Loading...
Plan Commission Packet 2015 04-08-15 PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, April 8, 2015 Yorkville City Hall Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Road Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Previous meeting minutes: March 11, 2015 Citizen’s Comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Hearings 1. PC 2015-03 The United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 6: Permitted and Special Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to identify “microbreweries/brewpubs” “microdistilleries” and “microwineries” as permitted uses in the B-1 Local Business, B-2 Retail Commerce Business, B-3 General Business, B-4 Service Business, M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing districts. Old Business New Business 1. PC 2015-03 The United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 6: Permitted and Special Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to identify “microbreweries/brewpubs” “microdistilleries” and “microwineries” as permitted uses in the B-1 Local Business, B-2 Retail Commerce Business, B-3 General Business, B-4 Service Business, M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing districts. - Action Item Text Amendment Additional Business Adjournment United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION City Council Chambers Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:00pm Commission Members in Attendance Chairman Tom Lindblom Jeff Baker James Weaver Charles Kraupner Deb Horaz Art Prochaska Absent: Michael Crouch, Jane Winninger, Jack Jones City Staff Mr. Chris Heinen, City Planner Other Guests Christine Vitosh, Court Reporter Meeting Called to Order Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Minutes February 11, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented on a motion by Jeff Baker and second by Deb Horaz. Unanimous voice vote approval. Citizen’s Comments None Public Hearings A motion was made by Mr. Prochaska and seconded by Mr. Weaver, to enter into Public Hearing. Unanimous voice vote. Public Hearings 1. PC 2014-23 Imperial Investments, LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting special use permit approval for an outdoor music venue pursuant to Chapter 6, Table 10.06.03 of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance located at 112 W. Van Emmon Street in Yorkville, Illinois. Page 1 of 2 (See Court Reporters' Transcript) See also letter for official part of minutes, from Imperial Investments to the City, stating formal withdrawal of above petition. A motion was made and seconded by Mr. Prochaska and Mr. James, respectively, to close the Public Hearing. Unanimous voice vote approval. Old Business: None New Business 1. PC 2014-23 (see above description under Public Hearings) Action Item Special Use Chairman Lindblom stated that since the petition was withdrawn, there is no further action. Additional Business: Mr. Heinen updated the Commissioners on the following Public Hearings that were recently approved unanimously by the Council: PC 2014-21 Daniel Statkus rezoning and PC 2014-22 Caleb Smith rezoning. Adjournment There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:06pm on a motion by Commissioner Weaver and second by Commissioner Baker. Respectfully transcribed by Marlys Young, Minute Taker Page 2 of 2 Background & Request: As the Plan Commission 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: Plan Commission From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: April 1, 2015 Subject: Text Amendment to identify Microdistilleries, Microwineries and Microbreweries/Brewpubs as permitted uses in all the Business & Manufacturing Zoned Districts 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 will be available to answer any question the Plan Commission may have regarding the text amendments. 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. Should the Plan Commission decide to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, draft motion language has been prepared below for your convenience. Proposed Motion: In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on April 8, 2015 and approval of the findings of fact, the Plan Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a request for text amendment to Chapter 6: Permitted and Special Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to identify “microbreweries/brewpubs” “microdistilleries” and “microwineries” as permitted uses in the B-1 Local Business, B-2 Retail Commerce Business, B-3 General Business, B-4 Service Business, M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing districts. This text amendment will provide regulations for the establishment and operation of such uses in these zoning districts, as presented by staff in a memorandum dated April 1, 2015 and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the Plan Commission}…. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2010-37 2. The Planning Magazine of the APA - Welcome to Beer Country Feb 2015 3. March 2014_Zoning Practice 4. Copy of Public Notice 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. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION PC 2015-03 NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 6: Permitted and Special Uses in the Zoning Ordinance to identify “microbreweries/brewpubs” “microdistilleries” and “microwineres” as permitted uses in the B-1 Local Business, B-2 Retail Commerce Business, B-3 General Business, B-4 Service Business, M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing districts. This text amendment will provide regulations for the establishment and operation of such uses in these zoning districts. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Plan Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on said application on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7 p.m. at the United City of 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 City Clerk, 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