EDC Minutes 2005 10-20-05 APPROVED BY THE
COMMITTEE,/BOARD
Pate 1 of 3 Ott: /�/ 0 (o
DATE CORRECTED FROM 9/15/05
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 20, 2005
7:00 pm
City Hall Conference Room
Present:
Mayor Art Prochaska Randy Scott
Alderman Marty Munns, Chairman Craig Coffey
Alderwoman Valerie Burd Mike Stargardt
Alderman Jason Leslie Dallas Ingemunson, Attorney
Alderman Joe Besco Sal Reshepi, J & S Developer
City Attorney John Wyeth Rich Guerard, Wyndham Deerpoint
Lynn Dubajic, YEDC Bill Garrett
Julie Hanna Cheryl Watts
Jeff Foust
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Munns.
1. Approval/Correction of Minutes: August 18, 2005
6. PC 2005 -43 Daniel Laniosz —10701 Route 71— Annexation and Zoning — There
has been a petition to the city to rezone this piece of property to B3. This was voted
against by the Zoning Board with a 3 — 4 — 1 vote. B3 is the broadest category, and
there are some inappropriate uses for the future. Those uses could be deleted in a
development agreement. Alderwoman Burd questioned whether it might be better to
say what the Council would approve there rather than what they would not approve.
The neighboring resident, Bill Garrett brought his plat of survey. The acreage in
question has 2 acres currently zoned agricultural and 1.125 acres currently zoned
residential. This resident is asking the residential portion stay residential and is asking
for buffering from the commercial that would be next door. Currently the business
that is there is under special use in the county. This property currently has 2 violations
of ordinances. 1 violation is building without a permit and the other is for some Barb
wire fence on the property. Dallas Ingemunson has been representing Mr. Laniosz for
some time and Bill Dettmer has reviewed the property and Mr. Laniosz will remove
the barb wire. Mayor Prochaska pointed out that current ordinance would require
some sort of landscape buffering. Also, the current comprehensive plan does not
recognize commercial in that location. This will move on to the COW on November
1 with a list of allowed uses and special uses.
3. Building Permit Reports for August and September 2005 — There was a revised
report for September passed out. These will move on to COW on Consent Agenda.
i
Paae 2 of 3
4. PC 2005 -32 Yorkwood Estates — Annexation and Zoning — The zoning Board voted
8 — 0 in favor of annexation and zoning R2. A tree study will be done in the areas
where the trees will be disturbed. The lots on the South end will be 1 /2 acre minimum
lots that will be built by custom builders. Some storm water management will be done
in the South East corner. There will be a fence near the pasture in the South West
corner. The residents in an existing subdivision do not want the road to connect to this
new subdivision. All the lots will be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The utilities
will be in the front of the properties. There could be a dormant SSA put in place.
Mayor Prochaska would like to see it put on the people's titles that they are within so
many yards of an existing dog kennel. This will move on to the November 1 St COW.
5. PC 2005 — 33 Chally Farm - Annexation and Zoning — The Zoning Board voted 8 —
0 for annexation and 6 — 2 for zoning. This would be a PUD with a B2 commercial
node. There were concerns from neighboring residents that were present. They did
not want to see a road connection into their subdivision because they were concerned
that the roads in Pavillion Heights were narrow roads with curves and no streetlights
and no sidewalks and people walk and ride their bicycles in the road. The connection
road could be a one way street or emergency access only. The residents of Pavillion I
Heights were concerned with the lot sizes that would be backing up to their properties,
the lot sizes in Pavillion Heights are much larger than the ones that are proposed to be
built. Currently there is no buffer planned to go between the subdivisions. The
proposed houses would be 2,500 — 3,500 square foot homes. The residents of
Pavillion Heights were concerned with storm water runoff. There was also a concern
about the commercial area and buffering between the commercial and the existing
residential. The residents have previously submitted a petition that meets the 75% of
adjoining perimeter and would require the super majority vote of 6 out of 8 Aldermen.
A Historical Phase 1 study, required by the state, will be done. An Environmental
study will also be done. This will move on to COW on November 1St
7. Discussion of City Initiated Concept Plans — Mayor Prochaska met with Mike
Schoppe about a generic concept transportation plan of some areas of the city. It
would lay out where the main roads should go. The cost would be recaptured from
future developers. Water runoff areas could be identified as well as school sites. The
developers could be asked to help build the schools. This would not be as detailed as
a preliminary plan. A draft of a policy will go to the next COW on November 1St
8. Plano Boundary Agreement Update — Mayor Roberts would like to see Yorkville
adopt the same amendment that Plano did in regards to the realignment of Ashe Road
and a subsequent boundary agreement with Sugar Grove. Sugar Grove should be
brought in on the discussion. Yorkville will hold off until there is a ruling from the
court.
2. Discussion of Future Incentive Programs to Attract Commercial/Industrial
Business to Yorkville — On the cover page Items 3 and 4 should be eliminated. The
ineligible businesses are not necessarily part of the future for Yorkville. The
businesses could be ranked. Lynn Dubajic did some surveying and also obtained a
policy from DeKalb. There is a tremendous amount of difference between Yorkville
and DeKalb and the policy is not helpful as written.
Paae 3 of 3
Under Section 1 of the Policy, Eligible uses of Funds should read Uses that may be
considered eligible. The relocation would be if the company was completely brought
in from somewhere else, not a 2 location, and the move will cost money. Under
Incentive Parameters, #2 may not necessarily be 7 years, the amount of time may be
different for each case, but it must have a specific conclusion date. #3 should be
clarified or removed. All monies extended by the city shall be subject to
reimbursement by the petitioner rather than the developer. The end user will be
defined ahead of time. Just because it is applied for does not mean they will receive
the incentive. Commercial/Retail is sales tax targeted. Priority businesses would be
appliances & electronics (such as Best Buy or Circuit City) Furniture, New car, truck,
and motorized vehicles and used luxury cars, department stores, and sporting goods
stores. If "Higher End" merchandise is included who decides what high end is?
Priority locations do not need each individual intersection defined. It will now read:
Priority locations as defined in the Comprehensive plan: Rt 47 commercial nodes,
Downtown area, identified by outline of downtown TIF district, US Highway 34
commercial nodes, and Rt 71 commercial nodes. Ineligible businesses will be
eliminated. Section 2 will be eliminated. Section 3 refers to Industrial, Service,
Manufacturing, and Distribution Developments. The source of rebate is not defined
here. It could be in the form of Sales Tax, Real Estate Tax, or Utility Taxes. If they
go for this they could get more than if they would apply for a Real Estate Tax
Abatement. Could they possibly apply for both? Priority locations would be
Yorkville Business Center (near F.E. Wheaton Complex, Fox Industrial Park, and
Lincoln Prairie Industrial Park. The Incentive Parameters would mirror the ones for
Commercial and Retail. #2 will have a conclusion date, but not necessarily 7 years.
#3 should be clarified or deleted. Eligible Activities should be Uses that may be
considered eligible. Alderwoman Burd would like to see a similar program for small
business. They could receive real estate tax abatements, utility tax abatements. Or it
could be part of a pool of overall real estate taxes. The total revenue for a year would
have to have a cap. This would be a separate policy. New businesses would be given
priority and they would have to generate at least 2 jobs. They could use the money for
build out to improve, rehab, or remodel an existing building. This will get cleaned up
and brought back next month.
9. Additional Business — Alderwoman Burd asked who should be the liaison to the
Chamber Board. It was believed former City Administrator Tony Graff went to those
meetings. They are the 3rd Thursday of each month at 7:30 am. Alderman Leslie was
volunteered for going to these meetings, and Alderman Munns would be the backup
liaison.
Alderwoman Burd volunteered to go to the Protect Kendall Now meetings as a liaison,
and Alderman Besco would be the backup liaison.
The Chamber Board and YEDC is having an event on November 4 from 8 am —11
am in the lower level of the Old Second Bank building. Everyone is encouraged to go.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm.
Minutes submitted by Laura Leppert.
PLEASE SIGN IN
MEETING: Ulc)ooni
hl
DATE: hD bC. r 070 �0
t�tAME BUSINESS PHONE #
I
I
I
I
. I