Loading...
Economic Development Packet 2003 08-21-03 QED e/T` United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County EST. _ 1836 800 Game Farm Road (/) Yorkville, Illinois 60560 o �� %' Q Phone:630-553-4350 Fax:630-553-7575 LE ‘v AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Presentation: 1. Pollution Control Ordinance by John Watson 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: June 19, 2003 2. Building Permit Report for June 2003 and July 2003 3. PC 2003-09 Windett Ridge Final Plat 4. PC 2002-27 Fisher Property Preliminary Plan 5. Development Flow Charts 6. Additional Business GCD191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Gardner Carton & Douglas Chicago, Illinois 60606 Washington, D.C. JOHN W.WATSON Tel 312 569 1000 Fax 312 569 3000 member (312) 569-1446 www.gcd.com World Law Group jwatson@gcd.com a global network of Fax(31 2) 569-3446 independent to and nt in located in 37 countries August 19, 2003 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Anton Graff City Administrator United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 RE: Pollution Control Ordinance Dear Tony: Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter will highlight the terms of the proposed retention of Gardner, Carton & Douglas to advise the United City of Yorkville ("Yorkville") in connection with the development of a Pollution Control Facility Siting Ordinance for Yorkville. As we have discussed, the development of such an Ordinance represents a logical step towards ensuring the responsible management of anticipated public services in connection with the inevitable growth issues confronted by Yorkville. As a leader in the environmental field, Gardner, Carton & Douglas is uniquely suited to advise you in connection with the development of this Ordinance. Towards that end, enclosed you will find a preliminary draft of the elements of such an Ordinance. Of course, the exact substance of the final Ordinance considered by Yorkville will likely require significant additional discussion and consideration. At present, we anticipate that fees associated with the drafting of this Ordinance and its approval by the Yorkville City Council will not exceed $10,000. Of course, this estimate may change in the event that unanticipated circumstances are encountered during administrative review and public comment on the proposed Ordinance. Please call Roy Harsch or me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, 07, Za /414-- John W. Watson JWW:kmm Enclosure cc: Roy M. Harsch CITY OF YORKVILLE POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SITING ORDINANCE Section 1. DEFINITIONS Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them as hereinafter provided: ACT: "The Environmental Protection Act,"415 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/1 et seq. APPLICANT: Any person, partnership, firm, association, corporation, Municipal corporation or unit of local government, company or organization of any kind that files a request for siting approval pursuant to this Chapter. CITY: City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois. CITY CLERK: The Yorkville City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL: The Yorkville City Council. FACILITY: A new pollution control facility as defined in the Act. PETITION: The application filed by the applicant requesting site approval for a facility. In addition, all other words used in this Chapter and defined in the Act shall have the same definitions and meanings as set forth in the Act. Section 2. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR SITING APPROVAL A. No later than 14 days before the date on which the county board or governing body of the municipality receives a request for site approval, the applicant shall cause written notice of such request to be served either in person or by registered mail, return receipt requested, on the owners of all property within the subject area not solely owned by the applicant, and on the owners of all property within 250 feet in each direction of the lot line of the subject property, said owners being such persons or entities which appear from the authentic tax records of the Kendall County; provided, that the number of all feet occupied by all public roads, streets, alleys and other public ways shall be excluded in computing the 250 feet requirement; provided further, that in no event shall this requirement exceed 400 feet, including public streets, alleys and other public ways. B. Such written notice shall also be served upon members of the General Assembly from the legislative district in which the proposed facility is located and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation. C. Such notice shall state the name and address of the applicant, the location of the proposed site, the nature and size of the development, the nature of the activity proposed, the probable life of the proposed activity, the date when the request for site approval will be submitted, and a description of the right of persons to comment on such request as hereafter provided. Section 3. APPLICATION FOR SITING APPROVAL A. A minimum of fifteen(15) complete copies of requests for siting approval, including fifteen (15) copies of all site plans, exhibits and maps, shall be delivered to the office of the City Clerk. Upon receipt of any such request for siting approval, the City Clerk shall date stamp same and immediately deliver eight(8) copies of the request for siting approval to the City Council, one copy to the City Administrator, one copy to the Director of Public Works, one copy to the City Engineer, and one copy to the office of the City Attorney. B. A copy of the request for siting approval shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of the request for siting approval or any part thereof upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. All copying requests shall be fulfilled by the City Clerk within a reasonable time from the time of the request and otherwise in conformance with the Freedom of Information Act. C. Requests for siting approval shall include the following: 1. A written petition on eight and one-half inches by eleven inches (8 1/2"x 11") paper which sets forth: a. The identification of the applicant and owner and, if the proposed site is owned in a trust, the beneficiary(ies). b. The legal description of the proposed site and a street address or some other reasonable description of where the proposed site is located. c. A description of the proposed facility, its operation and the expected longevity thereof. d. The area to be served by the proposed facility and a statement of the needs in such area for such a facility. e. The expected types, amounts and methods of treatment or storage of all wastes proposed for the site and the origins of these wastes. f. The monitoring plans, including background analyses for ground water, surface water and air. g. The plans for closure of the site and continued monitoring thereafter. h. Reasons supporting approval of the request. i. A prayer for siting approval. 2. The request for a permit made to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, if any such request has been made. 3. A site plan showing details of the proposed facility including, but not limited to: a. Cross-sections; b. All existing wells within five hundred feet (500') of the site; c. All monitoring wells; d. Fences, buildings and other structures; e. Roads, entrances and driveways; and f. Core sample locations on and within two hundred feet (200') of the site. 4. A detailed topographic survey of the subject site and the surrounding area within five hundred feet (500')which indicates land use and, if applicable, the boundary of the 100-year flood plain. 5. A statement of the plan of operation for the proposed facility including,but not limited to, the following: 2 a. Method of landfilling, incineration, composting, resource recovery or other process; b. Hours of operation; c. Personnel and their training; d. Litter, vector, dust and odor control; e. Surface drainage and erosion control; f. Fire control; and g. Corrective actions for spills and other operational accidents. 6. A statement or report of traffic impact regarding the proposed site including the anticipated number of vehicles and their size, weight and direction of movement. 7. All studies, maps, reports, permits or exhibits which the applicant desires the City to consider at the public hearing, including all documents submitted to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency pertaining to the proposed facility. 8. Certificates of insurance, from companies having a Best rating of A VI or better, verifying the insurance policies carried by the applicant to cover accidents such as fires, explosions, nonsudden accidental occurrences and pollution impairment. 9. If the site is a proposed hazardous waste facility, a copy of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act Contingency Plan. 10. A statement describing the past operating experience of the applicant (and any subsidiary, parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation) in the field of solid waste management. 11. A statement citing the past record of convictions of admissions of violations of the applicant (and any subsidiary, parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation). Said statement shall include,but not be limited to, a citation of the applicable statute or ordinance violated, a brief written summary of the violation or conviction and the penalty imposed. 12. Proof of notice given by an applicant pursuant to section 5/39.2(6) of the Act. a. A dollar($ ) application fee in the form of a certified or cashier's check to cover notice costs, court reporter costs, transcription costs, City consultant costs and other expenses incurred by the City in conducting the review of the request for siting approval, the subsequent public hearing and the siting approval decision; provided, however, that any portion of the application fee that remains unexpended at the conclusion of the siting approval decision shall be returned to the applicant. b. In the event that, at any time prior to the conclusion of the siting approval decision, the City has expended such sums as to reduce the balance of the application fee to a figure less than dollars ($ ), the applicant will be notified in writing with a list of expenses incurred. The applicant would then have fourteen (14) days to deposit with the City Clerk, an additional dollars ($ ) in the form of a certified or cashier's check. Any portion of the fees, including any additional fees that remain unexpended at the conclusion of the siting approval decision, shall be returned to the applicant. 13. The pages of the application and all exhibits submitted to the City shall be consecutively numbered. 3 D. An application for siting approval may not be filed which is substantially the same as a request which was disapproved pursuant to a finding against an applicant under any of criteria of subsection 9B of this Chapter within the preceding two (2)years. E. No application for siting approval shall be deemed to have been filed or accepted for filing unless all of the requirements of this Chapter applicable thereto shall have been met, and the City Clerk shall not give a receipt or other indication of filing until such time as it is determined by the Department of Public Works that the application complies with the requirements of this Chapter, specifically, subsection C of this Section. Within twenty one (21) days after delivery of an application, the City Clerk shall advise the applicant either: 1. That the application is complete and that it has been accepted for filing, designating the date of filing; or 2. That the application is not complete, specifying wherein it is deficient. The acceptance of the application by the City Clerk is a pro forma acceptance. The applicant is solely responsible for providing sufficient technical information to meet its burden of proving the cnteria cited in section 5/39.2(a) of Act, as may be amended from time to time. The City Clerk shall cause to have published no later than thirty(30) days after the date of filing of the application a black border notice stating that such application and supporting evidence are available in the City Clerk's office for public inspection. F. In order to give members of the public an opportunity to make informed written comment pursuant to section 5/39.2(c) of the Act and to give members of the public and departments of the City an opportunity to prepare adequately and fairly for the public hearing hereinafter described, the applicant must fully comply with all application requirements as set forth in subsection C hereof. Failure to submit any required information with the application shall render such required information inadmissible at said public hearing. G. At any time prior to the completion by the applicant of the presentation of the applicant's factual evidence and an opportunity for cross-examination by the City Council and any participants, the applicant may file not more than one amended application upon payment of additional fees in the sum of dollars ($ ); provided, however, that the time limitations for final action by the City Council shall be extended for an additional period of ninety(90) days. H. Other amendments may be made if, in the opinion of the City Council, any such proposed amendment is nonsubstantive and a majority of the City Council allows such amendments. Section 4. REVIEW OF APPLICATION A. Upon receipt of a copy of a request for siting approval, the Director of Public Works shall notify the following of such receipt: 1. Department of Zoning Appeals. 2. Plan Commission. 3. Budget Officer. 4. Building Inspector. 4 5. All City consultants. B. The Department of Public Works shall be the Department responsible for coordinating review of the request for siting approval by those mentioned above and is authorized to call meetings and set deadlines for the submittal of reports and recommendations. C. Those mentioned above are authorized to prepare and submit reports and recommendations in response to the request for siting approval. Preliminary reports, reports, studies, exhibits and any written comments concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site that the City departments and consultants desire to submit for the record at the public hearing shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days in advance of the date set for public hearing. In the event that the tenth day prior to the date set for public hearing falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next working day shall be considered the day that such information shall be filed. Copies of such information shall be available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk. Members of the public shall be allowed to obtain copies of such information upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. D. Those mentioned above may attend the public hearing and may ask such questions as needed to assist in reaching their recommendations. E. The City departments and consultants retained by the City are authorized to present testimony at the public hearing as hereinafter described. Section 5. INFORMATION FROM OTHER PARTIES All reports, studies, exhibits or other evidence or copies thereof, other than testimony, which any person, other than the applicant, desires to submit for the record at the public hearing must be filed with the City Clerk at least ten (10) days before the public hearing. In the event that the tenth day prior to the date set for public hearing falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next working day shall be considered the day that such information must be filed. Copies of such information shall be available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk. Members of the public shall be allowed to obtain copies of such information upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. Section 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. When Held: 1. No sooner than ninety(90)but no later than one hundred twenty(120) days from the date of filing of the request for siting approval with the City Clerk, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council. 2. Within twenty(20) working days of the date a request for siting approval is accepted for filing, the City Council shall determine the date, time and location of said public hearing, but in any event, the public hearing must be scheduled to commence no sooner than ninety(90) days but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the request for siting approval was accepted for filing by the City Clerk. 5 t , B. Notice of Hearing: The City Council shall notify the City Clerk of the date upon which such hearing shall be held and shall request the City Clerk to cause notice of such hearing to be made as follows: 1. Publish two (2) legal notices in a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of the proposed facility. One such notice shall be published no later than sixty(60) days from the date of filing of an application, and one such notice shall be published no later than seventy five (75) days from the date of filing of an application. Such notices shall consist of the following: a. The name and address of the applicant. b. The owners of the site and, in case ownership is in a land trust, the names of the beneficiaries of said trust. c. The legal description of the site. d. The street address of the property and, if there is no street address applicable to the property, a description of the site with reference to location, ownership or occupancy or in some other manner that will reasonably identify the property to residents of the neighborhood. e. The nature and size of the proposed development. f. The nature of the activity proposed. g. The probable life of the proposed activity. h. The time and date of the public hearing. i. The location of the public hearing. j. A statement that all copies of evidence other than oral testimony to be submitted at the public hearing must be filed with the City Clerk at least ten (10) days before the public hearing. 2. Certified mail to all members of the general assembly from the district in which the proposed site is located. 3. Certified mail to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 4. Certified mail to the County of Kendall and all municipalities within one and one- half(1 1/2) miles of the proposed facility. 5. Public hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation published as a display at least once during the week preceding the public hearing. Such notice shall consist of all items described in subsection B1 above except for items 1 c and lj. C. Hearing Procedures: 1. The Mayor shall preside over the public hearing and shall make any decisions concerning the admission of evidence and the manner in which the hearing is conducted, subject to this Chapter. The Mayor shall make all decisions and rulings in accordance with fundamental fairness. The Mayor may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent or unduly repetitious testimony or other evidence. No ruling of the Mayor shall be appealable. 2. The applicant for siting approval shall have the burden of going forward with evidence of the suitability of the site location for the proposed use. 3. Any person appearing at such public hearing shall have the right to give testimony and comment on the suitability of the site location for the proposed use. Any 6 person shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at said public hearing. Such persons shall have the right of reasonable cross-examination. 4. Conduct of the public hearing shall be as follows: a. Call to order. b. Recognition of the applicant and identification of the request for siting approval. c. Recognition of fees, notices and dates of filing of the request for siting approval. d. Recognition of the City staff and consultants and other parties wishing to testify and any other reports, exhibits, maps or documents of record as filed pursuant to this Chapter. All parties, including members of the public, intending to testify or cross-examine must sign in or submit written notification of said intent to the City Clerk on or before the first day of the public hearing. Should the public hearing extend beyond one day, additional parties or members of the public, not of record as of the first day of the public hearing, will not be allowed to present testimony or cross-examine. e. The applicant, the City and other parties may make an opening statement. f. The City Council shall then hear testimony and receive evidence from the applicant and/or any witnesses the applicant may wish to call. Upon the close of the applicant's testimony, other parties may offer expert witnesses and evidence they may wish to present. These other parties may or may not be represented by counsel. Upon the close of the applicant's and other parties' testimony and evidence, the City may present any witnesses and evidence it wishes to present. g. All witnesses shall testify under oath. Testimony may include the use of exhibits. All witnesses shall be subject to reasonable questioning, as follows: direct, cross-examination, redirect, recross, etc. After all parties have presented testimony, reasonable rebuttal, sur-rebuttal, etc., may be allowed at the discretion of the Mayor. h. Should any issues, facts, data or other evidence arise during the course of the public hearing which were not apparent or reasonably foreseeable by a party from the request for siting approval as filed with the City Clerk, such situation may constitute grounds for a recess in the public hearing for a period not to exceed five (5) working days. i. Summary statements by applicant, other parties and the City, subject to limitations as imposed by the Mayor. j. Rebuttal statement, if any, by the applicant, subject to limitations as imposed by the Mayor. k. Hearing closed. Section 7. PUBLIC COMMENT A. The City Clerk shall receive written comment from any person concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site. Upon receipt of any such written comment, the City Clerk 7 shall date stamp and shall file such written comment and the postmarked envelope in which such comment was received. B. Copies of such written comments shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of any written comment upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. C. Any written comment received by the City Clerk or postmarked not later than thirty(30) days after the close of the public hearing shall be made part of the record of the public hearing as hereinafter described, and the City Council shall consider any such timely written comments in making its final determination concerning said siting request. In the event that the thirtieth day falls on a Sunday or a Federal holiday, the next day on which mail is delivered shall be considered the thirtieth day for purposes of this subsection. Section 8. RECORDS KEPT A. The City Clerk shall be responsible for keeping the records of said hearing. The record shall consist of the following: 1. The request for siting approval as described in subsection 3C hereof. 2. Proof of notice as described in subsection 6B hereof. 3. Written comments filed by the public and received by the City Clerk or postmarked within thirty(30) days of the close of the hearing. 4. All reports, studies, exhibits or documents received into evidence at the public hearing. 5. The transcript of the public hearing. 6. Findings of fact and recommendation of the City Council. 7. The resolution containing the final decision of the City Council. B. The City Clerk shall be responsible for certifying all copies of the record of the public hearing. Section 9. SITING APPROVAL DECISION A. After the public hearing and any continuation thereof, the City Council shall hold a public review meeting for purposes of establishing findings of fact and a recommendation concerning the siting approval request. Any findings of fact and recommendation shall be supported by the record. A written resolution thereof shall be presented to the City Council within one hundred seventy(170) days from the City Clerk's acceptance of the filing of the siting approval request. B. In making its recommendation on the request for siting approval, the City Council shall base its decision on the following criteria: 1. The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to serve; 2. The facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; 8 " 3. The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding property; 4. The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain; 5. The plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents; 6. The traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows; 7. If the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental release; 8. If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any and all applicable requirements specified by the Illinois Pollution Control Board for such area have been met; and 9. If a solid waste management plan was previously adopted for Kendall County prior to the filing of the Petition, the facility is consistent with that plan. C. The City Council shall consider as evidence the previous operating experience and past record of convictions or admissions of violations of the applicant (and any subsidiary, parent corporation or subsidiary of the parent corporation) in the field of solid waste management when considering criteria in subsection B2 and B5 of this Section. D. The City Council shall consider the record from the public hearing and shall make a determination concerning a siting approval request within one hundred eighty(180) days from the City Clerk's acceptance of the filing of the siting approval request. The City Council may conditionally approve any request for siting approval; provided, such conditions are not inconsistent with regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. E. No determination by the City Council of a siting approval request may be reconsidered. F. A local siting approval granted under this Chapter shall expire at the end of 2 calendar years from the date upon which it was granted, unless the local siting approval granted under this Chapter is for a sanitary landfill operation, in which case the approval shall expire at the end of 3 calendar years from the date upon which it was granted, and unless within that period the applicant has made application to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to develop the site. In the event that the local siting decision has been appealed, such expiration period shall be deemed to begin on the date upon which the appeal process is concluded. G. Siting approval obtained pursuant to this Chapter is transferable and may be transferred to a subsequent owner or operator. In the event that siting approval has been transferred to a subsequent owner or operator, that subsequent owner or operator assumes and takes subject to any and all conditions imposed upon the prior owner or operator by City Council pursuant to this Section. However, any such conditions imposed pursuant to this Chapter may be modified by agreement between the subsequent owner or operator and the appropriate county board or governing body. Further, in the event that siting approval obtained pursuant to this Chapter has 9 been transferred to a subsequent owner or operator, that subsequent owner or operator assumes all rights and obligations and takes the facility subject to any and all terms and conditions of any existing host agreement between the prior owner or operator and the appropriate county board or governing body. Section 10. ADMINISTRATION OF FEES AND COSTS A. Upon termination of any proceedings under this Chapter, a final accounting and summary of all authorized expenditures and reimbursements shall be presented to the City Council. B. Any portion of an application fee not required for reimbursement to the City for costs and expenses incurred by the City under this Chapter shall be returned to the applicant. Should there be costs and/or expenses in excess of the amount paid by the applicant in the application fee, the applicant shall bear any and all additional costs. C. In order to properly administer the application fee received with respect to this Chapter, the City Collector is hereby authorized and directed to receive and hold such application fees for administration subject to the review and approval of the City Council. D. In order to expedite payment of all bills incurred as a result of administering this Chapter, all bills and questions concerning billing should be directed to the City Collector. CH02/22257552.1 10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT THURSDAY, 7 P.M. In Attendance: Committee members: Aldermen Richard Sticka and Joe Besco, and Alderwoman Wanda Ohare; Mayor Art Prochaska; City Attorney Kelly Kramer; Alan Brauer, Land Vision; Rodger Brown, New Directions Housing; Dick Huston, Yorkville;Anthony A. Casaccio, Inland; Anthony V. Casaccio, Inland; Anna Kurtzman, Yorkville; William Dettmer, Yorkville; and Lynn Dubajic, Yorkville Economic Development Corporation. MINUTES Minutes from the May 16, 2003 meeting were approved. PC 2003-04 Caledonia preliminary plat approval Alan Brauer with Land Vision reviewed the background of the annexation agreement reached in 1995. The agreement allows for four units per acre and doesn't stipulate whether the homes be townhomes or single family. The property consists of 85.28 acres west of the Yorkville Business Park. The planned development includes 215 lots with an average size of 11,000 square feet. The smallest lot size is just over 9,000 square feet and the maximum lot size is 27,000 square feet. Density of the project is at 2.5 units per acre and the open space covers 10.63 acres. The plan before the Economic Development Committee has undergone several changes. It started with duplexes and single-family housing. But this plan, with all single-family homes is the one Inland is most confident with. Brauer said the Plan Commission had issues with the lots sizes, which are on average 65 feet by 140 feet. The side yard setbacks are 6.5 feet. There's a road stub to the east and to the west,the roadway would connect to the industrial park. Some of the comments from the Plan Commission centered on the 6.5 foot side yards. Brauer said Plan Commission members seemed to think it would be difficult fighting fires with that size of side yard. One solution to the problem would to prohibit fences and certain types of landscaping, Brauer said. Another issue was the flood plain. He said there are some questions about whether part of the property falls in the flood plain. Alderman Joe Besco asked what the city's comprehensive plan calls for. Sticka said it calls for residential zoning. He said they city had hoped to develop the property for • Page2of6 industrial uses. But after so many years, the developers were allowed to zone the property residential. Sticka, who attended the Plan Commission meeting, said the Plan Commission voted unanimously against the preliminary plat. He said the strongest opposition centered on the lot sizes and setbacks. Sticka told the developers that when the city agreed to a greater density than it usually allows, it didn't mean that the developers could plan smaller lot sizes and reduce the setbacks. Anthony Casaccio said that by changing the original plans to only include single-family housing, the developers thought they were devising a plan more palatable to the city. However, Sticka said the city never said it would agree to reduce setbacks or smaller lots. But, Casaccio said the financially, this is the only way to do it. He added there are all types of subdivisions some of which have lots that are 50 feet wide and seem to work. The purpose of being at the EDC meeting is to get direction from the members. Sticka informed the committee members that City Planner Mike Schoppe said smaller lots can be done well, but in the city's instance they generally are allowed only when the lots abut open space. Casaccio said he wants to be flexible, but the development also needs to be economically viable. Mayor Art Prochaska said this property was annexed to the city a number of years ago to bring needed development into the city. At the time, an agreement was made to allow four units per acre. Now, he said it is up to the City Council to look at what is the value of the development and what is an acceptable compromise to having a lesser density. Sticka said that while the city agreed to a greater density, it didn't agree to smaller lot sizes and setbacks. He said he doesn't want to dismiss the Plan Commission's recommendations out of hand. Many of the members held very strong opinions, he said. Alderwoman Wanda Ohare suggested that the development be redesigned so that the lots abut open space. However, Sticka said the developers would lose some lots. Casaccio said the only alternative that remains is multi-family housing. He said they've tried to take directions they've hears from a series of meetings with city staff to develop a plan that could earn approval. He added that they are far enough in the process that they would like to continue with the present plan. He added that precedents have been set in that the city is allowing 9,000 square foot lots in the Grande Reserve development. Page 3 of 6 Mayor Prochaska said that at the Plan Commission, members indicated they could accept the smaller lot widths given, but the major contention was the size of the side yards. He asked if it was possible for the developers to make adjustments to make the lots wiser. He said that there are many styles of homes that could better fit on the more narrow lots than other styles. Casaccio said the market study in Yorkville indicated that ranch-style homes are preferred. Also, he said there are some people who prefer smaller lots for maintenance and other reasons. Casaccio said it's always a balancing act to achieve what the city wants and what the market indicates. Sticka suggested that a compromise could be reached to achieve 15 yards between homes, which was done in the White Eagle development in Aurora. Casaccio didn't think an arrangement like that would work. In a market like the White Eagle development, architects looked at the site plans and made it work, he said. In this development, a track builder would come in, who might only have 22 different houses, making it difficult to determine which houses should go on certain lots. Mayor Prochaska said the city is looking at developing standards for the development, which could require single-story and two-story homes to be built at certain distances from the property line. Sticka said he still wouldn't feel comfortable with any distance less than 15 feet between homes. Casaccio said if 15 feet is acceptable, then the developers may have to lose some lots to accomplish that. He then asked for more feedback. Ohare said 15 feet is much more agreeable. Ohare also asked about the traffic plan. Brauer said a study is being conducted and that most of the traffic will go through the north end of the property rather than through the industrial park. On the topic of the flood plain, Casaccio said Engineering Enterprises Inc., believes part of the property may be in a flood plain. He said he believes some more cross sections of land might need to be taken in the watershed area. The issue must be dealt with before the development reaches the final plat stage, he added. It may be an issue of compensatory storage, he said. Mayor Prochaska said he wants to see a buffer space along the western border of the proposed development and the property zoned M-1. Casaccio said the developers would do their best to modify the plan and make adjustments. Page4of6 PC2003-06 Senior Apartment Housing Rezoning Rodger Brown with New Directions Housing said he went to the Plan Commission with a proposal for a senior housing development on 3.48 acres near the corner of Route 47 and Greenbriar. The plan presented is for a three-story building with one- and two-bedroom units and a covered entrance. An uncovered parking area would be provided at a ration of two lots for every housing unit. Changes were made to the architectural drawing of the proposed housing unit after comments were made about its looks at the previous meeting. Brown said the draft design now includes brick and siding, windows were arranged to break up the building and a grass way was included between the parking lot and building. However, Sticka said the building still looks too institutional. Brown said would be happy to change the look of the building but wanted suggestions from the committee. Ohare asked why a covered carport area wasn't included and Brown said cost was the main factor,plus city doesn't allow carports. After talking to city staff members who indicated that weather issues were one of the main reasons for requiring enclosed parking, Brown said he offered to have management staff be available to provide a valet service for residents during regular office hours. Sticka said the issue of enclosed parking is a serious one. Part of the city's goal is to have the type of development where garages are provided. However, he added that a carport offer a solution. Brown said if money weren't an issue, they would add a garage. Bill Dettmer, the city's code official, said he studied 11 to 14 communities on the issue of parking and none of them required covered parking for their senior housing developments. Mayor Prochaska told the committee he wouldn't give in on the provision to require at least some covered parking. He advised that the committee could ask the staff to proceed and draft a Planned Unit Development for the housing complex or possibly a special use. He said he'd like to look at the density allowable for senior housing and acceptable parking allowances, adding that he'd like to see at least some covered parking. Yorkville resident Dick Huston said that in looking at parking allowances and other factors,the city should take into consideration what ages it will include for senior housing. He said there's a world of difference between retirees who are 62 and those who are 55. Page 5 of 6 He said he tried to work with the city earlier on a senior housing development. He believes his property is ideal for senior housing, but he couldn't get it to work with all of the city's standards. Sticka said if the city does devise standards for senior housing, the standards should include both age groups. Mayor Prochaska said for developments for residents 62 and older, they might require less parking and look at the size of the units slightly differently. For residents who are 55 and older who are generally more active, the standards may need to be a little higher, he said. Mayor Prochaska suggested the staff create either a PUD or special use and bring it to the Committee of the Whole. Sticka said he wouldn't feel comfortable approving the proposed development unless some standards are formed. When asked about the time frame for obtaining financing on the project, Brown replied that the earliest deadline would be November. At that time, zoning would need to be in place in order to apply. Mayor Prochaska said the city is willing to work with the developers on this project. City Attorney Kelly Kramer said she would contact Brown to let him know which is the quickest and best way to proceed—either with a PUD or special use. In the meantime, Brown asked again for suggestions regarding the looks of the building. Anna Kurtzman suggested breaking up the roofline with gables, adding columns or something that gives the illusion of columns, breaking up the windows so they don't fall in straight lines or adding window boxes. PC2002-10 Hopkins Corner annexation and rezoning No one was in attendance to discuss the matter. Building permit report for May The reports were accepted. Proposed Ordinance Revisions Dettmer attended the meeting to go over proposed amendments to the landscape code, a proposed appearance code to be applied throughout Yorkville and proposed regulations for an architectural overlay district. On the proposed amendments to the landscape code, Dettmer said there are no provisions in the current landscape ordinance for maintaining landscaping once it is planted or installed. The city does not require property owners to maintain landscaping or replace it if it dies. While the city's ordinance is tough, it doesn't do any good if it doesn't require maintenance, he said. Sticka agreed it is a loophole that needs to be closed. Page 6 of 6 Dettmer suggested the city create a board to review improperly maintained areas and forward them to the City Council. As for the appearance code, Mayor Prochaska said that unless any committee members saw anything grossly undesirable in it, the draft is a good start. Sticka asked for clarification on several items in the draft and pointed out several a few sentences that needed revisions. In many places, the word "encouraged" is used. Sticka wondered if"required"would be a better word. He also suggested "construction material" be redefined in the proposed code. As for the regulations for an Architectural Overlay District, Sticka said creating a district is a really good idea. Mayor Prochaska said he'd like to get the regulations installed as soon as possible, adding that the regulations would not affect current residents unless they want to change the use of their property. The district would include an area along Route 47 down to Route 126. Dettmer said the mayor is considering changing the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Appeal Board and would be in charge of appeals to the overlay ordinance or landscaping ordinance. Appeals to the appearance code would go to the Façade Committee. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe (The meeting inadvertently was not taped.) BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville June 2003 ........................................................ Types of Permits Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Fantily Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost June 2003' 104 34 2 0 4 0 64 $8,083,515.00 Calendar Year 2003' 412 161 6 0 15 1 229 $39,392,920.00 Fiscal Year 2003' 197 65 3 0 7 0 122 $15,614,519.00 June 2002 83 17 0 0 4 0 62 $3,543,862.00 Calendar Year 2002 2 407 135 2 2 26 0 242 $31,067,005.00 • Fiscal Year 2002 166 40 0 0 10 0 116 $9,278,776.00 June 2001 60 22 2 3 0 1 32 $5,639,428.00 Calendar Year 2001 Sas 226 77 3 4 4 1 137 $18,114,978.00 Fiscal Year 2001 3°5 113 33 2 3 1 1 73 $8,317,558.00 • June 2000 39 14 0 0 0 0 25 $1,985,215.00 Calendar Year 2000 6 172 56 0 0 2 0 113 $8,435,922.50 Fiscal Year 2000 67 80 26 0 0 1 0 53 $3,798,844.00 ' • June 1999 8 27 3 1 0 4 0 19 $927,202.00 • Calendar Year 1999 8 142 45 3 0 6 0 91 $11,254,260.00 Fiscal Year 19998 64 20 2 0 5 0 41 $7,072,301.00 t Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 412 of 413 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 2 Permit Number Y-2002-034 was voided,thus only 407 of 408 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 3 Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 495 of 496 assigned permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Number 01478 was for 4 Attached SFDs(Townhomes);reissued as Permits 01478A,B,C,and D. Also,Permit Number 01480 was for 6 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01480A,B,C,D,E,and F. Permit Number 01385 was for 6 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F. 5 Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFD5;reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D. 6 Permits Number 00122,00189 and 00262 were each for 6 Attached SFDs. 'Permit Number 00101 was voided,thus only 233 of 234 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 8 Permit Number 99080 was for 5 Attached SFDs. BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville July 2003 ............................................................ TypesP Y c ofPermits Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial nl In dustrta [ Miscellaneous I Total Construction Cost July 2003' 107 36 5 0 4 0 62 $10,695,205.00 Calendar Year 2003' 519 197 11 0 19 1 291 $50,088,125.00 Fiscal Year 2003' 304 101 8 0 11 0 184 $26,309,724.00 July 2002 83 22 1 0 2 0 58 $5,227,116.00 Calendar Year 2002 2 490 157 3 2 28 0 300 $36,294,121.00 Fiscal Year 2002 249 62 1 0 12 0 174 $14,505,892.00 July 2001 55 22 2 0 1 0 30 $6,998,754.00 Calendar Year 2001345 281 99 5 4 5 1 167 $25,113,732.00 Fiscal Year 2001 3 45 168 55 4 3 2 1 103 $15,316,312.00 July 2000 33 14 1 0 2 0 21 $2,253,716.00 Calendar Year 2000 6 265 87 1 0 4 0 134 $10,689,638.50 Fiscal Year 2000 6 7 173 57 1 0 3 0 74 $6,052,560.00 July 1999 8 20 3 1 0 1 0 15 $1,280,782.00 Calendar Year 1999 8 162 48 4 0 7 0 106 $12,535,564.00 Fiscal Year 1999 8 84 23 3 0 6 0 56 $8,353,083.00 1 Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 412 01413 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 7 Permit Number Y-2002-034 was voided,thus only 407 of 408 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 3 Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 495 of 496 assigned permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Number 01478 was for 4 Attached SFDs(Townhomes);reissued as Permits 01478A,B,C,and D. Also,Permit Number 01480 was for 6 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01480A,B,C,D,E,and F. Permit Number 01385 was for 6 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F. 5 Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D. 6 Permits Number 00122,00189 and 00262 were each for 6 Attached SFDs. 7 Permit Number 00101 was voided,thus only 233 of 234 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 5 Permit Number 99080 was for 5 Attached SFDs. 1 M). ©@LTB@® g@Lo@gpi D g ej Petitioner 119' lltio m This process is based on a (minimum) six week cycle. It takes roughly two weeks to review your application and two weeks to set Submit Concept Plan, Fees up the staff meeting. The required Park meeting and Plan and Completed Application / Commission can not be attended (for business) if the application has not been accepted and the staff meeting has not been executed. Also, note that the Park Board Meeting is on the 4th (---- Monday of each month, and the Plan Commission is on the 2nd Staff Meeting - City Administrator, Wednesday of each month, and must be attended in that order. City Land Planner, and Deputy Clerk Therefore, in order for the petitioner to complete the Concept Plan review plan — scheduled within two weeks Flow Chart in the least amount of time, the latest date that the application for the concept plan can be accepted in order to have from application's acceptance the Staff Meeting completed in time for the Park Board Meeting -will lir be on the first of each month. If the application is turned in before or on the first of the month, the city will have ample time to review and accept the concept plan and then schedule a meeting with the Park Board Planning Meeting — petitioner. If the application is turned in after the first of the month, fourth Monday of each month the petitioner must wait until the next month's scheduled board at 7 pm at the Beecher Center meeting (even if petition is turned in before current month's Park (only required for developments Board Meeting). Please note that because the of the schedule of the meetings and due dates, a "late" application could mean that the with residential components) Concept Plan process could take as long as nine or ten weeks. � Plan Commission for ' `, Public Comment and Commission �. � �� �` 1836Submit New Application, a*1= Recommendations - held the second Specific to Your Request 9 <:72.7.,'..1 Wednesday of each month at 7 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers Revised 7-24-03 BAO �`4,„) CITY FlowØlOnino , p � Ill ., ( Petitioner aT%I we 40 The rezoning flow chart process is based on a minimum '4E 1_,,,,:._; Submit Special Use 9% week process. Please note that the Rezoning Application, application, fees, and all fees, and all other required materials are all due 45 days before the desired Plan Commission meeting. In addition, an application with a other required materials legal description must be submitted to the Clerk's office on the second __)JIL Thursday of the month that is previous to the month that contains the (-- Plan Commission meeting: this is because the legal notice (drafted by For public hearing - complete and submit Clerk's office) for the public hearing must be published in the newspaper on the third Thursday of the month. After the Plan to Clerk's office - application with legal Commission, the petitioner must attend the Economic Development description by the second Thursday of the month Committee, where the project will be reviewed and an EDC that is previous to the month that contains the recommendation will be given. After the recommendation has been ublic hearing at the Plan Commission meeting given by the EDC, the project will go to a Committee of the Whole meeting. The COW will review the EDC recommendation, and may then recommend revisions to the plat. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent Plan Commission and Public to City Council, where formal voting will take place. Petitioners are Hearing — second Wednesday of strongly advised to study the calendar and schedule of dates very each month at 7 min the Ci I carefully because the meetings must be attended in the order p presented here, despite the fact that the meetings may be out of Hall Council Chambers chronological order for the month. Committee of the Whole — City Council — second and Economic Development first and third Tuesday of fourth Tuesday of each Committee — third Thursday of each month at 7 pm in the month at 7 pm in the City each month at 7 pm in the City Hall Conference Room Hall Council Chambers City Hall Conference Room Revised 7-24-03 BAO Petitioner Annexation a7nd oning Request Io• Chart cv,,0 CIT` i � ; rlSubmit Annexation and , ` 1836 Zoning Request, fees, and 9'�1 y all other materials ,4E To' City Council and Public Hearing - For public hearing - complete and submit to (Public Hearing is only required for Clerk's office - application with legal description annexation agreements) fourth Tuesday by the second Thursday of the month that is of each month at 7 pm in the previous to the month that contains the public City Hall Council Chambers hearing at the Plan Commission meeting ir (Committee of the Whole — Plan Council — second and first and third Tuesday of fourth Thursday of each each month at 7 pm in the Month at 9:30 am in the City \ tyHall Conference Room Administration Office Revised 7-24-03 BAO Economic Development Park Board Planning Plan Commission and Public Committee — third Thursday Meeting — fourth Monday Hearing — second Wednesday of of each month at 7 pm in of each month at 7 pm each month at 7 pm in the City the City Hall Conference in the Beecher Center Hall Council Chambers Room Annexatiocoicix9 Reejue& The process for Annexation and Zone Requests will take a minimum 9 weeks to complete. It should be noted that the application, fees, and all other materials must be turned in 45 days before the desired Plan Commission meeting. In addition, an application with a legal description must be submitted to the Clerk's office on the second Thursday of the month that is previous to the month that contains the Plan Commission meeting: this is because the legal notice for the public hearing must be published in the newspaper on the third Thursday of the month. At this point, please note that the petitioner is required to notify all adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject property by mail. This must be done no less than fifteen days and no more than 30 days prior to the public hearing date. It should also be noted that because of the structure of the schedules of the Park Board Planning Meeting and Plan Council, the Plan Council meeting must be attended on the second Thursday of the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting, unless the 4th Thursday of the month (for Plan Council) falls before the 4th Monday of the month (Park Board Planning Meeting), all of which must fall in the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting. This only means that the Plan Council and Park Board Planning Meeting must first be attended (in the correct order) in order to attend the petitioner's desired Plan Commission. After the Plan Commission, the petitioner must attend the Economic Development Committee, where the project will be reviewed and an EDC recommendation will be given. After the recommendation has been given by the EDC, the project will go to a Committee of the Whole meeting. The COW will review the EDC recommendation, and may then recommend revisions to the plat. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent to City Council, where formal voting will take place. If annexation has been requested, then a second public hearing during the City Council Meeting will be required, and will only be held on the fourth Tuesday of the month. No mailings to adjacent property owners will be required at this time. If annexation has not been requested, the petitioner may have a City Council meeting scheduled on the second or fourth Tuesday of the month. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to study the dates of the meetings to minimize the amount of time that it takes to complete the entire process. EST - �- _ 1e38 Revised 7-24-03 BAO ( Petitioner �.��o CO.). tis:..ti\- "", tHIt_, hiE� �� � ERNESL t•1.'�__ 1838 S twiiqj C Submit Special Use , _ is ii1 , r° The Special Use-Zoning flow chart process is based on a minimum 9% <CE 0, week process. Please note that the Special Use Application, fees, and all application, fees, and all other required materials are all due 45 days before the desired Plan other required materials Commission meeting. In addition, an application with a legal description must be submitted to the Clerk's office on the second Thursday of the month that is previous to the month that contains the Plan Commission For Public Hearing - complete and submit to meeting: this is because the legal notice for the public hearing must be published in the newspaper on the third Thursday of the month. For this Clerk's Office - application with legal description public hearing, the petitioner is required to notify by mail all adjacent by the second Thursday of the month that is property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This must be done previous to the month that contains the public no less than 15 days, and no greater than 30 days before the public hearing at the Plan Commission meeting hearing at the Plan Commission meeting. Also, the Plan Council meeting must be attended before the desired Plan Commission meeting. Please note that the petitioner may only have two or three dates to attend the Plan Plan Council — second and Council meeting before the Plan Commission meeting. After the Plan Commission, the petitioner must attend the Economic Development Fourth Thursday of each Committee, where the project will be reviewed and an EDC recommend- month at 9:30 am in the City / ation will be given. After the recommendation has been given by the EDC, Administration Office / the project will go to a Committee of the Whole meeting. The COW will review the EDC recommendation, and may then recommend revisions to the plat. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent to City Council, where formal voting Plan Commission and Public will take place. Petitioners are strongly advised to study the calendar and Hearing — second Wednesday of schedule of dates very carefully because the meetings must be attended in each month at 7 pm in the City the order presented here, despite the fact that the meetings may be out of Hall Council Chambers chronological order for the month. Economic Development Committee of the Whole — City Council — second and Committee — third Thursday of first and third Tuesday of fourth Tuesday of each each month at 7 pm in the each month at 7 pm in the month at 7 pm in the City CityHall Conference Room City Hall Conference Room Hall Council Chambers Revised 7-24-03 BAO Revised 7-24-03 BAO mow• .', 5, +a} ., ti .`w ._ Petitioner , .�, t m , r, . I i 1.a I i two I, ItPoi , „. I, ! te Submit Final Plat application, fees, Final Engineering Plan, Final Landscape, and Final Plat sixty days before desired Plan Commission Meeting .c0:0 Co., 1 Il11 1 1 Staff Meeting - for application Staff a a and plat review _) EST. 0 1836 II "\� - tiet [1] .Te -- - R. O Plan Council — second and County Kendall County Fourth Thursdayof each *IP Upon approval by City Month at 9:30 am in the City LE Council, final plat submitted Administration Office to Deputy Clerk ir Plan Commission — second Committee of the Whole — City Council — second and Wednesday of each month at 7 pm first and third Tuesday of fourth Tuesday of each in the City Hall Council Chambers each month at 7 pm in the month at 7 pm in the City City Hall Conference Room Hall Council Chambers � C }gyp � m7'� •+ .y' ,ahai I � � � � :::,. �� +Si ! Mir � �' ��' �nW i� � ¢_ttd yyyy i fg '"J 1 tif�f �, b di The Final Plat flow chart illustrates a process that will take an estimated 12 weeks (for meetings) to complete. Please note that the Final Plat application, fees, and all other required materials are all due 60 days before the desired Plan Commission meeting. Also, the Plan Council meeting must be attended before the scheduled Plan Commission meeting. Please note that the petitioner may only have two or three dates to attend the Plan Council meeting before the Plan Commission meeting. After the Plan Commission, the petitioner will attend the Committee of the Whole meeting. At the COW meeting, the project will be reviewed and may receive recommendations for further revisions. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent to City Council, where formal voting will take place. The meeting process will end with the City Council meeting, and upon approval, will proceed to the recording stage. The recording process involves approval by the city engineer, and all fees being up to date with the city. After both of these conditions are met, the petitioner may then submit the final plat (mylar) for signatures prior to being recorded at the County Clerk's office. Petitioners are strongly advised to study the calendar and schedule of dates very carefully because the meetings must be attended in the order presented here, despite the fact that the meetings may be out of chronological order for the month. Often times, this will mean that the process may take longer than 12 weeks. ct.0 Cory EST. mum 1836 'CS it � 114 <<E ‘V Revised 7-24-03 BAO , „_._. Ti PetitionerPreliminary PIJaI fliw Submit Preliminary Plat, 1 Preliminary Engineering Plat, fees, and all other materials _.) x0:1 Cir` ,Nt- #0 Plan Council — second and 1 11,1 i„ fourth Thursday of each ft i1 I month at 9:30 am in the City EST. '� `-�--- 1836 Administration Office ��-- o II 1 ,/A Cou tv Seat O *i Kendall County � City Council Meeting - Park Board Planning kLE %\'' second and fourth Tuesday of Meeting — fourth Monday each month at 7 pm in the City of each month at 7p m Hall Council Chambers j in the Beecher Center I Economic Development Committee of the Whole — Plan Commission — Committee — third Thursday first and third Tuesday of second Wednesday of each of each month at 7 pm in each month at 7 pm in the month at 7 pm in the the City Hall Conference City Hall Conference Room City Hall Council Chambers Room Revised 7-24-03 BAO two, PriellutimmatEtutirlkari The process illustrated in the Preliminary Plat Flow Chart will take a minimum of 9 weeks to complete. It should be noted that the application, preliminary engineering plat, fees, and all other materials must be turned in 45 days before the desired Plan Commission meeting so that the staff may review the necessary materials. It should also be noted that because of the structure of the schedules of the Park Board Planning Meeting and Plan Council, the Plan Council meeting must be attended on the second Thursday of the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting, unless the 4th Thursday of the month (for Plan Council) falls before the 4th Monday of the month (Park Board Planning Meeting), all of which must fall in the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting. This only means that the Plan Council and Park Board Planning Meeting must first be attended (in the correct order) in order to attend the petitioner's desired Plan Commission meeting. After the Plan Commission, the petitioner must attend the Economic Development Committee, where the project will be reviewed and an EDC recommendation will be given. After the recommendation has been given by the EDC, the project will go to a Committee of the Whole meeting. The COW will review the EDC recommendation, and may then recommend revisions to the plat. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent to City Council, where formal voting will take place. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to study the dates of the meetings to minimize the amount of time that it takes to complete the entire process. This chart is only to be used as a visual aide, and for all official processes, the application or a city staff member should be consulted. 2`.ct,0 c/ry 1:k 4.r- EST.141 1836 0. 8. <CE 0.1 Revised 7-24-03 BAO Petitioner MO Re.quest& n Amit PUD Request or pLTBA - ..reemenq / PUD Agreement Amendment ,,� City Council and Public Hearin application, fees, A 171 en u e►n f fourth Tuesday of each month at 7 pm and all other materials Revised 7-24-03 BAO in the City Hall Council Chambers For public hearing — submit to Clerk's Office application with legal description - due on second Committee of the Whole — Thursday of the month that is previous to the month first and third Tuesday of that contains the Plan Commission meeting (If each month at 7 pm in the PUD Amendment is coinciding with an City Hall Conference Room annexation request, a public hearing does not `,cfeO Cir`, need to be held for PUD Amendment) ?► 0 ,u 11 EST. 111111 Plan Council — second and �� 1836 Submit legal description for fourth Thursday of each 0 I A ` o (\ blic hearing — only if one month at 9:30 am in the City sem c' has not been submitted Administration Office <LE ‘N•N' Economic Development Park Board Planning Plan Commission and Public Committee — third Thursday Meeting — fourth Monday Hearing — second Wednesday of of each month at 7 pm in of each month at 7 pm each month at 7 pm in the City the City Hall Conference in the Beecher Center Hall Council Chambers Room FIB _Battings andRIBA\greeliteat Aliteminteut The process for PUD requests and PUD Agreement Amendments will take a minimum 9 weeks to complete. It should be noted that the application, fees, and all other materials must be turned in 45 days before the desired Plan Commission meeting. In addition, an application with a legal description must be submitted to the Clerk's office on the second Thursday of the month that is previous to the month that contains the Plan Commission meeting: this is because the legal notice for the public hearing must be published in the newspaper on the third Thursday of the month. For the public hearing, petitioners are required to notify by mail of public hearing all adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. If the PUD Agreement Amendment coincides with an annexation request, this first public hearing does not need to be held. This is because a public hearing will need to be held for the annexation request itself. For PUD Agreement Amendments it is also recom-mended, but not required, that the petitioner meet with the City Attorney and City Staff to discuss draft amendments. While this can be done at any point in the process, a staff meeting is recommended if the project must go to a public hearing, and more strongly recommended before the Committee of the Whole meeting and before the City Council meeting. It should also be noted that because of the structure of the schedules of the Park Board Planning Meeting and Plan Council, the Plan Council meeting must be attended on the second Thursday of the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting, unless the 4th Thursday of the month (for Plan Council) falls before the 4th Monday of the month (Park Board Planning Meeting), all of which must fall in the month prior to the desired Plan Commission meeting. This only means the Plan Council and Park Board Planning Meeting must first be attended (in the correct order) in order to attend the petitioner's desired Plan Commission meeting. After the Plan Commission, the petitioner must attend the Economic Development Committee, where the project will be reviewed and an EDC recommendation will be given. After the recommendation has been given by the EDC, the project will go to a Committee of the Whole meeting. The COW will review the EDC recommendation, and may then recommend revisions to the plat. This means that further review by staff and/or other committees may be necessary before being sent to City Council, where formal voting will take place. At this time, a public hearingduringa CityCouncil Meetingwill be required, and will onlybe held on the fourth Tuesdayof the month. q If a legal description has not been submitted to the Clerk's Office by this point, then a legal description for this hearing will be due on the third Thursday of the month that is prior to the month that the City Council Meeting is scheduled for. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to study the dates of the meetings to minimize the amount of time that it takes to complete the entire process. esi � __Daae riI7 N E` �`�� Revised 7-24-03 BAO -----:1 - 0 0_D o 0 o O '�1 o n ghErfR JJ - - - *This is only an estimate of the amount of time an entire development process will take. Depending on the project(i.e. no concept plan)the entire process could be significantly shorter or longer. Preliminary Final Plan/Plat Concept Plan/Plat Process Process Plan 1 0 DAYS 45 120 270 365 150 250 280 _______________) PUD Requests, Mass Grading PUD e nor,. Submittal and A reement .a , °.ct Approval Process - 9 k � � Amendments, EST. % °`'� 1836 Mass Grading may Annexation, o L -.7- 11.c.1 begin when Zoning, and `2approved Special Use .67<CE %," Requests