The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2006 01-19-06 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 y Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 LE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: 9/15/05, 10/20/05, 11/2/05, and 11/4/05 2. EDC 2005-01 SSA Tax Policy 3. EDC 2006-01 Building Permit Report for November 2005 4. EDC 2006-02 Building Permit Report for December 2005 5. EDC 2006-03 Zoning Text Amendment to M-1 Zoning District 6. EDC 2005-07 Feasibility of Relocating Overhead Power Lines to Underground 7. EDC 2005-09 Fagade Improvement Agreement 8. EDC 2006-04 Residential Development Key and Population Projection 9. EDC 2005-03 Kendall County Transportation Development Fees Draft Agreement 10. PC 2005-16 Kendallwood Estates—Preliminary Plan 11. PC 2005-34 Evergreen Farm—Preliminary Plan 12. PC 2005-54 Grande Reserve Unit 12 —Preliminary/Final Plat 13. PC 2005-55 Grande Reserve Unit 13 —Preliminary/Final Plat 14. Amendment to PUD Ordinance 15. Additional Business Pa e 1 of 3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT Thursday, September 15,2005 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room Present: Mayor Art Prochaska(arrived at 8:15) Dan Kramer, Attorney Alderman Marry Munns, Chairman Karen Onishi, PNGK Partnership Alderwoman Valerie Burd Payne Onishi, PNGK Partnership Alderman Jason Leslie Richard Scheffrahn, LDA City Attorney John Wyeth Matt Cudney, Del Webb City Administrator, Tony Graff(arrived at 8:15) Stephanie Scheetz, Conservation Bart Olson Foundation The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Munns. 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: None 2. Discussion of Future Incentive Programs to Attract Commercial/Industrial Business to Yorkville—There was some discussion about the possibilities of tax rebates, and rent kickers. Dekalb's incentive program has a priority list as well as an ineligible list for businesses. Alderwoman Burd would like to include an incentive for the small businesses that would be coming to Yorkville. This will come back next month. 3. Protect Kendall Now—The Conservation Foundation is requesting Yorkville to help fund this project with $5,000 this year and$5,000 next year for a total of$10,000. The paperwork would be filled out in November, and the actual funding would be in June. Part of this project would be working with developers to preserve the open space. Also the Conservation Foundation works to educate the people on this subject. This will move on to COW recommending$5,000 for 2 years. 4. PC 2005-43 Daniel Laniosz—Annexation and Zoning—This was tabled by the Planning Commission, and should be taken off the agenda. 5. PC 2005-18 Del Webb—PUD Plan—The recommendation out of Planning Commission was that it would move on subject to all the staff comments. Most of the comments had to do with Right of Way widths and the geometry of the curves on some of the streets. The duplex area has mountable curbs, rather than barrier curbs. There was some discussion about the access into the commercial area. Also there was concern about the 4 foot sidewalks on the walking path. Also there was discussion about making the walking path reinforced enough to allow emergency traffic to get through. The land cash in this project would be based on the populations in this area. There is a financial contingency time frame to meet for the developer. He is requesting the annexation and zoning go through at the same time on September 20th. This will move on to COW September 20th. Page 2 of 2 6. PC 2005-45 Payne Onishi—Annexation and Zoning (McHugh Professional Building)—This is for a proposed professional building on the corner of McHugh and Farmstead. There would be an eye care clinic there, and the other offices that would be there would also be medically related. The zoning was filed in the alternative and the zoning for B3 was voted down because they do not want commercial. It is currently county Al. The Heartland Owners Association would like to see landscaping and a berm,but because of the size of the property, an aesthetically pleasing fence with landscaping makes more sense. The survey reports the Masonry sign is in the road right of way. The building would be Masonry and split rock all the way around. The orientation of the building and parking lot was discussed. The landscaping plan will be put together by October 4t', or if more time is needed, it would be ready by November. 7. PC 2005-26 Eldamain Center for Business—Preliminary Plan=this was tabled by the planning commission because the plans were late and there were no staff comments. 8. PC 2005-37 Corneils Crossing—Preliminary Plan—This is a housing development. This passes Planning Commission 7-0 with one objector. This is on the West edge of Bristol Proper. There will be no commercial, it is a request for straight R2 zoning with no variance. There are 3 larger lots to keep the estate feel on Comeils. This will move on to October 4t'COW. 9. PC 200547 Swanson Lane Estates—Final Plat—This will move on to COW on October 4t'. 10. Draft Policy for Collection of Transportation Development Fees for Kendall County Highways—There was discussion about the Development fee being $500 per lot with the thought that there are more houses being built in Yorkville right now, and the fee would then be spread out, and be lower per house. This is a voluntary policy for the municipality that the county would like to see. The fee would come with the annexation agreement. Wording should be added that this money would be used in or near Yorkville. Possibly within a certain amount of miles. This will come back in October. 11. Additional Business—Alderwoman Burd wondered about having the Realtors come in about the SSA. Mayor Prochaska asked Attorney Wyeth to put together something for discussion regarding an SSA. Mayor Prochaska would like to look at the SSA ending upon closing of the property, so the developer can benefit from the SSA, but it would go no farther than the developer. Also look into the categories of funding through the SSA, such as off site streets. Mayor Prochaska said the new PUD ordinance will not allow a zoning change and annexation without the whole plan being final. They could go through a public hearing process, and annex to the city allowing or requiring a PUD agreement. This would create a new zoning class of PUD. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. Minutes submitted by Laura Leppert. DL4VT Pa&e 1 of 3 DATE CORRECTED FROM 9/15/05 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, October 20,2005 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room Present: Mayor Art Prochaska Randy Scott Alderman Marty Munns, Chairman Craig Coffey Alderwoman Valerie Burd Mike Stargardt Alderman Jason Leslie Dallas Ingemunson, Attorney Alderman Joe Besco Sal Reshepi, J & S Developer City Attorney John Wyeth Rich Guerard, Wyndham Deerpoint Lynn Dubajic, YEDC Bill Garrett Julie Hanna Cheryl Watts Jeff Foust The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Munns. 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: August 18, 2005 6. PC 200543 Daniel Laniosz— 10701 Route 71 —Annexation and Zoning—There has been a petition to the city to rezone this piece of property to B3. This was voted against by the Zoning Board with a 3 —4— 1 vote. B3 is the broadest category, and there are some inappropriate uses for the future. Those uses could be deleted in a development agreement. Alderwoman Burd questioned whether it might be better to say what the Council would approve there rather than what they would not approve. The neighboring resident, Bill Garrett brought his plat of survey. The acreage in question has 2 acres currently zoned agricultural and 1.125 acres currently zoned residential. This resident is asking the residential portion stay residential and is asking for buffering from the commercial that would be next door. Currently the business that is there is under special use in the county. This property currently has 2 violations of ordinances. 1 violation is building without a permit and the other is for some Barb wire fence on the property. Dallas Ingemunson has been representing Mr. Laniosz for some time and Bill Dettmer has reviewed the property and Mr. Laniosz will remove the barb wire. Mayor Prochaska pointed out that current ordinance would require some sort of landscape buffering. Also, the current comprehensive plan does not recognize commercial in that location. This will move on to the COW on November 1St with a list of allowed uses and special uses. 3. Building Permit Reports for August and September 2005—There was a revised report for September passed out. These will move on to COW on Consent Agenda. TIM Page 2 of 3 4. PC 2005-32 Yorkwood Estates—Annexation and Zoning—The zoning Board voted 8 —0 in favor of annexation and zoning R2. A tree study will be done in the areas where the trees will be disturbed. The lots on the South end will be 1/2 acre minimum lots that will be built by custom builders. Some storm water management will be done in the South East corner. There will be a fence near the pasture in the South West corner. The residents in an existing subdivision do not want the road to connect to this new subdivision. All the lots will be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The utilities will be in the front of the properties. There could be a dormant SSA put in place. Mayor Prochaska would like to see it put on the people's titles that they are within so many yards of an existing dog kennel. This will move on to the November 1St COW. 5. PC 2005—33 Chally Farm- Annexation and Zoning—The Zoning Board voted 8 — 0 for annexation and 6—2 for zoning. This would be a PUD with a B2 commercial node. There were concerns from neighboring residents that were present. They did not want to see a road connection into their subdivision because they were concerned that the roads in Pavillion Heights were narrow roads with curves and no streetlights and no sidewalks and people walk and ride their bicycles in the road. The connection road could be a one way street or emergency access only. The residents of Pavillion Heights were concerned with the lot sizes that would be backing up to their properties, the lot sizes in Pavillion Heights are much larger than the ones that are proposed to be built. Currently there is no buffer planned to go between the subdivisions. The proposed houses would be 2,500—3,500 square foot homes. The residents of Pavillion Heights were concerned with storm water runoff. There was also a concern about the commercial area and buffering between the commercial and the existing residential. The residents have previously submitted a petition that meets the 75% of adjoining perimeter and would require the super majority vote of 6 out of 8 Aldermen. A Historical Phase 1 study, required by the state, will be done. An Environmental study will also be done. This will move on to COW on November 1St. 7. Discussion of City Initiated Concept Plans—Mayor Prochaska met with Mike Schoppe about a generic concept transportation plan of some areas of the city. It would lay out where the main roads should go. The cost would be recaptured from future developers. Water runoff areas could be identified as well as school sites. The developers could be asked to help build the schools. This would not be as detailed as a preliminary plan. A draft of a policy will go to the next COW on November 1St 8. Plano Boundary Agreement Update—Mayor Roberts would like to see Yorkville adopt the same amendment that Plano did in regards to the realignment of Ashe Road and a subsequent boundary agreement with Sugar Grove. Sugar Grove should be brought in on the discussion. Yorkville will hold off until there is a ruling from the court. 2. Discussion of Future Incentive Programs to Attract Commercial/Industrial Business to Yorkville—On the cover page Items 3 and 4 should be eliminated. The ineligible businesses are not necessarily part of the future for Yorkville. The businesses could be ranked. Lynn Dubajic did some surveying and also obtained a policy from DeKalb. There is a tremendous amount of difference between Yorkville and DeKalb and the policy is not helpful as written. Page 3 of 3 Under Section 1 of the Policy, Eligible uses of Funds should read Uses that may be considered eligible. The relocation would be if the company was completely brought in from somewhere else, not a 2nd location, and the move will cost money. Under Incentive Parameters, #2 may not necessarily be 7 years, the amount of time may be different for each case, but it must have a specific conclusion date. #3 should be clarified or removed. All monies extended by the city shall be subject to reimbursement by the petitioner rather than the developer. The end user will be defined ahead of time. Just because it is applied for does not mean they will receive the incentive. Commercial/Retail is sales tax targeted. Priority businesses would be appliances &electronics (such as Best Buy or Circuit City) Furniture, New car, truck, and motorized vehicles and used luxury cars, department stores, and sporting goods stores. If"Higher End"merchandise is included who decides what high end is? Priority locations do not need each individual intersection defined. It will now read: Priority locations as defined in the Comprehensive plan: Rt 47 commercial nodes, Downtown area, identified by outline of downtown TIF district, US Highway 34 commercial nodes, and Rt 71 commercial nodes. Ineligible businesses will be eliminated. Section 2 will be eliminated. Section 3 refers to Industrial, Service, Manufacturing, and Distribution Developments. The source of rebate is not defined here. It could be in the form of Sales Tax, Real Estate Tax, or Utility Taxes. If they go for this they could get more than if they would apply for a Real Estate Tax Abatement. Could they possibly apply for both? Priority locations would be Yorkville Business Center(near F.E. Wheaton Complex, Fox Industrial Park, and Lincoln Prairie Industrial Park. The Incentive Parameters would mirror the ones for Commercial and Retail. #2 will have a conclusion date,but not necessarily 7 years. #3 should be clarified or deleted. Eligible Activities should be Uses that may be considered eligible. Alderwoman Burd would like to see a similar program for small business. They could receive real estate tax abatements,utility tax abatements. Or it could be part of a pool of overall real estate taxes. The total revenue for a year would have to have a cap. This would be a separate policy. New businesses would be given priority and they would have to generate at least 2 jobs. They could use the money for build out to improve, rehab, or remodel an existing building. This will get cleaned up and brought back next month. 9. Additional Business—Alderwoman Burd asked who should be the liaison to the Chamber Board. It was believed former City Administrator Tony Graff went to those meetings. They are the P Thursday of each month at 7:30 am. Alderman Leslie was volunteered for going to these meetings, and Alderman Munns would be the backup liaison. Alderwoman Burd volunteered to go to the Protect Kendall Now meetings as a liaison, and Alderman Besco would be the backup liaison. The Chamber Board and YEDC is having an event on November 4d'from 8 am— 11 am in the lower level of the Old Second Bank building. Everyone is encouraged to go. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Minutes submitted by Laura Leppert. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday,November 2,2005 5:00 p.m. City Ball Conference Room Present: Mayor Art Prochaska Alderman Valerie Burd Alderman Jason Leslie Alderman Joe Besco Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Design Associates, Inc. Victoria McGrath, McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. The meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m. by Alderman Burd. She explained that Alderman Munns had telephoned her and stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting this evening. Introductions were made. A motion was entertained to go into Executive Session for the purpose of: For the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline,performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. So moved by Alderman Leslie; seconded by Alderman Besco. Entered executive session at 5:08 p.m. At 8:38 p.m. the Committee returned to open session and immediately adjourned the meeting. Minutes respectfully submitted by Mayor Art Prochaska. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING Friday, November 4,2005 1:00 P.M. City Hall Conference Room Present: Mayor Art Prochaska Alderman Marty Munns Alderman Valerie Burd Alderman Jason Leslie Alderman Joe Besco Victoria McGrath, McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Alderman Munns. Introductions were made. It was noted the Mr. Mike Schoppe of Schoppe Design Associates, Inc. was in transit. A motion was entertained to go into Executive Session for the purpose of: For the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline,performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. So moved by Alderman Burd; seconded by Alderman Leslie. Entered executive session at 1:06 p.m. At 4:32 p.m. the Committee returned to open session and immediately adjourned the meeting. Minutes respectfully submitted by Mayor Art Prochaska. BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville Department of Building Safety November 2005 T YP e fP Permits ::::......................................... ........... s o er is I -F 2 omit I y `z 3 Number of Permits I s sued SFD se S+n n;�s z oo s Multiple- Family F a mil Y Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction C ost J3 i 2 Pernuls=I Structure November 2005 j 110 62 0 0 1 0 47 $9,954,028.00 Calendar Year 2005 1183 445 10 0 37 0 691 1 $107,979,439.00 Fiscal Year 2005 1 866 I 319 0 0 21 0 526 $74,304,983.00 November 2004 74 27 0 0 4 0 43 $7,398,085.00 Calendar Year 2004 t 977 1 434 3 0 18 1 520 $90,518,337.00 Fiscal Year 2004 705 302 0 0 15 1 387 $65,492,742.00 November 2003 , 52 33 2 0 0 0 17 $5,018,522.00 Calendar Year 2003 3 837 333 14 6 29 1 454 $86,1639936.00 Fiscal Year 2003 622 237 11 6 21 0 347 $62,385,535.00 November 2002 1 45 I 16 1 0 5 0 23 $5,816,244.00 Calendar Year 2002 4 755 261 6 4 41 1 442 $6194879082.00 Fiscal Year 2002 514 166 4 2 25 1 316 $34,608,853.00 November 2001 43 18 0 0 5 0 20 $4,926,560 Calendar Year 20015 431 177 8 4 20 2 259 $48,573,842 Fiscal Year 2001 359 133 7 3 17 2 195 $3897769422 3 Permit Number Y-05-0011 was voided,thus only 1183 of 1184 assigned permit numbers were actually used T Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built.Permits Y-04-886 and Y-04-926 were voided,thus only 977 of 979 assigned permit numbers were issued 3 Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 837 of 838 assigned permit numbers were actually issued Permit Numbers Y-2002-034,Y-2002467,and Y-2002-579 were voided,thus only 772 of 755 assigned permit numbers were actually issued;and the SFD permit issued in August as Y-2002-579 was voided and reissued as Y-2002-691 in October. To maintain a correct count;it shall remain on the August 2001 count S Permit Number 01385 was for 6 Attached SFDs,reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F;and Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D. .{.} Note: Miscellaneous permits include such items as additions,remodelling,sheds,decks,RPZs,and municipal projects. V BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville Department of Building Safety December 2005 T es of Permits YP P m s X. >'? 2-Famil y N umber of Permits I ssued S F D (se s� in zoos Multi l e-Farm l Y Commercial l Industrial Mi scellaneou s Total Construction Cost 2 Pernuts=I Structure I December 2005 165 127 6 6 1 0 25 $23,140,406.00 i Calendar Year 2005 t 1348 572 16 6 38 0 116 , $131,119,845.00 Fiscal Year 2005 1031 446 6 6 22 0 551 $97,445,389.00 December 2004 67 36 0 0 3 0 28 $14,719,818.00 Calendar Year 2004 2 1044 470 3 0 21 1 548 $105,238,155.00 Fiscal Year 2004 772 338 0 0 18 1 415 $80,212,560.00 December 2003 57 27 1 1 5 0 23 $11,320,792.00 Calendar Year 2003 3 894 360 15 7 34 1 477 $97,484,728.00 Fiscal Year 2003 679 264 12 7 26 0 370 $739706,327.00 December 2002 51 23 0 0 4 0 24 $5,126,236.00 Calendar Year 2002 4 806 284 6 4 45 1 466 $66,613,318.00 Fiscal Year 2002 565 189 4 2 29 1 340 $39,735,089.00 December 2001 40 26 2 0 1 1 8 $4,304,497.00 Calendar Year 20015 495 203 8 4 20 2 259 $52,878,339.00 Fiscal Year 2001 399 159 7 3 17 2 195 $43,080,919.00 I Permit Number Y-05-0011 was voided,thus only 1328 of 1319 assigned permit numbers were actually used 2 Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only I structure was built Permits Y-04-886,Y-04-926,Y-04-1027,and Y-04-1037 were voided,thus only 1044 of 1048 assigned permit numbers were issued 'Permit Number Y-1003-324 was voided,thus only 894 of 895 assigned permit numbers were actually issued _ Permit Numbers Y-2002-034,Y-2001-067,and Y-2002-579 were voided,thus only 806 of 809 assigned permit numbers were actually issued;and the SFD permit issued in August as Y-1001-579 was voided and reissued as Y-2002-691 in October. s Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 495 of 496 permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Numbers 01259 and 01478,for 4 Attached SFDs(Townhomes) were reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D,and 01478A,B,C,and D, and Permit Numbers 01385 and 01480,for 6 Attached SFDs,were reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F,and 0I480A,B,C,D,E,and F,respectively. Note: Miscellaneous permits include such items as additions,remodelling,sheds,decks,RPZs,and municipal projects. 5P, ,/ Reviewed By: J 'n Legal ❑ City Council EMT. °` ta3s Finance ..�� Engineer ❑ "Ell .' City Administrator ❑ Agenda Item Tracking Number Consultant D DC-1 C4�1 O( —�3 ILL E City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: T OIJ ZATA City Council/COW/Committee Agenda Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: NZhe Departm t Agenda Item Notes: C/p United City of Yorkville J . County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road WT. Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us <CE w December 13, 2005 TO: Arthur Prochaska, Jr., Mayor Economic Development Committee FROM: William A. Dettmer, Code Official Anna B. Kurtzman, Zoning Coordinatorz/� SUBJECT: Amendment to the M-1 District Presently our M-1 district does not permit contractors' offices that are devoted to the construction of buildings. Contractors (including offices and indoor/outdoor storage)are permitted in the M-2 district. After citing a contractor business that had located in the M-1 district it came to staff's attention that there are a number of contractor/construction offices (some with indoor storage) located in the M-1 district. These businesses are located in the M-1 district either due to being established at that location prior to the existing zoning code or due to provisions in the annexation agreement. It is staff's recommendation that the zoning code be amended to allow contractor offices (with or without indoor storage) to be a permitted use within the M-1 district. We are also recommending that contractor businesses with outdoor storage be listed as a use within the special Use provisions. Please see attached for our specific draft language. Should additional information be needed, we would be glad to provide it. WAD/abk C: J. Wyeth Attachment Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\Anna\My Documents\Ordinances\Contractor\EDCmemol2-13-05.doc DRAFT STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ss COUNTY OF KENDALL ) ORDINANCE No.205- ADDING TO SECTION 10-8A-1 AND ADDING TO SECTION 10-8A-2 REGARDING ZONING FOR CONTRACTORS OFFICES Whereas the United City of Yorkville has taken up, discussed and considered amending the City Code regarding zoning classifications for contractors offices (with or without indoor storage of materials), and Whereas the United City of Yorkville has taken up, discussed and considered amending the City Code regarding zoning classifications for contractor facilities that includes outdoor storage of materials, and Whereas the Mayor and City Council have discussed that it may be prudent to amend Sections 10-8A-1 AND 10-8A-3 as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,upon Motion duly made, seconded and approved by a majority of those so voting, that Sections 10-8A-1 and 10-8A-3 of the City Code of the United City of Yorkville is hereby amended as follows: DRAFT 1. The use"contractor offices (with or without indoor storage)" shall be added to the Permitted Uses at Section 10-8A-1 (Added as a permitted use to M-1 Zoning). 2. The use"contractor facilities that include outdoor storage)"shall be added to the Special Uses at Section 10-8A-3 (Added as.a special use to the M-1 Zoning). WANDA OHARE 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 A.D. 2006. MAYOR Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this - day of A.D. 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK ♦,`�D C/lyo Reviewed By: J �+ Legal ❑ City Council ES Finance ❑ T. `� �� ' r�1836 ❑ Engineer y City Administrator F1 Agenda Item Tracking Number Consultant ❑ �Co C 3 j— `� ELL SCE `�,♦� ❑ City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Feasibility of relocating overhead power lines to underground City Council/COW/Committee Agenda Date: EDC—Jan. 19th, 2006 Synopsis: Discussion of policy to require relocating overhead utility lines to underground Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: N/A Council Action Requested: Discussion and move forward to COW Submitted by: Bart Olson Admin. Name Department Agenda Item Notes: A memo with policy options on underground utility relocation has been received from Frank Perez of ComEd. A preliminary estimate of relocating utilities from Rt. 34 and Rte. 71 is $3.4 million. To do a full cost estimate, ComEd will charge the City$70,000, which can be credited towards the final cost of the project. Options for payment include a lump sum, or a"per kilowatt-hour charge"on monthly bills to all customers in the City's corporate boundaries. Cr Ar x.-..n.n=ygm°y 2 Lincoln Centre Facility Relocation 8'Fl January 17,2006 Oak Brook Terrace,IL 60181 Bartholomew A.Olson—Deputy Clerk United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville,IL 60560 Re:Cost to Underground Overhead Electric Lines Dear Sir, This letter is in reply to an inquiry regarding the estimated cost to the United City of Yorkville(the Village) to accommodate the Village's request for Commonwealth Edison(ComEd)to underground ComEd's overhead electric lines. The subject electric lines are located along Illinois Rte 47 between U.S.Rte.34 and Illinois Rte.71. As an Illinois public utility,ComEd is subject to the terms and conditions of the Illinois Public Utilities Act (220 ILCS)and is obligated to provide reliable service at least cost. The relevant section of the Illinois Public Utilities Act(PUA)is Section 5/8-401,which states: Every public utility subject to this Act shag provide service and facilities which are in all respects adequate, efficient;reliable and environmentagy safe and which,consistent with these obligations, constitute the least-cost means of meeting the utility's service obligations. Consequently, when a customer,municipality,or any third party requests that ComEd's facilities be constructed in a manner such that additional costs are incurred,ComEd is obligated to collect such additional costs from the requesting party. As such,the least cost manner to construct distribution feeders is by overhead pole line and thus the Village must pay for the additional cost of the requested undergrounding. The estimated additional cost to underground the existing line is$3.400.000.00. Please remember that these costs which is being provided to the Village for this project,is a high level estimate and the final costs may be higher or lower depending on final engineering design,difficulty of work area,and what the accepted contract bid is for performing the work. This estimate is for ComEd electric facilities only. The Village will need to contact other utilities for their relocation cost. Another cost for the Village to consider will be the conversion of existing overhead services if any,to accept an underground connection. If the Village desires a detailed engineering design and cost estimate,there will be a charge to the Village of &70.000.00. This engineering charge is non-refundable,but will be credited toward the final cost of the project if the Village authorizes the construction work to proceed. When the engineering design cost estimate is calculated,there are two payment options available to the ! Village. The first is under Rate 6, which would be a lump sum payment(or part thereof)prior to the start of construction with a final bill invoiced upon completion of all work. i The second option would be under Rider 28,Local Government Compliance Clause,where ComEd adds an i additional"per kilowatt-hour charge"onto the monthly bills of all customers within the municipal boundaries j of United City of Yorkville. As costs for this project are incurred each month,the appropriate share of those costs will be reflected as a separate line item charge on the monthly bills of the customers. The"per kilowatt- hour"charges will continue until the project is completed and all costs for the project are reflected on ComEd's books of account. Typically in an area similar to Route 47,ComEd will install the new underground facilities in a conduit& manhole and poly pipe system. The method used to install the poly pipe is by directional bore. Conduit& manholes are installed using an open trench method. Directional boring of poly pipes will be used to cross underneath roads and driveways. The new underground facilities must be placed in easement. ComEd prepares easement packages for the identified areas for the Village to present and obtain signatures from the affected landowners. From the initial look of the job area ComEd will need to install approximately 30,000'of primary underground cable,approximately 10 pad-mounted sectionalizers, 18 pad-mounted transformers, multiple cable laterals to the overhead system,switches,and other equipment to place the aerial electric facilities underground. Poles,wood arms,conductors,transformers,switches and other equipment will be removed within the subject area. Jointly owned poles are removed pursuant to utility agreement. Landscape restoration is not included in this estimate. At the end of the useful life of such plant items,or if these facilities must be relocated,ComEd retains it's right to install overhead facilities as part of its obligation to provide service at least cost. Final design plan is contingent upon approval from the appropriate governmental agency. I trust that this answers the Village's concerns about the subject project. We look forward to continuing the excellent working relationship,which we have enjoyed with the people at the United City of Yorkville. Sincerely, J Frank Perez Public Relocation Department I Program Manager I (630)576-7090 office (630)437-3355 fax Cc: Allan Armstrong-ComEd External Affairs Manager F I� United City of Yorkville Memo E--brl 4t 800 Game Farm Road ro c, EST , ;1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 of 9 °gip Fax: 630-553-7575 <LE �Vy Date: January 17, 2006 To: Economic Development Committee Members From: John Justin Wyeth, City Attorney CC: John Crois, City Administrator Subject: Fagade Improvement Agreement Please find with this memo the following: The Fagade agreement which has been revised by adding penalty language at the end of Section Six, and reference to what the "covenant"will be. The covenant will be a standard form recordable document(similar to a deed)that will indicate that the property is encumbered by this agreement. It was last before you for presentation in December. It is now before you for discussion and comment. United City of Yorkville Facade Improvement Agreement THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of 19 , between the United City of Yorkville, Illinois (hereinafter referred to as "City") and the following designated OWNER/LESSEE, to wit: Owner/lessee's name: Name of business: Tax ID #/ Social security#: Address of property to be improved: PIN Number: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has established a Pilot Facade Improvement Program for application within the Yorkville Facade Improvement District(District); and WHEREAS, said Pilot Facade Improvement Program is administered by the City with the advice of the Review Committee and is funded from the general fund for the purposes of controlling and preventing blight and deterioration within the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Pilot Facade Improvement Program the City has agreed to participate, subject to its sole discretion, in reimbursing Owners/Lessees for the cost of eligible exterior improvements to commercial establishments within the District up to a maximum of 50%of the approved contract cost of such improvements; and WHEREAS, the Owner/Lessee's property is located within the Downtown Business District or along one of the identified boundary roads of the District, within the City, and the Owner/Lessee desires to participate in the Pilot Fagade Improvement Program pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements obtained herein,the City and the Owner/Lessee do hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1: With respect to fagade improvements to the front and side of a building and related eligible improvements, the City shall reimburse Owner/Lessee for the cost of improvements to the Owner/Lessee's property at the rate of up to fifty per cent (50%) of such cost, providing that the Owner/Lessee has spent at least $1,000 on the improvement proj ect. With respect to improvements to rear entrance(s) of a building and related eligible improvements, the City shall reimburse Owner/Lessee for the cost of improvements to the Owner/Lessee's property at the rate of up to 50% of such cost, providing that the Owner/Lessee has spent at least$1,000 on the improvement project. The actual total reimbursement amounts per this Agreement shall not exceed $ for fagade improvements to the front and side of a building and related eligible improvements and $ for improvements to rear entrance(s) of a building and related eligible improvements. The improvement costs which are eligible for City reimbursement include all labor, materials, equipment and other contract items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the work as shown on project plans, design drawings, specifications and estimates approved by the City. Such plans, design drawings, specifications and estimates are attached hereto as Exhibit I. SECTION 2: No improvement work shall be undertaken until its design has been submitted to and approved by the Review Committee. Following approval, the Owner/Lessee shall contract for the work and shall commence and complete all such work within six months from the date of such approval. SECTION 3: The City Building and Zoning inspector shall periodically review the progress of the contractor's work on the facade improvement pursuant to this Agreement. Such inspections shall not replace any required permit inspection by the Building and Zoning officer. All work which is not in conformance with the approved plans, design drawings and specifications shall be immediately remedied by the Owner/Lessee and deficient or improper work shall be replaced and made to comply with the approved plans, design drawings and specifications and the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 4: Upon completion of the improvements and upon their final inspection and approval by the City Building and Zoning Inspector, the Owner/Lessee shall submit to the Review Committee a properly executed and notarized contractor statement showing the full cost of the work as well as each separate component amount due to the contractor and each and every subcontractor involved in furnishing labor, materials or equipment in the work. In addition, the Owner/Lessee shall submit to the Review Committee proof of payment of the contract cost pursuant to the contractor's statement and final lien waivers from all contractors and subcontractors. The Owner/Lessee shall also submit to the Review Committee a copy of the architect's statement of fees for professional services for preparation of plans and specifications. The Review Committee shall, within fifteen days (15) of receipt of the contractor's statement, proof of payment and lien waivers, and the architect's statement, issue a check to the Owner/Lessee as reimbursement for up to one-half of the approved construction cost estimate, subject to limitations set forth in Section 1 hereof. In the alternative, at its sole discretion, the City may reimburse Owner/Lessee in two payments. The first reimbursement may be made only 1) upon completion of work representing 40% or more of the maximum reimbursement specified in Section 1 hereof and 2) upon receipt by the Review Committee of the architect's invoices, contractor's statements, invoices, proof of payment and notarized final lien waivers for the completed work and 3) upon a determination by the City's Building and Zoning Inspector that the remainder of the work is expected to be delayed for 30 days or more following completion of the initial work due to weather, availability of materials, or other circumstances beyond the control of the Owner/Lessee. The second, final reimbursement payment shall be made by the City only upon submittal of all necessary documents as described herein. SECTION 5: If the Owner/Lessee or his contractor fails to complete the improvement work provided for herein in conformity with the approved plans, design drawings and specifications and the terms of this Agreement, then upon written notice being given by the Review Committee to the Owner/Lessee, by certified mail to the address listed above, this Agreement shall terminate and the financial obligation on the part of the City shall cease and become null and void. SECTION 6: Upon completion of the improvement work pursuant to this Agreement and for a period of five (5) years thereafter, the Owner/Lessee shall be responsible for properly maintaining such improvements in finished form and without change or alteration thereto, as provided in this Agreement, and for the said period of five (5) years following completion of the construction thereof, the Owner/Lessee shall not enter into any agreement or contract or take any other steps to alter, change or remove such improvements, or the approved design thereof, nor shall Owner/Lessee undertake any other changes, by contract or otherwise, to the improvements provided for in this Agreement, unless such changes are first submitted to the Review Committee for approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if the proposed changes do not substantially alter the original design concept of the improvements specified in the plans, design drawings and specifications approved pursuant to this Agreement. Owner/Lessee shall execute and record a restrictive covenant, in a form substantially the same as "Exhibit H" hereto, at City's request. The parties agree that should Owner/Lessee fail to maintain or change the improvement work for the 5 year period as required by this Section 6, then Owner/Lessee shall reimburse the City a portion of the total amounts paid under this agreement as follows: Year in which the failure to maintain or change occurs %of amount to be reimbursed First Year after Completion (Months 1-12) 100% Second Year after Completion(Months 13 -24) 80% Third Year after Completion (Months 25 -36) 60% Fourth Year after Completion(Months 37-48) 40% Fifth Year after Completion (Months 49-60) 20% Said promise shall be included in the covenant, and shall be an obligation against the land. SECTION 7: The Owner/Lessee releases the City from, and covenants and agrees that the City shall not be liable for, and covenant and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents from and against, any and all loses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses, of every conceivable kind, character and nature whatsoever arising out of, resulting from or in any way connected directly or indirectly with the fagade improvement(s), including but not limited to actions arising from the Prevailing Wage Act (820 ILCS 30/0.01 et seq.). The Owner/Lessee further covenants and agrees to pay for or reimburse the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents for any and all costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, liabilities or expenses incurred in connection with investigating, defending against or otherwise in connection with any such losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or causes of action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel and to approve any settlement in connection with such losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or causes of action. The provisions of this section shall survive the completion of said fagade improvement(s). SECTION 8: Nothing herein is intended to limit, restrict or prohibit the Owner/Lessee from undertaking any other work in or about the subject premises which is unrelated to the fagade improvement provided for in this Agreement. SECTION 9: This Agreement shall be binding upon the City and upon the Owner/Lessee and its successors, to said property for a period of five (5) years from and after the date of completion and approval of the fagade improvement provided for herein. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner/Lessee to inform subsequent Owner(s)/Lessee(s) of the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first appearing above. OWNER/LESSEE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Exhibit I Plans, Design Drawings, Specifications and Estimates Exhibit II Restrictive Covenant (A recordable covenant that will be recorded against the land as evidence that the land is encumbered by the FaVade Agreement. As such, the promises of the agreement will be an obligation for all land owners, and will therefore be binding upon future land owners if the original party to the agreement sells the building.) f:::-N( Cdr o Reviewed By: Legal ❑ City Council Esr 1 18W Finance ❑ Engineer ❑ City Administrator ❑ Agenda Item Tracking Number Consultant ❑ - L �2 <LE ❑ City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Residential Development Key and Population Projection City Council/COW/Committee Agenda Date: Econ. Dev. Committee-January 19, 2006 Synopsis: Presentation and update on the monthly residential development key and biannual population projection Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: N/A Council Action Requested: N/A-This agenda item was presented as an "FYI"the last time it was presented in July. Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Documents 1) Residential development key-contains information on all residential developments that the City is aware of, from pre-concept to current construction phases. Document 2) Population projection-contains projections for all developments on the residential development key for the next five years. Projections are based on historic data and developer interviews. UNITED CITY OF YORKVI LLE Current and Pending Residential Development Key* Property/Development Name Developer Location Types of Units Units Acres Status Aspen Ridge Estates Aspen Ridge SW Corner of Fox Rd.and Pavillion Rd. Single Family 218 126 Annexation and Zoning Preliminary Plan Estates,LLC Autumn Creek Pulte Homes Immediately W of Grande Reserve,N of Rt.34 and S of Single Family 317 287 Final Plat Unit 1 Approved Corner of Bristol Ridge Rd.and Cannonball Tr. Town Homes 258 0.35%Built Out(2 SF) Bailey Meadows Bailey Meadows W of SW Corner of Baseline Rd.and Rt.47 Single Family 189 150 Annexation,Zoning,Preliminary Plan Town Homes 153 Approved;Revising Preliminary Plan Blackberry Woods McCue Builders S of SW Corner of Rt.34 and West Cannonball Tr. Single Family 53 60 Annexation and Zoning Approved Single Family 82 Preliminary. PUD Stage Briarwood Triangle W of Rt.47,N of Greenbriar Rd.,between Sunflower Single Family 41 36.85 14.63%Built Out(6 units) Investments Estates and Prairie Gardens Single Family 467 630.9 Unit 1-7 Final Plats Approved Bristol Bay Centex N and S of Galena Rd, between Rt.47 and Cannonball Tr. Condominiums 624 9.4%Built Out(20 SF,96 Condos,62 TH) Town Homes 802 Duplex 182 Caledonia Inland NW Corner of Rt.47 and Burlington Northern Railroad Single Family 206 85.28 Final Plat Approved,Under Construction Tracks,Near F.E.Wheaton Chally Properly Wyndham W Comer of Rt.71 and Pavillion Rd.,Stretching W to and Single Family 234 154.1 Concept Plan Stage Deerpoint around Pavillion Heights Cimarron Ridge Custom SE and SW Corner of Rt.34 and West Cannonball Tr. Single Family 29 40.82 89.33%Built Out Duplex 46 (65 Units,2 Duplex) Corneils Crossing Pacific Homes E of NE corner of Rt.47 and Comeils Rd. Single Family 31 15.35 Annexation,Zoning,and Preliminary Plan Country Hills Dennis Dwyer,Inc. S of Rt.71,W of Southern Corner of Rt.71 and Rt.126 Single Family 138 65.6 62.79%Built Out Duplex 34 (21 SF,87 Units) Dhuse Farm(W of 47,S of Ament) RA Faganel Builders E of SE Corner of Ament Rd.and Immanuel Rd. Single Family 167 95.21 Concept Plan Stage Evergreen Farm Estates Tanglewood SE Comer of Fox Rd.and Pavillion Rd. Single Family 76 49 Annexation,Zoning,and Preliminary Plan Single Family 33 34.71 93.5%Built Out Fox Highlands Custom E of SE comer of Rt.47 and Rt.71 Town Homes 84 (1 SF,114 Units) Duplex 6 -1 hi,chin represents only the developments that are c still considered active to developing as of Deeember 31,2005. '+ ,Q" This chop does NOT represent m depict all of the �N a 1 developments and subdivisions in the city. 3,� UNITED CITY OF Y®]E KVI LLE Current and Pending Residential Development Key* Property/Development Name Developer Location Types of Units Units Acres Status Single Family 228 287 99.75%Built Out(403 Units) Fox Hill SE Comer of Eldamain Rd.and Rt.34 Town Homes 144 Unit 7:Rezone,Amend PUD, Duplex 32 Annex Agreement Approved Fox River Bluff Inland NE Corner of Highpoint Rd.and Fox.Rd. Single Family 200 302.6 Concept Plan/Pre-Conferences Town Homes 0 Single Family 1324 1,127.30 Final Plats Approved for Units 1-11 Grande Reserve Moser,MPI N of Rt.34,E of Pulte Property(Hinsdale Nursery),S of Duplex 394 Final Plats 12 and 13 Under Review Kennedy Rd.,and W of Rickard Dr. Town Homes 632 4.42%Built Out(117 SF) Apartments 300 Greenbriar Custom W of Rt.47 Between Fox Road and Rt.71 Single Family 166 166 84%Built Out Duplex 34 (4 SF,164 Units) Harris Farm Meadowbrook W of NW Corner of Rt.47 and Rt.71 Single Family 348 161 Concept Plan Stage Heartland Circle Marker N of Fox River,Immediately E of Teri Ln.,Immediately W Single Family 250 129.546 43.2%Built Out(108 Units) of Tuma Rd. Heartland Crossing Marker SE corner of Rt.47 and Ament Rd,stretching past Single Family 860 512 Concept PUD Plan Wheeler Road extension to the S,and E to Lee Farm Heartland Subdivision Marker SE Comer of Rt.34 and McHugh Rd Single Family 186 135.576 93.01%Built Out(173 Units) Hudson Lakes Mallard S of S corner of Rt.126 and Rt.71,immediately W of Single Family 253 141.3 Annexation,Zoning,and Preliminary Plan Development Prestwick and E of Windett Ridge Inland Pacific Homes Immediately S of corner of Galena Rd.and Cannonball Tr., Single Family 367 180 Preliminary Plat E and W of Cannonball Tr. Duplex 60 Kendallwood Estates of Yorkville Kendall Land N of Rt.126,N to just below Van Emmon Rd.,and Single Family 70 37.58 Preliminary Plan Development,LLC directly across from Wildwood Kylyn's Crossing West AMG Homes SW Corner of Faxon Road and West Cannonball Tr. Single Family 111 56.6 93.69%Built Out(104 Units) Kylyn's Ridge AMG Homes S of Faxon Rd.,W of West Cannonball Tr.and Kylyn's Single Family 134 70 100%Built Out(134 Units) Crossing West Zoning,and Preliminary PUD Plan Lee Farm Montalbano E of SE Comer of Rt.47 and Ament Rd. Single Family 293 155.825 Annexation, Approved -This chmt represents only the dewlopmmts that are still considered active to developing as of Decanter 31,2005. ., This chart does NOT represent m depict all of the developments and subdivisions in the city. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Current and Pending Residential Development Key* Property/Development Name Developer Location Types of Units Units Acres Status Longford Lakes Montalbano Immediately S of Jewel,N of Walnut St.,E of Rt.47,W of Town Homes 62 13.6 84%Built Out(52 Units) McHugh Rd. McKinnon Farm York Venture,LLC N Corner ofRt.71 and Rt.126 Single Family 774 449 Concept Plan Design Condominiums 386 E to Rt.47,W to Immanuel Rd.,N past Ament,and S past Single Family 1128 906.44 Concept Plan Design Moser South(Tuttle,Burkhart,Kuhn,and Holt) Moser,MPI Walker Rd. Town Homes 504 Multi-Family 325 Prairie Gardens S&K Development W of Rt.47,between Fox Road and Rt.71(N of Senior Homes 56 24.2 100%Built Out(56 Units) LLC Greenbriar) Menard's-AMG E of Menards,Stretching N to Kennedy Rd.and W to Rt. Single Family 18 142.2 Final Plat Approved,Under Construction Prairie Meadows Homes 47 Single Family 145 12.99%Built Out Multi-Family 268 (13 SF of"18",43 SF of Lots 18+) Prestwick of Yorkville Mallard SW Corner of Ashley Rd.and Rt.126 Single Family 345 193.8 Preliminary Plan Development S of Rt.71 Between Rt.47 and Rt.126(Immediately S Single Family 404 320 Final Plats Units 1-3 Approved Raintree Village Concord,Lennar and surrounding Country Hills Duplex 128 32.7 1/o Built Out(158 SF,16 DU) Town Homes 128 Reserve at the Fox River Apts. PRS Immediately E of Jewel,E of Market Place Dr.and W of Apartments 132 9.5 Under Construction,0%Built Out McHugh Rd. River's Edge The Windham N of W.Fox St.,Immediately W of White Oak Estates Single Family 166 96.906 89.16%Built Out(148 Units) Group E of NE Comer of Rt.34 and Eldamain Rd.,and N of Fox Single Family 120 270.6 Preliminary Engineering Review Rob Roy Falls Sexton Hill Condominiums 174 Town Homes 204 Silver Fox Subdivision Midwest S of Fox Rd.,E of SE corner of Pavillion Rd and Fox Rd. Single Family 187 102.7 Annexation and Zoning Preliminary Plan Sunflower Estates William Ryan NW corner of Rt.71 and Rt.47,Immediately S of Single Family 117 65.19 99.15%Built Out(116 Units) Greenbriar TangleWood-Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood East Side of Highpoint Rd.,S of Legion Single Family 39 67 1.5 mile review and Annexation Approved Villas at the Preserve Burnside W of SW Comer of Rt.47 and Rt.71,Across from Duplex 84 23.95 Annexation,Zoning,PUD,Preliminary Plan Stage Sunflower Estates -This chart represents only the dm1opments that art w .� still considered acute m developing u of December 31,2005. y 4 This chart does NOT rgxcacnl m depict all of the developmenla and subdivisions in the city. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Current and Pending Residential Development Key* Property/Development Name Developer Location Types of Units Units Acres Status Westbury Village Ocean Atlantic SW Comer of Galena Rd.and Rt.47 Single Family 293 300 Final Plat Awaiting Approval Town Homes 605 Pulte Homes and Single Family 484 586.1 Annexation and PUD Zoning Approved Westhaven Del Webb NW Corner of Rt.47 and Galena Rd. Age Restricted Single Family 568 Age Restricted Duplex 244 N of corner of W.Cannonball Tr and Faxon Rd.,S of 13.03%Built Out(58 Units),Final Plats 1-4 Whispering Meadows Kimball Hill Homes Burlington Northern RR Tracks Single Family 445 297.6 Approved White Oak Estates N of W.Fox St.,W of Morgan St. Single Family 94 113.776 92.55%Built Out(86 Units) White Pine Farms Tanglewood NE Corner of Galena Rd.and Eldamain Rd. Single Family 218 283 Annexation and Zoning Stage Town Homes 242 Preliminary PUD Plan Wildwood Custom E of NE corner of Rt.47 and Rt.71 Single Family 43 27.76 88.37%Built Out(38 Units) Windett Ridge Wiseman Hughes E and SE of comer of Rt.47 and Legion Road,N of Single Family 280 163 21.79%Built Out(61 SF) Ament Rd. Windett Ridge I1 Wiseman Hughes N of NE Corner of Ament Road and Rt.47,Immediately S Town Homes 198 91.79 Concept Plan Design and Contiguous to Windett Ridge Wynstone Townhomes Wyndham S of SE Corner of Rt.47 and Rt.71,Immediately W of Town Homes 56 9.64 PUD Stage Deerpoint Fox Highlands York Wood Estates Kimball Hill Homes S of Rt.71,between Highpoint Rd.and Pavillion Rd. Single Family 198 178.3 Annexation and Zoning Stage Yorkville Senior Apartments Supportive LLCLiving, W of Rt.47,S of Greenbriar Rd.N of Sunflower Estates Apartments 50 3.48 PUD Agreement Approved Single Family Total- 12402 Town Homes Total- 4072 Total Units on Key Estimated Units Still Multi-Family Total- 593 Senior Homes Total- 56 20768 To Be Constructed Duplex Total- 1000 Age Restricted Single Family- 568 18239 Apartment Total- 482 Age Restricted Duplex- 244 Condominium Total- 1184 -This chart represents only the deeelcpr m Quit are , Mill considered sctive in develo' pui5 as of December 31,2005. This cb.0 does NOT n.M—t or depict all of the ry developments and subdivisions in tic city. `�• 'Y OF YORKVIII ,1F; Population Projection Actual Build 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011+ Tom. Name of Future Total Out Left To Build ;2006 Build 2007 Build 2008 Build 2009 - Build 2010 Build 2011 Left to BttNfl.: Development Developer Unit Type Units 2005 Build Out PE - Out PE Out PE Out PE + Out PE Out PE.' Build 'Ottt PE` Aspen Ridge Estates Aspen Ridge Single Family 218 0 218 0 0 15 56 25 94 40 150 50 188 50 188 38 143 Estates,LLC Wyndham Chally Property Single Family 234 0 234 0 0 20 75 30 113 45 169 ` 50 188 50 188 39 146 Deerpoint Corneils Crossing Pacific Homes Single Family 31 0 31 10 38 21 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dhuse Farm RA Faganel Single Family 167 0 165 0 0 10 38 30 113 30 113 30 113 30 113 35 131 Builders Evergreen Farm Tanglewood Single Family 76 0 76 0 0 0 0 15 56 25 94 25 94 11 41 ' ! 0 0.." Fox River Bluffs Inland Single Family 450 0 450 0 0 15 56 25 94 30 113 30 113 40 150 310 1,1 Harris Farm Meadowbrook Single Family 348 0 348 0 0 20 75 75 281 75 281 75 281 i 75 281 28 105 Heartland Crossing Marker Single Family 860 0 860 0 0 10 38 30 113 30 113 30 113 i 30 113 730 273$ Mallard Hudson Lakes Single Family 253 0 253 0 0 30 113 50 188 50 188 70 263 53 199 0 0 Development Inland Pacific Homes Single Family 367 0 367 0 0 20 75 40 150 50 188 50 188 50 1881: 157 589 Duplex 60 0 60 0 0 10 24 20 47 30 71 0 0 0 0 0 Gt ' Kendallwood Estates of Kendall Land Dev. Single Family 70 0 70 10 38 20 75 40 150 0 0 0 0? 0 0 0 0 Yorkville Konicek Property Tanglewood Single Family 218 0 218 0 0 0 0 10 38 25 94 30 113 30 113 123 461. Town Homes 242 0 242 0 0 0 0 10 22 25 55 30 66' 30 66 147 , 323 McKinnon Farm York Venture,LLC Single Family 774 0 774 0 0 25 94 50 188 50 188 50 188 50 188 1 549 2,059 Condominiums 386 0 386 0 0 25 48 50 95 s 50 95 50 95 50 95 161 306 MPI South(Tuttle, Single Family 1128 0 1128 0 0 25 94 120 450 125 469 125 469 125 469 608 2,280, Burkhart,Kuhn,and Moser Town Homes 504 0 504 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 88 60 132 ` 60 132 344 757 Holt) Multi-Family 325 0 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 618 0 0 0 0.:. Single Family 120 0' 120 0 0 20 75 40 150 40 150 20 75 0 0 0 0 Rob Roy Falls Sexton Town Homes 204 0 204 0 0 20 44 40 88 40 88 50 110 i 54 119. 0 0 :" Condominiums 174 0 174 0 0 20 38 40 76 40 76 40 76 34 65 > 0 Silver Fox Subdivision Midwest Single Family 187 0 187 0 0 30 113 30 113 20 75 20 75 20 75 67 251 Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Single Family 39 0 39 15 56 24 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" Windett Ridge II Wiseman Hughes Town Homes 198 0 198 0 0 50 110 50 110 50 110 48 106 0 0 0 0 York Wood Estates Wyndham Single Family 198 0 198 0 0 25 94 30 113 30 113 30 113 30 113 53 199 Deerpoint 0 7631 Future Developments Per Year Totals 35 132 455 1,504 850 2,842 940 3,081 1,288 3,777 872 2,896 3,389 11,651 `,,0o circ " Future Developments Population Totals 0 132 1,636 4,478 7,559 11,336 14,232 25,883 S 't` N O hr \'6, \ �? Current and Future Per Year Totals 1,356 4,217 2,323 6,751 2,504 7,641 2,545 7,672 2,744 7,950 1,725 5,164 5,254 1729 City Population with Current and Future 12,000 16,217 22,968 30,609 38,281 46,231 51,395 68,688 Developments This chart represents all developments on the City Development Key,and contains developments in concept stage. Commencement of construction and completion of buildout within the territories of the United City of Yorkville and the projected planning area may occur in phases. The City does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within this chart,and therefore is to be used as a planning tool only. The chart in no way represents an agreement between the City and any developer. Jan-06 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Population Projection Actualasx, � <' Build 2006 2006 2007 2008 ' ' 2009 2010 2011 2011+ Name of Future Total Out Left To Build Build " Build A Build Build Build Left to Development Developer Unit Type Units 2005 Build Out Out ,g Out Out Out Out Build Aspen Ridge i�I Aspen Ridge Estates Single Family 218 . 0 15 y 25 40 50 50 38 Estates,LLC e NUNN r Chally Property Wyndham Single Family 234 0 20 z Deerpoint § ffi 30 45 50 50 39 Sa� X.; Cornelis Crossing Pack Homes Single Family 31 10 `"td g 21 0 0 0 0 0 IN RA Faganel a iz k z< Dhuse Farm Single Family 167 0 10 p 30 x�, 30 30 30 35 Evergreen Farm Tanglewood Single Family 76 Z 0 0 �r. v a, 15 25 25 11 0 *. :. tea'+•..*:`S'4 "�°+ `t'`, r� .�x.,ryx�i#t° . Fox River Bluffs Inland Single Family 450 " 0 15 y 25 30 30 40 310 M Hams Farm Meadowbrook Single Family 348 0 20 � � 75 ' 75 75 75 28 OS 4 ? 11'i Heartland Crossing Marker Single Family 860 t� 0a 10 30 „ ° 30 30 30 730 Mallard g , Hudson Lakes Single Family 253 0 30 h 50 50 70 53 0 Development ° ; s �r �. a`* "`. a�'t ... Single Family 367 ` k � Inland Pacific Homes g Y ^ 0 20 I 40 50 50 50 157 Duplex 60 . 0 %>� 10 "fir 20 q �� 30 0 0 0 � w Kendallwood Estates of g y * 10 � 20 40 0 0 0 0 Kendall Land Dev. Single Family 70 Yorkville t Single Family 218 , 0 0 10 h 25 30 30 123 Konicek Property Tanglewood ,, Town Homes 242 1 3 , �,, s a s D M ml�`. Single Family 774 0 � 25 # �`4 50 a 50 50 50 549 McKinnon Farm York Venture,LLC ; Condominiums 386 0 F 25 in 50 50 50 50 161 szo 49 '1 MPI South(Tuttle, Single Family 1128 0 25 ' "r 120 'c 125 125 125 608 Burkhart,Kuhn,and Moser Town Homes 504 fy, 0 0 i £ 0 40 60 60 344 Holt) Multi-Family 325 ° '�`; 0 0 0 0 325 0 0 Z. a v s NOC Single Family 120 ` 0 20 40 40 20 0 0 Rob Roy Falls Sexton Town Homes 204 k 0 20 ' 40 40 50 54 0 Condominiums 174 0 20 40 40 40 34 0 %N NN <r fX } a a .a .. as�a Silver Fox Subdivision Midwest Single Family 187 ` 4i °0 f�� 30 I * 30 4 20 20 20 67 ti *,max, guC a i m 4^ 'E Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Single Family 39 ` ` ° 0 0 9 9 9 Y 15 24 �, " 0 0 0 ti .atr s 51,Windett Ridge II Wiseman Hughes Town Homes 198 ,° ,�} 0 50 j 50a f Y 50 48 0 0 I-NZIt ig Wyndham le Family York Wood Estates Sin g y 198 0 25 30 30 30 30 53 Deerpoint ° a uar Future Developments Per Year Totals 35 455 ' 850 NOW 940 1,288 872 3,389 eo c1r a� o" Future Developments Population Totals 4 xse 2,81:17 9r d Current and Future Per Year Totals 1,356 .< `� "' 2,323 2,504 2,545 2,744 1,725 5,254 CE City Population with Current and Future _ '#`, "" h` Developments " a °s This chart represents all developments on the City Development Key,and contains developments in concept stage. Commencement of construction and completion of buildout within the territories of the United City of Yorkville and the projected planning area may occur in phases. The City does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within this chart,and therefore is to be used as a planning tool only. The chart in no way re resents an agreement between the City and any developer. Jan-06