Zoning Commission Packet 2012 08-22-12 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, August 22, 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 July 25, 2012 meeting minutes
5. Old Business:
a) Continued review and Commentary of Proposed CDD, Conservation Design District
• Chapter 11G: Conservation Design District
b) Update of the CMAP Local Technical Assistance (LTA) Grant Application
6. New Business:
7. Adj ournment
8. Next meeting date: September 25, 2012
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
7:00 p.m.
Yorkville City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560
Meeting Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. and Mr. Crouch welcomed everyone.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken. A quorum was established.
Committee Members in Attendance:
Greg Millen
Jeff Baker
Gary Neyer
Michael Crouch
City Officials in Attendance:
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Citizen's Comments
There were no guests in attendance.
Previous Minutes
Mr. Baker moved to accept the June 27, 2012 minutes and Mr. Millen seconded. There
were no discussions, corrections or additions so a vote to accept was made, unanimously
accepted and the motion was carried.
Mr. Crouch then turned the meeting over to Ms.Noble to cover Old Business.
Old Business:
Ms. Noble said there were revisions to the CDD (Chapter 11 G: CDD, Conservation
Design District from the last meeting and will cover the bullet points:
• There was discussion about the term "community garden" and, after searching,
came up with term"collective (Home Owner Association co-op?) gardening."
That way, it is not open the entire community,rather just for that location. Ms.
Noble will work on the verbiage and bring it to a future meeting.
• Section 11-11 G-3 Dimension and Bulk Requirements: Revised to read
"conventional residential" and"at least thirty feet(30) or be no smaller than
eighty percent (8001o) of the adjacent lot area."
• Revised height from 2.5 stories to 3 stories for simplification.
• Density Bonus: According to other communities, the revised calculation for
determining Base Site Area only subtracts existing right-of-way (inclusive of
streets, utility right-of-ways and easements).
• Revised calculation for determining Buildable Area to include giving credit for
floodplain; existing bodies of water(ponds, lakes, etc.); areas having a slope
greater than twelve percent(12%)—to make properties that possibly may not be
buildable more attractive by giving them credit for that; and fifty percent(50%)
for any City approved woodlands, as defined in Section 6: Natural Areas of the
Park Development Standards,which will remain as part of the proposed
development.
• Revised calculations for determining the Net Site Area will: subtract 15% of
buildable area for proposed stormwater management facilities; and subtract 10%
of buildable area for proposed future streets and any additional rights-of-way
dedications or easements required by the City Engineer.
• Revised Section 11-11G-5A-3: Density Bonus to incorporate the following table:
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 as follows:
CONSERVATIONDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MAXIMUM DENSITY PERCENTAGE CREDITS:
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.
2%
The amount of open space provided exceeds the required open
space per section_-_-_of the Park Development Standards for
the development by ten(10)percent or more.
2%
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%
Wetland restoration and/or enhancement performed substantially in
excess of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements.
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
and reforestation will consist of the removal of invasive trees,
brush,and herbaceous species and the establishment of native
herbaceous species.
4%
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.
4%
TOTAL MAXIMUM DENSITY BONUS PERMITTED 20%
Mr. Crouch pointed out that, the ways things are stated above, they are left quite
subjective. When talking in terms of substantial and excessive, it is too vague. Mr.
Neyer offered it would be to everyone's benefit to be as definitive and as specific as
possible. Ms. Noble agreed and will do that.
• Additional research regarding community gardens was attached as it related to the
Zoning Committee's discussion of Section 11-11 G-1 C (above).
• Additional research regarding area communities with Conservation Design
standards was attached as it relates to the Zoning Committee's discussion of
Section 11-11 G-5A (above).
New Business:
Moving along to New Business, Ms. Noble said(as an informational item) the
Blackberry Creek Watershed Action Plan from CMAP was finalized. The reason Ms.
Noble brought it forward to the meeting was because there were planning guidelines in
there for areas that are in that watershed. The United City of Yorkville is adhering to
those policies per zoning code updates in conjunction with the overall plan. Efforts are
being supported by CMAP and IEPA; and the City just approved a resolution saying it is
in full support of the Best Management Practices of the Blackberry Creek Watershed
plan. To view the entire plan, please visit:
htt p://foxriverecosystem.org/WatershedPlanning/Blackberrry/Docs/BBC FullPlan-
Final.pdf.
There was no further business so Mr. Crouch made a motion to adjourn; it was seconded
by Mr. Millen and agreed by all. The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, August 22,
2012 in Yorkville City Hall in the conference room.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. (Thank you, Will! —(you can delete this!)
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: August 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 July 25th meeting discussion and subsequent research. The
proposed revisions and additional information are detailed below:
Old Business:
Chapter 11G: CDD,Conservation Design District
• Revised Section 11-11G-1C to now read "Protect productive agricultural soils for
continued or future agricultural use by conserving areas of land large enough to allow
for efficient farming operations through sustainable means by promoting SHM community
and environmental benefits such as collective gardening organized by the residents of the
subdivision or a homeowners association, orchards, vineyards and buffers between
farmlands and housing."
• Revised Section 11-11G-5A-3: Density Bonus table to make the Conservation
Development Criteria less subjective and more quantitative, specifically with regard to
wetland restoration and detention/retention basin design, per the Commission's
direction.
Ir CONSERVATIONDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA MAXIMUM DENSITY
PERCENTAGE CREDITS
Internal trails and open spaces are connected with existing or
potential multi use trails and open space outside of the development 2%
and provide access to the public. Open space must be connected to
larger greenway systems when technically possible.
The amount of open space provided exceeds the required open
space per section_-_-_of the Park Development Standards for 2%
the development by ten(10)percent or more.
Open space within the development is placed into a conservation
easement with a legally incorporated land conservation 3%
organization or donated to a public open space agency.
Wetland restoration and/or enhancement performed which exceeds
the quantitative standards established in the United City of
Yorkville's Wetland Protection Regulation for Water Quality and 5%
Stormwater Management Benefits (Ord.2008-01) as determined by
the City Engineer.
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 4%
and reforestation will consist of the removal of invasive trees,
brush, and herbaceous species and the establishment of native
herbaceous species.
f
Detention/retention basins which have the functionality to meet the
minimum quantitative stormwater runoff requirements and also 4%
provides one (1) or more of the following innovations: (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.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DENSITY BONUS PERMITTED 20%
New Business:
Local Technical Assistance Program Application Update—CMAP
Attached is a summary of the Community Planning Program and Local Technical Assistance
Program Applications submitted to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) by
various municipalities and local government agencies seeking assistance for planning related
projects. The report can also be viewed at http://www.cmap.illinois. og v/lta/.
There were 88 total applications submitted, and Kendall County had three (3) — Montgomery
(also in Kane County), Oswego and Yorkville. Recommendations by CMAP's staff will be made
to their board and the MPO Policy Committee on October 10, 2012. Once the projects have been
selected, it is expected that CMAP will begin working with the communities in winter 2012 and
spring 2013.
Chapter 11
Residential Districts
ARTICLE G. CDD, CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-11G-1: Purpose and Intent
11-11G-2: Permitted and Special Uses
11-11G-3: Dimensional and Bulk Requirements
11-11G-4: Maximum Building Height
11-11G-5: Development Standards
11-11G-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 through sustainable means by promoting stleh
community and environmental benefits such as collective gardening organized by the residents of the
subdivision or a homeowners association, orchards, vineyards and buffers between farmlands and
housing;
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.
11-11G-2: PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES:
Refer to Chapter 6 of this Title.
11-11G-3: DIMENSIONAL AND BULK REQUIREMENTS:
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 an existing or approved conventional residential
subdivision must maintain a minimum required yard of at least thirty feet (30') or be no smaller than
eighty percent(80%) of the adjacent lot area.
11-11G-4: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:
A. One- and Two-Family detached dwellings: Forty feet (40') and not more than 3stories,
whichever is less.
B. Single Family Attached&Multiple Family dwellings: Eighty feet(80') and not more than six(6)
stories,whichever is less.
11-11G-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 existing Right-of-Way(inclusive of streets, utility right-of-ways
and easements)
3. Equals BASE SITE AREA
ii. Determine Buildable Area
1. BASE SITE AREA
2. Subtract Regulated wetlands and wetland buffers
3. Floodplain
4. Existing bodies of water(ponds, lakes, etc.)
5. Areas having a slope of greater than twelve percent(12%)
6. Fifty percent (50%) for any City approved woodlands, as defined in
Section 6: Natural Areas of Park Development Standards, which will
remain as part of the proposed development.
7. Equals BUILDABLE AREA
iii. Determine Net Site Area
1. BUILDABLE AREA
2. Subtract 15% of buildable area for proposed stormwater management
facilities
3. Subtract 10% of buildable area for proposed future streets and any
additional rights-of-way dedicated or easements required by the City
Engineer.
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
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.
MAXIMUM DENSITY
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA PERCENTAGE
CREDITS
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 2%
must be connected to larger greenway systems when
technically possible.
The amount of open space provided exceeds the required
open space per section _-_-_ of the Park Development 2%
Standards for the development by ten(10)percent or more.
Open space within the development is placed into a
conservation easement with a legally incorporated land
3%
conservation organization or donated to a public open
space agency.
Wetland restoration and/or enhancement performed
substantially in exeess of the U.S. Anny Ger-p
Engineers pennit requirements which exceeds the 5%
quantitative standards established in the United City of
Yorkville's Wetland Protection Regulation for Water
Quality and Stormwater Management Benefits (Ord.2008-
01) as determined by the City En i�neer.
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 and reforestation will 4%
consist of the removal of invasive trees, brush, and
herbaceous species and the establishment of native
herbaceous species.
innovative detentiep.4etentien basins stteh as
Detention/retention basins which have the functionaliu to
meet the minimum quantitative stormwater runoff
requirements and also provides one (1) or more of the
following innovations: (a) significant use of native
vegetation such as prairies and wetlands to retain water, (b) 4%
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.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DENSITY BONUS PERMITTED 20%
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 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
i. 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.
ii. 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:
i. Protects floodplains, wetlands and steep slopes from clearing, grading, filling or
construction;
ii. 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 tree lines 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.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)ss
COUNTY OF KENDALL )
ORDINANCE NO. 2008- jZ H—
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,
KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Whereas, the United City of Yorkville (the "City) has determined that the
protection, preservation, replacement, maintenance and restoration of the Isolated Waters
of Yorkville are important goals needed to protect fragile resources which provide many
public benefits to the City's residents; and
Whereas, the City directed Conservation Design Forum to prepare Wetland
Protection Regulations For Water Quality and Storm Water Management Benefits for
review by the City Engineer and the City Council; and
Whereas, after months of review, discussion and comment, the City is prepared to
adopt and implement the Weiland Protection Regulations For Water Quality and Storm
Water Management Benefits and all Appendixes attached thereto, dated January 1 , 2008.
Now therefore be it Ordained by the Mayor and City Council of the United City
of Yorkville, Kendall County, as follows:
Section 1 . The City Code of the United City of Yorkville is hereby amended in
adding the following new Chapter to Title 8 :
Chapter 16
WETLAND PROTECTION AND WATER
QUALITY AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
16- 1 -1 : Purpose: Preservation of the remaining Isolated Waters of Yorkville and
Waters of the United States, in a natural condition, is necessary to maintain hydrological,
economic, recreational, and aesthetic natural resource values for existing and future
residents and therefore it is a long-term goal of net gain of Isolated Waters of Yorkville
and Waters of the United States to be accomplished through the mitigation requirements
of regulations providing for protection and management of these resources.
16- 1 -2: Regulations Adopted: The United City of Yorkville Wetland Protection
Regulation For Water Quality and Storm Water Management Benefits, dated .January 1 ,
2008, hereinafter referred to as "Wetland Regulations", copies of which are on file with
the City Clerk are hereby adopted.
16- 1 -3 : Permit Required: No person, firm, corporation, governmental agency or
organized district shall commence any development or construction on any lot or parcel
of land without obtaining a permit therefore, if required by the Wetland Regulations.,
16-1 -4: Enforcement: It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to enforce the
provision of this title and the City Administrator or such other person as may be
designated by the City Council may order work stopped whenever any development or
construction is being done in violation of this title.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law..
ROBYN SUTCLIFF JOSEPH BESCO
ARDEN JOE PLOCHER WALLY WERDERICH
GARY GOLINSKI MARTY MUNNS
ROSE SPEARS JASON LESLIE
Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County,
Illinois, this �_ day A.D. 2008.
MAYOR
Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County,
Illinois this day A,D, 2008 .
ATTEST:
CI ' CLERK
Prepared by:
Kathleen Field Orr
City Attorney
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
UNITED CITY OF YORKVIL,LE
WETLAND PROTECTION REGULATION
FOR
WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
.January 1 , 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
Article I AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
Section 1 . l Statutory Authority. .._ I
Section 1 .2 Findings .. 1
Section 1 .3 Objectives . _ _, . 1
Article 2 DEFINITIONS
Section 21 Definition of Terms ,.. 4
Article 3 WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
Section 3 . 1 General Standards . _ .. . . . .. ... ... .. . „ ..,,,..,,.,,... .. %. ... .... .. ....... . . . 10
Section 3 , 1 , 1 Buffer Requirements ._.___. ...., ., .. .._...., , ...._. .._... . . ...... . .. .. . . . .. . _ . 10
Section 3 , 1 ,2 Wetland Hydrology Protection ... ....... . ........... . .. . _.. . _ .._ , . 12
Section 3 , 13 Stonnwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville . _ . , .. .. .. . . .._ ... __ . 12
Section 3 1 .4 Discharge to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U,S, . , . . . ,_ ,_,.... .. , 13
Section 3 L Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development ..,._... ...... ..... 13
Section 3 , 1 . 6 Maintenance of Stonnwater Management Facilities. . . .. . . .. . .._ .. . _ ..... 13
Section 3 ,2 Wetland Permit Provisions .... ... ,.. ., 14
Section 32. 1 Applicability . _ _ 14
Section 3 ,2.2 Wetland Determination Requirement _ .. . 14
Section 32,3 Pre-Submittal Meeting . 14
Section 32.4 Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements . . . . . . . 11 14
Section 32,5 Requirements for Wetland Delineation 1116
Section 3 1 Wetland Permit Conditions _ _ 17
Article 4 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Section 4. 1 Unmitigable Wetland Impacts . . _ .. . 19
Section 4 2 Wetland Mitigation Requirements . . .. . . . . .. __,. J9
Section 4,2, 1 General Mitigation Requirements ... .., ... .. . ... . ... . . ....... . . . .... . . . ._ . .. _ ...., , 19
Section 4.2,2 Mitigation Hierarchy ,,,. . . . .. ... . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . 20
Section 4.3 Wetland Mitigation Plan . . ....,_. _. ,_ 21
Section 4.4 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Protocol , , . . 22
Section 4, 5 Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards _,.._,._,. _,. ., .,,.. , _.,,.._ .. ... .._,..,.._.. ..,.,..,23
Section 4, 6 Post Construction Submittal Requirements,.._......... ............. ....... . . .._ .._.., ,._ ......,,..,24
Section 4. 7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performingg Wetlands ,.. . _.. . .. . . ... .. .. .... ... _ . . ., 25
Article 5 LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS
Section 5. 1 Long-term Maintenance „ . . ,.. ,..,,,_ .. , .... ..28
Section 5.2 Transfer to City or Other Public Entity ,... ...... .. ... .. . . . . . . .. ... 28
Section 5,3 Transfer to Homeowner's or Similar Association , . _ , , 28
Section 5 .4 Conveyance to a Person or Entity Specializing in Conservation , _, _ . .. _ .._..... .._..... ,.. . 29
Section 5. 5 Incorporation of Maintenance Obligations in Wetland Permit ... ... ... . ... . . .. .. ...29
Article 6 FEES, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALITIES
Section 6 1 Fees and Application Review Times . .. I 1 11 131
Section 6.2 Enforcement . ..... . .. , _ ._..31
Section 6,3 Penalties and Legal Actions _ , _, ,, ,, ,,,,,,,, , ,,_ .31
Article 7 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 7 1 Scope of Regulation . .... - --. . .. .. ... . . . . 34
Section 72 Exemptions , , ,.,, „ ..,,., . . _. _. . 34
Section 7. 3 Severability.. . .. ... ,,. ., .,. „ ,. „ .., . . ..
Section 7.4 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions „ .. ._. .,.,,._. ,.. .,.34
Section 7 5 Effective Date .__ _, — %— . , _ . , , ,, _,...,,_ .,_ , , 34
Article 8 VARIANCES AND APPEALS
Section 8. 1 Variances , . _- - ..—. , , , .. ,.. ,.,.... . , ,_ . . . .. . 36
Section 8,2 Variance Conditions , .. . . .. _,. _ . _. . ... ...... . ........36
Section 8,3 Appeals ,
Article 9 ADMINISTRATION
Section 9. 1 Responsibility for Administration . .... .. . ... . . . . .. _ , _ . . 39
Section 9.2 Representative Capacity . „_,. _,,, ,,, ,, ,,, ,, , ,, , ,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,_, .., , .39
Section 9,3 Service of Notice . . ,, . „ ,. ,_.. ...... . . . .. 39
Article 10 PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Section 10, 1 General Security Requirements . ...,. 41
Section 10.22 Wetland Mitigation and Naturalized Basin Performance Security ,, . ._ ._....., .. .,. . Al
Section 10.3 Performance Security . . . , .,., , _, 42
Article 11 FEE-IN-LIEU OF WETLAND MITIGATION
Section 11 , 1 Fee-in-lieu of Wetland Mitigation _ , , _, ,., ,., _. . ... . . ... . .. . ... . .. . . . .44
Section 11 . 2 Procedures and Use of Funds . . _. . ,, 44
APPENDIX A WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL. FLOWCHART
APPENDIX B WETLAND PERMI r SUBMITTAL. CHECKL-1ST
APPENDIX C WL-TL.AND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST
Article 1
Authority and Purpose
UN ED CI IY OE )'OItKVILLE WETLAND PILOT CCI ION REG❑LA I ION Au i noRITY AND PURPOSE
FOR WATER QUAL I IY & SIORRIwA'FER MANAGEMENT BENEFi rs
Section 1 .1 StatutoLy Authority
These regulations are enacted pursuant to the police powers granted to this City by The Illinois Municipal Code
Section 1 .2 Findings
The United City of Yorkville finds that Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U S for the Pox River,
Aux Sable, Blackberry Creek, and Rob Roy watersheds including their tributaries, are indispensable and fragile
resources that provide many public benefits including maintenance of surface and groundwater quality through
nutrient cycling and sediment trapping as well as flood and storm water, runoff control through temporary water
storage, slow release, and groundwater recharge. In addition, Isolated Waters of Yorkville provide open space;
passive outdoor recreation opportunities; fish and wildlife habitat for many forms of wildlife including
migratory waterfowl, and rare, threatened or endangered wildlife and plant species; and pollution treatment via
biological and chemical oxidation processes
Preservation of the remaining Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. in a natural condition shall be
and is necessary to maintain hydrological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic natural resource values for
existing and future residents of the United City of Yorkville, and therefore the City Council declares a policy of
no net loss of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U. S Furthermore the City Council declares a
long-tern goal of net gain of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U S. to be accomplished through
mitigation these regulations
Section 1 .3 Objectives
The principal objective of these regulations is the protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance,
restoration, and use in accordance with the character, adaptability, and stability of the Isolated Waters of
Yorkville in order to prevent their pollution or contamination; minimize their disturbance, and prevent damage
from erosion, siltation, and flooding. Other objectives of these regulations include:
a Preserve and enhance the natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions and natural characteristics of
watercourses and wetlands to protect water quality, aquatic habitats, provide recreational and aesthetic
benefits, and enhance community and economic development .
a Maintain and enhance the special aquatic resources of the City.
a Protect environmentally sensitive areas from deterioration or destruction by private and public actions.
a Protect and improve surface water quality and promote best management practices of surface water
runoff prior to entering lakes, ponds, wetlands, streams, and rivers
a Require planning for development to carry out water resource management including the protection of
natural areas such as remnant woodland and prairie habitats, wetlands, waterways, steep topography,
and highly erodible soils, in order to reduce potential impacts, or creation of unstable conditions that
may promote erosion and degradation of ground and surface water quality.
a Coordination of and support for the enforcement of applicable federal, state, and county statutes,
ordinances, and regulations pertaining to Waters of the U. S , floodplain regulations, and soil erosion
and sediment control .
a Establishment of standards and procedures for the review and regulation of the use of Isolated Waters
of Yorkville
a A procedure for appealing decisions.
Article I i
UNII ED Cl IY OF YORKVILLE W cnANU PROI ecnON RGGULAYION AU I]MILL I Y AND PURPOSE
FOR WA I ER QUAi-rrY & S I ORni WA I cR MANAGENIENY 6RNCr1 IS
Article t 2
Article 2
Definitions
LINII MCI I Y OF YOMVILI EWE IIAND PROrECI ION REGOLA IION DEFINIIIONS
FOR W A I ER QLIAI.I r l' & S rOR1t WA rER MANAGER]ENT BENEFITS
Section 2.1 Definition of Terms
Terms not specifically defined shall have the meaning customarily assigned to them .
Agricultural land is land predominantly used for' agricultural purposes,
Applicant is any person, firm, or governmental agency who submits an application for a permit under these
regulations and shall be responsible for meeting and complying with all conditions and standards of these
regulations.
BMP or best management practices is a measure used to control the adverse stormwater related effects of
development, and includes structural devices (e g., swales, filter strips, infiltration trenches, level spreaders, and
site runoff storage basins designed to remove pollutants), reduce runoff rates and volumes, and protect aquatic
habitats. In addition, nonsur ctural approaches used to prevent contamination of runoff include planning and
design practices that reduce impervious areas, provide comprehensive site planning, and implement buffer
zones, setback requirements, easements, and critical areas. Other nonstructural approaches include public
education and maintenance programs
Buffer is an area of predominantly vegetated land adjacent to Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the
U S. that are to be left as open space for the purpose of providing stabilization, reduction of contaminants, and
eliminate or minimize impacts to such areas. For all new development, buffer areas shall consist of deep-rooted
native vegetation unless otherwise approved by the Staff
Category I wetland impact means wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are less than or equal
to one ( 1 ) acre and does not impact high quality aquatic resources
Category II wetland impact means wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are greater than one
( 1 ) acre and does not impact high quality aquatic resources.
Category III wetland impact means wetland impacts to roadside drainage ditches or manmade stormwater
management facilities that meet the definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville
Category IV wetland impact means wetland impacts for the restoration, creation, and enhancement of Isolated
Waters of Yorkville provided that there are net gains in aquatic resource function..
Category V wetland impact means wetland impacts to high quality aquatic resources as defined in these
regulations.
Category VI wetland impact means wetland impacts to farmed wetland .
Channel is any river, stream, creek, brook, branch, natural or artificial depression, ponded area, flowage,
slough, ditch, conduit, culvert, gully, ravine, wash, or natural or manmade drainageway that has a definite bed
and bank or shoreline, in or into which surface, groundwater, effluent, or industrial discharges flow either
perennially or intermittently
Channel modification is alteration of a channel by changing the physical dimensions or materials of its bed or
banks, and includes damming, riprapping (or other armoring), widening, deepening, straightening, relocating,
lining, and significant removal of bottom or woody rooted vegetation, but does not include the clearing of
debris or removal of trash or dredging to previously documented thalweg elevations and sideslopes .
City is the United City of Yorkville
Developer is a person, firm, or institution who creates or causes a development. The developer of any said
development that is under the these regulations shall be responsible for meeting and complying with all
conditions and standards of these regulations .
Article 2 4
UNI I"ED Cl I OF YORKVILL E WE I L AND PROIEC")TON REGULATION DEFINITIONS
FOR WA IE.R QUAI IIY & SI ORNWAr ER MANAGENIENI BENEFI IS
Development is any manmade change to the land and includes —
A the construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a building or any addition to a building;
B the installation of utilities, construction of roads, bridges or similar projects;
C the construction or erection of levees, walls, fences, dams, or culverts;
D drilling or mining activities;
E the clearing of land as an adjunct of construction;
F channel modifications, filling, dredging, grading, excavating, paving, or other nonagricultural
alterations of the ground surface;
G any direct or indirect wetland impacts including the removal of vegetation to the extent such that the
wetland would no longer meet the criteria of supporting a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation as
defined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual except that which would be considered
appropriate for management purposes;
H any other activity of man that might change the direction, height, or velocity of flood or surface
water, including the extensive removal of vegetation;
I the storage of materials and the deposit of solid or liquid waste; and
1. the installation of a manufactured home on a site, the preparation of a site for a manufactured home,
or the installation of a recreational vehicle on a site for more than 180 days.
Development does not include maintenance of existing buildings and facilities such as resurfacing of roadways
when the road elevation is not significantly increased or gardening, plowing, and similar agriculture practices
that do not involve filling, grading, or construction of levees. Nor does development include agricultural uses,
maintenance of existing drainage systems for the limited purpose of maintaining cultivated areas and crop
production or for any agricultural uses or improvements undertaken pursuant to a written NRCS conservation
plan .
Ecological restoration is the re-establishment of a natural area or plant community via associated management
practices such as prescribed burns, weed control, selective clearing, reintroduction of native plant species, etc
Endangered species See Threatened and Endangered species.
Ephemeral stream is a stream whose bed elevation does not intersect with the groundwater table and carries
flow only during and immediately after a runoff producing rainfall event.
Ephemeral wetland is a temporary wetland or shallow mudflat that supports a unique ecosystem , This also
includes temporary and intermittent wetlands .
Erosion is the process whereby soil is removed by flowing water, wave action, or wind.
Farmed wetland means wetlands that are identified by the NRCS in a Certified Wetland Determination as
currently farmed, or have been farmed within 5 years previous to the permit application date, as defined in 7
CFR Part 12 (61 FR 47025) ,
Fen is a wetland community that occurs in areas where glacial formations are such that carbonate-rich ground
water discharges at a constant rate along the slopes of kames, eskers, moraines, river bluffs, dunes, or in flats
associated with these formations.
Article 2 5
IINI IED CI IY OF YORRVII.LE WE IL AND PROTECTION REGIJLAIION DEFINI'HON6
FOR WA rER QUALI r\' S' Sr'ORINwA 1 ER MANAGENtEN'r BENEFITS
Floristic inventory is a record of all existing vegetation within a defined project area. This includes all woody
(trees and shrubs) as well as herbaceous plants, i e , wildflowers and grasses
Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) refers to a method of assessing landscapes based upon the existing
vegetation . A useful method for determining the floristic quality of an area is through an analysis of the
conservatism and diversity of species appearing in a plant inventory. Refer to floristic quality index and Mean
C for further definition of terns .
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is a statistic derived by multiplying Mean C by the square root of the number of
species inventoried. This parameter is correlated to the diversity and conservatism of native plant species
present within a plant community as defined in Plants of the Chicago Region, 4°i Ed (Swink and Wilhehu,
1994) .
Forested wetland is an area dominated by wetland plants that have a predominance of woody vegetation with
periodic flooding Two types of forested wetlands exist as defined by the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources . The most common are areas adjacent to rivers and swamps with silver maple, sycamore, and
cottonwood as predominant species and rotting logs littering the forest floor Drier forested wetlands experience
occasional flooding with oaks, ehns and hickory as predominant species with a variety of annual and perennial
plants that cover the forest floor.
Functional assessment is an assessment of a wetland's flood storage, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other
beneficial functions
Groundwater is that water that is located within soil or rock below the surface of the earth ,
High Quality Aquatic Resources (HQAR) means aquatic areas considered to be regionally critical due to their
uniqueness, scarcity, and/or value, and other wetlands considered to perform functions important to the public
interest, as defined in 33 CFR Part 320.4(b) (2). These resources include ephemeral pools, fens, forested
wetlands, sedge meadows, seeps, streams rated Class A or B in the Illinois Biological Stream Characterization
study, streamside marshes, wet prairies, wetlands that support Federal or Illinois endangered or threatened
species, and wetlands with a native floristic quality index (FQI) of 25 or greater and a native Mean C value of
3 2 or greater.
Hydric Soils are formed under' conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizon of the soil ,
Hydrology is the science of the behavior of water that includes its dynamics, composition, and distribution in
the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, and underground.
Hydrologically disturbed is an area where the land surface has been cleared, grubbed, compacted, or otherwise
modified to alter stormwater runoff, volumes, rates, flow direction, or inundation duration.
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a biological stream characterization rating system that assesses the quality of
a stream from the sum of 12 metrics based on fish population composition, quality, and abundance, The IBI
value can range from 12 to 60 (low to high rating).
Isolated Waters of Yorkville means all wetlands; waterbodies such as ponds, lakes, streams, - including
ephemeral and intermittent streams, and roadside ditches (that meet the criteria of wetland habitat as defined in
the USAGE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Alanual and with a drainage area greater than 20-acres); farmed
wetlands; and detention basins (that meet the criteria of wetland habitat); and are not under U S. Army Corps of
Engineers jurisdiction and are located within the limits of the United City of Yorkville or with any area under
consideration for annexation into the United City of Yorkville
A The limits of Isolated Waters of Yorkville extend to the ordinary high water mark or the delineated
wetland boundary.
Article 2 6
UNIILD CI FY OF YORKVII. I E WEII AND PRO r ECr1ON REGUI,A7ION DErINi PIONS
FOR WATER QUAI.II'1' & SrOR\tWA I ER MANAGEMENT BRNEFI IS
B. Compensatory wetland mitigation created to meet these regulations or Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act is not excluded .
Intermittent stream is a stream whose bed intersects the groundwater table for only a portion of the year on
average or any stream that flows continuously for at least one month out of the year, but not the entire year
Lake is a body of water two or more acres in size that retains water throughout the year
Linear Waters of the U.S. means wetlands along creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, or impoundments that
are hydraulically connected to jurisdictional Waters of the U S.
Mean C is the average coefficient of conservatism for a site The concept of "conservatism" refers to the
fundamental character of native plant species to display varying degrees of tolerance to disturbance, as well as
varying degrees of fidelity to specific habitat integrity, As a result, each native species can be assigned a
coefficient of conservatism (C value) ranging from 0 to 10, "weedy to conservative," reflecting its disposition
within a defined geographic region
Mitigation is the measures that are taken to eliminate or minimize negative direct or indirect impacts caused
from development activities, such as impact to Isolated Waters of Yorkville, by replacement of the resource .
Native Mean Wetness is the wetness value (W) designated to each species, This value defines the estimated
probability of each species occurring in a wetland. Plants are designated as Obligate Welland (OBL=-5),
Facultative Weiland (FACW=-3), Facultative (FAC=O), Facultative Upland (FACU=3), and Obligate Upland
(UPL°5).
Natural area is a landscape with a sufficient level of intact habitat structure and plant species composition to
resemble a pre-settlement landscape, e g, prairie, oak savanna, and other landscapes native to Kendall County
NRCS is the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Open Space refers to undeveloped land that is protected from development by legislation or land that is to
remain undeveloped for preservation purposes
Pond is a body of water less than two acres in size that retains a normal water level year-round.
Qualified professional is a person trained in one or more of the disciplines of biology, geology, soil science,
engineering, or hydrology whose training and experience ensure a competent analysis and assessment of stream,
lake, pond, and wetland conditions and impacts
Relative Importance Value (RIV) The RIV for each species is calculated by summing relative frequency and
relative cover and dividing by 2.. The RIV is calculated from data collected during the transect inventory .
Roadside ditches are drainage ditches created for the purpose of providing roadway drainage .
Runoff is the water derived from melting snow or rain falling within a tributary drainage basin that exceeds the
infiltration capacity of the soils for that basin ,
Seep is a wetland, herbaceous or wooded, with saturated soil or inundation resulting from the diffuse flow of
groundwater to the surface stratum..
Site is all of the land contemplated to be part of a coordinated development of one or more parcels.
Staff is the person designated by the City Administrator of the United City of Yorkville to administer and
enforce these regulations
Threatened and endangered species for Kendall County as defined in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database.
Article 2 7
UNI IED CITY OE YORKVILLE WEILAND FROT EC'I ION REGULA I ION DEG'INI HONS
FOR WAI ER QUALI IY & SI'ORNNAI ER MANAGEAIENr BENEF1 IS
USACE is the United States Army Corps of Engineers..
Valid wetland delineation means an on-site wetland delineation that is conducted in accordance with the 1987
U.S Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual within three years of the initial permit application
date
Watershed is the land area above a given point that contributes stornnvater to that point.
Waters of the U.S. is a tern that refers to those water bodies and wetland areas that are under the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction
Wetland is land that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, under normal conditions, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
(]mown as hydrophytic vegetation). A wetland is identified based upon the three attributes: 1 ) hydrology, 2)
soils, and 3) vegetation as mandated by the USACE. 1987 117etlard5 Delineation Manual methodoloey..
Wetland impact is the direct or indirect loss of Isolated Waters of Yorkville that results from implementation
of a proposed activity . This includes Isolated Waters of Yorkville that are adversely affected by flooding,
excavation, dredging, fill, drainage, hydrological disturbance, vegetation removal (other than for maintenance
or restoration purposes), that results from implementation of a development activity or dumping, or non-
permitted discharge of chemicals or other pollutants into Isolated Waters of Yorkville_
Article 2 8
Article 3
Wetland Protection Standards and Permit Provisions
UNOED CIrr OF YORKVI11 EWE11ANDPRO rEC[[ONREGULAHON WE [ LAND PRO"II'.CIION SIANDARIIS
FOR WA"TER Qt1AL-]TN' & STOitNiw'i\TER MANAGENIEN't BENEFITS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
Section 3.1 General Standards
These regulations are for the region of the United City of Yorkville and based on the ecological characteristics
of this region
Section 3.1 .1 Buffer Requirements
I Buffer areas shall be required for all areas defined as either Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the
U. S except for areas that meet a Category III definition , Isolated Waters of Yorkville are under the
jurisdictional authority of the United City of Yorkville and these regulations and are defined in Section 2. 1
of these regulations Waters of the U.S as defined in Section 2 1 of these regulations refers to areas that
are under the jurisdictional authority and regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)
2 Buffer areas are divided into two types, linear buffers and water body buffers The following buffer
requirements shall be met for all proposed development projects and provided for all wetlands except for
areas meeting the definition of a Category III wetland (roadside ditches and maunade stormwater
management facility, refer to Section 2 . 1 ) For areas under the ,jurisdiction of the USACE, the most
stringent buffer requirements shall apply.
1 ) Linear buffers shall be designated along both sides of the channel. The buffer width shall be
determined as follows:
a. All channels except those determined to be High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) shall be
provided a minimum buffer of 30 feet. Also, five (5) additional feet of buffer shall be
provided for each percent of buffer slope towards the channel that is greater than 10% up to a
maximum of a 100-foot buffer. For example, a 30-foot buffer with a 20% slope will require
an additional 50 feet of buffer for a total buffer width of 80 feet. The buffer slope shall be
calculated as the average slope from the landward edge of the buffer to the top of bank of the
channel or highest point in elevation immediately adjacent to the "waters", be it natural or
artificial.
b . Streams rated Class A or B in the Illinois Biological Stream Characterization study or with
an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) greater than 40 shall have a minimum buffer width of 100
feet on each side of the channel. (Initial IBI based on IE• PA Illinois Water Quality Report .
A site-specific IBI assessment may override this report).
c. For streambank stabilization projects, those projects that involve a change in land use shall
apply the minimum 30 foot buffer and up to a maximum of 100 foot buffer criteria. If the
project does not involve a change in land use, then a 10 foot buffer shall be required adjacent
to all streambank stabilization work
2) Buffers shall encompass all wetlands greater than '/4 acre and determined not to be a high quality
aquatic resource (HQAR). The buffer width shall be determined as follows:
a. For all wetlands with a total surface area greater than one quarter (1/4) acre with floristic
quality values of native Mean C < 2. 8 and/or native FQI < 20, and determined not to be a
HQAR, a minimum buffer width of 30 feet shall be established. Also, five (5) additional
feet of buffer' shall be required for each percent of buffer slope towards the wetland that is
greater than 10% up to a maximum of a 100 foot buffer.
b . For all wetlands with a total surface area greater than one quarter ( 1/4) acre with floristic
quality values of native Mean C ? 2. 8 and native FQI ? 20, and determined not to be a
HQAR, a minimum buffer width of 50 feet shall be established. Also, five (5) additional
feet of buffer shall be required for each percent of buffer slope towards the wetland that is
Article .3 10
UNI IED CI I YOF YORKVILLE WEIIAND PRO EC I ION REGUL-AI ION WE II, AND PRO ECIIONS'IANDMMS
FOR WATER QUALMIV & S'IORMWATER MANAGEMENT BLNEFIT'S AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
greater than 10% up to a maximum of a 100 foot buffer (Refer to Section 3 1 1 2( 1 )a for
example of calculating additional buffer based on average slope towards the wetland)
c . For all wetlands regardless of size that meet the definition of' a HQAR (ephemeral pools,
fens, forested wetlands, sedge meadows, seeps, streamside marshes, wet prairies, wetlands
supporting Federal or Illinois endangered or threatened species, and wetlands with a native
floristic quality index (FQI) of 25 or greater and a native Mean C value of 32 or greater),
shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet,
3 Buffer areas for all linear Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U S , shall extend from the top of
bank . The buffer area for non-linear Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U S , except wetlands,
shall extend from waters edge at normal water level The buffer area for wetlands shall extend from the
edge of the approved delineated wetland boundary. A site may contain buffer that originates from Isolated
Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U S. on another property.
4 Buffer averaging shall be permitted, at the discretion of the Staff, but at no time shall the buffer width at
any given point be less than 50% of the required width, and provided that the total buffer area required is
achieved . A reduction of buffer width shall not occur for any portion where the adjacent landscape has a
slope towards the wetland, equal to or greater than 3: 1 ; except if an existing barrier, e g. earthen bean, is in
place that slows and/or contains the surface water runoff toward the wetland. In such case, the existing
barrier shall remain in place and be incorporated into the design. The barrier shall be maintained as part of
the required buffer area.
5 The requirement of buffers is strictly for preservation measures of wetlands and shall not constitute
enhancement measures of existing wetlands for any mitigation requirements of said development..
6 Buffers shall be established using appropriate deep-rooted vegetation, protected from direct and indirect
disturbance, and shall be appropriately managed and maintained according to an approved plan as provided
under Section 3.2.4. Buffers shall typically consist of native vegetation unless otherwise approved by Staff.
7 If a buffer area is disturbed by permitted activities during construction, the buffer area shall be stabilized
following the provisions of the United City of Yorkville's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
and planted with appropriate vegetation as stated above .
8. Access through buffer areas shall be provided, when necessary, for maintenance purposes . Unless
otherwise dedicated for a public purpose or to a public entity, buffer areas shall remain private property and
shall not be generally accessible for the public..
9 Preservation of buffer areas shall be provided by deed or plat restrictions . Only public or quasi-public
property, e .g. municipal, common Homeowners Association (FICA) lot lines shall be allowed within the
limits of the buffer areas .
10 Features of a stormwater management system approved by Staff may be allowed within the buffer area
provided it is a naturalized detention basin that consists of a natural design shape as well as native plant
communities, or other naturalized stormwater management feature and provided there is no direct discharge
to the wetland habitat A stormwater management feature shall be located, at a minimum, fifteen ( 15) feet
from the edge of wetland, or top of bank for linear buffers Discharge from the stormwater management
feature shall be directed to the outside edge of the required buffer width to allow the full width of the buffer
to be used for energy dissipation and water quality protection. Staff shall review and approve, as
appropriate, well-designed stormwater management systems within the buffer area on a project by project
basis
11 Stormwater discharges that enter a buffer shall have appropriate energy dissipation measures to prevent
erosion and scour. These can include, but are not limited to; level spreaders, riprap, drop catch basins
(plunge pools), or other measures as deemed appropriate by Staff
Article 3 11
UNIT EDCITYOF YORKVIL I:E WE] LANDPROI EC I ION REGULATION WEI I. AND PRO T ECI ION STANDARDS
FOR WArER QUALIIY & SI'ORNnvAIER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
12. All buffer areas shall be maintained free from development including disturbance of soil, dumping or
filling, erection of structures, and placement of impervious surfaces except as follows:
1 ) A buffer area may be used for passive recreation (e.g , bird watching, walking, jogging,
bicycling, and picnicking) and it may contain pedestrian or bicycle trails, provided that the
created path is no wider than ten ( 10) feet, Paths or trails, excluding a mowed grass path, shall be
located, at a minimum, fifteen ( 15) feet from the edge of wetland or stream If the path leads to a
wetland, it must be designed to prevent erosion .
2) Paved surfaces including trails may not occupy more than 15% of the total width of the required
buffer. If a paved path or trail width is greater than 15% of the buffer width, then the path width
shall be added to the overall buffer width (For example, an eight (8) foot paved trail is being
installed within a 30-foot buffer The paved trail width is greater than 15% of the buffer width
(approximately 27%) Therefore, an additional eight (8) feet — the width of the path — shall be
added to the overall required buffer width for a total buffer width of 38 feet). Where grass "mow
strips" are desired adjacent to paths they shall be no wider than two (2) feet on each side of the
path. An eight (8) foot high clearance zone must be provided, no plant material can overhang the
path within this area
3) Limestone paths, as pervious surfacing, do not require additional buffer width but still require a
two (2) foot clear zone on each side of the path . Limestone paths cannot be located near a habitat
that can be affected by a potential change in soil pH The path shall not erode into the natural
area Special precautions to eliminate this may require subdrainage, edging, compaction, etc
4) Utility maintenance and maintenance of drainage facilities and drainage easements shall be
allowed provided the maintenance activity meets all other federal, state, and local regulations
Section 3.1 .2 Wetland Hydrology Protection
1 .. Any development that may reasonably be expected to impact the recharge zone of a fen, seep, or other
groundwater-driven wetland with vegetation characteristic of these habitats requires a higher level of
protection. Due to the uniqueness and fragility of these habitats, the developer of any proposed
development within potential recharge zones shall to the extent possible identify, maintain, and protect said
recharge zones Staff shall evaluate and determine if additional documentation is required on a case by
case basis
Section 3.1.3 Stormwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville
I Stormwater' management facilities shall only be allowed in areas that meet the definition of fanned
wetlands or Isolated Waters of Yorkville that contain at a minimum, vegetative cover of ? 75% of one or
more of the following species
O Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris m undinacea) .
Y Purple Loosesn'ife (LydrrTau salicaria).
9 Common Reed (Phi agmires aush ahs') .
European or Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica .).
m Canada Thistle (Chsivm arrense°).
e Narrow-leaved cattail (T3pha angtstifolia).
C Sandbar willow (Salix interior).
1 ) The stonnwater management facility shall be designed as a naturalized wetland basin that
contains native vegetation communities and does not exceed a 4-foot bounce for the 100-year',
24-hour storn event. Mitigation credit for designed permanent open water area(s) shall not be
granted for more than 20% of the overall required mitigation acreage At the discretion of Staff,
however, greater than 20% up to a maximum 50% mitigation credit for open water may be
Anicle .3 12
t1N1 IED CI I I' 017YORKVILLEW6r I AND Pilot ECI ION RI3GtIL.a 71GN WE T LAND PRO EC I ION STANDARDS
FOR WA 1 ER QUALI ri' & S I ORAIWA I Elt MANAGEMENT 13ENEFI IS AND PERMi l' PROVISIONS
applied for mitigation designs that create interspersion of open water with emergent wetland
habitat. The area of the basin as measured between the contours corresponding to one ( 1 ) foot
above NWL and two (2) feet below NWL. shall be at least equal to the remaining impacted
wetland acreage. The designed naturalized basin shall demonstrate an overall environmental
improvement.
2) A naturalized buffer that contains appropriate native vegetation shall be provided, at a
minimum, up to the High Water Level (HWL ) .
3) A three (3) year management and monitoring plan shall be provided for the naturalized
stormwater management facility The numagement/monitoring plan shall include perfonnance
standards, which identify percent of seeded/planted species to be alive and apparent; vegetative
cover of native , non-weedy species; and floristic quality for each monitoring year, monitoring
methods, prescribed maintenance activities for the 3-year period, and long-term management
provisions .
2 Staff may waive mitigation requirements for wetland impacts from the development of stormwater
management facilities within wetland habitat if the designed naturalized wetland basin meets the above
criteria If the proposed stormwater management facility does not meet the above criteria, the mitigation
requirements of Article 4 of these regulations shall apply.
Section 3.1.4 Discharge to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S.
I There shall be no direct discharge of stormwater runoff to Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the
U S without pre-treatment. Accepted methods of pre-treatment include, but are not limited to created
wetland detention basins, naturalized swales, biofiltration practices, and other measures that filter and/or
detain runoff. It must be demonstrated that the proposed pre-treatment measure will remove a minimum of
80% total suspended solids (TSS) and prevent increases in water level fluctuations up to and including the
2-year event within the wetland. All discharges shall be to the wetland buffer Pre-treatment measures
may be located within the buffer with approval from the Staff. Appropriate energy dissipation measures,
such as level spreaders, shall be provided to prevent erosion and scour.
Section 3.1 .5 Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development
1 All Isolated Waters of Yorkville designated for preservation shall be protected during development such
that a FQI calculated two years after the commencement of development shall not be more than five (5)
points less than the originally calculated FQL The re-evaluation of all preserved wetlands shall be
completed during a similar stage of the growing season as was conducted for the original assessment (f30
days) If final build out of all lots contiguous to Isolated Waters of Yorkville has not Occurred, the re-
evaluation of all preserved wetlands shall be repeated each year until completion of development. If there
is a decrease in the FQI value for two consecutive years, and/or a > 5 point drop in the FQI value from the
original value, a wetland impact to Isolated Waters of Yorkville shall be assumed, and the mitigation
requirements of Article 4 of these regulations shall apply .
2 The initial re-evaluation data shall be submitted to Staff during the second year after commencement of the
development. All subsequent re-evaluation data shall be provided to Staff' on an annual basis until final
build out of the development has Occurred .
Section 3.1.6 Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities
Dredging of stormwater management facilities that meet the definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville for the
purpose of periodic maintenance shall be allowed without the issuance of a Wetland Protection Permit given
that the dredging activity will only re-establish the original design depths and measures shall be taken to
preserve any wetland fringe and/or buffer (if applicable). If any disturbance to the wetland fringe is
unavoidable, then the wetland fringe shall be restored with appropriate native vegetation. Dredging frequency
Article 3 13
UNI I EDCIIYOPYOman LI EWE I L ANDPROiECI )ON RLGt1LAI ION WE I LAND Pilot ECI ION STANDARDS
FOR WATER QLLILI'IY & STORAI\VATER n'IANAGENIENt 13ENEFI IS AND PERNII I PROVISIONS
shall allow the habitat to be re-established . All applicable federal, state, and other local regulations and
ordinances shall be met, and Staff shall approve maintenance activities prior to commencement of the activity
All spoils must be properly disposed of whether off site or on site
Section 3.2 Wetland Permit Provisions
Section 3.2.1 Applicability
1 No person, firm, corporation, governmental agency, or organized district shall commence any development
regulated by the City on any lot or parcel of land without first submittal of applicable items presented in
3 , 2. 2 and 3 1 and receipt of applicable permit..
Z. No lot lines shall occur in created, restored, enhanced, or preserved Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters
of the U B and their associated buffer, areas.
Section 3.2.2 Wetland Determination Requirements
I Development projects near water courses, depressional areas, wetlands or Waters of the U S. identified on
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource Conservation Service wetland map, or as
requested by the City shall provide a letter of findings from a qualified professional that identifies all
Isolated Waters of Yorkville, Waters of the U S., and natural areas on or within 100 feet of the project site.
Identification of each of these areas shall include a floristic inventory and floristic quality assessment
(FQA) data. OtTsite wetlands or Waters of the U,S , within 100 feet of project site shall be assessed for
vegetative quality and size to the extent feasible. If applicant demonstrates that access to offsite property
was not obtainable, the Staff may waive the requirement for surveying of offsite wetland boundaries . If no
wetlands are identified within the limits of the site or within 100 feet of the site, then a wetland
determination letter of findings shall be submitted that contains a brief description of the plant communities
present on site and a copy of the Natural Resources Information (NRI) Report prepared by the County Soil
and Water Conservation District for the site If Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Waters of the U .S are
identified within the limits of the site or within 100 feet of the site, a Wetland Permit Submittal following
Section 32 .4 shall be required The survey shall be completed by an individual or firm carrying the
Certified Wetland Professional in training credentials or Certified Professional Wetland Scientist, or other
qualified professional as approved in writing by the City Planner.
Section 3.2.3 Pre-Submittal Meeting
1 It is recommended that the applicant schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Staff to review the proposed
project, discuss submittal requirements and questions the applicant may have
2 If the proposed development contains a HQAR, a pre-submittal meeting with Staff is mandatory.
Section 3.2.4 Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements
Appendix A contains the Wetland Permit Application and Permit Submittal Flowchart. Appendix B contains
the Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist for use with the permit submittal requirements, With the filing of a
Wetland Permit Application, the applicant and owner (if not the applicant) grants permission to Staff and
his/her designees to access said property to assess site conditions for the review and assessment of the wetland
permit submittal. The Wetland Permit Submittal shall provide the following:
I A wetland delineation report as specified in Section 3 .15 .
2 A narrative report and Site Plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of Sections 3 , I through
31 5 of these regulations and specifies prescribed management activities, long-term management
provisions and funding mechanism, and the long-term responsible party as presented in Article 5 of these
regulations for the buffer area(s).
Article 3 14
UNI I ro Cl rY Or VORKVILLE WEI LAND PROF ECI ION REGULA I ION WEI LAND PROIEC I IONS I'ANDARDS
FOR WAf ER QIJAI IIY & SI'ORNIwAIEII MANACEAIENr BENEE1Ts AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
3. USACE statement of jurisdictional determination that identifies Waters of the U S and Isolated Waters of
Yorkville for all wetlands on the development site A copy of the letter shall be provided to Staff.
4 For proposed impacts only to Waters of the U S the following r'equir'ements shall be followed:
1 ) Completion of the Wetland Permit Application as provided in Appendix A of these regulations
2) Provide a copy of the USACE permit submittal for the proposed development or a letter from
the USACE that states the proposed development does not require USACE authorization. Upon
receipt of any USACE, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (]EPA), and/or Illinois
Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources (OWR) authorizations, the
applicant shall provide a copy(s) to Staff.
3) All wetland impacts that occur in the City's jurisdiction shall be mitigated for within the same
watershed as the impact(s) at the mitigation ratio specified by the USACE for that development
impact.
4) Provide a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
5 For proposed impacts only to Isolated Waters of Yorkville the following information shall be provided:
1 ) Completion of the Wetland Permit Application as provided in Appendix A of these regulations
2) A statement on the permit category of impacts to be used for the development project. The
categories are as follows:
a. Category 1 : Wetland impacts less than or equal to one ( 1 ) acre and does not impact a
HQAR.
b . Category 11: Wetland impacts greater than one ( 1 ) acre and does not impact a HQAR .
c. Category III: Roadside ditches and stonmwater management facilities that meet the
definition of Isolated Waters of Yorkville.
d . Category IV: Wetland impacts for the restoration, creation, and enhancement of Isolated
Waters of Yorkville as approved by Staff, provided that there are net gains in aquatic
resource function
e Category V: Wetland impacts that affect a HQAR .
f Category VI: Wetland impacts to farmed wetlands
3) Documentation that the development is in compliance with the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources' Endangered Species Consultation Program and the Illinois Natural Areas
Preservation Act [520 ILCS 10/11 and 525 ILCS 30/17],.
4) Documentation that the development is in compliance with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service's
consultation program under the Endangered Species Act.
5) A statement on the occurrence of any HQAR on or within 100 feet of the development site
6) Mitigation plan (if applicable) that meets the requirements of Article 4 of these regulations.
7) For Category II or Category V impacts only: A narrative of measures taken, in sequence, to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts before mitigation is considered Category 11 or Category V
Article 3 15
UNI[ED CIIY OF YORI:YILI EWEII ANDPRO I LC'I ION REGULAT ION WEI LAND PRO'I ECI IONS I'ANDARDS
FOR WA1"ER QUALITY & SIORNIWA IER MANAGENIENi BENEFIIS AND PERMI I PROVISIONS
impacts shall also require a detailed discussion of alternative analysis to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for wetland impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville
8) For Category III impacts only: A narrative of the measures taken to mitigate for lost water
quality functions, such as the implementation of BMPs . Approval of appropriate BMPs will be
at the discretion of Staff.
9) For Category IV impacts only: A narrative of the proposed plan that demonstrates net gains in
aquatic resource functions
10) For Category VI impacts only: A narrative of mitigation measures that will provide an
environmental benefit, eg improved habitat, water quality, etc.
I I ) Soil erosion and sediment control measures following the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance.
6. For proposed impacts to both Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U S , the wetland submittal
shall include all applicable items within Section 3 2 4.
Section 3.2.5 Requirements for Wetland Delineation
Before any development in or near Isolated Waters of Yorkville or Water's of the U .S , a wetland delineation
that identifies the boundaries, location, function, and applicable floristic quality of all onsite Isolated Waters of
Yorkville and Waters of the U S. as well as a floristic inventory and FQA data of natural areas on the project
site shall be submitted The presence and limits of wetland areas shall be determined by a valid wetland
delineation conducted in accordance with the 1987 USAGE Wedalds Delineation Manual Delineations for
permitting purposes shall generally be performed only during the period beginning the 2"d week of March and
ending the first week of December At the discretion of Staff, the acceptable delineation period may be
modified due to unusual weather or other conditions . Any presence of fanned wetlands shall be determined by
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).
For Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S. within 100 feet of the development property for which
an on-site delineation is not possible, then wetlands identified on a NWI map may be sufficient .
The following are minimum requirements for the Wetland Delineation Report:
1 A plan shall be submitted that shows the exact location of Isolated Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the
U, S within the development boundaries. The wetland boundary shall be flagged in the field and in order to
determine buffer and any applicable wetland mitigation requirements, the wetland boundary shall be
surveyed.
2 An aerial photograph with wetland and development boundaries delineated
3 A copy of the following maps (most recent available) with the development boundary delineated:
1 ) USGS topographic map.
2) Kendall County soil survey map.
3) NWI map.
4) FEMA floodplain map.
4 Completed USACE data sheets with representative color photographs provided for each data point,
5 A description of each wetland habitats) that includes the following:
I ) FQA data that follows the methods provided in Swink, F. and G Wilhelm's Plants of the
Chicago Region (latest edition). In general, the floristic inventory shall be conducted between
Article 3 16
UNI I ED Cl I YOF VORHVILLE WE] r AND PROIEC"I ION RGGULA I ION WE 1L AND Pilo r ECI ION STANDARDS
FOR WA IER QUAL I rY & SI ORNOVA I ER MANAGEMENT IBENEFI FS AND PERNII r PROVISIONS
May 15°i and October 15"'. At the discretion of Staff, the acceptable vegetation assessment
period may be modified due to unusual weather or other conditions. Floristic assessments
conducted outside this time period may require additional sampling during the growing season
to satisfy this requirement
2) Wildlife habitat assessment for each wetland that evaluates utilization of the wetland by
wildlife, interspersion and structure of vegetative cover (number of plant communities, e g.,
emergent marsh, wet prairie, seep, forested, etc., present within the wetland system), and ratio of
vegetative cover to open water
3) Description of the present functions provided by each wetland.
6. For all fanned wetlands that are present within the project site, the NRCS Certified Wetland Determination
Report shall be provided.
Section 3.2.6 Wetland Permit Conditions
1 . Staff shall attach any additional reasonable permit conditions considered necessary to ensure that the intent
of the Wetland Protection Ordinance will be fulfilled, to avoid, minimize or mitigate damage or impairment
to, encroachment in, or interference with natural resources and processes within the protected wetlands or
watercourses, or to otherwise improve or maintain the water quality.
2, Any change in the size or scope of the development and that affects the criteria considered in approving the
permit as determined by Staff or City Council as applicable, may require the filing of a new wetland permit
submittal.
3. Any temporary, seasonal, or permanent operation that is discontinued for one ( 1 ) year shall be presumed to
have been abandoned and the wetland permit automatically voided. Abandonment of the project may
subject the permittee to forfeiture of the performance security.
4 Any permit granted under these regulations may be revoked or suspended by Staff or City Council, as
applicable, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, for any of the following causes:
1 ) A violation of a condition of the permit
2) Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose relevant facts in the application.
3) A change in site condition(s) that requires a temporary or permanent change in the proposed
activity
5. A developer who has received a wetland permit under these regulations shall comply with the following in
connection with any construction or other activity on the property for which the wetland permit has been
issued:
1 ) Comply with the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
2) Maintain clear delineation of the protected wetlands and wetland buffers during the on-going
development activities .
6 The wetland permit shall remain effective for two (2) years. The granting authority upon request by the
permittee may approve a maximum one ( 1 ) year extension..
Article 3 17
UNI I ED CI II' OF YORKVILLE WEII-AND PROI EC IION REGULA I ION WE I LAND PRO I EC I'IONS IANDARDS
FOR WA IEll QUALITY & SI'ORiUIVA Eit MANAGEAIENI BENEF1'IS AND PERNII C PROVISIONS
Article 3 18
Article 4
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
UNr ED CITYOF VORKVIL I E WEI LAND PROTECTION REGLILA TION WEI I.AND hIPAC IS AND M I UGA I [ON
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMINATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQumEA ENrs
Section 4.1 Unmitigable Wetland Impacts
I . Wetlands of any size identified as having a PQI greater than or equal to 35 or mean C value of 3 5 or
greater shall not be impacted via flooding, excavation, dredging, fill, drainage, or other hydrological
disturbance, vegetation removal (other than for maintenance or restoration proposes) as part of any
development or dumping, or non-pennitted discharge of chemicals or other pollutants. The PQI is solely
based on the wetland vegetation. To determine the floristic value of the wetland, buffers and adjacent plant
communities shall not be included in the calculation
Section 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Requirements
Section 4.2.1 General Mitigation Requirements
I Mitigation shall be required for all impacts, regardless of size to Category V wetlands
2 Mitigation shall be required for wetland impacts greater than or equal to 'L, (0 25) acre to Isolated Waters of
Yorkville defined under Category 1, Category 11, and Category VI wetland impacts..
3 Mitigation shall provide for the replacement of the wetland habitat impacted due to development activities
at the following ratios (creation acreage to wetland impact acreage):
1 ) A minimum of 1 .5 : 1 for wetland impacts under Category I or II that are not to a HQAR and are
mitigated on-site
2) A minimum of 1 : 1 for wetland impacts under Category VI and are mitigated on-site.
3) A minimum of 10: 1 for wetland impacts that are to a HQAR under Category V and are mitigated
on-site
4 Wetland impacts covered under Category III will not require mitigation per se, but at a minimum, shall
replace the water quality functions through BMP's as approved by Staff:
5 No mitigation is required for Category IV wetland impacts provided the restoration, creation, or
enhancement contributes a net gain of aquatic resource function(s). Category IV wetland impacts,
however, shall be required to provide all Wetland Permit Submittal Requirements, as applicable, following
Section 3 2 4 of these regulations.
6 Wetland mitigation shall be designed wherever possible to restore wetland hydrology to historic hydric
soils that have been drained or dewatered. Grading activities for wetland creation and/or restoration should
be minimized.
7 Mitigated wetlands shall be designed to optimize hydrologic stability and native species diversity .
Designed permanent open water area(s) shall not constitute more than 20% of the required mitigation
acreage. At the discretion of Staff, however, greater than 20% up to a maximum 50% mitigation credit for
open water may be applied for mitigation designs that create interspersion of open water with emergent
wetland habitat .
8 Any creation of wetlands for required mitigation shall take place only within areas that are not of a remnant
plant community, wetlands, or other natural areas.
9 Enhancement within existing wetlands may be used as part of the mitigation credits, provided that at a
minimum, wetland creation and/or restoration is at a 1 : 1 ratio, the mitigation creation/restoration is
provided on-site, and the impacted wetland(s) does not meet the definition of HQAR Mitigation credit for
enhancement measures will be at a 0.25: 1 ratio (0 .25 acre credit for every 1 . 0 acre enhanced).
Article 4 19
UNncnCIIVOFYORKVIL LEWEI LAND Prior LCI ION REGI1EAIION WEI LAND IiNIPAC'IS AND MIIIGAIION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQUIRENIENIS
10 . All wetland mitigation areas shall be buffered according to the requirements of Section 3 . 1 1 No buffer is
required for that portion of a wetland mitigation area that is adjacent to an existing preserved wetland
11 . A five-year wetland mitigation irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City or equivalent security foi-
1 10% of mitigation cost following the provisions of Article 10 of these regulations shall be submitted prior
to receipt of the permit
11 For those impacts that will have a total wetland impact of less than or equal to 1 0 acre and not affect a
HOAR, the fee-in-lieu of mitigation option may be required by the City Conditions under which the fee-
in-lieu option may be required include, but are not limited to:
1 ) There are no other on-site or immediately adjacent wetlands that could be expanded.
2) The total size of the impacted wetland is 30 acres or less and due to development conditions, the
loner term viability of the wetland is questionable .
In addition, the fee-in-lieu option may be used by the developer for wetland impacts; this will be at the
discretion of Staff and City Council. Fees paid in lieu that are not required by Staff and City Council, shall
be comparable to the cost of mitigation off-site, but within the same watershed as the wetland impact,
including land costs The mitigation rate shall be 1 '/ ( 1 . 5) times the on-site required mitigation acreage for
calculation of the estimate of probable mitigation cost for non-HQAR sites The mitigation rate shall be 3.0
times the on-site required mitigation acreage for calculation of the estimate of probable mitigation cost for
HQAR sites. Fees paid in lieu that are required by City Countil with Staff's recommendation shall be
comparable to the cost of on-site mitigation, including land costs.
13 Weiland impacts occurring prior to issuance of a Wetland Permit shall presume the wetland disturbed was a
HQAR and shall require mitigation at a minimum rate of 10: 1
Section 4.2.2 Mitigation Hierarchy
All mitigation shall occur within the limits of the City's jurisdiction , For the off-site mitigation purposes of
these regulations, wetland mitigation shall occur within the same primary watershed (Aux Sable or Fox River)
as the wetland impact, unless there is an available wetland mitigation bank within the sub-watershed
corresponding to the impact (Blackberry, Rob Roy) , Mitigation shall use the following hierarchy
I On-site wetland mitigation is preferred, but only if the applicant can document that the mitigation can
expand the extent or improve the quality of other existing, undisturbed on-site or immediately adjacent
wetlands or on-site mitigation will create or restore a wetland equal to or greater than 1 5 acres in size. On-
site mitigation shall meet the requirements of Article 4 of these regulations.
2. Off-site wetland mitigation within the same primary watershed as the wetland impact or within an approved
wetland mitigation bank located within the primary watershed when on-site mitigation is not feasible.
Required mitigation acreage shall be the on-site required mitigation acreage. Off-site created or restored
wetland mitigation shall meet the requirements of Article 4 of these regulations,
3 . Mitigation as a fee-in-lieu payment option that is not required by the City. The mitigation rate shall be 1 '/
( 1 5) times the on-site required mitigation acreage for calculation of the estimate of probable mitigation
cost for non-HQAR sites, 3 . 0 times for HQAR sites.
4 Off-site wetland mitigation within the same primary watershed as the wetland impact and meets the
requirements of Article 4 of these regulations or within an approved wetland mitigation bank located within
the primary watershed. Required mitigation acreage shall be 1 Y ( 1 5) times the on-site required mitigation
acreage for non-HQAR sites, 3 0 times for HQAR sites
Article 4 20
UNrl I'D CIFYOFYORKVILLEWEI LAND PRO IIXI ION REGI7L AIION WEIL AND IAIPACIS AND MLIIGAIION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS
5 Off-site wetland mitigation and outside the primary watershed of the wetland impact or within an approved
wetland mitigation bank located outside the primary watershed shall require three (3) times the on-site
required mitigation acreage and meet the requirements of Article 4 of these regulations
Section 4.3 Wetland Mitigation Plan
I In addition to the requirements of Article 3, if wetland mitigation is required a wetland mitigation plan shall
be submitted Refer to Appendix C for the wetland mitigation plan checklist. At a minimum, the wetland
mitigation plan shall contain the following .
1 ) Narrative description of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation. Include a summary table
with acreage for each existing wetland, proposed impact, and proposed mitigation
2) A narrative of the proposed plan that includes a description of the proposed hydrologic regime,
planting plan, soils, and site geomorphology, where applicable
3) Provide a Wetland Mitigation Plan Graphic that depicts each wetland impact and all proposed
wetland mitigation and limits of required wetland buffer areas and contains the planting plan for
each proposed plant community, existing and proposed grades with I -foot contour lines,
protection measures for all preserved wetlands, and location of water level structures, BMPs (if
applicable)
4) Specifications for wetland mitigation, which includes but is not limited to the following:
a, Earthwork - rough and final grading, allowable compaction limits, treatment of compacted
soils, and topsoil placement.
b Compliance with the City's soil erosion and sediment control ordinance.
C . Water control structures, if applicable.
d BMP design and implementation if proposed within wetland buffer area
e. Seed/plant installation that includes seed/plant bed preparation; procurement, list of plant
material by scientific and common name including seeding and planting rates for each
designated plant community, initial maintenance requirements and warranty performance
criteria, and any special planting provisions,
5) Provide a proposed implementation schedule that includes site preparation, installation of soil
erosion and sediment control measures, planting schedule, and post-planting maintenance and
monitoring schedule that indicates approximate month and year for each of the proposed
activities.
6) Provide a maintenance and monitoring plan that identifies activities during the 5-year monitoring
period and follows the requirements of Sections 4.4 and 4. 5 of these regulations. Activities
should include, but not limited to, control of undesirable plant species, herbivore control, trash
removal, prescribed burn management, enhancement planting, bi-annual monitoring events, and
any other necessary activities ,
7) All wetland mitigation shall include a plan for the long-tern management and maintenance of
the preserved wetlands, mitigation wetlands, and their associated buffers, This plan shall include
a description of the sources of funding, and designation of the long-term responsible party that
follows the provisions of Article 5 and as approved by Staff In addition, the long-tern
management plan shall identify long-term management strategies that include but not limited to
prescribed burn management for all applicable portions of the mitigation If burn management is
Article 4 21
UNIIEDCIIYOFYORKN FILLEWEILAND PRO IECr]ON REGI1LArION WEII.AND Inn'ACIS AND MII [CATION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQtTREAIENrs
not utilized, documentation shall be submitted that specifies the reasons why burn management
will not be used and describes alternative management strategies that are known to be effective
Alternatives such as herbicide application or weed pulling shall be applied with Staff approval.
8) If the owner is different then the applicant, identify the owner of the site and provide a written
assurance from the owner that the applicant has permission to use the site for mitigation
Section 4.4 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Protocol
I Following the general USACE guidelines, a 5-year mitigation monitoring period shall be required to assess
the success of the mitigation The first monitoring year is considered the first fill growing season after
planting. In general, if the full mitigation plan including seeding/planting is completed by end of May in a
particular year', that year can be considered the first monitoring year. If installation is not completed until
later in the growing season, then the first monitoring year will be the next calendar year
2 Provide a description of a monitoring protocol that meets the following provisions.
1 ) General Sampling Methods ,
a. Monitoring for every year of the required monitoring period shall include two (2)
monitoring events: one in late spring (May — mid-June) and the second during the late
summer period from mid-August to mid-October..
The purpose of the spring visit is a qualitative assessment of the mitigation site,
accomplished through meander search methodology throughout the entire mitigation area,
including the buffer area, and inventories of vegetation across the different plant
communities/zones . Denote any site conditions where land management should be
addressed (e g, weed control, herbivory impacts, soil erosion, and sedimentation impacts)
The spring site visit shall be documented in a field report as described in Section 4.6.
b . The second monitoring event shall provide a more detailed qualitative assessment, and
conduct quantitative sampling along transect lines and document site conditions with
photographs that are taken at permanent photo stations.
The general inventory and FQA data shall be compiled and summarized in the annual monitoring
report as described in Section 4 6
2) Transect Sampling Methods.
a . Generally, at least one ( 1 ) transect line shall be established within each of the proposed
wetland mitigation areas and within each plant community across the mitigation site,
including one in the buffer area Transect locations shall be documented so that sampling
can be repeated year to year
b, A sufficient number of quadrants shall be sampled along each transect line to provide full
representation of the plant community. In general, a minimum of ten (10) 0.25 square
meter quadrants per transect is sufficient . Quadrant intervals and number will depend on
the size and uniformity of the plant community,
The sampling pr'ocedur'e includes the recording of all plant species within the quadrant and the
assignment of a cover value. For further detail of the sampling method refer to the "Monitoring
Vegetation" chapter in The Talhuass Restoration Handbook: for prairies, savannas, and
woodlands (Packard, S. and Mutel, C. 2005) .
Article 4 22
UNIIEDCI'IN' OrVORRVILLGWEI I.AND PRO'I EC I IONREGTILA] ION WEIr :%ND I NPACIS :IND M I IGA'I ION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMINATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS Rupunu:MEN Is
From these data, the Mean C, FQI, and relative importance values (RIV) are generated and are
to be compared with results of the previous monitoring events .
3) Additional Monitoring Parameters
In addition to the FQA method stated above, some projects may require additional monitoring
parameters for the mitigation and/or preserved wetland(s) such as hydrology, wildlife, etc. The
requirements of additional monitoring parameters shall be reviewed and required (if any) by
Staff on a project by project basis
4) Preliminary Wetland Delineation
A preliminary wetland delineation of the mitigation wetland(s) boundary shall be conducted
during the third (P) year of monitoring The extent of developed wetland shall be based on the
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation If the delineated wetland acreage deviates negatively,
10% or greater than the required mitigation acreage, the developer shall be required to prepare
and submit a Remedial Action Plan to Staff Refer to Section 4. 7 Mitigation Requirements for
Non-performing Wetlands.
5) Final Wetland Delineation .
A final wetland delineation of the mitigation wetland(s) boundary shall be conducted during the
fifth (5°i) monitoring year
Section 4.5 Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards
I Erosion Control — A biodegradable erosion blanket shall be used for areas up to the 2-year stage and a
temporary cover crop shall be seeded within the wetland mitigation, which includes the buffer area above
the 2-year stage, within seven (7) calendar days of completion of construction activities. If the developer is
unable to comply with the 7-day requirement then the developer shall follow the City's Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance Any additional soil and erosion control measures shall be in accordance to
the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
2 Floristic Quality Assessment.
1 ) General Inventory .
a , By the end of the third full growing season, 30% of the seeded species and 90% of the
plugged species should be present; and native Mean C and native FQI values shall be
greater than or equal to 2 .5 and 15, respectively, for each installed plant community .
b. By the end of the fifth full growing season, 40% of the seeded species and 80% of the
plugged species should be present. The native Mean C and FQI values shall be equal to or
greater than 32 and 20, respectively, as measured for each plant community type that
comprises the mitigation area, including the native plant community within the buffer area.
The native Mean C and FQI values should increase each successive year after installation.
c By the end of the fifth full growing season, the native Mean W shall be less than or equal to
zero (0) for each of the wetland communities.
Generally, prior to the fifth monitoring year, the FQA data presented in the annual report
should reflect a positive trend in floristic metrics in order to be confident that the mitigation
shall meet the stated performance standards in the fifth year. If the mean wetness
coefficient is greater than zero (0), this is an indication that wetland conditions are not
developing. If the native Mean C has not increased from the previous year's monitoring
Article 4 23
UNIt ED CI IYOF YORKVILLE WEI I:AND PRO'I EC I ION RBGULAIION WEILAND IHIPAGIS AND MI I IGAI ION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQUIRENIENIS
results, this is an indication that additional management activities may be required. It is in
the perntittee's best interest to take necessary measures early in the project in order to
ensure compliance with the proposed wetland mitigation
2) Tr.3nsectInventory .
a.. The RIV of total native plants should increase each successive year after installation.
Generally, at the transect level there should be a positive trend in the floristic metrics for
the mitigation monitoring period. If such a trend is observed, one can conclude that for a
particular plant community all reasonable measures have been taken to manage that area
3 General Standards
1 ) By the end of the third full growing season, there shall be no area, across the entire mitigation
site, greater than I square meter that is devoid of vegetation, as measured by aerial coverage,
unless specified in the approved mitigation plan . Overall aerial coverage must be 90%, and
seedlings of at least 50% of all seed species found.
2) By the end of the fifth full growing season, there shall be no area, across the entire mitigation
site, greater than 0. 5 square meter that is devoid of vegetation, as measured by aerial coverage,
unless specified in the approved mitigation plan . Overall aerial coverage must be 99%, and
seedlings of at least 40% of all seed species found.
3) By the end of the fifth full growing season, none of the three most dominant plant species in any
of the communities that comprise the mitigation site, which includes the buffer area, may be non-
native or weedy species including, but not limited to, Reed Canary Grass, Common Reed,
Kentucky Blue Grass, Purple Loosestrife, Narrow-leaved cattails, Sandbar Willow, Field Thistle,
sweet clover, woody shrubs such as buckthorn, Eurasian honeysuckles, European High Bush
Cranberry, and other non-native, weedy species .
4) By the end of the fifth full growing season, the proposed wetland acreage as depicted in the
approved plan shall have been achieved. The extent, or deficiency of wetland acreage, that has
not been achieved, is the extent to which the developer shall be liable Refer to Section 4 7
Mitigation Requirements for Non-perforrning Wetlands
5) Should the developer choose to provide additional required mitigation credits via creation,
restoration, or enhancement measures, the developer shall be required at a minimum, to maintain
and monitor the creation, restoration, or enhancement wetland(s) for an additional three (3) years.
Should the developer choose to provide enhancement measures, the developer shall provide
baseline floristic data of the proposed enhancement wetland(s).
6) Additional Proposed Criteria — Depending upon the mitigation plan submitted there may be
additional criteria required to supplement the above standards. These shall be evaluated on a
project by project basis.
Section 4,6 Post Construction Submittal Requirements
I Submit as-built conditions to Staff for review and approval as identified below
1 ) Final Grading — upon completion of final grading but before planting, submit certified as-built
plans with benchmarks that depict elevations in the mitigation area(s), including invert elevations
of all water control structures . The normal water level elevation and resulting acreage of open
water, if applicable, shall be specified , Provide a narrative explanation for any deviation from
Article 4 24
UNI I EDCIIY OP VORXVILI,li Wer r. AND Prto I ECI ION RLGULATION WEI I AND IAIPACIS AND D'IIIIGA 1 ION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS
the approved mitigation plan If the grades are not within 0 .2'± of the approved plan, the
permittee may be responsible for taking necessary corrective measures..
2) Vegetation — submit a list of tire actual species seeded and planted by scientific and common
names for each community zone, including the quantity of each species installed (seed
weight/acre, number of plugged plants/acre), dates of seeding and/or planting, source of stock,
and the installation method(s) The vegetation as-built submittal shall include the Wetland
Mitigation Plan graphic that demarks the limits of each community zone installed and identifies
any revisions to the planting plan .
2 Monitoring Reports
1 ) Field reports shall be prepared and submitted to Staff within four (4) weeks of the spring
monitoring visit . The field report shall include a brief' description of existing site conditions and
proposed management activities that should be addressed during the present growing season
2) Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared and submitted to Staff by December 30" of the
monitoring year The annual reports shall include the FQA data and discussion of FQA results,
when applicable, discussion of adherence to the appropriate performance standards, narrative of
the general site conditions, identification of management activities that occurred during the
growing season, recommended management activities to occur over the successive 12-month
period, and photographs from the established photo stations,
The first year monitoring report shall also include a description of the transect line locations as
well as a graphic of the Wetland Mitigation Plan that denotes the location of all established
transect lines and permanent photo stations.
Years 3 and 5 monitoring reports shall include the results of the surveyed wetland delineation
including completed data forms and a graphic that depicts the location of data points,
Section 4.7 Mitigation Requirements for Non-performing Wetlands
1 If the Preliminary Wetland Delineation, performed during the third monitoring year, determines that the
delineated wetland acreage deviates negatively, 10% or greater than the required mitigation acreage, the
developer shall be required to prepare and submit a Remedial Action Plan to Staff. The Remedial Action
Plan shall address measures that will be undertaken to resolve the lack of wetland habitat. A Remedial
Action Plan shall be submitted to Staff within sixty (60) days of submitting the preliminary wetland
delineation findings . If the developer fails to comply with the provisions of this section, the City may draw
upon the required performance security following the provisions of Article 10 of these regulations to
remediate the mitigation site conditions
2. If the Final Wetland Delineation, performed during the fifth monitoring year, determines that the delineated
wetland acreage does not meet the required mitigation wetland acreage, Staff may require an extension of
the 5-year monitoring period, payment of fee-in-lieu equivalent to the costs associated with the
construction, planting, monitoring and maintenance of the wetland acreage that is lacking, or request other
measures to meet the intention, requirements, and spirit of these regulations , Failure to meet the required
wetland acreage shall be reviewed and measures required on a project by project basis
3 In addition, if Staff or his/her agent determines that the wetland mitigation does not meet the Wetland
Mitigation Requirements of Section 4.2 and the Wetland Mitigation Performance Standards of Section 4.5,
the developer shall meet with Staff to determine the acceptable means by which the developer shall meet
his/her wetland mitigation obligation(s). Based upon the review and decision of Staff and City Council, the
developer may be required to:
Article 4 25
UNI JED CITY OF YORKVILI E WETLAND PRO'I EC I ION REGUI.,A I ION WEI I AND TNIPACI'S AND nM I I LCAI ION
FOR WATER QUALITY & STORMINATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS RHQu1REMENIS
1 ) Continue management and enhancement measures of the mitigation area(s) for a specified period
beyond the 5-year monitoring for the improvement of vegetative quality and diversity in order to
meet the required performance standards of these regulations
2) Provide additional mitigation credits through enhancement measures for other existing
wetland(s)
3) Provide funding into the fee-in-lieu program.
4 If Staff and City Council requests that the developer meet his/her mitigation requirements via payment in-
lieu, Staff shall make an estimate of the probable cost of mitigating for the deficiency in performance .
Staff shall have the right to draw on the performance security the amount of funds appropriate to remedy
the wetland mitigation to meet the performance standards, conditions, and wetland protection standards of
these regulations . The remainder of the performance security shall then be released The amount withheld
for remedy of the mitigation shall be deposited in the fund created under and expended in the manner
described in Article I l
Article 4 26
Article 5
Long-Term Maintenance Provisions
UNIrFDCIIYOF YORKVILLE WEI LAND PROrECI ION REGULA I ION LONG-TERM MAINtENANCE PROVISIONS
FOR WAI ER QUALI tY & S ORMwA I ER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
Section 5.1 Long-term Maintenance
I Unless maintenance responsibility has been delegated to and accepted by another person under this section,
the owner shall maintain that portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers.
With the approval of the Staff the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers may be:
1 ) Dedicated or otherwise transferred to and accepted by the City or other public entity
2) Conveyed or otherwise transferred to and accepted by a homeowner's association, or similar
entity, with the members being the owners of all lots or parcels comprising the development
3) Conveyed to a person or entity that specializes in conservation and protection of wetlands.
Section 5.2 Transfer to City or Other Public Entity
1 If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers is to be dedicated or
otherwise transferred to the City or other public entity under Section 5 1 1 , appropriate easements for
ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved for the benefit of such entity on the
final plat.
Section 5.3 Transfer to Homeowner's or Similar Association
1 If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers is to be conveyed or
otherwise transferred to a homeowner's or similar association under Section 5. 1 . 2 then:
1 ) Appropriate easements for ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved
for the benefit of such association and the City on the final plat .
2) The association shall be duly incorporated and a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, duly
recorded, and bylaws and any amendment to either of them, shall be delivered to Staff.
3) The bylaws of the association shall, at a minimum, contain the following:
a . A provision acknowledging and accepting the association's obligation to maintain those
portions of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffer areas
conveyed or otherwise transferred to it under these regulations .
b. A mechanism for imposing an assessment upon the owners of all of the lots or parcels
comprising the development that is sufficient, at a minimum, to provide for Ste
maintenance of those portions of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated
buffers conveyed or otherwise transferred to it under these regulations, and the payment of
all taxes levied thereon A Special Service Area shall be established for the development
area to provide an ongoing revenue source in the event that the homeowners association is
not managing the wetland
c. A provision adopting the plan of long-term maintenance set forth in the application for a
wetland permit, with approved amendments.
d . A provision identifying the officer of the association responsible for carrying out the
obligations imposed upon the association under these regulations
C, A provision requiring the consent of the City to any amendment of the bylaws changing any
of the provisions of the bylaws required by these regulations .
f A provision requiring the consent of the City to the dissolution of the association.
Article 5 28
UNI I ED CI IYOF' YORKVILLE, WEILAND PRO I-EC'1 ION t2EGULA T ION LONG-TFRNi MAINZ ENANCE PROVISIONS
FOR WATER QUALITY & S'roronvA TER M,WAGENENI BENEFITS
4) Any conveyance or other instrument of transfer delivered under Section 5 1 2 shall include a
covenant that imposes upon the association the obligations set forth in this section and the
association's affirmative acceptance thereof.
Section 5.4 Conveyance to a Person or Entity Specializing in Conservation
1 If any portion of the preserved and mitigation wetlands and their associated buffers are to be conveyed to a
person or entity under Section 5 . 1 3 then:
1 ) Appropriate easements for ingress and egress and maintenance of such portions shall be reserved
for the benefit of the City on the final plat..
2) The final plat shall contain a legend imposing the maintenance obligations of this section upon
the grantee and his successors in interest as a covenant running with the land and incorporating
by reference the plan of long-tern maintenance set forth in the application for a wetland permit,
with approved amendments .
3) The final plat shall contain a legend reserving the right of the City to enter upon the land to
perform the maintenance required in this section if the owner does not do so and to place a lien
against the land for the cost thereof,
4) A Special Service Area shall be established for the development area to provide an ongoing
revenue source in the event that the person or entity is not managing the wetland.
5) Any conveyance delivered under Section 5. 13, and any subsequent conveyance, shall include a
covenant that imposes upon the grantee the obligations, restrictions and provisions set forth in
this section and the grantee's affirmative acceptance thereof
Section 5.5 Incorporation of Maintenance Obligations in Wetland Permit
1 The provisions of this section shall be incorporated by reference in the wetland permit and the developer's
acceptance of the permit shall be deemed to be the developer's acceptance and assumption of the
obligations imposed under this section. The developer shall record such obligations on the deed.
Article 5 29
Article 6
Fees, Enforcement and Penalties
UNI FED CI I YOF YORKPI I.LE WEI LAND PRO I ECTION REG(ILA i ION Frrs, ENFORCENIEN r AND PENAL r ns
FOR WA I ER QUALI rY & SI'ORNIwA'I ER MANAGrNIENr BENEIA IS
Section 6.1 Fees and Application Review Times
I . Applications for a wetland permit under these regulations shall be accompanied by a non-refundable
administrative application fee in an amount of $ 100 In addition, the developer shall provide a minimum
review deposit in the amount of $5,000 that will be drawn on for the hourly fee invoices Of Outside
consultant(s) who may be retained by the United City of Yorkville in connection with the review of the
application In the event the review deposit is drawn down to less than $ 1 ,000, the developer shall be
required to provide an additional deposit to re-establish the deposit balance to $5,000. In the event the cost
of the services of the consultant(s) is less than the review deposit, the developer shall be refunded the
balance. A denial of an application for a wetland permit shall not affect the developer's obligation to pay
the review fee provided for in this Section.
2 Additional fees for wetland mitigation construction administration and review will be covered under the
Administration Fee based on the approved estimate of costs.
3 Permit applications shall be approved or denied within 30 business days of a complete permit submittal; if
written approval or denial of the permit has not been received within 30 business days, the permit
application shall be assumed to be approved. The application review period begins once all submittal items
are provided to Staff:
Section 6.2 Enforcement
1 . One of the primary duties of Staff or his/her agent shall be the review of all wetland submittal applications
and issuance of wetland permits for those projects that are in compliance with the provisions of these
regulations. Staff shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of these regulations
2 Staff or his/her agent, officer, or employee shall have authority under these regulations to enter upon
privately owned property for the purposes of inspecting any development activity to ensure the activity
conforms with requirements, standards, and provisions of these regulations and/or the terns and conditions
of an issued wetland permit
3 If a wetland mitigation area is constructed as part of tire wetland permit, Staff or his/her agent shall at a
minimum perform the following inspections:
1 ) After final grading and before seeding or plant installation.
2) After seeding and plant installation
3) Annual inspections during the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period.
Section 6.3 Penalties and Legal Actions
I Whenever Staff or his/her agent finds a violation of these regulations, or of any permit or order issued
pursuant thereto, Staff or City Council, as applicable, may issue a stop-work order on all development
activity on the subject property or on that portion of the activity that is in direct violation of the Ordinance
or withhold issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, permits or inspection until the provisions of these
regulations, including any conditions attached to a wetland permit, have been fully met. Staff shall issue an
order that ( 1 ) describes the violation (2) specifies the time period for remediation, and (3) requires
compliance with these regulations prior to the completion of the activity in violation Failure to obey a
stop-work order shall constitute a violation of these regulations.
2. In the event a violation involving illegal alteration of an Isolated Waters of Yorkville as protected under
these regulations, the City shall have the power to order complete restoration of the Isolated Waters of
Yorkville by the person or agent responsible for the violation . If such responsible person or agent does not
prepare and submit a restoration plan for review and approval by Staff within 30 days of notice of violation,
the City shall have the authority to restore the affected Isolated Waters of Yorkville to their prior condition
wherever possible, and the person or agent responsible for the original violation shall be held liable to the
City for the cost of such restoration.
Article 6 31
UNITED CITY OFYORKVILLE WE LAND PROIECI ION RGGULAI ION FEES, GNFORCCNIENT AND PENAL I ICS
FOR WATER QUAL IIY & SIORAIWATCR MANAGENIENt BENERIS
3 In addition to the rights and remedies herein provided to the City, any person violating any of the
provisions of these regulations shall be subject to a fine in an amount not exceeding Seven Hundred and
Fifty Dollars (5750. 00) for each offense Each calendar day a violation continues to exist shall constitute a
separate offense
Article 6 32
Article 7
General Provisions
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PROTECTION REGULATION GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR WATER QUALITY & $TORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
Section 7.1 Scope of Regulation
1 . These regulations applies to all new development as well as any dumping or non-permitted discharge of
chemicals or other pollutants into Isolated Waters of Yorkville within the United City of Yorkville and all
new development within an area under consideration for annexation into the United City of Yorkville. Any
person undertaking a development having a wetland on the project site or a wetland within 100 feet of the
project site shall obtain a wetland permit from Staff. This includes any new development on partially
developed sites
Section 7.2 Exemptions
I These regulations do not apply to:
1 ) Development which has obtained preliminary or final plat approval within the past I ? months
before the effective date of these regulations
2) Wetland impacts that have occurred before the effective date of these regulations,
Section 73 Severability
I The provisions of these regulations shall be severable in accordance with the following rules:
1 ) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of these regulations to be
invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of these regulations.
2) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge to be invalid the application of any provision
of these regulations to a particular parcel of land or a particular development, such judgment
shall not affect the application of said provision to any other land or development.
Section 7.4 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
I These regulations are not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed
restrictions Where these regulations and other ordinances, easements, covenants, or deed restrictions
conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail..
?. When provisions of these regulations differ from any other applicable law, statute, ordinance, rule, or
regulation, the more stringent provision shall apply.
Section 7.5 Effective Date
These regulations shall be in full force and effective from and after its passage, approval, and publication
according to law. The effective date of these regulations is January 8, 2008 .
Article 7 34
Article 8
Variances and Appeals
UNI I' ED Cl I OF YORKVI I. LE WETLAND PRO EC I ION IIF%ULAI ION VARIANCES AND APPEALS
FOR WATER QUALITY & SIORMWAiEll MANAOEMEN'r BENEFITS
Section 8.1 Variances
I The developer may apply to the City Council for a variance The City Council shall have the authority to
grant variances from these regulations, but only in compliance with the procedures set forth in Section 8 1 .
2 The petition for a variance shall accompany or follow an application for a Wetland Permit and shall include
all necessary submittal items .
3 Every variance petition filed pursuant to this Section 8 1 shall provide the following information:
1 ) The specific feature or features of the proposed construction or development that require a
variance.
2) The specific provision(s) of these regulations from which a variance is sought and the precise
extent of the variance therefrom.
3) A statement of the characteristics of the development that prevent compliance with the provisions
of these regulations
4) A statement that the variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to permit the
development .
5) A statement as to how the variance requested satisfies the standards set forth in Section 8. 1 4 of
these regulations
4 The City Council may grant such petition for a variance only when it is consistent with the general purpose
and intent of these regulations and when the development meets the majority (four, or more) of the
following conditions:
1 ) The relief requested is the minimum necessary and there are no means other than the requested
variance by which the alleged hardship can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to
permit the reasonable continuation of the development.
2) Demonstration that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
developer Economic hardship is not a valid reason to request a variance .
3) The variance is not requested solely for the purpose of increasing the density of the development
nor impervious areas on the site.
4) The developer's circumstances are unique and do not represent a general condition or problem.
5) The subject development is exceptional as compared to other developments subject to the same
provision .
6) Granting the variance shall not dramatically alter the essential character of the wetland area
involved, including existing stream uses .
7) The proposed development could not be constructed if it were limited to areas outside the
Isolated Waters of Yorkville and required buffer areas.
Section 8.2 Variance Conditions
1 , A variance of less than or different from that requested may be granted when the record supports the
developer's right to some relief, but not to the relief'requested
Article 8 36
UNI T ED CI rl' OF YORIOU r E W E I L AND PRO I EC'I"[ON REGULA I ION VARIANCES AND APPEAT S
FOR WATER QUAL ITV & SrotlNiVA I Ell MANAGEMENT QENEFI IS
2 In granting a variance, the City Council may impose such specific conditions and limitations on the
developer concerning any matter relating to the purposes and objectives of these regulations as may be
necessary or appropriate .
3 Whenever any variance is granted subject to any condition to be met by the developer, upon meeting such
condition, the developer shall file evidence to that effect with Staff:
A A granted variance shall be issued as a "special use" permit and shall be valid for one ( 1 ) year from the date
of issuance,.
Section 8.3 Appeals
I A developer may appeal any decision of Staff to the City Council provided that no such appeal shall be
taken until and unless the developer has requested a conference with Staff and not a subordinate of Staff,
and either the conference has been held or Staff has not scheduled a conference within 30 days of the initial
request.
Article 8 37
Article 9
Administration
UNITED Cnv of YORKVILLE WE I AND Piro I Ec'I ION REGULATION ADMINISMA HON
FOR WATER QUALI IFFY & SIORNIwAI ER MANAGENIENr BENEFI IS
Section 9.1 Responsibility for Administration
I Staff shall oversee the enforcement and administration of these regulations. In performing his/her duties,
Staff may delegate routine responsibilities to any named designee .
Section 9.2 Representative Capacity
I In all cases when any action is taken by Staff or his/her duly appointed designee, to enforce the provisions
of these regulations, such action shall be taken in the name of the City, and neither Staff not his/her
designee, in so acting shall be rendered personally liable.
Section 9.3 Service of Notice
I Unless otherwise provided herein, service of any notice or other instrument under these regulations may be
made upon any person by:
1 ) First class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to address then on file for such person, if any, or if
none, to such person's last known address .
2) Any method prescribed under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure ,
Article 9 39
Article 10
Performance Security
UNI I ED CITV or Yomcvn:i e W Er LAND PROTECTION REGULATION PERFORMANCE SECURI n°
colt WATER Qu,u rry & SI OIZNI\KATF.R MANAGEMENT BENEFITS
Section 10.1 General Security Requirements
11 To secure the performance of the developer's obligation to successfully complete any required wetland
mitigation as part of the wetland permit, and to pay all costs, fees, and charges due under these regulations,
and to fully and faithfully comply with all of the provisions of these regulations, the developer shall, prior
to the issuance of a wetland permit post the security as provided in Section 102 ,
2 The developer shall bear the full cost and responsibility of obtaining and maintaining the security required
by this Article
Section 10.2 Wetland Mitigation and Naturalized Basin Performance Security
1 . A development performance security shall include the following..
1 ) A schedule, agreed upon by the developer and Staff, for the completion of the wetland mitigation
required by the permit.
2) A statement of the estimated probable cost to install, monitor, and maintain the wetland
mitigation area as required by the permit. The estimated probable costs shall be categorized by
earthwork, including erosion and sediment control measures; landscape installation; and
maintenance and monitoring costs. Such estimate is subject to approval by Staff
3) An irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City or other such adequate security as Staff may
approve, in an amount equal to 110% of the approved estimated probable cost to complete any
required wetland mitigation,
4) A statement signed by the developer granting Staff the right to draw on the security and the right
to enter the development site to complete required work, in the event that work is not completed
according to the work schedule or the mitigation area is not meeting the required performance
standards and the developer has failed to implement management activities or remedial measures
to address noncompliance issues.
2 Required 5 year wetland mitigation development security may be released based on the following
mitigation milestones:
1 ) 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities may be released following review and
approval of certified final grading as-built plans ,
2) Remaining 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities and 50% estimated probable
costs for landscape installation may be released following review and approval of the preliminary
wetland delineation (conducted in the third year of monitoring) and compliance with the
prescribed performance standards for 3rd-year monitoring requirements.
3) Subsequent release of security shall be based on progress of mitigation and at the discretion of
Staff At no time, however, shall more than 50% of the remaining security be released prior to
review and approval of the final wetland delineation (conducted in the fifth year of monitoring)
and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for the 5d'-year monitoring
requirements
3 , Required 3-year naturalized wetland detention basin development security may be released based on the
following milestones:
1 ) 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities may be released following review and
approval of certified final grading as-built plans.
2) Remaining 50% estimated probable costs for earthwork activities and 50% estimated probable
costs for landscape installation may be released following review and approval of the naturalized
wetland basin establishment after two years of development and compliance with the prescribed
performance standards for the 2"d—year monitoring requirements.
3) Subsequent release of security shall be based on progress of naturalized wetland basin and at the
discretion of Staff At no time, however, shall more than 50% of the remaining security be
Article 10 41
UNI I ED CI IN? OF YORIMLL.E WLIL AND PROTECTION REGULATION PERFORMANCE SLCURI I Y
FOR WA 11,.411 QUAII I Y S' SIORNIwA I'ER MANAGEMENT BENEFIT S
released prior to review and approval of the naturalized wetland basin after three years of
development and compliance with the prescribed performance standards for the 3`d—year
monitoring requirements
4 Generally, at the end of the applicable monitoring period or upon an earlier request for the release of the
performance security, Staff or his/her agent shall evaluate the wetland mitigation and/or naturalized
wetland basin for compliance with the performance standards, conditions, and standards of these
regulations. If Staff or his/her agent determines that the wetland mitigation meets the performance
standards, conditions, and wetland protection standards of these regulations, he/she shall recommend
release of the performance security .
Section 10,3 Performance Security
1 . Performance security posted pursuant to this Article shall be in a form satisfactory to Staff.
2 If the developer fails or refuses to fully meet any of its obligations under these regulations then the City
may, at their discretion, draw on and retain all or any of the funds remaining in the performance security
The City thereafter shall have the right to take any action deemed reasonable and appropriate to mitigate
the effects of such failure or refusal, and to reimburse the City from the proceeds of the performance
security for all of its costs and expenses, including legal fees and administrative expenses, that resulted
from or incurred as a result of the developer's failure or refusal to fully meet its obligations under these
regulations . If the funds remaining in the performance security are insufficient to fully repay the City for
all such costs and expenses, or after' said payment to the City, the remaining cash reserve of the
performance security is less than the amount that would otherwise be required to be maintained under this
Article, the developer shall on demand by the City immediately deposit with the City such additional funds
as the City determines are necessary to fully repay such costs and expenses, and to establish appropriate
cash reserve as required under this Article.
Article 10 42
Article 11
Fee-In-Lieu of Wetland Mitigation
t1NI I ED CIIYOF YORKVILLE WE'I LAND PROIEC I )ON REGULATION FEE-IN-LIEU OF WEI L AND M I I IGAI ION
FOR WA I Fit QUALI rY & S ORMWA IER MANAGEMENT BENEFI IS
Section 11.1 Fee-in-lieu of Wetland Mitigation
L If fee-in-lieu of mitigation is required by the City, the applicant shall pr'epar'e a statement of the estimated
probable cost to construct wetlands that includes costs associated with land acquisition, wetland
construction, planting, and the 5-year monitoring and maintenance activities The estimate of probable
costs is subject to the approval of the City .
2 If fee-in-lieu of mitigation is not required by the City, the applicant's estimated probable cost shall be
determined based on a mitigation ratio 1 5 times the on-site required mitigation acreage. The probable cost
estimate shall include costs associated with land acquisition, wetland construction, planting, and the 5-year
monitoring and maintenance activities The estimate of probable costs is subject to the approval of the
City,
Section 11 .2 Procedures and Use of Funds
1 An applicants' statement of its intention to satisfy the wetland mitigation requirement by the payment of' a
fee-in-lieu of wetland mitigation shall be in writing and filed with the City along with the estimates
described in Section 11 1
2 Fees paid in lieu of wetland mitigation shall be deposited by the City in a separate fund created for such
purpose.
3 Fees paid in lieu of wetland mitigation shall be expended to plan, design, restore, improve, acquire, or
enhance Isolated Waters of Yorkville and/or Waters of the U S located within the City's jurisdiction
Article 11 44
APPENDIX A
WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION
For city use only) Date Application Received: Date Permit Issued:
Instructions: Applicant shall submit completed application, permit sumbittai checklist. permit submittal flowchart. mitigation plan checklist
and all other applicable submittal items as required wilhin the Welland Ordinance to the Administrator The wetland permit review process
shall begin once a complete submittal has been provided.
Name & Address of Applicant: Name & Address of Owner(s): Name & Address of Developer:
Telephone No.. during business hours: Telephone No during business hours:
( ) fax i ) fax
Describe the general intent of the proposed activity, its purpose and the proposed Category (I-VI) of impact..
Names. addresses and telephone numbers of all adjoining property owners within 250 feet of the development site
Location of activity: Legal Description:
Street. road or other descriptive location 1/4 Sec Twp. Range
Tax Assessor's Description (if known):
City County State Zip Code
Name of waterbody within or adjacent to site (if applicable) Map No Subdiv. No Lot No
Is any portion of activity for which a Weiland permit is sought now complete? —No _Yes, if yes explain:
I hereby certify that all information presented in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have
read and understand the United City of Yorkville Wetland Protection Ordinance, and fully intend to comply with its provisions .
signature of Developer Date
Signature of Owner Date
Weiland Permit Application
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TYPICAL WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART
The following flowchart identifies the typical submittal items that are required for a permit application based on the type of proposed
impact. Highlight the appropriate path and circle the required submittal items..
Type of Development Project: Project Site Acreage: Proposed Wetland Impact Acreage:
(Residential. Commercial. PUD. etc )
START
Fo e wetlands or Walers of The Submit Welland
. present on or within 100 feet Determination Letter of
propo sed development site? NO Findings
�/ (Refer to Section 3.2.2
Will propose development Submit Welland Permit Application and
impact Isolated Waters of Yorkville Wetland Permit Submittal Checklist,
or Walers of the U S ? NO completing items 1-4 on the checklist and
establish required buffers.
(Refer to Sections 3 2 3 - 3 2 5)
N
Y
Will proposed development impact iland Permit Appiicaiion
Waters of the U S ? nd Permit Submittal
Ycompleting items 1-5 on
list
ections 3 7 3 - 3.2.5)
O
z
Will proposed development impact
greater than or equal to 0 25 acre of he Isolated Wafers of
Isolated Waters of Yorkville? rkville a High Quality NO
uatic Resource?
w
Y �
w
Y
What Category of Impact
will be used?
(Refer to Section 3.2.4) Attend mandatory Category V
Pre-Submiltol Meeting
with Administrator.
Category I Category I and II Submit Welland Permit Application.
Will wellond NO Welland Permit Submittal Checklist.
be used for completing items 1-4 and item 6 on the
slormwaler checklist. and Welland Miligalion Plan
management Checklist. (Refer to Sections 3.2.3 - 3 2.5.
Category II facility? YES Does wetland Article 4. and all other applicable Articles
meet crilena NO of the Ordinance)
to be used for
stormwoter
path A management
See facility?
Sheet 2
path 8
See
Sheet 2
SHEET YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL FLOWCHART
path D
from
SheetI
W
r
Category I and 11 that meet certain criteria
Submit Wetland Permit Application and Welland Permit Submittal
Checklist completing items 1-4 on the checklist and comply with
Section 3 1 3
path A
from
Sheet
Submit Welland Permit
Application and narrative of
Category III measures taken to miligole for
Category It water quality functions. (Refer
to Sections 3.2 3 - 3 2.5)
Category IV Category IV Submit
Weiland Permit Submittal Checklist
completing items 1-4 and item 6 on
the checklist and narrative of activity
that demonstrates a net gain of
aquatic resource(s). (Refer to Sections
Cale oryV 3.23 - 32.5 and 4 .2)
9 Attend mandotory
Pre-Submittal Meeting
with Administrator
Category V
Submit Wetland Permit Application.
Welland Permit Submittal Checklist
completing items 1-4 and item 6 on the
checklist. and Weiland Mitigation Plan
Checklist )Refer to Sections 3 2 3 - 3 2 5.
Article 4, and all other applicable Articles
of the Ordinance)
d YES Submit Weiland Permit Application and Wetland Permit Submittal
Will forme
wetland d used Checklist. completing items 1-4 on the checklist and comply with
Category VI forstormwater Secfo 1313
management
facility? NO Submit Wetland Permit Application. Wetland
Permit Submittal Checklist. completing items
STOP 1-4 and item 6 on the checklist, and Wetland
Mitigation Plan Checklist )Refer to Sections
3 2,3-3.2 5. Article 4. and all other applicable
Articles of the Ordinance)
SHEET YORKVILLE WETLAND PERMIT SuBmHHAL FLOWCHART
APPENDIX B
WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL. CHL- CKLIST
United City of Yorkville
WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED.
REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION
1 .. Wetland Delineation Report that provides all information as required
in Section 3.2.5 of the Ordinance.
2. Narrative Report and Site Plan that demonstrates compliance of:
a Section 3.1 ..1 Buffer Requirements, including pianfing plan for buffer erects)..
b Section 3.1 .2 Wetland Hydrology Protection
c. Section 3. 1 3 Stormwater Management within Isolated Waters of Yorkville
(including buffer and 3-year management and monitoring plan)
d. Section 3 1 4 Discharge to Isolated Water of Yorkville or Waters of the U.S..
e. Section 3.1 .5 Protection of Isolated Waters of Yorkville During Development
3_, Narrative that specifies prescribed management activities and long-
term management provisions for all buffers. perserved wetlands.
and wetland mitigation (if applicable) . and includes the following:
a. Maintenance activities and tentative schedule.
b. Maintenance activities and tentative schedule subsequent to required
monitoring period
C. Description of funding source.
d. Designation or the responsible party following Article 5.
4. USACE statement of jurisdictional determination for all wetlands
on development site.
5 For proposed Impacts to Waters of the U.S. the following
shall be provided:
a . Completed United City of Yorkville Welland Permit Application
b. Provide USACE permit submittal for the proposed development or a letter
from the USACE that states the proposed development does not require
USACE authorization .
c Provide copies of all USACE. [EPA. and IDNR Office of Water Resources
authorizations to the Administrator.
d Statement that all wetlands within the City's Jurisdiction will be mitigated
for within the some primary watershed as the impacts) at the mitigation
ratio specified by the USACE
e . Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that demonstrates compliance
with the City's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
6. For proposed Impacts to Isolated Waters of Yorkville the following
shall be provided:
a.. Completed United City of Yorkville Weiland Permit Application .
In Statement of Permit Category (Category I-VI) to be used for development
impact(s).
c. Documentation for compliance with Illinois Department of Natural
Resources" Endangered Species Consultation Program and the Illinois
Natural Areas Preservation Act.
Weiland Permit Submittal i
WETLAND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED,
REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION
b.. of Documentation for compliance with U S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Endangered Species Act.
e. 1 ) Statement on the occurrence of High Quality Aquatic Resources on or
within 100 feet of the development site
2) Applicant has completed a Pre-Submittal meeting with the
Administrator if so, give date of meeting
f. Mitigation Plan )if applicable) refer to Appendix C for Mitigation Plan
checklist
g For Category II or Category V Impacts provide the following:
t ) Narrative of measures taken in sequence to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts before mitigation is considered..
2) Detailed discussion of alternative analysis to avoid minimize and
mitigate for wetland impacts
h For Category III Impacts provide the following:
1 ) Narrative of measures taken to mitigate for water quality
functions
i For Category IV Impacts provide the following:
1 ) Narrative of proposed plan that demonstrates net gains
in aquatic resource functions.
For CategoryVi impacts provide the following:
1 ) Narrative of mitigation measures that demonstrates an
environmental benefit e.g. improved habitat water quality.
etc.
Wetland Pennil Submittal 2
APPENDIX C
WL- TL.AND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST
United City of Yorkville
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST
REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED,
REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION
(J) (J)
I Narrative description of wetland impacts and
proposed mitigation.. Provide a summary table
with acreage for each existing wetland,
proposed impact, and proposed mitigation.
2. Narrative of proposed mitigation plan that includes a
description of the following parameters:
a, Hydrologic Conditions - Identify source(s) of water,
both on-site and off-site surface and groundwater.
Describe and provide model results of the
expected hydroperiod (at a minimum, 2-yr, 10-yr, and
100-yr, 24-hr storm events) that include frequency,
duration, and elevation of inundation or saturation.
b, 1 ) Planting Plan - Describe each proposed plant
community and approximate size. Provide a list
of plant species for each community, including
proposed cover crop, NOTE: All seed and
plant material shall originate within 200 miles
of site.
2) Planting narrative that describes the planting
methods and planting schedule.
c, Soil Characteristics - Provide a soil profile
of the proposed conditions. Identify
soil conditions that will be present from
12 - 24 inches below the surface .
d. Topography - Submit existing and proposed grades
with 1 -foot contour lines and reference elevations..
3. Specifications for wetland mitigation earthwork
including final grading, allowable compaction limits,
treatment of compacted soils, and topsoil placement;
water control structures, if applicable; BMP design and
implementation if proposed within wetland buffer
area; plant and seed procurement, installation
methods and schedule; and all other appropriate
specifications for the wetland mitigation activities,
4. Proposed implementation schedule that includes:
a. Site preparation.
b. Installation of soil erosion and sediment
control measures.
c.. Planting schedule.
Welland Miligation Plan t
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST
REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED,
REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION
M M
4. d. Post-planting maintenance and monitoring..
5. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan that includes:
a Proposed monitoring protocol that follows
Section 4 4 of the Ordinance..
b. Specified performance standards that follows
Section 4.5..
c. Proposed annual maintenance activities to be
performed during the 5-year monitoring period..
Activities should include, but not be limited to
control of undesirable plant species, herbivore
control, burn management, enhancement planting,
6 Provide a Wetland Mitigation Plan Graphic that
contains the following information.
a, A summary table with acreage for each existing
wetland, proposed impact acreage, and
proposed mitigation acreage .
b. Clearly identify proposed wetland impacts, wetland
mitigation area(s) denoting creation vs,
enhancement wetlands, and limits of required
buffer areas.
c. Planting Plan that includes a complete list of plants
by common and scientific name for each
community type; quantities per species of seed,
plugs, rootstock, transplants, or propagules; and
specific planting zones .
d. Existing and proposed grades with 1 -foot contour
lines and reference elevations to bench marks.
e. Protection measures for all preserved Isolated
Waters of Yorkville and Waters of the U.S.
f. Location of water level control structures, BMPs, etc.
7, if off-site mitigation is proposed, the following maps
shall be provided with the location of the mitigation
site clearly marked:
a. USGS topographic map.
b. County soil survey.
c. NWI map.
d. NRCS swampbuster map (if applicable)
e. Hydrologic Atlas,.
f. Aerial photogroph(s)..
Wetland Mitigation Plan 2
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST
REQUIREMENT ITEM ITEM IF NOT PROVIDED,
REQUIRED PROVIDED EXPLANATION
7. g . Site photographs .
8. Performance Security following the provisions of
Article 10..
9. If owner of the property is different then the
applicant, provide written assurance from the owner
that the applicant has permission to use the site for
mitigation.
Wetland Miligalion Plan 3
233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 800
Chicago Metropolitan Chicago,Illinois 60606
Agency for Planning www.c 0400
ww.cmap.illinais.gov
Summary of Community Planning Program and
Local Technical Assistance Program Applications
August 8, 2012
Since the adoption of GO TO 2040, CMAP has established two programs, the Community
Planning program and the Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, to direct resources to
communities to pursue planning work that helps to implement GO TO 2040. The Community
Planning program provides grants and consultant assistance to projects that link land use and
transportation planning, and is administered in partnership with the Regional Transportation
Authority (RTA). The LTA program provides staff assistance and small grants for a wide range
of projects. Both programs held a call for projects in spring and summer 2012. Applications
were due on August 1,2012.
The remainder of this document provides basic statistics about the applications received,
describes the project selection process, and includes short summaries of each project submitted.
CMAP's understanding of some of these projects may change through discussions with the
applicants, so the descriptions and figures in this document should be considered preliminary.
Basic application statistics
Between both programs,88 applicants submitted projects. Of these, 76 submitted only to the
LTA program,5 submitted only to the Community Planning program, and 7 submitted to both
program. This approximate breakdown was expected, as the Community Planning program
has stricter limitations on the types of projects that can be pursued and also has a more detailed
application form.
Some applicants submitted more than one project idea, and in total, 109 project ideas were
received. Of these, 96 were submitted to only the LTA program, 10 were submitted to only the
Community Planning program, and 3 were submitted to both programs. (Some applicants
submitted different ideas to the LTA and Community Planning programs.)
As noted above, the Community Planning program is jointly administered by CMAP and the
RTA. In addition to the applications submitted to CMAP through this program, 13 additional
applications were submitted to the RTA. Details of the projects being reviewed by the RTA are
available on their website. CMAP and the RTA communicate during the project evaluation
process, so it is possible that projects initially under review by the RTA may ultimately be
funded by CMAP, and vice versa, although this is not expected.
Applications were received from across the entire region. The chart below shows applications
received by geography,using County and Council of Mayors boundaries. Please note that
1
projects are placed in only one geography in the below table,based on where the bulk of their
population is (for example,the Village of Bartlett is in both northwest Cook and DuPage,but is
classified as northwest Cook below). In addition,there were several projects that crossed
multiple geographies and are classified as regional.
Geography Number of applicants
Chicago 10
North/Northwest Cook 10
West Cook 8
Southwest Cook 3
South Cook 9
DuPa e 9
Kane 11
Kendall 2
Lake 11
McHenry 6
Will 3
Regional/multiple 6
geographies
Applications were submitted by a variety of groups. Most were submitted by local
governments (municipalities and counties)but some were submitted by other units of
government or by nongovernmental groups. The number of multijurisdictional applications
this year is noteworthy, as CMAP encouraged multijurisdictional applications. At least 20 of
the applicants included some significant form of coordination between jurisdictions, and many
others identified partnerships with other government or nongovernmental agencies.
A variety of project types were submitted. The most common type of project was a
comprehensive plan(with 22 comprehensive plan requests submitted),followed by a subarea or
corridor plan (20). Other project types are shown in the table below. Please note that these
figures sum to 109, rather than 88,because this table shows individual project ideas, rather than
applicants.
Project type or topic Number of applications
Comprehensive plan 22
Subarea plan 20
Transportation 16
Zoning or other regulation 12
Water 11
Sustainability or other environmental 8
focus
Housing 6
Other 14
2
Comparisons to previous year
This is the second year that CMAP has offered the Community Planning program and LTA
program, so comparisons to the first year of the program may be useful. During the first year,
CMAP was overwhelmed with the number of responses to its initial call for projects, nearly 230
project ideas received from 140 applicants. This year,the response was more manageable,with
109 project ideas from 88 applicants. Even so,this is an enormous response, and far exceeds the
resources that CMAP has to support these programs.
In the first year of the program, CMAP selected projects submitted by approximately half of the
140 applicants, leaving nearly 70 applicants who did not receive assistance. Given this, it is
somewhat surprising that most of the applicants this year are new to the program. Only 15 of
last year's unsuccessful applicants reapplied; around half resubmitted the same project for
reconsideration, and half submitted a different project this year. In contrast, applicants that
have already had experience with CMAP were likely to submit second projects,with 28
applicants doing so (either submitting follow-ups to past projects or entirely new ideas).
Finally,45 applicants—just over half of the total—are entirely new to CMAP's programs.
Geographic comparisons are shown below. The distribution of applications between last year
and this year is fairly similar. A smaller percentage of applications was submitted from all
parts of suburban Cook County this year, possibly because many of last year's successful
projects were from this area. On the other hand,projects that spanned multiple geographies
increased, and more projects were submitted from Kane County, possibly in response to the
newly formed Kane County Planning Cooperative, through which the County encouraged LTA
applications from municipalities.
Geography Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
applicants, applicants, applicants, applicants,
2012 2012 2011 2011
Chicago 10 11% 16 12%
North/Northwest Cook 10 11% 19 14%
West Cook 8 9% 15 11%
Southwest Cook 3 3% 8 6%
South Cook 9 10% 15 11%
DuPa e 9 10% 20 14%
Kane 11 13% 9 7%
Kendall 2 2% 2 1%
Lake 11 13% 16 12%
McHenry 6 7% 10 7%
Will 3 3% 8 6%
Regional/multiple 6 7% 2 1%
geographies
3
Project types were consistent as well. No dramatic changes in project type were observed
between last year and this year.
Project type or topic Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
applications, applications, applications, applications,
2012 2012 2011 2011
Comprehensive plan 22 20% 48 21%
Subarea plan 20 18% 36 16%
Transportation 16 15% 40 17%
Zoning or other regulation 12 11% 23 10%
Water 11 10% 24 10%
Sustainability or other 8 7% 21 9%
environmental focus
Housing 6 6% 11 5%
Other 14 13% 26 11%
Selection criteria
The LTA program and the Community Planning program have slightly different selection
criteria. Both are meant to implement GO TO 2040 through assistance to local governments,but
because of their different histories and funding sources (the LTA project is funded through a
recent HUD grant, and the Community Planning program arose from coordination with an
existing RTA grant program), the criteria do differ.
Criteria for the LTA program include alignment of the project with the recommendations of GO
TO 2040;local need for assistance;feasibility and ability to implement;collaboration with other
groups, including neighboring governments and nongovernmental groups;input from relevant
Counties and Councils of Government(COGS);and geographic balance. Of these, the most
quantitative criteria is local need for assistance,which is calculated by combining median
income, Equalized Assessed Value (EAV), and community size; communities that have lower
median incomes, lower property values, and smaller sizes are categorized as higher-need.
For the Community Planning program, applications are screened for eligibility and then scored
for their consistency with GO TO 2040 (specifically the Livable Communities and Regional
Mobility recommendations),public engagement approach, inclusion of partners, and the
quality and completeness of the application.
Review process and timeline
Applications for both the LTA program and the Community Planning program were due on
August 1, and both recommended programs will be presented to the CMAP Board and MPO
Policy Committee on October 10.
Between early August and early September, a summary of applications received will be shared
with CMAP's working committees for discussion and comments. The same will occur with
4
other stakeholder groups,including technical assistance providers, transit agencies, Counties,
the City of Chicago, COGS, and others.
The Community Planning program grant recommendations will be discussed with CMAP's
Transportation committee on September 14. Both the Community Planning program and the
LTA program recommendations will be brought to the CMAP Board and MPO Policy
Committee at their joint meeting on October 10. The Local Coordinating Committee will
discuss the recommendations immediately prior to the Board/MPO meeting on October 10, and
also may have a special meeting to review the applications in more detail in late September
(scheduling TBD).
Following the Board/MPO meeting, CMAP will work closely with the sponsors of selected
projects to handle any needed administrative work, develop full project scopes and schedules,
and get projects started. It is expected that newly selected projects will be initiated on a rolling
basis beginning in winter and spring 2013.
5
Project descriptions
Projects are organized by geography. Please note that not all projects below are entirely
consistent with the purpose of CMAP's local programs, and more information is needed to fully
understand many of them;project proposals are described regardless of eligibility and
completeness. Most projects were submitted to the LTA program, and those submitted to the
Community Planning program are specifically noted.
Chicago
Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development (DHED)
• Community planning process for the Pilsen and Little Village communities to build
on work of Fisk Crawford Reuse task force,which has focused on next steps for the two
coal-fired power plants scheduled to close in 2012. Affordable housing, local retail,
historic resources,parks and access to the river should be addressed, in a process similar
to Green Healthy Neighborhoods (GHN) project currently in progress in five Chicago
neighborhoods.
• Garfield Park Kedzie Avenue Corridor Plan: Plan seeks to attract new businesses,
support existing ones, stabilize the housing stock, enhance transit access, and create safe
outlets for recreation through the formulation of strategies that create a more attractive
neighborhood,provide increased access to CTA rail and bus facilities, and transform
vacant and underutilized properties into more appealing locations for economic
development. Additionally, plan proposes development of recommendations that focus
on public health by providing improved access to an interconnected trail/sidewalk
system and diverse food options. This application was submitted for grant funding under the
Community Planning program.
• Back of the Yards 471h Street Corridor Plan: Develop recommendations to improve
access to CTA facilities, enhance walkability and biking opportunities along 47th Street,
expand economic development opportunities by identifying redevelopment capacity,
and focus on public health by providing improved access to an interconnected
trail/sidewalk system and diverse food options. Additionally, plan seeks to create an
attractive and welcoming environment along the 471h Street Corridor by improving
street lighting, installing murals, and working with local organizations to improve and
diversify the housing stock. This application was submitted for grant funding under the
Community Planning program.
Chicago Department of Transportation(CDOT)
• Development of a public space use policy to address requests for public plaza space,
dedicated ROW parking spots, and installation of plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging
stations. These requests currently require extensive collaboration between various City
departments and are not addressed clearly by City code.
• Garfield Ridge Community Plan:Plan seeks to integrate the Garfield Ridge
community's land use concerns in a larger project study that seeks to improve
movement of vehicles and bicycles. Proposed plan will be in conjunction with a current
6
IDOT study on the construction of an underpass beneath railway tracks which overlaps
with the limits of the study area(Central Avenue from 63rd to 65th Streets). Additionally,
plan will address acute lack of continuous north-south pedestrian and bike routes and
assess freight movements associated with Midway International Airport and the CSX
intermodal freight railroad yard. This application was submitted for grant funding under the
Community Planning program.
Chicago Housing Authority(CHA)
• Altgeld Gardens: Comprehensive land use plan for remaining undeveloped acreage.
Also propose TOD plan that coordinates land use and zoning policies for the Altgeld
redevelopment and the CTA's Red Line extension. CTA is a partner in the application.
• Washington Park: Feasibility study for the implementation of a Learning Community
model in Washington Park and neighboring communities,with University of Chicago as
the educational partner.
Chicago Lakeside Development
• Green infrastructure plan to improve stormwater management in the South Chicago
neighborhood near the proposed Lakeside development on the former U.S. Steel South
Works. The project includes compiling data on land use, rainfall and flooding, and a
geographic analysis of stormwater management to help stakeholders prioritize
infrastructure improvements. The project was submitted on behalf of Chicago Lakeside
Development LLC by Skidmore Owings&Merrill.
Chicago Southside NAACP
• Creation of an integrated land use and transportation plan for a proposed community
garden in the Englewood community. The NAACP proposes to develop the Freedom
Garden, an urban agriculture site, at 62nd and State streets in the Englewood community.
The project would potentially build on similar efforts taking place elsewhere in
Englewood and would provide opportunities for educational and economic enrichment
for local residents. This project was submitted to both the LTA program and the Community
Planning program.
Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community
• Comprehensive community planto shape the Chinatown area's development,building
on its recent centennial celebration. Stakeholder meetings to discuss concerns and
priorities with regard to land use,workforce and economic development,housing,
transportation, education, social services, arts and culture, and recreation.
Sustainable Englewood
• Creation of cultural plan for the Englewood community. Englewood is noted as having
a rich music, art and recreational cultural legacy. Sustainable Englewood wishes to
develop a cultural plan that utilizes this rich history as an educational tool in Englewood
schools and an economic development strategy for the redevelopment of its commercial
corridors. Sustainable Englewood is a non-profit agency working with other
community groups in Englewood.
7
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
• Review of transit and streetscape infrastructure in to improve safety and accessibility
for residents and visitors to the UIC area.Address outdated street signalization which
does not accommodate persons with disabilities,missing bus shelters and street
furniture,needed signalization for safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and incomplete
biking network. This project was submitted to both the LTA program and the Community
Planning program.
Victory Heights Community Organization
• Victory Heights, a neighborhood within the West Pullman community, seeks assistance
to formally document,enhance and add value to their collaboration with the City and
other partners to develop as a Green Neighborhood District. VHCO wishes to develop
a green initiatives strategy for the area that educates residents on green practices that
help improve resident quality of life.
Wicker Park Bucktown (WPB) Chamber of Commerce/Special Service Area#33
• Comprehensive parking study and recommendations to develop a state-of-the-art
parking strategy while addressing the needs of all stakeholders. Includes inventory of
existing parking, a demand analysis, and a review of zoning and local ordinances.
North and Northwest Cook County
Barrington Hills (also included in McHenry)
• Creation of an active repository of natural resource data. Repository would be an
ongoing public-private partnership that would allow better understanding of the impact
of land use decisions on the natural environment.
Bartlett(also included in DuPage)
• Update of 30+-year-old zoning ordinance, including a recommended overlay district for
the W. Bartlett Road Corridor. Review of ordinance was previously completed by
consultant, Teska and Associates.Village staff have written and adopted three chapters
of the ordinance in the past four years.
Evanston
• Update to the 2003 Bicycle System Improvement Plan with consideration for safety and
implementation of the Climate Action Plan. Plan seeks to increase bicycling,walking
and transit use,improve traffic safety,enhance local businesses, and foster a healthier,
more environmentally friendly community. Proposed plan update will be guided by
Evanston's three value areas:economic viability,environmental sustainability, and
community strengthening. This application was submitted for grant funding under the
Community Planning program.
8
Glencoe Park District
• Development of a comprehensive parks master plan. The Park District last undertook a
comprehensive plan in the mid-60's,but completed an open space plan that addressed
only neighborhood parks in 2001.
Glenview
• Assist Glenbrook South High School's Project Earth environmental club students in
producing a presentation that documents the benefits of existing green infrastructure
in the Village, which they will present to Natural Resources Commission and Board of
Trustees and post online. Also, analyze existing codes and ordinances to identify
barriers and propose revisions that will encourage green infrastructure in future
developments and retrofits.
Hoffman Estates
• Creation of education and workforce development plan for the I-90 Golden Corridor
manufacturing cluster.Also, assistance in identifying and contacting education and
manufacturing partners in the corridor. Hoffman Estates serves as coordinating agency
for a group of municipalities,trade organizations, school districts, and community
groups along the I-90 corridor.
Lincolnwood
• Update to comprehensive plan (adopted 2001). The Village recognizes that although it
is built-out,it continues to evolve in part due to redevelopment forces.Without a history
or culture of planning, the Village sees an opportunity to engage citizens to consider
how the community ought to evolve.
• Subarea corridor plan for Devon Avenue, from McCormick Boulevard to Lincoln
Avenue. The development pattern of this commercial corridor is unusual in that the
Village side of the corridor was built in an"urban' development form,while the City of
Chicago side of the corridor has been developed more in the suburban development
model. This project request includes a market study of the corridor, alternative land
uses, and a streetscape plan.
Niles
• Development of a plan to promote an environmentally-friendly multi-modal
transportation system that will build off of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the
Arterial Rapid Transit Plan, and the Environmental Action Plan currently under
development. The plan seeks to develop a comprehensive active transportation network
that integrates with existing roadway and transit networks, enhance awareness of
existing and planned transportation networks, and implement policies and programs
supportive of the multi-modal transportation network. This application was submitted for
grant funding under the Community Planning program.
Northwest Municipal Conference
• Study and recommend improvement to Forest Preserve access for the Northern Cook
County Des Plaines River corridor, an underutilized recreational facility. Scope of the
9
plan would be to review the existing access to and within the Forest Preserve, review
regional and community plans for non-motorized transportation, and formulate a
strategy for improving access. The communities involved include Des Plaines,
Glenview,Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook,Park Ridge,Prospect Heights, and
Wheeling,with participation from the Forest Preserve District and Active
Transportation Alliance as well. This project was submitted to both the LTA program and the
Community Planning program.
Prospect Heights
• Update of Comprehensive Land Use Plan with a focus on transportation. City is in the
second phase of roadway improvements made possible by the passing of a referendum
in 2010 that allowed$15 million for road and drainage improvements.Proposed plan
will provide a definitive direction on the City's requirements for zoning and
transportation upgrades, specifically maximization of the usage and accessibility of the
Metra station, the bus service and the Chicago Executive Airport. This application was
submitted for grant funding under the Community Planning program.
Schaumburg
• Update of Comprehensive Green Action Plan(C GAP), approved in 2008. Since
approval of C GAP, sustainability planning documents have evolved and become more
robust to include economic development and equity, leaving Schaumburg's plan
somewhat outdated. These considerations to be added to C GAP, and new performance
metrics should be created.
West Cook County
Berwyn
• Study and plan to address parking challenges faced within the City's historic Depot
District.Parking focus is a result of previous planning work involving Depot area,
including 2007 RTA TOD Study,2012 Comprehensive Plan Update, and 2012 Homes for
a Changing Region study.
Broadview
• Parking study and a related update of ordinance and land use regulations regarding
parking regulations in the downtown commercial district. Configuration of municipal
parking lots and parallel parking in the downtown area does not currently meet local
needs.
Cicero
• Update to the Town of Cicero comprehensive plan. Cicero has completed several
supplementary planning studies in recent years,but has been without an updated
Comprehensive Plan since the mid-1970s.
• Assistance to conduct a multi-jurisdictional sewer reconstruction study in
collaboration with the City of Berwyn and the Village of Oak Park.
10
City of Homes
• Creation of a Cermak Corridor Plan for Berwyn. Cermak Road area currently houses a
large percentage of Berwyn's residents in high density, rental housing, as well as
providing several public transportation options. Goal is to increase public transportation
ridership, and encourage development that enhances Corridor's attractiveness. Project
was submitted by a nonprofit organization with support from the City of Berwyn.
Franklin Park
• Study of the community's western industrial area, a significant site due to its proximity
to O'Hare International Airport. Currently,no plan exists to address degrading
infrastructure at the site,increased competition from other areas, or potentially
significant impacts from the Elgin O'Hare West Bypass project.
Lyons
• Development of a comprehensive plan to aid in the redevelopment of several central
business areas, an industrial corridor, and a soon-to-be-reclaimed quarry.Lyons also
looking for ways to capitalize on its access and proximity to county parks, and linkage of
these areas to retail and commercial corridors.
River Grove
• Transit-oriented development plan for 2.16 acres of available land located immediately
adjacent to the River Grove Metra station. TOD was recommended by the Village's 2006
comprehensive plan. This project has also been submitted to the RTA for funding through
their Community Planning program, and will be primarily reviewed by the RTA.
Seven Generations Ahead
• Assist in data aggregation of community resource use per Environmental
Sustainability Plan for Oak Park and River Forest. Also,request assistance in aligning
indicators with GO TO 2040 Plan indicators, and in developing a protocol for data
aggregation that can be used by other communities.
Summit
• Develop first comprehensive plan for the city. Utilize Full Circle technology to capture
information regarding land use and housing. Promote transit-oriented development at
Summit's commuter rail station, as well as new transit options to capitalize on Summit's
proximity to Midway Airport.
Southwest Cook County
Palos Heights
• Creation of overlay district for the Harlem Avenue Business Corridor, as is
recommended in the City's comprehensive plan (2008). Palos officials believe this tool
will allow the City to address increasing vacancy and encourage redevelopment of
Harlem Ave.
11
Palos Park
• Creation of a water conservation ordinance;revise existing policies related to water
sales in the community. Currently,Village practices are confusing for residents and
encourage overconsumption of water.
Worth
• General planning assistance,including updates to comprehensive land use plan,
zoning ordinance,and TOD planning. Throughout planning process, Worth would like
special attention to be paid to needs of its senior population.
South Cook County
Calumet City
• Development of a Stormwater System Capital Improvement Plan. Calumet City
suffered losses due to the storms and floods produced by Hurricane Ike in 2008; storm
water management has become a top priority for the city.
• Create a comprehensive plan that integrates land use and transportation, specifically by
addressing gaps and inconsistencies in the existing transportation network and the
increase in vacant lots that may be repurposed or redeveloped. Plan will be in
conjunction with the Stormwater System Capital Improvement and the Pavement
Management Plans currently underway. This application was submitted for grant funding
under the Community Planning program.
Chicago Heights
• Update to comprehensive plan (adopted 1994),focusing on revitalization through
economic development and housing.Partnering with Habitat for Humanity, which is
heading a housing task force collaborative.
• Update to water ordinance and water conservation codes. Chicago Heights wishes to
align with the recommendations of Water 2050 and address water conservation, quality,
and aging infrastructure issues. The city supplies water to several neighboring cities,
including Glenwood,Thornton, Ford Heights, and South Chicago Heights.
Crete (also included in Will)
• Development of new comprehensive plan (workbook adopted 1997) in order to
address potential growth due to proposed third regional airport, Illiana Expressway,
and recently approved intermodal facility in Crete.Planning staff anticipate need for
additional housing and transportation infrastructure, and believe a comprehensive plan
is needed to manage growth and address potential negative impacts.
Dixmoor
• The Village of Dixmoor submitted a variety of planning requests,including general
community planning assistance, development of a comprehensive plan, review of local
codes and ordinances that relate to land use, and creation of a web portal for improved
access to municipal services and venue for resident input.
12
Glenwood
• Development of a Stormwater System Capital Improvement Plan. Village suffered
losses due to the storms and floods produced by Hurricane Ike in 2008, including
increase in number of vacant lots, abandoned homes and homes in foreclosure.
• Create and implement a comprehensive pedestrian,bicycle,and transit plan for the
entire Village as a response to residents' feedback during the public engagement process
for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan. The objectives of the plan include developing a
pedestrian and bicycle network, developing non-motorized transportation and land use
policies, and providing educational and encouragement strategies for residents and
Village staff. The plan is also in response to the anticipated extension of the Grand
Illinois Trail and the upcoming Metra SouthEast Service. This application was submitted
for grant funding under the Community Planning program.
Lan-Oak Park District
• Update of comprehensive plan (adopted 1994). Either through update or separately,
also request assistance determining what role the park district can play in the
revitalization of downtown Lansing,explore expansion of their service area, and study
the impact of a local portion of the Grand Illinois Trail.
Markham
• Update current comprehensive plan.
• Create a new parks comprehensive plan for the Park District.
Matteson
• Update to comprehensive development plan (adopted 1987) to address best practices
including public transportation and "complete streets.'
• Review and update of zoning ordinance (adopted 1984, with subsequent amendments
through November 2011)to meet current uses and minimize need for variances and
reviews relating to parking and signage.
Midlothian
• Enhance accessibility and mobility within the whole Village and specifically to the
Midlothian Village Center by reducing the congestion on 1471h Street. Plan aims to
integrate the new Midlothian Bike Path Plan with the Phase II Midlothian Village Center
Enhancement TOD plan,produce a step-by-step plan for widening the bridge on 147th
Street adjacent to the Metra Station, create a streetscape plan for the Village Center area,
provide recommendations for financing strategies for plan implementation, and create a
green space and a flood control area south of 14711,Street within the Village Center. This
application was submitted for grant funding under the Community Planning program.
Park Forest (also included in Will)
• Revision of the zoning ordinance, including up-to-date development ordinances and
infrastructure design standards, and streamlined development review processes. Village
has undertaken TOD planning and land banking;revisions to zoning ordinance needed
to ensure these tools can be used effectively.
13
DuPage County
Addison, Bensenville, Villa Park, and Wood Dale
• Neighboring municipalities with similar housing stock seek a Homes for a Changing
Region analysis.Addison to serve as the coordinating agency for the project, with
participation from Bensenville,Villa Park, and Wood Dale.
Bartlett(also included in Northwest Cook)
• Update of 30+-year-old zoning ordinance, including a recommended overlay district for
the W.Bartlett Road Corridor. Review of ordinance was previously completed by
consultant, Teska and Associates.Village staff have written and adopted three chapters
of the ordinance in the past four years.
Bensenville
• Updates to comprehensive plan (adopted in 1980, with updates in 2004) in light of
predicted impacts of the Elgin O'Hare West Bypass project. Coordination with Homes
for a Changing Region project(led by Addison, described above)will occur.
• Revisions to the zoning ordinance to reinforce the comprehensive plan update and
apply current best practices.
Carol Stream
• Creation of anew comprehensive plan (1982). Village is approaching 'built out' status,
and needs a comprehensive planning document to address a range of issues.
DuPage County, Economic Development&Planning
• Update unincorporated land use plan pertaining to the Illinois Route 53 and Illinois
Route 83 corridors. 22-year-old development plan no longer addresses the current
planning and development trends along these corridors.
DuPage Water Commission (DWC)
• Survey of utility managers and conservation coordinators to get a better understanding
of their barriers to promoting water conservation. Develop a workshop and training
curriculum (manual)based on analysis of survey responses, and outreach materials
geared toward elected officials. Also,DWC proposes that one DWC municipality would
receive 40-60 hours of CMAP staff time to assist with implementation of an activity
highlighted during the training and/or in DWC Program document.
Glen Ellyn
• Creation of a bicycle and pedestrian facilities plan, including a Safe Routes to School
component. Village will serve as coordinator between various park and school districts.
14
Hinsdale
• Analysis and recommendations for improving downtown parking system. Currently,
metered, on-street parking serves a compact, walkable central business area. However,
some business owners feel metered parking puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
Oak Brook
• Residential enhancement study to analyze housing trends and vacancies in the Village,
as well identifying ways to market itself to potential residents. Oak Brook would like to
attract younger families to fill vacancies and stabilize the community.
Villa Park
• Develop strategy for rejuvenation of commercial corridors throughout the city,
through update of City's comprehensive plan, dating from 2009, or another planning
mechanism.
Kane County
Big Rock
• Update to original comprehensive land use plan,written and adopted in 2003. Kane
County Development Department has committed provide technical assistance to this
project,which would supplement CMAP's work. New topics to be included in this
update include community health, sustainability,food, and energy.
Campton Hills
• Developing ordinances and guidelines for implementation of new comprehensive
plan, created with LTA assistance. Specifically, assistance is requested for natural
resources, open space,transportation, development standards, and design guidelines.
• Also interested in designing and developing a trail plan and map to enhance
connections between the village and the Great Western Trail.
Carpentersville, East Dundee, Elgin, and West Dundee
• Develop a Homes for a Changing Region study and implementation plan for
communities in northeastern Kane County. The application was led by Carpentersville,
with participation by Elgin, East Dundee, and West Dundee.
Ferson-Otter Creek Watershed
• Review of the land development regulations of local governments within the
watershed and preparation of specific amendments to implement the recommendations
of the Ferson-Otter Creek Watershed Plan(2012).Watershed Plan found development
policies in several municipalities within the group to be harmful to health of the
watershed. It is necessary to tailor recommendations to each community's situation and
governmental structure. The application was submitted by Elgin,with participation in
the watershed plan by Campton Hills,Lily Lake, South Elgin, St. Charles, and Kane
County.
15
Geneva, Batavia, North Aurora, and St. Charles
• Batavia, Geneva, North Aurora and St. Charles propose multi-community Homes for a
Changing Region study. Specifically, they request an analysis of existing housing,
forecast of housing needs in each community, and policy and strategy recommendations
to needs.
Gilberts
• Rewrite of comprehensive plan, dating from 2003. Village has since tripled in
population. Also, Gilberts seeks assistance integrating maps, resources and
recommendations into GIS system,making the information more usable and relevant to
the public and future Village leaders and staff.
Huntley(also included in McHenry)
• Preparation of a form based code and/or overlay district for the Village's downtown
area.Downtown Revitalization Plan was adopted in 2010,with a recommendation to
"explore opportunities to implement Form Based Codes and Overlay Districts for the
Downtown." This request also includes preparation of educational material, facilitation
of public meetings, and assistance in drafting ordinance amendments.
Kane County Department of Transportation
• Development of a Randall Road Corridor Multimodal Plan. Builds on Kane County's
existing Randall Road Route 529 Plan,which identified pedestrian and transit
infrastructure improvements along Randall Road between IL 38/Kane County Court
House (on the north) and Sullivan Road (on the south).
Montgomery (also included in Kendall)
• Assistance in updating its comprehensive plan (adopted 2002)in light of significant
population growth.Village has recently done a TOD plan,which needs to be considered.
Water resources and flooding issues are also key items for a new plan.
North Aurora
• Village wishes to heavily invest in non-motorized transportation infrastructure to
provide linkages to commercial centers. Proposed study will link high population
densities to alternative transportation modes, amend related zoning ordinance text to
reflect land use changes, and amend the land use plan to include bikeway and open
space elements as well as show future roads and alignments to improve the roadway
network with the inclusion of public transit centers. The project will link the Village's
2006 Comprehensive Plan with its recently updated Zoning Ordinance. This application
was submitted for grant funding under the Community Planning program.
South Elgin
• Development of a bicycle and pedestrian plan, as recommended by Village's recent
comprehensive plan and transit improvement plan. Pedestrian infrastructure was found
to be lacking or non-existent in parts of the Village, as were neighborhood connections
to regional trails such as the Fox River Trail and Illinois Prairie Path.
16
St. Charles
• Watershed plan for Seventh Avenue Creek to improve water quality and mitigate the
impacts of flooding. FEMA is in the process of remapping the floodplain of Seventh
Avenue Creek, with results expected in 2012. St. Charles also interested in the possibility
of new bike routes, and other new land uses adjacent to the Creek.
Kendall County
Montgomery (also included in Kane)
• Assistance in updating its comprehensive plan (adopted 2002)in light of significant
population growth.Village has recently done a TOD plan,which needs to be considered.
Water resources and flooding issues are also key items for a new plan.
Oswego
• Village-wide market analysis to determine retail, commercial, and industrial uses that
will be most beneficial to the community. Village also interested in review of past
economic development efforts to identify best practices.
Yorkville
• Assist zoning commission with update of 35-year-old zoning ordinance;including
addition of overlay districts for Yorkville's historic downtown and Route 47 districts;
sections relating to off-street parking and loading, signs, and alternative energy systems.
Lake County
Gurnee and Waukegan
• Unified corridor development plan for Grand Avenue from US 41 in Gurnee to
McAree Rd. in Waukegan. Serves as an important gateway to the two communities,but
has experienced significant economic and physical decline.2008 Homes for a Changing
Region report for Gurnee identified the corridor as a focus area for redevelopment.
Hawthorn Woods
• Update to comprehensive plan (adopted 2004)to manage impacts to Village of
extension of Illinois Route 53 into Lake County.
Lake County Community Foundation
• Homes for a Changing Region study in partnership with communities in western Lake
County, including Grayslake, Hainesville, Round Lake, Round Lake Beach,Round Lake
Heights, and Round Lake Park.
17
Lake County Department of Transportation
• Comprehensive land use plan for the area affected by the Illinois Route 53/120 project.
This plan was recommended by the Illinois 52/120 Blue Ribbon Advisory Council, and
includes numerous communities in central Lake County.
Lake County Forest Preserve District
• Planning assistance in conversion of public lands to local food production utilizing
sustainable farming practices and promotion of improved conservation practices for
conventional row-crop agriculture. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit
partners have been identified. Propose recommendations that each participating agency
can adopt to promote local food production and sustainable agricultural practices on
public lands at a regional scale.
Lake Forest Consortium for Environmental Leadership
• Sustainability plan to address tree loss,water conservation, ravine/bluff restoration and
preservation,energy conservation and increased use of renewables, and transit
connectivity. Consortium also requests assistance with community engagement around
plan.
Lake Zurich
• Implementation assistance regarding Recommendations for Integrated Water
Resources Planning in Lake Zurich, a 2012 report completed through the LTA program.
City has selected two provisions in the report—integration of green infrastructure and
defining a level of service for municipal water delivery—as focus of continued work.
Libertyville and Mundelein
• Coordinated land use plan for unincorporated area adjacent to the proposed right-of-
way for the Illinois Route 53 extension. Planning process to brings together local
communities,Lake County, Illinois Department of Transportation and Pace. The
properties comprise roughly 155 acres.
Long Grove
• Planning and impact analysis for the proposed Illinois Route 53 extension through the
Village,including assistance in clarifying issues,identifying locations of concern and the
creation of design solutions for the project within the Village.
Waukegan, North Chicago, Park City, and Zion
• Homes for a Changing Region housing plan to address a number of housing-related
challenges in the member communities, including foreclosures and vacant and
abandoned buildings. Also request for design visualizations for each community,with a
3-D flyover and 2-D photomorph. The application was led by Waukegan,with
participation from North Chicago, Park City,Zion and Great Lake Naval Station.
18
Winthrop Harbor
• Update comprehensive plan (1995)to better align future development with land use
objectives.Village has limited staff expertise and financial resources to accomplish this
task.
McHenry County
Barrington Hills (also included in Northwest Cook)
• Creation of an active repository of natural resource data. Repository would be an
ongoing public-private partnership that would allow better understanding of the impact
of land use decisions on the natural environment.
Bull Valley
• Update of zoning and subdivision ordinance to complement a comprehensive plan
created in 2011.
• Creation of a strategic plan, covering issues such as water resources,economic
development,housing, transportation, and others.
Huntley(also included in Kane)
• Preparation of a form based code and/or overlay district for the Village's downtown
area.Downtown Revitalization Plan was adopted in 2010, with a recommendation to
"explore opportunities to implement Form Based Codes and Overlay Districts for the
Downtown." This request also includes preparation of educational material, facilitation
of public meetings, and assistance in drafting ordinance amendments.
Lakewood
• Update to comprehensive plan (last updated in 2005). Annexation of approximately 600
acres, as well as completion of boundary agreements with surrounding communities,
has led to a significant increase in Village area. In addition,newly annexed land
includes the intersection of Illinois Routes 47 and 176, presenting a unique location for
the Village to create "town center" type development. This request also includes a sub-
area plan to examine appropriate use, marketing, and design for this area.
McHenry County Stormwater Management Commission
• Review and update of stormwater management ordinance to correct inconsistencies
and incorporate best practices.Update will help county officials better enforce
provisions of the ordinance, as well as making compliance easier. Also request
assistance in related public engagement efforts. Participating communities include Cary,
Crystal Lake,McHenry,Prairie Grove,Union, and Woodstock, in addition to McHenry
County.
Silver Creek Watershed Coalition
• Implementation of recommendations in December 2011 Watershed Action Plan,
prepared by CMAP. To include review and modifications of relevant policies in
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, stormwater management plans, and other
19
municipal documents for participants. Communities involved include Crystal Lake,
McHenry, Oakwood Hills, and Prairie Grove.
Will County
Crete (also included in South Cook)
• Development of new comprehensive plan (workbook adopted 1997) in order to
address potential growth due to proposed third regional airport,Illiana Expressway,
and recently approved intermodal facility in Crete.Planning staff anticipate need for
additional housing and transportation infrastructure, and believe a comprehensive plan
is needed to manage growth and address potential negative impacts.
Frankfort Park District
• Review and confirm, modify, or add to existing park classifications and preferred facility
standards as part of comprehensive parks plan update. Frankfort also proposes creation
of inventory with strategic recommendations and capital improvements needed for each
individual park.
Park Forest (also included in South Cook)
• Revision of the zoning ordinance,including up-to-date development ordinances and
infrastructure design standards, and streamlined development review processes. Village
has undertaken TOD planning and land banking;revisions to zoning ordinance needed
to ensure these tools can be used effectively.
Will County
• Develop inventory of brownfield parcels in Will County, as well as evaluation criteria
to be used to assess each site's potential for use for renewable energy production.
Regional or multiple geographies
Cook County
• Bureau of Economic Development,Department of Planning&Development:
Development of HUD Consolidated Plan (housing). Cook County is required to
prepare and submit a Consolidated Plan at least every five years to HUD.
• Cook County Forest Preserve District: Trail usage study,will analyze a linear trail such
as the North Branch and a circular trail such as the one in Tinley Park;extrapolate
information for other trail systems in the District.
• Bureau of Administration,Department of Environmental Control: Sustainability plan.
• Bureau of Economic Development, Department of Building&Zoning: Comprehensive
land use plan.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Office of Water Resources (OWR)
• IDNR, OWR is the regulatory agency responsible for managing the Illinois diversion of
Lake Michigan, overseeing approximately 200 permittees with an allocation of Lake
20
Michigan water for domestic pumpage. Of these, over 160 permittees are municipal-run
public water suppliers. IDNR, OWR proposes consultation with six or more permittees
regarding constraints and reasons for chronic noncompliance with regard to annual
water loss. Strategic partner is the Center for Neighborhood Technology(CNT).
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
• Creation of toolkit for municipalities to address diversity needs in their communities;
a follow-up to previous survey distributed to suburban mayors, which resulted in a
collection of current practices. This "how to' guide would help municipalities better
integrate immigrants into the civic life of their communities.
Morton Arboretum-Regional Trees Initiative
• Develop process to gather,assess and develop information for the Regional Trees
Initiative (RTI), an effort that builds on the 2010 Tree Census to ensure a healthy forest
for the future. To include GIS support, a policy inventory, a web portal, and an
economic analysis of procurement and management procedures.
Northwest Water Planning Alliance
• Ongoing support,including rewrite of drought preparedness plan. Also, development
of school education program as recommended in Water 2050 plan, and outreach around
the new lawn-watering restriction to be in effect 2013. This multijurisdictional group
includes many partners,including five Counties and five COGS.
Openlands
• Planning for a viable regional food system.To include examination of existing
resources, potential costs and benefits, identification of obstacles and implementation
strategy. The project includes Kane,Lake, and McHenry Counties as partners, as well as
nonprofit organizations.
21
VfIR Fla a
Lake Ginty Forsat Preserve a 4
� � Y,aukegan-ParR-CP
-
North`Chlea r
-Zlnn
HC.R
ReFlarkry Coady SMC 'ova kegaan-
a GU'rme
LakeFGurk� f
�. w Oain�Fauntlslon
i X .�L ;
Sllvar.G&ek 'rrllluFltleleh5'
T teralietl / / ,,,;'
`+,�• x '\�* �;*., , Lake Caun DOT ,, ' Lake Faraat
,W Lake Harwlhom wo lls 4
LakZUrlch
Long Grove
Hurifrty
Barrington, His ;fe
i Path,ale
Prospect Hs Rte
*Glan•,AW
x Fox Va I y H-R, } NW Intluetry-C lusters Northwest Muni.1 al
V,Elgln arpe eravllla- iHolIrnan E6ta1Es` P Evan to
VrxstlEa`e�6untlea � t:4FlferencE fall as
X � Lln[clnw
#SOUth.Elgln 3chaurnlaurg �
Ferson,01t,F Graek
WatorahWU'C Bill flan a art!a:t x ;"+, ESenaenvllfa
camp HI[is � � Addison-BSnaenvllie- Fra r k In r a rk
., NS *Charles 01Ila Parts-" 'oirtl'dah HCR ! oRlaar u owr
@Carol Slaeain`\° 1"3k r 13uck $ k
f{arte Carettty[7C}T `'ti
4
Villa Park yak Park
G 4BVa-Hatavla- ^, Garfield Parllc
Glen Ellyn tIFIC Lai antS
St.Chkiee fil&"* urars a
HCRaaaiii `` Brogflwlew C 1 n
1 duPage County es �0 1{es�' p10371-001 lla P11�en
I OakBa-oak* k r T
•
Hal'tll Aurora Lyons
0 *9aak rT-the Yar�e.
duPage Water Irrealale #
Summit � HA-wa�ringta l'aak
Commission * ticapea,Sa SI $.
Big Rack GartlsltlRltlge SLB.lnatleEiYAleH1avtlIrYlCBtltire
Montgomery Cc"County
ChicagaLakasltledevalo6 is i
Osw ego orth .ory-lei gh
w
� - Palos Park � �4 u. �
OPaloe HelghlS r-HA--IItgeltl na
'orkvllla dlxmoor 1
Mltllo-.hlar # I
Markham Gal u met City
Lan-Oak Park
District
,iGlenw 1
Chlmgo Haigh.
lila�•eaan
FrankTor.Park District, Park Faraa`
crate
40 Will County
Single-municipalit; projects
County-wide projects
Pro*ts with t'oro municipalities
Multkjurisdi0onal housing projects
Multi-jurisdictii0nal watershed projects
Other multiAurisdictional projects Miles.
22