The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2008 03-06-08 r`�000 Cyr o United City of Yorkville a 9 2 fi. T 800 Game Farm Road ESL , 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 <LE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, March 6, 2008 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room Presentation: 1. Kendall County Farm Protection Presentation by Tim Gerk Minutes for Correction/Approval: February 8, 2008 New Business: 1. EDC 2008-10 Monthly Building Permit Report for January 2008 2. EDC 2008-11 Monthly Plan Commission Report for February 2008 3. PC 2007-24 Kalant Property— Rezoning Request (R-2 to B-2) 4. EDC 2008-12 Economic Incentive Policy— Discussion Old Business: 1. EDC 2007-38 Sign Ordinance— February 5, 2008 Workshop Meeting Summary 2. EDC 2008-06 Draft Millbrook Boundary Agreement — Discussion 3. EDC 2008-08 Policy for Legal Fees Paid by City for Annexation Agreements 4. EDC 2007-53 Comprehensive Plan— Planning Area Discussion Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, March 6, 2008 7:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENTATIONS: ----..........-------........----------....................................................................--------........... ------ 1 . Kendall County Farm Protection Presentation by Tim Gerk ----------- ------------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: 1 . February 8, 2008 ❑ Approved ❑ As presented ❑ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------.....---------....------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 1 . EDC 2008-10 Monthly Building Permit Report for January 2008 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2008- 11 Monthly Plan Commission Report for February 2008 ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 . PC 2007-24 Kalant Property — Rezoning Request (R-2 to B-2) ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ ,Informational Item ❑ Notes ------------------------------------------------------------................-------------------........................................ 4. EDC 2008- 12 Economic Incentive Policy — Discussion ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I . EDC 2007-38 Sign Ordinance — February 5, 2008 Workshop Meeting Summary ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes ---------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- - - - --------------- 2. EDC 2008-06 Draft Millbrook Boundary Agreement — Discussion ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes - --------- -------------------- -------------- -- ----------------------------------------- -- ------------ 3 . EDC 2008-08 Policy for Legal Fees Paid by City for Annexation Agreements ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2007-53 Comprehensive Plan — Planning Area Discussion ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes ------------ -------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------ ADDITIONAL BUSINESS : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEET RAFT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 City Hall Conference Room Friday, February 8, 2008 5 :00 PM In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Jason Leslie Alderman Gary Golinski Alderman Joe Besco Other City Officials: Mayor Valarie Burd (arrived 7:00 pm) Community Development Director Travis Miller Other Guests: Lana Lake, Home Owner Chuck Divito, Tuscan Plaza William Lake, Home Owner Gary Cervelli, Tuscan Plaza Pete Hurnke, SEC Group Donna Cervelli, Tuscan Plaza John Philipchuck, Atty DBC&W Ltd Melodee Church, Tuscan Plaza Kelly Kramer, Attorney Tony Scott, Record John Duggan, Yorkville Crossing Dan Nicholson (arrived 7:00 pm) The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jason Leslie at 7:03 pm. Presentation: 1. Kendall County Farm Protection Presentation by Tim Gerk Travis Miller stated that the presentation will be postponed until the March EDC meeting. Minutes for Correction/Approval: December 11, 2007 Minutes were approved with no amendments made. New Business: 1. EDC 200801 Monthly Building Permit Report for December 2007 Travis Miller stated that we were just under 500 for the calendar year for 2007 and we were above other communities in the Kendal County. Projections are out for 2008 and we project numbers will be up over the 2007 numbers. 2. EDC 200802 & EDC 200803 Monthly Plan Commission Report for December 2007 & January 2008 Travis Miller stated there were reports in here from December and January. He stated that the motions were there and the cases are in tonight's agenda and are included in the EDC report what the recommendation was. This was information only. 1 4. PC 200735 Letterle Annexation Agreement Travis Miller stated that the staff made some comments that the time this was in front of the plan commission and City Council Members for the public hearing and the items regarding the annexation agreement have been addressed. He said they were in the final form with the agreement and the ordinance to approve. Jason Leslie said that they would be moving it forward. 5. PC 200727 Lincoln Prairie Final Plat of Subdivision Guest Speaker John Philipchuck said he was there representing the final plat of subdivision for Lincoln Prairie Subdivision. Mr. Philipchuck showed the committee the lots for the plat. He stated the ultimate plan is to get an easement from Mr. Loftus. He said that they are looking for an easement that would ultimately allow for a storm sewer extension along the property. Jason Leslie had a concern about the long term development of the property that is dependant upon the Loftus easement. He stated why build something twice when you can build once at half the cost. He also had a concern that lot 4 there is a lot of pre-existing drain tile and with lot 2's asphalt he was concerned about flooding and oil based products running off. Second guest speaker pointed out where the secondary measures would be implemented. Leslie wanted them to build with the intent and get the asphalt plan underway. He said that this is subject to legal review with surrounding properties and wanted legal reviews regarding IL drainage laws. Lana Lake, resident, states she lives right across the street from the factory and stated they had some serious drainage problems because of Menards. She is very concerned about where they want to put the water right across from their property. Guest, with Mr. Philipchuck, addresses Mrs. Lake and explains that the drainage goes east and states it won't impact them. Jason Leslie wanted them to get an agreement in place before they do any construction. Travis Miller stated that would be an agreement in a form of an amendment to the PUD or a separate agreement. Mr. Philipchuck said he would like to have legal agreements in hand by the 26`s. He stated that without the easement they can't develop anything past lot 2. Jason Leslie wanted to get this in front of council and get the Loftus agreement in hand and bring it to the City Council on the 26th. 6 PC 200714 Yorkville Crossing PUD Amendment Travis Miller stated that the amendment was submitted April 2007 and we were waiting on amendments from the public hearing and since then they've been waiting on amendments to be addressed and staff and public comments to be addressed. He said there were still some issues and additional information to be added to the agreement and some things to be struck from the agreement. Speaker, John Duggan, stated that the changes in the annexation agreement have to do finalization with the zoning from moving the crimson lane further back to the Wal-Mart project. They relate to the engineering for the storm water detention area. He stated they have the engineering reports and he is very happy with them. He also stated that they are trying to reflect the engineering reports in the agreement. Wal-Mart is heavily involved in this transaction and we expect their comments back soon. The staff 2 report asks that the Wal-Mart parcel be part of the SSI. They have an easement agreement with us and the homeowners association which will pay their proportion of the maintenance of the storm water detention facility. Mr. Duggan brought up the IDOT and stated that they understood that the payment would come from the City of Yorkville as a governmental agreement payment. He said that the original concept was to put the IDOT storm water into this facility that the reimbursement would come from the City to IDOT. Travis Miller said that this doesn't change this scenario from unfolding it just limits the area just for the storm water from the 34 right a ways. Jason Leslie said he didn't know where to go with this. He said if they cap it in ten years they would like to have access to the front funded funds. Travis Miller said we would have to have a dollar amount of what the IDOT contribution would be to participate in. Miller said that he would look into what the IDOT volume is estimated to be. Leslie would like to move this forward and get the amended PUD before the City Council on the 26b. Duggan stated that all the major points have been properly discussed and agreed to. 7. EDC 200804 Tuscan Plaza — Redevelopment Agreement Amendment Request Jason Leslie said that he was hoping we would have had a building up by June. He said that he would like to have this project done and have the hole filled. Ms. Cervelli said that there was a month delay because the City was insistent that the survey done of the sewer system was wrong. There was also a hold up because the City was insistent that the railroad had to sign a bunch of releases when the railroad doesn't even own the property the City does. She stated there have also been issues with the contractor. Travis Miller said that if the information had been submitted in complete fashion by the contractor the two issues he said wouldn't have been costly as they were in the three week time frame. We waited for several months for the submittal of these documents. He said this is a critical project for the downtown. Leslie said that he is really disappointed that there hasn't been a foundation even laid. He wants a completed building by December. Garry Cervelli said that he told the builder he had to have the drawings done by the end of this month. He said that way they can have the permits by April 30`h and the building could be completed by December. Travis Miller said that the documents have been prepared and this extends the trigger for all permits that are necessary to build this project from the November date to the June 30`h, 2008 date as stated they are not asking to extend the time frame to have the building complete. The building to be complete and occupancy permit to be issued for the first level the retail level. He said Kathleen Orr has prepared the ordinances to amend and things are ready to go for that approval. Committee agrees to move forward to the next C.O.W. consent agenda. 8. EDC 200805 Galena Road Watermain Recapture Agreement — MPI (Grande Reserve) Travis Miller noted that the request for the MPI to approve recapture agreement as contemplated by the Grande Reserve Annexation and PUD Agreement. MPI had met a couple of times with staff to determine what are the most likely areas to obtain a recapture from. He said that there is no guarantee that there will be a recapture. 3 Travis Miller recommends approval and the committee members gave a positive recommendation for approval for the recapture agreement. It will move forward to the next C.O.W. consent agenda. 9. EDC 200806 Millbrook Boundary Agreement — Draft Jason Leslie explains the pre-existing boundary from High Point Road in Plano to Rt. 71 . Current staff recommendation is that we consider a boundary with Mill Brook boarding 71 eliminating our access to the south of 71 having the north being up in arms now. Travis Miller said the legal description stops at 71 . Jason felt we should not recommend anything at this point. Miller said that the agreement is pretty straight forward. Leslie said that there is no reason to take it out of committee and they could touch base on it again in a few months. 10. EDC 200807 Transition Fee Ordinance — Request for Amendment from Newark School District #18 and #66 Jason Leslie gave his recommendation as staff guidance to pass the resolution to collect the $3000 we currently have in our current ordinance. We are looking at homes that reside in the City of Yorkville that will be attending Newark school district. Joe Besco said all they need to do is prove that there is a need that they need to justify the money. He doesn't want to see them get shortchanged but he feels they need to justify the transition amount. IL EDC 200808 Policy for Legal Fees Paid by City for Annexation Agreements — Discussion Joe Besco said he wanted direct staff to work together and come up with a policy on why we would pay for annexations for and zoning. He thinks that if the City is paying for annexation zoning there needs to be a direct benefit. He said he talked to Bart and they are both on the same page. Travis Miller said that the next step is to draft a policy with some starting dialog and he wants it to be general with some flexibility. Besco wants the key to be that there has to be some economical benefit to the City. 12, EDC 200809 Appointment of Committee Liaisons Jason Leslie stated that it has been decided that the following liaisons for the following would be. Chamber of Commerce: Jason Leslie Kendal Co. Economic Development: Marty Munns Plan Commission: Joe Besco Bristol Plan Commission: Joe Besco Yorkville Economic Development Corp: Marty Munns Aurora Area convention & Tourism Council: Gary Golinski Downtown Re-Development: Jason Leslie The committee gives approval of appointed liaisons. Old Business: 1. EDC 200753 Comprehensive Plan — Planning Area Discussion Travis Miller said that he gave some additional maps for some additional reference material. He said they talked about water and sewer revisions plans. He goes over attached maps. 4 2. EDC 200734 Banking/Land Use Policy Discussion Travis Miller said there are two things here and one is a policy and a guide document with some percentages for financial institutions within a development plan and suggests the proximities between. He believes that this policy will be refined in the future as we exercise it. He cautions that this is just a policy and a measuring stick. Joe Besco wants to know how this would affect a bank going into a strip center. Miller said it wouldn't affect one already coming in. He said it would only affect it if it were a free standing building. Miller goes over the special uses that are attached. He said that Banks, Credit Unions, Drive through Facilities, Savings and Loan fall under these special uses. Miller also stated that they will strike items 1 , 2, and 3 under the Drive through facilities subject to the following conditions list. He said it will always be a special use as listed in the ordinance. Miller stated that this is an amendment to the zoning ordinance and we'll have to schedule a public hearing. Next step will be to schedule a public hearing. The policy will move forward to the City Council for adoption. 3. EDC 200740 Ordinance Approving Amendment to Downtown TIF to Remove Certain Parcels Garry Golinski wanted to know how this amendment would affect the City by moving these two properties and how it would affect the TIFF and redevelopment boundary. Jason Leslie stated that he wanted Kathy's direction because she's representing the TIFF Attorney. He felt that we should get her on the record because he doesn't know what the impact will be. He wants to get Golinski's questions answered. Leslie said that we'll review this and ask council questions. Additional Business: 1 . Travis Miller reported on the update with the sign ordinance. He stated about thirteen showed up for the round table discussion earlier this week. Had some good input from a few sign companies, builders and other people t hat were invited. We're still sifting through some of the current criticism he noted and also said the revised ordinance will be in the March EDC packet for discussion for staff presentation. 2. Mayor Burd stated that she was writing in the annual report and she wanted to include in her part of the report the Alderman's accomplishments. She wanted accomplishments that what they are proud of from the past year. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Jamie Cheatham 5 0 o e e e e :> e e e o e e e e eEw,ls�nsI e e N ti : N N vl b •'L' N N N b �D M O\ q Q O O N P N V O M N H O V V b W Vi N Q Vl Y W K Vf ti H r-1 M f9 W N N n A e U 0 F y 3 °v N Y tl .v O O O O O O O O O O O rl O O O b C Q � .Z•�•n N N y ::. M M N : Q Q p N N N : : N N N � Urym � d r dr o �Y s O. p C O �ryta Y o o v e e r M M a e e e o o n �y to h N y C •G v E t O y 3 h 8 � k d V E c •s ? u p F4 e 3 9 l y ti oo p$ F 1p w c o a a E e N E c v ° v C d -i y ....: .,:. N LOJ N .:. N N N .. Nj W L N L L N W N � o O N 3 •pA o w >' p � �• a w ''� o a � o a � E E F E o 4 q C u N G V N C y S p y OR C u 3 3 .Y 3 k i .a m n y v m y u ti v h u n Z 2 a 4 w a 'w' E �", mew'bugNcs�s 11 Memorandum To: EDC EST, , 1836 From: Travis Miller, Community Development Director CC: Brendan McLaughlin, City Administrator Lisa Pickering, Deputy Clerk �� Date: February 14, 2008 <LE Subject: Plan Commission Actions February 13,2008 January 9, 2008 Meeting Minutes—Approved PC 2007-39 Hattner Trust - Annexation and Zoning Request - Motion to recommend annexation upon contiguity, subject to addressing staff comments in the annexation agreement. 6 ayes; 0 no - Motion to recommend PUD zoning classification subject to staff comments. 6 ayes; 0 no PC 2007-42 Jake Land Group—Windmill Farms—Annexation,Zoning and Concept PUD Request - Motion to recommend annexation. 6 ayes; 0 no - Motion to recommend PUD zoning classification for all land uses proposed by the Concept Plan including a daycare and a gasoline service station. 6 ayes; 0 no - Motion to recommend approval of the proposed Concept PUD Plans with a preference for Plan 1 subject to staff comments. 6 ayes; 0 no PC 2007-24 Kalant Property—Rezoning Request (R-2 to B-2) - Motion to recommend approval of rezoning R-2 Residential to B-2 General Business. 0 ayes; 5 no; 1 abstaining Findings noted at the meeting regarding the zoning classification included: - The uses of property within the general area of the property in question include predominantly residential uses with a city park to the south and commercial uses across Route 47. B-2 zoning allows for more intense uses than these existing uses. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property is predominately R-2 Residential with the exception of two parcels across 47 which are zoned B-2. Impact to the traffic on Route 47 due to the proposed parking lot location access point, as well as potential increases to traffic resulting on West Center Street by business patrons were noted as concerns if the property is zoned B-2. PC 2007-41 Yorkville Town Center, Raycorp — Rezoning Request (R-2 Duplex to B-3) Motion to recommend approval of rezoning R-2 Duplex to B-3 Service Business. 3 ayes; 3 no Concerns raised by the Plan Commission included the B-3 Zoning classification is not consistent with the 2005 Comprehensive Land Use recommendation for Transitional Neighborhood, mitigation of existing wetlands on the property necessary to accommodate a B-3 zoning activity, the properties adjacency to the County Forest Preserve property, and traffic concerns due to the relationship of the properties primary entrance and the existing entrance to the Sunflower Estates neighborhood. The Plan Commission also concurred with comments presented during the Public Hearing regarding the value of a citizens group input to the development plans for this property consisting of surrounding land owners and residents within the Sunflower Estate neighborhood. C/rk Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 0 Legal ❑ EST. 1836 Finance ❑ 1I Engineer El-� _— Tracking Number Q y City Administrator ❑ 9� s� O Consultant ❑ PC 2007-24 C h< E ��'�' F1 Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Kalant–Rezoning Request(R-2 to B-2) Meeting and Date: EDC–March 6, 2008 Synopsis: Request to rezone property from R-2 to B-2 Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Travis Miller Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: R�iy c'r` z` 0 Memorandum To: EDC EST. '� 1836 From: Travis Miller Cc: Lisa Pickering (for distribution) a3� !® � _•, ® Date: February 27, 2008 f�®<nE , Subject: Kalant Rezoning v Plan Commission Recommendation The Plan Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the rezoning request February 13, 2008 and made the following action: - Motion to recommend approval of rezoning R-2 Residential to B-2 General Business. 0 ayes; 5 no; 1 abstaining Findings noted at the meeting regarding the zoning classification included: - The uses of property within the general area of the property in question include predominantly residential uses with a city park to the south and commercial uses across Route 47. B-2 zoning allows for more intense uses than these existing uses. - The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property is predominately R-2 Residential with the exception of two parcels across 47 which are zoned B-2. - Impact to the traffic on Route 47 due to the proposed parking lot location access point, as well as potential increases to traffic resulting on West Center Street by business patrons were noted as concerns if the property is zoned B-2. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan for the property recommends Traditional Neighborhood. The `Design Guidelines' are listed below for this Land Use: Any development or redevelopment shall conform to all City regulations regarding their use • As most development will be redevelopment of existing sites, the distinct character of the (Transitional Residential) Neighborhood will be vulnerable to change. Therefore, all development must be carefully designed to fit the character of its existing surroundings. • Existing residential and commercial uses should be preserved. Residential properties fronting on arterial streets may be used for professional or service offices, or for small retail shops consistent with the character of such uses in the downtown area. Findings Necessary for a Zoning Amendment shall be based on the following: a. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. b. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. c. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. d. The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes, if any, which have taken place since the day the property in question was placed in its present zoning classification. e. The impact that such reclassification and/or annexation will have upon traffic and traffic conditions on said routes; the effect, if any, such reclassification and/or annexation would have upon existing accesses to said routes; and the impact of additional accesses as requested by the petitioner upon traffic and traffic conditions and flow on said routes. (Ord. 1976-43, 11-4-76) Background/Needfor new Public Hearing dco'T Notices of the July 11 , -244 Plan Commission public hearing for the Kalant rezoning request were not sent via certified mail to the surrounding property owners in advance of the July 11 , 2007 hearing. Based on this, Kathleen Field Orr, City Attorney has advised to conduct a new public hearing. The chronology of events related to the Kalant property rezoning: May 11 , 2007 Received application requesting to rezone property June 21 , 2007 Plan Council reviewed petition and forwarded to Plan Commission July 11 , 2007 Plan Commission held Public Hearing and forwarded recommendation to City Council July 17, 2007 EDC reviewed the Plan Commission recommendation and raised concern regarding parking adjacent to the Town Square Park — requested petitioner to address and return to August EDC August 21 , 2007 EDC reviewed site plan, petitioner addressed concerns regarding parking and reviewed a draft Development Agreement. EDC forwarded to COW/City Council August 28, 2007 COW/City Council — Approved rezoning to B-2 and approved execution of Development Agreement Last week in Staff received call from adjoining property owner regarding November business activities in the home on the property — the resident explained they had not received notification of the public hearing. Staff researched to verify if all notices were published and mail properly — it was verified that the property owners within 500' of the property had not been notified by certified mail. December 4, 2007 Staff reviewed the case with Kathleen Orr who advised to re- conduct the public hearing and ensure notices are mailed as required. Notified the petitioner's attorney and explained the need to conduct a new public hearing. Received direction from Kathleen the week of December 10th to proceed with new public hearing as originally planned. December 13, 2007 Sent the petitioner memo regarding public hearing date and draft affidavit for certified mail to be sent in advance of the hearing. Following week — Called the resident who had contacted staff regarding the lack of notice and explained a new public hearing was scheduled. I i.; m.., 106 ae a i74.JIF;. r04' BIG ° gas 302 0 0 0 1 B $oy R s 51 � e a0 0 40, n s ° 307 M2 31 0 30 307 30 10 3 305 30 302 3 0 a 30 e m .R R 30 20 n rv' 30 tw q /qqa United City o/Yorkville GIS cur Data Is lins,Provided without warranty or any representation of aRequesttimao determine completeness.I[isthe responsibility completenes , the Pa/CBI Data and Aerial Photography "Requester"to tlelermine accuracy.timeliness,completeness,and Provided By Kendall County GIS appropriateneas of Its use.❑m United City of Yorkvola makes no wfmxrtlea,expressed or Implied,to the use of the Data. 0081 GO6 . OJ I I 1'01 I60 3J J of , (soy All _ rv, sos'I Imo' �-rvJ � �I - I°f1 fi43 150p _ Ib- aoi i ��I SpF�Ag� 0 ° I— 1 ro 1 l II w, 4° f o r 47 `_ry I �d ---VJC-CBptel-S t --- I^I laosl 30 130 7.� I I e � -�- fo� L_��3 i305_I - f�� I 302 rvl I^!I 13011 f� jl ry J ,ry J Ial �t N rvl I_ J(8l 20� 1 r1)_2 � LJ I_ L20 1T I 12'0 iii Tj FFJ United City of Yorkville ISIS ac The Data Is provided without warranty or any representation of x curacy,timeliness,or completeness.It Is the responsibility of the t Parcel Data and Aerial Photography "Requester"to determine accuracy,timeliness,completeness,and w �Yr- Provided By Kendall County GIS appropriateness of Its use.The United City of Yorkville makes no warranties,expressed or implied,to the use of the Data. ° February 13,2008 Mayor Valerie Burd City Council Members United City of Yorkville Ladies&Gentlemen: I am addressing you today because I received a certified letter requesting a zoning change for the property located on the Northwest Corner of W. Center Street and Route 47. 1 would like you to know I am completely against the zoning change from residential to business. I am shocked that the request for zoning change on this property made it through the system last summer without any city employee verifying proper procedure had been followed prior to the matter appearing in front of City Council. In addition to being a property owner that recently received a certified letter concerning the request, I would also like to state that I am a current City Park Board Member. The property zoning should remain residential for a number of reasons: It is adjacent to a residential property. An adjacent homeowner is protesting the request for zoning change The property is adjacent to Towne Square Park. The property is near four schools and a library. The property owner does not reside in Yorkville. Thirteen years ago I was an active participant in a Neighborhood Patrol Group that walked the streets of Aurora evenings to assist the Aurora Police Department in keeping and making neighborhoods safe. I also completed Citizen Police Academy "Training and Landlord Training. The single most important point stressed was people living in residential neighborhoods that paid attention to all activity in their neighborhoods,who knew who belonged in their neighborhood and who did not, who got involved in keeping their neighborhood safe by participating in neighborhood watch were responsible for keeping"good and safe" neighborhoods. There is an adjacent property owner with children at home taking responsibility for her children's safety requesting the property be zoned residential as it was when she acquired her property. The property owner requesting the change does not reside at the property address He does not reside in Yorkville. I am urging you to zone this Property residential. Ve truly j Viet is K. Coven 201 No. Bridge Street, Yorkville, L 60560 Cell 815/791-8107 Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number O J s Legal T 9 EST 1 �� 1836 Finance ❑ 1 _ Engineer ❑ City Administrator F1 Tracking Number Consultant ❑ ED C 9 mA - 1 D �`E `��, ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Economic Incentive Policy—Discussion Meeting and Date: EDC—March 6, 2008 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Travis Miller Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Attached is the City's current Economic Incentive Policy and resolution approving. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )ss COUNTY OF KENDALL ) RESOLUTION NO. 2005. czt:;;k RESOLUTION APPROVING A POLICY SETTING GUIDELINES FOR ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS WHEREAS, the City Council of the United City of Yorkville has reviewed and considered establishing guidelines to assist in evaluating requests from owners/developers of commercial and industrial business seeking economic incentives from the City; and WHEREAS, the attached Exhibit "A" sets forth said guidelines for Commercial/Retail developments (Section 1 ) and for Manufacturing/Industrial/Distribution Developments (Section 2); and WHEREAS, said guidelines as set forth in Exhibit "A" are advisory only and do not place any obligation upon the City to extend economic incentives. NOW THEREFORE, upon Motion duly made, seconded and approved by the majority of those members of the City Council voting, that the guidelines as set forth in Exhibit "A" are hereby approved as advisory guidelines to assist in the evaluation of requests for economic incentives. WANDA OHARE y �_ _ JOSEPH BESCO VALERIE BURD �+ PAUL JAMES DEAN WOLFER MARTY MUNNS ROSE SPEARS JASON LESLIE Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this \�_ Day of`cc� �Q o . �� A.D. 2005. MAYOR Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this \3 day o&� G_c — A.D. 2005. ATTEST: Ls CITY CLERK Prepared by: John Justin Wyeth City Attorney United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 i 0 i En�1 �. ?,R 5k 11 . 1836 �6.31 f CL-10,5 . 3. Qr Qr ,:.. S 5 r'n?- +,k xr•q , rye ."#� g adI fir ' nom % v ECONOMIC INCENTIVES POLICY Approved by City Council: 12/13/2005 Effective : 12/13/2005 SECTION It Commercial / Retail The United City of Yorkville has adopted this Business Incentive Policy to achieve the goal by satisfying the objectives as outlined within the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update — Southern Study Area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL "A market sensitive, balanced, diverse commercial/service base which can expand to enhance the economic vitality and employment base of Yorkville, and broaden the range of services offered to residents OBJECTIVES 1 . Establish and coordinate diversity in market sensitive, commercial development ranging from 1) specialized commercial uses in the downtown, to 2) strategically located convenience centers, and to 3) sub regional unified centers. 2. Plan commercial/office development adjacent to primary, secondary, or collector thoroughfares to maximize accessibility and minimize disturbance of residential areas. 3. Provide areas for commercial/office development which are adjacent to compatible existing and future land uses. 4. Establish commercial development in areas that minimize negative impacts upon the existing roadway system 5. Coordinate commercial/office development with the expansion of the roadway and utility system. 6. Encourage the development of commercial/office activity within unified centers to avoid strip development. 7. Formulate design and development standards for commercial and office facilities to promote attractive development. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE — SOUTHERN STUDY AREA GOAL 1 "Encourage the development of non-residential "nodes", which would result in concentrated areas of retail and commercial uses instead of strip development; consider allowing small-scale retail nodes in close proximity to residential development to reduce required driving for everyday services." GOAL 2 "Ensure that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides for an adequate amount of non- residential land use that is diversified so that future economic development opportunities provide the City with a positive fiscal outlook." OBJECTIVE "Explore economic development opportunities related to the proposed Prairie Parkway, taking advantage of the limited access points to the proposed thoroughfare." GOAL "Promote and encourage the creation and maintenance of local jobs." OBJECTIVE 3 . 1 Utilize the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation (YEDC) to promote Yorkville as an attractive and desirable place for businesses to locate. 3 .2 Utilize the Economic Development Corporation and Chamber of Commerce to work with the business community to maintain a healthy environment for businesses to remain in Yorkville. All requests for business incentives shall be evaluated by how many and how fully the project meets these stated goals and objectives. Consideration for Incentives Sales tax revenues area primary source of funding for the general municipal operations of the United City of Yorkville. As such, developments that have the greatest potential in producing these types of revenues shall be given priority when evaluating multiple funding requests. Uses of Funds That May Be Considered 1 . Land acquisition 2. Demolition 3 . Street (re)construction and related improvements (e.g., signalization, turning lanes, etc.) 4. Building Rehabilitation 5 . Environmental Remediation Activities 6. Storm Sewer, Sanitary Service & Water System Improvements 7. Architectural/Engineering Services 8 . Relocation Expenses of Expanding Businesses Incentive Parameters 1 . Assistance shall not exceed 20% of total project hard costs 2. Specificed duration for payback, either amount of time or money, must be in the agreement 3. Public improvements completed on grant basis 4. Private improvements completed on a sales tax rebate and/or loan guaranty basis. All monies extended by the City shall be subject to reimbursement by the petitioner to the City should the business fail to meet its agreed upon goals. No single development shall be automatically approved for incentives. The terms and conditions of such repayment shall be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the final development agreement. Proiect Evaluation Criteria The City shall consider all aspects of a proposed project, including its financial feasibility, the type of project being proposed, its location within the community, and the amount of estimated tax revenues. For retail/commercial projects, the following shall be considered as priorities of the City and as such, projects meeting one or more of the following criteria shall be given priority when considering multiple funding requests: Sources for Funding Incentives: May be from one or more of the following sources: 1 . Sales tax 2. Real Estate Tax 3 . Utility Tax Priority businesses • Appliances and electronics • General merchandise • Furniture • Motorized vehicle dealerships (car, truck, motorcycle, boat, watercraft, etc.) • Department store • Sporting goods Priority locations as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as "commercial nodes" 1 . Route 47 cormmercial nodes 2. Downtown Area SECTION 2 : Manufacturing / Industrial / Distribution Developments To protect, strengthen and expand the City' s local economic base, the City relies upon the creation and/or retention of high quality, permanent fulltime jobs for its residents. As such, developments that have the greatest potential in producing these types of jobs shall be given priority when evaluating multiple funding requests. It is noted that the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance shall determine if a business is considered to be a commercial, service or manufacturing type use. Project Evaluation Criteria The City shall consider all aspects of a proposed project, including its financial feasibility, the type of project being proposed, its location within the community, the amount of estimated tax revenues, and the number and type of jobs being created or retained. For commercial/service/industrial projects, the following shall be considered as priorities of the City and as such, projects meeting one or more of the following criteria shall be given priority when considering multiple funding requests: Job Creation and Retention A minnnum of five (5) fulltime equivalent jobs must be created and/or retained within 24 months of project completion to be considered eligible for funding. Further, these jobs must be permanent and fulltime in nature (e.g., at least 1950 hours annually), and fall into one of the following categories: Job Type Minimum Hourly Wage Maximum Credit Per Job Unskilled $ 10.00 $2,500 Semi-Skilled $ 15.00 $300 Skilled $20.00 $4,000 Professional Over $20.00 $500 Priority Locations • Yorkville Business Center (near F.E. Wheaton complex) • Fox industrial park • Lincoln Prairie industrial park Incentive Parameters I . Assistance shall not exceed 20% of total project hard costs 2. Specificed duration for payback, either amount of time or money, must be in the agreement 3 . Public improvements completed on a grant basis 4. Private improvements completed on a utility and city property tax rebate and/or loan guaranty basis All monies extended by the City shall be subject to reimbursement by the developer to the City should the business fail to meet its agreed upon goals. The terms and conditions of such repayment shall be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the final development agreement. Eligible Activities: 1 . Land acquisition 2. Demolition 3. Street (re)construction and related improvements (e.g., signalization, turning lanes, etc.) 4. Building rehabilitation 5 . Environmental remediafion activities 6. Storm sewer, sanitary service and water system improvements 7. Architectural/engineering services 8. Relocation expenses `QED Co.y Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 2 O Finance ' tl. J s All, T Legal ❑ (;[_'„ �1k ,`,IIUC.�� esEST", ,� m lass ❑ Engineer El-� — Tracking Number City Administrator ❑ Consultant ❑ L I l' J } t E w�� F-1 Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Sign Ordinance–February 5,2008 workshop summary Meeting and Date: EDC–March 6, 2008 Synopsis: Summary of the February 5,2008 sign workshop facilitated by staff including ZBA members, local business and developer representatives, Chamber of Commerce representative, and sign company representatives Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Travis Miller Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: For discussion o b ® United City of Yorkville �,pi ,> '° 800 Game Farm Road EST. �� 1636 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-8545 ® ® ' Fax: 630-553-3436 �s<L E Meeting Summary REVISING THE CITY' S SIGN REGULATIONS February 5, 2008 7:00-9:00 PM Yorkville City Hall City Council Chambers ATTENDEES: Chris Funkhouser, ZBA member; Rick Winninger, Action Graphix; Greg Mullen, Saint Joseph Cabinetry/Chamber of Commerce; Fred DuSell, resident; Cheryl Grate, Grate Signs, Inc.; Glenn Johnson, Tri-Land Properties; Mayor Valerie Burd, Yorkville; Kathy Farren, Kendall County Record; Mike Skinner, ZBA member; Jeff Baker, ZBA Chairman; Harold Oliver, HRM; Alderman Joe Plocher, Yorkville; Frank Willman, Willman and Groesh; Travis Miller, Yorkville staff. Discussion began at 7:00 pm. Travis Miller welcomed the attendees and gave a brief overview of the purpose and goals for the meeting. Miller explained the City Council is currently considering revising the sign regulations to improve the visual appearance of the City's signage. The purpose of the meeting is to present the regulation changes that are being proposed and obtain input from the group on these changes. During the discussion, several concerns were raised by the group including general concerns regarding sign regulation and specific concerns related to the proposed ordinance. The following concerns were raised: Limitation of the free standing signage allowable on a comer lot to only one sign is too restrictive and may not be appropriate for most sites. • The effect that the ordinance/regulation will have on the readability of signage. The size of the sign should be dependant on the distance the sign is from the street. s The proposed ordinance uses lot frontage on the street to determine sign location - A question was raised about what signage would be allowed on lots without frontage on streets. • A question was raised about the status of existing signs that do not comply with the new sign regulations. Would they need to comply with the new sign regulations when they are repaired or replaced? • The landscape ordinance requirements need to be consistent with the sign ordinance requirements. There was some concern that the landscape requirements would require trees and shrubs that would block the visibility of business signage - particularly monument signage. • The measurement of the building fagade on unusual buildings such as silos, buildings with angled facades, etc. would create a problem in the proposed ordinance. • How the building fagade would be measured if there were one or two users in a four unit building isn't clear in the proposed ordinance. • Wall signage only being allowed on one side with a public entrance isn't appropriate on all buildings, or in all situations. The side most visible should be permitted to have a sign. • It was pointed out that there have been no studies prepared by any entity that support signs are a safety hazard to motorists. Smaller signs may actually be more of a safety hazard than larger signs. • The proposed ordinance requirement of 8 feet measured from the street level means that most signs will only be Z or 3 feet high and will be visually blocked by vehicles or landscaping. This regulation may result in visual monotony. • Why aren't electronically changing signs permitted? • Be careful not to increase the review process to have more steps, or committee approval requirements, that become a hardship/hindrance to commercial development/redevelopment. Recommendations from the discussion group: • Pole signs should not be permitted in the new ordinance/regulations. • More flexibility is needed for the height of free standing signage — don't simply make a maximum height requirement, which will lead to all signs being the same. • The aesthetics of the sign is the most important factor — focus on these issues in the regulation not size and dimensions. • Wall signage should be allowed on more than one side for buildings on corner lots or where the rear of the building was visible from a street. • Don't forget the economic reality of commercial locations in the 34 and 47 commercial corridors — signage is vital to the success of the retail/business community. • Do not rely on variances because it reduces consistency about what is allowed and what is not allowed. • Don't restrict signage type/size based on the business size. Small businesses need the promotion provided by signage, particularly the small (1 ,000-2000 sq. ft). businesses more so than the `big box' retailers. • Changeable copy message boards are important to businesses. Technological advances in electronically changeable signs have been made in recent years and should be considered as permitted signage. • Create a different set of sign regulations, or an `overlay district' for the downtown area. Example, the Kendall Pub sign would not be permitted under the current code, yet very attractive and appropriate in this district. • The new ordinance needs to be used consistently for all development including PUD, development and annexation agreements. The new ordinance/regulation should clearly state this to avoid PUD's from `bypassing the system' . • Incentives for replacing old signs should be considered and could include tax abatements and permit fee reductions. • Retrofitting existing pole signs with pylons/masonry faces over the poles of existing signs should be encouraged in situations where total replacement isn't possible or feasible. A program to encourage, or provide financial assistance to these businesses should be considered. • Setbacks for signs should be in new sign ordinance. Aurora currently has setback requirements which could be modeled. • Performance standards should be evaluated and developed so that here are a clear set criteria for new signs to meet as well as a streamlined review process for approval. Next Steps: Staff will report the concerns and recommendations to the Economic Development Committee and continue to refine the draft sign ordinance with the input. Once comfortable with a recommendation, the EDC will forward an ordinance to City Council for consideration. This will likely occur April-May 2008 tirreframe. ,CEO CO" Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number O J Legal ❑ EST �� eae ❑ r. I Finance_ Engineer ❑ Tracking Number Q IIN q City Administrator ❑ 9� � `�O Consultant ❑❑ EDC 2008-08 h<GE Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Policy for Legal Fees (when being paid by the City for annexation agreements Meeting and Date: EDC—March 6, 2008 Synopsis: Draft policy has been prepared by staff at the direction and with the input of the February EDC meeting Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Travis Miller Community Development Name Department Agenda Item Notes: See attached draft policy DRAFT United City of Yorkville Legal Fees for Annexations Policy Purpose: To provide criteria to be followed when determining if City funds are appropriate to be expended for attorney fees for the preparation of annexation documents and/ or annexation agreements. Legal Fee for Annexation Policy Guidelines: 1 . The City Council must approve expenditures related to any legal fees the City is obligated to fund by the agreement; 2. It must be demonstrated that the territory being annexed has an economic or civic benefit to the City; 3. The amount of legal fees to be expended should be in proportion to the economic or civic benefit demonstrated above;