Planning and Zoning Commission Packet 2018 04-11-18
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
7:00 PM
Yorkville City Hall Council Chambers
800 Game Farm Road
Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Previous Meeting Minutes: March 14, 2018
Citizen’s Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearings
1. PZC 2018-02 Kendall Holdings I, LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit
Development to permit an increase in overall sign height by five (5) feet for two (2) existing
freestanding business monument signs for the purpose of added tenant panels in the Kendall
Marketplace commercial development. The real property is located at 731-795 Erica Lane in
Yorkville, Illinois.
2. PZC 2018-03 United City of Yorkville, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting text amendment approval for revisions to Section 11-
8-2 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance related to escrow deposits for engineering review fees.
3. PZC 2018-05 McCue Builders, Inc, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit
Development Agreement to permit a revision to Article III of said agreement regarding Design
Standards for new construction residential lots within the Kendall Marketplace development. The real
property is generally located north of US 34, west of Cannonball Trail, immediately north of
Blackberry Shore Lane in Yorkville, Illinois.
Unfinished Business
New Business
4. PZC 2018-02 Kendall Holdings I, LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit
Development to permit an increase in overall sign height by five (5) feet for two (2) existing
freestanding business monument signs for the purpose of added tenant panels in the Kendall
Marketplace commercial development. The real property is located at 731-795 Erica Lane in
Yorkville, Illinois.
Action Item
PUD Amendment
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
www.yorkville.il.us
5. PZC 2018-03 United City of Yorkville, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting text amendment approval for revisions to Section 11-
8-2 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance related to escrow deposits for engineering review fees.
Action Item
Text Amendment
6. PZC 2018-05 McCue Builders, Inc, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit
Development Agreement to permit a revision to Article III of said agreement regarding Design
Standards for new construction residential lots within the Kendall Marketplace development. The real
property is generally located north of US 34, west of Cannonball Trail, immediately north of
Blackberry Shore Lane in Yorkville, Illinois.
Action Item
PUD Amendment
7. PZC 2018-04 John and Michelle Stewart, petitioners, have filed an application with the United City
of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting final plat amendment approval for Unit 2 of the
Prestwick of Yorkville Subdivision (Ashley Pointe) related to the Yorkville Christian High School
development. The real property is generally located along IL Route 126 between Ashley Road and
Penman Road in Yorkville, Illinois.
Action Item
Final Plat Amendment
Additional Business
1. Year In Review – Community Development Presentation of Calendar Year 2017
2. City Council Action Updates
a. PZC 2018-01 Keith and Kathleen Warpinski, petitioners, requesting a map amendment
rezone for their property from A-1 Agricultural District to R-1 Residential District in
Kendall County, Illinois (1.5-mile Review)
Action – No objections
3. City Council Action Updates
a. PZC 2018-06 LaSalle National Trust #47016 is seeking a variance from the Kendall
County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a temporary concrete crusher and temporary batch
plant a minimum of 318 feet from the nearest occupied structure. The real property is
located on the north side of US Route 34, east of Diehl Farm Road in unincorporated
Kendall County (1.5-mile Review)
Action – No objections
Adjournment
Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Il
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:00pm
Meeting Called to Order
Chairman Randy Harker called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, roll was called and a
quorum was established.
Roll Call:
Bill Gockman-present, Deborah Horaz-present, Don Marcum-present, Richard Vinyard-
present, Randy Harker-present
Absent: Reagan Goins, Jeff Olson
City Staff
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Jason Engberg, Senior Planner
Lynn Dubajic, City Consultant
Other Guests
Matt Asselmeier, Kendall County Planning and Zoning
Dan Kramer, Attorney
Christine Emmert, Professional Registered Parliamentarian
Previous Meeting Minutes December 13, 2017
The minutes were approved as presented on a motion and second by Commissioners
Marcum and Horaz, respectively.
Roll call vote: Horaz-yes, Marcum-yes, Vinyard-yes, Gockman-yes, Harker-yes
Motion carried 5-0
Citizen’s Comments None
Public Hearings None
Old Business None
New Business
1. PZC 2018-01 Keith and Kathleen Warpinski have filed an application with
Kendall County requesting a rezone from A-1 Agricultural District to R-1
Residential District on 6.9 acres to build a single-family home in the future. The
real property is located at the north side of Walker Road, approximately 0.31
miles east of IL Route 47 in unincorporated Kendall County.
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Engberg said the petitioners desire to build a home in the future on this property and
current Kendall County regulations require 40 acres, thus the request for rezoning from
ag to residential. Last year this property was requested to be rezoned for a landscaping
business, however, the petition was pulled. The petitioners were made aware that a
possible trail could be built on the back of the property near a creek. Staff is OK with
this request.
Attorney Kramer said his client is aware of the possible trail and it will be included in a
plat of survey. There is also an Amoco pipeline which runs diagonally across the
property. Mr. Marcum inquired about the reference to a ComEd planned area along Rt.
47. Mr. Asselmeier replied it is in a future County land use map with no impact on this
property.
Action Item
1-1/2 Mile Review (Rezone)
The Commissioners were OK with this request and a roll call vote was taken.
Roll call: Horaz-yes, Marcum-yes, Vinyard-yes, Gockman-yes, Harker-yes.
Vote: 5-0 in favor of rezoning
2. PZC 2018-05 LaSalle National Trust #47016 is seeking a variance from the
Kendall County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a temporary concrete crusher and
temporary batch plant a minimum of 318 feet from the nearest occupied structure.
The real property is located on the north side of US Route 34, east of Diehl Farm
Road in unincorporated Kendall County.
Mr. Engberg presented an explanation of the request. Route 34 will be improved and the
petitioner hired by IDOT will pull up and recycle the road. The petitioner said he could
either do the recycling on the road right-of-way o r off-site. They would like to use the
Diehl Farm property on the north side of Route 34 for their crusher/recycling operation.
Using this site will move the operation farther away from the road and nearby
townhomes. The farm buildings there will be demolished later. The petitioner will be
asked to observe the City's performance standards and hours of operation. Ms. Horaz
asked about dust issues. Mr. Asselmeier said the petitioner will install barriers on the
north and south side of the road and will have 2 dust conrol plans.
Action Item
1-1/2 Mile Review (Variance)
The Commission was OK with this plan and recommended approval on a voice vote.
Roll call: Marcum-yes, Vinyard-yes, Gockman-yes, Horaz-yes, Harker-yes. Carried 5-0.
Additional Business
1. Commissioner Training
Ms. Noble introduced Christina Emmert, a Registered Professional Parliamentarian, to
conduct a training session on Robert's Rules of Order in Brief. She showed a Power
Point presentation of many different topics and situations that can arise during meetings.
She answered questions from the Commissioners and they also critiqued a previous
meeting.
Page 3 of 3
2. Downtown Overlay District Streetscape Master Plan and Form Based Code
a. Update on the progress of the project
Ms. Noble said a public workshop had been held last month and almost 500 people had
responded to an on-line survey. The respondents were mostly a younger demographic.
She presented some of the results of the survey and what residents want for the
downtown improvements. The next step for the downtown is the branding, including
signage.
3. Potential Additional Commissioner Training with Peter Pointner, FAICP
Mr. Pointner reached out to Ms. Noble regarding community planning and design
training. The training will possibly be scheduled for October.
Adjournment
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 8:46pm on a motion by
Commissioners Marcum and Vinyard, respectively.
Respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker
1
BACKGROUND & REQUEST:
The applicant, Kendall Holdings I, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned
Unit Development to permit an increase in overall sign height by five (5) feet for two (2) existing freestanding
business monument signs which serve as the sole outdoor tenant signage for current and future tenants of the
partially developed Kendall Marketplace commercial development.
The approximately 150-acre commercial portion of the development, which has two (2) inline retail
buildings with major tenant anchors, two (2) stand alone big-box retailers (Target and Home Depot) and various
outlots, is a Planned Unit Development with underlining B-3 General Business District (formerly Service
Business District) zoning. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) and subsequent development conditions were
approved in 2006 via Ordinances 2006-88 and 2006-125 (see attached). While Ordinance 2006-88 approving
development conditions for Kendall Marketplace did not address specific signage criteria, the subsequent
amending Ordinance 2006-125 allowed for the for the installation of two (2) approximately 29’-4 H x 13’-0” W
(192 square foot sign area) freestanding business monument signs located along US Rte 34 (Veterans Parkway)
and near the intersection of Beecher Road and US Rte 34.
According to the applicant, the proposed increase in height for the two (2) existing monument signs is
needed to provide increased visibility for the remaining inline retail tenant spaces in the commercial development
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Jason Engberg, Senior Planner
Date: February 27, 2018
Subject: PZC 2018-02 Kendall Marketplace PUD Amendment for Signage
731 - 795 Erica Lane
2
as these units are not immediately adjacent to a major roadway; as well as provide additional business
identification along US Route 34 for the undeveloped commercial outlots.
EXISTING & PROPOSED SIGNAGE:
As previously mentioned, the two (2) 29’-4”
tall existing tenant monument signs are located along US
Rte 34 (Veterans Parkway) and near the intersection of
Beecher Road and US Rte 34, and are oriented
perpendicular to the roadway (see image below). The
EDC may recall, the existing sign along US 34 was
recently granted a variance to allow the sign to remain in
its current location, although is now within the IDOT
right-of-way as a result of the ongoing roadway widening
project.
The proposed reconstructed signs would increase the overall sign height to by five (5) feet to
approximately 35”-0’ tall by removing the existing sign cabinets, inserting new steel pipes on top and installing a
new cabinet piece near the bottom of the sign base and a sign cap/top. The new cabinet piece will allow for three
(3) rows of new tenant panels per sign. All new tenant panels will be fabricated of the same aluminum material of
the exiting sign panels, and will be routed for copy with push-through white acrylic.
3
All exposed metal surfaces will be coated with acrylic polyurethane for a seamless appearance. The tenant
panels will be internally illuminated with LED lighting as the existing panels. The foundation materials of the
monument signs will remain. Images of the proposed modified signs are provided below.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The intent of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide flexibility from the rigidity of the
conventional zoning/bulk/signage regulations, if there is a greater benefit to the property and the City as a whole.
The applicant believes there is a greater benefit to offering new/existing in-line tenants as an incentive for
extending or confirming new leases and to the future tenants of the remaining undeveloped outlots in the Kendall
Marketplace development, should they be permitted to increase the overall height of the (two) existing
freestanding signage by five (5) feet. The addition of six (6) new tenant panels will provide needed visibility for
those businesses which do not have frontage along Veterans Parkway (US Route 34).
The City has previously approved amendments to Planned Unit Developments for increases or new
monument tenant signage which exceeds the maximum size and height requirement set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance. The following table compares the proposed modified signs and recently approved signs with Planned
Unit Development approval for commercial retail developments:
4
CURRENT ZONING
ORDINANCE
REGULATIONS FOR
MONUMENT SIGNS
HEARTLAND
BUSINESS CENTER
MONUMENT SIGN
(2013)
KENDALL
CROSSING
MONUMENT SIGN
(2014)
PROPOSED MODIFIED
KENDALL
MARKETPLACE
SIGNS
SIGN AREA
(Section 10-20-9-A-1)
• Max. 32 square feet
for lots less than three
(3) acres
• Max. 64 square feet
for lots three (3) or
more acres.
• Approx. 148
square feet
• Approx. 472 square
feet
• Approx. 255 square
feet
SIGN HEIGHT
(Section 10-20-9-A-1)
• Max. 12 feet in
height • 24 feet 8 inches • 31 feet 2 inches • Approx. 35 feet
YARD
REQUIREMENTS
(Section 10-20-6-C)
• Located at least 5’
from any driveway
and lot line.
• Signs taller than
thirty inches (30”)
shall not be located
within that part of the
yard or open area of a
corner lot included
within a triangular
area twenty-five feet
(25’) from the point
of intersection of two
street right of way
lines forming a corner
(line-of-sight).
• Located within the
front yard approx.
eleven feet (11’)
from the lot line
and more than five
(5) feet from a
driveway or drive
aisle.
• Not located within
a line-of-sight.
• Located within a
driveway median,
but more than 5’
from an
intersection.
• Not located within
a line-of-sight.
• Located within IDOT
right-of-way and less
than five (5) feet from
a driveway or drive
aisle and lot line.
• Not located within a
line-of-sight.
STANDARDS FOR PUD APPROVAL OR AMENDMENT:
The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of a special use for planned unit
development or amendments to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) upon considering the following (Section
10-8-10-A):
1. In what respect does the design of the planned unit development meet the requirements and design
standards of the development standards and design criteria.
2. The extent to which the proposed plan deviates and/or requires waivers of the bulk regulations in the
zoning ordinance and how the modifications in design standards from the subdivision control
regulations fulfill the intent of those regulations.
3. The extent of public benefit produced by the planned unit development, such as, but not limited to,
the adequacy of common open space and/or public recreational facilities provided; sufficient control
over vehicular traffic; provision of public services; provision and protection of the reasonable
enjoyment of land.
4. The relationship and compatibility, beneficial or adverse, of the planned unit development to the
adjacent properties and nearby land uses.
5. The extent to which the planned unit development fulfills the objectives of the future planning
objectives or other planning policies of the city.
5
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the planned unit development satisfactorily meets the
standards for special use as defined in section 10-4-9 of the Zoning Ordinance which are as follows:
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminishes and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
e. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
f. The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district
in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the city
council pursuant to the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In staff’s review of the proposed PUD amendment, consideration was given to the relationship the
existing and future in-line tenants have to where the sign is located for potential visibility opportunities along US
Rte 34; recently approved amended PUD agreements of increased multi-tenant monument signage for similar type
commercial developments and how the proposed modified sign does not significantly deviate from the intent of
the originally approved PUD. Therefore staff recommends approval of the requested Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Amendment with regards to signage height increase, as proposed.
PROPOSED MOTION:
In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on April 11, 2018 and the standards for PUD
approval and amendment, regarding a proposed increase in overall height by five (5) feet for two (2) existing
freestanding business monument signs located at the Kendall Marketplace retail development, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement
to the City Council as presented by the Petitioner in a plan prepared by Aurora Sign Company, dated February
22, 2018, and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission}…
Attachments:
1. Copy of Petitioner’s Application
2. Signage Plan prepared by Aurora Sign Company dated 02-22-18.
3. Original approved Signage for Kendall Marketplace
4. Public Hearing Notice.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE
THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PZC 2018-02
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT Kendall Holdings I, LLC, petitioner, has filed
an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting
amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit Development to permit an increase
in overall sign height by five (5) feet for two (2) existing freestanding business
monument signs for the purpose of added tenant panels in the Kendall Marketplace
commercial development. The real property is located at 731-795 Erica Lane in
Yorkville, Illinois.
The legal description is as follows:
LOTS 1-19, 21, 55 AND 57 IN KENDALL MARKETPLACE SUBDIVISION, BEING
A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,
RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, RECORDED MAY 7,
2007 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 200700014779 IN THE UNITED CITY OF
YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
PINs: 02-20-353-008 (Part of Lot l); 02-29-131-005 (Part of Lot 1 ); 02-29-1 01-001 (Lot
2); 02-29-101-002 (Lot 3); 02-29-101 -003 (Lot 4); 02-29-101-004 (Lot 5); 02-29-131-
001 (Lot 6); 02-29-131-002 (Lot 7); 02-29-131-003 (Lot 8); 02-29-131-004 (Part of Lot
9); 02-20-381-008 (Part of Lot 9); 02-20-381-007 (Lot 10); 02-20-381-006 (Lot I I); 02-
20-381 -005 (Lot 12); 02-20-381-004 (Lot 13); 02-20-381-003 (Lot 14); 02-20-381 -002
(Lot 15); 02-19-481 -002 (Lot 16); 02-20-353-004 (Part of Lot 17); 02- 19-482-001 (Part
of Lot 17); 02-1 9-482-003 (Part of Lot 18); 02-20-353-005 (Part of Lot 18); 02-19-482-
002 (Part of Lot 19); 02-20-353-003 (Part of Lot 19); 02- 19-483-001 (Lot 21);02-19-
482-004 (Part of Lot 55); 02-20-353-006 (Part of Lot 55); 02-20-353-002 (Lot 57)
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for the
United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on said application on Wednesday,
April 11, 2018 at 7 p.m. at the United City of Yorkville, City Council Chambers, located
at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560.
The public hearing may be continued from time to time to dates certain without further
notice being published.
Application and information materials regarding this notice are available for public
review and any questions or written comments should be addressed to the United City of
Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road,
Yorkville, Illinois. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will
be given an opportunity to be heard.
By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County,
Illinois.
BETH WARREN
City Clerk
BY: Lisa Pickering
Deputy Clerk
1
Summary
As a result of a recent letter from the developer of the Heartland Meadows subdivision regarding
engineering service fees, staff is providing an overview of the historical and current policies for collecting
such fees and an analysis of fees paid for recent Yorkville projects. We have also provided a comparison
of surrounding communities’ practice of charging engineering related fees. Per our findings, staff is
recommending a text amendment to revise how engineering related development fees and deposits are
requested, administered and replenished for projects.
This matter was discussed at the February and March Economic Development Committee (EDC)
Meeting which consists of four (4) Yorkville City Council members to garner preliminary feedback on
staff’s recommendations prior to scheduling the public hearing. A summary of those discussions are
attached in the form of meeting minutes.
Background
In 2002, City Council approved a resolution (Res. 2002-27) establishing the payment of
developer deposits and engineering review fees for all land development applications and permits. These
fees were implemented to cover the expense of in-house engineering staff to review and administrative
services associated with private development.
The resolution assessed Engineering review fees for all new subdivisions, platting and re-platting
of existing subdivisions, or for building permit applications where engineering review is necessary.
It also required the fee be charged at time of initial contact to final plat and/or plan approval used to cover
all normal city expenses. The breakdown of the fees will be as followed:
FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Engineering Review Fee Cost for services related to plan
reviews.
• 1.25% of the approved engineer’s
estimate of cost of all land
improvements (public and private)
• $500 deposit for Concept Plan Review
Engineering Deposit
In addition to the plan review fee, this
fee is required at time of application for
site plan approved based upon the size
of the development.
• <1 acre = $1,000.00
• >1 acre but <10 acres = $2,500.00
• >10 acres but < 40 acres = $5,000.00
• > 40 acres but < 100 acres =
$10,000.00
• > 100 acres = $20,000.00
Administrative/Inspection Fee
Covers costs of services provided by
the Public Works Department and
Administrative staff. This fee is due
prior to recording of Final Plat.
1.75% of the approved engineer’s
estimate of cost of all land improvements
(public and private – including mass earth
grading, private storm sewer, parking
areas and trails)
Additionally, the resolution allows for the City the right to charge fees on an hourly basis for
complex work or time consuming developments with City Council approval, if the time expended on a
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Brad Sanderson, EEI, City Engineer
Jason Engberg, Senior Planner
Date: March 1, 2018
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Developer Deposit Report/Ordinance
Text Amendment to Subdivision Control Ordinance
2
particular development project exceeds the percentage fees set out above. These fees are also applicable
to petitions for map amendments (rezoning), variances and special uses.
Incidentally, in 2006 the City passed Ord. 2006-11 which assessed a subsequent Coordination
Fee of 0.35% of the engineer’s estimate of cost of all land improvements. This fee was used as a pass-
through fee for engineering services related to new subdivisions, platting or replatting of existing
subdivisions when completed solely by an outside consultant.
Current Policy Application
The City utilized the above engineering review fee policy from 2002 until early 2011 when all in-
house engineering staff was let go and replaced with the current outside consultant, Engineering
Enterprise Incorporated (EEI). Since engaging EEI for the City’s engineering services, we have honored
those developments which prepaid the Administrative/Inspection Fee at time of Final Plat recordation
under the former policy and have not charged fees for typical follow-up engineering services, such as site
inspections, punch list reviews and letter of credit/bond reduction requests. However, all new requests for
engineering related development approvals, plan reviews and inspections are charged at an hourly rate
and drawn down upon from an initial deposit submitted by the applicant based upon the schedule
established in Resolution 2002-27, as stated in the table above.
Since 2011, every application for a development project requiring engineering plan review and/or
inspection services, applicants are required to complete and sign an “Acknowledgement of Financial
Responsibility” form. This form explains the initial fee and deposit account process and specifies the
deposit account is intended to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of reviewing and processing
their plans or permit request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, staff provides
the applicant with an invoice summary reflecting the charges made against the account.
At any time the balance of the fund account falls below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit
amount, the applicant is requested to provide additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the
initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. If replenishment is not made,
the City may suspend action on the project or permit until the account is fully refunded. Conversely, if a
surplus of funds remains in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the
balance to the applicant.
Analysis of Recent Projects
Staff has compiled the following tables of all eleven (11) commercial/industrial development
projects reviewed by the City’s engineering consultant, Engineering Enterprises Incorporated (EEI)
during calendar year 2017. The tables compare the fees charged by EEI on an hourly basis versus what
would have been charged by the City if in-house engineers used fees in Resolution 2002-27 for completed
projects and projects under construction.
Project
Engineering
Services
Engineering
Fees Charged 1
Fees If Paid Under
Resolution 2002-27
Actual % of
EEOC
Charged Remarks
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Fountainview
Subdivision
Plan Review $12,291 EEOC =$479,822
6.20%
Complete. Multiple rounds of plan
review required; Construction not
completed in a timely manner; multiple
punchlist inspections required.
Construction Svcs. $16,426 1.25% x EEOC = $5,998
Expenses $665 1.75% x EEOC = $8,397
Sub-consultant $484 TOTAL = $14,395
TOTAL $29,866
Yorkville
Business Park
(Lot 3)
Plan Review $5,857 EEOC= $448,239
3.40% Complete.
Construction Svcs. $9,036 1.25% x EEOC = $5,603
Expenses $353 1.75% x EEOC = $7,844
Sub-consultant $203 TOTAL = $13,447
TOTAL $15,449
1 Fee includes billed labor, expenses & sub-consultant fee, if any, as of 12/31/2017
3
Kendall Crossing
(Lot 3)
Plan Review $6,264 EEOC = $203,365
8.50%
Complete. Increased construction fees
due to connections to existing utilities;
multiple water main pressure tests failed
and had to be re-tested; issue with sanitary
sewer connection that took time to resolve.
Construction Svcs. $10,297 1.25% x EEOC = $2,542
Expenses $503 1.75% x EEOC = $3,559
Sub-consultant $135 TOTAL = $6,101
TOTAL $17,199
203 Commercial
Drive
Plan Review $1,641 EEOC =$2,280
147.50%
Complete. EEOC is artificially low, as it
only covered erosion control. The overall
project required reviews and inspections
for grading, stormwater, SESC and
landscaping.
Construction Svcs. $1,500 1.25% x EEOC = $29
Expenses $34 1.75% x EEOC = $40
Sub-consultant $190 TOTAL = $69
TOTAL $3,365
Project
Engineering
Services
Engineering
Fees Charged2 Fees If Paid Under
Resolution 2002-27
Actual % of
EEOC
Charged Remarks
UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Yorkville
Christian HS
Plan Review $31,980 EEOC =$900,000 (est)
4.50%
20% Complete; grading only;
Complicated site plan and off-site
drainage concerns; Exterior road
improvements required; Site plan has had
multiple changes; project started and then
restarted. SESC on-going concerns
Construction Svcs. $8,445 1.25% x EEOC = $11,250
Expenses $398 1.75% x EEOC = $15,750
Sub-consultant $0 TOTAL = $27,000
TOTAL $40,823
Heartland
Meadows
Plan Review $28,359 EEOC =$2,004,791
2.30%
50-60% Complete; involved extensive
city street work to install water main &
sanitary sewer services to existing city
utilities. Improvements to existing streets
required per agreements. Extra inspections
required vs normal green development.
Construction Svcs. $15,864 1.25% x EEOC = $25,060
Expenses $1,184 1.75% x EEOC = $35,084
Sub-consultant $795 TOTAL = $60,144
TOTAL $46,202
KBL Community
Center (Go For It
Sports)
Plan Review $9,309 EEOC =$905,676
2.30% 95% Complete; minor punchlist work to
be completed in the spring.
Construction Svcs. $10,717 1.25% x EEOC = $11,321
Expenses $671 1.75% x EEOC = $15,849
Sub-consultant $0 TOTAL = $27,170
TOTAL $20,697
Marin Bros.
Addition (1951
Rena Lane)
Plan Review $3,853 EEOC = $38,542
16.80%
99% Complete. EEOC is artificially low.
The overall project required reviews and
inspections for grading, stormwater, SESC
and landscaping.
Construction Svcs. $2,296 1.25% x EEOC = $482
Expenses $158 1.75% x EEOC = $674
Sub-consultant $169 TOTAL = $1,156
TOTAL $6,476
Cedarhurst
Living
Plan Review $11,663 EEOC = $819,941
2.80%
80-90% Complete. Multiple rounds of
plan review required; majority of work has
been inspected.
Construction Svcs. $10,531 1.25% x EEOC = $10,249
Expenses $700 1.75% x EEOC = $14,349
Sub-consultant $0 TOTAL = $24,598
TOTAL $22,894
Casey’s
Development
Plan Review $8,657 EEOC = $692,689
1.30% 0% Complete; construction not started.
Multiple rounds of plan review required;
Construction Svcs. $0 1.25% x EEOC = $8,659
Expenses $0 1.75% x EEOC = $12,122
Sub-consultant $238 TOTAL = $20,781
TOTAL $8,895
Holiday Inn
(Kendall
Crossing)
Plan Review $11,570 EEOC = $636,994
2.20% 20% Complete. Multiple rounds of plan
review required;
Construction Svcs. $1,981 1.25% x EEOC = $7,962
Expenses $41 1.75% x EEOC = $11,147
Sub-consultant $428 TOTAL = $19,109
TOTAL $14,020
Although there anomalies in both the completed projects and the projects under construction (203
Commercial Drive and Marin Bros. Addition), on average for the completed and near completed projects
(excluding the anomalies), the engineering fees billed were approximately 5-6% of the engineers
estimated cost of completion (EEOC) as compared to 3% if calculated under Resolution 2002-27. While a
2 Fee includes billed labor, expenses & sub-consultant fee, if any, as of 12/31/2017
4
majority of the fees for these projects exceeded both the estimated plan review and construction services
totals under Resolution 2002-27, the reasons for the difference varied depending on the scope of the
project, the number of plan reviews needed for approval, artificially low estimates for land improvements,
or the need for outside consultant review; all of which can only be determined on a project-by-project
basis and is not under the control of the reviewing engineer.
Typical Consultant Services
To further articulate the level of services the City is receiving by the engineering consultant as
part of the plan review and inspection process, EEI has prepared the attached memo dated January 11,
2018 which lists of typical work items conducted during the course of development from plan review
through construction and close-project out. There is also attached a sample plan review check lists for
commercial developments.
Additionally, EEI now coordinates the landscaping plan reviews for the City since the departure
of Laura Schraw, former Director of Parks and Recreation, who was a registered and licensed landscape
architect. The landscape reviews are conducted by a sub-consultant, Planning Resources, Inc. These fees
are not accounted for in the hourly billings by EEI, but are rather invoiced separately at a rate of
$95.00/hour and included in the final engineering project bill.
Below is a 2017 fee comparison table of EEI and five (5) other engineering firms active in
surrounding communities. The break down is by job title and lists the hourly rate each employee
classification charges. In an effort to accurately compare the fee schedules of each firm, some grids within
the table may be blank, indicating that particular job title does not exist within the corresponding firm.
Job Classification EEI TAI WBK CBBEL H.R. Green
Gewalt
Hamilton
(Sugar Grove) (Chicago) (St. Charles) (Rosemont) (Yorkville) (Vernon Hills)
Expert Testimony $ 225 $ 250
Senior Principal $ 196 $ 224 $ 210 $ 257 $ 198
Principal $ 191 $ 224 $ 210 $ 232 $195 to $280 $ 198
Senior Project Manager $ 185 $ 214 $ 185 $ 191 $ 172
Project Manager $ 168 $ 189 $ 169 $ 155 $165 to $250 $ 170
Senior Project
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor II $ 155 $ 179 $ 142 $ 152 $ 168
Senior Project
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor I $ 145 $ 166 $ 148
Project
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor $ 133 $ 149 $ 140 $ 138
Senior
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor $ 121 $ 130 $ 117 $ 134
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor $ 111 $ 105 $ 98 $ 110 $110 to $180 $ 118
Associate
Engineer/Planner/Surveyor $ 100 $ 110 $ 84 $ 110 $85 to $ 135
Senior Project Technician II $ 145 $ 155 $ 138 $ 180 $ 168
Senior Project Technician I $ 133 $ 134 $ 116 $ 148 $95 to $130
Project Technician $ 121 $ 122 $ 133 $ 124
Senior Technician $ 111 $ 109 $ 115 $ 114
Technician $ 100 $ 96 $ 97 $45 to $115 $ 100
Associate Technician $ 87 $ 81 $ 59 $ 74
Engineering/Land Surveying
Intern $ 82
GIS Technician $ 67 $ 78
Administrative Assistant $ 80 $ 75 $ 62 $ 98 $55 to $115 $ 62
Sub-consultants Cost Cost + 5% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10%
Reimbursable Expenses Cost Cost + 5% Cost + 10% Cost + 12% Cost + 10% Cost + 10%
Annual Escalator (NTE) Notice 5% 5% 5% Notice 5%
5
Typically, the majority of the time from EEI’s office for general plan reviews and construction
services is billed at the Project Engineer rate of $133/hour. The highest rate billed by EEI is for the Senior
Principal (Brad Sanderson) at $196/hour. Therefore, on average the hourly rate for a project is roughly
$165/hour. If the same is true of the other firms, their average hourly rates would range between
$168/hour to $199/hour.
Surrounding Community Research
Staff felt it would be beneficial to understand how surrounding and area communities charge for
engineering services, either in-house or outsourced, to see if our current practices were in line with theirs.
Below is a comparison table of surrounding communities which illustrate how in-house and out-sourced
engineering fees are charged.
Municipality In-House/
Out-Sourced
Engineering Review/ Inspection
Fee Remarks
Aurora In-House 2.25% of engineers’ estimate Minimum fee $750. Includes fees for filing,
plan review and inspections.
Batavia In-House 0.75% to 4% of engineers’ estimate
(higher for smaller projects)
Minimum fee $50 - $6,000. Fees are for plan
reviews only.
Elburn Out-sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account. Minimum of $1,000.
Montgomery Out-Sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account.
Naperville In-House
Residential-
1.5% of engineers’ estimate
Commercial-
$46/parking stall (1-50 stalls)
$24/parking stall (51-100 stalls)
$19/parking stall (100+)
(minimum $380 fee)
Commercial plan review is based upon
number of parking stalls.
North Aurora Out-Sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account.
Oswego In-House &
Out-Sourced
Based on billable hours (when using
consultant) Minimum $5,000 deposit is required.
Plainfield In-House &
Out-Sourced
Based on billable hours (when using
consultant) Minimum $5,000 deposit is required.
Plano Out-Sourced Based on billable hours
No escrow account required. Invoices are
provided to applicant for immediate
payment.
Shorewood Out-Sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account. Minimum of $3,000.
Sugar Grove Out-Sourced Flat Fee + Billable Hours
Engineering Review & Services flat permit
fee varies based on type of development and
size ($480 - $8,400).
Deposit required to establish an escrow
account. Minimum of $10,000.
Sycamore In-House Based on billable hours No deposit required.
Hampshire Out-Sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account. Minimum of $5,000.
Pingree Grove Out-Sourced Based on billable hours
No escrow account required. Invoices are
provided to applicant for immediate
payment.
Yorkville Out-Sourced Based on billable hours Deposit required to establish an escrow
account. Minimum of $1,000.
6
Staff Comments/Recommendations
From the research and analysis provided above, staff has the following observations:
1. The current engineering minimum deposit of $1,000 (based on project land area) is too low as
compared to other surrounding communities, as well as the type and complexity of the
development the City has experienced. The low deposit threshold results in frequent requests by
the City for replenishment of funds from the applicant.
2. Current average billable hours for EEI ($165/hr) are on par or significantly lower than other firms
working in surrounding communities, which range between $168/hour and $199/hour. Although,
depending on the completeness and quality of plans submitted, as well as number of site plan
revisions, EEI’s billed plan review fees have typically exceed the fee schedule established in
Resolution 2002-27. Conversely, EEI’s billed inspection fees have been on average less than the
fee charged under Resolution 2002-27.
3. For completed and nearly completed projects, the total engineering review fees tend to be 5-6%
of the engineer’s estimate of construction versus the 3% charged for plan review and inspection
services under Resolution 2002-27.
4. For the smaller scale projects (building additions, parking lot expansions, etc) the engineering
plan review and inspection fees under Resolution 2002-27 are artificially low, as the determining
factor is the engineer’s cost for land development which is typically limited to grading, erosion
control and some limited landscaping.
5. Due to the loss of in-house staff to perform landscape plan reviews, additional costs are incurred
by sub-consultants and passed through on the engineering project fees.
6. Yorkville is consistent with other area communities that out-source engineering plan or inspection
services by billing an hourly rate and establishing an escrow account to draw down upon.
Based upon these observations, it is staff’s recommendation to do the following:
• Increase the minimum escrow deposit amounts. The intent is to have the initial deposit cover
the cost of an initial due diligence meeting and the generation of first round plan review
comments. This deposit would typically be in the range of 1% – 1.5% of the project construction
cost for all land improvements. An example of the deposit amount increase is provided below:
Current Engineering Deposit Originally Proposed
Engineering Deposit
Revised Proposed
Engineering Deposit
• <1 acre = $1,000.00
• >1 acre but <10 acres = $2,500.00
• >10 acres but < 40 acres =
$5,000.00
• > 40 acres but < 100 acres =
$10,000.00
• > 100 acres = $20,000.00
• <1 acre = $5,000.00
• >1 acre but <10 acres = $12,500.00
• >10 acres but < 40 acres =
$25,000.00
• > 40 acres but < 100 acres =
$50,000.00
• > 100 acres = $100,000.00
• <1 acre = $5,000.00
• >1 acre but <10 acres = $10,000.00
• >10 acres but < 40 acres =
$15,000.00
• > 40 acres but < 100 acres =
$20,000.00
• > 100 acres = $25,000.00
• Provide an upfront engineering fee estimate. This estimate would include the plan review,
inspection services and administrative close out fees for the project utilizing a five and one-half
percent (5.5%) calculation based on the approved engineer’s estimate of construction cost for all
land improvements.
• Small-Scale or Limited Scope Project Minimum Escrow Deposits. For those developments
that require a limited scope of engineering review without the need for land use approvals (e.g.
commercial building additions, parking lot expansion, driveway curb cut, etc.), staff recommends
a minimum engineering deposit of $2,500.00. These projects typically do not require a due
7
diligence meeting and generally arise as part of a building permit application. The recommended
deposit is estimated to cover at least two (2) rounds of plan review comments and the bond
approval/release process, if applicable.
• Codification of Fees. The City Attorney has prepared the attached draft ordinance which codifies
the proposed fee amendments in Title 11: Subdivision Control Chapter 8: Fee Schedule. The
amendment to the Subdivision Control Ordinance will address the revised minimum escrow
deposits for new construction development and development requiring land use approvals.
A hypothetical scenario of how these recommendations would work is below:
Developer A meets with the City staff and engineer to discuss a new project. A copy of the
revised engineering deposit schedule is provided to Developer A at the conclusion of the meeting as
part of the Commercial Development Packet. Upon submittal of a development approval application
(special use, rezoning, PUD, etc), site grading or building permit, Developer A will have the option
of:
(A) Posting funds for an engineering deposit escrow account based upon the overall acreage
of the development site; or
(B) Posting funds for the entire estimated engineering fees for the project based upon 5.5% of
the engineer’s estimate of construction cost for all land improvements.
In either scenario, the City Engineer will continue to bill the project monthly at an hourly rate
whereby the invoices will be paid against the established escrow fund.
The advantage in scenario “A” is the developer would pay a smaller up front deposit, but will
likely receive multiple requests for replenishment of the escrow account throughout the development
of the project.
The advantage to scenario “B” is although the developer may pay a larger upfront deposit for the
engineering plan review, inspection and administrative closeout services, there will be little to no
requests for replenishments by the City to the developer throughout the development process.
Additionally, providing the upfront estimate of fees allows the developer to better budget for
these soft costs as part of their due diligence phase.
Economic Development Committee (EDC) Discussion
As mentioned previously in this memorandum within the introductory summary, staff presented
these findings and recommendations to the Economic Development Committee (EDC) in February and
March of this year. During those discussions, Alderman Funkhouser suggested that a fixed percentage
which established a not to exceed amount for outsourced engineering (possibly 5%) would be more
preferable to the development community, rather than proposing an estimate and billing an at cost hourly
rate. The consideration with that proposal is developments whose projects fall under the 5% based upon
billable hours would pay more and the developments which exceed the 5% in billable hours would pay
less, and the City would pay the difference to the engineering consultant.
A developer was in attendance of the March EDC and echoed the sentiments of Alderman
Funkhouser, and staff was directed by the members of the EDC to reach out and notify the
builders/developers who have had to pay engineering review and construction service fees within the past
year to personally invite them to attend the public hearing. A copy of the public hearing notice was
emailed and sent via postal mail to approximately sixteen (16) commercial building permit and/or
development project applicants.
Staff, as well as the City’s Engineering Consultant, Brad Sanderson of EEI, will be available at
Wednesday night’s meeting to discuss in greater detail and answer questions from the the public ans the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
8
Proposed Motion:
In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on April 11, 2018 and
discussions conducted at that meeting for a proposed text amendment to Title 11: Subdivision
Control Chapter 8: Fee Schedule, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval to
the City Council of revised engineering review fee escrow deposits for all new construction
projects and any development requiring land use approvals, as presented by staff in a
memorandum dated March 1, 2018, and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the
Planning and Zoning Commission}…
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. EDC Meeting Minutes (2/6/18 and 3/6/18)
3. Resolution 2002-27
4. Ordinance 2006-11
5. EEI memo dated January 11, 2018
6. Sample Plan Review Checklist for Commercial Development
7. Public Hearing Notice.
Ordinance No. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS, AMENDING
THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE YORKVILLE SUBDIVISION CONTROL
ORDINANCE REGARDING ESCROW DEPOSITS FOR
ENGINEERING REVIEW FEES
WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly
existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of
Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11-7-1 of the Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance
the Mayor and City Council (the “Corporate Authorities”) may initiate amendments to the
Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities authorized the filing of amendments to the
Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding escrow deposits for engineering review fees;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission convened and held a public hearing
on the 11th day of April, 2018, to consider the request to amend the Subdivision Control
Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission after the close of the hearing
approved findings of fact and made a recommendation to the Corporate Authorities that the
proposed amendments be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the United City of
Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows:
Section 1: That Resolution 2002-27 entitled, RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY
ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF DEVELOPER DEPOSITS AND
ENGINEERING FEES, and Ordinance 2006-11 entitled, ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COORDINATION FEE be and are hereby
repealed.
Section 2: That Section 11-8-2, FEES, and 11-8-3, COORDINATION FEE, of the
Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and are hereby repealed.
Section 3: That Sections 11-8-2 and 11-8-3 be and are hereby added to the Yorkville City
Code to read as follows:
“11-8-2: ENGINEERING REVIEW FEE ESCROW DEPOSIT
A. An engineering review fee escrow deposit shall be required for all new construction projects
and any development requiring land use approvals including but not limited to a special use,
rezoning, planned unit development, annexation, or subdivision, or for those limited scope
projects that require a limited scope of engineering review without land use approvals. The
engineering review fee escrow deposit shall be for the reimbursement of any City fees and
expenses for the project from the initial contact by the applicant to the time of final approval.
B. The city shall provide an initial engineering fee estimate that will include the plan review,
inspection services and administrative fees for the project which shall be based on a five and
one-half percent (5.5%) of the approved engineer’s estimate of construction cost for all land
improvements.
C. Not including a limited scope of development, the initial minimum engineering review fee
escrow deposit for new construction projects and any development requiring land use approvals
including but not limited to a special use, rezoning, planned unit development, annexation, or
subdivision shall be:
Size of development Escrow Deposit
Less than 1 acre $5,000.00
Greater than 1 acre but less than 10 acres $10,000.00
Greater than 10 acres but less than 40 acres $15,000.00
Greater than 40 acres but less than 100 acres $20,000.00
Greater than 100 acres $25,000.00
D. The initial minimum engineering review fee escrow deposit for a limited scope development
that requires a limited scope of engineering review without a land use approval shall be
$2,500.00.
11-8-3: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The City reserves the right to charge and collect fees on an hourly basis for complex work or
time-consuming developments if the time expended on a particular project exceeds the fees
required herein.
B. In the event that an escrow deposit described in Sections 11-8-2 is reduced to a sum of 10% or
less of the original deposit, the City Administrator shall request an additional deposit for the
reasonably expected costs to be incurred by the City for the completion of the project.”
Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage, publication,
and approval as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this
_____ day of _______________, 2018.
______________________________
City Clerk
CARLO COLOSIMO ________ KEN KOCH ________
JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________
CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS ________
SEAVER TARULIS ________ ALEX HERNANDEZ ________
Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____
day of _______________, 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor
Page 1 of 3
APPROVED 3/6/18
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:00pm
City Conference Room
In Attendance:
Committee Members
Chairman Ken Koch Alderman Alex Hernandez
Alderman Joel Frieders Alderman Carlo Colosimo
Other City Officials
City Administrator Bart Olson
Interim Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett
Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble
Code Official Pete Ratos Senior Planner Jason Engberg
Alderman Chris Funkhouser City Consultant Lynn Dubajic
City Engineer Brad Sanderson/EEI
Other Guests
Dan LaTurno, President, Aurora Specialty Textiles
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ken Koch at 6:00pm.
Citizen Comments: None
Minutes for Correction/Approval: January 2, 2018
The minutes were approved on a unanimous voice vote.
New Business
1. EDC 2018-09 Building Permit Reports for December 2017
Mr. Ratos reported 9 single family permits, 1 B.U.I.L.D. and 12 single family attached.
He also reported the number of permits for the year. No further comments.
2. EDC 2018-10 Building Inspection Report for December 2017
Inspections done in December totaled 218, most of which were for Ryan Homes in
Grande Reserve. Mr. Ratos said some permits have already been issued for spring where
roads do not yet exist in Grande Reserve. No further discussion.
3. EDC 2018-11 Property Maintenance Report for December 2017
Four cases were heard in December. Mr. Ratos said other violations that were ticketed
were rectified in the 10-day period. No discussion.
Page 2 of 3
4. EDC 2018-12 Economic Development Update
1. Ms. Dubajic said a Yorkville resident with a scrapbooking business will host
retreat weekends for scrapbookers twice a month. This will generate 1,200 hotel
stays per year. She will have permanent space in the city and hopes to be open in
late spring.
2. Working with prospective tenants for downtown buildings
3. Received permit application for banquet hall in Stagecoach Crossing
4. Working on prospective tenants for Kendall Marketplace, 28 lots nearby have
been sold
5. Environmental Services bought empty bank building at Rt. 47 & Cannonball
6. Two national chain restaurants looking at Yorkville
7. A-frame building by Rt. 34 & 47 will become Salerno's Red Hots
No further comments.
5. EDC 2018-13 Annual Foreclosure Update
Ms. Noble said there were 61 single family foreclosures in 2017, most in Ward 3. She
compared the numbers to previous years and said overall there was a downward trend.
Kendall County now ranks number 4 in foreclosures in the State. It was decided the
yearly total minus detail was adequate for the committee in the future.
6. EDC 2018-14 Manufacturing and Industrial City Council Goal Action Plans
Mr. Olson expanded on three Council action plan items from the Goal Setting Meeting
which had also been discussed the previous year.
1. BNSF Site Certification process for Eldamain and Wrigley corridors
2. Marketing Eldamain area
3. Meet with developers to discuss enterprise zones
The committee also discussed compiling packets for developers which would include
zoning and other data. Alderman Frieders proposed the business directory discussed 2
years ago and said the city could provide a free link on the city website along with a
featured business. Ms. Willrett said there is now a draft business directory and a
questionnaire to use for joining the directory. Alderman Koch said that YEDC had a
website a few years ago, however, it was a membership-based website.
Mr. Olson continued with new goals:
4. YBSD plant capacity: Mr. Dan LaTurno, President of Aurora Specialty Textiles
in Yorkville, was present. His business uses 25,000 gallons of water a day and YBSD
has informed them their water usage will be cut by 60% in July. This would mean the
loss of 85 jobs if accommodations cannot be made. He will be meeting with the head of
YBSD. Mr. Sanderson said he is also trying to secure a meeting with YBSD and said
they recently expanded capacity. Alderman Koch noted that any Eldamain development
would be connected to YBSD and the committee agreed this is an important issue to be
addressed.
5. Metra Site: Location needs to be determined.
6. Utility Expansion Plans: The city did a cost estimate for extending water and
sewer to Eldamain to help secure businesses.
7. Nicor and ComEd Status: Meet with these utilities to discuss capacity and
possible expansion.
Page 3 of 3
8. Boundary Agreement with Plano: Most of Eldamain is in Plano School District
and Yorkville schools might not benefit. Will discuss alignment of boundaries.
Alderman Colosimo noted most of Schaefer Woods has Plano address, but attend
Yorkville schools.
9. Food Hub: promote historical background in agriculture, protect land for
agricultural uses.
10. Marijuana Legalization: Significant discussion in upcoming governor's election,
prepare for less regulated industry.
11. Industrial Development Feasibility Study: Engage consultant to make
recommendations to attract businesses. Will also research grant applications.
Alderman Frieders asked Mr. Olson to prioritize the above items and the committee
agreed that YBSD capacity is the most critical. Mr. Colosimo said the city needs to have
a portfolio of all lots and utility stats available for prospective businesses. Mr. Engberg
said he has already started compiling this information.
In conclusion, Mr. Olson said the action plan items will be forwarded to the regular
Council agenda for adoption on February 13th.
7. EDC 2018-15 Developer Deposit Report/Ordinance
Ms. Noble discussed a memo that addressed deposit/engineering review fees established
in 2002. She said the fees are now falling short especially since outside consultants are
being used. Staff researched what other communities are charging and it is being
recommended to increase developer fees. Mr. Olson added that the city is still spending
less on outsourcing engineering work.
Comments included to raise the fees and return unused funds, fees need to be more well-
defined depending on the project details such as a pole building vs. an assisted living both
on the same acreage, developers would balk at paying huge fees upfront, concentrate on
better estimates of engineering fees, charge percentage-based fees determined by cost of
project, escrow, etc., consider whether project is commercial or residential.
While the staff recommendation was a flat amount increase, the committee was leaning
towards percentage-based fees. It was decided the deposit would be collected when the
developer initially comes in. Ms. Noble will bring past projects as examples and this will
be brought back to committee for further consideration.
8. EDC 2018-16 Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement with Kendall County For
Building Inspection Services
The committee was OK with this agreement.
Old Business None
Additional Business: None
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 7:38pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker
Page 1 of 3
APPROVED 4/3/18
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 6, 2018, 6:00pm
City Conference Room
In Attendance:
Committee Members
Chairman Ken Koch
Alderman Joel Frieders
Alderman Carlo Colosimo
Absent: Alderman Alex Hernandez
Other City Officials
Interim Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett
Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble
Code Official Pete Ratos
Senior Planner Jason Engberg
Alderman Chris Funkhouser
City Consultant Lynn Dubajic
Other Guests
Gary Neyer, Marker Inc.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ken Koch at 6:00pm.
Citizen Comments: None
Minutes for Correction/Approval: February 6, 2018
The minutes were approved on a unanimous voice vote.
New Business
1. EDC 2018-17 Building Permit Reports for January 2018
Mr. Ratos reported 43 total permits, 15 single family permits, (11 were B.U.I.L.D.) and
also 10 commercial permits. No further discussion.
2. EDC 2018-18 Building Inspection Report for January 2018
There were 163 inspections, most of which were for Ryan Homes in Caledonia. No
further discussion.
3. EDC 2018-19 Property Maintenance Report for January 2018
Mr. Ratos cited a case of an unsafe structure on S. State St. where the 98 year old owner
does not reside in the house. Many offers have been made, however, the owner/bank will
only accept a certain minimum amount. No further discussion.
4. EDC 2018-20 Economic Development Report for February 2018
Page 2 of 3
Ms. Dubajic reported the following:
1. Owners of restaurant “1836” notified city of their immediate closure, plan to
reopen with a new concept and new signage
2. Owner of banquet hall on Stagecoach has gotten building permit for exterior
3. Idea Marketing and Subway have left Fountain Village development Lower rents
might encourage tenancy.
4. Owner of Kendall Marketplace has requested larger signs due to Rt. 34 expansion,
working with potential junior box store that wishes to be on the signs. Another
fashion store looking at this area. Residential building has also begun on the
nearby lots.
5. Chicago Fire coming to Go For It Sports to hold free camps, dates to be
announced.
5. EDC 2018-21 Kendall Marketplace SSA Amendment
Ms. Noble said this amendment revises the SSA since some lots had been erroneously
included. Attorney Orr has drafted the ordinance and it is recommended to move this
forward to the March 13th Council consent agenda.
6. EDC 2018-22 Warpinski – Walker Road Rezoning – 1.5 Mile Review
Mr. Engberg said the County had notified the city of a rezoning request on a 7-acre parcel
on Walker Road from A-1 to R-1 and requires the 1.5 Mile Review. The ITEP Plan
shows trails and the County and property owners were made aware. This matter moves
to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 14 and the committee was OK with
this request.
Old Business
1. EDC 2018-15 Developer Deposit Report/Ordinance
Ms. Noble made some revisions after suggestions from the committee last month.
Developer fees will increase from $5,000 to $25,000 with a minimum deposit of $2,500.
An upfront engineering fee estimate will be provided and the developer can pay in full or
replenish as necessary. Ms. Noble also noted 2 charges that would be removed from the
changes suggested. All changes will be codified.
Ms. Noble reached out to Gary Neyer of Marker Inc. since he had voiced concern about
the high amounts. Mr. Neyer was present and said the plan review fees were much too
high. He said they did a development in 2011 when plan reviews were done by the city
in-house. He said just the earthwork is a very substantial cost.
Alderman Colosimo asked how the proposed rates compare to the nearby cities and Ms.
Noble said it was comparable. He does not want to scare developers away, while making
sure the city covers their costs. He would like to see a fixed fee. As the project moves
along, Alderman Frieders requested performance indicators. Alderman Funkhouser
compared the proposed rates to other towns he had researched. He said the proposal will
affect developers and he would like the rates tightened, though he prefers a fixed fee.
Page 3 of 3
This proposal will move forward for a Public Hearing and will return to EDC in May.
Mr. Sanderson and Ms. Noble will work together on the fee structure and invoices can be
adjusted.
Additional Business None
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:47pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Memo
To: Bart Olson, City Administrator
From: Brad Sanderson, P.E.
Date: January 11, 2018
Re: Land Development Construction Observation Services
EEI Job #: YO1800
As requested, we have developed a list of typical work items as it relates to construction activity with land
development projects. Typically, our fees range from 1.5 to 3.0 % (higher for smaller projects) of the approved
engineer’s estimate for these types of services, which includes part-time construction observation. The service
level (and fees) are also dependant on the desires of the local community. Some communities require a higher
level of expectations and service, while others may require something a little less. In addition, each project has
unique issues which may affect the fees charged to the developer and as a result we have noted that our fees
do vary from development to development.
Also, to put things in perspective, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration have a cap on construction inspection fees on state and federally funded projects at 15% of
construction costs. The logic behind the State/Federal position is that after the improvement is built the State
and not the Contractor is responsible for all future life cycle costs. They have determined the need and value
for full time inspection to protect the public investment. This concept of course rings true for the City as well
since the City and not the developer is responsible for the future life cycle and maintenance costs.
The typical work items associated with land development construction services are as follows:
Pre-Construction Meeting Coordination and Attendance
Construction Inspection and Observation
o Earthwork / Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (as required by NPDES Permit)
o Underground (w/required testing)
Water Main
Sanitary Sewer
Lift Stations / Force Mains
Storm Sewer
Other
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Memo
o Roadway
Curb and Gutter (w/required testing-IDOT Standard)
Aggregate Base Inspection (proof rolls, thickness verification)
Bituminous Binder and Base Courses (w/required testing-IDOT Standard)
Public Sidewalk and ADA Compliance
o Street Light Inspection
o Landscaping
o Storm W ater Management Facility Construction
o Wetlands
o Daily Field Reports Prepared and Distributed
Private Utility Company Reviews
Coordination w/Developer and Contractors
Coordination w/other Agencies as Required
Coordination w/City Staff as Required
Addressing Resident Complaints
Letter of Credit (LOC) / Bond Reductions
Punchlist Inspections and Letters
As-Built Reviews
Sanitary/Storm Sewer Televising Review
City Atlas Map Updates
City Water Model Updates
Acceptance and GASB 34 Documentation
Also for your information, we have attached a memo of understanding for Commercial/Industrial Site
Inspections between our office and the building department, dated April 17, 2014. We have also attached
copies of our construction observation checklists that have been developed, which generally detail what our
staff is investigating when they perform site visits.
If you have any questions on the provided material or if you need additional information, please let me know.
pc: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
JAM, EEI
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
ITEM CHECK N/A
CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION (Section 606)
1 Air Entrainment shall be 5% - 8%; Slump shall be 2-4 inches
2 Test cylinders shall be made and tested to ensure minimum compressive strength.
3 Contraction Joints shall be saw cut according to IDOT Standards (4hrs - 24 hrs)
4 Sawed joints shall be caulked immediately using polysulfide material
5 Membrane curing compound shall be IDOT Type 1 Clear Transparent Membrane Curing Compound ( sec 1022.01 )
6 Sewer (S) and Water (W) shall be stamped in the face of the curb
7 All depression locations shall be staked out prior to curb placement. The contractor/owner shall be responsible for the
exact locations of the depressions and replacing the curb where any depressions are found in the incorrect location.
8 All curb depressions for sidewalk ramps are to be constructed according to the IDOT Standard. (424001-07)
9 All utility trench crossings shall have two #4 Rebar constructed in the curb with a minimum length of 10' on either side of
the trench.
10 Two 18" long, 3/4" diameter smooth dowels required at expansion joints
11 Concrete shall be tested on the first load and every 50 CY thereafter or additionally as required by the Engineer.
12 No additional water shall be added to the surface for finishing purposes.
13 Care shall be taken while broom finishing the surface of the Curb and Gutter.
14 No painting on curb after completion is allowed in the United City of Yorkville
15 All concrete curb and gutter shall be constructed according to the Illinois Standard Specifications.
16 All curb shall be constructed on a minimum of a 4" crushed aggregate base course.
17 Curb and Gutter can not be constructed on frozen subgrade.
18 Enusre IDOT protocol is followed for concrete pours below freezing temperatures.
19 Contractor/owner responsible for curb grades; provide visual inspection and contact contractor/owner if problems are
suspected.
20 No honeycombing or voids will be allowed above or below finished grade.
United City of Yorkville Curb and Gutter Checklist
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Curb and Gutter Checklist
Revised January 2018
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
ITEM CHECK N/A
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
1
After Subbase grade is achieved, a proof roll will be performed to determine the stability of the subbase. A
representative of the City and/or City Engineer must be in attendance. If necessary, a geotechnical engineer will attend
with the City's representative.
2 The subbase will be string lined to verify proper grade.
3 Verify proper compaction at structures and pipe crossings.
4 The contractor/developer will be responsible to provide a truck with the appropriate weight (6 wheeler with weight ≥ 12
tons; weight ticket required) to perform the proof roll.
5 Any unsuitable areas will be marked. It will be the responsibility of the contractor/owner to determine the method of
corrective action for the failed areas.
6 A maximum of 1/2" deflection will be allowed during the subgrade proof roll (this does not include areas that "roll" away
from the truck tires).
7 Any unsuitable material shall be replaced and the failed areas shall be re-proof rolled.
8 The base course shall be crushed aggregate CA-6 or approved equal. (Section 311)
9 The base course shall be proof rolled after final grade and compaction has been reached.
10 No deflection will be allowed on the base course proof roll.
11 The base course will be string lined to verify proper grade and slope.
12 Any unsuitable areas will be marked, it will be the responsibility of the contractor/owner to determine the method of
corrective action for the failed areas.
13 Hot-Mix Asphalt Binder and Surface course shall be constructed according to the Illinois "Standard Specification for
Road and Bride Construction" latest edition or as shown on the approved engineering plans. (Section 406)
14 Air temperature for bituminous binder course must be 40 degrees and rising.
15 Air temperature for bituminous surface course must be 45 degrees and rising.
16 Paving will not be allowed during inclement weather.
17 The hot-mix asphalt binder course shall be cleaned and primed prior to placing the bituminous surface course.
18 The condition of the hot-mix asphalt binder course will be reviewed by the City Engineer (or representative) prior to the
placement of the surface course. Any necessary repairs shall be made prior to surface paving.
19 The binder course must experience one winter prior to the installation of the surface course unless otherwise improved.
20 Paving shall be done with equipment in accordance with the Illinois "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction" (Section 406).
21 Pavement and base course thickness' and slopes shall be in accordance with the project plans and specifications.
United City of Yorkville Paving and Road Construction Checklist
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Paving Checklist
Revised January 2018
United City of Yorkville Sanitary Sewer Checklist
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
Item CHECK N/A
Sanitary Sewer Construction
1 All Sanitary Sewer shall be constructed in accordance with the "Standard Specificiations for Sanitary Sewer
Construction in the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District".
2 All CA-6 Trench Backfill shall be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor in maximum 12" lifts using manual
equipment.
3 All Non-Structural Backfill shall be compacted to 85% Standard Proctor.
4 All Type B lids shall have "City of Yorkville" and "Sanitary" cast into the top, and shall be concealed pickhole type.
5 Chimney seals to be installed on all sanitary manholes epr City of Yorkville specifications.
6 Services to be marked with 4x4 Post - Painted Green
Sanitary Sewer Testing
7 All sanitary sewer will be subject to an air exfiltration test, televising test, and deflection test according to the
Standard specification for Water and Sewer Main Construction in Illinois.
8 Vacuum testing of each Manhole shall be carried out according to the "Standard Specificiations for Sanitary Sewer
Construction in the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District".
9 No manholes will be allowed in pavement, sidewalk or driveways unless shown on approved engineering plans
10 The inside of all manholes shall be mortared at the joints and around the pipes.
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Sanitary Sewer Checklist
Revised March 2009
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
ITEM CHECK N/A
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
1 Provide a minimum of 4" CA-6 Subbase Granular Material in accordance with Sections 202 and 311.
2 The sidewalk shall be 5' wide and shall extend through driveways.
3 The sidewalk shall be a minimum of 5" in thickness and at all driveway locations shall be a minimum of 6" thick.
4 The sidewalk shall be constructed 1' from the right-of-way boundary on public property unless directed by the City
Engineer.
5 The concrete shall be Class SI concrete.
6 Membrane curing compound shall be IDOT Type 1 Clear Transparent Membrane Curing Compound (Section 1020.13)
7 The surface finish shall be a light broom finish.
8 No structures or B-Boxes will be allowed in sidewalks or driveways.
9 The sidewalk shall be constructed with tooled contraction joints at no more than 6' and no less than 4' intervals and be
1" in depth.
10 Bituminous type expansion joint filler, 1/2" thick and with height equal to the sidewalk thickness shall be provided at all
lot lines, cold joints and/or minimum 100' intervals.
11 Concrete tickets shall be provided to the City or City Engineer
12
Handicapped Ramps shall be provided at all intersections according to the IDOT Standard Detail and ADA
specifications, with the exception that the detectable warning shall be a composite insert per Village Detail. (Section
424)
13 Cold weather procedures will be enforced in inclement weather.
14 No additional water may be applied to the surface of the concrete for finishing purposes.
15 Contractor/Owner responsible to replace any sidewalk damaged by graffiti.
16 Concrete to be cured and protected for 72 hours prior to use by public.
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
17 Six (6") inch PCC over six (6) inches of compacted CA-6 limestone or crushed gravel
18 Two (2) inch HMA survace course over eight (8") inches of compacted CA-6 limestone or crushed gravel.
COMMERICAL DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
19 Eight (8") inch PCC over six (6) inches of compacted CA-6 limestone or crushed gravel
20 Three (3) inch HMA over eight (10") inches of compacted CA-6 limestone or crushed gravel.
TESTING (≥ 50 CU YD or at Engineer's discrection)
21 Air Content shall be between 5% and 8%
22 Slump shall be 2"-4"
23 Minimum strength of 3500 psi
24 Cast a minimum of 4 test cylinders for every 50 yards of concrete
United City of Yorkville Sidewalk and Driveway Apron Checklist
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Sidewalk and Driveway Apron Checklist
Revised January 2018
United City of Yorkville Storm Sewer Checklist
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
Item CHECK N/A
Storm Sewer Construction
1 All Storm Sewer within the public right-of-way and easements parallel to and adjacent to public right-of-way shall
be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP).
2 Storm Sewers in rear yards and side yards may be high-density polyethylene (HDPE) of a manufacturer and
design, to be approved by the City of Yorkville.
3 Jogs in Storm Sewer line will not be permitted
4 Catch Basins shall have a 24" minimum sump unless otherwise marked on the plans
5 Storm Sewer Manholes shall be precast reinforced concrete ASTM C-478.
6 All manhole castings, adjusting rings and manhole sections shall be set in butyl rope joint sealant.
7 All final adjustments of castings will be accomplished by the use of precast adjusting rings set in butyl rope joint
sealant.
8 Total adjusting rings shall be eight (8") inches in height and no more than two (2).
9 Curb Inlet frames shall be Neenah No. R-32868V, East Jordan No. EV-7520, or approved equal.
10 All manhole castings shall be Neenah No. R-1030, East Jordan No. 105123, and Type B cover, or approved equal.
11 All Type B lids shall have "City of Yorkville" and Storm" cast into the top, and shall be concealed pickhole type.
12 Initial backfill, bedding and haunching material shall be class 1, grade CA 7.
13 All CA-6 Trench Backfill shall be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor in maximum 12" lifts using manual
equipment.
14 Storm sewer to be televised and videos submitted to the City prior to acceptance.
15 All Non-Structural Backfill shall be compacted to 85% Standard Proctor.
16 Construct fillets, benches, and inverts according to plan specifications.
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Storm Sewer Checklist
Revised January 2018
United City of Yorkville Street Lighting Checklist
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
Item CHECK N/A
Street Lighting
1 The Contractor/Owner shall be held responsible for coordinating all phases of work and correcting any deficiencies
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2 Each light shall be controlled by a photoelectric control integral to the fixture.
3 All driveways, street and sidewalk crossovers shall have 2" HD PVC conduit used as raceways for underground
cable.
4 All underground cable shall be installed not less than 2' from the back of the curb and shall be buried at least 30"
below the normal finished grade.
5 All cable on the underground section shall be continuous, and no splicing shall be made underground. All necessary
splices shall be made above ground level.
6 For grounding, a copper-clad ground rod shall be placed at each pole. The rod shall be minimum 5/8-inch diameter,
and ten (10') feet long.
7
For fusing, all underground feeders shall be fused at or below their rated capacity. Each standard shall contain in-
line fuse holders, with proper fusing in series with each underground conductor to protect the luminaire located on
that pole.
8 Poles shall be placed as shown on the approved engineering plans.
Local Streets Streetlight
9 Poles shall be 906 B19-AD4, American Concrete Company pole and bracket, or approved equal.
10 Luminaires shall be mounted 19'9" above the street, shall have a four (4') foot arm.
11
Luminaires shall be fitted with General Electric Company "Lucalox" high-pressure sodium lamps LU 150/55/D, or
approved equal, with GE Company ANSI specifications "S55" high-pressure sodium ballasts (or approved equal) or
American Electric 115 15-S-RN-120-R2-DA-4B.
Major Collector Streets Streetlight
12 Poles shall be Stress Crete E340-BPO-G, with Style 210 low rise tapered aluminum davit, or approved equals.
13 The Davit outreach length shall be eight (8') feet.
14 Luminaire shall be mounted thirty (30') feet above the street.
15 Poles shall have an embedment depth of five (5') feet, and be backfilled with CA-6 limestone.
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Street Lights
Revised January 2018
United City of Yorkville Water Main Checklist
Project ___________________________________ Project No. _________________
Contractor ______________________________________ Date: ________________
Item CHECK N/A
Water Main Construction
1 All Water Main shall follow the United City of Yorkville's Water Main Construction notes.
2 All CA-6 Trench Backfill shall be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor in maximum 12" lifts using manual equipment.
3 All Non-Structural Backfill shall be compacted to 85% Standard Proctor.
4 Valve Vault Frame - Neenah R-1713 or Equal
5 Valve Vault Lid - Type B Marked "Water" and "City of Yorkville"
6 Fire Hydrant location and Valve Vault rim grades are to be installed per approved engineering plans.
Water Service
8 Services to be marked with 4x4 Post - Painted Blue
9 Water Service B-Box Location shall be staked for location and grade prior to construction.
10 Water services up to 3" diameter shall be Type "K" Copper conforming to the latest revised specification requirement of
ASTM B88. Minimum size for residential units shall be 1" diameter.
11 All corporation stops shall be McDonalds No. 4701, Meuller H-1500, or Ford F-600.
12 All curb stops shall be McDonald No. 6104, Meuller H-15154, or Ford B22-333M.
13 All curb boxes shall be Mueller Minneapolis Pattern B-Boxes similar to McDonald N.5614, or Meuller H-10300.
14 No B-Boxes to be installed within sidewalks or driveways.
Water Main Testing
15 Pressure Test shall be 150 psi for a two hour duration . 2 psi max loss, leakage based on first 1000 feet.
16 Flushing - United City of Yorkville is to be Notified
17 Disinfection - EEI is to be Notified
18 Sampling - EEI is to be notified
\\Milkyway\EEI_Storage\Docs\Public\Yorkville\Standard Notes, Forms and Checklists\Checklists\Subdivision Construction\COY Watermain Checklist
Revised January 2018
The purpose of this memo is to define the responsibilities of EEI vs. the Building Department when it
comes to construction observation on single lot commercial/industrial developments.
EEI will be responsible for observing the construction of the following items:
• Water service from the water main to the curb box, including tap
• Sanitary service from the sewer main to and including the inspection manhole located outside the
building
• Any required testing of the sanitary or water main
• Sidewalk within the City right-of-way, including any handicap ramps
• Driveway entrance and exit aprons located in City right-of-way
• Curb and gutter delineating driveway and parking lot area
• Aggregate and asphalt for the parking lot area – No proof roles required
• Parking lot striping
• Traffic Control Signage
• Landscaping
• Site drainage, including storm sewer
• Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Building Department will be responsible for all other site construction including:
• Water line construction on the building side of the curb box
• Sewer line construction on the building side of the inspection manhole
• Sidewalk construction outside of the City right-of-way, including any handicap ramps
• Parking lot and/or site lighting
• Retaining wall construction
• Stair construction
• Trash enclosures construction
• Building construction
• All other construction not specifically mentioned in this memo
Memorandum
To: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir.
From: Brad Sanderson, EEI
CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works
Pete Ratos, Building Inspector
Lisa Pickering, Deputy City Clerk
Date: April 17, 2014
Subject: Commercial/Industrial Site Inspections
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE
THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PZC 2018-03
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the United City of Yorkville, Kendall
County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Section 11-7-1 of the
Yorkville Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding engineering review fee escrow
deposits for all new construction projects and any development requiring land use
approvals including but not limited to a special use, rezoning, planned unit
development, annexation, or subdivision, or for those limited scope projects that
require a limited scope of engineering review without land use approvals.
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for
the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing at a meeting on said
amendments on Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7 p.m. at the Yorkville City Hall,
located at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560.
The public hearing may be continued from time to time to dates certain without
further notice being published.
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will be given an
opportunity to be heard. Any written comments should be addressed to the United
City of Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game
Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, and will be accepted up to the date of the public
hearing.
By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall
County, Illinois.
BETH WARREN
City Clerk
BY: Lisa Pickering
Deputy Clerk
1
BACKGROUND & REQUEST:
The applicant, McCue Builders, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to permit a revision to Article III of the agreement regarding design standards for the
new construction of single-family residential units within the currently platted, but undeveloped, portion of the
property.
The single-family
residential portion of the
development consists of 28
parcels on nearly 9-acres of
land. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and
subsequent development
conditions for the residential
portion was approved in 2006
via Ordinance 2006-125 (see
attached).
Per this ordinance,
special provisions for design
standards were established for
the single-family detached
residential units which are as
follows:
1. Masonry products
shall be incorporated
on the front façade of
75% of the total units.
2. A minimum of 75% of the front façade of each building shall incorporate masonry products. A 10%
reduction of the required masonry area will be given for each major architectural feature on the front
façade.
3. A minimum of 50% of each building elevation shall incorporate premium siding material.
4. Primary structures shall be constructed upon either a basement or foundation – “slab” construction shall
not be used.
According to the applicant, the current material and design standards for the exterior of the residential
units is cost prohibitive and not keeping with the price point offered or warranted for the development.
EXISTING & PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS:
On June 14, 2005, the United City of Yorkville approved Ordinance No. 2005-51 which adopted an
Appearance Code as part of the Building Regulations (see attached). Among the objectives of the Appearance
Code is to foster sound and harmonious design of new buildings and sites, establish standards for new
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Jason Engberg, Senior Planner
Date: April 4, 2018
Subject: PZC 2018-05 Kendall Marketplace PUD Amendment for Residential Lots
Lots 24 -51 along Blackberry Shore Lane
2
construction and development and encourage creative non-monotonous community designs utilizing design
professionals.
Per this ordinance, the provisions of the Appearance Code is applicable to residential, commercial and
industrial land uses seeking building permit approval for new construction, or building permit approval for
additions to existing commercial or industrial buildings where the cumulative addition(s) are equal to 10% of the
area or 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater.
The City’s Appearance Code does not apply to industrial accessory structures (although these structures
should complement the main structure), buildings where siding is being replaced with similar siding material, or
any Planned Unit Development (PUD) already approved prior to the adoption of the ordinance unless so
stipulated in the PUD.
While the Appearance Code does provide specific criteria for both residential and non-residential
uses, the regulations are very general in nature and relate mostly to anti-monotony standards (i.e., no two
dwelling units with similar appearance shall be located adjacent to or across the street from each other) with
regard to single family detached units and site planning and building design elements for single-family
attached and multiple family dwelling units. Non-residential uses (commercial and industrial) Appearance
Code standards focus on the relationship of buildings to the site, relationship of the site to the adjoining area
and building design.
Subsequent to the approval of the Appearance Code in 2005, the United City of Yorkville adopted
new Comprehensive Plan Design Guidelines on May 26, 2009 (see attached). Unlike the Appearance Code
Ordinance, the Design Guidelines were not codified as part of the Municipal Code and therefore, are
advisory only.
These guidelines are intended to “maintain the unique character and acknowledge the heritage of
Yorkville” by establishing principles related to overall planning, site planning, landscaping and community
character. Again, the applicability of these guidelines are limited to all new developments constructed after
its adoption and does not apply to lots which have buildings constructed upon them prior to its adoption with
the exception of properties substantially redeveloped, rezoned to which a special use is being requested.
Substantial redevelopment consists of any construction activity that will result in a greater than 25% increase
to the existing square footage or the addition of twelve (12) or more parking spaces.
Staff has routinely referenced both documents in our review of applicable developments,
with the most recent being the Kendall Crossing, Anthony Place Senior Apartments and Cedarhurst Living
developments. Since most of the residential planned developments were approved through annexation
agreements with ordinance and fee locks associated, staff has deferred to those documents during compliance
reviews.
Although the Kendall Marketplace PUD was approved after the adoption of the Appearance Code and
would be subject to its standards, it was approved prior to the adoption of Design Guidelines and is not subject to
those more specific aesthetic criteria. However, the PUD provided specific design provisions which were in
addition to those required in the Appearance Code.
The following page has a comparison chart of the existing Kendall Marketplace PUD design standards for
single-family detached residential units, current Appearance Code standards and the applicant’s proposed
amendments:
3
EXISTING KMP PUD DESIGN
STANDARDS
CURRENT APPEARANCE CODE
DESIGN STANDARDS
PROPOSED NEW DESIGN
STANDARDS
Masonry Products on 75% of the
total units
Minimum of 75% of the front
façade of each building to
incorporate masonry products.
(10% reduction of the required
masonry area will be given for each
major architectural feature on
front façade)
Minimum of 50% of each building
elevation to incorporate premium
siding material.
Primary structure shall be
constructed upon either a basement
or foundation – “slab” construction
shall not be used.
No residential dwellings shall be
similar in appearance unless two (2)
or more buildings of dissimilar design
separate the buildings.
A newly constructed residential
building shall be dissimilar in
appearance to another residential
building across the street from, or
adjacent to the newly constructed
building.
A residential dwelling on a corner lot
is not considered similar to one
adjacent to it if the two (2) dwellings
face different streets.
On cul-de-sacs not more than two (2)
dwellings shall be similar in
appearance on any lots having front
lot lines contributing to the arc of the
cul-de-sac.
All homes shall have some type of
covered porch on the front elevation.
All homes shall have a 2-car garage
with raised panel garage doors.
All front elevation windows shall
have grilles in the windows.
All homes shall have architectural
shingles.
At least 75% of the homes shall have
at least a 7/12 pitch on the main roof.
At least 75% of the homes shall have
at least a 10/12 pitch on the front
gables
At least 75 % of the homes shall have
at least 25% brick or stone on the first
floor elevation on the walls that run
parallel to the street.
Homes that do not have any brick or
stone on the front elevation shall be
required to have the following:
-All windows on the front elevation
shall have shutters or be wrapped
with 4” trim
-Windows in the upper panel of the
garage door
-Some type of Shake siding or Batten
Board siding on front elevation.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The intent of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide flexibility from the rigidity of the
conventional regulations of the code while offering a greater benefit to the property and the City as a whole. The
development’s existing standards, while specific to mainly building material, did not necessarily enhance
architectural interest or encourage creative non-monotonous community design. Additionally, the current
Appearance Code, which would be the default design standards if the PUD had not required the added provisions,
solely focuses on similarities in dwelling appearances.
However, the proposed new design standards proposed by the applicant requires at least three (3)
architectural features on the front elevation of all homes (covered porches, grilles on windows and raised panel
garage doors) in addition to higher grade roof shingles and steeper pitched roof slopes. For those homes with front
elevations without masonry products, the applicant proposes window details, garage door features and premium
siding materials.
For your consideration, the petitioner has provided the following sample elevations of four (4) models of
homes the applicant has planned for the Kendall Marketplace development:
4
STANDARDS FOR PUD APPROVAL OR AMENDMENT:
The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of a special use for planned unit
development or amendments to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) upon considering the following (Section
10-8-10-A):
5
1. In what respect does the design of the planned unit development meet the requirements and design
standards of the development standards and design criteria.
2. The extent to which the proposed plan deviates and/or requires waivers of the bulk regulations in the
zoning ordinance and how the modifications in design standards from the subdivision control
regulations fulfill the intent of those regulations.
3. The extent of public benefit produced by the planned unit development, such as, but not limited to,
the adequacy of common open space and/or public recreational facilities provided; sufficient control
over vehicular traffic; provision of public services; provision and protection of the reasonable
enjoyment of land.
4. The relationship and compatibility, beneficial or adverse, of the planned unit development to the
adjacent properties and nearby land uses.
5. The extent to which the planned unit development fulfills the objectives of the future planning
objectives or other planning policies of the city.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the planned unit development satisfactorily meets the
standards for special use as defined in section 10-4-9 of the Zoning Ordinance which are as follows:
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminishes and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
e. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
f. The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district
in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the city
council pursuant to the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed amended design elements for this development as
they are more substantial than for newly constructed homes in other residential subdivisions approved under the
current Appearance Code standards.
PROPOSED MOTION:
In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on April 11, 2018 and the standards for
PUD approval and amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of an
amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit Development Agreement to permit a revision to the
design standards for new construction residential lots within the Kendall Marketplace development, as
presented by staff in a memorandum dated April 4, 2018 and further subject to {insert any additional
conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission}…
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE
THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PZC 2018-05
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT McCue Builders, Inc., petitioner, has filed an
application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting
amendment to the Kendall Marketplace Planned Unit Development Agreement to permit
a revision to Article III of said agreement regarding Design Standards for new
construction residential lots within the Kendall Marketplace development. The real
property is generally located north of US 34, west of Cannonball Trail, immediately north
of Blackberry Shore Lane in Yorkville, Illinois.
The legal description is as follows:
LOTS 24 TO 51, IN KENDALL MARKETPLACE SUBDIVISION, BEING A
SUBDIVISION OF PART OF SECTIONS 19, 20, AND 29, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,
RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, RECORDED MAY 7,
2007 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 20070001 4779 IN THE UNITED CITY OF
YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for the
United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on said application on Wednesday,
April 11, 2018 at 7 p.m. at the United City of Yorkville, City Council Chambers, located
at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560.
The public hearing may be continued from time to time to dates certain without further
notice being published.
Application and information materials regarding this notice are available for public
review and any questions or written comments should be addressed to the United City of
Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road,
Yorkville, Illinois. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will
be given an opportunity to be heard.
By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County,
Illinois.
BETH WARREN
City Clerk
BY: Lisa Pickering
Deputy Clerk
Summary
As the Planning and Zoning Commission will recall, the petitioners, John and Michelle
Stewart, purchased the incomplete Prestwick of Yorkville subdivision in March 2013 and were
granted approval of an amendment to the original annexation agreement (Ord. 2013-56) with a
revised final plat of Unit 2 to construct a new Christian high school focused on agricultural studies in
October 2014. As originally proposed, the school would have a maximum student capacity of 850
students but would be constructed in phases with the first phase accommodating about 100 students.
The 2013 overall site plan indicated a school size of approximately 25,000 square feet with primary
school traffic occurring off of Ashley Road, as illustrated below.
Since that time, the applicants have secured the a permit from the Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) to make intersection improvements at Route 126 and Penman Road, work
towards the completion of punch list items in Unit 1 of the subdivision, and obtain earthwork and
foundation permits for the school site. However, no intersection or roadway improvements to IL
Route 126 at Penman, intersection of Ashley Road and IL Route 126, nor the Ashley Road
improvements adjacent to school lot have occurred.
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: April 4, 2018
Subject: PZC 2018-04 Prestwick of Yorkville – Yorkville Christian School
Request for Amended Final Plat Approval
The petitioners originally sought to amend the current annexation agreement to relieve them
from completing required intersection improvements to Ashley Road and Illinois Route 126, and
constructing an access roadway off of Ashley Road from the Yorkville Christian school site until
such time homes in Phase II of the Prestwick (Ashley Pointe) development are being constructed.
However, upon feedback from staff and the Economic Development Committee (EDC), the
petitioner’s are now seeking to delay the construction of the Ashley Road & Il 126 roadway
improvements until the issuance of the 75th final occupancy permit within the Phase 1 of the
subdivision or seven (7) years, whichever occurs first.
Additionally, and not part of the amended annexation agreement request, the petitioner’s
have revised the overall layout of the school site and increased the building size to 52,000 square feet
to accommodate 300 students and an indoor gymnasium.
Project Background
Below is a chronological bullet point summation of the City Council approvals related to this
project since the purchase of the stalled development by the current petitioners:
Per the amended Annexation Agreement approved in 2013 (Ord. No. 2013-56) Lot 358 of the
original Final Plat was resubdivided for the purpose of accommodating the new private high
school.
Per Ordinance 2013-56, the developer was given credit against all City and County required
road impact fees to which would be collected at time of building permit issuance based upon
the understanding that the developer would make roadway improvements to IL Route 126 at
Penman, Ashley Road and IL Route 126 intersection and Ashley Road improvements
adjacent to Lot 358 where the new school will be located.
Per Ordinance 2013-56, the Developer agreed to provide all required security for the high
school development and roadways.
Per Ordinance 2013-56, the City agreed to allow the school to open with forty percent (40%)
of the required parking in place and the remaining sixty percent (60%) to be land banked and
installed as determined by the City.
Ordinance 2014-57, approved in October 2014 authorizing the Final Plat for the school,
stipulated in Exhibit B that the improvements to IL Route 126 at Penman and IL Route 126 at
Ashley Road must be substantially completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit
for the school.
Ordinance 2014-26, approved in May 2014, allowed for the release/reduction in the security
requirements for the roadway completion as part of the development with the written
acknowledgement and agreement by
the Owner/Developer that no
certificate of occupancy for the
school or any other structure
constructed on the property will be
issued by the City until such time a
deposit sufficient for the roadway
improvements related to the Il Route
126 intersection with IDOT has
been provided.
Proposed Amended Final Plat
As proposed, the amended Final Plat
of Subdivision for the school site, located in
Unit 2 of the Prestwick development, will
be revised to only include a reduced land
area of approximately 18-acres as opposed
to the original approximately 43-acre parcel
for the school in the approved 2013 Final
Plat (refer to plans to the right of the page).
In addition, the proposed amended final
plat does not include the originally planned
roadway access off of Ashley Road. Per the
requested amended annexation agreement,
the petitioners are looking to postpone that
access connection until such time either 75
building permits for new construction
homes have been issued in Unit 1 of the
development or seven (7) years (2025),
whichever occurs first.
Traffic Study Analysis:
The petitioner’s have provided an
addendum to the original Traffic Study
prepared in 2013 by KLOA Inc., transportation engineers. The original Traffic Study took into
consideration the traffic impacts of the proposed school at maximum enrollment (850 students),
Originally Approved Final Plat
Proposed Amended Final Plat
Phase I and Phase II residential build out and the utilization of two (2) access roads that will serve the
development, Ashley Road and the intersection of IL Rte 126 and Penman. Ashley Road was to serve
as the primary access point for the school traffic, while IL Rte 127 and Penman would be a secondary
access point for the school and the main access for the residential units. This report also assumed a
2% rate of traffic growth per year. At the conclusion of the study, it was determined that the addition
of the new traffic generated from the school and full build-out of the Prestwick subdivision (Phases I
and II) could be accommodated by the required roadway improvements to IL Rte. 126 and Penman,
IL Rte. 126 and Ashley Road and Ashley Road. Further it was recommended that westbound left-turn
lanes should be provided on Il Rte. 126 at the intersections with Ashley Road and Penman Road.
The addendum prepared by KLOA, Inc. dated February 16, 2018, considered the revised site
plan, school enrollment at full capacity (850 students) and the build out of only Phase I of the
subdivision with the only vehicular access off of IL Rte. 126 and Penman Road. The report also
projected a 1% rate of traffic growth per year. The findings of the traffic addendum concluded the
connection to Ashley Road for the school was not needed to accommodate the estimated traffic
generated by both the school and the complete build-out of the residential homes in Phase I of the
development.
Since the assumptions in the addendum to the traffic study were incongruent with those used in
the original study, staff requested additional information be provided. The attached revised traffic
impact study analyzed the impacts of a proposed 850-student high school at full capacity within the
existing 108-single-family home residential subdivision. It is the conclusion of the study that the
intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road will accommodate and support the traffic from the proposed
school and also residential development by providing the recommended improvements of an
eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane on IL 126, as well as providing a separate
northbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane on Penman Road.
Additionally, the petitioner has contacted IDOT for confirmation and concurrence that the traffic
study’s conclusions are accurate with regards to Il Rte 126 and Penman Road being able to
accommodate the student and resident vehicular traffic. Staff anticipates a response from IDOT
within the next few weeks, prior to final consideration of the request by City Council.
Staff Recommendation:
Based upon the review of the proposed Final Plat of Subdivision for the Yorkville Christian
School, staff recommends approval of the submitted plan, as they are consistent with the approved
development site plan and the current subdivision control regulations, subject to the recommendations in
the attached plan review letter prepared by the City’s engineering consultant, Engineering Enterprises Inc.
(EEI), dated March 14, 2018.
Proposed Motion:
In consideration of the proposed Final Plat of Subdivision for the Yorkville Christian School, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the plat to the City Council as presented by
the Petitioner in a plan prepared by HR Green, dated last revised February 21, 2018, subject to
engineering staff recommendations in a letter dated March 14, 2018, and further subject to {insert any
additional conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission}…
Attachments:
1. Copy of Petitioners’ Amended Final Plat Application.
2. Plan Council Memorandum dated March 13, 2018 prepared by the Community
Development Director.
3. EEI Review letter dated March 14, 2018 prepared by Brad Sanderson, City Engineer.
4. Revised Traffic Study Addendum dated March 30, 2018, prepared by KLOA.
I have reviewed the following documents: Final Plat of Subdivision date revised February
21, 2018; Overall Site Plan dated February 2, 2018 prepared by HR Green; and Traffic Study
Addendum dated February 16, 2018 prepared by KLOA.
I have also reviewed the proposed draft Third Amendment to the Annexation Agreement
of the Yorkville Farms Development and the United City of Yorkville (Prestwick of Yorkville
Subdivision) dated February 27, 2018 and prepared by Patti Bernhard, attorney, of
Dommermuth, Cobine, West, Gensler, Philipchuck, Corrigan and Bernhard, Ltd. regarding the
Prestwick of Yorkville development generally located in the southwest quadrant of Rte. 126 and
Ashley Road. Based upon my review and those of other city and local agency staff members of
these plans and documents, I have compiled the following comments:
General Comments:
• Per the amended Annexation Agreement approved in 2013 (Ord. No. 2013-56) Lot 358
of the original Final Plat was resubdivided for the purpose of accommodating the new
private high school.
• Per Ordinance 2013-56, the developer was given credit against all City and County
required road impact fees to which would be collected at time of building permit issuance
based upon the understanding that the developer would make roadway improvements to
IL Route 126 at Penman, Ashley Road and IL Route 126 intersection and Ashley Road
improvements adjacent to Lot 358 where the new school will be located.
• Per Ordinance 2013-56, the Developer agreed to provide all required security for the high
school development and roadways.
• Per Ordinance 2013-56, the City agreed to allow the school to open with forty percent
(40%) of the required parking in place and the remaining sixty percent (60%) to be land
banked and installed as determined by the City.
• Ordinance 2014-57, approved in October 2014 authorizing the Final Plat for the school,
stipulated in Exhibit B that the improvements to IL Route 126 at Penman and IL Route
126 at Ashley Road must be substantially completed prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit for the school.
• Ordinance 2014-26, approved in May 2014, allowed for the release/reduction in the
security requirements for the roadway completion as part of the development with the
written acknowledgement and agreement by th e Owner/Developer that no certificate of
occupancy for the school or any other structure constructed on the property will be issued
Memorandum
To: Plan Council
From: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: March 13, 2018
Subject: PZC 2018-04 Prestwick of Yorkville
Annexation Agreement & Final Plat Amendment Submittal
by the City until such time a deposit sufficient for the roadway improvements related to
the Il Route 126 intersection with IDOT has been provided.
• As of the date of this memorandum, no intersection or roadway improvements to IL
Route 126 at Penman, intersection of Ashley Road and IL Route 126, nor the Ashley
Road improvements adjacent to Lot 358 have occurred.
Amended Final Plat of Subdivision/Overall Site Plan Comments:
• Per Section 10-16-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, off-street parking requirements for high
schools are calculated as 0.25 per student plus 1 per staff. Phase 1 of the school
development anticipates 100 students and 20 staff members, thereby requiring a
minimum of 45 parking stall. The developer proposes to install 144 parking spaces in
Phase 1. The minimum parking requirements have been met.
• Would the developer be amenable to sign Mustang Way for the entire length of the street
rather than bifurcating the street into two (2) names, Mustang Way and Whitekirk Lane?
It is understood that Whitekirk Lane was approved and platted in the existing Unit 1 Final
Plat, but have suggested this change for ease of use.
• Additional comments regarding the Final Plat of Subdivision will be provided by the
City’s engineering consultant, Engineering Enterprises, Inc. under a separate
memorandum.
Amended Annexation Agreement Comments:
• Staff is not supportive of postponing the roadway improvements (access point) off of
Ashley Road adjacent to the school site until such time Phase II of the development has
commenced construction, as the intent of the original annexation agreement amendment
(Ord. 2013-56) and subsequent approvals related to this development were contingent
upon the roadway improvements being completed.
• Should the City consider the requested postponement of the improvements, we would
recommend not tying the trigger for construction to the development of Phase II (which
has not been final platted), but to a fixed number of permits issued in Phase I, such as
after the issuance of the 1st 50 certificate of occupancies, the developer would be required
to commence construction of the roadway improvements off of Ashley Road and be
completed by a certain date or no further building permits will be issued.
• Staff would further recommend if the postponement of the Ashley Road improvements
are approved that the developer would be required to post a sufficient security deposit in
the form of a letter of credit, bond or cash to cover the required work.
• The petitioner also sought to include the following additional language in the proposed
amended annexation agreement:
The City releases its review and approval rights contained in The Highlands at
Ashley Pointe Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions recorded in Kendall
County on May 2, 2007 as Document No. 200700014390.
• Per the attached e-mail from the City Attorney’s office dated March 12, 2018, “…the
City of Yorkville does not currently have review and approval rights over architectural
design of the subdivision. Section 4.3.10 provides that the City must issue a building
permit for out-buildings but leaves architectural decision in the hands of the Architectural
Review Board (“ARB”). That said, no amendment is necessary. If an amendment were
required, it would need to be done in accordance with Article 14 of the Declaration and
not through the Annexation Agreement.”
o Staff does not recommend this language be included in the amended agreement.
KLOA, Inc. Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 400 | Rosemont, Illinois 60018
p: 847-518-9990 | f: 847-518-9987
MEMORANDUM TO: Michelle Stewart
Yorkville Christian High School
FROM: William R. Woodward
Senior Consultant
Luay R. Aboona, PE
Principal
DATE: March 30, 2018
SUBJECT: Traffic Evaluation Addendum
Proposed Yorkville Christian High School
Yorkville, Illinois
This memorandum serves as an addendum to the traffic impact study conducted by Kenig,
Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) in August 2013 for the proposed Yorkville
Christian High School to be located within the Prestwick residential subdivision, which occupies
the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Schoolhouse Road (IL 126) and Ashley Road in
Yorkville, Illinois.
The traffic impact study analyzed the impacts of the proposed 850-student high school within a
proposed 108-single-family home residential subdivision, Prestwick Subdivision. At that time,
the conceptual plan included an access at the existing intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road,
as well as a full access on Ashley Road, south of IL 126. The purpose of this memorandum is to
revisit the previously prepared traffic study based on the recent revised site plan configurations
and proposed traffic patterns, as well as determine whether the access off Ashley Road is needed
to mitigate the traffic impact from the high school at full student capacity (850 students) and the
full buildout of the 108 single-family homes or rather if the intersection of IL 126 and Penman
will continue to be adequate.
Existing Conditions
As noted, access to the Prestwick subdivision is currently from the existing intersection of IL 126
and Penman Road. Penman Road T-intersects IL 126 from the south, providing one lane
inbound and one lane outbound under stop sign control. IL 126 provides one lane in each
direction. No turning lanes (i.e. westbound left-turn lane or eastbound right-turn lane) are
provided. There are approximately four single-family homes built and occupied within the
subdivision. Figure 1 shows the existing weekday morning and weekday evening peak hour
traffic volumes for the intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road. These volumes are from the
Year 2013 traffic study report.
N
NOT TO SCALE
ROADPENMAN126
Figure: 1Job No: 13-138
Kenig,Lindgren,O'Hara,Aboona,Inc.
[00]
LEGEND
00
(00)
Yorkville, Illinois
High School
Yorkville Christian
- AM PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 AM)
174 (29
3) [35
3]1 (0) [0]183 (26
7) [26
7]1 (2) [3]1 (2) [2]1 (0) [1]
Existing Traffic Volumes
- PM SCHOOL PEAK HOUR (3:00-4:00 PM)
- PM PEAK HOUR (4:00-5:00 PM)
2
Proposed Yorkville Christian High School
The high school will be located in the southeast quadrant of the subdivision and proposes vehicle
access via an extension of Prestwick Lane. Prestwick Lane intersects Penman Road from the
east.
At full occupancy, the high school will be able to accommodate 850 students. Based on
information received from the school, there are approximately 45 students currently enrolled at
the school, and it is estimated that an additional 20 to 30 students will be enrolled per year. As
such, the high school is not expected to reach full occupancy for several years, but an 850-
student enrollment was used to provide for a conservative analysis.
Proposed Prestwick Subdivision
The residential subdivision was originally planned in two phases, with Phase I including
approximately 108 single-family homes. Phase II, the final phase, included an additional 164
single-family homes. However, for the purposes of this study, only Phase I of the development
was included in the analyses.
Estimated Development-Generated Traffic Generation
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed high school at full student occupancy, as
well as Phase I of the single-family homes development was estimated using data published in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Table 1 tabulates
the total trips anticipated for the weekday morning, weekday early afternoon (school dismissal
time), and weekday evening peak hours. The weekday evening peak hour traffic volumes for the
single-family homes was used for the weekday early afternoon peak hour to provide for a
conservative analysis.
Total Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 2 shows the Year 2025 peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of IL 126 and Penman
Road, which includes the following.
The existing (Year 2013) peak hour traffic volumes (Figure 1) were increased by a regional
growth factor of 24 percent (two percent per year from 2013 to Year 2025). Regional growth
accounts for growth in the area not attributable to any particular planned development.
Traffic estimated to be generated by the high school and Phase I residential development (Table
1). Traffic was assigned to this intersection using the directional distribution established in the
prior study. It is important to note that some of the traffic expected to be generated by the
proposed high school may come from within the surrounding residential subdivision. However,
all of the high school traffic was assigned to the intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road to
provide for a conservative analysis.
3
Table 1
PROJECTED SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour
Weekday
Afternoon Peak
Hour1 (School
Dismissal)
Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Type/Size In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
530 High School –
850 Students 249 117 366 116 131 247 52 59 111
210 Phase I –
(108 units) 21 64 85 71 42 113 71 42 113
Total: 270 181 451 187 173 360 123 101 224
1Evening peak hour traffic for single family homes was used to provide a conservative analysis.
4
N
NOT TO SCALE
126
ROADPENMANFigure: 2Job No: 13-138
Kenig,Lindgren,O'Hara,Aboona,Inc.
[00]
LEGEND
00
(00)
Yorkville, Illinois
High School
Yorkville Christian
- AM PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 AM)
135 (97) [65]136 (93) [61]22
7 (33
1) [33
1]92 (89) [53]91 (87) [51]
(850 Students, 108 Homes)
Projected Traffic Volumes
215 (36
3) [43
7]
- PM SCHOOL PEAK HOUR (3:00-4:00 PM)
- PM PEAK HOUR (4:00-5:00 PM)
5
Traffic Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of the existing roadway system to
accommodate existing and future traffic demands. Analyses were performed for the weekday
morning, weekday early afternoon, and weekday evening peak hours for the existing (Year 2013)
and projected (Year 2025) conditions.
The traffic analyses were performed using the methodologies outlined in the Transportation
Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2010 and using Synchro/SimTraffic
analysis software. The analyses for unsignalized intersections determine the average control
delay to vehicles at an intersection. Control delay is the elapsed time from a vehicle joining the
queue at a stop sign (includes the time required to decelerate to a stop) until its departure from
the stop sign and resumption of free flow speed. The methodology analyzes each intersection
approach controlled by a stop sign and considers traffic volumes on all approaches and lane
characteristics. The ability of an intersection to accommodate traffic flow is expressed in terms
of level of service, which is assigned a letter from A to F based on the average control delay
experienced by vehicles passing through the intersection.
With respect to the capacity analyses, it is important to note the following.
The prior traffic study recommended that the intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road be
improved to include an eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane on IL
126, as well as provide a separate northbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn
lane on Penman Road. The northbound approach of Penman Road will remain under
stop sign control. The capacity analyses for projected conditions include these
improvements.
The capacity analyses were further calibrated to adjust for the surge of traffic during a
15- to 30-minute time period typically generated by a school during peak arrival and
dismissal times.
A summary of the traffic analysis results showing the LOS and delay for both existing and future
conditions are presented in Table 2. A summary of the queue analyses is shown in Table 3.
6
Table 2
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – IL 126 AND PENMAN ROAD
Weekday
Morning
Peak Hour
Weekday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
Weekday
Evening
Peak Hour
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
Existing Conditions
Northbound Approach B 10.4 B 13.9 B 12.7
Projected Conditions1
Westbound Left Turn (IL 126) A 8.7 A 9.0 A 8.5
Northbound Approach (Penman) C 18.1 D 27.7 C 17.8
LOS = Level of Service
Delay is measured in seconds.
1Includes eastbound right-turn lane and westbound left-turn lane on IL 126; separate northbound left-turn lane and
right-turn lane on Penman Road.
Table 3
95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE ANALYSIS – IL 126 AND PENMAN ROAD
Weekday
Morning
Peak Hour
Weekday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
Weekday
Evening
Peak Hour
Intersection Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)
Existing Conditions
Northbound Approach 25 25 25
Projected Conditions1
Westbound Left Turn (IL 126) 25 25 25
Northbound Left Turn (Penman) 50 78 28
Northbound Right Turn (Penman) 25 25 25
LOS = Level of Service
Delay is measured in seconds.
1Includes eastbound right-turn lane and westbound left-turn lane on IL 126; separate northbound left-turn lane and
right-turn lane on Penman Road.
7
Given the results of the capacity analyses shown in Table 2 and assuming the roadway
improvements that include an eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane on IL
126, as well as provide a separate northbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane on
Penman Road, the intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road will operate at acceptable levels of
service under the analyzed projected conditions (850 student enrollment; 108 single-family
homes). Further, the queue analysis shown in Table 3 shows that the peak outbound queue on
Penman Road will be less than 80 feet (four cars) during the school peak dismissal time and one
or two cars during other peak hour periods.
Based on the uncertainty of Phase II of the residential development with respect to when
construction would begin and whether the proposed land use type and density would change (164
additional single-family homes were planned under this phase in Year 2013), Phase II was not
included in the analyses as part of this traffic addendum. It is our understanding from direction
received from the City of Yorkville that a separate addendum with additional analysis that
includes Phase II and the originally proposed connection to Ashley Road should be prepared
once Phase II construction is planned to begin.
Conclusion
An access connection to Ashley Road is not needed to accommodate the traffic estimated to be
generated by the proposed high school at maximum student occupancy (850 students) in addition
to the complete buildout of the 108 single-family homes based on the following.
The intersection of IL 126 and Penman Road will accommodate the traffic from the
proposed school and residential development as long as the recommended improvements of
providing an eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane on IL 126, as well as
providing a separate northbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane are provided
on Penman Road.
The capacity analyses show that the turning movements will operate at acceptable levels of
service and delay for the weekday morning, weekday afternoon (which captures the school
dismissal time), and the weekday evening peak hours.
The capacity analyses were further adjusted to account for the surge of traffic during a 15-
to 30-minute time period typically generated by a school during peak arrival and dismissal
times. This surge adjustment was also applied to the evening peak hour analysis when the
school is not typically generating traffic, thereby further providing a conservative analysis.
The queue analyses show that the outbound queue on Penman Road will be less than 75 feet
(three cars) during the school peak dismissal time and one car or less during other peak hour
periods.
Providing a westbound left-turn lane and an eastbound right-turn lane on IL 126 will
effectively remove the traffic desiring to turn onto Penman Road without impeding the
through traffic along IL 126.
8
The projected traffic volumes include a regional growth factor of 24 percent (2 percent per
year from Year 2013 to Year 2025), in addition to the traffic estimated to be generated by
the proposed school and residential developments.
The projected Year 2025 traffic volumes are conservative since they consider the school at
maximum student occupancy (850 students) and the complete buildout of the 108 single-
family homes. Based on information provided by the school, maximum occupancy is not
planned for several years beyond Year 2025.
Phase II of the originally proposed residential development was not included in the analyses
as part of this traffic addendum. It is our understanding from direction received from the
City of Yorkville that a separate addendum with additional analysis that includes Phase II
and the originally proposed connection to Ashley Road should be prepared once Phase II
construction is planned to begin.
9
CITY OF YORKVILLE
YEAR IN REVIEW 2017
Community Development Department
April 11, 2018
Contents
I.Executive Summary
II.Building & Development
a.Permits
b.Foreclosure Data
c.Current Development Projects
III.Land Use Planning
a.Applications & Petitions
b.Historic Analysis
c.Roadway Project Updates
IV.Comprehensive Planning
a.Implementation Status
b.Downtown Overlay District
V.Future Goals -2018
Executive Summary
Over the past year,the Community Development Department,which
serves as the liaison between the City Council and the City’s appointed
boards/commissions that are tasked with reviewing development proposals
and requests for certain relief of zoning standards,has had several major
accomplishments to share.We also have worked to proactively address
challenges that may have previously impeded the efficiency of the approval
process for developers and remedy inconsistent or unduly burdensome
regulations for our residents.
All efforts were done with an eye towards encouraging future growth
and orderly development within Yorkville.Therefore,this memo will provide
the a brief summary of the role the Planning and Zoning Commission has
had in achieving those accomplishments as well as an introduction of goals
for the year ahead.
This report highlights the Community Development Department’s
Year in Review accomplishments,projects and activities for 2017,which
includes the following:
There were a total of 931 Building Permits issued in 2017
166 were new residential housing starts
U.S. Special Census confirmed Yorkville population as 19,022
Foreclosures continued a steady decline with 61 newly filed foreclosures in 2017
Large development projects recently approved or under construction include:
Cedarhurst Living, Anthony Place, Holiday Inn Express. Go For It Sports and
Casey’s Gas Station.
There were 14 applications for 19 various planning and zoning related requests filed
in 2017.
Between 2010-2017, there were 105 land use entitlement requests heard before the
Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning & Zoning Commission.
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update has begun with several projects
underway, such as Downtown Wayfinding Signage, Parking Study and Landscape
Hill project (applied for ITEP grant).
Downtown Overlay District & Form-based Code RFP Awarded.
Buildings & Development
•Below are some highlights from the Community Development Department in calendar year
2016:
•Building permit figures:
–166 new housing starts (154 Single Family Detached and 12 Single Family
Attached)
–931 total building permits issued in calendar year 2017.
–Total permit fees collected (all types) $2,635,852.99
–Total Construction Value $70,056,246.00
–Average BUILD permit home construction value $212,754.72
–Average Single Family permit (non-BUILD) construction value $147,517.54
•Successfully concluded the BUILD program on December 31, 2017 with a total of 415
permits between the years of 2012-2017.
284
360
470
572
753
401
153
56 42 43 32 34 8 8
46 693749637610585
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Number of Permits IssuedBuilding Permits Issued Per Year (as of December 31, 2017)
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
B.U.I.L.D. PERMITS
Buildings & Development
•Total Single Family Detached New Construction Permits –154
•Total Single Family Attached (Townhomes) New Construction
Permits –12
•Senior Apartment Development (Anthony Place) –51 units
•Assisted Living Facility (Cedarhurst) –73 units
Comparison of New Single Family Home Starts between 2006-2017
Foreclosure Data
The number of total foreclosures from 2016 to 2017 decreased by
approximately 7.5%.In total,there were 66 newly filed foreclosures in 2016
and 61 in 2017,a decrease by five (5)less filings.While this represents a
marginal decline in new foreclosure filings,the overall effect appears to
represent stabilization in the housing market for Yorkville.
Foreclosure Data
Foreclosure Data
Foreclosure Data
According to RealtyTrac (http://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/il),
Illinois has a newly filed foreclosure rate of 1 in every 1,196 (down from 1 in every 1,036 in
2016).Kendall County is ranked #4 in the top 5 counties with the highest rates of
foreclosures in Illinois.In November 2017,Kendall County had a newly filed foreclosure
rate of 1 in every 825 homes which just behind Boone County (1 in every 712),Will County
(1 in every 701)and Winnebago County (1 in every 676).Expectations are that the
foreclosures will continue to level off or decrease in 2018 as compared to 2017.Below are
graphs illustrating the trend of foreclosures in Yorkville for calendar years 2009 to 2017.
Current Development
Projects
CEDARHURST LIVING:
•A new two-story, 71-unit assisted living with memory care
facility is currently under construction with a planned opening
in Fall 2018. The property consists of approximately 6.7 acres,
and is generally located at the northeast corner of US 34
(Veterans Parkway) and Cannonball Trail, in Yorkville, Illinois.
Current Development
Projects
Anthony Place Senior Apartments:
•The two-story apartment building, located at 1050 Freemont
Street, is set to open in March 2018 and will consist of fifty
(51) units of affordable senior housing, 33 one-bedroom and
18 two-bedroom dwellings.
Current Development
Projects
Holiday Inn Express:
•Located in the Kendall Crossing commercial development on
the northwest corner of US 34 and IL Rte 47,this new four-
story hotel building is set to open in December 2018 will
consist of 93 guest rooms and feature a one-story 12,000 sq.
ft.banquet annex building.
Current Development
Projects
Go For It Sports:
•A multiplex sports dome facility located on Galena Road just
east of IL 47 opened in December 2017.Offering indoor field
space for soccer,court sports,indoor track,baseball and
softball to youth of all abilities,this facility complements the
Bristol Bay Park to the north.
Current Development
Projects
Casey’s Gas Station:
•Currently under construction, the approved new Casey’s gas
station and convenience store will be located at the southwest
corner of McHugh Road and US 34 (Veterans Pkwy).
Land Use Planning
2017 Applications & Petitions
During the calendar year of 2017,the United City of Yorkville’s
Plan Commission,Zoning Board of Appeal and now the
Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a total of fourteen (14)
applications for nineteen (19)various planning and zoning
related requests.Following is a summary list and outcomes of
the petitions heard by each of the aforementioned bodies:
Land Use Planning
Historic Analysis of Entitlement Requests
Staff undertook a historical analysis of the number and various
types of entitlement requests applied for between 2006 and
2017 to see if there was any insight to be gained for future
reference,such as the effectiveness of the most recent
adoption of the Zoning Code update completed in November
2014.Following are data tables and summary findings of the
historical analysis.
Land Use Planning
Number of Requests
Over the past seven (7)years,the former Plan Commission and
Zoning Board of Appeals,and the current combined Planning and Zoning
Commission considered a totaled of 105 various land use entitlement
requests.The slight uptick noticed in year 2015 was,in part,a response
to the recently updated Zoning Ordinance (requests for variances
increased)and the resurgent interest in stalled developments by builders
needing entitlement amendments.
Land Use Planning
Number of Requests
In years 2010 through 2015,the City had two (2)separate
appointed bodies review land use entitlement requests,the Plan
Commission (PC)and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).In mid-2016,the
City Council decided to combine the duties of both bodies into the
Planning &Zoning Commission (PZC)due to the ad-hoc nature of the
ZBA and to streamline the process for petitioners.The chart below
illustrates the number of entitlement requests heard by each board and
commission by year between 2010 and 2017.
Land Use Planning
Types of Entitlement Requests
Land Use entitlement requests are for approvals not outright
permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and include, but are not limited
to, special uses, rezoning, variances, etc…Since 2010, the City has
processed, on average, approximately thirteen (13) requests per year.
The majority of the requests sought were text amendments (20%), special
uses (19%) and variances (17%).
Land Use Planning
Types of Entitlement Requests
Logically,text amendments accounted for the majority of the
land use requests due to the adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance in
2014,recommendations from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and new
planning initiatives proposed by staff (e.g.medical cannabis cultivation
centers/dispensaries,microdistilleries/microwineries,and sidewalk
cafes/parklets).The increase in special use requests,which covers
Planned Unit Development (PUDs)approvals,is a direct result from
successor owners and developers seeking to revive unfinished residential
and commercial developments with amended land use plans (e.g.Autumn
Creek,Fountainview Plaza,Heartland Business Center,and Cedarhurst)
to newly planned developments (Countryside Center/Kendall
Crossing,Heartland Meadows,Lot 19 Commercial Drive –Self Storage
Facility,and Casey’s Gas Station).
Land Use Planning
Types of Entitlement Requests
With variances being the third (3rd)most requested land use
entitlement,staff decided to breakout the different types of variances
applied for between the years 2010-2017.As illustrated in the pie chart
below,sign and setback variances account for over 60%of the eighteen
(18)variance applications submitted.
Land Use Planning
Illinois Roadway Project Updates
The following is an update as to the status of Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT)roadway improvement projects in
the area:
US Route 34 Improvements (Rt. 47 to Orchard Road)
Status:Under Construction
Estimated Completion Date:November 2018
US Route 34 Improvements (Eldamain to Center)
Status:Under Construction
Estimated Completion Date:November 2019
IL Route 71 Improvements (Rt. 47 to Rt. 126)
Status:IDOT is targeting an April Bid Letting
Estimated Construction Start:Fall 2018
Estimated Completion Date:November 2020
IL Route 71 Improvements (Walsh to Rt. 47)
Status:Plans are Complete; Construction not Funded
IL Route 47 Improvements (Caton Farm Road to Rt. 47)
Status:Phase I Design; Phase II Design and Construction not Funded
IL Route 47 Improvements (Kennedy Road to Cross Street)
Status:Phase I Design; Phase II Design and Construction not Funded
Note: A Public Hearing on the Phase I Study is Tentatively Scheduled for May 30th
Comprehensive Planning
Comprehensive Plan Implementation Update
As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update,several
implementation goals were suggested to be completed within two (2)
years of adoption.Staff prepared a summary of those goals and their
current status.
Comprehensive Planning
GOAL STRATEGY/INITIATIVE STATUS
Enhance the visual appearance,
pedestrian environment and functionality
of Downtown Yorkville.
Enhance Fox River riverfront access and
create a riverfront park west of Bridge
Street
Enhance streetscape appearances and
improve the walkability of Hydraulic, Main
and Van Emmon Streets.
Create public parking areas.
Facilitate building rehabilitation and façade
improvements.Ongoing
Clean and green the Legacy Block (short-
term)Ongoing
Retain and enhance the character and
livability of Yorkville’s traditional
neighborhoods.
Prepare a neighborhood design manual.To begin in 2018
Explore a National Register District
designation for Traditional Neighborhood
areas.
Facilitate the completion of Yorkville
subdivision developments in the Tiers 1
and 2 residential neighborhoods.
Facilitate build out of Tier 1 and 2
subdivisions.Ongoing
Implement alternative land use and
housing strategies in Tiers 3 and 4
residential neighborhoods.
Reposition Tier 3 and 4 subdivisions to
accommodate different land uses and housing
products.
Ongoing
Improve residential subdivision design
and neighborhood physical appearances.
Adopt conservation and estate residential
subdivision codes.
Yorkville transportation network to
accommodate various modes of
transportation.
Update the bike trail plan that considers on-street
connections and bicycle facilities.
Conduct a comprehensive pedestrian crossings
assessment, potentially as part of an updated bike
trail plan.
Manage Downtown Yorkville’s parking
supply effectively and efficiently.
Conduct a Downtown parking assessment and
management study.
Create Downtown parking facilities.
Review and revise parking requirements.
Completed
Ensure City infrastructure systems are
updated and modernized to meet the
needs of current residents and future
development.
Prepare an updated water supply infrastructure plan
to accommodate system maintenance and future
growth.
Coordinate with the YBSD on preparation of a
sanitary system and where growth is anticipated.
Ongoing
Promote and implement an effective
growth management practices.
Prepare and adopt boundary agreements with the
Village of Millbrook and Joliet.
Adopt a new planning boundary.
Maintain an enhanced and well-
preserved parks and open space system.
Update the Parks and Recreation Department
Master Plan.
Implement expansions to Bicentennial Riverfront
Park.
Consider park and recreation facility expansion near
the Raging Waves Water Park.
Promote orderly growth along Illinois
Route 47, and enhance and maintain the
corridor’s visual environment and land
use pattern.
Implement gateway, wayfinding, landscaping and
other placemaking treatments.
Consider zoning overlays, new design standards or
other tools to promote desired corridor character.
Ongoing
Comprehensive Planning
Downtown Overlay District
Creates concrete design guidelines and elements to enhance downtown
redevelopment outcomes.Farr Associates hires to prepare the plan which
begin in January 2018 and is set to complete in Fall 2018.
Comprehensive Planning
Downtown Overlay District
Farr Associates conducted the first of two (2)planned public
workshops on February 15,2018 at Yorkville High School to gather
feedback on design elements and street character preferences for the
downtown.
Comprehensive Planning
Downtown Overlay District
An online preference survey was conducted which had
approximately 473 public participants.More than the number of online
participants for the Zoning Code Update (73)and the Comprehensive
Plan Update (152)combined.Below are a sampling of some survey
questions.
Future Goals 2018
•Unified Development Ordinance –RFP
•Combines all development standards
(zoning, subdivision control, appearance
standards, building & landscaping codes) into a
single easy-to-read document.
•Text Amendments & Strategic Planning
•Air B-n-B Ordinance
•Festival and Food Truck Ordinance
•Personal Services (Body Art & Semi-Permanent
Cosmetic Applications)
•Annexation & Boundary Agreements
•Special Projects
•Industrial/Manufacturing Economic
Development Program
•Neighborhood Design Manual
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSIONER IDEAS???