Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Development Minutes 2014 05-06-14Page 1 of 4 APPROVED 6/3/14 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 6, 2014, 6:00pm Yorkville City Hall, Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Ken Koch Alderman Diane Teeling Alderman Carlo Colosimo Absent: Alderman Joel Frieders Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble Alderman Chris Funkhouser City Planner Chris Heinen Code Official Pete Ratos Other Guests: Attorney Dan Kramer Jason Boyer, Pulte Homes Clayton Marker, Marker, Inc. Gary Neyer, Marker, Inc. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ken Koch at 6:00pm. Citizen Comments None Previous Meeting Minutes April 1, 2014 The minutes were approved as read. New Business 1. EDC 2014-10 Building Permit Reports for March 2014 Alderman Colosimo asked if there should be concern since there were fewer permits, however, the lower numbers were weather-related. It was noted there are two builders who have contracts, but have not pulled permits yet. Mr. Ratos said he has 29 permit applications not yet on this report. He agreed weather was a factor and said one builder had to re-do cement due to cold conditions. Page 2 of 4 2. EDC 2014-11 Building Inspection Reports for March 2014 No comments, no further action. 3. EDC 2014-12 Incentives for Model/Spec Homes Chris Heinen said the EDC committee had asked staff to look at additional incentives beyond the B.U.I.L.D. Program since the success of this program boosted the building in the City. Staff looked at a spec home and model home incentives for which builders were very receptive. The spec home incentive would include a 50% cost reduction in the permit so that homes could be sold quickly. The reduction would be allowed on 10% of the lots acquired by that builder in a given subdivision. They would not be issued all at once, but once the 10% are sold, then additional permits would be allowed at the reduced rate. The model home incentive would receive a 100% permit fee reduction. Only a certain number of model homes would be allowed under their agreement and any other models beyond that number would be eligible for the 100% reduction. For example, if a developer purchased an additional 50 lots, he would receive one additional model home with reduced cost permit, 51-100 homes he would receive two reduced cost permits and 151-225 lots he would receive three permits. There is a cap and if the builder builds a model home and sells it right away, the builder would have to pay the full permit amount. Alderman Colosimo asked about the trigger mechanism as to when the builder can sell that home. It would be at the end of building and will also require language to clarify. Alderman Colosimo said that if this is approved by Council, he wants to be sure the applicants are actually developers or no incentives will be given. It was noted that the City could deny incentives to those who owe the City money. Alderman Koch also questioned if it is fair to ask residents to absorb the cost of water and sewer, etc. when developers are given these kinds of incentives. Mr. Olson said B.U.I.L.D. fees are collected and then later given to the homeowner, where the proposed incentives would be handled administratively and not collected upfront. The houses that have the proposed incentives are not eligible for B.U.I.L.D. Mr. Colosimo also suggested limiting the incentives to the first few houses constructed in order to spur development. The limits proposed were the first 30 spec homes and first 15 model homes. Guest Clayton Marker stated that a developer and builder are different. The committee discussed briefly and the City Attorneys will be asked to review. Mr. Heinen said that if a builder bought lots from a developer, a minimum of 10 lots would be required for incentive eligibility. Mr. Marker added that a percentage of lots might be better than a number, since the building projects would be smaller than those seen in the past. Another point to consider, according to Alderman Colosimo, is that by encouraging building, there is more competition for existing residents trying to sell their homes. Mr. Olson said there is a benefit to the City for the building because property taxes will be collected and City workers do not need to mow the empty lots. This will move forward to the City Council. 4. EDC 2014-13 Architectural Review Board Alderman Funkhouser asked staff to look at two architectural concerns, one in Autumn Creek that was re-platted from townhomes to single family homes. These are starter homes and have sold out. The second component of his request was to see if there is a better way to facilitate aesthetics city-wide Page 3 of 4 through establishment of an architectural review board. Ms. Barksdale-Noble gave background for this discussion and said there are two ordinances which address aesthetics: one is an Appearance Code adopted in 2005 (codified) and the other is Architectural Design Guidelines which is advisory only. These were passed after the Autumn Creek agreement was approved. Autumn Creek addressed their own aesthetic concerns in their agreement. Krysti and Pete insure that developments comply with their Annexation Agreements. The initial homes were basic units to move homes quickly. Ms. Barksdale-Noble also discussed the City's authority to impose architectural guidelines. Only one nearby community, Sugar Grove, has an architectural committee and it is advisory. They only review the guidelines for a house if they receive a request from their Council. Staff then looked farther into the suburbs for communities with committees and they only found five which were mostly located on the northshore where they look at mass developments, not individual homes. Most Yorkville subdivisions predate the Appearance Code and Guidelines. Krysti said staff realizes subjectivity could be an issue and reviews add time and expense to the permit process. It could also discourage certain projects from coming to Yorkville. A Facade Committee was in place long ago, but only met a few times for business only, not residential. Pulte Homes rep, Jason Boyer, was invited to be part of this discussion. Alderman Funkhouser said he was not singling out Pulte, but he had concern for the significant difference in architecture as a result of the re-platting. He said the city has very few controls over building and he is looking for controls and architectural standards for the future. Alderman Colosimo said he feels the standards can be controlled through the Annexation Agreements and is not in favor of a committee for this purpose. Varying elevations are also being addressed and it was suggested that when Pulte's fee lock expires next year, the City could ask for certain standards or different elevations. Mr. Funkhouser said he had received two complaints about the houses in Autumn Creek. Alderman Koch and Colosimo added they had complaints in their Ward. Ms. Teeling said she has not had complaints and added that Pulte was the only builder that remained in town during the economic downturn. She asked what would happen if the market crashed again and these guidelines were in place. Ms. Barksdale-Noble pointed out that basic homes would not be allowed at this point due to the ordinances put in place. Clayton Marker asked what would happen if a developer just sells lots and a different builder comes in to build. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the only requirement is that building permits are reviewed to determine if the houses meet the code. If changes were to be made in the process, it would be the decision of the Council. Pulte rep Jason Boyer said Pulte could not have continued to build if the standards in place then were not allowed. The homes sold for $110,000 to $120,000 were starter homes and are no longer being built. He said other communities do have the requirements Yorkville is proposing, but it is challenging. Ms. Teeling said the people who live there would rather have the single family rather than a townhome. Aldermen Teeling, Colosimo and Koch said they were not in favor of a review committee, but were OK with minor changes. Staff will continue to work on this and will bring back to EDC. Old Business: None Page 4 of 4 Additional Business: Heartland representatives were present to discuss their new 46-lot, age-restricted development. They have had their PUD review and have a Plan Commission Public Hearing next week. Staff prepared a memo regarding a Park Board member becoming a voting member on the Plan Commission. The Park Board focus will be on parks and land cash. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the developer is asking for a $30,000 per acre land valuation for parks. Since there is no place to put a park in this adult community and Hiding Spot Park is already there, Marker has asked to donate $54,000 - $55,000 to park land cash. Attorney Kramer said that $18,000 per acre was a recent land cash value in two residential subdivisions that were entitled, but not improved. He suggested that the $30-$35,000 per acre price was on target, but can change as the economy improves. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said that land cash will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Koch said the County has had land cash valued at $80,000 per acre. Mr. Olson said land cash is set up in two ways--land can be donated or cash given. Cash will be the donation for this development. It was noted by Mr. Marker that when the develoment is complete, it will bring $260,000 in taxes to the school district without bringing additional children into the schools since it is an age-restricted. community. Marker, Inc. has asked for a $3,000 per unit transition fee waiver from the schools and this will be formalized in a letter from the schools. For the record, Mr. Marker said they are the first developer to increase that fee (from $1,500). This item will move forward to Plan Commission on May 14th and City Council for vote on May 27th. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:11pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young