Economic Development Packet 10-20-05 ��v cry
z� o,� United City of Yorkville
.47r800 Game Farm Road
EST14 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
.c m Telephone: 630-553-4350
�9 L o Fax: 630-553-7575
11/
<t,E ‘ '
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, October 20, 2005
7:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: August 18, 2005
2. Discussion of Future Incentive Programs to Attract Commercial/Industrial
Business to Yorkville
3. Building Permit Reports for August and September 2005
4. PC 2005-32 Yorkwood Estates - Annexation and Zoning
5. PC 2005-33 Chally Farm - Annexation and Zoning
6. PC 2005-43 Daniel Laniosz — 10701 Route 71 - Annexation and Zoning
7. Discussion of City Initiated Concept Plans
8. Plano Boundary Agreement Update
9. Additional Business
Page 1 of 5
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE DRAFT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
YORKVILLE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
THURSDAY,AUGUST 18,2005
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF:Aldermen Marty Munns, Jason Leslie
and Joe Besco; and Alderwoman Valerie Burd;Mayor Art Prochaska; City Attorney John
Wyeth; and City Administrator Tony Graff. OTHERS: Lynn Dubajic, YEDC; Tony
Scott, Record Newspapers; attorney Fred Feinstien; attorney Kevin Carrara; John
Thompson; Bob Nelson; and Matt Cudney.
1.Minutes
Minutes from the July 21, 2005 were approved without corrections.
2. Building Permit Reports for June and July 2005
The building reports for June and July 2005 were reviewed and the committee agreed to
forward the reports to the Committee of the Whole.
3. Northwest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City Attorney John Wyeth said the Plan Commission recommended Alternative 1.
Committee Chairman Marty Munns said he only has one concern about either alternative
—he wants to make sure there's enough area set aside for commercial and industrial uses.
The amendment to the plan would reduce the amount of commercial and industrial uses
and increase residential zoning. City Administrator Tony Graff said there would be other
commercial and industrial areas reserved south of town down by Caton Farm Road.
However, Alderman Jason Leslie said there aren't any guarantees the city can plan for
that in the southern area.
Alderwoman Valerie Burd said it seems to make sense to continue commercial and
industrial use planning near the areas on the plan that already have industrial uses. But
Dan Kramer, the attorney representing the petitioners, said all of the landowners in the
area have developers calling them with plans for residential developments. There haven't
been many, if any, calls for commercial or industrial uses in the area. Meanwhile, the
current industrial uses are marked in purple on the plan to show what the use is and to
give those users the city's assurance that they won't be forced out,Wyeth said.
Graff also said the Johnson family called the city inquiring why the residential zoning in
the northwest comprehensive plan doesn't extend to their property. He said they'd hire an
attorney to petition the city to look at it.
After more discussion, committee members decided to move the request forward to the
Sept. 16 C.O.W. meeting without a recommendation. Leslie said he emphasizes with
landowners,but he doesn't want to see Yorkville become a bedroom community.
Page 2 of 5
4. PC 2005-35 Bristol Bay Units 1-7—Final Plat
The Plan Commission gave its recommendation to move the final plat forward for
approval. The EDC voted to move the final plat to the C.O.W. with its recommendation.
5. PC 2005-37 Corneils Crossing—Annexation and Zoning
The Plan Commission gave its recommendation pending the resolution of six conditions.
Wyeth said the six conditions were:
• To create a 50 foot setback off of Corneils Road
• To include a right to farm clause
• To require road improvements to be completed before homes can be moved into
• To restrict construction traffic so that none of it can come from the east
• To require that the first home in the subdivision must face Corneils
• To require that the first two homes upon entering the subdivision must be on lots
at least 30,000 square feet in size
Graff said the average sized lot in the subdivision is 14,000 with no lots smaller than
12,000 square feet.
Attorney Kevin Carrara representing the petitioner said they believe they can meet all of
the conditions.
The committee agreed to move the petition forward to the Sept. 27 City Council meeting
for an annexation/public hearing.
6. PC 2005-36 Lynwood Baptist Church— 1 %-Mile Review
Munns said the Plan Commission unanimously recommended the request to add onto the
existing church and eventually build a new one.
Wyeth added that usually when the city grants these types of requests, it asks the
petitioners to agree to annex to the city once the property becomes contiguous.
The committee agreed to give its recommendation and to forward the petition to the Sept.
6 C.O.W. meeting.
7. PC 2005-27 Autumn Creek Unit 1 —Final Plat
Wyeth said the Plan Commission gave its unanimous recommendation with little or no
discussion. The EDC gave its recommendation to move the petition forward to the Sept. 6
C.O.W. meeting.
8. PC 2004-27 X-Pac Preliminary/Final Plat
John Thompson with McVickers Development said the company is acquiring land from
X-Pac and are seeking final plat approval of the subdivision of land.
Wyeth said the Plan Commission gave a 6 to 1 recommendation based on the realignment
of the westerly road.
Page 3 of 5
Thompson said the property is zoned B-3 and the plan is to subdivide the property into
three different lots. The company has approval from the Illinois Department of
Transportation to make roadway cuts onto Route 47 and the company isn't seeking any
variances or special uses. He likewise said the company would meet all setback
requirements and has met all of the city's requests.
The committee agreed to move the request forward to the Sept. 6 C.O.W. meeting.
9. PC 2005-34 Evergreen Farm-- Annexation and Zoning
Bob Nelson the developer of Evergreen Farm said the property cover 49 acres on both
sides of Fox Road. The subdivision would have 76 lots with a density of 1.56 units per
acre. There also would be a 50 foot landscaped buffer on both sides of Fox Road.
A traffic study for Fox Road is in draft form,he said. Preliminary results show Pavilion
Road would have to be altered to connect to Fox Road.
Wyeth said the Plan Commission voted against the rezoning request by a 3 to 4 vote
because the watershed report and traffic study weren't complete. The commission did
give a unanimous recommendation for annexation.
The EDC agreed to move the request forward to the Oct. 11 city council meeting for the
annexation and zoning public hearing.
Giving comments on the plan,Alderman Joe Besco said he doesn't like cul-de-sacs and
he suggested making the north side cul-de-sacs a loop. Nelson said he'd be happy to look
at it. Otherwise,Besco said it's a nice looking plan.
Mayor Art Prochaska said like many of the proposed developments in the city,there
would be a stipulation placed on this one not to allow any building until a solution for
Fox Road is determined.Nelson, meanwhile, said he's committed to paying his share of
costs for any necessary Fox Road improvements.
Mayor Prochaska also said it's best to leave this proposal as an annexation agreement and
not a planned unit development agreement because it sets a precedent. The Plan
Commission had suggested a PUD agreement. Meanwhile, a hearing on the traffic study
will be held Sept. 14 at the Plan Commission meeting.
10. PC 2005-48 Del Webb—PUD Zoning
The Plan Commission voted against a recommendation of the preliminary plan because
the commissioners wanted another public hearing on the plan. The commission voted yes
on PUD zoning.
Matt Cudney from Del Webb said the plan for an age-restricted community is very
different from anything that's been done in Yorkville. Leslie asked if approval of the plan
would set any precedents. Wyeth said because it falls under a PUD, it wouldn't set a
precedent. Burd commented that the Del Webb community in Huntley has a lot of green
Page 4 of 5
space and golf courses that this proposal doesn't seem to have. However, Cudney said
there are plenty of green spaces and water features in the 250-acre proposed
development.
Leslie pointed out that there are only two ways out of the subdivision and wondered
about the safety. Cudney said that the people in the targeted age group of the
development don't want people coming in and out of it. He said that the two entrances
and exits should be sufficient.
Leslie also asked if putting the homes on smaller lots as requested by the petitioner would
pose safety issue. But Cudney said because the homes are all ranch homes, adequately
fighting fires wouldn't be an issue. He also said the homes wouldn't look crowded and
wouldn't all look alike.
There's a 3.5 gross density allowable in the plan and the developers are at a 3.2 density,
he said. The developers are requesting reduced setbacks and smaller right of way widths,
which would serve as a traffic calming devise. The petitioners are seeking 5-foot side-
yard setbacks as opposed to the current 20-foot side-yard setback requirement. Cudney
said what the developer is proposing is a standard footprint used in developments around
the country.
Mayor Prochaska said he's concerned that there's no planned entrance from the
residential section to the commercial section. That would mean residents would have to
go out onto the roadway to get to the commercial section. He said it would be better to
have a direct access from the residential area to the commercial area.
Also,he said a resident at the public hearing had concerns about water and wells.He said
the city engineer and city attorney would work with that resident to get all of his
questions answered.
The committee agreed to move the request forward for a public hearing on Sept. 13 and
Sept. 14.
11. SSA Tax Policy
Graff gave the committee members a list of infrastructure eligible for an SSA. He said
that an attorney specializing in SSAs recommended the city look at eligible SSA
infrastructures and determine which ones the city would support and which ones it
wouldn't. Connection fees, for instance, should be paid by the developer and wouldn't
fall under an SSA, he said.
Besco said he believes the developers should pay for improvements to make the
development work. The city should only support SSAs if the city gets something out of it.
Burd,meanwhile, said she'd like the committee to invite Realtors in to tell the committee
their stories about SSAs and how they affect their businesses. She'd also like
homeowners and business owners to come and give their opinions. Graff suggested the
different groups be invited to speak at the Oct. 20 meeting.
Page 5 of 5
Mayor Prochaska said when the developers of Grande Ridge did two different SSAs the
financial burden fell on them and wasn't passed on to the homeowners. He said that
makes sense to him. He said he has an issue with developers passing SSA costs onto
homeowners.
12 Draft Policy for Collection of Transportation Development Fees for Kendall
County Highways
Graff said the Kendall County officials are trying to create policies with every city in the
county to get money for county road improvements. Under the new plan, the cities would
collect the money and make sure the roads are.
The committee decided to get a recommended on the issue from city staff and discuss it
again in September.
13.Discussion of Future Incentive Programs to Attract Commercial/Industrial
Business to Yorkville
Munns said he would like to hold regular discussions on how to attract commercial and
industrial businesses to Yorkville.
Graff said there are several methods, which include rebating sales or utility taxes. Or,he
said, the city could offer a rebate to help defer land acquisition costs.
Mayor Prochaska said depending on what Munns is looking for; competition is either
easier or harder for the city. He said it's always important to see if the return is worth the
investment.
Munns said doesn't have any specifics in mind; he just knows the city needs to attract
more commercial and industrial business. If not,he said, the city will be all residential,
which would put a financial burden on those who live here.
Burd suggested creating a list identifying what types of businesses the city is looking for
and what types of incentives the city would be willing to offer.
Mayor Prochaska also suggested having Lynn Dubajic, executive director of the
Yorkville Economic Development Corporation, speak to the committee to give an update
on what she's doing.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe
1,x 1 4-, .
�,cEv #��Q United City of Yorkville Memo
'" 800 Game Farm Road
EST.% "n 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
,4 ` Telephone: 630-553-4350
til n4 p Fax: 630-553-7575
Kendall Caltity ��
4LE' %%>'
Date: October 12, 2005
To: EDC
From: Bart Olson, Administrative Intern; Traci Pleckham, Finance Director
CC:
Subject: Draft economic incentive policy
The following draft policy is based off of a similar policy passed and implemented by the
City of DeKalb; in some sections, I have left the exact language of the DeKalb policy. The
policy questions associated with this document are as follows:
1) Section 1 "eligible uses of funds"and"incentive parameters"need to be reviewed
and agreed upon.
2) Section 1 "priority businesses": these types of businesses were chosen based on the
YEDC survey that was completed in 2004
3) Section 1 "ineligible businesses": the current list is what was listed in the DeKalb
policy.
4) Section 2 "Central Business District Eligible Businesses": these types of businesses
are specifically listed in the "ineligible businesses" section,however due to the
desired composition of industries in the downtown, special consideration should be
offered in this area.
5) Section 3 "Commercial/ Service/Manufacturing: job creation and retention": these
figures are intended to provide an incentive to businesses which may not generate
sales tax,but will create jobs.
6) Section 3 "C / S /M: incentive parameters" and "eligible uses of funds"need to be
reviewed and agreed upon.
This draft policy is not expected to be a be-all and end-all policy, but rather a framework for
developers to use to present their individual requests for incentives.
SECTION 1: Commercial / Retail
The United City of Yorkville has adopted this Business Incentive Policy to achieve the
goal by satisfying the objectives as outlined within the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Update— Southern Study Area:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GOAL
"A market sensitive, balanced, diverse commercial/service base which can expand to
enhance the economic vitality and employment base of Yorkville, and broaden the range
of services offered to residents
OBJECTIVES
1. Establish and coordinate diversity in market sensitive, commercial development
ranging from 1) specialized commercial uses in the downtown, to 2) strategically
located convenience centers, and to 3) sub regional unified centers.
2. Plan commercialloffice development adjacent to primary, secondary, or collector
thoroughfares to maximize accessibility and minimize disturbance of residential
areas.
3. Provide areas for commercialloffice development which are adjacent to compatible
existing and future land uses.
4. Establish commercial development in areas that minimize negative impacts upon
the existing roadway system
5. Coordinate commercial/office development with the expansion of the roadway and
utility system.
6. Encourage the development of commercial/office activity within unified centers to
avoid strip development.
7. Formulate design and development standards for commercial and office facilities to
promote attractive development.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE—SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
GOAL 1
"Encourage the development of non-residential "nodes", which would result in
concentrated areas of retail and commercial uses instead of strip development; consider
allowing small-scale retail nodes in close proximity to residential development to reduce
required driving for everyday services."
GOAL 2
"Ensure that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides for an adequate amount of non-
residential land use that is diversified so that future economic development opportunities
provide the City with a positive fiscal outlook."
OBJECTIVE
"Explore economic development opportunities related to the proposed Prairie Parkway,
taking advantage of the limited access points to the proposed thoroughfare."
GOAL 3
"Promote and encourage the creation and maintenance of local jobs."
OBJECTIVE
3.1 Utilize the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation(YEDC) to promote
Yorkville as an attractive and desirable place for businesses to locate.
3.2 Utilize the Economic Development Corporation and Chamber of Commerce to
work with the business community to maintain a healthy environment for
businesses to remain in Yorkville.
All requests for business incentives shall be evaluated by how many and how fully the
project meets these stated goals and objectives.
Consideration for Incentives
Sales tax revenues are a primary source of funding for the general municipal operations
of the United City of Yorkville. As such, developments that have the greatest potential in
producing these types of revenues shall be given priority when evaluating multiple funding
requests.
Eligible Uses of Funds
1. Land acquisition
2. Demolition
3. Street(re)construction and related improvements (e.g., signalization,turning lanes, etc.)
4. Building Rehabilitation
5. Environmental Remediation Activities
6. Storm Sewer, Sanitary Service & Water System Improvements
7. ArchitecturaUEngineering Services
8. Relocation Expenses of Expanding Businesses
Incentive Parameters
1. Assistance shall not exceed 20% of total project hard costs
2. Payback must be within 7 years
3. Public improvements completed on grant basis
4. Private improvements completed on a sales tax rebate and/or loan guaranty basis.
All monies extended by the City shall be subject to reimbursement by the developer to
the City should the business fail to meet its agreed upon goals. The terms and conditions of such
repayment shall be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the final
development agreement.
Project Evaluation Criteria
The City shall consider all aspects of a proposed project, including its financial
feasibility, the type of project being proposed, its location within the community, and the amount
of estimated tax revenues. For retail/commercial projects, the following shall be considered as
priorities of the City and as such, projects meeting one or more of the following criteria shall be
given priority when considering multiple funding requests:
Priority businesses
• Home electronics
• "Higher end"merchandise
• Furniture
• New car& truck dealerships
• Department store
• Sporting goods
Priority locations, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as "commercial nodes"
• Route 47 commercial nodes
o Route 30
o Galena Road
o Corneils Road
o Route 34
o Route 71
o Walker Road
o Caton Farm Road
o "Downtown" area, identified by outline of downtown TIF district
• US Highway 34 commercial nodes
o West of Bristol Ridge Road to just west of Route 47
o West Cannonball Trail to west of future Beecher Road Extension
o Eldamain Road
• Route 71 commercial nodes
o Route 126
o Future Prairie Parkway interchange
Ineligible businesses
The following business uses shall not be eligible for funding assistance through this
program unless otherwise directed by the City Council:
1. Restaurants (including banquet facilities)
2. Auto Repair
3. Beauty Salons/Barbershops
4. Gas Stations
5. Business/Personal Service Uses (e.g., tax accounting, financial planners, attorneys,
printers, funeral homes etc.)
6. Medical & Dental Facilities
7. Financial Institutions
8. Religious and Fraternal Organizations
9. Taverns
10. Movie Theatres
11. Performing Arts Theatres
12. General Purpose Grocery Stores
SECTION 2: Central Business District Developments
Yorkville's central business district ("downtown") shall be generally described as that
area between the north bank of the Fox River south to Van Emmon; west from the eastern edge
of the White Oak Subdivision to several hundred feet east of Mill Street; but also containing the
region south from Van Emmon to Fox St. and west from South Main to just east of the property
which now houses the Old Second Bank.
Applications for assistance within the Central Business District shall be subject to the
same terms and conditions as retail projects located elsewhere in the community, with the
exception that certain businesses, otherwise deemed ineligible for assistance, may receive
consideration if locating within the downtown area. These are:
1. Restaurants (including banquet facilities)
2. Auto Repair
3. Beauty Salons/Barbershops
4. Business/Personal Service Uses Medical& Dental Facilities
5. Performing Arts Theatres
SECTION 3: Commercial / Service / Manufacturing
Developments
To protect, strengthen and expand the City's local economic base, the City relies upon the
creation and/or retention of high quality, permanent fulltime jobs for its residents. As such,
developments that have the greatest potential in producing these types of jobs shall be given
priority when evaluating multiple funding requests.
It is noted that the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance shall determine if a business is
considered to be a commercial, service or manufacturing type use.
Project Evaluation Criteria
The City shall consider all aspects of a proposed project, including its financial
feasibility, the type of project being proposed, its location within the community, the amount of
estimated tax revenues, and the number and type of jobs being created or retained. For
commercial/service/industrial projects, the following shall be considered as priorities of the City
and as such, projects meeting one or more of the following criteria shall be given priority when
considering multiple funding requests:
Job Creation and Retention
A minimum of five (5) fulltime equivalent jobs must be created and/or retained within 24
months of project completion to be considered eligible for funding. Further, these jobs must be
permanent and fulltime in nature (e.g., at least 1950 hours annually), and fall into one of the
following categories:
Job Type Minimum Hourly Wage Maximum Credit Per Job
Unskilled $10.00 $2,500
Semi-Skilled $15.00 $3,000
Skilled $20.00 $4,000
Professional Over $20.00 $5,000
Priority Locations
• Yorkville Business Center(near F.E. Wheaton complex)
• South side industrial park
• NW industrial area, identified in Comprehensive Plan near Corneils Road and Beecher
Road
Incentive Parameters
1. Assistance shall not exceed 20% of total project hard costs
2. Payback must be within 7 years
3. Public improvements completed on a grant basis
4. Private improvements completed on a utility and city property tax rebate and/or loan
guaranty basis
All monies extended by the City shall be subject to reimbursement by the developer to
the City should the business fail to meet its agreed upon goals. The terms and conditions of such
repayment shall be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the final
development agreement.
Eligible Activities:
1. Land acquisition
2. Demolition
3. Street(re)construction and related improvements (e.g., signalization,turning lanes, etc.)
4. Building rehabilitation
5. Environmental remediation activities
6. Storm sewer, sanitary service and water system improvements
7. Architectural/engineering services
8. Relocation expenses
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
Department of Building Safety
August 2005
Types of Permits
P is
2-Family
amt
Y
Number of Permits Issued SFD lara r.�.a oosMultiple-
Family Fnmi1Y Commercial IndustrialMiscel[aneous Total Construction Cost
s
Pernvts= nchn
2 /SJr e
August 2005 101 30 0 0 5 0 66 $7,869,510.00
Calendar Year 2005 1 863 308 5 0 34 0 511 $75,703,625.00
Fiscal Year 2005 546 182 0 0 18 0 346 $42,029,169.00
August 2004 122 54 0 0 4 1 63 $10,480,104.00
Calendar Year 2004 2 738 341 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 3 617 243 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 4 583 188 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 5 335 123 5 4 12 2 189 1 $33,278,564.00
Fiscal Year 2001 222 79 4 3 9 2 125 $23,481,144.00
1 Permit Number Y-05-0012 was voided,thus only 863 of 864 assigned permit numbers were actually used.
2 Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built.
3 Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 617 of 618 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
Permit Numbers Y-2002-034 was voided,thus only 583 of 584 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
5 Permit Number Y-01-259 was for 4 Multiple SFDs and was reissued as Y-01-259A,B,C,and D.
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
Department of Building Safety
September 2005
TypesPermits
of P mtt
s
2
Fan 'l
u
Y
Numberof Permits Issued SFD (Begin,' zDDS MlttP
le-Famil
Y Commercial l Ldustria
l Miscellaneous cellaneous T
otal Construction
Cost
Pernil(a= uctu
2 !Sh re
August 2005 105 39 0 0 2 0 64 $7,467,860.00
Calendar Year 2005' ' 968 347 5 0 36 0 575 $83,171,485.00
Fiscal Year 2005 651 221 0 0 20 0 410 $49,497,029.00
September 2004 89 37 0 0 1 0 51 $7,802,290.00
Calendar Year 2004 t 827 378 3 0 12 1 432 $76,421,752.00
Fiscal Year 2004 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' 703 264 12 6 27 1 393 $75,357,500.00
Fiscal Year 2003 488 168 9 6 19 0 286 $51,579,099.00
September 2002 71 33 1 0 3 1 33 $5,028,914.00
Calendar Year 2002 ' 654 221 4 4 34 1 390 $50,020,831.00
Fiscal Year 2002 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 20015 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
!Permit Number Y-05-0012 was voided,thus only 968 of 969 assigned permit numbers were actually used.
2 Permit Number 1-04-097 and 1-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built.
'Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 703 of 704 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
Permit Numbers 1-2002-034 was voided,thus only 654 of 655 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
5 Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01259,4,B,C,and D.
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
United City of Yorkville
Department of Building Safety
September 2005
u\
Types of Permits s
..._
2-Family it
Number of Permits Issued SFD
(Beb
)r;rb
zoos Mu
ltiP
le-
Fani1yCommercial L
^'v
-Permitr-I tra r
l
i!'1
S ctr re
September 2005 105 39 0 0 2 Y ((
Calendar Year 2005 1 968 347 5 0 36 0
•
Fiscal Year 2005 651 221 0 0 20 0
September 2004 89 37 0 0 1 p
Calendar Year 2004 2 827 378 3 0 12 1 432 $76,421,752.00
Fiscal Year 2004 555 246 0 0 9 1 299 $51,396,157.00
September 2003 1., 86 21 0 6 4 0 55 $12,034,065.00
Calendar Year 2003 3 703 264 12 6 27 1 393 $75,357,500.00
Fiscal Year 2003 488 168 9 6 19 0 286 $51,579,099.00
September 2002 71 33 1 0 3 1 33 $5,028,914.00
Calendar Year 2002 4 654 221 4 4 34 1 390 $50,020,831.00
Fiscal Year 2002 413 1 126 2 2 18 1 264 i $28,232,602.00
September 2001 41 13 2 0 0 0 26 $3,464,439.00
Calendar Year 2001 5 335 136 7 4 12 2 215 $36,743,003.00
Fiscal Year 2001 1 263 92 6 3 9 2 151 $26,945,583.00
I Permit Number Y-05-0012 was voided,thus only 968 of 969 assigned permit numbers were actually used.
2 Permit Number Y-04-097 and Y-04-098 were issued for each side of a duplex,only 1 structure was built.
Permit Number Y-2003-324 was voided,thus only 703 of 704 assigned permit numbers were actually issued
Permit Numbers Y-2002-034 was voided,thus only 654 of 655 assigned permit numbers were actually issued.
5 Permit Number 01259 was for 4 Attached SFDs;reissued as Permits 01259A,B,C,and D.
Y. '�:"., o ,,� �c� ��. �",>;;;,, , ,. fir',• ,�:
, 1
s*rs"lA. � :.fin�i �',r a:w ,. ? .,'^•"` _ :ac, , ». '" :,': t+, , Y., ..,„ r ,: , ��� „` ' 'y,':., s -'F ,"t I I r •
",r+
LOCATION,
O MAP
p
ol
,
r
� far ,.., . ; <.. « i•
k
. ,
1
71,
!,- t.. rc A n,;e ..a.';., ;b,D rt , ':; .. Fw...Vu:. J .» ,,:. , ., ,,.. i r .. ::f ✓ :♦
. .
fir. ( f, '•.,,..::;i' x{,,.,,dia ,.r �,. -5Y'..aa"r
.,.. \r^ -
.,i...
.�`,
7171 1,14
w
4 q
I,
V
r"
r,. , yy ,. ` �..:. _ ,. .. ,, m , ,,: / ,n-.. .�,.: Spa ;: ,. ,..,, $$ .., ., :r + ., -•!" 1 °ri'l
,, „,>r,,�rr .� ,. y ,. ,,r• a�::r;.,; ;...".:. 'N2,raa .w..:,.. f,.,,, r ,. ,w,�. .xl,. r ,, li,.,"„'^ ryry -d .+"�—=, rr,
d A
wr
,
�i-
,..{,"'
�v
4r
ry
:h ,. r w,;. .,,.e,. r:. v'�:. :.,.,x ,.: c, ,_ .r., , .m ., ,unv +.�.,. .',epi°: t.l.." • �'#10}{"t�}V , v. ..". '.: .."�..�' r
Y '. .tlVr ;.r x5,3' '.x c.:l ""-,7qr, " ,. ,: , �• il.
y:
h
' x
a ,
,.. k.; ,.. ,-.:. '"N u. Y r:. , .4r J;. 1,. ,. t•.: .{'.v „a:F.-t :., ., ,er , :'^ ',!I 4 .r.
o I.
i Ir.
✓.r,, ,. ,.x a :. .., ", .u,', r,. "i:. ,., ;. .,..:. ,,' ,: r, , ,, r ,y.,..::: k 4,-,s-., i" i .,,,
A I
L
1
k
I
,t
t
M
f y.
�r I
r@ i
I
,
,.^:.4,6 x�„ ,.,. ,. ,..., , e ,.t „ ,N .r.,'. r sw, , :�I..y. ,,e :.l fAV,.: ( r .� n x.. , :. • ,,,.. n :x,,:. t}5 t.
w.,,.. ': ,, ,,.+.. .. ,... ,' .. „`.v., v+ ✓ti.'wr,.. , v.r :.';I,}3: i ...,.,. .4,}}i..... 1 .,,. a 'i! ♦ , i :'�,+ f r
r
., `•ars".. ... ,. ,.: t ,� t a ,.
,...,•. w ,.,,,r'x ICY.. , rv,. "., r ,
r. n
ry.
j
I
i.
f„-: ,> •;,. ,» d,, , {,,- „,. ,°r.. ,,r,. M;w�.. ,..t` r 'rW s. ,�' ,.. ..,": ,._'` : .... ... 1,,....,rr..
,� §n.,t, ,. ..,..,`„ w ,.,.: I� ,.. ,a.. "Yt"',,.,' �» .r"'.. , ,. .,.. ,.., ,.,x: r ;fie�a, <. :' 4�. ,:: ..,>• "''t" ..,., }
..
I
o
x .. „'
M
I
tI
r.
V
5
r
I
u
� d
„ .. ,. h E, w.r..r ,",,F.'. •x M },...,r„ ,. � ,'4 C.eS. ,„.n:. „” i f 4':: ., �w. .4 ,,..4r �,'�`�'"'..i S, i�
V,' ,; :w ;.:r�r :§' ,`*.0, ��„ '” d,`'ii? ." ,: ,'.�,. ,.Sud". ✓h, ,'C '"',
,
„4"tx,
r, a'�' r g'°„i{ ,r,,::."}y�a'r V? ..,� .• ,^ r,.: ° ^�,; Str ,,a, IrS �^ v,.} ,,d` "M,. 'rr r bx^r,; ';k"7�,:«,,{".' .`srat;",
I. t 5: n.A.,`,* t.,r�,a w rr i .ri � v4�r ` .� 5;, �,"n",�.,_, v. u' „r '�. ry a✓ vi ,'#a
ANDERSON SITE DATA
a;.. iSf�# � ;« a d'r u';� �„' •"...:- r. ., x., „ � �"' "'�° � » r ,r;.1 ., i,r.,� sM ,.,:: '
,
541 PROPOSED ZONING
OPEN SPACE 84.6 ACRES#
INCLUDES PARKS AND (47X)
., DETENTION
LOT STA
:
I
v
NDARDS
SINGLE S FAMILY LOTS 76 LOTS
10,000 S.F. 80d MI
SINGLE
L
LOTS
58 LOTS
IZOOOIF. (90"034! MIN.)SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 59 LOTS
�'
tS.F. (120'xi82'MIN,)
UNITS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL193 LOTS
TOTAL SITE AREA 178.3 ACRESt
GROSS DENSITY 1.08 D.U./AC.
II l:ek� r
n
F
”
fF
9
i
,
r
5 .
a
e M1
qqxx �
4., 3
A 3 rY a.`„, F by III
Z. —I
lilt
w , —
,
ete.
b
II
I
r
F �
JL=—
TIT,
. t.
v ..r—• w
qn/
«b
* d`
a�,,,�
.II
, , x
u
ry
g* �r
Y
x" 4
� 1
4
r
h
„
X � �
xu . r#
x x+
o^
r^
Y
r
9g �
< r !
r
t
n
ol 200 400
an;`s: 4;."� ✓ mw^ i'.Cw'i�'"fV'" a,,..:. A`.: ., .r �: a. ;r 4P'f d", 'sdtf� ,"M:- .�$
ae
t
�.« .- .:: , 4'Y,,.. �wY,✓, , +.¢".,t;' .,J kMe,". °y{»n"" n"",3w., +4 „C
e:. .. I �� d y .. f•"t. �� Y f
-F_
r
I
k:
":�' ;ra
is
•.:..aF' ,,., s ,�r`;,,. . :.< `..,„ ';... ,..., .:: .a a,. •F-TS" 4q'f+t'w ,,.a i,�" ,F,,
,,:: &.n+;,. d° !, -" ,'nEa:+,„✓k »" - ,v,.,.. , ,r,,;y'+::: arr 1"",P"an"' r � ��y „,f,i(• ft
,
s
HOME
YORK WOODT �� PLAN SHEET T OF 1
630-966-1000 FAx:630 630-966-1006 14■11 ff2Y 5,201
DRAVNNO NUMBE05 R^^5063 C5
605 LINDSAY CIRCLE, NORTH AURORA IL 60542
� COPYR/CHT 0?005,BY.'LANO NS/q✓,INC.
WYNDHAM DEERPOINT JACOB 8L HEFNER ASSOCIATES, P.C. LAND LAND VISION, INC.
OWNER/ ENGINEER
WYNDHAMDEERPOINT.COMDEVELOPER 605 LINDSAY CIRCLE 815 CAMPUS DRIVE PLANNER 116 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 208
CITY OF Y01RX-7VILLE NORTH AURORA, IL 60542 JOLIET,IL 60435 ST.CHARLES,IL 60174
(630)966-1000 FAX:(630)966-1006 (815)730-6080 FAX: (815)730-8369
(630)584-0591 FAX:(630)584-0592
,
N
U.S.G.S. LOCATION MAP
.' , ,. , .."- 'M-", m',., , F ,ai r' .,,,M11 � �": , 11
+i S>
. _
J" '' ^'
._ 4.
,
I'l ,
r ,
, ..z .,,. §. ,,. r :., ,
at�� y ', Y e JY.. a,'n .=, .,ix t
11- Iz.
llll�
.:.. ,, k >, -:.,x iy. ;::. i„ ., " •"+,,. „, ,. •' 1. ?
,.
,.,.,. s11 i i .. r
>a' €. w
., Y . : `i
. ,,}
::, .. w :,,, , , ,.. , r +n++ A
,.. ,, ,.,, , " , , xY ::1.
» ,9„,
.. _.. ,
„ :, -,'
F , Y r. ,,. ,.. . ,. M ..
• ,: .. R4 N
, t4 , , , v .r, ,v ,.� 4 i,• , s. ,,. ::k +a d � 6 I !..
,. , , , ,. ..... ,x .., ,y,..-R .4 v. w ,... .:, Y ,. , ,-:
},r. Y : v
M1 � ,
x�
,. r,,...:. :.:,.: a x , r ex Y 4,.,
t ,
.,, „
�3
.., , v , ,. ., .e., ., ... .,> r 11 y ,. ,. d:,,I .
, e ., s ,, ,, _ i a,, .S4 � s.. .,d k� ;;;. ,. - .,,» 2xr, �y 3 s y;: . ,s. ! s;, 1' at
.,,,., .„ ,, , "
.. ,. ., , ,a ,,,., t 4v m ', r'Y': .I ':.
x
4
,
,. ,'. : r<., ...e* ,, ;v ,,..;,, r.,P s. R.'M1 `*:"°, " y.,::. .�, rya c' � "�:I
1'1,
"Tk' ,' .,, 'k ,,, ,. . ^
^ , sri^' ,��
" , _ M.;
w
a.... , ilon A
, any: ., '" '>i/. .Y*iw:.?? "h:< ,,. x:_ ... 'o::. ? , ° /
yy ,
r e. .M., ... , , , , .., a :- ..., :p e
rF� ,.'_ t,F „ ,,.o.., t.,n>x..a -u;:. c, rr S, a f;
.a{:. r t .,a L.. X, r. y -w- '+Sr:Y'e '
. r... e x" s.
.;.- -,•� :. , :, >;, ,. , !fir i c. .,<, ,. ,:, ". .t ,,., .. (` d. r.!, 4 -
a, ., 1 /, .
,. ..m},: r , , ..v. r ,,..,... , ..,.
_>,. , .
V,
d.:w
,, .,,, n. ,..,,.,.,.d' .,... ." ' , :..„. .,, a
., ;:,,^,, a, .. . ,. 3'::., >, ;"ski , h » 'Y' 'As
.,_.,. „, , , ,::r„�'r ,., a, a 1p,., w: ,:, ,. ., ) -*'.,.. _ , E, t: r; f.
,"» v ,
.. a .,,
r",: r r v.`,•` g , ' c. ,. , ;M'.Mv�f5-,., .....",r:i.. i
vs>
2„
i .Q{r
z w
x
. _ < ,., ry,
a
,.t sax;`" .J a%v'�xv+ +, 1 14 1 :` ;
� ,w ,
a.
a .. ,
T
> L s•,, ,.
, .: , . „
„ , .,
?,.M1_
x, • J ?. ”
, ,
,
' 1� I”
F, r ;
Y
" ,:x, b ( �.
Y
11
r
`tir ,. 10 ,
Iq
< ,. ,. .
" r,
ti
,
„ �<
„ ,
' , . � fea ..v .,
y.
\7\ 6 /
' '
*R ; " roti°\'
{ °' I * +' �� ,"�wa 1 #tel11,
w
n
j•� v*
' ��" ' k �' �"' CHALLY SITE DATA
�I a. ,.. ,* r ayry "k�„f�� / i N
11 1,
�11
w ,yw°
, t
* , ..»
�� ��,, �xry PROPOSED ZONING R-2/B-3
a,
t- "'"
t '
e
, „ , 3 CRES#
' � , ""�
xs r ., `s4 ,,. INCLUDES PARKS AND DM ON (201)
OPEN SPACE
i, 11I ",
°� . �; N' -` ,,.+ xe�� LOT STANDARDS
�.
7T7 r
, .. ;: „ SINGLEFAMILYS.F. MIN.LO
'. e
11 I
w +�
TS 89 LOTS
,' :z, A� st n' t 1.m ke4, ',W fx.
>v
+ s '. ' k„ ' r SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 91 LOTS
/ w 4 "k 2060 S F. (90'x134'MIN.)
r ' " �'` �' ' �, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 16 LOTS
.,� ,` S 16.000 S.F. (60'x200'MIN.)
, '',.. � ,,.. 'w --r,.' = SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 38 LOTS
10.000 S F. (90'x200`MIN.)
„},
--- '1 '11, '
_��
��
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 234 LOTS
_ ' TOTAL SITE AREA i54A ACRF-St
�t �� GROSS DENSITY 1.52 D.U./AC.
_. �'t�
---� ,�`�
� '` I 11I I - I `1"
- = P
a
�I�
i � . -
� �. -�
„,.;
��' 11 11
r x
w..
�-�� ---� I - ffm r� ' � ,
< 11 11 I *- - 11 I :1 I �l-i-- I —1 vi
�
, * -A 1 � � '
* ! ,
_ ,
�, �
11
T / �, .w�� 1 R "I I -
I 11
,,,,�',�,,�,�,�f,,,', zli �� ,,, 1,I yl, / / / f p E /
�;f _
8
1' s � x a s �,/ :, a4 i f 7` I'
- � ppj
r•''.. :
f �: E'
$f®
� Wry ; ' °� ��_. t ; �1 t`
+ it a>
o 71"
- /'//,/---. � -,---�l � " I
.. I I '
�e/ � meg` l/� 11 —� 114
m ! i / g
r� ( f
:I —®� {'� ( — ^�'" ate./� `- J , !/, i
, ( - ( - — �g4�f/�. Ir
vll� E 7/i�
�I� _ �._� � �� f
_-
��- , .a+
.�___�_
1 '
C " I 11 11 I
,/ ,
11
I ,I1 9
f
//// r
/f/®d .dam
9A � 1I - --`_
��, r< i i i T 1L �!�1,711�� �,
�' ��ld'w' A ! —j�tL------�-�--.
:��I'll",
I,
�,-,� :,- -I I I I I
, 1 -�n i=�jl,
�-�,/,; " 11
- _ , _:
�----- -- , I I
i -
.. L. I
- ,,,
I( 1! 11 I I
:,11
IL- ; I `� � �o,� I I tl�l -1
1t 1I 11
I I I lil - - '11'� I I I �l �� 1 � � , I I '-,
, -- �l V --
I —
, �,�--* --e- ow , I I,
---- - ,
"", 1.� I ". ��- * ., -
x I ,�-ll -
i .� �� , "
tI , , � 1,"llp � �,I 5, I �-�,�L�',,�lll "I
°..----
I" "11�4�
k
',';��,� I �� �
�,u
411al 11
I I
I N
� 11
I I _ "�',- �� �*,�',,,' I
k °--- i , ",— , : w I "" _.�',
- , �/�/� ii � p
I I I
II �a 'I'll, ,!,� �, ., I .'�' 11
1 _� , { �� —' '11- "" - , I�l,
_ �, ,
P
��_
_,� \/f'� _ ,r r
!; w»
W W11 I { - ,I , ._
-a
w r I .. N:
r" y�
."y 3
11
, ..
i
.aa
" •' ,,Y mYA," #,W„ III RI
{
r
r
r
z, r
4 a �4
«r ;+: ° Wpr""y,,, +;R�N„''S+ ro, a ;may.+,j ,da
£' :t 'Fa +`rs+tia'N!` u'+ ,^"«rte r ,a
v T,
�," w
r 01,I'll
11 -
d,. ,, '' "y ,r'+r:; N '- .< 'a rM€ '.. .._. ,,." + .: r,�` '+r.,s �'' °s +' N +s ys. 11,
., r+
f s
i'
,.
F #
�,ax„ „,,�r^
%.' ,-
rr z ..aw. r ,..,: �Jou,}# .a„ t "v,. d ;'"`v",;,;y N.,r' .J;? ++ .'k
:,cM !.:
40-al I ��,e
�r`11, - —% - - , , g
],,g'
C
,
+�a
v rK
.'"I I
,t
k
,
c 'i'. m ' ':' _
s'., ,i, .` .`, o ..." +. P ,n �' "xi«., �: IIryNw;xB' `y' N
,,' 3 a , x ,
+' y
11 1
.: :i of t
I�
f,
.I
n
r.
p1r yg
,
+E-
,
: '' <. 'w;
..- fi�N'. % 3;x.9 fix
g,' _ -...., i'", <,r,. ' S'x
�"$ sat -d, � ,y, s, ,dY1 '� � '. .. :�,• ." �
:_ w: � �
., „„ ., +. , ,v..air , S. "' t '
x'
a ,M~, -, mrNry
,�s,exa , „
k , € wollb
�
-, T,.. « w,, , u. �, r
�+
FARM
■ SHEET 1 OF 1
630-966-1000 FAx:630 630-966-1006 CHAL�L YC O N C PT PLAN z,wa
BRANDNC NUMBER:0076 CQ,W06
COPYR/CNT®?00.8 BN UNB NSYOA;/NC
L.IhmWeKi"f Z",NkvLs, NORTH AURORA IL 60542 OWNER) WYNDI-IW DEERPOtN IOIIIES ES3GINEER JAC09 & HEFNER ASSOCIATES, P.C. LA�3D LAND VISION, fuNC.
WYNDHAMDEERPOINT.COM DEVELOPER 60;5 LINDSAY CIRCLE 815 CAMPUS DRIVE PLANNER 116 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 208
CITY OF YORKVILLE NORTH AURORA,IL 60542 JOLIET,IL 60435 ST.CHARLES,IL 60174
(630)966-1000 FAX: (630)966-1006 (815)730-6080 FAX:(815)730-8369 (630)584-0591 FAX:(630)584-0592