The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2004 07-21-04 United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County EST.erV �_� 1836 800 Game Farm Road CO Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Q 11 �! Q Phone:630-553-4350 �,� Fax:630-553-7575 4LE ‘v AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 21, 2004 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Presentation: None 1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: April 19, 2004 2. Building Permit Reports for May and June 2004 3. Fire Department Request for Development Fee for Facility Planning Study 4. PC 2004-04 Villas at the Preserve - Annexation, Zoning & Preliminary Plan 5. Revised PUD Ordinance 6. Revised Landscape Ordinance 7. Additional Business UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING YORKVILLE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM MONDAY,APRIL 19, 2004 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF: Aldermen Richard Sticka and Alderwoman Wanda Ohare; Mayor Art Prochaska; City Administrator Tony Graff; and Kelly Kramer, representing the City Attorney's office. GUESTS: Gary Weber, Inland/Midwest; Sanford Stein, Gardner, Canton; Mitch LaFave, Ocean Atlantic; Tim Winter, PDG; John Philipchuck, DBC&W; and Lynn Dubajic, Yorkville EDC. 1. Minutes Minutes from the March 18, 2004 meeting were approved. 2. PC 2001-06 Grande Reserve Units 5, 7 and 8—Final Plats Alderwoman Wanda Ohare asked about a roadway in unit 5. She asked if the street ends in someone's back yard as it looks on the map. Tim Winter, from Pasquinelli, said a berm will be installed at that location and that there is a buffer area. Ohare also asked when model homes will be in place and Winter said they should be ready this fall. Chairman Richard Sticka said there are a lot of questions about the street going to Lynwood. Many of the questions stem from the anticipated use of the roadway. He said he believes the majority of use will be of residents exiting Lynnwood to the north. However, Winter said it would still be easier for residents in Grande Reserve to use the internal roads to get to Route 34. Sticka told the committee that the final plats were approved by city staff and the Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend the plats for approval. He suggested the committee recommend the final plats go to the Committee of the Whole. The committee agreed to send the final plats to the COW for approval the next evening. 3. PC 2002-06 Westbury Village—Annexation, Rezoning and Preliminary Plan Mayor Art Prochaska said the Plan Commission unanimously gave its recommendation for annexation and zoning. But,the preliminary plan was rejected by a vote of 1 to 9. Sticka said one of the most significant concerns voiced by the Plan Commission was access for fire fighting equipment on the cul-de-sacs. Sanford Stein, attorney representing the Westbury development, however, said that problem has since been corrected. Sticka said the city's ordinance doesn't specifically state what to do with cul-de-sacs with too many living units. The ordinance talks about the length of the cul-de-sacs. Sticka said the solution seems to be not to allow cul-de-sacs in the development. LaFave, representing Ocean Atlantic, said prior to last week's meeting the representative from the Fire Protection District requested the developers install higher fire suppression rating in the buildings. What the developers are considering revising the plans in Pod 7 to lose one lot and provide an emergency access. The whole idea behind the plan is to keep the neighborhood identities separate which is why they're trying for a cul-de-sac amenities and don't want to interrupt that by installing a permanent access. He added they're open to discussing the options. Sticka then mentioned that in Pod 5,the developers doubts they will ever be allowed emergency access to Route 47. LaFave said they are investigating the possibility. Stein said the fire protection district was fairly satisfied with the plan for the fire suppression system. Plan Commission Chairman Tom Lindblom,however, felt that more measures should be taken. Stein said Lindblom indicated he felt he was a representative of the fire protection district when he's really representing the village. Sticka said the committee respects Lindblom's knowledge and his advise and does not just brush aside his concerns. LaFave said when they presented the plan in April of 2003,the vote was 7 to 5 against it. That difference in the vote was the geometry in the layout at the bottom. Since then, the developers also have decreased the number of units by 47. He asked why Mr. Lindblom didn't bring up his concerns then. Sticka said he's not sure Mr. Lindblom didn't say anything. Mayor Prochaska said the revised plan looks like there are a few more lots on the cul-de- sac. LaFave said there might be four more lots,but relatively speaking it's close. Moving on to another question, Sticka asked why there are private roads instead of public roads in the multi-family area. Stein said if two feet are added to make the roadways public, it would take away from greenspace. He added that 28-foot roadways have worked before. By not allowing parking even on one side of the roadway, there's even greater passage way for emergency vehicles. He also said there will be no parking on the street at all and the city will have the right of enforcement. LaFave said more opportunities for parking will exist inside the multi- family unit area and that the developers already meet the city's requirements for parking spaces per unit. In response to a comment by Sticka, Stein said the developers are required to disclose to the purchaser that the road is private. Mayor Prochaska said he has a couple of issues. In the single-family areas, they should always be public streets. When considering multi-family areas, using Pod 7 as an example, for the length of that infrastructure there are more units than there are on public streets. He said those neighborhoods should be self-contained since they have a higher density of traffic and might possibly require more maintainence on the roads. Stein said some people like living on a private street and LaFave added that there will be an association for each pod to cover maintenance and other issues. Ohare asked Kelly Kramer about all of the recommendations from city staff regarding the development. Kramer said all of the issues are being looked at. City Administrator Tony Graff added that comments from John Whitehouse from EEI are generally met before the City Council votes. Also, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources sign-off will happen at the final plat. Graff said that is standard procedure along with sign-offs from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Graff added the city has met with the IDNR, which will do an aquatic assessment on the Rob Roy Creek. The IDNR will shock the creek and do a count of the fish. Sticka said the original plan in 1991 involved turning the creek into a meandering waterway. He asked what the current plan involves for the creek. LaFave said they conducted a wetland assessment on the creek. To everyone's surprise, the floristic quality of the creek area is pretty high. Essentially, under the new plan,the creek will stay as is. The storm water areas on either side will be dry bottom basins. Water will filter from the basins into the creek. Stein said the design around the nature features was done well. Ohare said she wants all of the issues addressed by the city planner and other staff addressed before anything is approved. Sticka said there doesn't seem to be a problem with the annexation or rezoning, the issue is the preliminary plan. Graff said one of the major ways to ensure all of the staff comments are addressed would be through the annexation and planned unit development(PUD) agreement. Mainly, the city staff, engineer, planner and others need to consider land use issues and policy questions such as public versus private roads. Sticka said he personally prefers narrower roads and more green space. Graff said there are a lot of questions concerning how the cars will fit. The developers have provided an illustration as an exhibit. LaFave said Ocean Atlantic is a developer and not the builder. But, he said the exhibit could be part of the architectural standards in the agreement. Mayor Prochaska asked where the fire lane would be located in Pod 7. Returning to Sticka's comments about making that lane a road,Prochaska said the developers could eliminate an access onto Corneils Road. It also adds to the idea that it's a separate neighborhood, he said. 1 1 1 LaFave said everyone on his end really likes the new plan it turns everything 45 degrees so everything isn't all lined up. Prochaska said when he sees access to Corneils Road and Westbury Boulevard, if people cut through, it could become a public safety issue. LaFave then asked if he should make that change and then scurry to try to get it back to the city for approval. Stein said those comments could be put into the preliminary plat approval. Sticka said he would like to see that done. Ohare agreed saying that emergency access issue seems to be a big one. She said it could be added in the committee's recommendation for approval. LaFave asked about Pod 5. Sticka asked if it is sufficient to say a better fire suppression system would be sufficient. Graff said zoning official Bill Dettmer will work with the fire department to discuss the 13-hour suppression system. He needs to get a clearer understanding of about the system. Prochaska said he'd like to get away from having a member of the fire department at the Planning Council. He said he'd like to see that if certain objectives are met, then they'll get a sign-off from the fire department. Graff said Dettmer recommends putting a standard into the building code. He, however, still maintains that a second access would be good not just to combat fires, but to get into the area in case the road is blocked. LaFave said the gates for the emergency access would be have a berm and would be heavily landscaped. As for the architectural standards, Sticka said he'd like to see a minimum standard for brick on the buildings. He said he'd like to see the front of the buildings be a high percentage of brick or stone, something like 2/3 of the front need to be brick. LaFave said that's a high percentage. He added he'd like the city to take a look at developments Ocean Atlantic has done in the past. Prochaska said typically, the number he's heard is about 50 percent. And, he said the brick shouldn't be on the first floor only. LaFave said he doesn't mind complying with such regulations as long as they are uniform for all developments. Prochaska said he likes the idea of requiring some brick, even if it drops to 50 percent. However, he said he would like to see it on three sides so it doesn't look as if brick is just slapped on the front. Returning to the road issue, Ohare said she would prefer the road be private in the pods. Stein added that narrow roads are traffic calmers. He said what it really comes down to is maintenance. Sticka said he and Ohare are okay with the 28 foot roadway, and private roads with parking on one side and no parking on the fire hydrant side. He added: • the developer should investigate eliminating the cut onto Corneils Road. • there needs to be a certain percentage of brick or stone on the buildings. • there needs to be an emergency access to Pod 5. • there needs to be an agreement with the dire department regarding a fire suppression system. Sticka said there wasn't too much discussion on the single-family lots at the Plan Commission. Ohare said she'd okay with the plan if all of the modifications are met and Sticka agreed. The issue was forwarded to the May 4 COW meeting. 4. PC 2003-13 Bailey Meadows Annexation and Preliminary Plan Gary Weber, with Inland/Midwest, said the Plan Commission approved the plan 8 to 2. Kelly Kramer said one of the issues at the Plan Commission was that some commissioners wanted the far west street extended to Baseline Road. The main issue, though, was access to the commercial area, she said. Weber said changing the access to what the Plan Commission recommends could bring about some cut through traffic. Also, he said he's not sure how the commercial area will fall into place. Prochaska said if the road was brought in through the south end, it would make it easier for people at that end of the development to reach the commercial area. Weber said his biggest concern is he doesn't want any access to be a short cut for people traveling to the other major roadways. Sticka suggested that they bring the issue before the rest of the City Council to get comments. Ohare said she recommends approval pending staff and City Council comments. . 5. Building Permit Reports for March 2004 The building permit report was accepted and moved forward to the C.O.W. 6. Ace Hardware Annexation Discussions Sticka said a lot of people are asking what is happening. Mayor Prochaska said City Attorney Dan Kramer is speaking with the owners to try to get the property annexed into the city. Sticka said he wanted the matter brought up at a public meeting. He added the hardware store should be in town especially since the city can now provide services such as water. He said he'd like the matter to be placed on the COW agenda. Kelly Kramer, however, said the matter can't be discussed in depth at the meeting because it would fall under additional business. 7. Facade Program Revisions To get the program moving, Sticka suggested it go straight to the COW. Kramer said the revisions add any residence or building built in the city up to 1940. The first façade program went up to 1890. The program includes the entire city, but there is preference placed on downtown buildings and any structure facing arterial roadways. 8. Additional Business Mayor Prochaska said he talked to Dettmer about looking at changing ordinances regarding buildings above 35 feet. The city code allows it, but the ordinance doesn't. As the city grows and property value increases, he said the city should look at allowing for some taller structures. Sticka then asked how the architectural overlay ordinance is progressing. He said he'd like to see it come before the committee at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8.50 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville May 2004 Types of Permits Number of Permits Issued SFD2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial Indu trial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost May 2004 127 61 0 0 2 0 64 $15,415,633.00 Calendar Year 2004 t 399 193 3 0 5 0 197 $40,441,228.00 Fiscal Year 2004 127 61 0 0 2 0 64 $15,415,633.00 May 2003 93 31 1 0 3 0 58 $7,531,004.00 Calendar Year 2003 308 127 4 0 11 1 165 $31,309,405.00 Fiscal Year 2003 93 31 1 0 3 0 58 $7,531,004.00 May 2002 83 23 0 0 6 0 54 $5,734,914.00 Calendar Year 2002 2 324 118 2 2 22 0 180 $27,523,143.00 Fiscal Year 2002 83 23 0 0 6 0 54 $5,734,914.00 May 2001 53 11 0 0 1 0 41 $2,678,130.00 Calendar Year 2001 166 55 1 1 4 0 105 $12,475,550.00 Fiscal Year 2001 53 11 0 0 1 0 41 $2,678,130.00 May 2000 41 12 0 0 1 0 28 $1,813,629.00 Calendar Year 2000 3° 133 42 0 0 2 0 89 $6,450,707.50 Fiscal Year 2000 41 12 0 0 1 0 28 $1,813,629.00 2 Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built. 1 Permit Numbers Y-2002-034,Y-2002-467,and Y-2002-579 were voided,thus only 806 of 809 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. Permit Number 00122 was for 6 Attached SFDs. 4 Permit Number 00101 was voided,thus only 133 of 134 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. BUILDING PERMIT REPORT United City of Yorkville June 2004 Typesof Permits Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost June 2004 128 55 0 0 1 0 72 $10,515,220.00 Calendar Year 2004 I 527 248 3 0 6 0 269 $50,956,448.00 Fiscal Year 2004 255 116 0 0 3 0 136 $25,930,853.00 June 2003 2 104 34 2 0 4 0 64 $8,083,515.00 Calendar Year 20032 412 161 6 0 15 1 229 $39,392,920.00 Fiscal Year 20032 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 ' 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 226 77 3 4 4 1 137 $18,114,978.00 Fiscal Year 2001 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 °5 172 56 0 0 2 0 113 $8,435,922.50 Fiscal Year 2000 °5 80 26 0 0 1 0 53 $3,798,844.00 1 Permit Number 1-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built. 2 Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 412 of413 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 3 Permit Number 1-2002-034 was voided,thus only 407 of 408 assigned permit numbers were actually issued Permit Number 00122 was for 6 Attached SFDs. 5 Permit Number 00101 was voided,thus only 172 of 173 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. 1) 4 Bristol Kendall Fire Department. 103 East Beaver Street 01111 Yorkville, IL 60560-1704 •1►. P f Faxe630055331482556 June 18, 2004 Mr. Anton Graff, Administrator United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Dear Anton, I wish to thank you for taking time out of your busy day to speak with Mr. Tim McGrath of the McGrath Consulting Group. The Fire District contracted with Mr. McGrath to conduct a "Future Fire/EMS Facility Needs Report" and to look at impact fees for the Fire Protection District. Your input was very important in the data collection process for this report. I have enclosed one original and ten copies of the final report. I spoke with the Mayor about the report and he had asked for copies of the report. The District would like to give you time to review the report, then we would request the opportunity to meet with you, the Mayor and whoever else would be appropriate to meet with, to discuss some of the findings in the report. If you need more copies, have questions, or are ready to set up the meeting, please call me at 630 553-0595. Again, Thank You for your assistance in obtaining the valuable information and for sharing your insight that was so helpful in the preparation of this report. Sincerely, ei/may ' am 2 Chief Michael Hitzemann Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District 41 w y Future Fire/EMS Facility ee s Repor For The Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District Submitted By ‘ i J McGrath CONSULTING Problems to Solutions McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. June, 2004 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 THE FUTURE BRISTOL KENDALL FIRE DEPARTMENT 5 FUTURE STATION LOCATION FACTORS 5 Population Growth 6 Fire District Demographics 8 Existing Fire Station Appropriateness 8 Staffing Philosophy 9 Property Availability 10 Industry Standards For Station Placement 12 Insurance Service Offices, Inc (ISO) 12 NFPA 1710 & 1720 14 Need For A Career Fire Chief 17 Fire Prevention Bureau 17 Preemption Traffic Control Equipment 18 Automatic Response Areas And Partnerships 18 City Of Joliet 19 Unique Risk Factors 20 Fiscal Capabilities 21 FUTURE LOCATIONS OF FIRE/EMS FACILITIES 22 Headquarters Station & Station#2 22 Station#3 22 Station#1 23 Station#5 23 DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE 23 SUMMARY 24 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. 2 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a study conducted by McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. of the future facility needs for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department (aka—Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District). In addition, the consultant was asked to assess and make a recommendation regarding the current developer impact fee schedule currently collected by the district. `''he Bristol Kendall Fire Department provides fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), and rescue services for the majority of the United City of Yorkville, a portion of the Village of Montgomery, and unincorporated sections of Kendall County for a total protection area of approximately 81 square miles. In addition, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department also provides paramedic ambulance service to approximately 20 square miles of the Lisbon Seward Fire Protection District on a contractual basis. The department currently has 53 paid-on-call personnel and seven full-time employees provided by contract through Public Safety Services, Inc. The ambulance immediately responds to all fire and/or EMS emergencies and paid-on-call personnel staff additional apparatus if needed. The department currently responds to emergencies from two stations. The Headquarters Station located at 103 East Beaver Street, and Station#2 located at 1203 North Bridge treet. The department is staffed 24/7 with a minimum of two contractual paramedics )etween 0700— 1900 hours. A second paramedic unit is staffed with part-time employees luring the same time frame. From 1900 to 0700 hours one paramedic unit is staffed by two full-time personnel. In addition, one Assistant Chief works Monday—Friday from : 800— 1700 hours and is available on call as need necessitates. With the exception of the City of Joliet, the fire protection district's boundaries do not change if annexed by surrounding communities. Annexation of property by the City of Joliet transfers the responsibility of fire/EMS protection from the Bristol Kendall Fire Department to the City of Joliet Fire Department. The annexation of property by the City of Joliet will have a significant impact on the southeast portion of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department district and future facility planning in that area. The consultant utilized numerous sources and standards in making the recommendations presented in this report. The Bristol Kendall Fire Department had completed a self-audit of future needs and readily shared that data with the consultant. The department had utilized the Insurance Service Offices, Inc. (ISO) standard of engine response not to exceed 1'/2 miles and ladder response not to exceed 2 miles as station location criteria. The consultant also utilized the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) 1710 standard for response times and staffing, in making his recommendation. Other areas of consideration included, but were not limited to: o Future geographic growth potential including land usage plans o Future population growth impact on the department McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 3 i F o Assessment of zoning maps of the United City of Yorkville, Village of Montgomery, City of Joliet, and Kendall County o Future transportation implications to the department o Identification of future industrial, commercial, and/or entertainment facilities The consultant met with the following individuals: Bristol Kendall Fire Department o Michael Hitzemann—Fire Chief o Tom Lindblom—Deputy Chief o Timothy Fairfield—Assistant Chief o Jack Price—Assistant Chief United City of Yorkville o Mr. Anton Graff—City Administrator Yorkville Economic Development Corporation o Ms. Lynn Dubajic—Executive Director Kendall County Planning,Building & Zoning o Mr. Jerry Dudgeon—Director Planning, Building &Zoning o Mr. Dale Powers — Senior Planner Schoppe Design Associates o Mr. Mike Schoppe—President Village of Montgomery o Ms. Anne Marie Gaura—Village Manager o Ms. Amy Furfori—Director of Community Development City of Joliet o Mr. James Haller—Director Community & Economic Development o Ms. Janeen Vitalt—Planner Community& Economic Development It is appropriate to note the excellent cooperation the consultant received from all parties who provided data. The consultant is especially appreciative of the assistance and time given by Chief Hitzemann and Assistant Chief Fairfield of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 4 THE FUTURE BRISTOL KENDALL FIRE DEPARTMENT An article in USA Today newspaper dated April 9, 2004, indicated that Kendall County, Illinois ranked 10th in the fastest-growing counties in the United States. This doesn't come as shocking news to those who are responsible for providing fire and emergency medical services in that area. 'What is essential to understand, is the realization that the future Bristol Kendall Fire Department will look very different from the current organization. This does not imply that there are inadequacies in the existing organization, rather the district's growth will cause the organization to change, and the culture of the organization itself will change. These are exciting times but not without significant challenges. Perhaps, one of the most difficult challenges will be the need to develop a future vision of the department and develop a strategic plan to accomplish that vision. This becomes difficult not because the department leadership isn't capable,but rather, rapid growth causes many organizations to deal only with current issues because of limited time and resources. It becomes difficult to address long-term needs. Therefore, it is appropriate to have an outside source assess those future station facility needs for the district. Future fire station needs will be directly related to the district's future population growth, demographics of the district, commercial and industrial developments, community infrastructure and potential changes in the protection district size. The timing of these changes will be determined by how quickly the previously mentioned occur, adequate fiscal resources, and the economy itself. FUTURE STATION LOCATION FACTORS The consultant considered the following factors in deteiuiining the location of future satellite fire stations locations. Recommending future station locations requires consideration of all of these factors. Some of the factors will have a greater influence on the recommendation than others; however, the final recommendation is based on the cumulative assessment of all factors as they relate to the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. • Population Growth • Fire District's Demographics • Existing Fire Station Appropriateness • Staffing Philosophy • Property Availability • Industrial Standards For Station Placement • Insurance Service Offices, Inc. • NFPA 1710 & 1720 • Fire Prevention Bureau McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 5 T • Preemption Traffic Control Equipment • Automatic Response Areas And Partnerships • City of Joliet • Unique Risk Factors • Fiscal Capabilities Population Growth Perhaps future population growth throughout the fire district will have the most significant influence on the placement of future satellite fire facilities. The consultant asked many sources for their estimates on population growth. The difficulty is that the Fire District boundaries do not align with the United City of Yorkville or township boundaries. In addition, sources had varying opinions on the probable growth figure and much larger difference of opinions on the timing of such. However, all agreed that currently the Fire District is experiencing the greatest population growth in the northeast section. A large housing development within the corporate boundaries of the Village of Montgomery has expanded into the northeast section of the Bristol Kendall Fire District. The consultant believes this growth will continue westward across the northern portion of the Bristol Kendall Fire District. Regardless, if future development in this area lies within the Village of Montgomery, United City of Yorkville, or unincorporated Kendall County the responsibility for protecting the residents belongs to the Bristol Kendall Fire Department once the development enters into the existing Fire District boundaries. However, the United City of Yorkville's growth will have the greatest impact on service demands, in as much as it is anticipated the United City of Yorkville will expand in all directions. It is by far, the largest community within the Bristol Kendall Fire District. Therefore, emphasis will be placed on the United City of Yorkville as the primary influencing factor for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. From 2000 to 2003 the population of the United City of Yorkville increased 41.4% (6,189 to 8,749). Currently, the fire department estimates they protect approximately 15,000 people within their 81 square mile district. The result of the 41.4%population increase from 2000 to 2003 in the United City of Yorkville resulted in a 21.2% emergency call increase (1243 to 1507) for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. Last year(2003) alone,the United City of Yorkville experienced a population increase of 14.5%resulting in 3.8% emergency call increase for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. Population projections provided by Schoppe Design Associates in May 2003, were based on land use identified by the City for the full build-out of the United City of Yorkville. The City was divided into 11 planning areas representing 42,231 acres as shown in the following figure. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 6 ► , ail Future Population Projections Planning Area Acres Population 1 4,097 11,200 2 3,811 22,880 3 1,866 8,221 4 2,835 11,735 5 1,598 5,449 6 1,300 6,675 7 2,575 11,297 8 2,414 7,900 9 3,651 20,083 10 7,943 41,871 11 10,141 55,198 Total 42,231 202,509 Source: Schoppe Design Associates Schoppe Design Associates did not suggest a time frame when the above full build-out might occur. However, the consultant reviewed the 2003 revised Transportation Planning Report for the United City of Yorkville prepared by Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc., which projected the population of the United City of Yorkville by 2030 would be approximately 80,000. The consultant was provided a more conservative population growth projection prepared by the United City of Yorkville—City Administrator Anton Graff. Mr. Graff based his projections on land usage and housing units that will average 3.2 people per unit as shown in the following figure: United City of Yorkville Year Projected Population 2003 8,749 2010 27,997 2020 40,198 2030 54,023 Source: United City of Yorkville—Administrator If the unincorporated area increased in population at a similar rate as the United City of Yorkville, the Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District would protect a population of approximately 61,734 by the year 2030. The consultant recognizes that as land is annexed from unincorporated Kendall County (within the Bristol Kendall Fire District)by the United City of Yorkville, it would only clarify where the residents lived. Protection for those residents would remain the responsibility of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 7 Fire District Demographics The consultant found consensus, among those interviewed, that the future demographics of the Fire District would not change significantly. The social economics of the district would remain similar or increase slightly as the district grows. What is significant to the Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District is the growth philosophy of the United City of Yorkville, which is a community with 85% zoned residential. The lack of a higher percentage of commercial and/or industrial sources will limit the fire district's ability to generate fiscal resources. Currently, the Fire District has had three unsuccessful tax levy increase referendums (March 02, November 02, and March 03). With the exception of new construction impact fees, the district is limited to this sole revenue generating method. The consultant will take into account the ability of the district to generate fiscal resources in its recommendation of the number and placement of future station facilities. Existing Fire Station Appropriateness The headquarters fire station is located at 103 East Beaver Street. The station was built in 1999. The leadership of the depai huent, as well as the governing board, performed extensive research and appropriately considered future needs. Although this group should be commended on its station design and future foresight, there will be those within the community that don't understand the need for such a large and modem facility. The consultant encourages the governing board to continue to set a standard plan for future satellite facilities that will adequately provide for the anticipated growth and the future staffing of those facilities. Currently, Station#2 is located at 1203 North Bridge Street. Today, and even prior to the consolidation of the ambulance and fire services,both fire and ambulance apparatus were housed at this facility. This building is scheduled to be replaced with a new satellite fire facility in the near future. The consultant strongly supports the replacement of the existing Station#2 as soon as possible. The current building is inadequate to support the apparatus and personnel needed. The district is currently in negotiations to secure a piece of property near the corner of McHugh Road and Kennedy Road approximately 21/2 miles north of the Headquarter Station. The consultant supports this facility location. This location is advantageous in assuring fire/EMS protection north of the Fox River and into the downtown area, as well as future service demands in the district. As noted, the Fire District is divided by the Fox River and there is only one crossing within the fire district. It is prudent for the District to continue to have facilities on both sides of the river. There are additional river crossings both east and west, but outside of the Bristol Kendall Fire District. Future development plans within the Bristol Kendall Fire District indicates that two additional river crossings are proposed. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 8 1 j Growth often requires fire district leadership to focus on new developments and their impact on service. Although this is appropriate, one cannot forget the importance of adequately protecting existing structures and residents such as the older United City of Yorkville downtown area. Therefore, the consultant will assume that Station#2 will be built on the property at Kennedy Road. The fire department has drawn plans for that station. It consists of a three bay apparatus area with living quarters and bunkrooms for full-time personnel. The proposed one story building is approximately 13,450 square feet. Ideally, a station of this size should be placed on a 2 to 3 acre land parcel. The consultant understands that the property in negotiations is 11/2 acres. Special consideration should be given to the design of the building that separates the general public from the actual living and apparatus portion of the fire station. All satellite fire stations should encourage local residents to perceive it as "their local fire station" and as the location to learn safety training. Therefore, a combination meeting/training room can serve the needs of both the fire/EMS personnel as well as the general public. Staffing Philosophy Placement of satellite facilities is not based on any single component. Perhaps one of the most significant factors overlooked relates to the culture of the fire depai tilient itself as it changes in size and/or scope. Bristol Kendall is an excellent example of the importance of this factor. Currently, the majority of the department is comprised of paid-on-call members. As in most cases, many paid-on-call members are located proximal to the fire station. Therefore, moving a fire station might not improve response times if the principle method of staffing remains paid-on-call. In other words, the philosophy of"build it and they will come"might work in baseball movies but seldom works in fire station paid-on-call staffing methods. New fire station facilities rarely generate a significant increase in paid-on-call membership. Existing members do not usually relocate in order to be closer to the new facility. Therefore, the Board of Trustees should anticipate staffing of all future satellite fire stations with additional career personnel. The cost of career personnel will eventually be the largest component of the District's budget. However, a minimum of four career personnel on duty at these facilities will ensure immediate response to emergencies. It is important that the reader does not assume that the consultant is recommending the elimination of paid-on-call personnel. Nothing could be further from the point. Paid-on- call personnel are an integral component of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department and their dedication and professionalism should not be diminished. However,nationally fire departments, like most volunteer organizations, are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain members. It is not practical to assume that satellite fire facilities will be staffed solely by paid-on-call members. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 9 The education and training requirements for paid-on-call continue to increase and the professional standards dictated do not discriminate between career and paid-on-call personnel. As emergency call volume increases in direct proportion to the increase in population, it will be increasingly difficult to staff satellite facilities for immediate response utilizing paid-on-call members only. The District has already addressed this issue with the hiring of seven contractual paramedics to ensure immediate response to emergency incidents. This decision wasn't based on dissatisfaction with existing membership, but the recognition of the need for immediate response to EMS situations. Although the ambulance responds to fire calls, they are limited on most mitigation activities until the paid-on-call arrive with the fire apparatus. The consultant based his decision on the placement and number of recommended satellite facilities on the need to staff these facilities with a minimum of four personnel available 24/7. The transition from a predominately paid-on-call staffing to full-time (including contractual) will traditionally reduce further the existing paid-on-call membership. It is the consultant's opinion that the district should not consider additional facilities unless they anticipate staffing them with a minimum of one full-time four-person crew. Property Availability There are a number of issues that influence the placement of satellite facilities; finding and purchasing potential fire station sites is an important first step. Everyone wants a fire facility near them,but few want it next door to or across from them. Therefore, it is prudent for the Fire District to purchase property prior to the development of a residential community. The problem is usually less significant when placing stations in an industrial and/or commercial setting. Conventional wisdom also suggests that as a community grows, the price of available property increases greatly. The purchase of property for future development of a fire station is a necessary step that requires action now. Even if the property is determined not to be in the most advantageous location in the future, its increased sale value will help to offset the cost of property at a new location. Currently, the department recognizes the need to improve response to the northeastern section of their district. This includes land that is being developed both in the Village of Montgomery corporate limits, as well as, land in unincorporated Kendall County. Both the Village of Montgomery and the United City of Yorkville indicated their desire to annex that area. Regardless of who annexes the property, it will remain the responsibility of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department to protect it. One interesting factor pertinent to the fire department is that the Village of Montgomery requires developers to provide public municipal property to the Village. The Village indicated that they would be willing to deed the title of that property over to the Bristol Kendall Fire Department for construction of a satellite facility, if that facility was located McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 10 1 1 within the corporate limits of the Village. The Village of Montgomery has recently deeded property to the Oswego Fire Protection District, which built Station#3 approximately 11/4 mile from the Bristol Kendall district boundary line. The United City of Yorkville does not have a similar policy of land donation. In fact, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department's current negotiations for the property designated for Station#2, is with the United City of Yorkville. Therefore, it might seem appropriate that the consultant should recommend that the Bristol Kendall Fire Depai Intent plan their next facility within the corporate limits of the Village of Montgomery. Two factors seem to indicate this would be a prudent recommendation: 1. Free satellite fire station property 2. Area represents the most critical service needs today The leadership of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department recognized these factors and the entire fire department leadership team (Chief, Deputy Chief, and both Assistant Chiefs) indicated a piece of triangular property near the corner of Galena Road,Dickson Road, and Cannonball Trail as a site for a satellite station location. It is possible that this piece of property could very well be annexed by the Village of Montgomery verses the United City of Yorkville. Furthermore, the Village of Montgomery has indicted to the Bristol Kendall Fire Depai lucent they would deed property to them if the station were to be built in their Village, thereby potentially resulting in considerable savings for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. The consultant will discuss later in this document, a recommendation of locating a satellite fire station closer to Rt. 47 on Galena Road, which will be closer to potential future commercial development. Recommendation: The consultant encourages the Board of Trustees and the fire depattinent leadership to establish dialog with the United City of Yorkville and propose to the City a policy similar to that of the Village of Montgomery. This agreement could result in a win-win situation for both the United City of Yorkville and the Fire District. It is advantageous for the United City of Yorkville to have fire and EMS facilities strategically located throughout the City to provide the highest quality of service to their residents, even though in this case, the United City of Yorkville is not responsible for providing that service. Also recommended, as a top priority for the Board of Trustees, is the purchase of property at the identified sites described later in this document. Even if the monies needed for the purchase of these properties slightly extends the time frame of when the additional satellite facilities can be built, acquisition of the property as soon as possible is advantageous. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 11 Industry Standards For Station Placement The consultant will discuss two standards that are very different in nature that pertain in part to the location of fire/EMS facilities. ISO has been utilized by fire departments for years in the determination of station locations. Its value has recently been diminished by the adoption of National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) 1710 & 1720 addressing response times and staffing. Insurance Service Offices, Inc (ISO) The most common reference to a potential standard for fire departments is the ISO publication and utilization of the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) to, "...review available public fire suppression facilities, and to develop a Public Protection Classification for insurance purposes." Although the primary purpose of this tool is to rate fire protection from which insurance rates can be established, ISO ratings have been one of few standards to compare community fire protection. Realizing the true intent of the ISO classification as a method for determining insurance rates, ISO should not be the sole determining factor in establishing a public fire protection program. The schedule should be considered as an instrument for comparison, and as an additional factor for consideration when making decisions. The Bristol Kendall Fire Department was last evaluated in 2003. Prior to the 2003 evaluation, the United City of Yorkville was classified as Class 6, and the new evaluation improved the rating to Class 5. In Illinois, 13.4% of all ISO rated deparlinents are classified as Class 5 verses 22.6% classified as Class 6. Nationally, 13.8% of departments are classified as a Class 5 whereas, 17.5% are classified as a Class 6. In both cases, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department should be recognized for its improved rating. The unincorporated area remained Class 9, which is the classification that has the highest number of departments rated, and is most common in districts with large unincorporated areas. The classification determination of the fire protection assigned to a community is based on three categories: fire depai taient— 50%, water supply—40%, and emergency communications— 10%. The total points are compared to a chart with 10 classes, each of which represents approximately 10 points, for a total of 100 points. Class 1 is the highest, and Class 10 is the lowest. Very few communities are Class 1 or 2, and rural communities are generally rated Class 9 or 10. Most urban cities are in Class 2, 3 or 4, and most suburban communities fall into the Class 4— 8 categories. Paragraph 560 of the schedule states, "...the built-upon area of the City should have a first due Engine Company within 11/2 miles, and a ladder-service company within 21/2 miles". This distance is recognized by ISO as an acceptable level of McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 12 fire protection. It can be determined how long it takes for fire units to travel this distance in order to meet the ISO standard. Based on the 11/2-mile distance standard, a community may determine its desired average travel time by plugging in its approximate vehicle speed of responding fire equipment. Given the topography, road system, actual time, and distance studies, it is reasonable to figure that an average vehicle with a speed of 35 mph will take approximately 21/2 minutes travel time to cover 11/2 miles. The FSRS also indicates, when the fire flow requirement is less than 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM), and the area is primarily residential, it is generally acceptable to have the first due Engine Company as much as two miles away. Given an average speed of 35 mph, it will take approximately 31/2 minutes to travel two miles. Obviously, higher, or lower average vehicle speeds will impact the distance covered and the travel time. It is important to indicate what the ISO rating means to the Bristol Kendall Fire Department and the communities it protects. The purpose of ISO is to determine a fire insurance classification, which may be used in the calculation of property insurance premiums. An ISO rating is not conducted for property loss prevention or life safety purposes. Further, no life safety or property loss prevention is recommended by ISO. The ISO classification system was designed to be used primarily to figure property insurance premiums for commercial property, not residential. Most insurance companies use the ISO rating as a benchmark, and then use market data to establish competitive rates for residential properties. Moreover, about 90 percent of the insurance companies will group Classes 1 —4 together, and then look separately at Class 5, Class 6, Class 7, and so on. In essence, the ISO rating is only one factor in establishing premiums, and certainly not the primary one. It is this perceived link to insurance rates that for years, has driven communities to base their decisions on the level of fire protection appropriate for their communities. The value of the ISO rating to a community continues to be a questionable factor in determining a community's level of fire protection. The ISO survey is not a complete assessment of a community's fire protection program, defenses, or performance. The ISO does not rate response times, the quality of the fire prevention program, built-in fire suppression systems, fire loss, property saved, or the actual competence and performance of the fire suppression personnel and operations. The ISO only rates those pieces of the fire protection program they feel are important to assign insurance rates. In some cases commercial and/or industrial properties can be individually rated. On a routine basis, ISO rates commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties only if the insurance carrier is a subscriber to ISO. Approximately 90% of all insurance companies subscribe to ISO. The majority of commercial, industrial, McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 13 M and multi-family properties have been individually inspected, and a fire flow (amount of water/per minute needed to extinguish a fire) has been established. If a large commercial, industrial, and/or multi-family property exists in the community, that is not ensured by an ISO subscriber, requires a fire flow greater than 3,500 GPM, and is unique to the fire risks compared to the rest of the community, a separate grading could be assigned. In this case the community could remain a Class 5, while the particular building would be rated in a higher class. This process is the exception to the rule on how ISO determines insurance class ratings for a community. In most cases,the community is encouraged to have these buildings equipped with automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems. This reduces the fire flow required and mitigates the impact on the overall public ISO class rating for that community. Bristol Kendall Fire Department's excellent classification of ISO 5 should not signify that a continual commitment of resources is not necessary. It is an indication that the leadership of the department has made a commitment to quality service, and used the best tools for measurement available. ISO traditionally attempts to re-evaluate communities on a ten-year basis. With the anticipated population growth, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department will need to establish additional fire/EMS facilities or perhaps be faced with a reversal of their new ISO classification. NFPA 1710 & 1720 Until recently, no nationally recognized standards have existed for the fire service pertaining to staffing and response times. Unlike law enforcement, emergency medical services and a host of other public agencies, the fire service has never adopted a set of national standards. This lack of standards has put both governing officials and fire administrators at a disadvantage when trying to determine adequate staffing levels, type of department, appropriate response times, and apparatus requirements. Clearly, the determination of the level of fire protection is directly related to a local community "quality of life" issue. Historically, the fire service has made attempts to create national standards for staffing and response times. In 1997,NFPA 1200, a technical committee, and a sub-committee of NFPA 1500, the Fire Department Occupational Safety &Health Program, were appointed to create a standard for both career and volunteer depat Intents. The efforts were abandoned when the technical committee failed to reach a consensus. In 1999, two separate standards were created and later adopted by the NFPA: McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 14 i • NFPA 1710 - Organization and Development of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, and • NFPA 1720 - Organization and Development of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer/Paid-On-Call Fire Depaitiuents. It is probable that these two standards, after litigation, will have a significant impact on the way governing officials, and fire chiefs assess their level of services. The significant components are: NFPA 1710—Career - Four firefighters staffing the initial response (can respond in separate units) - A Company shall be staffed with a minimum of four on-duty personnel - First engine arrival within four(4) minutes 90 percent of the time - And/or full first due assignment within eight (8) minutes (all initial equipment sent on alarm) - Turnout time cannot exceed 60 seconds - Staffing level declaration - Alarm escalates beyond an initial full alarm the incident commander must upgrade the rapid intervention crew (MC) to four fully equipped and trained fire fighters - A safety officer shall be deployed to all incidents which escalate beyond an initial full-alarm assignment or when risk warrants - Collective bargaining agreements cannot reduce the NFPA 1710 standards It is important to emphasize that NFPA standards are just that, "standards", and are not mandatory by law. However, once an incident occurs, the community will be judged on its performance as compared with the NFPA standards. This is why NFPA standards are sometimes viewed as a double-edged sword. The community is not required to meet them,but if a serious incident occurs (i.e. a serious injury or death of a firefighter), the community will be judged against the NFPA standard. Every community should work to meet these standards. Why should the Bristol Kendall Fire Department acknowledge the NFPA 1710 requirements? An argument could be made that the Bristol Kendall Fire Department would today only have to meet the requirements of NFPA 1720, which is much less restrictive than NFPA 1710. In as much as 53 members are paid-on- call, including the Fire Chief, Deputy Chief, and one Assistant Chief,NFPA 1720 is written for volunteer and paid-on-call departments. The other contractual Assistant Chief would, under the definition of these NFPA standards, fall under NFPA 1710. That argument for NFPA 1720 would be credible under the environment that exists today in the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. However, when additional career McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 15 (including contractual) employees are hired, the department would at some point fall under the requirements of NFPA 1710. The determining factor as to which standard applies to a department is not based on a numerical count of paid-on-call verse career. Rather, the determining classification is based on who makes the majority of the day-to-day operational decisions and performs the majority of daily fire department activities. As the number of career employees increases, the NFPA standard most appropriate for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department would be NFPA 1710. Therefore, it is more cost effective to address NFPA 1710 issues now in the planning stage for future facility sites. Recommendation: At this time, the Bristol Kendall leadership should not adopt NFPA 1710. Rather, they should take it under advisement for the five(5) year period allotted. The adoption of the NFPA 1710 standard at this time would include the adoption,by reference, to all OSHA and NFPA standards listed in those standards. It is recommended that the Board of Trustees continue to work with the Fire Department towards meeting full compliance of NFPA 1710. Currently, the fire department should continue to monitor the standard as legal challenges might occur, and begin to prepare for the quadrennial report. The quadrennial report is a document prepared by the Fire Chief and sent to the authority having jurisdiction(Board of Trustees) every four years. This report must include areas not currently meeting the standard, predictable consequences of those deficiencies and steps necessary to achieve compliance. The first quadrennial report is due in September 2005. Specifically, the NFPA 1710 Decision Guide states* Components of the report identifies the areas within the fire department that do not meet the NFPA 1710 standard in the following categories: • Event types (fire, EMS, HAZMAT, etc) • Geographic areas • First-arriving unit response time (90th percentile) • Last-arriving unit response time (90th percentile) • Turnout time (90th percentile) • On-scene staffing, first arriving unit • On-scene staffing, for initial full alarm assignments By non-compliant geographic area: • Predictable consequences of deficiencies could include: increased fire loss, increased fire death and injury rates. The economic impact could include increased dollar losses, as derived through a risk analysis. • Steps necessary to achieve compliance could include: addition of fire fighting resources, increased costs to local government, or determination that current level of risk is acceptable. *NEPA 1710: A Decision Guide,copyright @ 2001,IAFC McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 16 Need For A Career Fire Chief As this department realizes the additional demands in both emergency and non- emergency service requests increasing with population growth, the need for full-time leadership will be recognized. The consultant bases this statement on numerous studies involving fire departments in rapid growth situations and has found that the hiring of a full-time Chief is critical to the overall success of the department. Leadership sets the vision and direction of the department and this is a critical component early in the development of a fire depai tment. This should not imply any inadequacies in the present leadership; rather the need for an individual to devote full-time efforts to a full-time job will become increasingly obvious. Recommendation: The Bristol Kendall Board of Trustees should consider the need of a career(full-time)Fire Chief to address the growth and leadership challenges that will accompany the increases in service demands. The current leadership team should make the recommendation as to the timing of this position creation. Fire Prevention Bureau Often overlooked is the influence of a progressive fire prevention bureau's impact on future service demands. Most districts cannot fiscally afford to fully meet either the NFPA 1710 and/or the ISO recommendations for station placement. Rather, they attempt to prevent the fires by requiring additional early notification and/or suppression means built into the building. An example is a fire protection district in northeastern Illinois who protects very large homes built on minimum two acre lots. Due to annexation by surrounding municipal departments, this department has very long runs and it isn't fiscally capable of building additional facilities. Therefore, they require residential sprinklers in all homes and have signed numerous automatic response agreements with the surrounding communities. The net result is that the residents are better protected against loss of life and property. The prevention of fire through building inspections for adequate suppression devices, and the review of building plans for compliance to safety standards, now prevents the fire department from having to respond to calls that could have been prevented. Aggressive fire prevention programs during the current growth period can and should influence the placement of future satellite fire/EMS facilities. Recommendation: The consultant encourages the Bristol Kendall Fire Department to continue its effort in the development of a progressive fire prevention bureau. The Assistant Chief discussed a draft program with the consultant that emphasized the need for a cooperative effort with the municipalities having jurisdiction. The consultant was encouraged with the enthusiasm of the Assistant Chief and his understanding of the importance of a comprehensive fire prevention program especially during a community rapid growth period. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 17 , It is appropriate that once this division is established, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department should charge a fee for plan review of all new construction. This will necessitate a cooperative agreement with the local municipalities. Preemption Traffic Control Equipment Technology allows responding fire/EMS apparatus to control intersection traffic signals yielding a green light in their direction and a red light for cross traffic depending on the programming. The benefit of this equipment not only improves response times,but also increases safety for the responding personnel. Traffic signals installed at an intersection cost between $125,000 to $150,000 apiece. This equipment and installation costs are normally incurred by the municipality in which the intersection is located. The public safety agencies (fire and/or police) that are not part of a municipal department are usually responsible for the cost and installation of the preemption equipment. Most public safety agencies allow neighboring departments the ability (through programming) to utilize the preemption control of the intersection signals, if responding under emergency conditions, through their community. Therefore, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department would be responsible for the cost and installation of the preemption equipment only. Many communities require developers to fund traffic control devices depending on the traffic their development generates. Incorporating the preemption equipment is most cost effective during the initial wiring and programming of intersection traffic control devices rather than installation to an already existing traffic signal. Cost of this equipment varies considerably depending on the manufacturer. The Bristol Kendall Fire Department has researched this equipment and submitted a grant request through the Federal Government"Fire Act" in the amount of$160,000. This amount would provide transmitting equipment for existing fire/EMS apparatus and 20 intersections. Recommendation: The consultant highly recommends the installation of preemption traffic control devices at all signaled intersections in the Bristol Kendall Fire Department district. The most advantageous method is to immediately address the existing signaled intersections and add equipment as new intersections are changed from stop signs to traffic lights. Once the apparatus is equipped with the transmitters the receivers on the intersection themselves would cost approximately$7,500 per intersection. Automatic Response Areas And Partnerships Although most districts would like complete autonomy of their entire district, local taxpayers are increasingly rejecting funding referendums. Fire departments, as recent as 10 years ago, were usually more successful in their tax increase request. Those days are McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 18 r since gone and unfortunately are not likely to reappear. Therefore, districts will either be forced to limit protection or form additional agreements with other service providers. The fire service has written the book on mutual assistance during times of emergency. Their model for emergency aid to each other serves as the model for other public sector providers. Nobody works together better at an emergency scene than fire departments. Unfortunately, emergency activity only represents three to six percent of a department's activities. The remaining percentage of time fire departments are much less likely to form partnerships in administrative,training,prevention, education, and/or apparatus needs. Fire stations are still being built within one-half mile of a neighboring depainnent. Stations are being located in extreme corners of districts where emergency response is limited to a partial radius. Aerial apparatus is an excellent example. New trust construction and building setbacks require departments to perform certain functions (for example ventilation) in a different manner. Aerial apparatus provides a safer environment for personnel and tasks can be completed with fewer personnel. However, the majority of fire department calls do not require aerial apparatus. With a typical cost of over three-quarter of a million dollars and up, partnership and sharing of equipment becomes practical and fiscally responsible. The consultant would have no problem justifying the need for aerial apparatus for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department, but could see an advantage of a joint purchase and shared apparatus with another fire district. The Bristol Kendall Fire Department has entered into such agreements for automatic response especially in the northeastern corner of their district. Special teams such as Technical Rescue and Fire Cause and Origin are an effort of the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System(MABAS) division. The consultant has made the recommendation of station placement based on the philosophy of partnerships and joint emergency responses with other service providers. Today's progressive fire departments no longer recognize boundary lines, but approach emergency protection from what is best for the people. Therefore, boundary lines become invisible and the departments base response on proximity and some form of reciprocity. Recommendation: Bristol Kendall Fire Depattnuent should begin dialog with all the fire service providers surrounding them to see what partnerships and future opportunities exists, especially since the entire area is challenged with growth. City Of Joliet The future expansion of the City of Joliet will have a significant influence on future fire station placement and the reduction in size of the fire protection district for the Bristol Kendall Fire Depai lment. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 19 / • The consultant met with both the Director and Planner of the Community & Economic Development department for the City of Joliet. The consultant was impressed with their willingness and straightforward approach to the question of how far the City of Joliet will annex into the Bristol Kendall Fire Protection District. The United City of Yorkville City Administrator, Kendall County Director of Planning, Building & Zoning, and the City of Joliet all agreed on the current comprehensive proposed land use plan under consideration by the City of Joliet, which will infringe into the current Bristol Kendall Fire Depaitment district. However, the consultant was able to obtain the Director and Planner's "best guess prediction" of annexation by the year 2030: North: Rt. 126 from Brisbin Road (W), to Schlapp Road (E) West: Brisbin Road from Rt. 126 (N) to south of fire district boundaries Within that planning area is a sewer facility scheduled to come on line September 2005, and two proposed fire stations. One station(Joliet Station 12)would be located near the intersection of Walker Road and Grove Road, and currently lies within the Bristol Kendall fire protection district. If this prediction is accurate, the east boundary line of the Bristol Kendall fire protection district would become Brisbin Road from Rt. 126 to the existing southern boundary. The Joliet director and planner did acknowledge that if a developer approached the City with a large annexation that fell within those above described boundaries,but extended further west, they were confident the City would entertain such a proposal. Therefore, they acknowledged that the City of Joliet could (however unlikely in their opinion) extend west of Brisbin Road at some time in the future. Unique Risk Factors For the most part, the Bristol Kendall Fire Department does not have any unique fire and/or EMS risk properties. This does not imply that certain buildings within the district (for example the older downtown area) aren't of concern. Rather, the proposed growth by the United City of Yorkville is based on 85% residential and 15% industrial and/or commercial. The commercial areas are currently designated in the United City of Yorkville Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City Manager and/or the Executive Director of the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation identified potential future commercial areas to the consultant. Commercial development is planned along the Rt. 47 corridor, south of the United City of Yorkville and into potential annexed property by Yorkville. Also commercial development is planned, including"big boxes", along Rt. 47 north of the existing United City of Yorkville boundaries. The north property is currently unincorporated and both the Village of Montgomery and the United City of Yorkville designated it for commercial usage. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 20 Commercial development is also considered along Rt. 126 east of the current United City of Yorkville boundaries. The City of Joliet also acknowledged that Rt. 126 held potential for a commercial strip in the future. For the most part, all other industrial and/or commercial property was designated in the current United City of Yorkville Land Use maps. Recommendation: To verify the risk assessment of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department, the consultant has recommended the department obtain the software program titled RHAVE—Risk, Hazard and Value Evaluation. This program is jointly developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International and is free from the United States Fire Administration—(800)238-3358. This program has a revolutionary set of tools and methods to help fire department leadership and governing boards make objective, quantifiable decisions about future needs. Fiscal Capabilities Conventional wisdom would suggest that fiscal capabilities be an essential component of future planning. However, many consultants disregard this factor and recommend placement of satellite facilities absent the district's ability to fund it. It is a disservice to the Bristol Kendall Fire Protection governing board to make recommendations without consideration to the ability of the district to generate the funds to purchase the property,build the facility, adequately staff the facility with both apparatus and personnel, and maintain those facilities. Unfortunately, for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department, the United City of Yorkville 85% residential development philosophy does not provide a tax base for the district that will support the needed resources. Large industrial and commercial developments provide greater fiscal dollars to the district over residential development. The Bristol Kendall Fire Department has few options in generating funds. The district should consider raising developer's impact fees,but essentially they are restricted to raising the district's tax level, as the only revenue-generating source. Needless to say, current voter response to past referendum attempts indicates the challenges that lay ahead. The consultant has taken the approach of trying to minimize the placement of the satellite facilities in such a manner that reduces the number of stations needed and has the least negative impact on response. The consultant has realistically attempted to project out to the year 2030 based on a population of approximately 80,000 within the entire district. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 21 7 *� The facilities being recommended should have a minimum life expectancy of 20 years. Future district growth beyond that point might necessitate moving facilities to better serve unknown risks. The consultant acknowledges that there will be those that philosophically disagree with this approach and will have different justification for the placement of future facilities. Of the four Chiefs in the department, considerable difference of opinion exists as to the number of future fire/EMS facilities that will be needed. Two Chiefs felt that the district could be adequately covered with four stations in the future, whereas, two Chiefs felt that seven stations were needed. Each have compelling arguments for their perspective and the consultant considered that input in his decision. FUTURE LOCATIONS OF FIRE/EMS FACILITIES The consultant recommends the following locations for fire/EMS facilities for the Bristol Kendall Fire Department through the year 2030. The recommendation calls for a total of 5 fire stations. Two stations would be located north of the Fox River and three stations located south of the river. Headquarters Station & Station #2 Headquarters Station— 103 East Beaver Street and Station#2 proposed near the corner of McHugh Road and Kennedy Road are considered already in existence for the following recommendation. The consultant will number the stations in the sequence in which he recommends construction. The date of construction is the best guess estimate based on numerous factors and data collected during the study. All recommended stations should be a minimum of three drive through bays (drive through if land acquisitions permit) facilities to accommodate full-time personnel and a classroom/meeting room for use by both the department and the public. The existing plans developed by the department are very adequate, and the consultant reemphasizes the importance of separating the public use of the training room from other areas of the fire station. Station #3 It is recommended, as earlier noted in this report, that the third fire/EMS facility be built just east of Rt. 47 on Galena Road. This facility will be needed within the next five to seven years, as the majority of the population growth will occur in the northern portion of the Fire District. As noted earlier, the Chief officers unanimously recommended a triangular piece of property in the northeast section of the Fire District. This thinking is appropriate when considering today's needs; however, long-term consideration suggests that a fire station located as recommended would better serve the entire northern portion of the district. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 22 Station #4 It is recommended that Station#4 should be located west of Rt. 47 near the intersection of Walker Road and Immanuel Road. This location will begin to address the growth of the United City of Yorkville as it progresses south towards the current downtown area. This station will have both commercial and residential properties located within its initial response area. The consultant projects the need for this facility within the next ten to fifteen years. Station #5 It is recommended that Station#5 should be located east of Rt. 47 on Ament Road approximately in the 7400—7500 block. This facility will protect commercial development along Rt. 126 as well as residential. Although there is considerable district property south of this station, most of the individuals interviewed agreed it would most likely be big homes placed on large acre lots. The consultant projects the need for this facility soon after the building(two—three years) of Station#4. The commercial development along Rt. 126 will be the most significant factor on timing of this facility. DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE The Bristol Kendall Fire Department has no legal authority to collect impact fees and must do so through an agreement with the municipalities. The current impact fee collected from the United City of Yorkville and the Village of Montgomery is $300 per residential unit and .035 cents per square foot commercial. No impact fees are collected from the unincorporated areas of the County. The consultant was given 11 area fire depaitments proximal to Bristol Kendall, either comparable in size, service, or location within Kendall County. The consultant also surveyed Lake County, Illinois and the surrounding area as a comparison of an area that has gone through similar growth. The challenge is that there are almost as many developer impact fee structures within fire departments as there are fire departments. Some do not charge at all, some charge commercial but not residential, others just the opposite, others a flat fee, others a range of fees depending on usage of the building, others by square foot, others by review of plans (building, sprinkler, and/or alarm systems—required to be given to the fire department), and finally by acre regardless of residential or commercial. The range went from no fees to a high of$2,300. Therefore, the consultant did his best to find a common denominator in which to establish a comparable figure. The consultant considered the mean (average), mode (figure appearing the most), and medium (figure in the middle of the list) of the impact fee data. The most pertinent comparison would be utilization of the mean score. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 23 a r a 4 The consultant acknowledges not all fire departments responded to the survey and that no attempt was made to include any department that would skew the results. The compiled data is shown in the following chart: Impact Fee Survey County Residential Commercial Kendall $380.50 .13 Cents Sq.Ft. Lake $502.00 .26 Cents Sq. Ft. Others $510.50 .08 Cents Sq.Ft. Representative of Kendall County were 11 departments in the County or surrounding departments that were similar in size, call volume, and/or growth potential. Overall, the fees in Kendall County were less than those of other departments surveyed. In the case of Lake County, most of the responding departments had flat fees and additional charges for plan reviews (required). Most fire protection districts did not have any additional fees due to their inability to collect and/or the unwillingness of the municipality to have a multiple fee structure for the department. Therefore, the recommendation is based on what is most functional for a fire protection district to collect. The category of`others' represents departments in the northeast section of Illinois and 28 fire departments (not previously included in any list) representing the following counties: McHenry, DuPage, Cook, Kane, DeKalb, and Will. Recommendation: The consultant recommends that the Bristol Kendall Fire Department raise its developer impact fee to $500 per residential unit and .16 cents per square foot commercial. Minimum charge of$800 would be assessed for commercial occupancy of 5,000 square feet or less. Illinois law restricts collection of fire protection district development impact fees to capital improvements only; for example, the development of fire/EMS buildings and/or other major capital purchases by the district. SUMMARY The consultant has made a series of recommendations based on data provided by the Bristol Kendall Fire Department, surveys, and interviews. Although the leadership of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department is divided on the number of future satellite stations, it is obvious to the consultant that considerable thought and effort went into the design of the floor plan for those satellite facilities. It is not uncommon to have different perspectives on issues of future growth. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 24 The consultant listed a number of issues to be considered in the recommendation of the five stations that should serve the district through 2030, based on a population of approximately 80,000. The following recommendations were made in this report: ➢ The Board of Trustees and leadership of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department should meet with the United City of Yorkville officials and attempt to establish a policy similar to that offered by the Village of Montgomery pertaining to donation of property for satellite fire facilities to serve the City. ➢ A top priority of the Bristol Kendall Fire Department Board of Trustees should be the acquisition of property for the development of future satellite station facilities at or near the consultant's recommended locations. ➢ Staffing of all future satellite fire station locations should be based on the probability of the need for a minimum of four career employees augmented by paid-on-call. ➢ The Board of Trustees should not adopt NFPA 1710 at this time, but should recognize and consider this standard in determining staffing and response time benchmarks for all future satellite fire/EMS facilities. ➢ The Board should establish the position of career(fulltime) Fire Chief in the future, to address the additional leadership challenges associated with community growth. ➢ Emphasis should be placed on the continuing effort to develop a comprehensive fire prevention bureau within the Bristol Kendall Fire Department. This division would need to establish a strong working relationship with the district's municipalities. ➢ Once the Bristol Kendall Fire Prevention Bureau is established it is appropriate that the District should ask the municipalities to require developers to submit plans for review to the fire department. The fire depth talent should charge a fee for those reviews. ➢ The consultant recommends the installation of preemption traffic control devices at all signaled intersection in the Bristol Kendall Fire Department district. The cost to the department is approximately $7,500 per intersection. ➢ The Bristol Kendall Fire Department should continue to seek opportunities to develop cost effective partnerships with all surrounding fire/EMS service providers. This is especially important in the southeastern portion of the Fire District that may potentially be annexed by the City of Joliet. ➢ The Bristol Kendall Fire Department should utilize the RHAVE computer program to determine the actual fire risk factor potential in their district. This program is free from the United States Fire Administration. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 25 4 ➢ Future fire/EMS facilities are recommended at or near the following areas: • Station#2—near the corner of McHugh Road &Kennedy Road (current proposed site) • Station#3 —just east of the intersection of Rt. 47 & Galena Road • Station#4—west of Rt. 47 near the intersection of Walker Road & Immanuel Road • Station#5 —east of Rt. 47 on Ament Road approximately in the 7400 to 7500 block ➢ Impact fees should be raised from the current $300.00 per residential development to $500.00 per residential development. ➢ Commercial impact fees should be raised from the current .035 cents per square foot to .16 cents per square foot. The minimum commercial developer fee should be raised from $300.00 to $800.00 for any occupancy less than 5,000 square feet. McGrath Consulting Group,Inc. 26 0 United City of Yorkville County Seat of Kendall County EST. 1836 800 Game Farm Road II Cl) Yorkville, Illinois 60560 O t� lidO Phone:630-553-4350 "3.4.1„ Fax:630-553-7575 v LE w DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 19, 2004 TO: Tony Graff, City Administrator FROM: William A. Dettm Official SUBJECT: Bristol-Kendall Fire Department Future Needs Report—June 2004 I have reviewed the report prepared by the McGrath Consulting Group. Although I have a few differences of opinion with some very minor points, I agree with the consultant's opinion that the impact fee should be raised. Though I agree with their considerations that the impact fee should be raised, I do question the amount of increase they are proposing based on the surveyed areas. I think that the Lake County figures are based on a much more affluent county and that the result of an "average" development fee is skewed upward by the inclusion of Lake County. Lake County's use was predicated based upon its similar recent growth and I am not sure that Lake County's recent growth translates into comparable fiscal comparisons in Yorkville. The areas surveyed and included in "others" seem to be more closely related to Yorkville in proximal location and economic comparison. The average between Kendall County and others is a much lower figure if Lake County is not considered. The consultants did not provide any figures on the anticipated revenue needed for the District's future needs nor did they provide figures on what the proposed increase would provide to the District to meet these needs although it is a given that the increased fees will help their situation. Yorkville's .035 cents per sq. ft. for commercial is well below the Kendall County average of.13 cents per sq. ft. and I agree that the fee should be raised, but I do not agree that the consultant justified the proposed amount of increase in this report. Schoppe Design Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning 430 W. Downer Place Ph. (630) 896-2501 Aurora, IL 60506 Fax(630) 896-3228 July 14, 2004 MEMORANDUM To: Tony Graff—City Administrator From: Mike Schoppe - Schoppe Design Associates, Inc. Re: Revised Planned Unit Development Ordinance Attached is a revised draft of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The revisions incorporate the staff comments from the review meetings we had on June 17th and June 22nd. I would like to make sure that the City is comfortable with the section"Modifications to the Planned Unit Development" found on page 8. As you will recall, we were asked to add language addressing minor and major changes to an approved P.U.D. Because this is new language that you have not seen before, I would like you to review it closely. Let me know if you have any questions or need further revisions before sending on to the EDC committee. CC: Liz D'Anna, Deputy Clerk Page 1 of 1 Revised 3/22/04 Revised 6/17/04 Revised 7/14/04 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION: I0-13-I: Purpose 10-13-2: Delineation on Zoning Map 10-13-3: Procedures 10-13-4: Pre-Application Conference 10-13-5: Concept Plan 10-13-6: Preliminary P.U.D. Plan 10-13-9: Development Standards 10-13-10: Fees 10-13-I I: Separability 10-13-12: Violation, Penalty, Enforcement 10-13-13: Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances 10-13-14: When Effective 10-13-1: PURPOSE: Planned Unit Developments are intended to encourage the most imaginative and best possible design of building forms and site planning for tracts of land where unitary plans would best adapt to topographic and other natural features of such sites. Under this procedure, well planned residential, industrial, commercial and other types of land use, individually or in combination, may be developed with design flexibility. Planned developments must be environmentally compatible. They should have a more beneficial effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and particularly, in the immediate surroundings, than would developments built in conformity with standard district regulations. Size of Planned Unit Developments shall be of sufficient size to accommodate self-contained developments and to create their own character. Planned Unit Developments are of such substantially different character from other special uses that the following additional standards are established to guard against their use solely as a means of intensifying the use of land. City of Yorkville 1 10-13-2: DELINEATION ON ZONING MAP: Approved Planned Unit Developments shall be delineated and designated by number on the Zoning District Map. A file, available for inspection by the public, shall be maintained by the Zoning Officer for each planned development so designated. The file shall contain a record of the approved development plan and all exceptions authorized therein. 10-13-3: PROCEDURES: The Planned Unit Development approval process includes the following stages: A. A Pre-application B. Concept Plan C. Preliminary P.U.D. Plan 10-13-4: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: Purpose: The purpose of the pre-application conference is to provide advice and assistance to the applicant before preparation of the Concept Plan or Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, so that the applicant may receive input on: A. Whether the proposed Planned Unit Development will be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and the policies of the City of Yorkville. B. Whether the zoning classification of Planned Unit Development is appropriate for the development. Procedure: Prior to the filling of the application for approval of a Planned Unit Development, the Petitioner shall be required to contact the City Administrator or his designee to arrange an informal pre-application meeting with City staff and its consultants. The pre-application conference shall be held with Staff. At such conference the applicant shall provide information as to the location of the proposed Planned Unit Developments, the land use types and approximate area of proposed land uses, a list of any and all exceptions to this Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations; and other information necessary to clearly explain the planned unit developments. Staff shall review and provide input on the proposal's compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and policies for planning of the City and advise the applicant on the information, documents, exhibits, drawings on the proposal that should be included in the application to the City for a planned unit development. City of Yorkville 2 10-13-5: CONCEPT PLAN Purpose: The Concept Plan is the first step in the Planned Unit Development process. The purpose of the Concept plan is to enable the applicant to obtain the opinions and recommendations of the Park Board (residential developments only), Plan Commission and City Council prior to spending considerable time and expense in the preparation of detailed preliminary P.U.D. plans. Procedure: Not less than (30) days before the next available Park Board Planning or Plan Commission meeting, the applicant shall file an application with the Deputy Clerk for review of Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan. The application shall consist of the following documentation: A. A completed application form. B. An Aerial Photograph exhibit of the property taken within the last 2 years. The Aerial Photograph exhibit at not less than I" = 400 scale and shall include the following: I. Name of proposed development 2. Outline of property boundaries 3. Adjacent area within one quarter mile of property C. A Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan. The plan shall include the following: I. North arrow, scale and date of preparation. 2. Name and address of the site planner, engineer or surveyor who prepared the plan. 3. Name of property owner. 4. Name ofetitioner/develo er. P P 5. Proposed name of the planned unit development. 6. Proposed land uses. 7. Total acreage, and percent of the site devoted to each land use. 8. Location of proposed streets and lots. 9. Proposed dedication of land for school and park sites, if applicable. 10. Land area to be used for open space such as stormwater basins, buffers, parks and trail corridors. 1 I. Proposed approximate building footprints and estimated floor area for all nonresidential structures, if any. 12. Approximate number of residential units. 13. Approximate gross and net densities. 14. Wetlands, floodplain and floodways obtained from published data. 15. Location of lakes, ponds, streams and drainage swales. 16. Existing vegetation including description of predominant vegetation types and sizes. 17. Existing contour lines with a minimum of five foot intervals obtained from published data. 18. Location of existing water, sanitary and storm sewer systems intended to serve the development. City of Yorkville 3 19. Proximity to existing and proposed transportation corridors and a written statement with regard to general impacts due to this P.U.D. 20. Written description of how the existing utilities are planned to be extended to serve the development. 21. Any other data reasonably necessary to provide an accurate overview of the proposed development. 22. Written explanation outlining why the property should be developed as a planned unit development. 23. A preliminary list of requested exceptions to applicable city ordinances and codes. D. Other documents may be requested by the City if it is determined necessary to clearly describe the planned unit development. E. The Clerk's office shall have the application reviewed for completeness. If the application is not complete, the applicant will be notified by the Clerk's office as to the deficiencies. The application will not be forwarded on for review until the application is complete. Park Board Review (if applicable): The Park Board shall conduct an informal review of the Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan and supporting documentation and provide the applicant with general input on the following: A. Compatibility of the proposal with the Recreation Master Plan and Park Development Standards. B. Layout and organization of the open space system. C. Compliance with the City's Land-Cash ordinance for parks. D. Other documentation that the Park Board would recommend be prepared during the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan phase. E. A formal recommendation by vote is not given for a Conceptual P.U.D. Plan. Plan Commission Review: The Plan Commission shall conduct an informal review of the Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan and supporting documentation and provide the applicant with general comments on the following: A. Compatibility of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. B. Appropriateness of the proposed land uses. C. General layout of open space, streets, parking areas, lots and buildings. D. Other documents the Plan Commission would recommend be prepared for the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan phase. E. A formal recommendation by vote is not given for a Conceptual P.U.D. Plan. City Council Review: The Committee of the Whole shall conduct an informal review of the Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan and supporting documentation and provide the applicant with general comments on the following: City of Yorkville 4 A. Compatibility of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and goals and objectives of the City. B. Appropriateness of the proposed land uses. C. General layout of open space, streets, parking areas, lots and buildings. D. Other documents the Plan Commission would recommend be prepared for the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan phase. E. A formal approval by vote is not given for a Conceptual P.U.D. Plan. Staff Review: The Clerk's office shall distribute copies of application and supporting documents to members of the Plan Council. The Plan Council shall conduct a Plan Council meeting and shall review the Conceptual Planned Unit Development Plan and supporting documents and shall advise the applicant as to the proposals compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, Recreation Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance, previously approved agreement or plans, and other goals and policies for the planning of the City. Copies of the minutes from the Plan Council meeting shall be forwarded by the Deputy Clerk to the Park Board (in the case of residential development), Plan Commission and City Council. 10-13-6: PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN Purpose: The purpose of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan submission is to obtain approval from the City that the plans the applicant intends to prepare and follow are acceptable as a Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, and that any final plans will be approved provided they substantially conform to the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan. Approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development shall not constitute authority to proceed with construction of any improvements but rather an approval of the general features of the plans as a basis for preparing the Final Planned Unit Development Plans. Procedure: Not less than (45) days before the Plan Commission meeting, the applicant shall file an application with the Deputy Clerk for Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval. The application shall consist of the following documentation: A. One copy of the completed Preliminary Planned Unit Development form. B. Disclosure of Beneficiaries form. C. Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan. The plan shall include at a minimum the following information: I. North arrow, scale (not less than I" = 200') and date of preparation. 2. Name and address of the site planner, engineer or surveyor who prepared the plan. 3. Name of property owner. 4. Name of developer. 5. Proposed name of development. 6. Location map. 7. Legal description. 8. Site data, including as applicable: City of Yorkville 5 a. Total acreage, and acreage and percentage of each proposed land use. b. Percent of land devoted to streets and public rights of way. c. Number of residential lots. d. Floor area (non-residential). e. Gross and net residential density. f. Minimum, maximum and average lot sizes. g. Percent of lot coverage for all uses except detached single- family and duplex. 9. Aerial photograph illustrating the subject property and adjacent property within 500' of the site. 10. Existing and proposed zoning. II. Existing zoning and owners of adjacent property. 12. Municipal limits. 13. School District boundaries. 14. Property lines and dimensions. 15. Residential lots with approximate dimensions. 16. Location of multi-family and single family attached buildings. 17. Footprints of non-residential buildings. 8. Front, rear, side yard and corner side yard setbacks. 19. Off-street parking and loading areas, including number and dimensions of parking spaces, drive aisles and loading zones. 20. Configuration and acreage of all land proposed as open space including stormwater management areas, parks, buffers, and trail corridors. 21. All sites to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for parks, school sites, public buildings, and similar public and quasi-public uses. 22. Pedestrian and/or bicycle circulation systems. 23. Existing vegetation. 24. Limits of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. 25. Limits of 100 year floodplain. 26. Surface water including lakes, ponds, streams and drainage swales. 27. Existing contour lines with a minimum one foot interval. 28. Any other data reasonable necessary to provide an accurate overview of the proposed development. 29. Draft agreement of P.U.D. agreement. D. Preliminary Landscape Plan indicating the name, variety, size, location and quantities of plant material for all common and dedicated areas including parkways, buffer areas, stormwater basins, wetlands, entry areas, medians, and parking lot islands. E. Preliminary Engineering Plan which shall be drawn on a print of the proposed Land Use Plan. The proposed Plan shall show an appropriate location and dimensions of all sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water lines for all proposed land uses, drainage ditches, culverts and stormwater retention/detention areas, as well as all utility easements. The Plan shall be accompanied by a statement from the Sanitary District attesting to the City of Yorkville 6 capability of the existing sewer system and wastewater treatment facility to service the proposed development. F. Photometric Plan (for non-residential developments only): The Photometric Plan shall be superimposed on the site plan, and shall: I. Identify the location and heights of all light standards. 2. Identify foot-candle intensities on the site of the Planned Unit Development, and ten feet beyond proposed property lines. 3. Include specifications for proposed lighting, including wattage, method of illumination, and color of light standards and luminaires. G. Architectural Drawings: Preliminary architectural drawings for all primary buildings and accessory buildings shall be submitted which include: I. Typical elevations (front, rear and side) for proposed residential and non-residential buildings, which identify materials and color styling proposed for all elements of the building. 2. Proposed building heights. 3. Roof plan for all non-residential structures, which shows the proposed location of all roof-mounted mechanical equipment. H. Zoning Plat I. Other: The Plan Commission may require preparation and submittal of the following for review and evaluation: I. Fiscal impact study, detailing the estimated cost which the Planned Unit Development will have on all taxing bodies, and anticipated revenues which will be realized from each phase of development. 2. Proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or homeowner association by-laws. 3. Other information that may be required by the Plan Commission. Plan Council Review: Upon receipt of all the required submittals, the Clerks office shall distribute copies of the application and supporting documentation to members of the Plan Council. The Plan Council shall review the Preliminary Planned Unit Development and supporting documentation and make a recommendation to the Plan Commission as to the proposal's compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, Recreation Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance, annexation agreement and other goals and policies for planning the City. A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared by the City as part of the Plan Council review. Park Board Review (if applicable): The Park Board shall conduct a formal review of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan and supporting documentation. The Park Board shall forward its recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation may include conditions of approval intended to be incorporated into final plans and supporting documentation. Plan Commission Review: The Plan Commission shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with Illinois Compiled Statues. After the close of the public hearing, the Plan Commission shall recommend to the City Council approval or denial of the City of Yorkville 7 Planned Unit Development. The recommendation may include conditions of approval intended to be incorporated into final plans and supporting documentation. City Council Review: Subsequent to receiving the Plan Commission and Park Board recommendations, the City Council shall approve or deny the application for the Planned Unit Development. Modifications to the Planned Unit Development: After the approval of the Planned Unit Development, the use of land, construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the Planned Unit Development will be governed by the approved Planned Unit Development, rather than by any other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by the City. No changes may be made to the approved Planned Unit Development unless approved by the City. Changes to the Planned Unit Development will be considered to be either a major change or a minor change. Minor changes are modifications that do not alter the concept or intent of a Planned Unit Development. Minor changes which meet the criteria set forth in this subsection may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee, if the proposed minor change does not result in the following: I. Any increase in density. 2. Any change in circulation patterns or access. 3. Any change in mixture of dwelling unit types. 4. Any change in grading or utility provisions. 5. Any change in the mixture of land uses. 6. Any reduction of an amount of common open space, landscaping or buffering. 7. Any change to exterior elevations of buildings which alter rooflines, building materials, approved color schemes or a result in a change in architectural style. 8. Other changes of similar scale, proportion or use. Minor changes not approved by the City Administrator may be approved by the City Council without review and recommendation by the Plan Commission, unless the City Council refers a request for a minor change to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation. Major changes are modifications which alter the concept or intent of the Planned Unit Development. Factors which shall be considered in determining whether a proposed change constitutes a major change include: A. Nonresidential Components of a Planned Unit Development: City of Yorkville 8 I. The proposed change to the following components which constitute a greater than ten percent (10%) cumulative increase or decrease from that shown on the approved Planned Unit Development Plan: a. Gross floor area of a nonresidential building. b. Acres of area used for nonresidential purposes. c. Total gross floor area of all of the nonresidential buildings in the project. d. Total number of parking spaces for the project. 2. Change in location type or land use. 3. Change in type, number or location of a building. 4. Greater than a ten percent (10%) increase in the height of a building. 5. Change in the functional classification of a roadway. 6. Reduction in the acreage of open space or common open space. B. Residential Components of a Planned Unit Development: 1. The proposed change constitutes a greater than ten percent (10%) cumulative change in the number of dwelling units in the Planned Unit Development, based on the approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan; or 2. The proposed change constitutes a greater than ten percent (10%) cumulative change in the height of any building or structure in the Planned Unit Development other than single-family detached dwelling units, based on the approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development; or 3. Change in the location, size or types of dwelling units or land uses; or 4. Change in the functional classification of a roadway; or 5. Reduction in the acreage of open space. If a major change is requested, the applicant shall submit a revised Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and supporting data with an application for a major change to the Clerk's office, not less than 45 days before the Plan Commission meeting. The Plan Commission shall recommend to the City Council approval or denial of the application for a major change. Subsequent to receiving the Plan Commission and Park Board (if applicable) recommendations, the City Council shall approve or deny the application for the major change. 10-13-10: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Plan Commission shall make findings and recommendations to City Council for approval of the Planned Unit Development, based upon the following standards. City of Yorkville 9 A. General I. The uses permitted by such exceptions as may be requested or recommended are necessary or desirable and appropriate to the purpose of the development. 2. The uses permitted in such development are not of such nature or so located as to exercise an undue detrimental influence or effect upon the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That all minimum requirements pertaining to commercial, residential, institutional or other uses established in the planned development shall be subject to the requirements for each individual classification as established elsewhere in this Title, except as may be specifically varied herein granting and establishing a planned development use. 4. Minimum size of property shall be 10 acres. 5. Wherever the applicant proposes to provide and set out, by platting, deed, dedication, restriction or covenant, any land or space separate from single-family or multi-family residential districts to be used for parks, playgrounds, commons, greenways or open areas, the Plan Commission may consider and recommend to the City Council and the City Council may vary the applicable minimum requirements of the comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance which may include but not necessarily be limited to the following: a. Rear yard b. Side yard c. Lot area d. Bulk e. Intensity of use f. Street width g. Sidewalks h. Public utilities i. Off-street parking B. Residential I. Minimum size of any Planned Unit Development property shall be 10 acres. 2. Business uses may be included as part of a planned residential development. 3. Use regulations: a.Uses proposed are consistent with those listed as allowable uses in the respective zoning districts. 4. Uses listed as special uses in the zoning district in which the development is located may be allowed. 5. Signs: In accordance with the regulations set forth in Chapter 12 of this Title. City of Yorkville 10 6. Off-street parking and Loading: In accordance with the regulations set forth in Chapter I I of this Title. 7. The Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve access to a dwelling by a driveway or pedestrian walk easement. Off street parking facilities for such dwellings shall be located not more than two hundred (200) feet from the dwelling served. The Plan Commission also may recommend and the City Council may approve yards of lesser widths or depths than required for permitted uses in the district in which the planned development is located, provided: b. Those protective covenants are recorded with perpetual access easements and off-street parking spaces for use by the residents of the dwellings served. c. That spacing between buildings shall be consistent with the application of recognized site planning principles for securing a unified development and that due consideration is given to the openness normally afforded by intervening streets and alleys. d. The yards for principal buildings along the periphery of the development shall be not less in width or depth than required for permitted uses in the district regulations applicable to the district in which the planned development is located and the plan is developed to afford adequate protection to neighborhood properties as recommended by the Plan Commission and approved by the City Council. C. Non-Residential: In a planned business development, the following additional requirements are hereby specified: I. Required off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section I I of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Residential use may be included as part of a non-residential Planned Unit Development. 3. All walks within the planned development shall be paved with a hard surfaced material meeting the specifications of the City Engineer. 4. Any part of the planned development not used for buildings, loading and access ways shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs and pedestrian walkways according to the Landscape Plan, as approved by the Plan Commission. 5. Permitted business uses shall be prescribed in the ordinance granting the planned development. 6. The buildings in the planned development shall be planned and designed as a unified and single project. 7. Business developments shall be adequately screened by fencing or landscaping or both along the boundaries of adjacent residential, public open space schools, churches or other similar uses. 8. Signs shall comply with the regulations set forth in the Municipal Code. City of Yorkville 11 9. Use regulations: Uses listed as permitted and special uses in the residential and business districts are allowed. 10. Performance standards: In accordance with the standards of the district in which the development is located. II. Industrial: In planned industrial developments, the standards for industrial areas in a Planned Unit Development shall conform to the applicable standards in the Zoning Ordinance for industrial areas. 12. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio requirements of the district are applicable to each section, clause and provision of this ordinance and shall be considered as to the entire planned development and not to specific uses which may be located within the planned development. For this purpose, the net site area shall be used in the computation. 13. Signs shall comply with the regulations set forth in Chapter 12 of this ordinance. 14. Off-Street Parking and Loading: In accordance with the regulations set forth in Chapter II of this Title. D. Conditions and Guarantees: prior to granting any special uses, the Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council shall stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection and requirements specified herein or as may be from time to time required. In all cases in which special uses are granted, the City Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be compared with. E. Effect of denial of a Special Use: After a public hearing, no application for a special use which has been denied wholly or in part by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of one (I) year from the date of said order of denial, except on the grounds of substantial new evidence or proof of changed conditions found to be valid by the Plan Commission and the City Council. F. Termination of Special Use Permit: If work on the proposed development has not begun within twenty-four (24) months from the date of the authorization order of the City Council, the authorization shall become null and void and all rights hereunder shall lapse. 10-13-11 : FEES: The City Council shall establish a schedule of fees, charges and expenses for occupancy permits, appeals, applications and amendments for special use, and other matters pertaining to this ordinance. The schedule of fees shall be posted in the Clerks office and may be altered or amended only by the City Council. Until all applicable fees, charges and expenses have been paid in full, no action shall be taken on any application or appeal. City of Yorkville 12 U�~U �~A �^ SEPARABILITY: . ~ ~ � ~ .~. Each secdon chuse omd provision of this ordinance shall be considered as separable, and the invalidity of one or more shall not have any effect upon the validity of other secdons, clauses or provisions of this ordinance. 10-13-13: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES: Any and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are repealed. 10-13-14: WHEN EFFECTIVE: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after passage, approval and publication in book form according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, on the day of ,2004. City of Yorkville 13 Jul . 19 . 2004 3 : 32PM No . 5576 P. 2/13 Draft Revised Landscape Ordinance Prepared by: Schoppe Design Associates,Inc. Date: May 5,2004 Revised: July 19, 2004 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SECTION I: APPLICABILITY: 1. Existing buildings: All lots which have buildings constructed upon prior to the date of this ordinance are exempt from the standards in this ordinance, except for any property which is being rezoned or which a special use is being requested. If a property is being rezoned or is being approved as a special use request, the following landscape standards shall apply: a. Parkway Landscaping b. Perimeter Landscaping c. Parking Lot Landscaping—for the purpose of this category,parking lot landscaping requirements shall apply only to the construction of the new portion of a parking lot and shall not apply to existing parking lots. d. Storm Water Storage Basin Landscaping— for the purpose of this category, storm water storage basin landscaping requirements shall apply only to the construction of the new portion of a storm water storage basin and shall not apply to existing storm water storage basins. 2. For single family detached and duplex residential development: a. New Construction: The applicable landscape requirements for this development activity are as follows: 1. Parkway Landscaping 2. Landscaping Adjacent to Primary and Secondary Arterials and Collector 3. Tree Preservation 1 Ju1 . 19 . 2004 3 : 32PM No • 5576 P. 3/13 3. For all other development, other than single family detached and duplex residential development: a. New Construction: The applicable landscape requirements for this development activity within this category are as follows: 1. Parkway Landscaping 2, Perimeter Landscaping 3. Parking Lot Landscaping, 4, Lot Landscaping 5. Storm Water Storage Basin Landscaping 6. Tree Preservation SECTION 2: LANDSCAPE AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements in this section are cumulative: 1. Parkway Landscaping: a. For all single family detached and duplex residential development, the minimum required number of parkway trees are as follows: Interior lots - one tree per lot. Corner lots -two trees per lot (one tree per side). All other lots - (such as parks and retention/detention areas) one tree per 50 lineal feet of frontage. b. For all development other than single family detached and duplex residential development, the minimum required number of parkway trees is one tree per 50 lineal feet of frontage. c. All parkways shall have minimum of 6 inches of good, clean, clump-free topsoil neatly leveled to uniform grade from the top of curb to the top of sidewalk after settling. Trees shall be planted within the public parkway between the curb and sidewalk and trail as applicable, d. All parkways shall have a good,thick stand of grass utilizing sod or seed per the IDOT specifications including fertilizing. The developer as covered by the required maintenance letter of credit will repair any settling of grass loss during the one-year maintenance period. The minimum gradient of all parkways toward the curb shall be 2% and the maximum shall be 8%. All areas shall be seeded or sodded and fertilized in an 2 Jul . 19 2004 3 : 32PM No . 5576 P . 4/13 approved manner. Grass watering and mowing to a maximum height of 5 inches will be the responsibility of the developer through the one year required maintenance period after City acceptance. Parkways will be a minimum of 10 feet in width from the back of the curb to the front edge of the sidewalk. e. No tree shall be planted closer than 30'of the right-of-way intersection. f. Trees shall have a minimum spacing of 20 feet from light poles, street signs, fire hydrants and any other such items that may, in the opinion of the Public Works Director,require similar intervals. g. Trees under wires are not to exceed 20 feet in height at maturity. h. Parkway trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. It shall be the responsibility of the developer or builder to properly water all newly planted parkway trees at the time of planting,and subsequently thereafter, to insure their survival for a period of one year after City Council acceptance of the public improvements. i. Only approved shade trees may be used as parkway trees. 2. Perimeter Landscaping: a. Non-residential adjacent to residential: Where a non-residential property is adjacent to residential property a 30' wide bufferyard shall be provided. The bufferyard shall consist of a berm or architectural masonry wall, at least 3' in height as measured from the property line. The bufferyard shall also consist of 2 shade trees, 5 evergreen trees and three ornamental trees per 100 lineal feet of bufferyard. b. Multi-family residential adjacent to single family detached and duplex residential: Where multi-family residential property is adjacent to single family detached or duplex residential a 30' landscape bufferyard shall be provided. The bufferyard shall consist of three shade trees, three evergreen and two ornamental trees per 100 lineal feet of bufferyard. 3. Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots with ten (10) or more parking spaces, shall provide landscaping in accordance with the following: a. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 3 Ju1 . 19 . 2004 3: 32PM No . 5576 P . 5/13 1. Interior Landscaping: One tree shall be provided for every 20 parking space and shall be planted within the interior of the parking lot. Trees shall be located in landscape medians, which have a minimum area of 190 square feet and a minimum dimension of 10 feet. The landscape median shall be covered with shrubs, ground cover, turf or organic mulch. 2. Visibility: To ensure proper visibility within the parking lot, the branches of trees shall stat no less than six feet(6') above the pavement and shrubs shall be maintained at a height of no greater than 30" above the pavement. b. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: 1. When a parking lot, which is located on a non-residential property, is adjacent to another non-residential property, a 5' perimeter bufferyard shall be planted with two shade trees and fifteen shrubs per 100 lineal feet of bufferyard. 2. When a parking lot is adjacent to a public right-of-way, a landscape bufferyard shall be provided and shall be the width of the required parking lot setback or 30', whichever is less. The bufferyard shall consist of one shade tree, one evergreen tree and thirty-three shrubs per 100 lineal feet of bufferyard. 4. Lot Landscaping: Lot landscaping shall be required for all developments other than single family detached residential and duplex developments in accordance with the following: a. Multi-family: Two canopy trees and 15 shrubs shall be provided for every four units. b. Non-residential: Two shade trees and 15 shrubs shall be provided for every 20,000 sf. of lot area. 5. Landscaping Adjacent to Primary and Secondary Arterials and Collector: Residential lots which back up to an Arterial or Collector as defined in the Yorkville Comprehensive Plan, shall provide a minimum 30' wide landscape easement running the full length of the residential lots. This easement shall he planted with 3 shade trees, 4 evergreens and 20 shrubs per 100 feet. 4 Jul . 19 • 2004 3 :32PM No .5576 P . 6/13 6. Storm Water Storage Basin Landscaping: A 30 foot wide bufferyard shall be provided around any storm water storage basin that has its high water line within the front or side yards of a lot. The 30' bufferyard shall be measured from the property line to the average elevation between normal water line and the high water line for retention basins and from the property line to the average elevation between the lowest basin elevation and the high water line for detention basins. The bufferyard shall be planted with 1 tree per 30 feet of bufferyard length, The bufferyard may be reduced to 10' wide. If so, the 10 foot bufferyard shall be planted with 2 trees per 30 feet of bufferyard length. 7. Tree Preservation: The following standards shall apply to all lots which are 5 acres or greater in area. No live tree(s)with a trunk diameter of four inches (4") or greater in diameter, as measured 5' from the ground, may be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the City. a. Tree Removal Permit: The application for a tree removal permit shall be made to the Building Department. The application shall include: 1. A Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. The plan shall include: a. A tree survey showing the location of all trees 4" or greater in diameter with 100' of any tree proposed to be removed, including a description of the trees, botanical name, common name, caliper size and general condition or health of the tree(s) b. Delineation of trees to be removed and trees to be preserved c. Details and specifications or procedures to be used to protect trees being preserved d. Location, size and name of replacement trees 2. Tree Preservation and Removal Standards: a. Every reasonable effort shall be made to retain existing trees shown on the tree survey through the integration of those trees into the site plan and landscape plan for a proposed development 5 Jul . 19 • 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P . 7/13 b. Grading and construction equipment shall be prohibited from encroaching within the drip line of a tree c. Crushed limestone hydrocarbons and other material detrimental to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the drip line of any tree nor at any higher location where drainage toward the tree could conceivable affect the health of the tree d. Snow fencing or other approved construction barrier shall be temporarily installed at the periphery of the tree's drip line e. In the event that underground utility lines are proposed within five feet (5')of the trunk of a tree, then auguring of the utility line should be considered and may be required by the City 3. Tree Replacement Standards: a. Any tree approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees in accordance with the following schedule: CALIPER(INCHES)OF TREE NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TO BE REMOVED TREES 30 or greater 6 13-29 5 8-12 4 4-7 2 b. In the event that a tree identified to be preserved is removed or damaged, such tree shall be replaced as follows: CALIPER(INCHES)OF TREE NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TO BE REMOVED TREES 30 or greater 12 13-29 10 8-12 8 4-7 4 c. All replacement trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 '/z" and shall consist of the shade tree varieties listed under Permitted Plantings d. If the tree(s)approved for removal is (are) dead,then no replacement tree(s) are required. 6 Jul • 19 . 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P . 8/13 4. Approval Criteria: The City shall approve a tree removal permit application if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. The tree to be removed poses a safety hazard to persons or property b. The tree is substantially diseased or weakened by age, storm, fire or other injury c. The tree removal is in accordance with good forestry practice such as when a parcel of land will only support a certain number of healthy trees which is less than the number of existing trees on the parcel d. The tree removal is part of an approved overall landscape plan 5. Failure to Replace Trees: If replacement trees, which are required by the approved tree removal permit, are not planted within the time frame set out by the tree removal permit,the City may, at its option,replace the trees. All costs associated with purchasing and planting the replacement trees shall be charged to the owner or other person or entity causing the removal of the trees. SECTION 3: GENERAL STANDARDS 1, Landscape Plan: Prior to receiving site plan approval, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. It is recommended that that prior to submitting a site plan or landscape plan, a pre-submittal conference be conducted to review the site plan implications and the standards of this Chapter. The landscape plan shall contain the following information: • 41 a. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, parking lots, sidewalks, ground signs, refuse disposal areas, free standing electrical equipment, and other freestanding structural features. b. Name, location, right-of-way and pavement widths of abutting streets. c. The current zoning and land use for adjoining properties and properties located across abutting streets. • 7 Jul . 19 . 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P. 9/13 d. The location, quantity,size,and type (both botanical and common names) of all existing landscaping to be preserved and removed, and all proposed landscaping to be added. e, The location and contours, at one-foot(1')intervals, of all proposed berming and storm water detention/retention ponds. f. Specification of the type and boundaries of all proposed ground cover. g. Elevation and location of all existing and proposed fences. h. Location of all existing and proposed utilities and easements. i. Property line dimensions. 2. Quality: All trees shall be planted according to the minimum standards established by the American Association of Nurserymen. Plant material shall be grown in nurseries from the Central or Northern Illinois region. 3. Size: The size of plant material required by this ordinance shall be as follows: Shade Tree - 2 1/2 cal, measured 6" above grade Evergreen Tree - 8' height Ornamental Tree - 6' height Shrubs - 24" 4. Substitutions: For the purposes of providing flexibility in the landscape design substitutions may be allowed at the following rates: 1 Tree equals 1 Evergreen Tree 1 Tree equals 2 Ornamental Trees I Tree equals 10 Shrubs 5. A mixture of trees is required so that a maximum of 33% of the total amount of required trees should not be of the same species. 6. Alternative Methods of Compliance: Site conditions may arise where normal compliance is impractical or impossible or where maximum achievement of the City's objectives can only he obtained through alternative methods. a. Requests for alternative methods of compliance may be considered by the City for any application to which the requirements of the Ordinance apply when one(1) or more of the following conditions are present: 8 Jul . 19 . 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P . 10/13 1. Topography, soil,vegetation or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical,or improved environmental quality would result from the alternative compliance. 2. Space limitations or the existing character surrounding neighborhood may justify alternative compliance for infill sites and for improvements or redEvelopment in older developed areas. 3. A change of use on an existing site increases the screening required to more than is feasible to provide. 4. Safety considerations make alternative methods of compliance necessary. b. Requests for alternative methods of compliance shall be accompanied by sufficient explanation and justification,written and graphic,to allow appropriate evaluation and decisions by the City Planner. c. A proposed alternative compliance measure must be equal to or better than normal compliance in terms of quality: , effectiveness, durability, hardiness and ability to meet the landscape standards of the Ordinance. d. Alternative compliance shall be limited to the specific project under consideration and shall not establish precedents for acceptance in other eases. 7. Credit for Existing Vegetation: Credit shall be given for existing trees that are preserved. Each tree that is preserved which is greater than 3" caliper and is listed under Permitted Plantings, shall be credited towards the required tree planting as follows. Other existing vegetation may be credited towards the required plantings subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. CALIPER(INCHES)OF TREE TREES CREDITED TOWARDS TO BE PRESS Y REQUIRED PLANTINGS 30 or greater 6 13-29 5 8.12 4 4-7 2 8. Permitted Plantings: The plantings used to meet the requirements of this ordinance shall be selected from the follow list of approved plant material. 9 Jul . 19 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P . 11/13 Shade Trees Ash, Green Fraxinus pennsylvanica spp. Ash, White Fraxmnus americana spp. Coffeetree,Kentucky Gymnocladus dhioica Ginkgo Ginko biloba Hackberry Celtis occidentialis Linden American Tilia americana spp. Linden, Littecleaf Tilia cordata spp. Linden,Silver Tilia tomentosa Maple,Black Acer nigrum Maple,Norway Acer platanoides spp. Maple, Red Acer rubrum spp. Maple, Sugar Acer saccharum spp. Oak, Burr Quercus macrocarpa Oak,Red Quercus rubra Oak, Swamp White Quercus bicolor Oak, White Quercus alba Pear, Bradford "Cleveland select" Pyrus calleryana—Cleveland select Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Tuliptree Liriodendron tuhipifera Honey Locust Gleditsia tricanthos Evergreen Trees Fir, Douglas Pseudotsuga menziesii Fir, White Abies coneolor Pine, Austrian Pinus nigra Pine, Scotch Pinus sylvestris Pine, White Pinus strobus Spruce, Blackhills Picea glauca "densata" Spruce, Colorado Picea pungens Spruce,Norway Picea abies Spruce, White Picea glauca Ornamental Trees Alder Alnus glutinosa Birch, River Malus spp. Hawthorne, Downy Craetoegus mollis Hawthorne, Washington Craetoegus phaenopynu, Hawthorne, Thorn less Cockspur Cxataegus crusgalli "inennis" Hornbean, American Carpinus caroliniana 10 Jul . 19 . 2004 3 : 33PM No • 5576 P . 12/13 Lilac, Japanese Tree Syringa reticulata Magnolia, Saucer Magnolia souulangiana Magnolia, Star Magnolia stellata Redbud Cercis canadensis Serviceberry, apple Amelanchier grandiflora Serviceberry, Shadblow Amelanchier canadensis Shrubs Those species and varieties hardy to USDA Zone 5. Other plant material not listed may be allowed on a case by case basis as determined by the City Planner. 9. Completion of Landscape Improvements: All required landscape improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If landscape improvements are unable to be completed due to weather conditions which, in the determination of the City, are unfavorable for plant survival and growth, a temporary certificate of occupancy, valid for no more than six months, may be issued. 10. Replacements: The developer shall be responsible for replacing all required landscape improvements that die during a period of two years from the date of installation. The City shall use the bond to replace any plant material if the developer fails to do so within 30 days of notification by the City. After the two year period, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and replacing any required plant material that dies. 11. Appeals: Any applicant may appeal any decision of the City Planner to the Zoning Board of Appeals for recommendation to the City Council. a, Any appeal to the standards of this chapter may be considered by the City Council when one or more of the following conditions are present: 1. Topography, soil,vegetation or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical, or improved environmental quality would result from the alternative compliance. 2. Space limitations or the existing character surrounding neighborhood may justify alternative compliance for infill sites and for improvements or redevelopment in older developed areas. 11 Jul . 19 . 2004 3 : 33PM No . 5576 P . 13/13 3. A change of use on an existing site increases the screening required to more than is feasible to provide. 4. Safety considerations make alternative methods of compliance necessary. b. Requests for alternative methods of compliance shall be accompanied by sufficient explanation and justification,written and graphic,to allow appropriate evaluation and decisions by the City Council. c. A proposed alternative compliance measure must be equal to or better than normal compliance in terms of quality, effectiveness, durability, hardiness and ability to meet the landscape standards of the Ordinance. d. Alternative compliance shall be limited to the specific project under consideration and shall not establish precedents for acceptance in other eases. 12, Severability: The various parts, sections, and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable, If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Resolution shall not be affected thereby. 13. Repealer: Any Ordinance or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 12