatically exempt.67
Prior to April 1, 2005, non-exempt municipalities were required to adopt Affordable
Housing Plans that, which among other things:
• Provides a statement of the total number of affordable housing units that are
necessary to exempt the local government from the operation of AHPA;
• Identifies lands within the municipality that are most appropriate for the
construction of affordable housing and of existing structures most appropriate for
conversion to, or rehabilitation for, affordable housing, including a consideration of
lands and structures of developers who have expressed a commitment to provide
affordable housing and lands and structures that are publicly or semi-publicly
owned;
• Lists incentives that the municipality may provide for the purpose of attracting
affordable housing to their jurisdiction; and
• Establishes one of the following goals:
(a) a minimum of 15% of all new development or redevelopment within the
municipality defined as affordable housing in AHPA; or
(b) a minimum of a 3 percentage point increase in the overall percentage of
affordable housing within the municipality as described in Section 20 of AHPA; or
(c) a minimum of a total of 10% affordable housing within the municipality as
described in Section 20 of AHPA.
A copy of the municipality's Affordable Housing Plan must be filed with IHDA not later
than 60 days after its adoption.68
e�310 ILCS 67/20
310 ILCS 67/25
Ancel, Glink,Diamond,Bush, DiCianni B Kraf hefer, P.C.
Zoning Administrat7on Handbook
Page-41-
IHDA will issue a new list of new non-exempt municipalities based upon data from the
2010 decennial census. Municipalities that are found to be non-exempt under AHPA will have
18-months from the date of notification of their status by IHDA to approve an Affordable
Housing Plan.
g. Statutory Authority to Promote Affordable Housing.
Several amendments were made to AHPA in 200569 that, among other things, provided
a number of statutorily authorized tools to promote affordable housing, Under these
amendments, a local governments may:
• Jointly or individually, create housing trust funds or otherwise provide direct financial
support for the purposes of facilitating affordable housing development;
• Create community land trusts that may (1) acquire land and hold it for affordable
housing development, (2) convey such land under long term land lease or by deed, and
(3) may retain an option to reacquire such land to ensure its use for affordable housing;
• Use zoning powers to require the creation and preservation of affordable housing — also
know as Inclusionary zoning"; and
• Require developers that do not produce affordable housing, as otherwise required under
zoning or other ordinances, to donate land or make a cash contribution in lieu of
providing affordable housing units.
Finally, to ensure for a regional stock of affordable housing, the amendments enable a
non-exempt municipality to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with another
municiaplity within 10-miles of its corporate boundaries to create and meet its affordable
housing requirement. However, no such intergovernmental agreement can be made with a
municipality that is calculated as having more than 25% of its total housing stock defined as
"affordable" under AHPA. An intergovernmental agreement must provide the following:
• Basis for determining how many affordable housing units created will be credited to
each municipality; and
• Specify the anticipated number of newly created affordable housing units credited to
each municipality.
C. State Housing Agwealls Board.
69 P.A. 94-303,eff.July 21, 2005
Ancel, Glink, Diamond,Bush, D1Cianni&Kra Rhefer,P.C.
Zoning Adminlst ation Handbook
Page-42-
The teeth of the AHPA are provided in the establishment of a new State Housing
Appeals Board ("SHAH`) that, beginning on January 1, 2009, will begin accepting appeals from
affordable housing developers who receive adverse municipal zoning decisions that affect the
feasibility of or outright deny the ability to develop affordable housing projects. SHAG may
then begin to render decisions that may overturn such adverse municipal or county
decisions. In any proceeding before SHAG, the developer has the burden of proof. An appeal
shall be dismissed by SHAB where;
• The municipality has adopted and submitted an affordable housing plan to IHDA not
later than April 1, 2005;
• The municipality has implemented and met its goals established in its Affordable
Housing Plan; or
• The reason for denial is based on a "non-appealable government requirement"that are
all essential requirements that protect the public health and safety, including any local
building, electric, fire prevention, or plumbing codes.
A developer must make his or her appeal within 45-days after the adverse decision of
the municipality. SHAB must render a decision on any appeal with 120-day after the appeal
was filed. The 2005 amendments removed language that made such appeals subject to a de
novo review by SHAB; in other words, conducting a new zoning hearing to reach its decision.
Instead, aggrieved developers now carry the sole burden of demonstrating that his or her
project was unfairly denied or has unreasonable conditions placed upon it that make it
infeasible.
The 2005 amendments provide that a municipality found to be non-exempt, after IHDA's
analysis of the 2010 decennial census, shall be immune from appeals made by aggreived
affordable housing developers to SHAB for a period of 60-months after being notified of its non-
exempt status by IHDA.
The Illinois Appellate Court has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from decisions of
SHAB.7° Any appeal to the Appellate Court may be heard only in the Appellate Court for the
district in which the local government is located.
D. Zoning Implications of AHPA.
The powers of SHAB provide a strong incentive to non-exempt municipalities to adopt
their Affordable Housing Plans. A non-exempt municipality that fails to meet these statutory
deadlines may very well find an appealed adverse zoning decision on an affordable housing
project overturned by the state, wresting control of the development from the municipality.
70 310 ILCS 67130
Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni&Krafdiefer, P.C.
Zoning Administration Handbook
Page -43-
Further, the power of SHAB creates—in effect a state zoning agency that can overturn
distinctly local zoning decisions, potentially creating a highly undesirable situation on a number
of levels for municipalities and their elected leaders.
PRA CYCE 77P, -
ach municipality must determine for itself whether it will comply with or wait and see what
happens With AHPA, AHPA may very well be amended, perhaps even overturned on any
number of grounds. However, it is ,prudent for all non-exempt municipalities to submit to
IHDA a Affordable mousing Plan to avoid the imposition of state authority in zoning matters
pertaining to affordable housing.
Most local government attorneys and law firms, including Ancel Glink, have taken the
position, based on strong legal premises, that home rule municipalities are exempt. However, it
serves to note that IHDA has taken a contrary position in its AHPA Recommended Procedural
Guidelines for Compliance. Specifically, IHDA states:
The bills passed by both houses of the legislature (House Bill 625 in 2003 and
Senate Bill 2724 in 2004) were silent on this issue. Also, in neither case did a
legislator request a Home Rule Note, a process administered by the Department
of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) upon legislative request, to
make a determination of home rule applicability to that particular bill. Since the
law does not specifically provide for a home rule exemption, IHDA will assume
that the law does apply to home rule municipalities and counties. IHDA does not
intend to request or issue a legal opinion on this matter. Municipalities or counties
wanting further legal clarification should consult their own legal counsel.
Ancel Glink does not agree with the rationale offered by IHDA for AHPA's application to
home rule municipalities. Illinois law is quite clear that the General Assembly must specifically
preempt home rule powers in statutes it wants to have apply statewide, regardless of home rule
status. However, each home rule municipality should—as IHDA suggests--consult with their
attorneys on this matter.
CHAPTER 10
Conservation Design District
10-10-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide for an alternative zoning procedure for conservation design
developments that provide value to the community and the environment over the conventional zoning district and
which is consistent with the comprehensive plan and intent of the zoning ordinance.Conservation Design
Developments(CDD)are intended to encourage the most imaginative and best possible design of building forms
and site planning for tracts of land where unitary plans would best adapt to topographic and other natural features
of such sites.
The Conservation Design Development district purpose is to:
A. Conserve undeveloped land for the purpose of protecting primary and secondary conservation areas in
contiguous, un-fragmented,commonly managed landscape to;
1. Protect large, intact wildlife habitat areas and connect patches of wildlife habitat to support greater
biodiversity, maintain ecosystem processes and allow larger, healthier populations to exist; and
2. Minimize edge conditions and associated colonization by invasive plant species.
B.Contribute to the creation of a community wide greenway system for the benefit of present and future
residents;
C. Protect productive agricultural soils for continued or future agricultural use by conserving areas of land large
enough to allow for efficient farming operations;
D. Encourage innovation and promote flexibility, economy,and ingenuity in development;
E. Provide for the conservation and maintenance of greenway land and for active or passive recreational use by
residents;
F. Provide greater efficiency in the siting of services and infrastructure, including the opportunity to reduce length
of roads, utility runs, and the impervious cover required for residential development;
G. Protect water quality and reduce erosion and sedimentation by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing
development on steep slopes;
H. Implement land use,open space,and community policies set forth in the United City of Yorkville's
Comprehensive Plan.
10-10-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
Refer to Chapter 6 of this Title.
56
10-10-3: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
Conservation Design Subdivisions are expressly exempt from the lot area, lot width,yard area,and lot coverage
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots must be of a size and shape to allow for compliance with applicable
building codes and to provide for high-quality living environment for subdivision residents. Lots immediately
abutting or within 150 feet of an existing or approved subdivision may be no smaller than 80%of the average lot
size within the adjacent subdivision.
10-10-4: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:
A. One-and Two-Family detached dwellings: Forty feet(40')and not more than 2.5 stories,whichever is less
B. Single Family Attached &Multiple Family dwellings: Eighty feet(80')and not more than six(6)stories,
whichever is less.
10-10-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Maximum Development Potential
1. Base Density:
i. The United City of Yorkville's Comprehensive Plan land use classifications shall be used
to determine base densities:
Land Use Classification Maximum Base Density
(dwelling units per acre)
Rural Neighborhood 0.5
Estate Neighborhood 1.5
Suburban Neighborhood 2.0
ii. If the conservation design subdivision is located in more than one land use classification,
the maximum number of dwelling units allowed must be determined separately for
each portion of the site lying within a different land use classification. Density may be
transferred from one portion of the site to another, provided that such transfers do not
result in an increase in the number of dwelling units allowed on the overall site.
2. Dwelling Unit Yield Formula (Pre Bonus)
i. Determine Base Site Area
1. Determine Gross Site Area
2. Subtract Right of Way(existing and ultimate)
3. Equals BASE SITE AREA
ii. Determine Buildable Area
1. BASE SITE AREA
2. Subtract Regulated wetlands and wetland buffers
3. Equals BUILDABLE AREA
iii. Determine Net Site Area
1. BUILDABLE AREA
2. Subtract 10%of buildable area for stormwater management
3. Subtract 15%of buildable area for streets
4. Equals NET SITE AREA
iv. Determine Maximum Dwelling Units
1. NET SITE AREA
2. Multiple by land use classification base density
3. Equals Pre Bonus Maximum Dwelling Units Allowed
3. Density Bonus
57
i. The maximum increase in density shall be limited to twenty(20) percent of the
permitted density. The following list of incentives may be utilized to reach a density
bonus not to exceed twenty(20) percent.
1. Internal trails and open spaces are connected with existing or potential multi
use trails and open space outside of the development and provide access to the
public.Open space must be connected to larger greenway systems when
technically possible. 3-5%
2. The amount of open space provided exceeds the required open space per
section=__for the development by ten (10) percent or more. 3-5%
3. Open space within the development is placed into a conservation easement
with a legally incorporated land conservation organization or donated to a
public open space agency. 3-5%
4. Wetland restoration and/or enhancement is performed that is substantially in
excess of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. 3-5%
5. Remnant prairies,savannas,and woodlands are substantially restored prior to
the turnover of the property to the Homeowners Association or land
conservation organization. Such restoration will consist of the removal of
invasive trees, brush,and herbaceous species and the establishment of native
herbaceous species. 3-5%
6. Innovative detention/retention basins such as(a)significant use of native
vegetation such as prairies and wetlands to retain water, (b) integration of
natural land forms,existing soil filtration characteristics,and natural
landscaping into the drainage plan,and/or(c)alternatives to detention basins
such as stormwater infiltration in naturalized swales, rain gardens, and gently
sloped depressional areas. 3-5%
B. Open Space Requirements
1. A minimum percentage of land shall be designated as permanent open space dependent upon
the United City of Yorkville's Comprehensive Plan land use classification for said property. The
open space area shall be including all non-buildable area and a minimum of 20%of the buildable
area.
Land Use Classification Minimum Open Space based on Base Site
Area
Rural Neighborhood 60%
Estate Neighborhood 50%
Suburban Neighborhood 40%
2. Open space must be dedicated or reserved for one or more of the following uses:
I. Conservation and protection of areas that potentially pose a significant hazard to people
or property(floodplains,wetlands,and lands whose slope and/or soils make them
particularly susceptible to subsidence or erosion when disturbed by development
activities)
II. Conservation and protection of any identified significant natural areas(stream corridors,
woodlands, hedge rows, rare plant communities, important wildlife habitats, etc.)or
other environmentally sensitive areas where development might threaten water quality
or ecosystems;
III. Provision of active and/or passive outdoor recreation opportunities including but not
limited to, ball fields, playgrounds,tennis courts,swimming pools, basketball courts,golf
courses,fishing ponds,shared-use trails,and picnic areas for the use of the general
public. Golf courses shall be designed in compatibly with the Audubon Cooperative
58
Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses and shall endeavor to maximize water quality
benefits through the following practices: (a) use of reclaimed water, (b)use of native
wetland vegetation along ponds, (c) use of landscaping design and plant material that
emphasize native species and promote biodiversity,and (d) limited use of pesticides or
integrated pest management.
iv. Pasture and/or agricultural cropland areas.
3. Ownership and Management
L The petitioner must identify the owner of the open space and is responsible for
obtaining and filing an official letter of acceptance of the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities. A Property Owners'Association may transfer or convey any and all
open space to a land conservation agency or similar entity.
il. The designated owner, or if turned over to a land conservation agency or similar entity,
is responsible for maintaining the open space and any associate facilities. If a property
owner association is the owner, membership in the association is mandatory and
automatic for all property owners of the subdivision and their successors.
III. The petitioner must submit a management plan for the open space and all common
areas. The management plan must:
1. Allocate responsibility and guidelines for the maintenance and operation of the
open space and any associated facilities, including provisions for ongoing
maintenance and for long-term capital improvements;
2. Estimate the costs and staffing requirements needed for maintenance,
operation,and insurance and outline the means by which necessary funding
will be obtained or provided;
3. Provide that any changes to the management plan be approved by City Staff;
4. Provide for the enforcement of the management plan;
5. A budget must be included which lists operations and capital expenses;
6. Thereafter,yearly inspections will be administered by a qualified consultant
selected by and paid for by the property owners'association. A copy of said
yearly inspection shall be provided to the City.
4. Legal Instrument for Permanent Protection
I. The open space must be protected in perpetuity by a binding legal instrument that is
recorded with the deed. The legal instrument must be one of the following
1. A permanent conservation easement in favor of either:
a. A certified land trust or similar conservation-oriented, non-profit
organization with legal authority to accept such easements.
b. A governmental entity
2. An open space tract protected by a permanent restrictive covenant for
conservation and/or agricultural purposes in favor of a governmental entity;or
3. An equivalent legal tool that provides permanent protection, as approved by
the state's attorney.
II. The instrument for permanent protection must include clear restrictions on the use of
the open space. These restrictions must include all restrictions contained in this section,
all restrictions approved by the City Council,and any further restrictions the applicant
chooses to place on the open space.
C. Development Evaluation Criteria
1. In evaluating the layout,amount, and location of lots and open space,the United City of Yorkville
shall evaluate the extent to which the site plan:
59
i. Protects floodplains,wetlands and steep slopes from clearing,grading,filling or
construction;
H. Preserves and maintains mature woodlands,existing fields, pastures,and prairies;
iii. Dwellings sited on least prime agricultural soils
iv. Maintains or creates a buffer of native species vegetation of at least 75 feet in depth
adjacent to wetlands and surface waters
V. Designs around existing hedgerows and treelines and minimizes impacts on woodlands,
especially those containing many mature trees,significant wildlife habitat,or not
degraded by invasive species
Vi. Protects wildlife habitats and ravines
Vii. Leaves scenic views and vistas unblocked, particularly as seen from public thoroughfares
Viii. Avoids siting new construction on prominent hilltops or ridges
ix. Includes a pedestrian circulation system designed to assure that pedestrians can
walk/bike safely and easily on the site, between properties and activities within the
open space system. All footpaths should connect with off-road trails,which in turn
should link with potential open space on adjoining undeveloped properties(or with
existing open space on adjoining developed properties)
X. Provides for contiguous open space. To the greatest extent practicable, open space
shall be designed as a single block with logical,straightforward boundaries.
60