Economic Development Packet 01-20-05 ‘,,—.. ___
,�,v cirr
United City of Yorkville
EsJemairisas County Seat of Kendall County
-,Z 800 Game Farm Road
O if; s; 9 Yorkville, Illinois, 60560
-p ---- O Telephone: 630-553-4350
7 ,�,�? Fax: 630-553-7575
Website: www.yorkville.il.us
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, January 20, 2005
7:00 p.m.
City Hail Conference Room
Presentation: None
1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: November 18, 2004 and December 16, 2004
2. PC 2004-35 Stewart Farms — Annexation and Zoning
3. Request by Property Owners at Eldamain and Galena for Comprehensive Plan
Revision
4. PC 2004-18 Wynstone Townhome Development Concept Preliminary Plan
5. PC 2004-24 Caledonia — Final Plat
6. PC 2001-06 Grande Reserve Unit 10 & 11 — Preliminary / Final Plat
7. PC 2004-14 Swanson Lane Estates — Preliminary / Final Plat
8. PC 2004-32 River Oaks Development — Rezoning Request
9. PC 2004-31 Yorkville Commons — PUD Request
10. PC 2004-06 Centex Homes — Bristol Bay Annexation and Zoning
11. Intergovernmental Agreement between Kendall County and the City for County
Road Fee
12. Amendment to Building and Zoning Code Addressing Maximum Height and
Building Materials
13. Balloon Sign Ordinance - Clarify
14. Population Projection
Page 2
Economic Development Committee
January 20, 2005
15. Building Permit Reports:
Revised August 2004
Revised September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
16. Additional Business
Page l of l
Liz D'Anna
From: Brown, Rodger[brown@inlandgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 3:42 PM
To: 'Liz D'Anna (Idanna@yorkville.il.us)'
Subject: Caledonia EDC Meeting
Liz:
Can you e-mail or fax (630.954.5673) me the agenda for this Thursday's EDC meeting?
Rodger
1/18/2005
Page 1 of 4
UNITED CITY
F YORKVILLE
OECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT
YORKVILLE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF: Alderman Richard Sticka; and
Alderwoman Rose Spears; Kelly Kramer from the City Attorney's office; and Mayor Art
Prochaska. OTHERS: Lynn Dubajic, YEDC; Carolyn Herren; and Tim Winter
1. Minutes
Minutes from the August 19 and October 21, 2004 meeting were approved.
2. Building permit report
The building permit report from September 2004 was noted and moved forward to the
Committee of the Whole.
3. PC 2004-19 Carolyn Herren property rezoning
Committee Chairman Richard Sticka said the Plan Commission voted 6 to 1 to
recommend the rezoning. Commissioners wanted to know exactly what would go on the
property. Some of the residents who attended the public hearing were concerned about
what type of commercial business would go on the property.
Mayor Art Prochaska said the city's zoning map already calls for the property to be
zoned commercial. He also said that residents seemed most concerned about what will
happen along Corneils Road. They seemed to want assurances of adequate setbacks.
Meanwhile, the Plan Commissioners pointed out to the concerned residents that the city
always requires heavy berming.
Sticka said in his opinion the rezoning should go forward to the Committee of the Whole.
Alderwoman Rose Spears agreed.
4. PC 2001-06 Grande Reserve Unit 9 Preliminary/Final Plat
Sticka said the Plan Commission unanimously approved the request. He said one of the
parcels was incorrectly drawn on the map, but it was a matter of a missing line.
Tim Winter, representing the developer, said comments from the city staff have been
addressed. The only things not finalized are the architectural standards and they're still
working on some sanitary sewer issues, he said.
Both Sticka and Spears agreed the matter should be forwarded to the Committee of the
Whole.
Page2of4
5. Countryside TIF District Update
Lisa Lyon with URS gave a preview to the public hearing regarding the proposed Tax
Increment Financing redevelopment project and plan for the Countryside Shopping
Center. In her presentation, she offered a brief run through of what would be covered at
the public hearing.
She said the TIF wouldn't increase the tax rate. It does, however, raise the equalized
assessed valuation of property and that creates the pool of funds, Lyon said. A TIF can be
in place for a long as 23 years. And, when a TIF is dissolved, the funds are dispersed to
all of the taxing bodies.
In this case, the city is seeking a site specific TIF focusing solely on the 20-acre
Countryside Shopping Center. Lyon said what's important is that the shopping center is
considered an improved site. That means it may be found eligible for a TIF as a blighted
area. In her analysis, Lyon said the area does qualify as a blighted area based on
obsolescence, deterioration, excessive vacancies, structures below minimum code
standards, and declining or lagging equalized assessed valuation. The EAV for the center
is'3.1 percent based on an EAV of 12.6 percent for the rest of the city, Lyon said. And for
the last two years, the EAV has been declining.
Among the redevelopment goals and policies, Lyon said the project area is in a key
location, which is very important. Some of the general goals include making the project
area one that will contribute more positively to the health, safety and general welfare of
the city and preserve or enhance the value of properties within and adjacent to the project
area.
Another goal is an increased real estate tax base for the city and other taxing districts.
Also, a goal is to seek new commercial development to the area, which would expand the
sales tax and employment base of the city.
The developer interested in the property has offered some various site plans, Lyon said
and the redevelopment plan must include a land use plan. The first version includes one
main anchor;the second version includes a main anchor that could possibly be a home
store;the third would feature a department store as the main anchor; and the fourth
version would feature one main anchor and two junior anchors.
The theme to each version is to orient the building to good traffic patterns, Lyon said.
And, the building would have to coordinate with all of the existing outlots around it, she
added.
The TIF plan provides basic guidelines for what could be done, she said. However,the
TIF plan doesn't include specific aspects of what the redevelopment of the property
would be.
Mayor Prochaska said the city doesn't need to have a specific user in mind for the TIF
plan to be accepted.
Page 3 of 4
He also said that URS is projecting the TIF to be on a 23-year schedule. However he said
the Joint Review Board recommend a 12 to 15 year schedule. Lyon said that if more
money is generated in the TIF, it's better to distribute the extra money to the taxing
bodies than to end the TIF early. She also said early on in the TIF, the EAV wouldn't
cover the costs for redevelopment.
Sticka said he'd like the other taxing bodies in the city to have some sort of comfort level
with the proposed TIF. He said the city needs the support of the other taxing bodies.
Lyon said the URS would work closely with the city for the first couple of years of the
TIF if it is approved. After that, the firm would be available to help when needed. She
said any redevelopment agreements would have to be monitored closely by the city
administrator and the city's legal council.
Lyon also said this is an opportune time for the city to seek a redevelopment plan for the
property. The key is to guide the development and plan for it.
6. Woodworth Estates Preliminary Plan
Sticka said the Plan Commission unanimously gave its recommendation for approval of
the preliminary plan. Mayor Prochaska said the property has been annexed and zoned for
many years. The subdivision has been developed a little at a time.
The committee agreed to send the request forward to the Committee of the Whole with a
recommendation for approval.
7. Illinois Main Street
Lynn Dubajic with the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation said she attended a
meeting about the possibility of Yorkville becoming an Illinois Main Street community.
The good news is that it doesn't cost anything to be a Main Street community. The bad
news is that there's no money in the Main Street coffers at the moment.
The Main Street program is a national program and if the city was to become part of it,
the city would be able to use the expertise of the state. To join, a steering committee
possibly of downtown merchants would need to be formed, she said. Dubajic also said
membership in Main Street is on a tiered level. The city could join the introductory level
and remain at the level for as long as it wished. The city could then become more
involved at it's own pace.
Mayor Prochaska said the city considered joining Main Street about 10 years ago but it
never fully got off the ground. He said he doesn't have a problem with the city becoming
involved in the program. But, he said that someone from the private sector would need to
champion it according to Main Street regulations. He then suggested maybe the city
should hold off on joining the program until the downtown revitalization plan is
completed. He also said joining the program might work well with the revitalization plan.
Page 4 of 4
He said it also would be good to get feedback on this from the downtown merchants
association.
Additional business
Spears said she'd like to set up a presentation from a member of the Illinois Coalition for
the Handicapped for the Committee of Whole regarding handicapped accessibility. She
said many improvements for accessibility could be made without a major expense.
Mayor Prochaska said he would contact the representative from the coalition and try to
set something up for the beginning of the year.
In other additional business matters, Sticka said he recently received a request from
someone asking the city to table the appearance code issue. However, Sticka said he'd
like to move forward with the code and possibly set up a committee to adjust it if needed.
He said it's important to have an appearance code in place.
Sticka also said he received a call from Mary Block who expressed concern about the
Assembly of God Church's plans to build on property neighboring her farm. She wants to
make sure the city requires proper berming and/or fencing to protect her farm operation.
The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.
Minutes by Dina Gipe
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT
YORKVILLE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16,2004
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF:Alderman Richard Sticka; and
Alderwoman Rose; City Administrator Tony Graff; Kelly Kramer from the City
Attorney's office; and Mayor Art Prochaska. OTHERS: Tom Grant, Tom Schofield, Patti
Bernhard, Clayton Marker and Lynn Dubajic, YEDC.
1. Minutes
None
2. PC 2004-20 Gospel Assembly Church— 1 1/Z mile review
Committee Cham uan Richard Sticka said the Plan Commission gave its recommendation
for approval. The Commission requested that easements for water and sewer be put in
along the property. Also, Sticka said Mrs. Mary Block who has a neighboring cattle
operation expressed concerns about her cattle and the well being of those attending the
church and asked for a fence to be erected along the church property.
Tom Grant, the attorney for the church, said he is well aware of Mrs. Block's concerns
and said a fence would be installed.
Mayor Art Prochaska asked about the timeline of building the church. The Rev. Tom
Schofield, the pastor of the church, said plans are to start building the church in the
spring. The property sits on 26 acres and the church will be built on the western parcel.
Mayor Prochaska said the property currently isn't contiguous to the city, but that it could
be eventually. If water and sewer lines eventually service the area, Mayor Prochaska said
the church could still use its well and septic.
The committee recommended the request for the review should go to the Committee of
the Whole with a recommendation for approval.
3. PC 2004-23 Heartland Center Final PUD Plan/Final Plat
Sticka said there wasn't much discussion on the issue at the Plan Commission.
Clayton Marker said that the plan is to put up buildings in a piecemeal fashion, erecting
the buildings, as they are needed.
The committee recommended the final plan/final plat should go to the Committee of the
Whole with a recommendation for approval.
4.Appointment of a vice chairman
Since there were only two members of the committee in attendance, the issue was tabled.
Sticka said historically attendance at the committee has light.
5. Annual Evaluation of Land Cash Appraisal
Graff said the city typically does an annual evaluation and the cost is about $2,000.
Alderwoman Rose Spears suggested the city do the evaluation again this year. She
suggested the city staff mail a memo to the City Council regarding the evaluation.
6. Countryside Pump Station Annexation and
7. Bruell Street Pump Station Annexation
The committee addressed items 6 and 7 together because they are related. Sticka said if
the pump stations are contiguous to the city, they should be annexed.
8.Additional business
None.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe
** 2QL::.--Ddd Td101 **
1 (cilL `.-)
C. Ck_(_
/\ McVickers
Development
January 18, 2005
Via Facsimile
Ms. Liz D'Anna
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Facsimile No.: (630) 553-7575
Re: Northwest corner of Illinois Route 47 and Cannonball Trail, Yorkville, Illinois
Dear Liz:
Pursuant to my partner John Thompson's conversation with Tony Graff on January 18, 2005,
McVickers Development hereby requests that it be removed from the Economic Development
Committee Meeting Agenda of January 20, 2005. If you have any questions in this regard,please
contact the undersigned,
Very truly yours,
Iti
-1)3./ Ceie-r0'6' .
ohn K. McVickers 46—.-S)
JKM/krs
c:1 McVickerc.De vetop mcnaorkvil Ieldanne.101.wld
2800 West Higgins Road,Suite 650, Hoffman Estates,IL 60195 • Phone:(847)884-4825 • Fax:(847)884-4827
20 - d SLSLESSOE91 01 Lz81717881178 LZ8t1788L178 88 Wd LE : 11 S00Z 61 NbF
01/18/2005 10 36 FAX 630 553 5754 DANIEL J KRAMER 002/002
r • .
LAW OFFICES
OF
ya,„,,,,;,../f drta„,,e4
1107 SOUTH BRIDGE STREET
DANIEL J.KRAMER YORKVILLE,ILLINOIS 60560 JILL K.KONEN
(630)553.9500 KELLY A.KRAMER
FAX(630)553.5764
January 18, 2005
Arthur Prochaska, Mayor
Tony Graff, City Administrator
Alderman Richard Sticka
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Rd.
Yorkville, IL 60560
VIA FAX: 553-7575
Re: North land use plan area
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that my office has been contacted by the Rosenwinkel family, the Hageman
family, and the Konicek family to explore revisions to the northern area of the United City of
Yorkville Comprehensive Plan. These property owners currently own acreage adjacent to the
municipal boundaries of the United City of Yorkville and are interested in discussing the
possibility of annexation of the same. I would hereby request that this item be placed on the
January 20, 2005 United City of Yorkville Economic Development Committee meeting to
further discuss the possibili of revisions to the Comprehensive Plan with the Committee.
Thank you in advance for our attention in this matter and should you have any questions or
wish to further discuss th matter,please feel free to contact me.
oVe • ours,
Daniel J. Kramer
Attorney at Law
DJKllgc
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
KENDALL COUNTY AND OF
THIS AGREEMENT is made effective on the day of , 2005,
between Kendall County, Illinois, hereafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the of
, hereafter referred to as " ".
WHEREAS, rapid growth and development is occurring within the geographical boundaries of
Kendall County; and
WHEREAS, said growth is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, as evidenced by the
most recent NIPC estimate, which predicts a 2030 Kendall County population of approximately
180,000 people; and
WHEREAS, both the COUNTY and recognize that mobility for the burgeoning
population is critical for the health and welfare of its residents, stimulation and sustainability of
commercial interests, creation of jobs, and the overall economic stability and vitality of the
region; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY, being a county subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law,
must carefully and responsibly prioritize its investments in public safety, public health,
transportation, etc. in an effort to most efficiently serve the needs of the people. In doing so, the
COUNTY recognizes that it will be unable to financially address the growing transportation
needs of the County Highway System, as evidenced by the 2005-2030 Transportation
Improvement Plan, approved by the County Board on December 21, 2004; and
WHEREAS, both the COUNTY and , in the spirit of intergovernmental
cooperation, and pursuant to Article 7, Section 10 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of
Illinois, and pursuant to 5 ILCS 220/1, being the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, desire to
work together to address the anticipated shortfall in funding necessary improvements to the
County Highway System.
Now,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual obligations contained herein, the COUNTY
and agree as follows:
1. Through the prudent use of annexation agreements, will attempt to
negotiate with the developers of land within the corporate limits of
and within the geographical boundaries of Kendall County, Illinois, to cause payment
of a transportation fee for the improvement of County Highways. Said fee would be in
the amount of$1000 for each new residential unit, beginning in 2005, and would
increase, to account for inflation, at the rate of$25 per year. No county transportation
fee would be pursued for non-residential developments.
2. The COUNTY will continue to require the developers of land in Kendall County to
make site-specific improvements for access, signalization or other appurtenances on
County Highways that will be required as a direct result of said development. Site-
specific improvements are not anticipated to affect the collection of the transportation
fee, which is directed at the incremental impact of the development on the long-term
capacity needs of the County Highway facility. However, may, at
its discretion, negotiate or require the developer to construct a capacity improvement
on the County Highway that is beyond the site-specific needs of the development. In
so doing, may determine an appropriate reduction or elimination
of the transportation fee.
3. The COUNTY acknowledges that, except as otherwise provided in the ordinances of
and/or annexation agreements, is not obligated
to cause the payment of money to the COUNTY. The COUNTY hereby requests that
continues to so negotiate the collection of a transportation fee
through the annexation agreement instrument. The COUNTY recognizes that
may, at its sole discretion, amend its ordinances or annexation
agreements or its practices to discontinue the payment of transportation fees to the
COUNTY.
4. That since has adopted an ordinance or a resolution providing for
contributions to the COUNTY by owners, subdividers, and developers of land desiring
to annex to , the COUNTY agrees that in the event a lawsuit is filed
against , the COUNTY and/or others by a developer that is
subdividing property, or by any other person, corporation or entity that challenges the
appropriateness, amount, timing (except for any timing delays due to
's failure to disburse monies in a reasonable time frame) or any
other aspect of the transportation fee contemplated by this Agreement that has been
paid or is due to the COUNTY pursuant to the terms of 's
ordinances, resolutions, or annexation agreements, then the COUNTY agrees to pay
any damages,judgments, amounts ordered to be refunded, and the costs and litigation
expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) incurred in defending such a lawsuit.
As a result of the indemnification provided under this Agreement, the COUNTY shall
name counsel and generally control the litigation. and the
COUNTY agree that pursuant to this Agreement, the COUNTY is responsible for any
liability which may attach to as a result of 's
collection or distribution of transportation fees to the COUNTY. In that regard, the
COUNTY agrees that it shall employ competent and skilled legal counsel to represent
the COUNTY and , and further covenants and agrees that it shall
keep MONTGOMERY fully advised as to the progress and status of the litigation.
More specifically, the COUNTY shall provide copies of all
pleadings filed in the litigation and shall consult regularly(and shall cause its attorneys
to consult regularly)with or its attorneys, as applicable, as to the
strategy for defending the lawsuit. In no event may any litigation be compromised or
settled by the COUNTY without at least thirty(30) days' prior notice to
. The COUNTY hereby authorizes its officers to sign any and all
such further documents as are necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this
agreement.
5. In the event that a final and non-appealable judicial determination is made by a court
of competent jurisdiction that contributions of money received by the COUNTY are,
in whole or in part, excessive, or otherwise unlawful or unenforceable, and either the
COUNTY or is ordered to return or repay such amounts. The
COUNTY or (if is still holding such funds)
shall promptly repay said amount to the person who procures such judgment together
with all other amounts judged by the court to be owing either from the COUNTY or
6. The COUNTY agrees that transportation fees collected by on
behalf of the COUNTY, will only be used for capital improvements on County
Highways that will benefit residents, either directly or indirectly, in the developments
from which the fees were collected. Monies may also be used on joint
state/county/municipal projects by mutual agreement if said project would have an
immediate or long-teim benefit to the area from which fees were collected. Prior to
disbursement of any payments from to the COUNTY, the
COUNTY shall provide written documentation of the purposes for which the payment
shall be used. The Village shall have the right to refuse to disburse said funds unless
the COUNTY confirms that said payment shall be utilized for capital improvements,
as described herein, and will not be used for operational expenses. Although not
binding on the parties hereto, the COUNTY acknowledges that 's
stated preference is that all such highway improvements be within the boundaries of
the of . On or before June 1 of each year, in the event the
COUNTY has received payments from under this Agreement, then
the COUNTY shall submit a report to describing the manner in
which the payments have been used. If the COUNTY fails to file such a report with -
, then may delay the payment of any additional
funds due to the COUNTY until such time as a full report containing adequate
information is transmitted to
7. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason at all
upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other evidencing the intention to so
terminate this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect the
continuing obligation of the COUNTY to with regard to claims or
damages allegedly arising out of 's efforts prior to termination, or to
's obligation to distribute or the actual distribution of transportation
fees collected prior to the date of termination.
FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE
NAME John Church NAME
TITLE County Board Chairman TITLE
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of , 2005 day of , 2005
Paul Anderson, County Clerk Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: KENDALL COUNTY MAYORS/MANAGERS
FROM: F. KLAAS
DATE: DECEMBER 22,2004
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION
On December 21, 2004, the Kendall County Board approved the 2005-2030 Transportation
Improvement Plan for Kendall County. A copy of the document is attached.
The subject of funding county transportation will be on the agenda for the Mayors/Managers
meeting on January 5, 2005.
I
I , ,, ,,,," ,-,. .-' '' -_ .'. , ' ,. '_', '. . , .' ''''--- , - ''' i*.'...
I6
i k 4:, ' ' ; .,':,',,:.,:.
,'' '''..::;1::Ep ,»� ;fix r BS .� - e sQ ! .
3 E �R �af
y,;31� s t LROADSI
[:;.,;:' .:':::.:::;:,::::.::i.,.-,,-..'f s -$ i', `� ,'.y� .y ^ smc�: Z tri < +:,-. "}"a' �a.(
r ,1 .- +ems .: . A&
j x s 1L�y .'. y< :
� s ��'��!f � _/� �:� s � b,�a kgs} ��' h �
"� t. .$,,s '+ &sem. �-' > Via,. -
j i i y& y Y. y ; 4 a,.F`'i�xe :xy aY 4:47,54..°;,,,,!:,',.t.7,.4„--;;,...,✓ ' ,. f k ;..f $ '2€ x,.. i "�j.k1 �� X�� ;.
kr'•, 1y,; 'f,
C Kt,,,4i1;74,.!,1!".--,..
4 4.5 1 2 Y*r a{
' s �4F'.�sw t�4 ���.�� 7� � t`���'�� +^� T �' y, k,°e !"� ;i.,�, � �� "�.
to e k m. ' �^tw4a, m v'C..ro r .r ' v Y ` wa.�,
r-� �'' A x x�'�'wkt°�'��s� f"y ,� 4 rrs ,+� s � �-*-1‘.
¢ +,t � ,�" " a z.
, b �� y a.", .. a%1 ,r ,,.:4,ittig§ `3'r 41, Jr r" t' .g '-a _.,z!,' `'14%4, ' ',
}
. jai ` s.# r� sE e.ti 1x r i r s n ,
I I ;• -;',. -.;,. ' 0 • • •.1firf',,"4 .4.*Jr11-;311,1:tn'-':!‘'?v‘ '.2,;'-' '-'11.:,4''' ' - ":'
4 �# L a.,+'�s v F�x �=3 5 .�'�t °�� ;+ � �. � * �. d'r
s �- a Z � � _ �ti �2 sa 7�.� t-xt$; e, S s t 5e v �
4 eA+�t-� P✓§ r� ;P4^ =i * R eek 4 '{^ '' '.,
.,,,f,....•.•,.-;•.,.,-...;,..,
+r. Y t a TF§s � b �"t 2C.:::*---
..a r' y RSA ��r r a "r• 4-.
£d €fi r.�4 � �s� r a k c4_P�s�t an. ` „ t � r..'� 3'° ,� s
�� 4. 1 ' ' :.
fi ie Ar' �. 9 'fir tx r� - ' `1v .6' #}r ft?r,'!!r;:;'x"f' ,' .,,4.-. ,..1,,,,.,.-,t
I
oa ,�� :�� '� r ;,.mak �a�.$;��`� �, x_. '''''''''''#i2:<:;1,
�"�':,:;/-‘-:::;;::'42';/,':''''','"'''4 ;c ;,.�.�� . ��.��s�� �[ � � ; '-'-',4i
a' -� a?eta I S .t <� e tk i �k*
:t4r�1""�' �. R tz aJ : '41s
�`. a � a� � � s er`'�� ,�, t rats n pc
.;.„,,,,,.•.....,N,,;••••,.;,..... `� ss �� x s �Y s8�,
4h Li t ¢i `� ?- �a• ? �t J '- . xd -,.m `
l.
fr��, 3 r � kt s t• S'c5., .G`'. sp#r a r': �} r g�si� :,�.'�"
I ; ro J o ft v 'r g47c v !k p e 4.-, ;..c
It ''''..1'''
1
Table of Contents
I
Introduction -3-
Existing Highway System -3-
Deficiencies Created by Impending Growth -4-
Current& Anticipated Transportation Funding -4-
Motor Fuel Tax -4-
County Highway Fund -5-
County Bridge Fund -5-
Federal Aid Matching Fund -6-
Federal Funds -6-
Needed Highway/ Bridge Improvements -7-
Intersection Improvements -7-
Capacity Improvements -7-
Bridge Improvements -7-
Maintenance -9-
Assumptions -9-
Analysis -10-
Conclusion -10-
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Historical Highway Department Funding
Exhibit 2: Tax Levy Data
Exhibit 3: Estimated Annual Funding Levels for Capital Improvements
Exhibit 4: Consumer Price Index (1984-2004)
Exhibit 5: 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements
Exhibit 6: Capital Improvement Map
Exhibit 7: Financial Analysis of 2005-2030 Transportation Plan
I
- 2 -
Introduction
Kendall County has recently been identified as the 10`" fastest growing county in the nation, and
the 3rd fastest growing county in Illinois. It is obvious to those who reside here that growth is
currently the predominant socio-economic issue facing this small county, which is perched at the
' edge of the Chicago collar counties.
Many opportunities and problems will result from this explosive growth. Not the least of which
is an anticipated strain on the transportation system. All highway agencies and all modes of
transportation will be affected. This funding study does not seek to present a comprehensive,
agency-wide or intermodal solution, but will simply focus on the needs of the County Highway
System, based on historical and anticipated growth.
Most transportation plans utilize detailed traffic modeling techniques to predict where capacity
improvements will be needed. This methodology has most recently been employed for Kane
County's Impact Fee Study and also for the Prairie Parkway Study. It is an appropriate
application of the technology available today to make certain predictions for future transportation
needs.
This Funding Plan, on the other hand, is focused on anticipated funding deficiencies. It makes
logical assumptions for intersection and roadway capacity improvements based on a review of
municipal comprehensive plans, historical growth, evaluation of growth trends, and engineering
1 judgment. Specific highway and bridge improvement projects are identified in an effort to
estimate the total cost of improving and maintaining the County Highway System over the next
25 years. These project needs are then compared with the County's ability to fund them, given
1 the current and projected revenue streams over the same time period.
Obviously, any study encompassing the span of 25 years will integrate numerous assumptions
and will have certain inaccuracies. We believe that this study,based more heavily on
engineering judgment, is not inherently more inaccurate than those based on empirical
evaluations.
Existing Highway System
Kendall County currently has about 125 centerline miles (265 lane miles) of pavement and 28
bridges on the County Highway System. These facilities consist almost entirely of 2-lane type
roadways and bridges. Only 6 '/z centerline miles of the entire system are designated 80,000#
truck routes. There are no 4-lane bridges on the entire system.
In general terms, the physical condition of the County Highway System is good. From a
capacity viewpoint, the condition is also good, with the exception of a few intersections and
short roadway segments in the urban areas that are rapidly becoming congested.
- 3 -
1 Deficiencies Created by Impending Growth
Although the current report card on the County Highway System is good, it is not expected to
stay that way for long, unless significant changes are made in the way highways are funded in
Kendall County.
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) has forecasted that the 2030 population
for Kendall County will grow dramatically to 180,000... an approximate 230% increase from the
2000 census. The number of households and employment will also grow proportionally. This
growth will put a tremendous burden on the entire transportation network in Kendall County,
including state, county, municipal and township facilities.
The projected increase in the number of households in Kendall County will create over 400,000
new trips in 2030, compared to the number of trips in 2000. This will add nearly 5 million
vehicle-miles per day to the existing system. Much of this new traffic will travel on the County
Highway System for at least a part of their average trip.
Many of the existing county highways, such as Galena Road, Orchard Road, Plainfield Road,
and Ridge Road, simply cannot accommodate the overwhelming increase in traffic. In fact,
' several of these roadways are already approaching the 2-lane threshold, in which consideration
should be given to making capacity improvements. Additionally, the increase in traffic will
drive the need for numerous intersection improvements, designed to improve safety at the
1 crowded intersections.
Current & Anticipated Transportation Funding
There are several revenue sources that will help fund the needed capital improvements and
provide maintenance for transportation infrastructure on the County System. They are described
in some detail herein. Please refer to Exhibit 1, Historical Highway Department Funding, and
Exhibit 3, Estimated Annual Funding Levels for Capital Improvements, for more infoilnation.
' These revenues are described in some detail below.
Motor Fuel Tax: Kendall County, like all other counties in the State of Illinois, receives motor
fuel taxes based on the number of registered vehicles in the county. In 2004, Kendall County
will receive slightly more than $1 million in motor fuel taxes. These funds can be used for both
capital improvements and maintenance.
Future Funding Factors
• Dramatic increase in population will undoubtedly increase the number of registered
vehicles in Kendall County, so Kendall's share of local MFT fUnds should increase. This
increase will be tempered somewhat by the overall increase in population in Illinois.
Since Kendall's growth relative to other counties is significant, there should still be an
overall upward trend in these funds.
1
• There is a general upward trend in vehicle miles driven. This could potentially mean that
more gas will be sold, which means more motor fuel taxes will be collected. This
potential increase is tempered by the increase in vehicle efficiencies, the high cost of gas
which discourages travel, and the trend toward hybrid vehicles.
• High growth and more registered vehicles should carry the day. A slightly exponential
growth in motor fuel taxes is predicted over the next 25 years (see Exhibit 3).
County Highway Funds: The County Highway Fund is a property tax-supported fund. Over
80% of all revenues in this fund are derived from property taxes. The fund itself is used for
operating expenses for the Kendall County Highway Department. Salaries, maintenance
supplies, equipment maintenance, and other operational expenses come out of this fund. No road
or bridge improvements are funded from the County Highway Fund. Even though the historical
funding is shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, it has been done so only for informational purposes,
and has not been included in the Total Capital Funds, since capital improvements have not
historically received monies from this fund.
Future Funding Factors
• The property tax component of the County Highway Fund has been increasing at a rate
of less than 2%per year over the last 15 years (see Exhibit 2). It has not quite kept up
with the rate of inflation or consumer price index over this time period, which has
averaged 2.9%per year over the last 20 years (see Exhibit 4). Be that as it may, it is
anticipated that this fund will continue to increase as operational costs increase.
• There are currently no other ways to fund the operational expenses of the Highway
Department, so this fund is expected to increase slightly over time. However, this fund
will have no ability to address the need for capital improvements, so it has not been
included in the Total Capital Funds in Exhibits 1, 3, & 7.
County Bridge Fund: The County Bridge Fund is also a property tax-supported fund, receiving
nearly all of its revenues from property taxes. It is the only tax supported fund that has seen a
significant increase over the last 15 years, with an average annual increase of nearly 7%. The
fund had been "underfunded" for years, so the recent increases were sorely needed. The cost of
bridges has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, far outpacing the increases in
pavement construction. This fund, along with the Motor Fuel Tax Fund and Federal Aid
Matching Fund are the mainstays for bridge rehabilitation and replacement on the County
Highway System.
Although Kendall County has only 28 bridges on the system, they are frequently petitioned by
Townships to participate in bridge projects on the Township System (57 bridges). The County
typically helps fund these projects on a 50/50 basis. The annual cost of the joint bridge projects
is relatively small, with occasional upward spikes. But a general downward trend in joint bridge
projects is expected as township facilities are consumed by municipalities.
Future Funding Factors
- 5 -
• Although County Bridge Funds have increased dramatically over the past 10 years, the
rate of growth in the fund is expected to normalize as the restraints of PTELL limit
increases to the fund.
• The cost of bridges is expected to increase and possibly outpace inflation as the cost of
structural components increases. This will reduce the "buying power" of this fund.
• As the only real fund dedicated exclusively to the rehabilitation and replacement of
bridges on the County Highway System, it is anticipated that this fund will receive some
' priorities in transportation funding over the next 25 years. A 2%per year growth factor
has been shown in Exhibit 3, based on historical growth factors..
Federal Aid Matching Fund: This fund is supported entirely by property taxes. The monies
received are used to match federally funded projects, and are also used for other road and bridge
improvements on any other federal aid route. The fund has experienced a roller coaster ride over
the past 10 years, going from $384 in revenues in 1993 to $250,000 in 2003, to a reduction of
nearly 20% in the current year.
This fund truly allows the County Highway Department to be flexible in its implementation of
the transportation improvement program, by allowing participation of these funds into other
bridge, roadway, traffic signal or other projects, including joint-municipal projects.
This fund will be especially crucial in helping to match any federal funds that are received in the
next Federal Transportation Bill (SAFETEA) for the Eldamain Bridge over the Fox River.
Future Funding Factors
• Transportation needs are so great that a reduction in revenues for this fiend would not be
prudent. PTELL will limit increases. Project a 2%per year increase in this fund.
Federal Funds: Federal Funds include Surface Transportation-Rural Funds (STR) and Bridge
Rehabilitation and Replacement Program Funds (BRRP). These are federal funds allocated to
Kendall County based on a foiniula that includes land area, population and mileage. Funds
allocated in the BRRP Program are based on the number of deficient bridges in the County. The
funds are actually never in the hands of Kendall County, but are allocated and administered by
the State of Illinois. Funds can only be spent on projects on the federal aid system and which
meet federal eligibility rules.
Kendall County is currently allocated a very small annual program for BRRP, because many of
the bridges in Kendall County are in relatively good shape. Current federal guidelines also
restrict the use of revenues, preventing them from being used for capacity improvements or
structures on new alignment. Therefore, the program does not address the true needs for bridges
in Kendall County.
It is expected that over the next 25 years, as Kendall County urbanizes, the entire county will be
required to be included in a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), such as the Chicago
Area Transportation Study (CATS). A potential increase in federal urban funds may result.
However, Kendall County will have to compete with other municipal agencies in Kendall
I
County to garner the funds. Additionally, the pot of urban funds is expected to be small, based
on Kendall's relatively small population, compared with other collar counties.
Future Funding Factors
• An upward spike in federal funds typically occurs with the passage of the 5-7 year federal
transportation bill. Revenues tend to stabilize for the remainder of the bill, and then
experience another spike with passage of a subsequent bill. Exhibit 3 reflects these
spikes and plateaus over the next 25 years.
• No significant increases in federal funds are projected under this funding plan, even
though more urban revenues may become available. It is expected that these additional
funds will not provide a consistent source of revenue for the County.
Needed Highway/Bridge Improvements
Anticipated improvements on the County Highway System can be categorized in three ways:
Intersection Improvements; Capacity Improvements; and Bridge Improvements.
Intersection Improvements: As the volume of vehicles entering an intersection increases, the
need for turning lanes and/or traffic signals increases. Turning lanes and signals provide a
greater level of safety for the motorists, by removing the turning vehicles from the thru-lane and
by providing access from the minor street onto the more heavily traveled, major street. Capacity
of the intersection generally increases with the implementation of these improvements.
The cost of an intersection improvement can vary greatly depending on many factors. For the
purposes of this study, historical costs of 3-leg and 4-leg intersections were used as a baseline,
with other adjustment factors assigned where needed.
Capacity Improvements: For the purposes of this study, capacity improvements are defined as
"add lane" improvements. In general, 2-lane roadways and bridges can accommodate a limited
amount of traffic. As roadways approach 15,000 vehicles per day, consideration should be given
to a capacity improvement. Capacity improvements are identified on several county highways
where impending growth will dictate the need for additional lanes.
Bridge Improvements: These improvements are self explanatory. Bridges that have reached the
end of their useful life, or bridges that require capacity improvements must either be rehabilitated
or replaced.
A list of anticipated improvements required over the next 25 years has been included in this
funding plan as Exhibit 5. These projects are also represented pictorially on Exhibit 6. Along
with the identified improvement, an estimated total cost has been provided. A "Funding Factor"
has also been included to estimate the County's share of the total cost of the improvement. This
funding factor incorporates true judgment and estimation into the plan. For example, the very
first entry in Exhibit 5 is an urban 3-lane improvement to Cannonball Trail. Since most of
Cannonball Trail is already `'built out" there are very few opportunities for private development
to share in the cost of the improvement. However, approximately 1 1/4 miles of a total of 3.75
miles is currently under the jurisdiction of the City of Yorkville. It is anticipated that if a 3-lane
improvement were constructed as a single contract, the City would then fund their proportionate
share of the improvement. For the purposes of this study, a 75% adjustment factor was applied,
bringing the county's share of the $4 million project to $3 million.
Another example can be found on page 3 of Exhibit 5 under Newark Road. An intersection
improvement at this location will probably be required some time in the next 25 years. Because
Kendall County has only one leg of the intersection, a 33% Funding Factor is applied to the T
intersection, yielding Kendall County's share at $132,000 of the total $400,000 project.
' One final example can be found on page 4 of Exhibit 5 under Ridge Road. This roadway, now
known as the WIK.ADUKE Trail, is expected to become a 4-lane urban section at the expense of
private development. From experience, it is anticipated that this project, although funded mainly
with private sector monies, will still require some participation on behalf of the jurisdictional
agency, i.e., Kendall County. The estimated Funding Factor in this case is 15%.
As stated, Kendall County is anticipating development revenues to fund most of the construction
of the WIKADUKE Trail, but it is important to note that this plan also assumes financial
cooperation of future developments in the capacity improvements of several roadways, including
Little Rock Road, Galena Road, Grove Road, Plainfield Road and Caton Faiin Road. These
funds are anticipated through county/municipal cooperation during the annexation phase, and can
generally be described as development fees. Although not an "impact fee" in the legal sense of
the word, these development fees have been discussed at length with the municipalities in
Kendall County. It is the general belief that municipalities will begin to require developers to set
aside funds for the future improvement of county transportation corridors that will affect their
developments. This assumption is incorporated into the Capital Improvement list by using a
funding factor that reflects inclusion of the development fees and allows a smaller percentage of
the cost of specific projects to be borne by the County.
If the collection of development fees for county transportation projects does not become a
standard part of the development process in Kendall County, then many of the conclusions
drawn in this study will be flawed, and the dependence on other county, state and federal
revenues will be greatly increased.
Obviously, no one can know, with certainty, to what degree Kendall County will have to
participate in the listed projects. Projects along state routes, which are initiated by the state, are
frequently paid for by the state. On the other hand, projects initiated by a local agency are
frequently paid for, to a larger degree, by the local agency. There is also a significant degree of
uncertainty with the level of funding to be provided by municipal developments. Kendall
County is currently working with municipal agencies to address some of these municipal issues.
In general it is assumed that underestimated costs on one project may well be balanced by
overestimated costs on another project.
- 8 -
Maintenance
Capital improvements to the county road and bridge system cannot simply be built and forgotten.
Ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance is required each year to keep the system operating at its
' greatest efficiency.
The estimated life of a flexible pavement, before it needs some type of maintenance or
rehabilitation, is about 15 years. In Kendall's case, with approximately 265 lane-miles of
pavement, about 18 lane-miles (9 centerline miles) should be rehabilitated each year just to keep
the system operational. The approximate cost of rehabilitating 18 lane-miles of pavement is
$900,000 in 2005. It is expected that these costs will grow at some inflationary rate over the next
25 years.
In the year 2030, if all improvements identified in Exhibit 5 are completed, there will be 390
lane-miles of pavement in the County Highway System. Annualized over this 25-year period, it
means that the highway system will grow an average of 1.56%per year. This will also increase
the overall cost of maintaining the system. However, since these new lane miles will not need to
be rehabilitated for some time, the additional costs are not shown to "kick in" in the final
analysis until the 10th year of the 25-year time period.
Assumptions
1 As with any long term study, many assumptions must be made to reach a congruent conclusion.
This study is no different. But in an effort to provide greater insight to the conclusions drawn in
the final analysis, a list of some of the major assumptions is provided here.
• Kendall County will continue to maintain its highway and bridge system, without adding
or deleting significant facilities from other agencies.
• Kendall County will grow at a rate that is reflective of NIPC and Prairie Parkway
projections, i.e., will grow by more than 100,000 people in the next 25 years.
1 • Motor Fuel Taxes will increase to a fairly significant degree due to the projected increase
in registered vehicles in the county. This also assumes that technological advances in
transportation will not cause a fundamental redistribution of these funds.
• The Kendall County Board will continue to levy property taxes for the County Highway,
County Bridge and Federal Aid Matching Funds. Increases will not be less than an
average of 2% over the period of this study.
• Federal funds will continue to be made available to Kendall County through the State of
Illinois for improvements on the federal aid network.
• Inflation for road and bridge construction will not exceed an average of 3% over the
period of this study. Inflation has averaged 2.9%per year over the past 20 years in the
Midwest Urban Area (see Exhibit 4).
• No new revenue sources will become available, other than the ones under consideration
as part of this study.
• Developers will pay for new intersections on county highways that will serve their
developments.
• Municipal developers will pay the lion's share of the cost of constructing a 5-lane
WIKADUKE Trail, and will assist in the financing of other capacity improvements
through the collection of development fees.
• Kendall County will be on the receiving end of significant federal funding for the
' Eldamain Road Bridge over the Fox River.
• The life cycle costs of maintaining flexible pavements will not change dramatically due
to technological advances, or for other reasons.
Analysis
Referring to Exhibit 7, Kendall County should begin in the year 2005 with approximately$2.3
million in revenues that are available for capital improvements and maintenance. That number
will continue to increase to an estimated$3.9 million in the year 2030. If the identified capital
improvement program is implemented, investments to the transportation system should begin at
$3.9 million in 2005, and should increase to $8.9 million in 2030 to address the needs of the
' traveling public.
Insufficient revenues (deficits) are estimated at approximately$1.6 million per year in 2005.
I This number will swell to an estimated$5 million per year in 2030, as transportation needs
outpace revenues over the study period.
Conclusion
Based on the information contained in this study, it is fairly obvious that the existing revenue
streams for the County Highway System are insufficient to meet the long-teiln needs of the
traveling public. It is therefore the conclusion of this study that one or more alternative revenue
streams should be pursued to meet the transportation needs of the next 25 years.
Using a conservative estimate, based on the calculations and assumptions heretofore described, it
is recommended that additional revenues should initially be targeted to provide at least $1.5
million per year in new revenues. Any new revenue source(s) should have the capability to grow
at an average annual rate of at least 4.7% to provide the necessary $5.0 million in 2030.
Recommended revenue sources to consider are a 4¢ local option gas tax, or a 1/4 ¢ transportation
sales tax. Each of these options would be expected to provide approximately$1.5 million in new
revenues during the first year, and would be expected to grow proportionately with the growth in
the county. As stated earlier, this assumes the County will continue to pursue a development fee
for transportation improvements as part of any new residential building starts in the county.
Other revenue sources to consider have been identified in Transportation Fiscal Impacts of
Growth in Kendall County, prepared by Robinson Engineering Ltd. on July 6, 2004. They
include increasing property taxes, or establishing a county-wide transportation impact fee. The
property tax option would most likely only be possible if highway levies were removed from the
tax cap. The county-wide impact fee has been determined to be an administrative burden, and is
not as desirable as development fees, which allow for much more flexibility.
- 10 -
MI M = M NM I MI N = m mul N um um ma
KENDALL COUNTY
Historical Highway Department Funding (Annual)
$2,500,000 —
$2,000,000
LEGEND
$1,500,000 __ _ MFT Funds
Highway Fund
Bridge Funds
Federal Aid Matching Funds
—Federal Funds
$1,000,000
- Total Capital Funds
Increase attributable to Illinois First
$500,000 — '""'
CrJ
$0 It I I I I I I
►-r
1984 1994 2004
I
Kendall County Highway Department
ITax Levy Data
I County Highway Fund County Bridge Fund Federal Aid Matching Fund
Year*
Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension
I1987 0.1000 $475,732 0.0500 $160,572 0.0500 $160,573
I
1988 0.0992 $485,397 0.0496 $167,667 0.0496 $167,667
1989 0.0958 $475,972 0.0444 $154,861 0.0444 $154,861
I
1990 0.0849 $491,599 0.0412 $164,294 0.0425 $169,461
1991 0.0774 $494,332 0.0332 $148,521 0.0442 $197,727
I1992 0.0295 $285,266 0.0148 876,057 0.0238 $122,015
1993 0.0757 $577,168 0.0303 $168,947 0.0000 $384
1 1994 0.0683 $562,533 0.0295 $175,932 0.0034 $20,074
I1995 0.0882 8559,609 0.0284 $180,098 0.0276 $174,655
1996 0.0792 8545,028 0.0131 $90,150 0.0254 $175,483
I
1997 0.0740 $560,223 0.0397 $300,365 0.0265 $200,496
1998 0.0670 $550,693 0.0365 $300,004 0.0244 $200,551
I
1999 0.0631 $559,431 0.0367 S325,374 0.0232 $205,686
2000 0.0605 $580,306 0.0364 S349,524 0.0216 $209,715
I2001 0.0525 $610,161 0.0364 $400,516 0.0216 $225,290
2002 0.0576 $678,103 0.0426 8500,336 0.0208 $246,048
I2003 0.0488 8680,060 0.0395 $550,458 0.0179 S250,842
2004 0.0400 $639.500 0.0313 $500,408 0.0126 $201,442
I *Note: Year shown is the year taxes were collected, but represent previous year's levy and extension.
1 1987 vs. 2004 COMPARISON
1 FUND % REDUCTION IN AVERAGE ANNUAL
TAX RATE INCREASE IN FUNDS
1 County Highway Fund -60% 1.76%
County Bridge Fund
-37% 6.92%
Federal Aid Matching Fund -75% 1.34%
I Exhibit 2
am M M NM — I M MO N N M NM NM EN I NM M 11111
KENDALL COUNTY
Estimated Annual Funding Levels for Capital Improvements w/ No New Funds
$4,500,000 -
$4,000,000 -
$3,500,000
$3,000,000 LEGEND
Total Capital Funds
$2,500,000
MFT Funds
Bridge Funds
$2,000,000 - - - - Federal Aid Matching Funds
--Federal Funds
$1,500,000 - - —
$1,000,000
$500,000 V - -
tT1
$0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
I
Department of '"
I --:..:44F-:- 14-41-Y : .. i poir— . `. ..- ' . , • ' ..orAmi
Ai-7 0
i 1 ''':- ."".." ‘'"1
,,-._"-qati,-,:.,: t ,-.„ L, -.--:;0 _.;•=;n:(;„; ' ;1 .: -, -44 -:
1,, -,,,--M---
,,,-• - i Bureau of Labor Statistics
I
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Data
I OChange Output From:11984 .1,. To:12004 1
ptions:
If include graphs NEW! More Formatting_Options
I
Series Id: CUUR0200SAO,CUUS0200SA0
I Not Seasonally Adjusted
Area: Midwest urban
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
1
I .-a 175-
_----
_.----_,..----'------
___---
I -1' 150-
EN
co __,--,--'-'-F---- .----__ ----'-'-'
a5
_----
-,--
I -t 125-
c ---
_--
---,-*------
II 100:-----
I I I I 1 I I r 1
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Yea I-
III
IYear Annual
1934 103.6
I 1985 106.8
1936 108.0
19.95 148.4
1987 111.9 1996 153.0
I .1 9 8 8 116.1 1997 156.7
1939 121.5 1998 159.3
I 1,990 127.4 1999 162.7
1991 132.4
Woo 168.3
'Y2 136.1 2tAl 172.8
I1,993 140.0 ?.oa2 174.9
'1Th.734 144.0 2,04'13 178.3
Exhibit 4
um MI OM r 1111111 S M M I IIIIII M M MB a M M M M INN
2005-2030 ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Kendall County Highways
Highway 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements Estimated Total Cost Funding Factor(%) County Portion
Cannonball Trail Urban 3-Lane Section from Rte. 34 to Galena Rd. $4,000,000 67 $2,666,667
Caton Farm Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 t_ $400,000 33 $132,000
Bridge Replacement East of Ashley Rd. $200,000 ._ 100 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Ashley Rd. $300,000 50 $150,000
Intersection Improvement at Grove Rd. $500,000 100 $500,000
Bridge Replacement east of Grove Rd. $600,000 100 $600,000
Bridge Replacement west of Pederson Rd. $600,000 100 $600,000
Bridge Replacement east of Schlapp Rd. $600,000 50 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Ridge Rd. $750,000 25 $187,500
Urban 5-Lane Section from Grove Rd. to Ridge Rd. $8,000,000 20 $1,600,000
Eldamain Road Bridge &Approaches over Fox River; Rte. 71 to 34 L $20,000,000 40 $8,000,000 _
Intersection Improvement at Faxon Rd. $300,000 50 $150,000
Intersection Improvement at Corneils Rd. $300,000 50 $150,000
Rural 3-Lane Concrete; Menards to Galena Rd. $3,000,000 33 $1,000,000
Fox Road Intersection Improvement at Pavillion $400,000 67 $266,667
Bridge Replacement west of Poplar Dr. $350,000 100 $350,000
Fox River Drive Extend through Newark to Rte. 71 $1,000,000 67 $666,667
Reconstruct Crimmins Rd. as FRD Extension $1,500,000 100 $1,500,000
Bridge Replacement at Clear Creek $500,000 100 $500,000
M Intersection Improvement at Walker Rd. $400,000 80 $320,000
x .
= Urban 3-Lane Section Through Millbrook $750,000 100 $750,000
a'
,=t Intersection Improvement at V/'hitfield Rd. W/realignment $500,000 100 $500,000
cn Bridge Replacement at Hollenback Creek $500,000 100 $500,000
um MI V NM M M M IIIIIII M NM M MI OM IIIIII all M IIIIII M M
2005-2030 ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Kendall County Highways
Highway 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements Estimated Total Cost Funding Factor(%) County Portion
Fox River Drive Intersection Improvement at Fox Rd. $400,000 100 $400,000
(Continued) Rehabilitate Bridge over Fox River $2,000,000 100 $2,000,000
Intersection Improvement at Millhurst & River $1,500,000 67 $1,000,000
Bridge Replacement over Big Rock Creek $1,000,000 20 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Griswold Springs Rd. $500,000 67 $333,333
Galena Road Intersection Improvement at Creek Rd. w/Realignment $200,000 67 $133,333
Bridge Replacement over Little Rock Creek $600,000 100 $600,000
Intersection Improvement at Little Rock Rd. $500,000 100 $500,000
__
Intersection Improvement at Rock Creek Rd. $400,000 67 $266,667
Bridge Replacement over Big Rock Creek $600,000 _ 100 $600,000
Intersection Improvement at Eldamain Rd. $400,000 75 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 w/Bridge _ $1,000,000 50 $500,000
Intersection Improvement at Cannonball w/realignment $600,000 25 $150,000
Bridge Replacement over Blackberry Creek $750,000 75 $562,500
Intersection Improvement at Kennedy Rd. $600,000 50 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Concord Drive $200,000 100 $200,000
Urban 4/5-Lane Section from Eldamain to Orchard _ $12,000,000 50 $6,000,000
Grove Road Intersection Improvement at Sherrill Rd. $400,000 75 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Whitewillow Rd. $250,000 100 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 52 $500,000 50 $250,000
Bridge Replacement south of Van Dyke $600,000 100 $600,000
Intersection Improvement at Chicago Rd. $400,000 50 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte 126 w/Realignment $500,000 50 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at Cherry Rd. w/Realignment $300,000 15 $45,000
- N UM - - - s OM - M M M s MO r MI UM r INN
2005-2030 ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Kendall County Highways
Highway 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements Estimated Total Cost Funding Factor(%) County Portion
Grove Road Intersection Improvement at Reservation w/Realignment $400,000 25 $100,000
(Continued) Intersection Improvement at Collins Rd. $500,000 50 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at Plainfield Rd. $500,000 25 $125,000
Urban 3-Lane Section; Rte. 126 to Plainfield Rd. $5,000,000 67 $3,333,333
Joliet Road Urban 2-Lane Section through Lisbon $400,000 100 $400,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 $500,000 33 $166,667
Lisbon Road Urban 2-Lane Section through Lisbon $500,000 100 $500,000
Little Rock Road Intersection Improvement at Abe Street _ $500,000 - 25 $125,000
Intersection Improvement at Center Street $500,000 _ 25 $125,000
Intersection Improvement at Miller Rd. $500,000 15 $75,000
Urban 4/5-Lane Section; Rte. 34 to Galena Rd. $8,000,000 50 $4,000,000
Millbrook Road Intersection Improvement at Rte 71 -Walker w/Realignment, $400,000 100 $400,000
Millington Road Intersection Improvement at Rogers Rd. $300,000 75 $225,000
Intersection Improvement at Millhurst Rd. $400,000 75 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Lions Rd. $250,000 50 $125,000
Extension to Duvick Road $500,000 80 $400,000
Newark Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 71 $400,000 25 $100,000
Intersection Improvement at Lisbon Road $400,000 80 $320,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 $400,000 33 $133,333
Orchard Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 71 $600,000 25 $150,000
Bridge Widening over Fox River $4,000,000 100 $4,000,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 34 $500,000 50 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at Mill Rd. $400,000 50 $200,000
IIIII N - r - MO I I MI - - N MS M - M V - M
2005-2030 ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Kendall County Highways
Highway 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements Estimated Total Cost Funding Factor(%) County Portion
Intersection Improvement at Tuscany Tr. $400,000 75 $300,000
Intersection Improvement at Galena Rd. $200,000 100 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Caterpillar Dr. $150,000 10 $15,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 30 w/dual lefts _ $600,000 - 25 $150,000
Urban 4/5-Lane Section; Rte. 71 to Tuscany Tr. $6,000,000 _ 100 $6,000,000
Plainfield Road Intersection Improvement at Templeton Dr. _ $150,000 _ 50 $75,000
Intersection Improvement at Woolley w/Realignment $400,000 _ 25 $100,000
Intersection Improvement at Collins Rd. $400,000 50 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Simons Rd. w/Realignment $500,000 50 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at Douglas Rd. $300,000 67 $200,000
Intersection Improvement at Stewart Rd. $500,000 80 $400,000
Intersection Improvement at Johnson Rd. $500,000 15 $75,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 126 $600,000 50 $300,000
Urban 4/5-Lane Section; Rte. 126 to Grove Rd. $12,000,000 33 $4,000,000
Plattville/Chicago Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 $400,000 33 $133,333
Intersection Improvement at Ashley Rd. $300,000 75 $225,000
Ridge Road ±20 Intersection Improvements $8,000,000 15 $1,200,000
(WIKADUKE Tr.) Bridge Replacement south of Rte. 52 $600,000 50 $300,000
Urban 5-Lane Section; l-80 to Rte. 126 $30,000,000 15 $4,500,000
Rock Creek Road Transfer to City of Plano before 2009 $0
Sherrill Road Intersection Improvement at Grove Rd. $300,000 75 $225,000
Bridge Replacement west of O'brien Rd. $250,000 100 $250,000
Intersection Improvement at O'brien Rd. $300,000 33 $100,000
am on am me on me ma e me on Ilk 11111 Ns am I S r — OM
2005-2030 ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Kendall County Highways
Highway 2005-2030 Anticipated Capital Improvements Estimated Total Cost Funding Factor(%) County Portion
Widen & Resurface w/Additional ROW $1,600,000 _ 100 $1,600,000
Townhouse Road ,Intersection Improvement at U.S. Route 52 $500,000 50 $250,000
Van Emmon Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 71 $500,000 25 $125,000
Walker Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 71 w/Realignment $700,000 - 50 $350,000
Intersection Improvement at Lisbon Rd. $300,000 50 $150,000
Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 $400,000 25 $100,000
i r
Whitewillow Road Intersection Improvement at Rte. 47 $400,000 25 $100,000
Totals: $164,750,000 $75,207,000
1
REE R,E RRE
1
P
n
°' 7Y
\Ionto-omor' KENDALL COUNT
\.., iii , ( . .„ n n
i i-
2005 2030 Transportation Plan
Nlano
•
',,in(lo ICl) ,
c
, li \
•
•
- i \lint)!mil,
I r
••
i - -
lillinigon
1 • E
Joliet
- •`
•
Nevvall.
• • I •
1
I . h
�
Li,bon
i
(` _ \linoOka
II
:flt NI
• • • __
- — EXHIBIT 6
1 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT MAP
I
E = OM M MIII M IIIIII OM Ma E M NM Al I MO M OM = MI
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF 2005-2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Kendall County
Revenues ($000's) Expenditures ($000's) Deficit
Year
MFT Bridge FAM Federal Total Capital f Maintenance $ Total ($000's)
2005 1,187 550 250 280 2,267 3,000 900 3,900 -1,633
2006 1,211 561 255 350 2,377 3,090 927 4,017 -1,640
2007 1,245 572 260 350 2,427 3,183 955 4,138 -1,711
2008 1,275 584 265 350 2,474 3,278 983 4,262 -1,788
2009 1,305 595 271 350 2,521 3,377 1,013 4,389 -1,868
2010 1,336 607 276 350 2,569 3,478 1,043 4,521 -1,952
2011 1,367 619 281 350 2,617 3,582 1,075 4,657 -2,040
2012 1,399 632 287 400 2,718 3,690 1,107 4,797 -2,079
2013 1,431 644 293 400 2,768 3,800 1,140 4,940 -2,172
2014 1,464 657 299 400 2,820 3,914 1,174 5,089 _-2,269
2015 1,497 670 305 400 2,872 4,032 1,340 5,372 -2,500
2016 1,531 684 311 400 2,926 4,153 1,401 5,554 -2,628
2017 1,566 698 317 400 2,981 4,277 1,465 5,742 -2,761
2018 1,601 711 323 450 3,085 4,406 1,532 5,937 -2,852
2019 1,637 726 330 450 3,143 4,538 1,602 6,139 -2,996
2020 1,673 740 336 450 3,199 4,674 1,675 6,349 -3,150
2021 1,710 755 343 450 3,258 4,814 1,751 6,565 -3,307
2022 1,747 770 350 450 3,317 4,959 1,831 6,789 -3,472
2023 1,786 786 357 450 3,379 5,107 1,914 7,022 -3,643
2024 1,825 801 364 500 3,490 5,261 2,002 7,262 -3,772
2025 1,864 817 371 500 3,552 5,418 2,093 7,511 -3,959
2026 1,905 834 379 500 3,618 5,581 2,188 7,769 -4,151
2027 1,946 850 386 500 3,682 5,748 2,288 8,036 -4,354
2028 1,987 867 394 500 3,748 5,921 2,393 8,313 -4,565
2029 2,030 885 402 500 3,817 6,098 2,502 8,600 -4,783
2030 2,072 902 410 500 3,884 6,281 2,616 8,897 -5,013
t$75,000,000 of Capital Improvement Costs are averaged over 25 years using 2005 dollars, and then a 3% rate of inflation is applied.
$ Maintenance costs begin at $900,000 and increase at rate of inflation (3%). Beginning in the 10th year, increases in the total lane miles are also applied.
System mileage increases at 1.56% per year, bringing total annual increases after the 10th year to 4.56%.
Cil
No operational costs for the Kendall County Highway Department are included in this Exhibit(see page 5).
Y.
elv
� j c7T o United City of Yorkville
-n County Seat of Kendall County
800 Game Farm Road
EST. � '_, �` 1$36
Yorkville, Illinois, 60560
,,lg y
Telephone: 630-553-4350
Fax: 630-553-7575
�'f..1.,'E`, Website: www.yorkville.il.us
14CDEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 18, 2005
TO: Tony Graff, City Administrator
FROM: William A. Dettm r; ode Official/Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Bristol Kendall Fire Department letter of January 13, 2005
In reviewing the letter of January 13, 2005, I would like to bring two items to
your attention.
5 -- The District is asking that they be allowed access to buildings during
construction for training. It is my opinion that this should be an agreement between the
owner of the building and the Fire District.
#10 —The District is requesting to have a signature line on all plans. Illinois State
law provides that architects and engineers are the only ones that can sign a set of plans.
In accordance to the codes of Yorkville, when plans are approved by the Building
Department, the Code Official would stamp them approved and sign them. We are
willing to provide the Fire District with plans and accept their comments, which are in
compliance with the codes approved by the municipality.
As for the rest of the letter, we have no problem setting up provisions to have them come
out for fire chafing, tire alarm, fire suppression testing and final inspections, as long as
they understand that they must be available when these inspections are requested.
t �
103 East Beaver Street
Yorkville, IL 60560-1704
Phone: 630 553-6186
Fax: 630 553-1482
January 13, 2005
Anton Graff, City Administrator
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
Dear Mr. Graff;
This letter is in follow-up to the discussion on changing the height restrictions
within the United City of Yorkville. As in previous discussions the Fire District currently
does not have a vehicle or equipment that could support the increased height at this
time. We would currently rely on surrounding communities in an emergency event in a
four, five or six story building. We have reviewed the attached memorandum dated
September 14, 2004 and agree with all of the items addressed.
We meet with Mr. Dettmer on August 26, 2004 and discussed the district's
concerns about the increased height requirements. We agreed at that time to support
the change with the following items to be included:
1. Non-Combustible Type 1 or Type 2 construction only.
2. Any building over 35 feet will be required to meet the requirements of this new
ordinance.
3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed, no residential sprinkler design
allowed.
4. An approved automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions of the code and NFPA 72.
5. The district would be allowed access to the building during construction for training.
6. The district will be contacted for the rough inspection of fire chafing.
7. The district will be contacted for the final inspection.
8. The district will be contacted for fire alarm acceptance testing.
9. The district will be contacted for fire suppression acceptance testing.
10.The district will approve and have a signature line on all plans except single-family or
duplex.
11.The district will agree to review plans and provide comments in 7-10 days, from the
time that plans are received.
12.The district will draft all letters to the city in regards to concerns with plans reviewed.
This item was started on September 1, 2004.
13. The district will draft all letters to the city in regards to problems found on
construction sites.
14. The district will be involved in the future (2006) code changes that are to begin in
late 2005.
15.The district will have a plan review fee that is currently being established.
The above-mentioned items would allow the district the necessary input and
accessibility to handle an emergency incident at a four, five or six story building. At this
time the district would fully support the increased height restrictions as long as
the above items are added to the ordinance or in an intergovernmental agreement
of some type.
Sincerely,
Michael Hitzemann
Chief
10/22/2004 12 :27 FAX 630 553 5764 DANIEL J. KRAMER U1003/004
�����4 CIr�,, Unitec City of 'Yor .vine
Est '41,,,,:i4*3s County Seat of Kendall County •
800 Game Farm Road
" *� Yorkville, Illinois, 60560
,k4R ,.* O Telephone: 630-553-4350
N';':L'7;:7:6:_;'1
y �
�� ,y Fax; 630-553-7575
Website: www.yorkville.il.u5
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY
MEMORANDUM
•
DATE: September 14, 2004
TO: William A. Dettmei, Code Official
FROM: Kurt Van Dahill, Commercial & Fire Systems Plans Examiner
SUBJECT: Code Changes for 4, 54:54 6 Story Buildings
Per your directive to make the necessary changes to the Building and Fire Codes to require all 4,
5 and 6 story buildings in Yorkville to be built of non-combustible construction and to be fully
protected by full sprinkler systems, my suggestions are detailed below.
BUILDING CODE
Add the following new sections:
503.1.5 Four, Five and Six Story Buildings.
Regardless of use, all buildings of four (4), -five (5) or six (6) stories shall be of noncombustible
construction only (Type I and Type II only). No increase in allowable height beyond six (6)
stories is to be allowed regardless of any other provisions of this code.
503.1.6 Building Height Limit
No building shall be constructed of more than six (6) stories regardless of construction type or of
any other provisions of this code.
903.2.16 All Buildings of Four, Five or Six Stories.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings, regardless of use, of
four (4) five (5) or six (6) stories. A residential sprinkler system installed in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.2 shall not be allowed in buildings, or portions thereof, of Groups R-1, R-2, R-3
or R-4 exceeding three(3) stories.
OCT-22-2004 12:23 TEL)630 553 5764 ID)BRISTOL KENDALL FPD PAGE:003 R=98%
10/22/2004 12 :27 FAX 630 553 5764 DANIEL J. KRAMER Z004/004
•
Menlo to William A. Dettmer
Re: Code Changes for 4, 5, 6 Story Buildings
Page 2
907.20 All Buildings of Four,Five or Six Stories.
An approved manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be provided in
all buildings of four, five or six stories. An approved automatic fire detection system shall be
installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72. Devices, combinations of
devices, appliances and equipment shall comply with Section 907.12. The automatic fire
detectors shall be smoke detectors, except that an approved alternate type of detector shall be
installed in spaces such as boiler rooms,where, during normal operation, products of combustion
are present in sufficient quantity to actuate a smoke detector.
Also Recommend: In Section 905 — All buildings over three (3) stories shall be equipped with
Class I Standpipes in each stairway.
FIRE CODE
903.2.16 All Buildings of Four, Five or Six Stories.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings, regardless of use, of
four (4), five (5) or six (6) stories. A residential sprinkler system installed in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.2 shall not be allowed in buildings, or portions thereof; of Groups R-1, R-2, R-3
or R-4.
907.2.24 All Buildings of Four, Five or Six Stories.
An approved manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be provided in
all buildings and four, five or six stories_ An approved automatic fire detection system shall be
installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72. Devises, combinations of
devices, appliances and equipment shall comply with Section 907.1.2. The automatic fire
detectors shall be smoke detectors, except that an approved alternative type of detector shall be
installed in spaces such as boiler rooms where, during nonoral operation, products of combustion
are present in sufficient quantity to actuate a smoke detector.
Also Recommend: In Section 905 — All buildings over three (3) stories shall be equipped with
Class I Standpipes in each stairway.
OCT-22-2004 12:24 TEL)630 553 57E4 ID)BRISTOL KENDALL FPD PAGE:004 R=98%
•
STALE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF KENDALL
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDG FOR TUE REGULATION OF
SIGNS AND R.EVOKTYi G ALL PRIOR SIGN ORDINANCES
IN THE UNITED CITY OF THE
VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE
1998-
•
WHEREAS THE UNI1"ED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE IS in need of an
Ordinance regulating the use of Signage in the CITY OF YORKVILLE; and
WHEREAS THE UNI LED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE by and through its
Mayor and City Council deem it to be in the best interest of the CITY OF YORKVILLE to enact
such an Ordinance:
NOW THEREFORE THE UNI1 ED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE acts as
follows:
I
That all signage from this day forward shall conform with this Ordinance in all respects. All
heretofore existing sign regulation ordinances enacted by THE UNITED CITY OF THE
VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE are hereby revoked to the extent that prior Ordinances effecting
permit fees shall remain in full force and effect.
II
•
DEFLNITIONS
A. BANNER Any sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is displayed on a pole or
a building. national flags, state or municipal flags, or the official flag of any institution or
business shall not be considered banners.
•
B. CORNER LOT—A lot with property lines of two (2)streets bisecting on an angle.
C. FACADE—The face or wall of a building as it is presented to view; the apparent width
and/or height of a building as viewed from streets, driveways, and parking lots. Minor
changes in wall elevations do not constitute the creation of additional facades.
D. FLAG—A fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols used as a
symbol of a government, political subdivision, or other entity.
E. MESSAGE BOARD—A panel which uses changing and/or flashing lights to electronically •
communicate copy. A panel with lights flashing time and temperature only is not a
message board.
F. PENNANT—Any lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether or not containing a
message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string.
G. SIGN—Any structure, vehicle, device, or any part thereof, intended to be seen by persons
in the public right-of-way which
1. Shall be used to identify, advertise, or attract attention to any
• object
• product
• place
• activity
• person
• institution
• organization
• firm
• group
• commodity
•
• profession
• enterprise
• industry
• business
2. Shall display or is intended to display or include any
• letter
• word
•. model
• number
• banner
• flag
• pennant
• insignia
• device
•
• representation
used as announcement, direction, or advertisement, and which is intended to be seen
by persons in the public right-of-way.
The definition of"sign" shall not, however, be interpreted as prohibiting any structure,
vehicle, device, or any part thereof used for the purpose of disseminating political,
economic, social, or philosophical ideas entitled to constitutional protection as non-
commercial speech. In any instance where this ordinance would prohibit any such
activity, the conditions of this ordinance shall be interpreted as permitting the
utilization of a sign to express such non-commercial speech subject to such other
limitations as are included in this ordinance.
3. Sign types are defined as follows:
a) Animated Sign—Any sign that uses movement or change of lighting to depict
action or create a special effect or scene.
b) Business Sign--A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service
activity, idea, slogan, or entertainment conducted, sold, offered, or available upon
the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed.
c) Canopy Any sign that is part of, or attached to, an awning, canopy, or the fabric,
plastic, or structural protective cover over a door, entrance, window, or outdoor
service area. A marquee is not a canopy.
d) Commercial Sign or Sign of Commercial Nature—Any sign, the content of which
advertises or publicizes any business, commodity, service, activity, idea, slogan,
or entertainment conducted, sold, offered, or available by a person, corporation,
or entity which has as its goal or effect the distribution of profits to the owners of
the advertising enterprise.
e) Freestanding Sign Any sign supported by structures or supports that are placed
on, or anchored in, the ground and that are independent from any building or
other structure.
f) Ground Sign—A permanent sign which is supported by uprights or braces
securely anchored in the ground, with no more than two (2) feet,of clear space
between the bottom of the face of the sib and the grade beneath the sign face.
g) Identification Sign A sign used to display and identify the name of the
individual, business, profession, organization, or institution occupying the
premise upon which sign is located.
h) Inflatable Sign—A sign inflated with air or helium, such as a balloon.
i) Marquee Sign A sib attached to any permanent roof-like structure of rigid
materials supported by and extending from the facade of a building.
j) Permanent Sign Any sign which is not a temporary sign, and which is designed
to be in compliance with the currently-adopted BOCA Basic Building Code.
k) Pole Sign—Any business sign having a supporting structure with a size less than
25 percent of the two (2) feet of clear space between the bottom of the face of the
sign and the grade beneath the sign face.
1) Portable Sign Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other
pei iianent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including but not
limited to, signs designed to be transported by trailer or means of wheels, menu
and sandwich board signs, or balloons used as signs.
m) Projecting Sign Any sign affixed to a.building or wall in such a manner that its
leading edge extends more than twelve inches beyond the surface of such
building or wall.
n) Residential Development Sign--A permanent ground sign placed at the major
entrances to and identifying a residential development.
o) Real Estate Sign--A temporary business sign placed upon a property advertising
that particular property for sale, rent, or lease.
p) Roof Sign Any sign erected or constructed wholly on and over the roof of a
building and supported by the roof structure. •
q) Temporary Sign--A sign intended to be displayed a limited length of time, as per
Section and is not permanently.mounted.
r) Vehicle Sign Any vehicle primarily situated to serve as a sign rather than as
transportation. An automobile, van, or truck displaying the name and/or other
information regarding the related establishment used for normal business
operation or for normal business operation or for employee transportation is not a
vehicle sign.
s) Wall Sign Any sign attached parallel to, but within twelve inches of, a wall,
painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an
outside wall of any building or structure, which is supported by such wall or
building and which only sign surface.
t) Window Sign--Any sign, pictures, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to
communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, s,ale, or
service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is
visible from the exterior of the window.
H. Street Frontage—The distance for which a lot line of a zoned lot adjoins a public street,
from one lot line intersecting said street to the furthest-distant lot line intersecting the same
street.
ICI
FROHZBD SIGNS
A. Billboards, i.e., those structures over 150 square feet used for attracting public attention for
the purpose of advertising a location/product that may/may not be located within or available
within the jurisdiction.
B. Advertising signs (NOIb: This prohibition relates to residential and commercial zoning
districts and commercial signs only).
C. Moving, rotating, or animated signs, except traditional barber poles not exceeding two
(2) feet in height and projecting not more than twelve (12) inches from the building, utilized
only to identify a hair cutting establishment. In authorizing the lattef exemption, the
corporate authorities find it in the public interest to retain this historic symbol of American
commerce.
D. Searchlights, except searchlights permitted for grand openings or special business events
with temporary permits.
E. Flashing signs and message boards (except that time and/or temperature signs).
F. Free standing panels or flags used to advertise products, prices, and services, or to attract
attention.
G. Illumination which is not steady and constant.
H. Windows painted in excess of fifty(50)percent.
I. Roof signs.
J. Vehicle signs.
K. Pennants.
TV ;
PERMITTED SIGNS
A. ALL DISTRICTS
Unless otherwise stated, signs listed in Section A are permitted in all zones and shall not require
a sign permit. Such signs shall not be counted when calculating the number, of signs or
signage-square-footage on a premise. However, such signs shall conform with the general
regulations, e.g., height, area, setback, clearance, etc., for signs enumerated in the remainder of
this ordinance.
1. Name and address plates which give only the name and address of the resident of the
building.
2. Memorial signs or tablets and signs denoting the date of erection of buildings.
3. No trespassing signs or other such signs regulating the use of a property.
4. Real estate signs.
5. Signs regulating on-premise traffic and parking, and signs denoting section of a
building such as lavatory facilities and public telephone areas. Signs.must conform to
the state uniform sign code.
6. Signs erected by a governmental body or under the direction of such a body, and
bearing no commercial advertising, such as traffic signs, railroad crossing signs, safety
signs, and signs identifying public schools and playgrounds. Signs must conform to .
the state uniform sign code.
7. Signs identifying places of worship when located on the premises thereof.
8. Bulletin boards for public, charitable, or religious institutions if used exclusively for
noncommercial announcements.
9. The flag, pennant, or insignia of any government, or of any religious charitable, or
fraternal organization.
10. One logo flag of a company shall be allowed provided that it is flown with the
American flag and shall not be larger than that flag.
11. Temporary signs advertising the sale of edible farm products on the premises,
advertising auctions, political candidates, or special events of businesses or
charitable/public service groups. Such signage must be removed by close of business
of the day the temporary sign permit expires.
12. Garage sale signs may be placed at the curbs in Residential Districts. Only one sign
per street frontage per event is permitted. Such signage may only be placed on the
property upon which the sale is conducted only for the duration of the sale.
13. Window signs of paper or similar material shall be allowed in Business Districts,
provided that such signs are to.be used to notify the public of special sales or current
prices, business hours and/or health regulations.
14. Signs advertising company or group engaged in on-site construction or rehabilitation
may remain for the duration of such work.
15. Temporary signs advertising City-sanctioned special events as approved by the Code
Official. Such signage must be removed by close of business of the day the temporary
sign permit expires.
B. PERMUTED SIGNS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
1. Nameplates and identification signs, subject to the following:
a) For one- and two-family dwellings, there shall be not more than one (1)
nameplate for each dwelling unit, indicating the name and address of occupant or
a permitted occupation, except that on a corner lot two (2) such nameplates for
each dwelling unit, one (1) facing each side of the street shall be permitted.
b) For multiple-family dwellings, for apai talent hotels, and for buildings other than
dwellings, a single identification sign indicating only the name and address of the
building and the name of the management thereof may be displayed provided that
on a corner lot two (2) such signs, one (1) facing each street, shall be permitted.
c) Identification signs for non-residential uses, e.g., public and quasi-public
buildings, churches, cemeteries, golf courses, private nonprofit recreational areas,
provided that such signs are limited to one sign per building. Permanent sign
permit is required.
d) Permanent residential development signs at entrances to a residential
development or residential planned unit development and containing no
commercial advertising. constructed of material which is the same or of a more
permanent nature than the material used in the buildings. A permanent sign
permit is required for each sign.
e) Temporary residential marketing signs at major entrances to planned unit
developments or residential subdivisions. Temporary sign permits and approvals
by the sign review board are required. Such signage must be removed by close of
business of the day the temporary sign permit expires. In determining the
number, location, and duration of such signs, the Code Official shall consider the
following factors:
i) Location of the development;
ii) Size of the development
iii) Visibility the sign will achieve at the particular entrances at which signage is
sought:
iv) Proximity of existing and proposed residences;
v) Size of the proposed signage, both with regard to individual signs and with
total signage requested.
2. Temporary residential off-site marketing signs shall be allowed at not more than four
(4) off-site locations within the City of Yorkville to call attention and give directions
to the development. Each sign may be located in any zoning district, provided that
there is one-quarter (1/4) mile separation from each other, and that no such sign shall
be closer to an existing residence than one hundred (100) feet. A temporary sign
permit is required for each sign and such signage must be removed by close of
business of the day the temporary sign permit expires.
C. PERMITTED SIGNS BUSLYESS DISTRICTS
1. All signs permitted in residential districts.
2. Ground or Pole Signs—One (1) per street frontage, not to exceed one hundred (100)
square feet in area, with a height (measured from average ground level) not to exceed
six (6) feet for abound sign or twenty (20) feet for a pole sign. A permanent sign
peimit is required for each sign.
3. Wall signs—A permanent sign permit is required for each sign.
a) Single-use buildings—two (2) signs per facade, but not to exceed a total of four
(4) such signs.
b) Multi-tenant buildings one (1) sign per individual business or enterprise, two
(2) signs per corner unit, one on each facade. A wall sign may be placed on any
face of a building oriented to a public street, the main parking Iot of the parcel, or
a major access road.
D. PERMUTED SIGNS—MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
1. All signs permitted in residential districts and business districts.
2. Ground or Pole Signs—One (1) per street frontage, not to exceed one hundred (100)
square feet in area, with a height (measured from average ground level) not to exceed
six (6) feet for a ground sign or twenty (20) feet for a pole sign. A permanent sign
permit is required for each sign.
•
3. Wall Signs—Wall signs are limited to an area equal to ten (10) percent of the facade
area upon which the sign is to be mounted. A permanent sign permit is required for
each sign.
4. Real estate signs as follows:
a) One (1) sign per street frontage.
b) Sign area cannot exceed twenty (20) square feet per face for each one (1) acre of
contiguous land area, not to exceed a maximum of four hundred (400) square feet
of area per sign face and ten (10) feet in height. A temporary sign permit is
required for each sign. Such signage must be removed by close of business of the
day the temporary sign permit expires.
V
NONCONFORMING SIGNS
A. Any sign for which a permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this or
any subsequent amendment to the sign ordinance and which does not comply with the
provisions of such amendment may nonetheless be completed in accordance with the
approved plans, provided construction of the sign is started within ninety (90) days after the
passage of the ordinance amendment and is completed within sixty (60) days after beginning
construction.
B. Whenever a nonconforming sign has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months, or
whenever there is evident a clear intent on the part of the owner to abandon a nonconforming
sign, such sign shall not, after being discontinued or abandoned, be re-established, and the
sign hereafter shall be in conformity with the regulations of this ordinance.
C. Normal maintenance of a nonconforming sign is permitted, including necessary
nonstructural repairs or incidental alternations which do not extend or intensify the
nonconforming features of the sign.
D. No structural alteration, enlargement, or extension shall be made in a nonconforming sign,
except when the alteration will actually result in eliminating the nonconformance.
E. If a nonconforming sign is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent of fifty (50)
percent or more of its replacement value at the time, the sign can be rebuilt or used thereafter
only for a conforming use and in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. In the
event the damage or destruction is less than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value based
upon prevailing costs, the sign may then be restored to its original conditions and the use
may be continued which existed at the time such partial destruction until the nonconforming
sign is otherwise abated by the provisions of this ordinance. In either event, restoration or
repair must be started within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of damage or
destruction, and completed within sixty(60) days after beginning restoration or repair.
F. Existing temporary signs shall expire at the termination date specified on the permit, but in
no case later than six (6) months from the date of passage of this ordinance. New temporary
signs shall be allowed only in conformance with the provisions contained in this ordinance.
Such signage must be removed by close of business of the day the temporary sign permit
expires.
G. The Code Official shall, after passage of this sign ordinance, notify each owner of a
nonconforming sign, and the manner in which such sign is not in compliance with this
ordinance. The Code Official shall further notify each owner of a nonconforming sign that
such sign must either be brought into compliance with this ordinance or be removed.
VI.
ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS
The illumination of all signs shall be diffused or indirect and shall be so arranged that there will
be no direct rays reflecting into the public way or any lot on the perimeter of the premises on '
which the signs are located. Exposed light bulbs, neon tubing, flashing, blinking, traveling, and
similar illumination, including illuminated canopies, are not permitted.
ll
COWIJTATIONS OF SIGN AGE
A. Computation of Area of Individual Signs
The area of the sign face, which is also the sign area of a wall sign or other sign with only one
face, shall be computed by means of the smallest square, circle, rectangle, triangle, or
combination thereof that will encompass the extreme limits of the writing representation,
emblem, or other display, together with any material or color forming an integral part of the
background of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against
which it is placed. It does not include any supporting framework, bracing, or decorative fence or
wall when such fence or wall otherwise meets zoning ordinance regulations and is clearly
incidental to the display itself. A double-faced sign shall count as a single sign.-
.
ig.-
B. Computation of Heights
The height of a sign shall be computed as the distance from the base of the sign at normal grade
. to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. Normal grade shall be construed to be
the lower of (1) existing grade prior to construction or (2) the newly established grade after
construction, exclusive of any filling, berming, mounding, or excavating solely for the purpose
of locating the sign. In cases in which the normal grade cannot reasonably be determined, sign
height shall be computed on the assumption that the elevation of normal grade at the base of the
sign is equal to the elevation of the nearest point of the crown of a public street or grade of the
land at the principal entrance to the principal structure on the zoned lot, whichever is-lower.
•
C. Computation of Maximum Total Permitted Sign Area for a Zoned Lot
The permitted sum of the area of all individual signs on a zoned lot shall be the total square foot
area of all signs erected or maintained upon a building or lot of record not exceed two (2) square
feet for each linear foot of frontage of building thereon. Buildings having frontage on more than .
one dedicated street will be allowed signage for frontage on each street inaccordance with the
above formula. The above signs are limited to an area equal to ten percent (10%) of the facade
upon which the sign is to be mounted.
D. Signs shall not exceed the sizes shown in Table I.
Table I _
TYPE OF SIGN 01- I SIZE
Advertising signs and poster panels:
Bulletin boards for public, charitable, 32 square feet
or religious institutions
Garage sale 6 square feet
Ground or pole signs 100 square feet or 6 feet in height
(Ground sign-Business District)
100 square feet or 20 feet in height.
(Pole sign-Business District)
(Ground/Pole sign-Manufacturing District)
Memorial signs or tablets and signs denoting 5 square feet
the date of erection of buildings
Name and address plates
One- and two-family dwellings 1 1/2 square feet
Multiple-family dwellings 9 square feet
Non-residential uses 32 square feet and 6 feet in height*
*(Height applicable to ground sign.)
No trespassing signs 2 square feet(Residential Districts)
6 square feet(Commercial, Office and
Industrial Districts)
Real estate signs:
Residential real estate (individual) 6 square feet
Residential marketing(development) 64 square feet or 10 feet in height
Temporary residential off-site marketing 32 square feet and total of 10 feet in height
Manufacturing and business marketing 64 square feet and 10 feet in height
Signs advertising company or group engaged 6 square feet
in on-site construction or rehabilitation
Signs regulating on-premises traffic and 6 square feet
parking or sections of buildings
Temporary signs/Temporary portable signs 32 square feet
Wall signs 10% of facade area (Manufacturing District)
Window signs for business hours/health 4 square feet
regulations
Window signs of paper for special 50 percent of total window area
sales/current prices
VII
PLACEMENT OF SIGNS .
A. On Lots Signs shall be placed no closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. Gasoline prices,
one per street frontage, not to exceed twenty-four (24) square feet, may be placed within
one (1) foot of the lot line where it does not obstruct the view of traffic nor exceed fifteen
(15) feet in height when mounted on light standards.
B. On Corner Lots—Within that part of a yard or open area of a corner lot included within a
triangular area of twenty-five (25) feet from the point of intersection of two (2) street
right-of-way lines forming such a corner lot, no sign shall be constructed having a height of
more than thirty (30) inches or as required to provide necessary sight distance.
rx
PERLMITTL -G PROCEDURES
A. PERMITS FOR PERMANENT SIGNS
Peiuiits to build new permanent signs or to alter or move existing permanent signs:
1. No permanent sign shall hereafter be erected, altered, or moved until the person
proposing to erect, alter, or move such sign shall have obtained a permit from the Code
Official. Such permit shall be issued only when the sign complies with all of the
applicable provisions of this ordinance, or upon appeal of the Code Official's
deteiniination, has received approval from the Sign Review Board. The fee for
•
granting such a permit shall be established by City Council. The schedule of fees shall
be posted in the City offices and may be amended only by the City Council.
2. Any person desiring a permit for a permanent sign shall file a permit application which -
shall contain or have attached thereto the following information:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. •
b. Name(s) of the person, firm, corporation, or association erecting, altering, or
moving said sign.
c. A plat of survey, or a plan acceptable to the Code Oficial, that shows the location
of the building, structure, or lot to which the sign is to be attached or erected, and
showing the position of the sign in relation to nearby buildings and thoroughfares.
d. A plan drawn to scale showing the design of the sign, materials used, and the
method of construction and means of attachmentto the building or ground.
e. Written consent of the owner of the land on which the sign is to be erected,
altered, or relocated.
f Any other information necessary for the Code Official to determine full
compliance with this and all other applicable City ordinances. _
B. PERMITS FOR i'EMPORARY SIGNS
1. All temporary signs, except those enumerated in Section N. A., shall have a permit.
Possession of a valid permit for a temporary sign shall entitle the owner to display
such sign for the time period specified thereon. Permits for temporary signs must be
kept on the premises where signs are displayed.
2. Permit applications for a temporary sign shall be made on the permit application form
provided by the Code Official. The fees for granting such permits shall be established
by the City Council. The schedule of fees shall be posted in the City Administrative
Offices, and may be amended only by the City Council.
3. Duration of temporary signs shall not exceed the time shown in. Table II. Any
temporary sign must be removed by close of business of the day the temporary sign
permit expires.
Table II
Type of Temporary Sign Maximum Duration
Advertising a special sale 14 days, 3 times per year
Banners 14 days, 6 times per year
Commercial or industrial real estate signs 6 months, renewable on a 6-month basis
•
Inflatable balloons 72 hours (for grand openings only)
Residential marketing signs 5 days after premise or lot advertised has been
sold, rented, or leased
Searchlights 72 hours (for grand openings only)
Special Business Events 14 days, 3 times per year
X
SIGN REVTEW BOARD
A. Appointment—A Sign Review Board is hereby established which shall consist of five (5)
members, to be appointed by the Mayor with consent of City Council, one of whom shall be
designated by the Mayor as Chairperson.
B. Terms—The Sign Review Board Members shall be appointed for a term of four (4) years,
or until their respective successors are appointed, and qualified; except that of the initially
appointed Review Board, one (1) member shall serve for one (1) year, one (1) member for
two (2) years, two (2) members for three (3) years, and one (1) member for four(4)years.
C Qualification of Members—At least two (2) members shall be businesspersons who each
has not less than three (3) years experience as a businessperson in the City of Yorkville and
shall maintain such status; and three (3) members shall be appointed at large. Members
appointed to fill vacancies shall have the same general qualifications required for, their
predecessors.
D. Meetings—Meetings of the Sign Review Board shall be held at the call of the Chairman, or
as prescribed by its rules. Three (3)members shall constitute a quorum.
E. Rules and Records The Sign Review Board shall adopt its own rules and regulations and
keep minutes of its meetings.
F. Authority The Sign Review Board shall have the duty or power to:
1. Review and make a determination on any appeals to any order, requirement, decision,
or determination made by the Code Official in the enforcement of this article.
2. Review all applications for variances to this ordinance, conduct any necessary public
hearings, and recommend action to the City Council.
3. Administer oaths to persons testifying at such public hearings deemed necessary for
F.2., above.
VARIATIONS
A. Right to Appeal for Variation. Any person found in violation of this ordinance by any
decision of the Code Official may take an appeal from the decisions or apply for a variation
from the requirements of this ordinance to the Sign Review Board. Applications for
variations may also be made in the absence of a finding of violation.
B. Time for Filing Appeal or Application. The appellant or applicant must file with the Code
Official no later than thirty (30) days after receiving notice of such violation, a Notice of
Appeal or Application for Variation, directed to the Sign Review Board, specifying the
ground thereof and relief sought.
C. Right to Public Hearing. The Sign Review Board shall grant to each appellant or applicant a
public hearing.
1. Date of Hearing—The Sign Review Board shall, within thirty (30) days after the date
of filing of the appeal or application, set a date for the hearing, and have published a
notice of said public hearing.
2. Notice of Hearing—The Sign Review Board shall give not less than fifteen (15) nor
more than thirty (30) days notice of the hearing. Such notice shall contain the address ,
of the property in question, the owner of the property and the nature of the application
or appeal. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to the appellant or applicant, and also
the complainant if the hearing arises from the complaint of a person other than the
Code Official.
D. Continuances. The Sign Review Board may, in its discretion, grant continuances, and shall
notify the appellant or applicant and any complainant with respect to the appeal or -
::application, or any continuance.
E. Sign Review Board's Decision. After hearing an appeal, the Sign Review Board shall
affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Code Official or order him/her to act; after
hearing an application for variation, the Sign Review Board shall grant or deny the relief
applied for or shall grant such other relief as it deems proper. The decision will be referred
to the City Council for final approval.
F. The Sign Review Board shall require from the applicants such sketches, drawings, or
photographs as shall be necessary to indicate the present condition of the property or sign
and the condition of the property or sign after the variation is ranted. The Sign Review
Board may impose reasonable restrictions or conditions which the applicant shall be
required to observe if the variance is granted. In considering the application for variance,
the Sign Review Board shall consider any unique physical property of the land involved, the
available locations for adequate signing on the property, the effect of the proposed sign on
pedestrian and motor traffic, the cost to the applicant of complying with the sign ordinance
as opposed to the detriment, if any, to the public from the granting of the variance and
general intent of the sign ordinance.
M A.L TENANCE
A. The owner of a sign and the owner of the premises on which said sign is located shall be
jointly and severally liable to maintain such sign or signs subject to the following standards:
1. Signs shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition and good working order,
including illumination sources, at all times.
2. Signs shall be properly painted unless galvanized or otherwise treated to prevent-rust
or deterioration.
3. Signs shall conform to maintenance provisions of the Building and Electrical Codes as
adopted by the City of Yorkville.
ABANDONED SIGNS
A. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, any temporary sib installed for period of
thirty (30) days or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no
longer applies, shall be removed.
B. Permanent signs applicable to a business suspended because of change in ownership or
management of such business shall be deemed abandoned if the property remains vacant for
a period of six (6) months or more. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed
by the owner of the sign or owner of the premises within thirty (30) days.
REMOVAL OF SIGNS
Any sign found to be improperly maintained, abandoned, or otherwise in violation of this
ordinance which is not removed or repaired within thirty (30) days of written notice of the Code
Official may by removed or repaired at the order of the Code Official . Any expense in.cidentaI
to such removal or repair shall be charged to the owner of the property upon which the sign is
located and shall constitute a lien upon the property.
PASSED AND ENAC 1 ED THIS / / DAY OF / ///ice-/— 998.
,/ yekr
_ , � _ ///�
t �
i� LERK
/ /
MAYOR
Law Office of _ .
Daniel J. Kramer
1107A. S. Bridge St.
Yorkville, IL 60560
(630) 553-9500
f
° cfT� United City of Yorkville Memo
o
',' 800 Game Farm Road
EST ero 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
cw � p Fax: 630-553-7575
Kendall County
E
Date: January 4, 2005
To: Economic Development Committee
From: Tony Graff
CC: Art Prochaska
Subject: Population Projection
Enclosed is the 2005+ Yorkville population projection. These numbers have been calculated on
a per year basis, through 2010 and 2010+. These estimates have been drawn from a combination
of developer surveys, similarity of other developments, and history of buildout by the developer/
development. People Equivalent (PE) has been calculated using the land-cash ordinance figures
of 3.75 for single family, 2.35 for duplex, 2.2 for townhome. and 1.9 for apartments,
condominiums, senior homes, etc.
The chart is broken down into two sections: current and future. The current developments are
already under construction, are ready to start construction, have been annexed, or have finished
preliminary plat. The future developments are in the midst of preliminary plat stage, concept
plan stage, or pre-concept conferences. As such, the current developments estimates have a
higher probability of being more accurate, and the future developments estimates may change
completely for reasons that may include but are not limited to rejection by the City,withdrawal
from the process, resubmittal of plans, etc.
This chart is to be used as a planning tool by staff and City Officials as a liberal and conservative
estimate of population that is to be used to formulate City policies, complete City projects,
estimate revenue streams, etc.
Liberal Estimate (2010): 50.333
Conservative Estimate (2010): 29,040
Total Buildout Estimate (2010+): 65.367
_ UNITEI) CITY OF YORKVILLE
Population Projection
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010+ Total
Name of Current Left To Build 2005 Build 2006 Build 2007 Build 2008 Build 2009 Build 2010 Left to Build
Development Developer Unit Type Total Units Build Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Build Out PE
Autumn Creek- Single Family 325 325 30 113 50 188 50 188 50 188 50 188 50 188 45 169
(Hinsdale Nursery) Pulte Homes Town Homes 258 258 30 66 50 110 75 165 75 165 28 62 0 0 0 0
Bailey Meadows- Single Family 189 189 0 0 25 94 25 94 40 150 50 188 49 184 0 0
Runge Farm Bailey Meadows Town Homes 153 153 0 0 25 55 40 88 40 88 48 106 0 0 0 0
Caledonia Inland Single Family 206 206 10 38 45 169 50 188 50 188 51 191 0 0 0 0
Cimarron Ridge Custom Single Family 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duplex 46 10 10 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Corner Stone Triangle Investments Single Family 41 41 15 56 15 56 11 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Country Hills Dennis Dwyer,Inc. Single Family 138 48 28 105 20 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duplex 34 34 24 56 10 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Family 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fox Hill Dresden Town Homes 144 8 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duplex 32 32 25 59 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Family 1324 1324 160 600 160 600 120 450 120 450 120 450 120 450 524 1,965
Grande Reserve MPI.Moser Duplex 394 394 40 94 40 94 40 94 40 94 40 94 40 94 154 362
Town Homes 632 632 0 0 40 88 40 88 60 132 60 132 60 132 372 818
Apartments 300 300 0 0 0 0 300 570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heartland Circle Marker Single Family 250 225 75 281 75 281 50 188 25 94 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heartland Subdivision Marker Single Family 186 26 26 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kylyn's Crossing West AMG Homes Single Family 111 9 9 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kylyn's Ridge AMG Homes Single Family 134 60 50 188 10 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Longford Lakes Montalbano Town Homes 62 10 10 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prairie Gardens S&K DLLCopment Senior Homes 56 14 14 27 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prairie Meadows Menard's-AMG Single Family 18 18 18 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
(Menards) Homes Single Family 145 145 50 188 50 188 45 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multi-Family 268 268 0 0 20 38 20 38 50 95 50 95 75 143 53 101
Single Family 404 347 75 281 100 375 100 375 72 270 0 0 0 0 0 0
Raintree Village Concord,Lennar Duplex 128 128 10 24 20 47 25 59 25 59 25 59 23 54 0 0
Town Homes 128 128 10 22 20 44 25 55 25 55 25 55 23 51 0 0
River's Edge The Windham Group Single Family 166 60 3C 113 30 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sunflower Estates William Ryan Single Family 117 40 20 75 20 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Villas at the Preserve Burnside Duplex 84 84 10 24 20 47 20 47 20 47 14 33 0 0 0 0
Westbury Village Ocean Atlantic Single Family 293 293 20 75 50 188 75 281 80 300 68 255 0 0 0 0
Town Homes 605 605 20 44 100 220 125 275 150 330 150 330 60 132 0 0
Whispering Meadows Kimball Hill Homes Single Family 450 450 25 94 50 188 75 281 75 281 75 281 75 281 75 281
Windett Ridge Wiseman Hughes Single Family 280 279 75 281 75 281 100 375 29 109 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Family 141 141 0 0 50 188 50 188 20 75 21 79 0 0 0 0
Wynstone Townhomes Wyndham Deerpoint Town Homes 56 56 30 66 26 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yorkville Senior Supportive Living Apartments 50 50 0 0 50 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments Facility,LLC
Current Developments Per Year Totals 957 3,234 1,253 4,032 1,461 4,297 1,046 3,170 875 2,598 575 1,709 1,223 3,696
Current Developments Estimated 10,000 13,234 17,266 21,563 24,733 27,331 29,040 32,736
Population Per Year
This chart represents all developments on the City Development Key.and contains developments in concept stage. Commencement of construction and completion of buildout within the territories of the United City
of Yorkville and the projected planning area may occur in phases. The City does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within this chart,and therefore is to be used as a planning tool only. The chart
in no way represents an agreement between the City and any developer.
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE _
Population Projection
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010+ Total
Name of Future Left To Build 2005 Build 2006 Build 2007 Build 2008 Build 2009 Build 2010 Left to Build
Development Developer Unit Type Total Units Build Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Out PE Build Out PE
Aspen Ridge Estates- Dresden Single Family 201 201 0 0 15 56 25 94 40 150 50 188 50 188 21 79
Moms Farm
Blackberry Woods McCue Builders Single Family 53 53 0 0 10 38 20 75 23 86 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multi-Family 83 83 0 0 10 19 20 38 40 76 13 25 0 0 0 0
Single Family 476 476 0 0 80 300 80 300 80 300 80 300 80 300 76 285
Bristol Bay Centex Condominiums 656 656 0 0 80 152 80 152 80 152 80 152 80 152 256 486
Town Homes 788 788 0 0 100 220 100 220 100 220 100 220 100 220 288 634
Duplex 183 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 118 50 118 50 118 33 78
Brummel&Garritano Pulte Homes Single Family 900 900 0 0 50 188 100 375 100 375 100 375 100 375 450 1,688
Town Homes 800 800 0 0 50 110 100 220 100 220 100 220 100 220 350 770
Chally Property Wyndham Deerpoint Single Family 144 144 0 0 20 75 30 113 40 150 45 169 9 34 0 0
Corneils Crossing Pacific Homes Single Family 31 31 0 0 10 38 21 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Evergreen Farm Tanglewood Single Family 112 112 0 0 15 56 20 75 35 131 32 120 10 38 0 0
Fox River Bluffs Inland Single Family 355 355 0 0 20 75 30 113 40 150 50 188 50 188 165 619
Town Homes 120 120 0 0 20 44 30 66 40 88 30 66 0 0 0 0
Harris Farm Meadowbrook Single Family 342 342 20 75 75 281 85 319 85 319 77 289 0 0 0 0
Harry Anderson Farm Kimball Hill Homes Single Family 420 420 0 0 20 75 50 188 100 375 100 375 100 375 50 188
Inland Pacific Homes Single Family 184 184 10 38 20 75 40 150 50 188 50 188 14 53 0 0
Konicek Property Tanglewood Single Family 439 439 0 0 10 38 50 188 60 225 60 225 60 225 199 746
Lee Farm Montalbano Single Family 290 290 0 0 10 38 20 75 40 150 50 188 50 188 120 450
McKinnon Farm York Venture,LLC Single Family 800 800 0 0 25 94 50 188 50 188 50 188 50 188 575 2,156
Condominiums 400 400 0 0 25 48 50 95 50 95 50 95 50 95 175 333
Single Family 633 633 0 0 25 94 120 450 120 450 125 469 125 469 118 443
Moser South(Tuttle, Moser Duplex 156 156 0 0 0 0 20 47 20 47 20 47 40 94 56 132
Burkhart,Kuhn,and Holt) Town Homes 739 739 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 88 40 88 60 132 599 1,318
Multi-Family 230 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 437 0 0 0 0
Prestwick of Yorkville- Mallard Development Single Family 345 345 0 0 15 56 30 113 50 188 50 188 50 188 150 563
Stewart Farms
Single Family 120 120 0 0 20 75 30 113 40 150 30 113 0 0 0 0
Rob Roy Falls Sexton Condominiums 174 174 0 0 20 38 30 57 40 76 40 76 44 84 0 0
Town Homes 204 204 0 0 20 44 30 66 40 88 40 88 20 44 54 119
Silver Fox Subdivision Midwest Single Family 187 187 0 0 30 113 30 113 20 75 20 75 20 75 67 251
Tanglewood Trails Tanglewood Single Family 39 39 0 0 15 56 24 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willman Property Kendall Land Dev. Single Family 70 70 0 0 10 38 20 75 40 150 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Developments Per Year Totals 30 113 820 2,534 1,335 4,247 1,613 5,068 1,762 5,270 1,312 4,043 3,802 11,338
4.0 CO.,.
Future Developments Estimated
. s 0 113 2,647 6,894 11,962 17,232 21,275 32,613
Population Per Year
%NI 11334
rialfr y Current and Future Per Year Totals 987 3,347 2,073 6,566 2,796 8,544 2,659 8,238 2,637 7,868 1,887 5,752 5,025 15,034
�9 =O Current and Future Estimated Population 10,000 13,347 19,913 28,457 36,695 44,563 50,315 65,349
<l.E %•*‘' Current
Year
This chart represents all developments on the City Development Key,and contains developments in concept stage. Commencement of construction and completion of buildout within the territories of the United City
of Yorkville and the projected planning area may occur in phases. The City does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within this chart,and therefore is to be used as a planning tool only. The chart
in no way represents an agreement between the City and any developer.
.`OCe"ed Construction
Value BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
REVISED: August 2004
Types of Permits
Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Fancily Multiple-Family Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost
August 2004 122 54 0 0 4 1 63 $10,480,104.00
Calendar Year 2004' 738 341 3 0 11 1 381 $68,619,462.00
Fiscal Year 2004 466 209 0 0 8 1 248 $43,593,867.00
August 2003 98 46 1 0 4 0 47
$13,235,310.00
Calendar Year 2003 2 617 243 12 0 23 1 338 $63,323,435.00
Fiscal Year 2003 402 147 9 0 15 0 231 $39,545,034.00
August 2002 93 31 0 2 3 0 57 $8,697,796.00
Calendar Year 2002 3 583 188 3 4 31 0 357 $44,991,917.00
Fiscal Year 2002 342 93 1 2 15 0 231 $23,203,688.00
August 2001 54 24 0 0 7 1 22 $8,164,832.00
Calendar Year 2001 ' 335 123 5 4 12 2 189 $33,278,564.00
Fiscal Year 2001 222 79 4 3 9 2 125 $23,481,144.00
August 2000 28 15 0 0 0 0 13 $2,238,850.00
Calendar Year 2000 5 233 85 1 0 4 0 147 $12,928,488.50
Fiscal Year 2000 141 55 1 0 3 0 87 $8,291,410.00
3 Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure way built.
2 Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 617 of 618 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
3 Permit Number t-2002-034 was voided,thus only 583 of 584 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
Permit number Y-01-259 was for 4 Multiple SF Ds and was reissued as Y-01-2594,B,C,and D.
5 Permit Number Y-00-189 was for 6 Attached SFD5 and Y-00-122 was for 6 Attached SFDs;also permit number Y-00-101 was voided,thus only 233 01234 assigned permit numbers were actually issued. - -
*Reviston Due to Corrected Perrin ,umbers/Construction Values for September 2004 BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
w
United City of Yorkville
REVISED: September 2004
Types of Permits
Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous J Total Construction Cost
September 2004 89 37 0 0 1 0 51 $7,802,290.00
Calendar Year 2004 l 827 378 3 0 12 1 432 $76,421,752.00
Fiscal Year 2004 1 555 246 0 0 9 1 299 $51,396,157.00
September 2003 86 21 0 6 4 0 55 $12,034,065.00
Calendar Year 2003 2 1 703 264 12 6 27 1 393 $75,357,500.00
Fiscal Year 2003 2 488 168 9 6 19 0 286 $51,579,099.00
September 2002 I 71 33 1 0 3 1 33 $5,028,914.00
Calendar Year 2002 3 654 221 4 4 34 1 390 $50,020,831.00
Fiscal Year 2002 3 413 126 2 2 18 1 264 $28,232,602.00
September 2001 41 13 2 0 0 0 26 $3,464,439.00
Calendar Year 2001 4 335 136 7 4 12 2 215 $36,743,003.00
Fiscal Year 2001 ' 263 92 6 3 9 2 151 $26,945,583.00
September 2000 35 25 0 0 0 0 15 $3,608,517.00
Calendar Year 2000 5 268 110 1 0 4 0 162 $14,298,155.50
Fiscal Year 2000 5 176 80 1 0 3 0 102 $11,899,927.00
'Permit Number Y-04-097 and 1=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 703 of 704 assigned permit numbers were actually issued
3 Permit Number Y-2002-034 was voided,thus only 654 of 655 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
a Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 495 of 496 assigned permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Number 01478 was for 4 Attached SFDs(Townhomes);reissued as Permits 01478A,B,C,and D;Permit Number 01480
was for 6 Attached SFDs,reissued as Permits 01480A,B,C,D,E,and F;Permit Number 01385 was for 6 Attached SFDs,reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F;and Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as
Permits 01259A,B,C,and D.
5 Permit Numbers 00262,00189,and 00122 were each for 6 Attached SFDs;also permit number Y-00-101 was voided,duns only 268 of 269 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
October 2004
Types of Permits
Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost
October 2004 77 29 0 0 2 0 46 $6,708,500.00
Calendar Year 2004 1 904 407 3 0 14 1 478 $83,130,252.00
Fiscal Year 2004' 632 275 0 0 11 1 345 $58,104,657.00
October 2003 82 36 0 0 2 0 44 $5,787,914.00
•
Calendar Year 2003 2 785 300 12 6 29 1 437 $81,145,414.00
•
Fiscal Year 2003 2 570 204 9 6 21 0 330 $57,367,013.00
October 2002 3 56 24 1 0 2 0 29 $5,650,007.00
Calendar Year 2002 3 710 245 5 4 36 1 419 $55,670,838.00
Fiscal Year 2002 3 469 150 3 2 20 1 293 $28,792,609.00
October 2001 53 23 1 0 3 0 24 $6,904,279.00
Calendar Year 2001 4 56 388 159 8 4 15 2 239 $43,647,282.00
Fiscal Year 2001 4 S 6 316 115 7 3 12 2 175 $33,849,862.00
October 2000 28 12 1 0 1 0 14 $2,226,064.00
Calendar Year 2000 78 296 122 2 0 5 0 176 $16,524,219.50
Fiscal Year 2000 78 204 92 2 0 4 0 116 $14,125,991.50
I Permit Number Y-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,tints only 785 of 786 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
3 Permit Number Y-2002-034, Y-2002-467,and Y-2002-579 were voided,thus only 710 of 713 assigned permit numbers were actually issued;and the SFD permit issued in August as Y-2002-579 was voided and reissued as Y-2002-691 in October.
To maintain a correct count,it shall remain on the August 2002 count.
Permit Number 01385 was for 6 Attached SFDs,reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F;and Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D.
5 Permit Numbers 00262,00189,and 00122 were each for 6 Attached SFDs;also permit number Y-00-101 was voided,thus only 296 of 297 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
November 2004
Types of Permits
Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Family Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost
November 2004 75 27 0 0 4 0 44 $7,408,935.00
Calendar Year 2004' 979 434 3 0 18 1 522 $90,539,187.00
Fiscal Year 2004' 707 302 0 0 15 1 389 $65,513,592.00
November 2003 52 33 2 0 0 0 17 $5,018,522.00
Calendar Year 2003 1 837 333 14 6 29 1 454 $86,163,936.00
Fiscal Year 2003 622 237 11 6 21 0 347 $62,385,535.00
November 2002 45 16 1 0 5 0 23 $5,816,244.00
Calendar Year 2002 3 755 261 6 4 41 1 442
$61,487,082.00
Fiscal Year 2002 3 514 166 4 2 25 1 316 $34,608,853.00
November 2001 43 18 0 0 5 0 20 $4,926,560
Calendar Year 2001 4 431 177 8 4 20 2 259 $48,573,842
Fiscal Year 2001 4 359 133 7 3 17 2 195 $38,776,422
November 2000 22 8 0 0 1 0 13 $ 4,704,790.00
•
Calendar Year 2000 5 318 130 2 0 6 0 189 $ 21,229,009.50
Fiscal Year 2000 5 226 100 2 0 5 0 129 $ 18,830,781.50
Permit Number 1-04-097 and 1-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built.
2 Permit Number 1--2003-324 was voided,thus only 837 of 838 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
3 Permit Number Y-2002-034,1-2002-467,and 1-2002-579 were voided,thus.only 752 of 755 assigned permit numbers were actually issued;and the SFD permit issued in August as 1-2002-579 was voided and reissued as 1--2002-691 in October.
To maintain a correct count,it shall remain on the August 2002 count.
Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 583 of 585 assigned permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Numbers 01249 and 01478,for 4 Attached SFDs(Townhomes) were reissued as Permits 01249A,B,C,and D,and 01478A,B,C,and D,
and Permit Numbers 01385 and 01480,for 6 Attached SFDs,were reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C 0,E,and F,and 01480A,B,C,D,E,and F,respectively.
' Permit.Numbers 00262,00189,and 00122 were each for 6 Attached SFDs;also permit number 1--00-101 was voided,thus only 318 of319 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
December 2004
Types of Permits
Number of Permits Issued SFD 2-Family Multiple-Fancily Commercial Industrial Miscellaneous Total Construction Cost
December 2004 69 38 0 0 3 0 28 $15,249,818.00
Calendar Year 2004 I 1048 472 3 0 21 1 550 $105,789,005.00
Fiscal Year 2004' 776 340 0 0 18 1 417 $80,763,410.00
December 2003 57 27 1 1 5 0 23 $11,320,792.00
Calendar Year 2003 2 894 360 15 7 34 1 477 $97,484,728.00
Fiscal Year 2003 2 679 264 12 7 26 0 370 $73,706,327.00
December 2002 51 23 0 0 4 0 24 $5,126,236.00
Calendar Year 2002 3 806 284 6 4 45 1 466 $66,613,318.00
Fiscal Year 2002 3 565 189 4 2 29 1 340 $39,735,089.00
December 2001 31 27 2 0 1 1 8 $4,304,497.00
Calendar Year 2001 a 431 177 8 4 20 2 259 $52,878,339.00
Fiscal Year 2001 4 359 133 7 3 17 2 195 $43,080,919.00
December 2000 10 12 0 0 0 0 5 $1,537,580.00
Calendar Year 2000 s 318 130 2 0 6 0 194 $22,766,589.50
Fiscal Year 2000 5 226 100 2 0 5 0 134 $20,368,361.50
4 Permit number Y-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 894 of 895 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
3 Permit Number Y-2002-034, Y-2002-467,and Y-2002-579 were voided,thus only 806 of 809 assigned permit numbers were actually issued;and the SFD permit issued in August as Y-2002-579 was voided and reissued as Y-2002-691 in October.
To maintain a correct count,it shall remain on the August 2002 count.
Permit Number 01490 was voided,thus only 583 of 585 assigned permit numbers were actually used. Also,Permit Numbers 01249 and 01478,for 4 Attached SFDs(Townlmmes) were reissued as Permits 01249A,B,C,and D,and 01478A,B,C,and D,
and Permit Numbers 01385 and 01480,for 6 Attached SEM,were reissued as Permits 01385A,B,C,D,E,and F,and 01480A,B,C,D,E,and F,respective/y.
5 Permit Numbers 00262,00189,and 00122 were each for 6 Attached SFDs;also permit number Y-00-101 was voided,thus only 318 01319 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.