Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Economic Development Packet 2015 03-03-15
AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: February 3, 2015 New Business: 1. EDC 2015-07 Building Permit Report for January 2015 2. EDC 2015-08 Building Inspection Report for January 2015 3. EDC 2015-09 Property Maintenance Report for January 2015 4. PC 2015-01 Heartland Business Center - PUD Amendment (Sign) 5. PC 2015-03 Microdistilleries, Microwineries and Microbreweries / Brew Pubs – Code Amendment Old Business: Additional Business: 2014/2015 City Council Goals – Economic Development Committee Goal Priority Staff “Downtown Planning and Development” 2 Bart Olson & Krysti Barksdale-Noble “South Side Economic Development” 2 Bart Olson & Krysti Barksdale-Noble “Comprehensive Plan Update” 11 Krysti Barksdale-Noble “Fill Empty Commercial Storefronts” 19 Krysti Barksdale-Noble United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. February 3, 2015 □ Approved ________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2015-07 Building Permit Report for January 2015 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2015-08 Building Inspection Report for January 2015 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2015-09 Property Maintenance Report for January 2015 □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PC 2015-01 Heartland Business Center - PUD Amendment (Sign) □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PC 2015-03 Micro-distilleries, Micro-wineries and Micro-breweries / Brew Pubs – Code Amendment □ Moved forward to CC __________ consent agenda? Y N □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Economic Development Committee – February 3, 2015 EDC – March 3, 2015 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department Page 1 of 4 DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 6:00pm Yorkville City Hall, Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Ken Koch Alderman Carlo Colosimo Alderman Diane Teeling Absent: Alderman Joel Frieders Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble City Planner Chris Heinen Alderman Chris Funkhouser Code Official Pete Ratos Director Parks & Recreation Tim Evans Other Guests: Tony Scott, Kendall County Record Julie Schlichting, Imperial Investments Dan Statkul Kevin Shaw, Engineer Katie Leiva Lisa Coffey, Attorney The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ken Koch at 6:02pm. Citizen Comments None Previous Meeting Minutes December 2, 2014 The minutes were approved as read. New Business (Items #7, 8 and 9 moved forward on agenda) 7. EDC 2014-21 711 N. Bridge Street – Special Use Request The petitioner is seeking a special use approval for a single family apartment. The property has been vacant since 2012 and went into foreclosure. It was a legal non-conforming use/structure and after 12 months being vacant, must conform to current standards. The petitioner wants to keep the office Page 2 of 4 portion on the main level and apartment on the upper level as previously done. Mr. Heinen said this would bring it back to the legal non-conforming use, but would still be a legal non-conforming structure. It will remain B-3 zoning. The committee recommended approval and it will move to the Plan Commission for a Public Hearing and then to City Council. 8. EDC 2014-22 2560 Cannonball Trail – Rezoning Request The petitioner is seeking ro rezone the property from E-1(estate) to A-1(agriculture). The property was annexed in 2003 with estate zoning along with another adjoining property and provided contiguity with the City. The current owner wishes to eventually have a horse and horse barn. Alderman Colosimo asked if notice to surrounding neighbors was required due to the horse. Notice will be given and there will be a Public Hearing on February 11th and then to City Council. The committee recommended approval of this request. 9. EDC 2014-23 112 W. Van Emmon – Special Use Request The petitioner is seeking approval of a special use to construct an outdoor amphitheater at 112 W. Van Emmon next to the newly constructed parking lot. Plans are being made for an 800 square foot pavilion with a capacity of 150-160 people. The staff made many comments on the plan and several responses were received. Staff is currently reviewing a parking plan and acoustic study that were done. Alderman Koch commented that parking could be a big issue since the city parking lot cannot be used to fulfill their parking requirements. They would use the Old 2nd Bank lot since the petitioner owns this. Mr. Koch noted the previous parking problems for Crossfit. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said there will be a Public Hearing and it will be recommended to continue this item to allow for all issues to be addressed. She said since the petitioner owns parking within 1000 feet of the proposed site, they would be allowed to use that. Providing some bike parking can also reduce the car parking requirements. Ms. Schlichting added that additional parking is available at the old Farm Service facility and they rent other space at a judo facility. Petitioner-owned houses may also be demolished to make more space. Alderman Koch asked if the County parking could be used, however, City staff has not yet received a response from the County. The acoustical engineering was discussed next and Mr. Shaw noted that the noise ordinance restricts activity past 10pm. There would be a berm constructed and only one home would be in the “sound field”. Mr. Shaw noted that factors such as wind, humidity and landscaping could affect sound. He discussed a sound chart he had compiled and he suggested that the petitioner could provide the sound system to retain some control. Ms. Schlichting discussed the arrangement of the pavilion, seating etc. and said the petitioner's intent is to bring families to the downtown. She said the City might be asked to close some side streets a couple times a year and the Fire Marshal compiled emergency plans. When asked how many events would be held, she said approximately two times monthly May through September and possibly one other event. Alderman Koch asked about flooding possibilities. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said engineering is being done and no on-site detention is planned. This will move to the February 11th Plan Commission. Page 3 of 4 (Return to regular order of agenda) 1. EDC 2015-01 Building Permit Report for November and December 2014 Mr. Ratos reported 34 building permits were issued in November and seven of those were for the B.U.I.L.D. program. In December, 19 permits were issued with four for the B.U.I.L.D. program and 2 commercial. No further action. 2. EDC 2015-02 Building Inspection Report for November and December 2014 Pulte is still building and inspections are being done for them along with a few other miscellaneous inspections. No further action. 3. EDC 2015-03 Property Maintenance Inspection Update Three cases were heard in December including a travel trailer on private property and blocking a public walk. The trailer was removed and the case was dismissed. In another case, a trailer blocked a public walk and a fine was assessed. Alderman Koch asked about the mold complaint. Mr. Ratos said the building code does not address mold and the cases are referred to the Health Dept. who refers them back to the City. In Illinois there are thousands of types of mold with only two being toxic. Toxic molds are most often found on the inside of a wall behind drywall according to Mr. Ratos. If mold is caused by water, the City can address it. In the case presented, a wall heating unit developed mold due to condensation build-up. The landlord was notified and the problem was resolved. No further action. 4. EDC 2015-04 Foreclosure Bi-Annual Report Mr. Heinen said the foreclosures decreased dramatically with 104 in 2014 compared to 147 in 2013. Ward III had the most newly filed foreclosures due to high density in Bristol Bay and Whispering Meadows, while the downtown is the most stable. No further action. 5. EDC 2015-05 Riverfront Park Building RFPs-Update As Park Board liaison, Alderman Koch brought this item to committee for discussion. It concerns the vacant riverfront park building. Mr. Evans said an RFP was done in September with three responses. Other interested parties have since contacted him, but only one had an established business. Mr. Koch said the cost factor and lack of any eqiupment in the building seem to be a negative factor. Mr. Evans said the lack of visibility also detracts. He will continue to work with prospects and use the building for staff and then programs in the summer. Alderman Teeling said a decision should be made before summer in the event the City wishes to have a concession stand. Mr. Evans will keep the committee updated on this and the former kayak business building. 6. EDC 2015-06 South Side Retail Market Study Report Ms. Noble said this study was started last August and consists of 2 phases: information gathering and recruitment plan. Two representatives of Retail Coach, the firm hired for the study, were present via phone. Aaron Farmer of Retail Coach spoke about their progress. He said a website was compiled to present the information: www.retail360.us.yorkville-il. Mr. Farmer said they determined that the median income of the south side of Yorkville was $91,000 and there was a high education level. Information on the website was reviewed extensively for the committee by Mr. Farmer. It was noted the study included the area up to Rt. 34 for demographics. Alderman Colosimo expressed doubt that residents living near Rt. 34 would shop on the south side. Page 4 of 4 Customized marketing packages have been sent to determine interest among potential businesses to locate on the south side of the City. One neighborhood grocer expressed some interest in locating there. Alderman Koch added that if there was a strong enough retail area in the south, it could attract north-siders. Mr. Colosimo asked about the response of grocery stores for the south side. Mr. Farmer replied that the grocers said there was not enough density at this time while others said “no” or focused on other areas. He also said many retailers want to be close to established retailers. Mr. Farmer said all information gathered will be given to Ms. Barksdale-Noble. Alderman Koch asked if any incentives are offered during the recruiting process. Mr. Farmer replied that the City would be brought in prior to that discussion. Alderman Teeling said that when Rt. 47 is completed, it should encourage people to travel farther for shopping. She added that additional residents are needed on the south side. Alderman Koch also noted the previous push for development at Rt. 47 and Rt. 52. Mr. Olson said that push for development was affected by the rescinding of the Prairie Parkway project. Old Business: None Additional Business: None There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:19pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number NB #1 Tracking Number EDC 2015-07 Building Permit Report for January 2015 EDC – March 3, 2015 N/A N/A N/A Informational None All permits issued in January 2015 D. Weinert Community Development Name Department C: \ U s e r s \ l p i c k e r i n g \ A p p D a t a \ L o c a l \ M ic r o s o f t \ W i n d o w s \ T e m p o r a r y I n t e rn e t F i l e s \ C o n t e n t . O u t l o o k \ 1 0 X CN R M X \ J a n 2 0 1 5 . d o c P r e p a r e d b y : D Weinert UN I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E BU I L D I N G P E R M I T R E P O R T Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 TY P E S O F P E R M I T S Nu m b e r of Pe r m i t s I s s u e d SF D Si n g l e F a m i l y De t a c h e d B. U . I . L . D Si n g l e F a m i l y De t a c h e d Pr o g r a m B e g i n s 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 SF A Si n g l e F a m i l y At t a c h e d Mu l t i - Fa m i l y Ap a r t m e n t s Co n d o m i n i u m s Co m m e r c i a l In c l u d e s a l l P e r m i t s Is s u e d f o r C o m m e r c i a l Us e In d u s t r i a l Mi s c . Construction Cost Permit Fees Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 21 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 5 31,042,751.00 96,180.27 Ca l e n d a r Y e a r 20 1 5 21 0 5 0 0 1 1 . 0 5 31,042,751.00 96,180.27 Fi s c a l P e r i o d 20 1 5 45 3 2 5 2 0 0 8 6 0 3 1 3 50,301,068.00 877,592.04 Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 4 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 95,740.00 2,761.50 Ca l e n d a r Y e a r 20 1 4 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 95,740.00 2,761.50 Fi s c a l P e r i o d 20 1 4 44 7 2 0 3 0 0 0 9 3 0 3 0 4 14,679,884.00 643,824.07 Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 3 20 2 4 0 0 9 0 5 1,168,872.00 73,733.54 Ca l e n d a r Y e a r 20 1 3 20 2 4 0 0 9 0 5 1,168,872.00 73,733.54 Fi s c a l P e r i o d 20 1 3 44 9 2 3 3 0 0 0 9 7 0 2 9 9 14,248,364.00 706,538.97 Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 2 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 177,407.00 2,636.70 Ca l e n d a r Y e a r 20 1 2 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 177,407.00 2,636.70 Fi s c a l P e r i o d 20 1 2 44 5 3 8 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 2 9 3 13,979,125.00 411,061.42 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number NB #2 Tracking Number EDC 2015-08 Building Inspection Report for January 2015 EDC – March 3, 2015 N/A N/A N/A Informational None All inspections scheduled in January 2015 D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 1 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 1 TI M E : 0 8 : 5 8 : 5 2 C A L L S F O R I N S P E C T I O N R E P O R T ID : P T 4 A 0 0 0 0 . W O W IN S P E C T I O N S S C H E D U L E D F R O M 0 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 T O 0 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 IN S P E C T O R S C HE D . C O M P . TI M E T Y P E O F I N S P E C T I O N P E R M I T A D DR E S S L O T D A T E DATE -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 2 0 11 0 5 4 4 3 1 1 C H U R C H S T 1 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 3 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 13 0 0 5 9 1 2 5 2 D E E R P A T H D R 2 3 1 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 7 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 14 0 3 7 3 8 0 5 C A R L Y C T 4 0 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 8 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 TK _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 9 - E F L E N G I N E E R I N G - F I N A L I N S P E 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : B B O X K E Y A B L E O K T O T E M P PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 4 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 2 0 14 0 3 7 4 8 6 5 P U R C E L L S T 7 3 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 5 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 TK _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 6 - E F L E N G I N E E R I N G - F I N A L I N S P E 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : B B O X K E Y A B L E O K T O T E M P PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - F T G F O O T I N G 2 0 14 0 4 3 1 1 1 4 1 M I D N I G H T P L 2 7 4 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : D E C K PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 5 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 14 0 4 5 0 2 3 9 5 A U T U M N C R E E K B L V D 2 6 8 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 6 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 TK _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 7 - E F L E N G I N E E R I N G - F I N A L I N S P E 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : B B O X K E Y A B L E O K T O T E M P PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 2 0 14 0 4 8 0 9 6 3 S C A R L Y C I R 9 2 0 1 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 2 0 14 0 4 8 1 9 0 3 S C A R L Y C I R 9 8 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 2 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 2 TI M E : 0 8 : 5 8 : 5 2 C A L L S F O R I N S P E C T I O N R E P O R T ID : P T 4 A 0 0 0 0 . W O W IN S P E C T I O N S S C H E D U L E D F R O M 0 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 T O 0 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 IN S P E C T O R S C HE D . C O M P . TI M E T Y P E O F I N S P E C T I O N P E R M I T A D DR E S S L O T D A T E DATE -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 2 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 14 0 4 8 6 1 4 4 7 C A N N O N B A L L T R 0 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : W A I T I N G F O R F I R E M A R S H A L A N D H E A L T H D E P T Co m m e n t s 2 : A P P R O V A L T O I S S U E C O F I R E M A R S H A L A P P R O Co m m e n t s 3 : V E D 2 - 3 - 1 5 , H E A L T H D E P T A P P R O V A L 2 - 6 - 1 5 . PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 14 0 4 9 2 1 2 0 8 E V E R G R E E N C I R 1 5 4 0 1 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 2 0 14 0 4 9 8 6 4 1 W I N D E T T R I D G E R D 7 8 0 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 2 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - B S M B A S E M E N T F L O O R 2 0 14 0 5 1 3 2 3 9 3 A U T U M N C R E E K B L V D 2 6 9 0 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 2 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 3 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 2 0 14 0 5 2 7 1 4 6 5 V I O L E T C T 3 6 6 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : B O L T S O N P L A T E I N G A R A G E , A N T H T I E R I N Co m m e n t s 2 : G A R A G E PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - B S M B A S E M E N T F L O O R 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 3 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 3 TI M E : 0 8 : 5 8 : 5 2 C A L L S F O R I N S P E C T I O N R E P O R T ID : P T 4 A 0 0 0 0 . W O W IN S P E C T I O N S S C H E D U L E D F R O M 0 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 T O 0 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 IN S P E C T O R S C HE D . C O M P . TI M E T Y P E O F I N S P E C T I O N P E R M I T A D DR E S S L O T D A T E DATE -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - R E I R E I N S P E C T I O N 0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : R O U G H F R A M I N G PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 2 0 14 0 5 2 9 3 2 0 E V E T E R A N S P K W Y 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - B S M B A S E M E N T F L O O R 2 0 14 0 5 3 6 2 3 9 7 A U T U M N C R E E K B L V D 2 6 7 0 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : G A R A G E - B O L T S I N P L A T E PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 1 - G A R G A R A G E F L O O R 0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - P L U P L U M B I N G - U N D E R S L A B 2 0 14 0 5 3 8 2 7 4 2 L I L A C C T 3 3 1 0 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 5 - B S M B A S E M E N T F L O O R 2 0 14 0 5 5 8 4 1 2 W I N D E T T R I D G E R D 1 9 3 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 6 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 0 1 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 7 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 8 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 9 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 4 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 4 TI M E : 0 8 : 5 8 : 5 2 C A L L S F O R I N S P E C T I O N R E P O R T ID : P T 4 A 0 0 0 0 . W O W IN S P E C T I O N S S C H E D U L E D F R O M 0 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 T O 0 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 IN S P E C T O R S C HE D . C O M P . TI M E T Y P E O F I N S P E C T I O N P E R M I T A D DR E S S L O T D A T E DATE -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 0 - I N S I N S U L A T I O N 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - B K F B A C K F I L L 2 0 14 0 5 6 1 1 4 6 7 S L A T E C T 3 4 2 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 3 - E S W E N G I N E E R I N G - S E W E R / W A T 0 1 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - F T G F O O T I N G 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 Co m m e n t s 1 : D E C K PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 2 0 14 0 5 7 6 8 7 4 H A L E Y C T 1 0 8 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 3 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 4 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - R F R R O U G H F R A M I N G 2 0 14 0 5 8 1 1 0 8 E S O M O N A U K S T 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - R E L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 3 - P L R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - F T G F O O T I N G 2 0 14 0 5 8 3 1 4 5 5 V I O L E T C T 3 6 5 0 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - B K F B A C K F I L L 0 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 3 - E S W E N G I N E E R I N G - S E W E R / W A T 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - F T G F O O T I N G 2 0 14 0 5 9 1 1 4 2 5 V I O L E T C T 3 6 2 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - F T G F O O T I N G 2 0 14 0 5 9 2 1 4 5 2 R U B Y D R 3 5 6 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ P M 0 0 1 - E S W E N G I N E E R I N G - S E W E R / W A T 2 0 15 0 0 0 2 6 4 2 O M A H A D R 5 5 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ P M 0 0 2 - E S S E N G I N E E R I N G - S T O R M 0 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 PR 1 1 : 0 0 0 0 3 - F T G F O O T I N G 0 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 PR 1 3 : 0 0 0 0 1 - E S W E N G I N E E R I N G - S E W E R / W A T 2 0 15 0 0 0 8 2 2 2 W E L I Z A B E T H S T 1 1 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 1 - F I N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 2 0 15 0 0 1 2 2 8 4 W I N D E T T R I D G E R D 1 9 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 2 - P L F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D 0 1 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 PR _ _ _ _ _ P M 0 0 1 - R M C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 2 0 15 0 0 1 6 2 2 8 8 G R A N D E T R A I L C T 1 1 7 0 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 U N I T E D C I T Y O F Y O R K V I L L E P A G E : 5 TI M E : 0 8 : 5 8 : 5 2 C A L L S F O R I N S P E C T I O N R E P O R T ID : P T 4 A 0 0 0 0 . W O W IN S P E C T I O N S S C H E D U L E D F R O M 0 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 T O 0 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 IN S P E C T O R S C HE D . C O M P . TI M E T Y P E O F I N S P E C T I O N P E R M I T A D DR E S S L O T D A T E DATE -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PE R M I T T Y P E S U M M A R Y : A D D A D D I T I O N 2 BD O C O M M E R C I A L B U I L D - O U T 3 BI P B U I L D I N C E N T I V E P R O G R A M S F D 6 8 BS M B A S E M E N T R E M O D E L 4 CR M C O M M E R C I A L R E M O D E L 2 GA R G A R A G E 2 MI S M I S C E L L A N E O U S 1 RE M R E M O D E L 7 SW R S E W E R C O N N E C T I O N ( Y B S D ) 1 IN S P E C T I O N S U M M A R Y : B K F B A C K F I L L 2 BS M B A S E M E N T F L O O R 4 EF L E N G I N E E R I N G - F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 3 ES S E N G I N E E R I N G - S T O R M 1 ES W E N G I N E E R I N G - S E W E R / W A T E R 4 FI N F I N A L I N S P E C T I O N 7 FT G F O O T I N G 6 GA R G A R A G E F L O O R 6 IN S I N S U L A T I O N 7 PL F P L U M B I N G - F I N A L O S R R E A D Y 7 PL R P L U M B I N G - R O U G H 1 0 PL U P L U M B I N G - U N D E R S L A B 1 RE I R E I N S P E C T I O N 1 RE L R O U G H E L E C T R I C A L 1 1 RF R R O U G H F R A M I N G 1 1 RM C R O U G H M E C H A N I C A L 9 IN S P E C T O R S U M M A R Y : P R P E T E R R A T O S 8 7 TK T O M K O N E N 3 ST A T U S S U M M A R Y : C P R 8 I P R 7 1 T P R 8 T T K 3 RE P O R T S U M M A R Y : 9 0 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number NB #3 Tracking Number EDC 2015-09 Property Maintenance Report for January 2015 EDC – March 3, 2015 Informational Item None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Property Maintenance Report January 2015 Adjudication: 4 Cases heard in January Case Number Offense Location Offense Outcome 01/05/2015 01/12/2015 01/21/2015 N 3104 7311 Route 47 Open Burning Liable $75 N 3106 7311 Route 47 Junk Trash & Refuse Liable $75 N 3107 7311 Route 47 Odor Dismissed N 3109 7311 Route 47 Toxic Matter Dismissed 01/26/2015 January Formal Complaints 5 Formal complaints received in January 2015-01-001 400 Freemont St. Vehicles Compliant 2015-01-002 Beecher & Faxon Sts. Illegal Dumping Compliant 2015-01-003 302 W. Fox St. Waste Cans Compliant 2015-01-004 904 S. Bridge St. Broken Window Cited 2015-01-005 102 W. Fox St Protective Treatment Cited Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Lisa Pickering Date: February 23, 2015 Subject: January Property Maintenance Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number NB #4 Tracking Number PC 2015-01 Heartland Business Center – PUD Amendment (Sign) EDC/March 3, 2015 05/28/2013 Approval of PUD Amendment for Sign PC #1 Majority Vote Request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment approval for the installation of a proposed new multi-tenant monument sign on Lot 1. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department BACKGROUND & REQUEST: The applicant, Castle Bank Trust #2838 (Veterans Way, LLC), is requesting an amendment to the Heartland Subdivision Planned Unit Development to permit the installation of a thirteen foot (13’) tall monument sign with an electronic message center (EMC) panel to serve as the sole outdoor tenant signage for future users of the undeveloped lots 1, 4, 5 and 6 in the Heartland Business Center development. The approximately 10-acre overall development, which has a strip center and various outlots, is zoned B- 3 General Business District (formerly Service Business District) and approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2005 via Ordinance 2005-05 (see attached). While the original Annexation and PUD Agreement for the development did not address specific signage criteria, a subsequent PUD amendment approved in May 2013 allowed for the increase in sign height of an existing ground mounted tenant sign from 18’-8” to 24’-8” which is located off of Veterans Parkway on Lot 2. According to the applicant, the proposed new additional tenant sign is needed to provide adequate business identification for the remaining undeveloped outlots in the rear of the business center (712 E., 720 E. and 724 E.) as these lots are not immediately adjacent to a major roadway; as well as provide increased visibility along US Route 34 for the Mike and Denise Pizza Pub located in the strip center, who plans to purchase Lot 1 where the proposed new sign will be located. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: February 20, 2015 Subject: PC 2015-01 Heartland Business Center PUD Amendment for Signage 712 - 724 E. Veterans Parkway Proposed New Multi-Tenant Monument Sign PROPOSED SIGNAGE: As previously mentioned, the proposed new tenant monument sign will be located on Lot 1 of the business center off of Veterans Parkway (US Route 34) and perpendicular to the roadway (see illustrated rendering below). By staff’s estimation, the proposed new sign will be located approximately one-hundred and fifteen feet (115’-0”) to the east of the existing Heartland Business Center development sign and separated by the existing driveway entrance into the development. The double-faced internally-illuminated monument sign will have an overall height of 13 feet and a maximum with of 7 feet. Included in the sign, will be an approximately twenty-four (24) square foot electronic message center (LED) color display. The foundation of the monument sign has been designed with cast stone cladding and finished with a complementary metal cap. The exterior of the sign will be fabricated of aluminum and steel Aside from the LED display, the proposed new sign will consist of four (4) tenant panel areas on the lower portion of the sign with an approximate area of thirty-two (32) square feet. The total overall sign area will be approximately sixty-four (64) square feet. The additional tenant sign panels will be fabricated out of white acrylic with the copy applied to the surface, similar to that of the existing Heartland Center development sign. 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 one of the existing in-line commercial users, Mike and Denise’s Pizza Pub, and to the future tenants of the remaining undeveloped outlots in the Heartland Commercial Center, should they be permitted to construct the additional tenant monument sign, as it will create needed visibility for those businesses which do not have frontage along Veterans Parkway (US Route 34). The following table compares the proposed new sign and the existing sign with the current sign ordinance regulations: PERMITTED SIGN REQUIREMENTS EXISTING RECENTLY APPROVED SIGN PROPOSED NEW SIGN 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. 64 square feet SIGN HEIGHT (Section 10-20-9-A-1) • Max. 12 feet in height • 24 feet 8 inches • Approx. 13 feet in height ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS (Section 10-20-9-A-3) • Max. 75 sq. ft. for Commercial PUD. • Max. 32 sq. ft. for single or multi-tenant building. adjacent to major arterial • Max. 24 sq. ft for multi- tenant building not adjacent to major arterial. • Not applicable • Approx. 32 square feet SIGN SEPARATION (Section 10-20-9-A-1) • On lots 3 acres or larger with street frontage in excess of 800’ with 2 entrances/exits at least 600’ apart may have 2 freestanding signs. • Not applicable • Overall development 10 acres. Individual lots less than 3 acres. • Approx. 375 feet of frontage along US Route 34. • Approx. 115 feet between existing and proposed signs. 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 the front yard and at least five (5) feet from a driveway or drive aisle and lot line. • Not located within a line-of- sight. In staff’s review of the proposed PUD amendment, consideration was given to the following: 1. The future utilization of Lot 1 as a potential development site for a commercial outlot. a. Due to the size and configuration of Lot 1, it is unlikely that this parcel will ever be developed as a commercial outlot. b. Therefore, it would best be utilized as green space/buffer between the adjacent commercial property to the east or for future additional parking. 2. The relationship the in-line user, Mike and Denise’s Pizza Pub, has to Lot 1 (where the sign will be located); to the rear undeveloped lots; and to the commercial development overall. a. For the reasons stated above, the owners of Mike and Denise’s Pizza Pub have decided to purchase Lot 1 in hopes of securing land for needed signage along US Route 34. b. While this may be considered off-site signage, it is staff’s position that the center be viewed as a whole and that the future developers of the remaining rear three (3) outlots would also seek signage along the US Route 34, the nearest major arterial roadway, for increased visibility which cannot be met with the existing one (1) monument sign. 3. The proposed location of the new sign and its proximity to the existing, recently modified, multi-tenant monument sign which primarily provides sign space for retail strip portion of the development (728 E. Veterans Parkway). a. As previously stated, the proposed new sign will be located approximately 115 feet to the east of the existing recently modified multi-tenant monument sign. While the ordinance allows for up to 2 signs for lots that have a minimum of 800 feet linear frontage and two entrances, the Heartland Business Center development has approximately 375 feet of linear frontage and only one entrance along such frontage. b. It is, however, general planning practice to permit a minimum distance of 100 feet in between ground mounted freestanding signs in suburban commercial settings. Given the smaller sign size of the proposed new sign in comparison with the recently modified existing sign, staff is not concerned that the addition of this new sign will have a significant “crowding affect” along this major arterial. c. Additionally, if Lot 1 were to develop as originally planned, the commercial user would have also been allowed to install a freestanding ground-mounted sign. 4. How the proposed sign deviates, if any, from the permitted sign requirements of the ordinance. a. Overall, the proposed new multi-tenant monument sign deviates only with regards to sign height by one (1) foot. As permitted, the sign would be allowed to be twelve feet (12’) in height where the proposed new sign is thirteen feet (13’). Staff feels this is acceptable, as the adjacent existing multi-tenant monument sign is almost double in height of the proposed sign. STAFF COMMENTS: This request will require a public hearing before the City Council at the March 24, 2015 regularly scheduled meeting for formal consideration. Notice will be published in the March 5, 2015 edition of the Kendall County Record and the applicant’s attorney will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting to address the Economic Development Committee (EDC) regarding this matter. LOTS 1, 4, 5, AND 6 IN HEARTLAND CENTER RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3 IN HEARTLAND CENTER SUBDIVISION UNIT 1 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 8, 2005 AS DOCUMENT #200500009772 AND CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 2008 AS DOCUMENT #200800022051 IN THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number NB #5 Tracking Number PC 2015-03 Microdistilleries, Microwineries and Microbreweries/Brewpubs – Text Amendment EDC/March 3, 2015 Majority Vote Text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to identify microdistilleries, microwineries & microbreweries/brewpubs as permitted uses in Business & Manufacting Districts. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Background & Request: As the Economic Development Committee will recall in July 2010, the City Council approved Ordinance 2010-37 (see attached) which amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages as a permitted use within the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District and defined and identified “microbreweries/brewpubs” as permitted Special Uses within the City’s business districts. Since that time, the City has adopted an updated Zoning Ordinance which kept the microbreweries/brewpubs as special uses in the business district, but also allowed them as outright permitted uses in the Manufacturing District to further accommodate the booming niche market of craft brewing. While staff had researched the variation on the food-and-beverage retail experience when approving the microbrewery/brewpub ordinance in 2010, the landscape for such business ventures has become more mainstream since then and has led to a surge in smaller-scale distilleries and even wineries. According to a recent article in The Magazine of the American Planning Association, “…overall beer consumption declined two percent in 2013, [however] craft beer production grew 18 percent. Craft brewers now are responsible for 10 percent of all beer production by volume, and the trade group aims to double that to 20 percent by 2020.” Additionally, the March 2014 edition of Zoning Practice, a monthly periodical prepared by the American Planning Association to assist planners with local zoning applications for various land uses, cited “…the number of wineries producing between 1,000 and 5,000 cases per year grew 16.5 percent between August 2011 and January 2014 alone.” With the recent interest in Yorkville by a new microdistillery and past interest by a brewpub both looking to locate within a business zoned district, staff believes in order to be more competitive and also keep current with the market trend, a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to identify these use as permitted in the business and manufacturing districts, with specific conditions, is appropriate and warranted. Proposed Text Amendment: Staff is recommending the following revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Microbreweries/Brewpubs, Microdistilleries and Microwineries: 1. Amend the Permitted and Special Uses Table in Section 10-06-03 to identify “Microbreweries/Brewpubs” “Microdistilleries” and “Microwineries” as a permitted uses in the B-1 Local Business, B-2 Retail Commerce Business, B-3 General Business, B-4 Service, M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing districts. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: February 25, 2015 Subject: Text Amendment to identify Microdistilleries, Microwineries and Microbreweries/Brewpubs as permitted uses in all the Business & Manufacturing Zoned Districts 1 2. Amend Title 10-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definitions: Microdistillery: A small-scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves alcoholic spirits on and off the premises and produces no more than 15,000 gallons per calendar year on-site. The microdistillery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off- site distribution of the alcoholic beverages shall be consistent with state law. Microwinery: Combination retail, wholesale and small-scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves wine for sale on or off-site, and produces no more than 100,000 gallons per year. The microwinery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off- site distribution of the vinous beverages shall be consistent with state law. 3. Amend Section 10-6-1: Special Conditions to include the following restrictions: a. Outdoor storage of equipment, production waste or product for Microdistilleries and Microwineries is strictly prohibited when located in a business district. However, outdoor storage of spent grains or grapes may be permitted to be stored outdoors in appropriate silos or containers in the manufacturing districts, provided the storage is screened from public view. Screening may be with fencing, landscaping or a combination of both. b. All microdistilleries and microwineres are subject to Section 10-13-C: Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance with regards to foul odors, fire and explosive hazards and smoke. c. All microdistilleries and microwineres located in business districts must have off-street or rear-accessible loading and unloading areas. d. Microdistilleries or microwineres located in business districts must include an ancillary tasting room with a minimum of 150 square feet. Retail sales of the product from a microdistillery or microwinery are permitted on site and shall be consistent with state and local laws. Staff Comments: This proposed text amendment is scheduled to be discussed at a public hearing before the Plan Commission on April 8, 2015. A recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the April 28, 2015 regularly scheduled meeting. Additionally, the City’s Liquor Control Ordinance will also be amended to establish a new licensing classification for retail component of the microdistillery and microwineries. This will be presented at an upcoming Public Safety Committee meeting and then forwarded to City Council for approval. Staff will be available to answer any question the Economic Development Committee may have at Tuesday night’s meeting. 2 ZO N I N G PR A C T I C E AM E R I C A N P L A N N I N G A S S O C I A T I O N 20 5 N . M i c h i g a n A v e . Su i t e 1 2 0 0 Ch i c a g o , I L 6 0 6 0 1 – 5 9 2 7 10 3 0 1 5 t h S t r e e t , N W Su i t e 7 5 0 W e s t Wa s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 5 – 1 5 0 3 ZONING PRACTICE MARCH 2014 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 3 ISSUE NUMBER 3 PRACTICE MICROBREWERIES HOW DOES YOUR ZONING TREAT BREWPUBS, MICROBREWERIES, MICRODISTILLERIES, AND MICROWINERIES? 3 ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Zoning for Small-Scale Alcohol Production: Making Space for Brewpubs, Microbreweries, Microwineries, and Microdistilleries By David M. Morley, aicp In communities across the country, beer titans like St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch and Chicago-based MillerCoors are facing stiff competition from a host of locally owned and operated craft breweries. Meanwhile, there is parallel growth in craft distilleries and small-volume wineries. While renewed interest in small-scale alcohol produc- tion is just one facet of the buy-local move- ment, it has special relevance for planning and zoning practitioners. Historically, few communities have used zoning to draw distinctions between alcohol production facilities of different types and sizes. More recently, though, numerous lo- calities have added provisions to their zoning codes that acknowledge the variety of alcohol producers. The primary motivation for these regulatory changes is a desire to make space for smaller producers to operate outside of industrial districts. The two most common small-scale alco- hol production uses to receive special zoning attention are brewpubs (restaurants combined with breweries) and microbreweries (small-vol- ume brewers with or without on-site sales). But references to microdistilleries (small-volume distilleries with or without on-site sales) and microwineries (small-volume wineries without on-site vineyards) are also on the rise. The purposes of this article are to high- light why the growth in small-scale alcohol pro- duction may merit zoning changes and to sum- marize how communities have amended their codes to add definitions, use permissions, and, in some cases, additional standards to sanction brewpubs and microproducers. THE BOOM IN SMALL-SCALE ALCOHOL PRODUCTION According to the Brewers Association, the trade group for small brewers, as of June 2013 there were 1,165 brewpubs and 1,221 microbreweries in the United States. By way of comparison, in the late 1970s there were only 89 commercial brewers of any type (Brewers Association 2013). This boom in small-scale production has spread to spirits and wine too. In April 2012 Time report- ed a 400 percent surge in microdistilleries in the U.S. between 2005 and 2012 (Steinmetz 2012). And according to statistics maintained by trade publisher Wines & Vines, the number of wineries producing between 1,000 and 5,000 cases per year grew 16.5 percent between August 2011 and January 2014 alone. These trends have significant economic development implications for localities across the country. In addition to satisfying demand for locally produced beer, wine, and spirits, microproducers often distribute their product regionally or nationally, bringing new money into their host communities. Furthermore, suc- cessful brewpubs and microproducers can help enliven commercial and mixed use districts that would otherwise clear out after conven- tional retail and office hours. It’s no surprise, then, that some communities are actively trying to lure high-profile microbreweries from other states (McConnell 2012). THE TROUBLE WITH REGULATORY SILENCE Despite the explosive growth in brewpubs and microproducers, surprisingly few communities explicitly sanction small-scale alcohol pro- Brewers Association, Boulder, ColoradoThe number of brewers is higher today than at any point during the 20th century. ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 About the AuthorASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! duction facilities through their zoning codes. Without clear definitions and use permissions, planning staff or public officials are forced to make ad hoc use interpretations that can delay or even prevent otherwise desirable develop- ment. This regulatory silence creates uncertainty for business owners looking to make location decisions and secure financing, and it may have the effect of scaring away potential applicants. Finally, explicit definitions, use permissions, and use-specific standards allow communities to proactively address the potential negative effects of brewpubs and microproducers on surrounding areas, thereby minimizing future conflicts with neighbors. DEFINING USES Clear zoning standards for small-scale alcohol pro- duction facilities begin with clear use definitions. Generally speaking, there are two basic schools of thought about defining uses in zoning codes. Some communities try to define every conceivable potential use, while others rely on use groups (or categories) with similar operational requirements and attendant community effects. The first method can bring clarity and avoid some legal disputes over specific uses, but it may create unnecessarily complex regula- tions. The second method is part of larger trend away from proscriptive use regulations, as many communities focus more on a prescrip- tive approach to the form of development. In practice, most conventional new zoning codes use a hybrid of these approaches, with broad use categories, such as household living or general retail, and specific use definitions for a small subset of higher-impact or more conten- tious uses under each category. Mirroring this broader conversation about the best approach to classifying and defining uses, communities that have added specific definitions for small-scale alcohol production facilities to their zoning codes generally take one of two approaches. Either they define brewpubs, microbreweries, microdistilleries, and microwineries as distinct uses, or they define an umbrella term that encompasses multiple types of production facilities. Communities that define microbreweries, microdistilleries, or microwineries as distinct uses often rely on a production volume thresh- old to distinguish between the “micro” and “conventional” version of a particular use. For microbreweries, 15,000 barrels per year is a common threshold, which corresponds to the American Brewers Association’s defined limit for a microbrewery. Given that there are no cor- responding industry definitions for microdistill- ery and microwinery, it is perhaps unsurprising that thresholds for these uses seem to vary more from place to place. When communities define brewpubs as a distinct use, the intent is usually to distinguish between accessory- and primary-use brewing facilities. Most communities stipulate that beer production in a brewpub must be accessory to a bar or restaurant, and many cap the volume of beer produced annually (usually less than 15,000 barrels). Furthermore, some jurisdic- tions quantify this subordinate relationship by limiting the percentage of floor area or sales attributable to the brewery component of the business. Definitions for brewpubs, microbrewer- ies, microdistilleries, and microwineries often include an acknowledgment that the alcohol produced will be consumed both on- and off- site. For “micro” facilities, the presumption is typically that on-site consumption will be David Morley, aicp, is a senior research associate with the American Planning Association, as well as APA’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS) coordinator and coeditor of Zoning Practice. Since 2007 he has contributed to APA research projects on topics including brownfields redevelopment, complete streets, urban agriculture, shrinking cities, solar energy, and disaster recovery. Apart from his contributions to research projects and APA publications, Morley provides customized research on a daily basis for PAS subscribers. Go online during the month of March to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. David Morley, aicp, will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the Zoning Practice section of the APA website at www.planning.org/zoningpractice and follow the links to the Ask the Author discussion board. From there, just submit your questions about the article to the active forum. After each forum closes at the end of the month, the archived questions and answers will be available through the Ask the Author discussion board. Since 2008 the federally landmarked G.G. Gerber building in Portland, Oregon’s Pearl District has housed a brewpub. St e v e M o r g a n / C r e a t i v e C o m m o n s 3 . 0 ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 subordinate to off-site consumption. For brew- pubs, the opposite is true. Communities that define an umbrella term for multiple “micro” facilities tend to stress spatial or operational features over pro- duction volume limits. In some instances this means a square footage limit on facility size or the proportion of a facility that can be used for alcohol production. In other instances, there are no defined size limits, and the use defini- tion simply describes a set of operational char- acteristics (e.g., alcohol production and sales for on- and off-site consumption). USE PERMISSIONS Defining and regulating small-scale alcohol production facilities allows communities to permit small breweries, distilleries, and winer- ies in locations that would be inappropriate for conventional, large-scale facilities. Typically, this translates to permitting brewpubs, micro- breweries, microdistilleries, and microwineries in one or more commercial or mixed use dis- tricts, either by right, with ministerial approval, or subject to a discretionary use permit. Permitting a use by right sends a clear sig- nal to potential developers and business own- ers that the use is desirable in a certain zoning district. This approach presents applicants with the fewest hoops to jump through before ob- taining zoning approval, but it is important to note that most small-scale production facilities will still be subject to state or local licensing or permitting laws that govern the production or sale of alcoholic beverages. Requiring a ministerial approval for a use communicates that the community is generally supportive of the use in a certain zoning district, but this support is conditional upon compliance with objective standards intended to minimize negative impacts on proximate uses. This ap- proach gives planning staff an opportunity to re- view an application before the planning director or zoning administrator issues an “over-the-coun- ter” permit. Often, communities use ministerial approval processes to confirm that a particular application conforms to use-specific standards (see additional standards discussion below). Permitting a use subject to a discre- tionary use permit (often referred to as a conditional, special, or special exception use permit) indicates that the community is potentially supportive of the use in a certain zoning district, provided the specific spatial and operational characteristics of the use do not pose compatibility problems. Discretion- Examples of Use Definitions Brewpub: • A retail establishment that manufactures not more than 9,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. (Aurora, Colorado) • A restaurant-brewery that sells 25 percent or more of its beer on-site. The beer is brewed primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar. The beer is often dispensed directly from the brewery’s storage tanks. Where allowed by law, brewpubs often sell beer “to go” or dis- tribute to off-site accounts. (Brewers Association) A restaurant with facilities for the brewing of beer for on-site consumption and retail sale at the restaurant. A brewpub must derive at least 40 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food. (Goodyear, Arizona) • A restaurant featuring beer that is brewed on-site. (Memphis-Shelby County, Tennessee) • A restaurant that brews beer as an accessory use, either for consumption on-site or in hand-capped, sealed containers in quantities up to one-half barrel sold directly to the consumer. Production capacity is limited to 5,000 barrels of beverage (all beverages combined) per year. The area used for brewing, bottling, and kegging shall not exceed 30 percent of the total floor area of the commercial space. A barrel is equivalent to 31 gal- lons. (Plainfield, Illinois) Microbrewery: • A small facility for the brewing of beer that produces less than 15,000 barrels per year. It may often include a tasting room and retail space to sell the beer to patrons on the site. (Asheville, North Carolina) • Any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and packaged on- or off-prem- ises, manufacturing more than 9,000 but less than 60,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. (Aurora, Colorado) • A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels of beer per year with 75 percent or more of its beer sold off-site. Microbreweries sell to the public by one or more of the following methods: the traditional three-tier system (brewer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer); the two-tier system (brewer acting as wholesaler to retailer to consumer); and, directly to the consumer through carryouts or on-site taproom or restaurant sales. (Brewers Association) • A brewery (for malt beverages) that has an annual nationwide production of not less than 100 barrels or more than 10,000 barrels. (Missoula, Montana) • The production of beer, regardless of the percentage of alcohol by volume, in quantities not to exceed 5,000 barrels per month, with a barrel containing 31 U.S. liquid gallons. (Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee) Nanobrewery: • The production of beer, regardless of the percentage of alcohol by volume, in quantities not to exceed 1,250 barrels per month. (Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee) Microdistillery: • A combination retail, wholesale, and small-scale artisan manufacturing business that pro- duces and serves alcoholic spirits or food on the premises. (Port Townsend, Washington) • A facility that produces no more than 15,000 gallons per year of spirituous beverages on-site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the product. (Fort Collins, Colorado) • A facility that produces alcoholic beverages in quantities not to exceed 35,000 gallons per year and includes an accessory tasting room. A tasting room allows customers to taste samples of products manufactured on-site and purchase related sales items. Sales of alcohols manufactured outside the facility are prohibited. (Evanston, Illinois) (continued on page 5) ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 ary approval processes involve one or more public hearings before the local legislative body, planning commission, or zoning board renders a final decision on an application. Because the longer approval time frame and a greater degree of uncertainty can discourage some applicants, it is important for communi- ties to reserve discretionary use permissions for locations or circumstances where objective standards are likely to be insufficient to en- sure compatibility. Since a brewpub typically has more in common with a restaurant than a factory, many communities permit brewpubs either by right or with ministerial approval in a wide range of commercial and mixed use districts. Mean- while, use permissions for microbreweries, microdistilleries, and microwineries vary con- siderably from place to place. With that said, though, many cities do permit microproduction facilities either by right or with ministerial ap- proval in at least one commercial or mixed use district. Furthermore, it is relatively common to permit microbreweries, microdistilleries, or microwineries by right in more intense commer- cial or mixed use districts and subject to a dis- cretionary use permit in less intense districts. (See the table on page 6.) ADDITIONAL STANDARDS Many contemporary zoning codes limit use permissions with use-specific development or operational standards. By codifying additional standards for specific uses, the community can permit a wider range of uses without relying on discretionary use permits to ensure compat- ibility. In some cases, use-specific standards apply only in certain zoning districts, while in other cases the standards apply community- wide. So far, relatively few communities have adopted additional development or operation- al standards for small-scale alcohol production facilities. Among those that have, the most common provisions relate to outdoor storage, the size of the facility or volume of production, loading and unloading, and proximity either to sensitive uses or to other similar producers. Outdoor Storage Perhaps the most prevalent type of additional standards for brewpubs and microproducers are screening requirements or limitations on the amount of space business owners can use to store equipment, production waste, or product. In some cases these standards take Use Definitions (continued from page 4) • Any place or premises wherein any wines or liquors are manufactured for sale, not to exceed 5,000 gallons per year, generally referred to as a craft, boutique, or artisan distill- ery. Microdistilleries may or may not include an on-site tasting room, and may or may not operate in conjunction with an on-site restaurant or bar. For operation of an on-site tast- ing room or in conjunction with an on-site restaurant or bar additional permitting may be required. All relevant federal, state, and local regulations apply, including but not limited to TCA Title 57 and Memphis Code of Ordinances Title 7. For on-site sales by manufacturer compliance with TCA 57-3-204 applies. (Memphis-Shelby County, Tennessee) Microwinery: • A combination retail, wholesale, and small-scale artisan manufacturing business that produces and serves wine and food on the premises. (Port Townsend, Washington) • A facility that produces no more than 100,000 gallons per year of vinous beverages on- site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the prod- uct. (Fort Collins, Colorado) • A small wine producer that does not have its own vineyard, and instead sources its grape production from outside suppliers. Microwineries produce wine for sale on- or off-site. For the purposes of this chapter, a microwinery is limited to a production of no more than 2,000 barrels per year. On-site consumption is not allowed, other than sample tasting by customers shopping on-site. (Glenville, New York) Microbrewery/microdistillery/microwinery: • A facility with no more than 3,000 square feet of floor area, for the production and pack- aging of alcoholic beverages for distribution, retail, or wholesale, on- or off-premises and which meets all alcohol beverage control laws and regulations. (Newport News, Virginia) • An establishment for the manufacture, blending, fermentation, processing, and packag- ing of alcoholic beverages with a floor area of 10,000 square feet or less that takes place wholly inside a building. A facility that only provides tasting or retail sale of alcoholic beverages is not a microbrewery, microdistillery, or winery use. (Dallas) • A facility in which beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages are brewed, fermented, or distilled for distribution and consumption, and which possesses the appropriate license from the State of Maryland. Tasting rooms for the consumption of on-site produced beer, wine, or distilled products are permitted on the premises. (Denton, Maryland) • An establishment with a primary use as a table service restaurant where beer, liquor, wine, or other alcoholic beverage is manufactured on the premises in a limited quantity subordinate to the primary table service restaurant use. The gross floor area utilized in a microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery for the production of beer, liquor, wine, or other alcoholic beverage shall be no greater than the gross floor area utilized for the associated table service restaurant. A microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery may include some off-site distribution of its alcoholic beverages consistent with state law. A tasting room or taproom may exist in a microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery where patrons may sample the manufacturer’s products. (Wooster, Ohio) the form of an outright prohibition on outdoor storage. To illustrate, Covington, Kentucky, flatly prohibits all outdoor equipment and storage for brewpubs and microbreweries (§§6.28.02– 03). Meanwhile, Dallas permits microbrewer- ies and microdistilleries to store spent grain outside in silos or containers, provided the storage is screened from view (C51A-4.210(b) (4)(E)(ii)(cc)). And Novi, Michigan, prohibits all outdoor storage for brewpubs and micro- breweries, with the exception of storage in tractor trailers for a period less than 24 hours (§§1501.11.b and 1501.12.b). The two basic rationales for storage restrictions are aesthetics and public health. Outdoor storage can be an uninviting eyesore, especially in pedestrian-oriented areas. And left unattended, production waste may pro- duce foul odors and attract vermin. ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 Permitted in One or More Mixed Use or Commercial Districts Density By Right or Subject to Subject to 2010 (pop./square Ministerial Discretionary Additional Community State Population mile) Defined Uses Approval Use Permit Standards Asheville NC 83,393 1,856 microbrewery X X §7-16-1(c)(43) Bismarck ND 61,272 1,986 brewpub X §14-03-08.4.u microbrewery X Bloomington IN 80,405 3,472 brewpub X §20.05.089 Burlington VT 42,417 4,116 microbrewery X X Columbia SC 129,272 978 microbrewery X §17-290 Covington KY 40,640 3,079 brewpub X §6.28 microbrewery X §6.28 microdistillery X §6.28 Dallas TX 1,197,816 3,518 microbrewery/ microdistillery/ X §51A-4.210(b)(4) winery Denton MD 4,418 837 microbrewery/ microwinery/ microdistillery X Fort Collins CO 143,986 2,653 microbrewery X X microdistillery X X microwinery X X Glenville NY 29,480 580 microbrewery X microwinery X Goodyear AZ 65,275 341 brewpub X §4-2-15 microbrewery X §4-2-16 Memphis-Shelby TN 646,889 2,053 brew pub X X §2.6.3.G microbrewery X X §2.6.4.F microdistillery X X §2.6.4.F Missoula MT 66,788 2,428 microbrewery X Modesto CA 201,165 5,457 microbrewery X X §10-3.203 Newport News VA 180,719 2,630 microbrewery/ microdistillery/ microwinery X Novi MI 55,224 1,825 brewpub X X §1501.11 microbrewery X X §1501.12 Port Townsend WA 9,113 1,306 microbrewery X X microdistillery X microwinery X St. Petersburg FL 244,769 3,964 brewpub X X §16.50.045 microbrewery X X §16.50.045 Wooster OH 26,119 1,601 microbrewery/ microdistillery/ microwinery X EXAMPLES OF DEFINED USES AND PERMISSIONS ZONINGPRACTICE 3.14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 VOL. 31, NO. 3 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, aicp, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, aicp, and David Morley, aicp, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. Copyright ©2014 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. Cover image by filipfoto/iStock/Thinkstock; design concept by Lisa Barton Facility Size or Volume of Production Some communities use additional standards to restrict the size of the facility, scale of produc- tion, or the relationship between the alcohol production facility and collocated food or bev- erage service. This is most common in codes where the use definition does not stipulate a specific production limit or the nature of the relationship between primary and accessory uses. However, communities can also use this type of operational standard to modify defined limits or relationships in lower-intensity zoning districts. For example, Asheville, North Carolina, limits microbreweries to 4,000 square feet of floor area in two specific office districts (§17-16- 1(c)(43)a.3). Columbia, South Carolina, limits microbrewery production to 1,000 barrels per year in three lower-intensity commercial and mixed use districts (§17-290(2)). And Novi, Michigan, stipulates that no more than 50 per- cent of the gross floor space in a brewpub shall be used for brewing (§1501.11.e). Loading and Unloading A few communities have adopted additional standards stipulating the provision or location of loading spaces or prohibiting deliveries during certain hours. Both of these types of delivery restrictions can help brewpubs and mi- croproducers be better neighbors by minimiz- ing traffic congestion or limiting noise during certain times of the day. Still, it’s important to note that in some pedestrian-oriented districts it may be infeasible or undesirable to require dedicated loading spaces due to premiums on space or urban design goals. As one example, Asheville, North Caro- lina, stipulates that all microbreweries must have an off-street or alley-accessible loading dock (§17-16-1(c)(43)a.4). Meanwhile, St. Pe- tersburg, Florida, discourages microbrewery ac- cess and loading from streets and requires any street-facing loading bays to keep their doors closed at all times, except when actively in use. The city also restricts service truck loading and unloading to the hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Sundays and national holidays (§§16.50.045.4–6). Distancing Requirements A small number of communities have adopted distancing requirements that either limit the proximity of small-scale alcohol production facilities to sensitive uses, such as schools or churches, or require a minimum separation between similar uses. For the first type of dis- tancing requirement, the rationale is to limit potential spillover effects on properties where children congregate. The rationale for the sec- ond type of requirement is to prevent an over- concentration of brewpubs or microproducers in a specific district. To illustrate, Novi, Michigan, requires microbreweries to be separated from one an- other by at least 2,500 feet (§1501.12.h). And Bismarck, North Dakota, requires property owner consent as a condition of approval for microbreweries located within 300 feet of a lot line for any school, church, library, or hospital (§14-03-08.4.u.1). CONCLUSIONS When localities choose to define and regulate small-scale alcohol production facilities as one or more distinct uses, it allows them to permit these uses in locations that would be inappro- priate for major industrial operations. By doing so, communities can set the stage to capitalize on the economic and placemaking benefits of brewpubs and microproducers. With that said, the preceding discus- sion only hints at the variety of approaches localities have taken to regulate brewpubs, microbreweries, microdistilleries, and microw- ineries. Furthermore, a number of communi- ties with thriving craft brewing and distilling scenes, such as Chicago and Portland, Ore- gon, have yet to single out small-scale alcohol production facilities for special zoning treat- ment. Others have made a conscious decision to minimize use-based restrictions in favor of prescriptive standards for the form of de- velopment. However, communities that don’t thoughtfully consider regulatory alternatives for brewpubs and microproducers run the risk of being caught “flat-footed” by an applica- tion for a new facility that may be beneficial to the community but is inconsistent with current zoning. Finally, as with any significant potential zoning change, it can be helpful to talk to other communities that have taken a similar ap- proach to see what’s working and what might need further attention. And, of course it’s al- ways important to review both new provisions and the intent behind those provisions with residents, business owners, and other com- munity stakeholders before recommending or taking action. REFERENCES • Brewers Association. 2013. “Number of Breweries.” Available at www.brewers association.org/pages/business-tools/craft- brewing-statistics/number-of-breweries. • McConnell, J. Katie. 2012. “Cities Court Craft Breweries.” CitiesSpeak.org, August 9. Available at http://citiesspeak.org/2012 /08/09/cities-court-craft-breweries. • Steinmetz, Katy. 2012. “A Booze of One’s Own: The Micro Distillery Boom.” Time, April 6. Available at http://business.time.com /2012/04/06/craft-distillers. • Wines & Vines. 2014. “Wine Industry Metrics.” Available at www.winesandvines .com/template.cfm?section=widc&widc Domain=wineries. ZO N I N G PR A C T I C E AM E R I C A N P L A N N I N G A S S O C I A T I O N 20 5 N . M i c h i g a n A v e . Su i t e 1 2 0 0 Ch i c a g o , I L 6 0 6 0 1 – 5 9 2 7 10 3 0 1 5 t h S t r e e t , N W Su i t e 7 5 0 W e s t Wa s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 5 – 1 5 0 3 ZONING PRACTICE MARCH 2014 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 3 ISSUE NUMBER 3 PRACTICE MICROBREWERIES HOW DOES YOUR ZONING TREAT BREWPUBS, MICROBREWERIES, MICRODISTILLERIES, AND MICROWINERIES? 3