Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Plan Commission Packet 2015 05-13-15
PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, May 13, 2015 Yorkville Intermediate School Gymnasium 103 Schoolhouse Road Meeting Called to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Previous meeting minutes: March 11, 2015 Citizen’s Comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Hearings 1. PC 2015-05 KBL Community Center LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting special use permit approval for the construction and operation of a community center with an air-supported structure within an existing R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence District. The real property is located on Fox Road, between Pavilion Road and Ford Drive in Yorkville, Illinois. 2. 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. 3. PC 2015-07 The United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening in the Zoning Ordinance to revise Table 10.17.01, Residential District Fence Heights and Table 10.17.02, Business District Fence Heights in corner side yards from a maximum height of 3 feet to 4 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet to 5, if the fence is not more than 50% opaque. Old Business New Business 1. PC 2015-05 KBL Community Center LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting special use permit approval for the construction and operation of a community center with an air-supported structure within an existing R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence District. The real property is located on Fox Road, between Pavilion Road and Ford Drive in Yorkville, Illinois. United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us - Action Item Special Use 2. 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 3. PC 2015-07 The United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening in the Zoning Ordinance to revise Table 10.17.01, Residential District Fence Heights and Table 10.17.02, Business District Fence Heights in corner side yards from a maximum height of 3 feet to 4 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet to 5, if the fence is not more than 50% opaque. - Action Item Text Amendment 4. Appointment of Deputy Chairperson. Additional Business Adjournment PLAN COMMISSION (“PC”) RULES OF PROCEDURE May 13, 2015 Please complete the hearing registration form if you wish to testify ORDER OF HEARING 1. Call the PC meeting to order 2. Roll Call – Quorum of 4 members 3. Call Public Hearing 2015-02 to order: SPECIAL USE FOR COMMUNITY CENTER 4. Introduction by City Attorney of PC Rules and Procedures 5. Adoption of May 13, 2015 Rules of Procedure by the PC 6. Oath given to all who intend to testify 7. City staff summary of petition and proof of notice of hearing 8. Petitioner’s opening statement summarizing case and testimony that will be presented 9. Petitioner presents testimony and evidence a. Questions of witnesses after each presentation (Questions must be relevant, not repetitive and not used to offer testimony or evidence) b. Questions by PC 10. Testimony by others in favor of the petition 11. Objectors to the petition presenting evidence or giving testimony related to a special use for a community center (Limited to 5 minutes per person for all to speak once unless Chair determines that allowing a speaker to address the PC again will contribute new testimony or other evidence) a. Questions of Objectors 12. Rebuttal by Petitioner 13. Rebuttal by Objectors 14. Additional questions by PC 15. Summation by Petitioner 16. Staff summary and recommendation 17. Closing of the taking of testimony 18. Discussion by PC and vote on findings of fact and recommendation PLAN COMMISSION (“PC”) RULES OF PROCEDURE A. All hearings shall be subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act. B. The Chair may impose reasonable limitations on evidence or testimony presented by persons and parties, such as time limits and barring repetitious, irrelevant or immaterial testimony. The PC shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence; however, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall not be admissible. The Chair may impose reasonable conditions on the hearing process based on the following factors: 1. The complexity of the issue. 2. Whether the witness possesses special expertise. 3. Whether the testimony reflects a matter of taste or personal opinion or concerns a disputed issue of fact. 4. The degree to which the witness’s testimony relates to the factors to be considered in approving or denying the proposal 5. Such other factors appropriate for the hearing. C. Standards “No special use shall be recommended by the Plan Commission unless said commission shall find that: 1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. 2. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within or near the neighborhood in which it is to be located. 3. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the Official Comprehensive Plan of the city as amended.” (10-4-9F) G. Conditions and Guarantees 1. Prior to the granting of any special use, the Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council may require conditions and restrictions, upon establishment, location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with the standards and requirements specified in subsection F. 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 PROPERTY BACKGROUND: The petitioner, KBL Community Center LLC, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, in March requesting special use approval for the construction and operation of a community center with an air-supported dome structure within an existing R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence District. The approximately 102-acre property is generally located on the south side of Fox Road, between Pavilion Road and Ford Drive in Yorkville, Illinois. Memorandum To: Plan Commission From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: May 5, 2015 Subject: PC 2015-05 KBL Community Center, LLC – Special Use Proposed Community Center with Air-Supported Dome Structure 1 The property, formerly known as the Silver Fox subdivision, was approved in 2006 as a 172-unit single-family residential development zoned R-2 via Ord. 2006-69. The original developer, Midwest Development LLC, secured only Concept Plan approval for the property but was never granted Preliminary or Final Plat approval. The Property remained undeveloped, just as the other four (4) nearby developments, all five collectively defined as the Southwest Infrastructure Developments; Silver Fox, Chally Farm, Evergreen Farm Estates, Aspen Ridge Estates, and York Wood Estates. The successor owners of these properties are currently in the process of amending each of their respective annexation agreements of the Southwest Infrastructure Developments in order to remove all cross contingencies and obligations on the condition that all five owners of the Southwest Infrastructure Developments agree to such amendments. While a separate matter from the proposed Special Use, the approval of the amended annexation agreement for the Silver Fox development would repeal the original single family development land plan and release the contingency of a Special Service Area (SSA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is seeking to construct an approximately 123,750 square foot community center with an air-supported dome structure on a 22-acre portion of the former Silver Fox development parcel. The dome structure will be approximately 75 feet in height, measured to the peak of the roof. A 2,700 square foot entry area with bathrooms/changing facility and small concessions will be located at the northwest portion of the air structure and will act as the entry into the domed athletic field. The air structure will be located near the northeast corner of the property with parking located immediately to the west. The parking requirements for this facility are a minimum of 253 stalls. However, the petitioner proposes to provide 285 stalls, of which 8 will be ADA compliant. A large, 10-foot berm will be located along the northerly property line to aid in the screening of the dome. The property will continue to be used on well and septic until such time the proper public utilities are available to the site. In addition, two (2) stormwater management facilities (basins) will also be located on the property. The first facility will be a dry basin and will be located at the northeast corner of the property. The second facility will be a wet basin and will be located immediately south of the proposed parking lot. This pond will have an established water level which will be maintained as the primary water source for the proposed dry hydrants located on the property. The pump for these hydrants will be located at the deepest point of the pond and will be maintained by the petitioner. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing zoning and land use for properties surrounding the subject property are as indicated below: 2 Zoning Land Use North Kendall County/Forest Preserve County Residences & Forest Preserve East Kendall County Farm Land South Kendall County Farm Land West Kendall County Farmstead/Farm Land SPECIAL USE REQUEST: Upon receiving the Special Use application for the proposed KBL Community Center, staff conducted a technical review with other City departments, consultants and outside agencies to determine the merits of the project’s proposal with regards to land use/zoning, site plan layout and aesthetics. Below are the findings of that review process: Land Use/Zoning The subject property is currently zoned within the R-2 Single-Family Residence District. While the primary permitted uses in this district are single-family detached houses, Section 10-11-C- 1: Purpose and Intent of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance, clearly states that this district shall also accommodate compatible and complimentary uses such as those that pursue cultural, religious, educational and public purposes. Further, the Zoning Ordinance identifies “community centers” as a use permissible within the R-2 zoning district by Special Use approval. A “community center” is defined in the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance as “a building or structure used as a place of meeting, recreation or social activity, generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community.” As proposed, the KBL Community Center plans to provide educational classes, social clubs and adaptive team sport activities for children and adults with disabilities in order to improve these individuals quality of life. Additionally, the facility will be open to the public when not being used during regularly scheduled programs for parks departments, school districts, sports clubs, social clubs, fundraisers and individuals. Comprehensive Plan In terms of long ranging planning goals expressed by the City for this area of the community, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan envisioned this property to have a future land use designation of Suburban Neighborhood. The intent of the Suburban Neighborhood classification is primarily for residential land uses comprised of single family detached homes. While land use designation is not zoning, zoning classifications should be consistent with the City’s long range planning goals. With that being said, the subject property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residence District and is consistent with the current 2008 Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, the community center use, which is identified as a special use within this zoning district, is deemed complimentary and compatible to residential land uses. It should also be noted, the City is currently in the process of updating the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and future land use designations may be more defined, amended and/or changed entirely as part of this process. However, the current petition as presented is required to be reviewed under the 2008 Comprehensive Plan study. Site Plan The proposed 22-acre site plan was reviewed by various City departments and outside agencies to ensure compliance with applicable ordinances, regulations and standards with regard to 3 traffic/access roads, parking, drainage, utilities, noise and lighting. Below are the summaries of those reviews. Traffic/Access Roads The proposed plan has a single access driveway into the interior of the property off of Fox Road (County Highway 1) which is under the jurisdiction of the Kendall County Highway Department. This proposed new access road aligns perfectly across from the existing access road into the Fox Glen Subdivision on the north side of Fox Road. Per the plan, a left turn lane will be provided for traffic travelling westbound on Fox Road entering into the subject property. This turn lane has been reviewed by the Kendall County Highway Department (see attached letter dated April 23, 2015). A separate permit issued by the County will be required prior to its construction. Additionally, the existing 70 foot wide right-of-way on Fox Road along the frontage of the property will be widened to 85 feet to accommodate the new left turn lane. The access road within the site will allow for traffic to flow seamlessly into and out of the parking lot, up to the main entrance of the building for drop-offs and along the south side of the building for additional parking. A 15-foot emergency/fire lane has also been provided around the base of the building which connects to the main drive aisle to ensure adequate access for ambulances and fire department vehicles. With regards to estimated vehicular trips or traffic generated from this property based upon the proposed use of a community center, the petitioner has provided a comparison of average daily trips of the previously approved 172-unit single family residential land use and the proposed one- story 123,750 square foot building. This is based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report titled, Trip Generation 9th Edition which is a compilation of national traffic data surveys utilized to estimate traffic volumes for various land use types. Table 1A1 Anticipated Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Land Use / ITE Code A.M. Peak Hour (Peak Hour of Street) P.M. Peak Hour (Peak Hour of Street) Saturday Peak Hour of Generator In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 66% 34% 49% 51% 54% 46% Recreational Community Center (123,750 sq. ft.) / 495 170 85 255 165 175 340 75 60 135 Table 1B 1 Anticipated Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes for a Single Family Subdivision Land Use / ITE Code A.M. Peak Hour (Peak Hour of Street) P.M. Peak Hour (Peak Hour of Street) Saturday Peak Hour of Generator In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 25% 75% 64% 36% 54% 46% Single-Family detached Housing (172 SF Lots) / 210 33 97 130 113 64 177 87 74 161 1 Note: What is not factored at this time is the actual timing of the peak hour versus the hours of operations compared to that of a Community Center which could show offsetting peak hours. In summary this is an estimation based on existing land use studies for land use. 4 Finally, should the remaining approximately 79 acres of the property be developed, the petitioner has agreed to and staff recommends that future dedication of needed right-of-way to accommodate a new collector roadway from Fox Road south which would eventually connect to Greenbriar Road be provided, as originally planned in the former Silver Fox subdivision site plan. Parking As illustrated in the site plan, adequate off street parking will be provided on the site just west of the proposed community center structure. With 285 parking stalls, eight (8) of which will be handicapped accessible, this exceeds the minimum number of required parking stalls of 253 spaces. All parking, loading and unloading of vehicles will be contained within the subject property and a circular drive area in front of the main entrance is provided to reduce stacking in the adjacent parking aisles. Should any additional overflow parking be needed for the community center, there are ample locations northeast and south of the building to accommodate within the subject property. Drainage The proposed community center site plan illustrates two (2) stormwater management systems on the subject property. The first is located in the northeast corner of the parcel and is a dry detention basin designed to contain one (1) acre foot of stormwater slowing down the water flow off the property and into the existing Fox Road ditch to the east. The second stormwater management system is located just south of the proposed parking lot and is a wet basin designed to retain approximately 7.10 acre foot of stormwater runoff. This basin is also proposed to be used to supply water for the dry hydrant. The overflow from this basin will be directed westward via a proposed new storm outfall pipe which will have a restricted release rate to a natural swale area located along the westerly property line. As part of the original Southwest Infrastructure Developments approval in 2006 which included the subject property known then as the Silver Fox subdivision, Engineering Enterprises, Inc. prepared a stormwater study of the Fox Road area which analyzed the impacts of the proposed residential developments on the current stormwater management systems. It was determined at that time should the developments be designed and constructed in accordance with the stormwater management ordinance, there would be no adverse impact flooding or conveyance on adjacent properties and “in fact would provide a benefit not otherwise realized should these areas remain undeveloped.” The petitioner is proposing to meet the City’s current stormwater management ordinance and maintaining a peak runoff rate equal to or less than the rate proposed in the original Southwest Stormwater Study for the subject property. Utilities The subject property is not within the required distance to an existing City water and/or sanitary sewer line to require connection to these public utilities as part of the construction of this project. Therefore, the petitioner is proposing to provide well and septic facilities to adequately meet the needs of the development. The proposed septic field will be located just north of the main building area and the proposed well will be located just south to the entry area adjacent to the parking area. Staff has been in discussions with the Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District (YBSD) regarding future connection to sanitary sewer systems for this property, as well as the other four (4) properties in the Southwest Infrastructure Development area. Per the language of the proposed amended annexation agreements which will be considered contemporaneously by the City Council with this special use request, it is staff’s recommendation that the properties be required to annex into the YBSD service area and connect to their sanitary sewer lines when such lines are extended to or past the subject property and made available for connection. 5 Noise An acoustical engineering report was provided by the petitioner from Arizon Structures, designer of the air-supported dome structure, which provides data on the acoustics and inflation equipment to be used for the proposed project (see attached report). Per the report, the dome structure will be built using a “double wall” construction of architectural fabrics with an air gap for thermal insulation which has been known to reduce the transmission of sound by approximately 30%. With regards to the proposed inflation and heating equipment, the sound pressure level within the structure is anticipated to be near 65 decibels (dB) which is comparable to a vacuum cleaner at distance of 1 meter away. The ground-mounted inflation and heating equipment will be located on the east side of the structure approximately 65 feet from the adjacent property line which is densely forested with a lining of mature trees. The City’s noise ordinance regulates noise during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00PM) and nighttime hours (10:01 PM to 6:59 AM). During the daytime hours the proposed use will be required to maintain the following noise levels: It is staff’s recommendation that the proposed use be regulated under the residential land use category for maximum noise levels as illustrated in the above table from Section 4-4-3-A of the Yorkville Municipal Code (Ord. 2014-80). Additionally, during the nighttime hours, the noise level from this property to any receiving residential land shall not exceed fifty-five (55) dB when measured at the property line of the residence as regulated under Section 4-4-3-B of the Yorkville Municipal Code. Lighting The air-supported dome and entry area will be internally illuminated as any other building and/or structure within the City. External illumination proposed for the development site will consist of typical parking light pole standards (maximum of 20 feet tall per code) which will have the 6 luminary shields to deflect the light in a downward cast. Per the City standards, a photometric plan will be provided as part of the final engineering process which will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Per City Code, all exterior lighting shall be designed, located and mounted so that the maximum illumination measured at the property line does not exceed one (1) foot-candle. Other Considerations In addition to the above technical site plan review, staff also took into consideration the impact to the surrounding properties by the aesthetics/building construction and signage of the proposed project, as well as perceived property value diminution. Below is a summary of these considerations. Aesthetics/Building Construction While not necessarily the purview of the Plan Commission but rather a function of the building permit review process, staff has provided a detail review of the construction materials and architectural design of the proposed development project. As noted, the proposed community center will be constructed using two separate building methods. The approximately 2, 700 square foot entry area will be a traditional brick and mortar type construction designed reminiscent of a barn house as illustrated in the attached preliminary front elevation prepared by Image Innovations, Inc., the project architect. The City’s Appearance Code regulations require that new non-residential structures have at least fifty percent (50%) of the total building constructed of masonry products or precast concrete. The front façade must incorporate at least 50% of masonry products or precast concrete, while any other facade that abuts a street shall incorporate the remaining percentage in masonry products or precast concrete. The petitioner is proposing to use a Belden face brick in Kingsport (red) and a Buechel cultured stone in a Chilton Custom Country Blend tone to accomplish the rustic feel of the base building that will blend in with surrounding rural character of the area. Material samples of both the brick and stone will be available during the meeting for inspection. It should also be mentioned that the overall height of the air supported dome will be 75 feet. However, per the standards for measuring roof height in the Zoning Ordinance, the actual structural height will be approximately 64 feet which exceeds the ordinance maximum of 30 feet. A variance for height exception has been submitted by the petitioner and the Zoning Board of Appeals will hear this request during a public hearing on May 6, 2015. With regards to the air-supported dome, Arizon Structures is the manufacturer of this unique building type. Building Department staff and the Bristol Kendall Fire District (BKFD) have met with the manufacturer and architect to discuss building safety and fire concerns. The structure will be built to meet or exceed the City’s adopted International Building Code (IBC) standards as well as the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 701 requirements. The fabric membrane is made from a fire retardant, mildew and fungus proof material and is designed to withstand 150 mph winds and snow loads up to 50 lbs per square foot. Further, due to the cable grid system which supports the membrane, it provides added support to the structure by minimizing the stress load and thereby lessening the extent of damage caused by falling debris in the event of an earthquake, hurricane or tornado. Signage Ground signage location has been proposed for the community center at the northwest corner of the property near the entrance drive. As proposed, the freestanding monument sign will be a total of 32 square feet and eight (8) feet tall with a masonry base to match the building. This is consistent with the current sign regulations and final approval of the sign will be handled as part of the building permit process. 7 Property Values One of the standards for considering a special use is the proposed use will not substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood the project is being proposed. The petitioner has provided a real estate appraisal report prepared by Ralph W. Harkison, an Illinois Certified Real Estate Appraiser of Harkison Appraisal Company to evaluate the impact an air supported dome structure would have on the surrounding residential home values. The report identified and compared three (3) existing air supported dome sport structures in the Chicago area (Lockport, Buffalo Grove and Bolingbrook) and compared the sales prices of homes, on a square foot basis, which sold in past 12 months that were located within ½ mile of the dome to those sales prices of similar homes located more than ½ mile up to 1 mile from the dome structure. This study resulted in a list of following sales for each area where the domes were located: Based upon this appraisal report, it was found that there was no measurable negative impact to neighboring properties home values that are located within ½ mile or 1 mile of a sports dome structure. A copy of the appraisal report has been attached to this memorandum for the Plan Commission’s review and consideration. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A SPECIAL USE: Section 10-4-9-F of the City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for special use requests. No special use shall be recommended by the Plan Commission unless said commission shall find that: 1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. 2. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6. The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the City Council pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission. The petitioner has provided written responses to these standards as part of their application (see attached) and requests inclusion of those responses into the public record at the May 13, 2015 Plan Commission meeting. 8 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF SPECIAL USE: Based upon the above review of the proposed community center project, should the Plan Commission consider favorable recommendation of the Special Use to the City Council, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The project is subject to final engineering review and approval based upon comments provided in a review letter from Engineering Enterprises, Inc dated April 3, 2015. 2. Should the remaining approximately 79 acres of the property be developed, the petitioner will grant future dedication of needed right-of-way to accommodate a new collector roadway from Fox Road south which would eventually connect to Greenbriar Road, as originally planned in the former Silver Fox subdivision site plan. 3. That the development be required to annex into the YBSD service area and connect to their sanitary sewer lines when such lines are extended to or past the subject property. 4. That the proposed community center use be regulated under the residential land use category for maximum noise levels as illustrated in Section 4-4-3-A of the Yorkville Municipal Code (Ord. 2014-80). 5. The request for Special Use authorization for a community center is subject to City Council approval of the requested height variance as presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals during the May 6, 2015 public hearing. 6. The request for Special Use authorization for a community center is subject to City Council approval of the requested annexation agreement amendment as presented to the City Council during the May 12, 2015 public hearing. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use request for the proposed community center with conditions as stipulated in this memorandum as the site plan is consistent with City Ordinances with regards to land use/zoning, comprehensive plan designation, bulk regulations, traffic and adequate access to roads, on-site parking, drainage, utilities, noise and site lighting. Additionally, conformance with the City’s building and safety regulations and Appearance Code have been sufficiently met. PROPOSED MOTION: In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on May 13, 2015 and approval of the findings of fact, the Plan Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a request for Special Use authorization to construct a community center with an air-supported dome structure in the R-2 Single Family Traditional Residential District subject to the conditions enumerated in a staff memorandum dated May 5, 2015 and illustrated in a site plan submitted by HR Green dated 03-15-15 and last revised 4-30-15 and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the Plan Commission}… Attachments: 1. Copy of Petitioner’s Application 2. Petitioner’s Narrative re: Community Center 3. Plat of Survey 4. Proposed Community Center Site Plan 5. Preliminary Front Building Elevation 9 6. Preliminary Floor Plan 7. Renderings of Proposed Community Center 8. Community Center Aerial with Distances to Nearest Residential Structures 9. Proposed Peak Dome Elevation Drawing 10. Kendall County Highway Department letter re: Brummel Sports Dome dated 4-23-15. 11. Acoustics Report prepared by Arizon Structures. 12. Harkison Appraisal Report prepared by Ralph W. Harkison dated 5-4-15. 13. Southwest Stormwater Study (Fox Road Area) prepared by EEI, Inc. dated 2-20-2007. 14. EEI, Inc. review letter re: KBL Community Center – Concept Plan Review dated 4-3-15. 15. Copy of Public Notice. 16. Copies of e-mailed resident emails provided to staff regarding the proposed project. 10 KBL Community Center LLC Mission: KBL Community Center plans to provide educational classes, social clubs and adaptive team sport activities for children and adults with disabilities in order to improve their quality of life. Proposed initial programs: Educational: Yoga Relaxation Techniques Nutrition Music Therapy Health & Fitness Tutoring Character/Self-esteem training Social: Media Club Dance Class Reading club Movie Club Dances Scrapbooking Adaptive Team Sport: Track & Field Soccer Baseball Basketball KBL Community Center hopes that these programs lead to new friendships for participants and a support group for the parents. The facility consists of an educational building with two classrooms, restrooms and snack bar. The attached field house contains a running track, turfed football size field and one basketball court. The track will accommodate wheelchairs. The facility will be open to the public when not used by scheduled programs. Examples include park departments, school districts, sports clubs, social clubs, fundraisers and individuals. Operating hours will accommodate the needs of the community. The Center does not anticipate opening before 6am or closing after 9pm. SH E E T Il l i n o i s P r o f e s s i o n a l D e s i g n F i r m # 1 8 4 - 0 0 1 3 2 2 65 1 P r a i r i e P o i n t e D r i v e , S u i t e 2 0 1 , Yo r k v i l l e , I l l i n o i s 6 0 5 6 0 t. 6 3 0 . 5 5 3 . 7 5 6 0 f . 6 3 0 . 5 5 3 . 7 6 4 6 ww w . h r g r e e n . c o m 1 O F 1 CONTACT INFORMATIONTELEPHONE #CITY CONTACTUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE(630) 553-4370KRYSTI J. BARKSDALE-NOBLE, AICP COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDIRECTORERIC DHUSEPUBLIC WORKSDIRECTOR800 GAME FARM ROADYORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 60560CITYENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.(630) 466-6700ENGINEERBRAD SANDERSON, P.E.52 WHEELER ROADSUGAR GROVE, ILLINOIS 60554COUNTYKENDALL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT.(630) 553-7616ENGINEERFRANCIS KLASS, P.E.6780 ROUTE 47YORKVILLE, IL 60560SANITARYYORKVILLE-BRISTOL SANITARY DISTRICT(630) 553-7657P.O. BOX 27304 RIVER STREETYORKVILLE, IL 60560ELECTRICAL POWERCOMED(630) 576-7094ILYAS MOHIUDDIN2 LINCOLN CENTRE, 6TH FLOOROAK BROOK TERRACE, IL 60181 NATURAL GASNICOR GAS(630) 388-2362CONSTANCE LANE, P.E.1844 FERRY ROADNAPERVILLE, IL 60563TELEPHONEAT&T(815) 727-0558MATT MITCHELL65 W WEBSTER JOLIET IL 60432FLOOR 4EMM3781@ATT.COMCABLECOMCAST(630) 600-6352MARTHA GIERAS680 INDUSTRIAL DRIVEELMHURST, IL 60126IEPAI.E.P.A. - PERMIT SECTION,217-782-0610DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTIONP.O. BOX 19276SPRINGFIELD, IL 62794-9276J.U.L.I.E.DESIGN TICKET #ILLINOIS JULIE,800-892-0123GEOTECHNICALT.S.C.CONTACT INFORMATIONTELEPHONE # L O C A T I O N M A P C E R T I F I C A T I O N KBL C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R ~F O X R O A D ~ KBL CO M M U N I T Y C E N T E R L L C YO R K V I L L E , I L L I N O I S 20 1 5 65 1 P R A I R I E P O I N T E , S U I T E 2 0 1 Y O R K V I L L E , I L 6 0 5 6 0 Phone: 63 0 . 5 5 3 . 7 5 6 0 | T o l l F r e e : 8 0 0 . 7 2 8 . 7 8 0 5 | F a x : 6 3 0 . 5 5 3 . 7 6 4 6 | H R G r e e n . c o m • • R Di a l 8 1 1 o r 1 - 8 0 0 - 8 9 2 - 0 1 2 3 Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . Ca l l be f o r e y o u d i g . LO C A T I O N O F S E C T I O N I N D I C A T E D T H U S : - S H E E T I N D E X PR O J E C T LO C A T I O N 60 30 0 xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx PR O J E C T LO C A T I O N F D G B A EC ARIZON ENGINEERING REPORT | 2013-2014 Arizon Inflation Equipment Acoustics Report 2013-2014 | 1 Acoustics & Arizon’s Inflation Equipment Arizon Structures Engineering Department Engineering Report 2013-2014 ARIZON ENGINEERING REPORT | 2013-2014 Arizon Inflation Equipment Acoustics Report 2013-2014 | 2 Introduction to Acoustics Arizon manufactures Air and Frame Structures for many applications, from Sports & Recreation to Construction Sites. Many of our customers are interested in the acoustics experienced when using a membrane structure. The sound levels inside the structure are important for the comfort of the occupants, but often the sound reduction through the structure is important depending on the application. Structures designed to host noisy events such as live music or sporting events are often concerned about the sound levels at the edge of the property lines for local ordinance compliance. Conversely, recording studios or education centers would be concerned about the ability to shield outside noises from the activities inside. Arizon’s standard construction for our structures uses a “double wall” construction of architectural fabrics with an air gap for thermal insulation. Although these materials are not known for their acoustic properties, it has been our experience that the sound transmission through a wall of this construction is reduced by 30% or so. Sound Level Testing In order to understand this better, it is important to know that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale, in decibels (dB). The nature of this logarithmic scale is that the perceived sound doubles with every 3 dB of sound power increase. It is also reduced by 50% for every 3 dB decrease. The table below shows comparative decibel levels for common noises. Table 1: Table of Sound Levels L and Corresponding Sound Pressure and Sound Intensity Examples Sound Pressure Level Lp dBSPL Sound Pressure p N/m2 = Pa Sound Intensity I W/m2 Jet aircraft, 50 m away 140 200 100 Threshold of pain 130 63.2 10 Threshold of discomfort 120 20 1 Chainsaw, 1m distance 110 6.3 0.1 Nightclub, 1 m from speaker 100 2 0.01 Diesel truck, 10 m away 90 0.63 0.001 Curbside of busy road, 5 m 80 0.2 0.0001 Vacuum cleaner, distance 1 m 70 0.063 0.00001 Conversational speech, 1m 60 0.02 0.000001 Average home 50 0.0063 0.0000001 Quiet library 40 0.002 0.00000001 Quiet bedroom at night 30 0.00063 0.000000001 Background in TV studio 20 0.0002 0.0000000001 ARIZON ENGINEERING REPORT | 2013-2014 Arizon Inflation Equipment Acoustics Report 2013-2014 | 3 Arizon Inflation Equipment & Sound Levels Within the equipment and materials of a typical Air Structure, the main source of sound is the inflation and heating equipment. Arizon has designed the equipment to be the quietest in the industry, with sound pressure levels near 65 dB within the Air Structure. The noise from a heating or air conditioning unit for a Frame Structure is largely dependent on the location of the equipment, but again, Arizon uses equipment designed to be the quietest in the industry Reducing Sound Transmission in an Air Supported Structure When dealing with sound transmission through the building envelope, the most effective way to reduce sound transmission is with mass of the materials. Sound will travel through sheetrock more easily than brick, for example. The nature of the materials in a membrane structure is not typically ideal for sound reduction, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, in order to further reduce the sound through the structure envelope, sound absorbing materials can by built into the walls such as fiberglass insulation. More can be done with heavier materials, such as a heavy-mass fabric barrier. Such a barrier weighs over 2 pounds per square foot, but can reduce sound directly through the barrier up to 30 dB. From the table above, you can see that this is very significant. Of course this comes with a price that is also significant. Another common way to reduce the sound through an Air or Frame membrane structure is to use a perimeter wall for the lower section of the structure. This could be a block wall 10 feet high, with the membrane structure on top of the wall. This adds a level of protection from accidental damage to the membrane structure, as well as a nice amount of noise reduction into or out of the structure. In order to get more specific on the amount of sound reduction with any of these options, we can calculate the effects of the design, but the layout and noise factors must be well understood. Trying to estimate the effects of sound is very difficult, and changes in the variables involved can have significant changes in the results. Therefore, assumptions should be kept to a minimum or eliminated if a sound estimate is to be of any value. If you have a project with specific sound requirements, please contact our engineering team to discuss the application, and Arizon’s ability to meet the project needs. Additional Reporting Additional documentation regarding the sound levels tested for Arizon’s inflation equipment is available upon request. Please contact Arizon’s sales or engineering departments to request additional field reports or explanation. United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY (FOX ROAD AREA) Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis For: Prepared For: 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, IL 60554 Phone: (630) 466-9350 44W110 U.S. Highway 20 Hampshire, IL 60140 Phone: (847) 683-3100 www.eeiweb.com Engineering Enterprises, Inc. United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 February20, 2007 SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois - 2 - PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: United City of Yorkville Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 800 Game Farm Road 52 Wheeler Road Yorkville, IL 60560 Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 553-4350 www.eeiweb.com www.yorkville.il.us (630) 466-9350 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION I, Jay P. Nemeth, a licensed professional engineer of Illinois, hereby certify that this report was prepared under my direct supervision. Dated this _______________ day of __________________________, AD, 2007 at Sugar Grove, Illinois. ______________________________________________________________________ Jay P. Nemeth, P.E., CFM Illinois Licensed Professional Engineer No. 062-055794 My license expires on November 30th, 2007 SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois TABLE OF CONTENTS - 3 - § PROJECT LOCATION EXHIBIT 1. ABSTRACT 2. STUDY AREA 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 3.A HYDROLOGIC MODELING 3.A.1 METHODOLOGY 3.A.2 ANALYSIS 3.B CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS 3.B.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS 3.B.2 HYDRAULIC MODELING 3.B.3 ANALYSIS 3.B.3.a FA-31 3.B.3.b FA-32 3.B.3.c FA-41 3.B.3.d FA-42 3.B.3.e FA-43 3.B.3.f FA-44 3.B.3.g FA-45 3.B.3.h FA-46 3.B.3.i FA-47 3.B.3.j FA-48 3.B.3.k FA-22+23 4. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4.A FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 4.B HYDROLOGIC MODELING 4.B.1 METHODOLOGY 4.B.2 ANALYSIS 4.C CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS 4.C.1 FA-32 4.C.2 FA-41 4.C.3 FA-42 4.C.4 FA-43 4.C.5 FA-44 4.C.6 FA-46 4.C.7 FA-48 4.C.8 FA-22+23 SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois TABLE OF CONTENTS - 4 - 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE 5.B REGIONAL DETENTION 5.C CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS 5.C.1 EXISTING SYSTEM UPGRADES 5.C.2 OUTFALL STORM SEWERS 5.D BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 6.A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA 6.A.1 ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE 6.A.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6.B CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS 7. CONCLUSION § TABLES T.1 SUBWATERSHED SUMMARY T.2 PEAK RUNOFF SUMMARY § EXHIBITS E.1 STUDY AREA E.2 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES E.3 TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP E.4 FLOW ANALYSIS LOCATIONS E.5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS § APPENDIX A.A SIMULATED STORAGE SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS A.B RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS A.C HYDRAULIC MODELING CALCULATIONS A.D ELECTRONIC DATA SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 5 - 1. ABSTRACT EEI was retained on behalf of the United City of Yorkville, Illinois to perform a regional stormwater drainage study for the Southwest development region. The study was commissioned upon the recommendation of the United City of Yorkville Plan Commission to identify and address regional stormwater management issues within the study area. Approximately 1,225 Acres of residential and commercial development have been proposed in the study area as part of ten (10) planned unit developments (PUD). This study identifies the impacts of the proposed PUD’s on current stormwater management systems. Deficiencies in the current stormwater management systems are also identified and conveyance improvements to such are recommended. Additional alternatives including regional detention, best management practices (BMP’s), and reduced allowable release rate criteria have also been evaluated to determine their relative benefits. 2. STUDY AREA The Southwest development region is generally bounded by the Fox River to the north, Illinois Route 71 to the south, High Point Road to the west, and Illinois Route 47 to the east. A study area location map can be seen in the attached Exhibit No. 1. The study area consists of eight (8) principal watersheds draining approximately 5.8 mi2. Watershed boundaries can bee seen in the attached Exhibit No. 2. Watershed Name Tributary Area (Acres) East Bluff 151.5 High Point 295.1 Hydraulic 21.3 *Middle Aux Sable 345.1 Pavilion 1,526.8 Poplar 1,045.9 Walsh 415.4 West Bluff 84.7 * Seven of the eight principal watersheds are tributary to the Fox River; the eighth is tributary to Middle Aux Sable Creek. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 6 - 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 3.A HYDROLOGIC MODELING 3.A.1 METHODOLOGY HEC-HMS version 2.2.2 (Hydrologic Engineering Center - Hydrologic Modeling System, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) was used for the hydrologic analysis of the study area watersheds. For more information on HEC-HMS, refer to http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/. The analysis was performed using the SCS Curve Number and SCS Unit Hydrograph options in HEC-HMS. Rainfall amounts used in the HEC-HMS model are taken from Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 71 for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence interval storm events. Durations of 1-hour, 2-hours, 3-hours, 6-hours, 12-hours, 18-hours, and 24- hours were analyzed for each recurrence interval to determine the critical duration storm for the given element. Huff quartile rainfall distributions (for point rainfall) were utilized as appropriate to the analyzed storms duration. Rainfall Depth (inches) Duration 100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr Huff Quartile 1-hr 3.56 3.04 2.59 2.10 1st 2-hr 4.47 3.82 3.25 2.64 1st 3-hr 4.85 4.14 3.53 2.86 1st 6-hr 5.68 4.85 4.13 3.35 1st 12-hr 6.59 5.62 4.79 3.89 2nd 18-hr 6.97 5.95 5.06 4.11 3rd 24-hr 7.58 6.46 5.51 4.47 3rd Watershed and subwatershed boundaries were delineated using USGS quadrangle (ten-foot interval contour) maps. This data was supplemented with a field survey of selected hydraulic structures within the study area. The topographic base map and subwatershed delineation can be seen in Exhibit No. 3. The SCS runoff curve number method was used to determine the initial abstraction (or loss rate) before runoff begins. Runoff curve numbers (CN) used for each subwatershed in the HEC-HMS model were determined by a visual review of landuse and hydrologic soil group data. Base CN values were taken from Table 2-2 of TR-55 (Technical Release No. 55, USDA-NRCS). Table No. 1 presents a summary of the runoff CN for each of the subwatersheds. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 7 - A variation of the Equations for Estimating Clark Unit Hydrograph Parameters for Small Rural Watersheds in Illinois (USGS 00-4184) was used to determine the Time of Concentration (Tc) for each subwatershed. Utilizing subwatershed area as the primary characteristic, the following equation was used to determine Tc: Tc = 39.1 * A0.577 * (I + 1)-1.146 * D0.781 Where Tc is the time of concentration in minutes, A is the subwatershed area in square miles, I is the percentage of impervious cover, and D is the effective precipitation depth in inches. Lag time (Tlag) was subsequently calculated as 0.6*Tc. Table No. 1 presents a summary of Tc and Tlag values for each of the subwatersheds. Existing detention basins are present in subwatersheds 202, 204, and 309. To represent the attenuation effect of the storage in the hydrologic model, the volume of storage present and peak allowable release rate were estimated using the Yorkville Modified Rational Method. The impervious percentage for each of these subwatersheds was assumed to be 0.378 (based on a CN of 75), resulting in a site runoff coefficient “C” of 0.68. Given subwatershed area, the resultant storage and peak allowable discharge values calculated for the 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year increments were then incorporated into the model. Supporting calculations can be found in Appendix A. The SCS Lag method was used to approximate the travel time along channelized stream segments. Utilizing an assumed velocity based upon the average watershed slope, segment length was used to calculate approximate lag times. 3.A.2 ANALYSIS Twenty (20) locations were selected within the study area for analysis. The flow analysis locations include the downstream outfall locations of the eight (8) watersheds in the study area and twelve (12) hydraulic structure locations within the watersheds. The flow analysis locations selected can be seen in the attached Exhibit No. 4. A summary of the peak runoff rates at each of the flow analysis locations for the critical duration 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence interval storm events has been provided in Table No. 2. A graphical representation of the peak runoff rates at each of the locations can be seen in Figure No. 1 below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 8 - SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 9 - The 1-hour duration storm event is the critical duration storm for FA-10 and FA-20. The 2-hour duration storm event is the critical duration storm for each of the remaining flow analysis locations. Runoff hydrographs for each of the flow analysis locations have been included as Appendix B. 3.B CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS 3.B.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS Twelve (12) hydraulic structure locations were identified within the study area as potential conveyance restrictions based upon reports related by United City of Yorkville staff and our analysis. The locations include FA-22 and FA-23 along the Walsh Tributary, FA-31 and FA-32 along the Poplar Tributary and FA-41, FA-42, FA-43, FA- 44, FA-45, FA-46, FA-47, and FA-48 along the Pavilion Tributary (refer to Exhibit No. 5 for reference). Each of these locations is discussed in specific detail in section 3.B.3 below. EEI is not aware of any reports of structural flooding related to any of the conveyance problems at these locations. The drainage problems appear to be limited to nuisance flooding1 due to poor conveyance. EEI did not perform a survey of the lowest opening elevations of adjacent structures to determine their flood risk. A flood risk analysis is outside the scope of this analysis. 3.B.2 HYDRAULIC MODELING EEI performed field surveys of the hydraulic structures at each of the selected analysis locations. An existing conditions hydraulic model along the Pavilion Tributary had previously been completed as part of the Aspen Ridge Estates development. This HEC-RAS model was revised and supplemented with EEI field data to perform the hydraulic analysis at locations FA-47 and FA-48. At the other locations, Haested Methods – Culvermaster was used to model the hydraulic characteristics of the structures at the analysis locations. Hydraulic modeling calculations can be found in Appendix A.C and on the attached compact disc. 1 Nuisance flooding – referring to non-structural flooding or flooding that poses no immediate threat to life, health or safety. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 10 - 3.B.3 ANALYSIS 3.B.3.a FA-31 A natural bottom box opening bridge is present at this location. The opening is approximately 28-feet wide and 6- feet in height. A rough Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing bridge has sufficient capacity for the 100-year critical duration peak flow below the low chord of the bridge. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: 3.B.3.b FA-32 An 83-inch wide by 53” high elliptical corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 10-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 11 - 3.B.3.c FA-41 A 48-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 10-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 12 - 3.B.3.d FA-42 A 48-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 50-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: 3.B.3.e FA-43 A 36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe culvert (RCP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 10-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 13 - 3.B.3.f FA-44 An 83-inch wide by 53” high elliptical corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 10-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 14 - 3.B.3.g FA-45 A natural bottom box opening bridge is present at this location. The opening is approximately 23-feet wide and 9- feet in height. A rough Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing bridge has sufficient capacity for the 100-year critical duration peak flow below the low chord of the bridge. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: 3.B.3.h FA-46 An 83-inch wide by 53” high elliptical corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at this location. A Culvertmaster analysis of the structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing culvert has insufficient capacity for the 10-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 15 - 3.B.3.i FA-47 A natural bottom bridge is present at this location. The opening is approximately 52-feet wide and 10-feet in height. A HEC-RAS analysis of the structure was performed to produce flow profiles for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing bridge has sufficient capacity for the 100-year critical duration peak flow below the low chord of the bridge. Water surface profiles for the 10-year, 25- year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 16 - 3.B.3.j FA-48 Two 8-foot wide by 5-foot high box culverts are present at this location. A HEC-RAS analysis of the structure was performed to produce flow profiles for the structure. The analysis indicates that the existing bridge has insufficient capacity for the 50-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface profiles for the 10-year, 25- year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: 3.B.3.k FA-22 and FA-23 A 24-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at location FA-22. A 54-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) is present at location FA-23. An initial analysis of the two locations indicated that the culverts at the two locations function in combination during high runoff producing storm events. As such, the two culverts were considered as one location for the purposes of our analysis. A Culvertmaster analysis of the combined structure was performed to produce a flow rating curve for the combined structure. The analysis indicates that the existing combined structure has insufficient capacity for the 50-year critical duration peak flow below the crest of the road. Water surface elevations for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the figure below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 17 - 4. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4.A FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Approximately 1,225 Acres of residential and commercial development have been proposed in the study area as part of ten (10) planned unit developments (PUD). The location of the proposed developments can be seen in the attached Exhibit No. 5. The proposed PUD’s and their approximate areas are as follows: Development Name Approximate Area (Acres) Aspen Ridge Estates 121 Chally Farm 150 Cornerstone 37 Evergreen Farm 68 Fox River Bluffs 379 Matlock 19 Meadowbrook Homes (Harris Farm) 161 Silver Fox 107 Villas at the Preserve 24 York Wood Estates 159 The proposed condition analysis assumes each of the developments has been fully constructed in accordance with current United City of Yorkville ordinances. With respect to stormwater management, this assumes that sufficient detention has been provided to limit the peak discharge from the developments to 0.15 cfs/acre in accordance with the Yorkville SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 18 - Modified Rational Method. No other changes to existing landuse outside of these developments have been considered as part of the proposed condition. 4.B HYDROLOGIC MODELING 4.B.1 METHODOLOGY The existing condition HEC-HMS hydrologic model discussed above in §3.A.1 was utilized as the base condition. CN and Tc values were adjusted accordingly in the proposed development subwatershed areas to reflect the proposed landuse. Table No. 1 provides a summary of the revised runoff CN, Tc, and Tlag values for each of the affected subwatersheds. Simulated detention basins were created for each of the twenty-six (26) subwatersheds to be impacted by the proposed developments. To represent the attenuation effect of the required detention in the hydrologic model, the volume of storage and peak allowable release rate required by the ordinance were estimated using the Yorkville Modified Rational Method (as discussed in §3.A.1). The resultant storage and peak allowable discharge values calculated for the 2- year, 25-year, and 100-year increments were then incorporated into the model to simulate the proposed conditions detention basins. Supporting calculations for the development of the simulated detention basins can be found in Appendix A. 4.B.2 ANALYSIS A summary of the peak runoff rates at each of the twenty (20) selected flow analysis locations for the critical duration 10-year, 25- year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence interval storm events has been provided in Table No. 2. A graphical representation of the peak runoff rates relative to the existing condition peak runoff rates at each of the locations can be seen in Figure No. 2 below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 19 - SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 20 - The 1-hour duration storm event is the critical duration storm for FA-10 and FA-60 in the proposed condition. The 2-hour duration storm event is the critical duration storm for each of the remaining flow analysis locations in the proposed condition. Existing and proposed condition runoff hydrographs for each of the flow analysis locations have been provided for comparison in Appendix B. The percentage of reduction from the existing condition peak runoff rate at each of the flow analysis locations is contained in Table No. 2. The reduction in peak runoff rates in the proposed conditions ranges from a minimum of 16.6% to a maximum of 97.0%. The reduction in peak runoff rates for the 100-year recurrence interval at each of the flow analysis locations is presented graphically in Figure No. 3 below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 21 - SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 22 - The corresponding reductions in peak flow rates for the 50-year, 25-year, and 10-year recurrence intervals are roughly scalar, with slight variations due to the underlying hydrologic equations. 4.C CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS The proposed conditions peak runoff rates were input into the hydraulic models discussed in §3.B.2 and §3.B.3 above for analysis. For the purposes of the proposed conditions analysis, only those locations with insufficient capacity for the existing conditions peak runoff were analyzed. 4.C.1 FA-32 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-32 is reduced to approximately once in twenty-five years. 4.C.2 FA-41 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 23 - The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-41 is reduced in the proposed condition; however it is insufficiently reduced to prevent flows overtopping the roadway during a 10-year recurrence interval storm event. 4.C.3 FA-42 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 24 - Sufficient capacity is available at FA-42 to eliminate flow overtopping the roadway in the proposed condition 100-year storm event. 4.C.4 FA-43 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-43 is reduced to approximately once in twenty-five years. 4.C.5 FA-44 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 25 - The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-44 is reduced in the proposed condition; however it is insufficiently reduced to prevent flows overtopping the roadway during a 10-year recurrence interval storm event. 4.C.6 FA-46 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-46 is reduced to approximately once in ten years. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 26 - 4.C.7 FA-48 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-48 is reduced to approximately once in fifty years. 4.C.7 FA-22 and FA-23 The effect of the reduction in peak flows due to the proposed development for the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events can be seen in the graphic below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 27 - The recurrence interval for flow overtopping the road at FA-22+23 is reduced to approximately once in fifty years. 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE A reduction in the peak allowable release rate was considered for several of the proposed developments based upon their current land plans and ability to accommodate additional detention storage on the sites. Under this scenario, the peak allowable release rate from the proposed developments was reduced from 0.15 cfs/Acre of development to 0.10 cfs/Acre of development for the following subwatersheds: 307, 407, 415, 418, and 421. Due to the proximity of the watersheds to the selected flow analysis locations, the effect on the peak flow was negligible in all cases. This can be seen in the Figure No. 4 below: SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 28 - SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 29 - 5.B REGIONAL DETENTION Regional detention basins were briefly considered as an alternative to reduce flooding concerns in the Pavilion Tributary and Poplar Tributary watersheds. Each of these watersheds is comparatively narrow relative to their length in addition to being relatively steep. As a result, the peak subwatershed runoffs from shorter duration higher intensity storms combine quickly to produce a watershed hydrograph with a steep rise and a shallow fall. To address the flooding concerns in the Pavilion Tributary and Poplar Tributary watersheds, a regional basin would be required in close proximity to the particular flooding concern to provide a benefit. Due to the steep topography, the usual land and cost savings related to the construction of regional detention would not be achievable. In these two cases, the construction of smaller site specific detention basins throughout the watersheds would achieve the same reductions in peak runoff. As such, regional detention was not evaluated in detail for these watersheds. 5.C CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS 5.C.1 EXISTING SYSTEM UPGRADES The results of our analysis indicate that the runoff generated in the study area primarily results in nuisance flooding; the exception being at flow analysis location FA-32. At FA-32, when the roadway is overtopped, emergency services would not have access to the residences located south along the private Fox Drive. Fox Drive however is a private roadway and neither the City nor Township has the jurisdictional authority to address the issue. In the other locations where flows overtop roads in the analyzed storm events, alternate access routes are available. North of Fox Glen Drive, near FA-43, the homes along the east side of the east branch of Pavilion Tributary appear to be experiencing streambank erosion that may eventually threaten the structural stability of the homes. Opening up the culvert within the right of way of Fox Glen Drive would only exacerbate this problem if no other action is taken. Channel improvements on the private property north of Fox Glen Drive in coordination with a realignment of the culvert at Fox Glen Drive would provide a benefit if designed and constructed properly. The consideration of conveyance improvements on private property is outside of the scope of this analysis. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 30 - As the remaining locations pose no direct threat to life, health, or safety, no conveyance improvements have been analyzed. 5.C.2 OUTFALL STORM SEWERS Outfall storm sewers were briefly considered as an alternative to reduce flooding concerns in the Pavilion Tributary and Poplar Tributary watersheds in the vicinity of flow analysis locations FA- 31, FA-32, FA-41, FA-42, and FA-43. The cost to construct outfall storm sewers with 100-year recurrence interval peak runoff capacity would be significantly more costly than simply upsizing the restrictive culvert/bridge crossings. As such, this alternative was not considered in any detail. 5.D BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As development occurs in the study area, best management practices (BMP’s) should be utilized to the extent practicable to minimize the adverse effects of development on water quantity and water quality. In addition to providing stormwater detention to detain excess stormwater runoff and release it at a controlled rate (in accordance with the ordinance), proposed developments should incorporate additional features where practical to further attenuate, infiltrate, and filter surface runoff at the point of generation. Soil borings and supplemental soils information (NRCS Soil Surveys) should be analyzed on a site specific basis to identify suitable soils for infiltration practices. The following infiltration practices should be considered based upon suitability: • Minimization of impervious surfaces • Disconnection of impervious surfaces • Vegetated swales in-lieu of storm sewer • Depressional storage areas (raingardens, depressed islands, settling basins, etc.) • Infiltration devices – basins, trenches, drywells • Filter strips • Porous pavement in low-use areas Adjacent jurisdictions have required that retention be provided for all hydraulically connected impervious areas of new development. In Kane County, retention is required for the runoff volume from a 0.75-inch rainfall event over the hydraulically connected impervious area of new development. The retention volume is stored below the elevation of the primary gravity outlet of the site runoff storage facility. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 31 - 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 6.A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA 6.A.1 ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE As indicated by the analysis in §5.A above, no appreciable benefit is achieved through the reduction in the peak allowable release rate for new development. As such, this alternative is not recommended. 6.A.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The best management practices outlined in §5.D above should be incorporated into new developments to the extent practicable to help reduce the quantity of runoff and to promote water quality. However, in the watersheds analyzed, the undetained runoff from upstream areas (both developed and undeveloped) is the major contributing factor to the high peak runoff rates calculated in the analysis. As such, the implementation of best management practices, while recommended, will not appreciably reduce the quantity of runoff within the study area. 6.B CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS As discussed in §5.C.1 above, no conveyance improvements are being recommended. 7. CONCLUSION The Yorkville stormwater detention ordinance is effective in controlling peak runoff rates from new development as evidenced by the reductions noted in Table No. 2 for the 100-year recurrence interval storm. One primary concern however is that the detention basins will detain water frequently for extended periods of time, resulting in downstream streambank erosion. It is generally recognized that bankfull flow conditions, typically relating to the 2-year recurrence interval event, are most related to channel morphology (erosion, deposition, etc.). In a NIPC study of detention effectiveness in Northeastern Illinois, it was determined that an allowable 2-year release rate of 0.04 cfs/acre is likely not to increase existing condition 2-year flows2, thereby minimizing the likelihood of the channel adjusting (or eroding from extended inundation) due to increased discharge rates. As such, the Yorkville ordinance is in conformance with generally accepted standards. 2 Evaluation of Stormwater Detention Effectiveness in Northeastern Illinois, 1990 - Dreher, Schaefer, and Hey. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY - 32 - As summarized in Table No. 1, the summary average Curve Number (CN), which represents the ability of the land to reduce runoff (infiltration and other abstractions), is reduced from 74.4 to 74.2 in the proposed condition. As such, the total change in the volume (quantity) of runoff under the proposed conditions is negligible. In summary, the proposed developments, designed and constructed in accordance with the Yorkville stormwater ordinance will not adversely impact flooding or conveyance on adjacent properties and in fact should provide a benefit not otherwise realized should these areas remain undeveloped. SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois TABLES Yo r k v i l l e S o u t h w e s t S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y (F o x R o a d A r e a ) TA B L E N O . 1 Su b w a t e r s h e d S u m m a r y TC Tla g TC Tlag mi 2 ac r e s ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) 10 0 U T F - A H y d r a u l i c C o r n e r s t o n e 0 . 0 2 1 1 5 4 1 3 . 5 4 1 3 . 3 8 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 0 . 2 6 . 1 9 2 . 0 8 3 . 8 % 10 1 U T F - A H y d r a u l i c 0 . 0 1 2 1 5 2 7 . 7 8 1 1 . 5 6 . 9 7 0 . 5 2 5 . 7 % 20 0 U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 0 0 7 5 1 4 4 . 8 1 8 . 4 5 . 0 6 0 . 0 - 2 . 7 % 20 1 U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 1 7 7 5 6 4 1 1 3 . 6 4 3 2 . 5 1 9 . 5 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 20 2 U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 0 5 7 9 9 3 3 7 . 1 2 2 5 . 5 1 5 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 20 3 a U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 0 4 9 4 4 9 3 1 . 6 5 1 5 . 1 9 . 1 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 20 3 b U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 0 9 2 8 5 5 5 9 . 4 3 3 1 . 3 1 8 . 8 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 20 4 U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 1 3 1 8 1 4 8 4 . 3 6 4 0 . 0 2 4 . 0 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 20 5 U T F - B W a l s h Me a d o w b r o o k H o m e s (Ha r r i s F a r m ) 0. 0 2 2 8 2 2 1 4 . 6 1 1 3 . 9 8 . 3 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 4 . 9 8 . 9 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 20 6 U T F - C W a l s h C o r n e r s t o n e 0 . 0 3 9 0 4 2 2 4 . 9 9 1 9 . 0 1 1 . 4 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 4 . 6 8 . 8 9 2 . 0 8 3 . 8 % 20 7 U T F - B W a l s h 0 . 0 6 9 9 3 8 4 4 . 7 6 2 7 . 7 1 6 . 6 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 30 0 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 1 2 8 9 4 1 8 2 . 5 2 2 7 . 4 1 6 . 5 6 7 . 0 1 6 . 2 % 30 1 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 5 1 7 9 6 3 3 . 1 5 2 3 . 9 1 4 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 30 2 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 5 5 8 8 4 3 5 . 7 7 2 0 . 7 1 2 . 4 7 1 . 0 2 7 . 0 % 30 3 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 8 5 9 9 6 5 5 . 0 4 3 1 . 8 1 9 . 1 7 1 . 0 2 7 . 0 % 30 4 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 1 5 5 4 8 4 9 9 . 5 1 3 1 . 3 1 8 . 8 7 7 . 0 4 3 . 2 % 30 5 U T F - C P o p l a r M a t l o c k 0 . 0 2 9 2 4 3 1 8 . 7 2 1 6 . 1 9 . 7 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 7 . 2 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 30 6 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 0 8 1 7 4 5 . 2 3 8 . 6 5 . 2 7 3 . 0 3 2 . 4 % 30 7 U T F - C P o p l a r Me a d o w b r o o k H o m e s (Ha r r i s F a r m ) 0. 2 2 8 9 7 0 1 4 6 . 5 4 3 4 . 4 2 0 . 6 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 3 7 . 9 3 3 . 7 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 30 8 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 1 1 1 0 7 1 7 1 . 0 9 3 2 . 9 1 9 . 7 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 30 9 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 6 3 2 3 2 4 0 . 4 7 2 6 . 8 1 6 . 1 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 31 0 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 2 0 5 2 0 1 3 . 1 3 1 3 . 1 7 . 9 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 31 1 U T F - C P o p l a r V i l l a s a t t h e P r e s e r v e 0 . 0 3 8 6 9 5 2 4 . 7 6 1 8 . 9 1 1 . 3 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 6 . 4 9 . 8 8 5 . 0 6 4 . 9 % 31 2 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 1 3 7 9 6 9 8 8 . 3 0 5 3 . 9 3 2 . 3 6 5 . 0 1 0 . 8 % 31 3 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 4 4 9 1 0 3 2 8 7 . 4 3 1 0 0 . 9 6 0 . 5 6 7 . 0 1 6 . 2 % 31 4 U T F - C P o p l a r 0 . 0 6 9 1 5 4 4 4 . 2 6 2 6 . 4 1 5 . 8 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 40 0 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 2 6 1 6 1 7 1 6 7 . 4 3 5 0 . 2 3 0 . 1 6 8 . 0 1 8 . 9 % Pr o p o s e d D e v e l o p m e n t Na m e Ex i s t i n g Su b b a s i n Ar e a Tr i b u t a r y I D T r i b u t a r y N a m e Proposed Eq u i v a l e n t % of I m p e r v i o u s Ar e a CN C N Equivalent % of Impervious Area Pa g e 1 o f 3 G: \ P u b l i c \ Y o r k v i l l e \ 2 0 0 5 \ Y O 0 5 2 4 S W S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y \ E n g \ T a b _ 0 1 _ W a t e r s h e d s u m m a r y . x l s Yo r k v i l l e S o u t h w e s t S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y (F o x R o a d A r e a ) TA B L E N O . 1 Su b w a t e r s h e d S u m m a r y TC Tla g TC Tlag mi 2 ac r e s ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) Pr o p o s e d D e v e l o p m e n t Na m e Ex i s t i n g Su b b a s i n Ar e a Tr i b u t a r y I D T r i b u t a r y N a m e Proposed Eq u i v a l e n t % of I m p e r v i o u s Ar e a CN C N Equivalent % of Impervious Area 40 1 U T F - D P a v i l i o n F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 0 0 8 5 9 8 5 . 5 0 7 . 9 4 . 7 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 8 . 5 5 . 1 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 2 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 6 3 9 7 7 4 0 . 9 5 1 1 . 9 7 . 1 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 3 U T F - D P a v i l i o n F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 0 3 9 9 0 4 2 5 . 5 4 1 9 . 2 1 1 . 5 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 2 0 . 5 1 2 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 4 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 7 1 6 3 6 4 5 . 8 5 2 8 . 8 1 7 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 5 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 0 4 6 2 8 2 . 9 6 5 . 5 3 . 3 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 40 6 U T F - D P a v i l i o n S i l v e r F o x 0 . 0 1 2 2 8 0 7 . 8 6 9 . 7 5 . 8 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 0 . 4 6 . 2 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 7 U T F - D P a v i l i o n S i l v e r F o x 0 . 1 5 7 6 1 8 1 0 0 . 8 8 4 2 . 5 2 5 . 5 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 4 5 . 3 2 7 . 2 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 40 8 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 1 8 9 6 6 3 1 2 1 . 3 8 4 7 . 3 2 8 . 4 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 40 9 U T F - D P a v i l i o n E v e r g r e e n F a r m 0 . 0 1 9 8 4 6 1 2 . 7 0 1 2 . 8 7 . 7 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 3 . 7 8 . 2 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 0 U T F - D P a v i l i o n E v e r g r e e n F a r m 0 . 0 3 7 5 8 6 2 4 . 0 6 1 5 . 3 9 . 2 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 6 . 5 1 1 . 9 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 1 U T F - D P a v i l i o n F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 0 2 4 4 0 1 1 5 . 6 2 1 4 . 5 8 . 7 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 5 . 5 9 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 2 U T F - D P a v i l i o n E v e r g r e e n F a r m 0 . 0 5 9 4 4 9 3 8 . 0 5 2 4 . 2 1 4 . 5 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 2 5 . 8 1 5 . 5 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 3 U T F - D P a v i l i o n A s p e n R i d g e E s t a t e s 0 . 1 1 4 7 0 7 7 3 . 4 1 2 2 . 1 1 3 . 2 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 2 4 . 4 2 2 . 6 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 4 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 7 7 7 9 6 4 9 . 7 9 2 6 . 2 1 5 . 7 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 41 5 U T F - D P a v i l i o n C h a l l y F a r m 0 . 0 0 6 0 8 8 3 . 9 0 6 . 5 3 . 9 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 6 . 9 4 . 1 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 6 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 . 2 0 5 . 0 3 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 41 7 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 3 4 6 4 8 9 2 2 1 . 7 5 6 3 . 2 3 7 . 9 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 41 8 U T F - D P a v i l i o n C h a l l y F a r m 0 . 0 1 8 6 6 0 1 1 . 9 4 1 2 . 4 7 . 4 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 3 . 2 7 . 9 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 41 9 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 0 2 5 8 6 1 . 6 5 5 . 0 3 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 42 0 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 9 3 6 7 3 5 9 . 9 5 2 8 . 6 1 7 . 2 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 42 1 U T F - D P a v i l i o n C h a l l y F a r m 0 . 2 1 3 3 5 2 1 3 6 . 5 5 3 5 . 6 2 1 . 4 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 3 9 . 0 3 2 . 4 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 42 2 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 3 9 2 0 3 2 5 . 0 9 2 0 . 3 1 2 . 2 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 42 4 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 0 8 0 6 1 5 5 1 . 5 9 2 8 . 8 1 7 . 3 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 42 5 U T F - D P a v i l i o n Y o r k W o o d E s t a t e s 0 . 0 3 5 5 8 9 2 2 . 7 8 1 5 . 5 9 . 3 6 9 . 0 2 1 . 6 % 1 2 . 5 1 1 . 5 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 42 6 U T F - D P a v i l i o n 0 . 4 0 5 2 8 7 2 5 9 . 3 8 7 6 . 5 4 5 . 9 7 6 . 0 4 0 . 5 % 50 0 U T F - E E a s t B l u f f F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 2 3 6 7 6 5 1 5 1 . 5 3 5 7 . 3 3 4 . 4 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 60 0 U T F - F W e s t B l u f f F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 1 2 0 1 3 1 7 6 . 8 8 3 7 . 1 2 2 . 3 7 7 . 0 4 3 . 2 % 3 8 . 8 2 3 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % Pa g e 2 o f 3 G: \ P u b l i c \ Y o r k v i l l e \ 2 0 0 5 \ Y O 0 5 2 4 S W S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y \ E n g \ T a b _ 0 1 _ W a t e r s h e d s u m m a r y . x l s Yo r k v i l l e S o u t h w e s t S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y (F o x R o a d A r e a ) TA B L E N O . 1 Su b w a t e r s h e d S u m m a r y TC Tla g TC Tlag mi 2 ac r e s ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) ( m i n ) Pr o p o s e d D e v e l o p m e n t Na m e Ex i s t i n g Su b b a s i n Ar e a Tr i b u t a r y I D T r i b u t a r y N a m e Proposed Eq u i v a l e n t % of I m p e r v i o u s Ar e a CN C N Equivalent % of Impervious Area 60 1 U T F - F W e s t B l u f f 0 . 0 1 2 1 6 4 7 . 7 8 1 1 . 9 7 . 1 6 9 . 0 2 1 . 6 % 70 0 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 0 6 6 7 5 3 4 2 . 7 2 1 5 . 9 9 . 5 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 7 . 6 1 6 . 6 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 70 1 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t 0 . 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 6 . 7 0 1 4 . 8 8 . 9 7 0 . 0 2 4 . 3 % 70 2 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t F o x R i v e r B l u f f s 0 . 0 2 6 9 7 5 1 7 . 2 6 1 5 . 3 9 . 2 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 1 6 . 4 9 . 8 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 70 3 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t 0 . 1 0 3 4 8 3 6 6 . 2 3 2 3 . 3 1 4 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 70 4 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t A s p e n R i d g e E s t a t e s 0 . 0 8 1 9 6 1 5 2 . 4 6 2 9 . 1 1 7 . 5 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 3 1 . 1 1 8 . 7 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 70 5 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t 0 . 1 3 2 1 9 2 8 4 . 6 0 3 8 . 4 2 3 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 70 6 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t C h a l l y F a r m 0 . 0 0 2 2 4 1 1 . 4 3 5 . 0 3 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 5 . 0 2 . 3 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 70 7 U T F - G H i g h P o i n t 0 . 0 2 1 3 9 1 1 3 . 6 9 1 4 . 3 8 . 6 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 80 0 M A S - A A M i d d l e A u x S a b l e Y o r k W o o d E s t a t e s 0 . 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 3 7 . 2 3 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 6 9 . 0 2 1 . 6 % 5 4 . 2 3 2 . 5 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 80 1 M A S - A A M i d d l e A u x S a b l e 0 . 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 . 3 9 5 . 0 3 . 0 7 8 . 0 4 5 . 9 % 80 2 M A S - A A M i d d l e A u x S a b l e 0 . 0 5 2 4 0 8 3 3 . 5 4 2 4 . 0 1 4 . 4 7 5 . 0 3 7 . 8 % 80 3 M A S - A A M i d d l e A u x S a b l e 0 . 2 7 1 8 4 9 1 7 3 . 9 8 6 9 . 9 4 1 . 9 7 0 . 0 2 4 . 3 % To t a l A r e a = 5 . 7 9 9 6 8 Σ Av e r a g e = 7 4 . 3 9 Σ Average =74.20 Pa g e 3 o f 3 G: \ P u b l i c \ Y o r k v i l l e \ 2 0 0 5 \ Y O 0 5 2 4 S W S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y \ E n g \ T a b _ 0 1 _ W a t e r s h e d s u m m a r y . x l s Yo r k v i l l e S o u t h w e s t S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y (F o x R o a d A r e a ) TA B L E N O . 2 Pe a k R u n o f f S u m m a r y FA - 1 0 0 . 0 3 3 4 9 . 9 1 4 . 3 3 6 . 1 9 . 9 2 5 . 3 6 . 6 1 5 . 1 3 . 9 2 8 . 7 % 7 1 . 3 % FA - 2 0 0 . 6 4 9 5 2 8 . 0 4 4 0 . 4 3 9 3 . 3 3 3 0 . 8 2 8 7 . 8 2 4 2 . 0 1 8 6 . 2 1 5 6 . 6 8 3 . 4 % 1 6 . 6 % FA - 2 2 0 . 1 1 6 1 5 3 . 4 1 1 7 . 4 1 1 3 . 5 8 7 . 0 8 1 . 9 6 3 . 3 5 3 . 0 4 1 . 5 7 6 . 5 % 2 3 . 5 % FA - 2 3 0 . 2 9 0 1 8 3 . 1 1 3 1 . 7 1 3 7 . 9 9 9 . 3 1 0 1 . 1 7 3 . 1 6 5 . 8 4 8 . 0 7 1 . 9 % 2 8 . 1 % FA - 3 0 1 . 6 3 4 1 0 2 5 . 4 6 8 3 . 8 7 6 5 . 5 5 0 6 . 7 5 5 5 . 0 3 6 4 . 4 3 5 4 . 1 2 2 9 . 2 6 6 . 7 % 3 3 . 3 % FA - 3 1 1 . 3 9 8 8 7 2 . 4 5 2 6 . 2 6 5 2 . 7 3 9 0 . 0 4 7 5 . 3 2 8 0 . 8 3 0 5 . 5 1 7 7 . 7 6 0 . 3 % 3 9 . 7 % FA - 3 2 1 . 3 1 2 8 0 6 . 8 4 6 9 . 1 6 0 4 . 1 3 4 5 . 8 4 4 0 . 6 2 4 7 . 8 2 8 4 . 0 1 5 6 . 4 5 8 . 1 % 4 1 . 9 % FA - 4 0 2 . 3 8 6 1 8 1 2 . 4 1 1 5 0 . 9 1 3 6 4 . 9 8 6 7 . 0 1 0 0 1 . 0 6 3 6 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 4 1 3 . 3 6 3 . 5 % 3 6 . 5 % FA - 4 1 2 . 1 1 5 1 6 5 2 . 2 1 0 1 7 . 4 1 2 4 9 . 8 7 7 0 . 4 9 2 1 . 3 5 6 8 . 3 6 0 2 . 7 3 7 2 . 1 6 1 . 6 % 3 8 . 4 % FA - 4 2 0 . 4 5 6 4 6 3 . 0 2 6 7 . 2 3 5 1 . 5 2 0 2 . 5 2 6 0 . 1 1 4 9 . 4 1 7 0 . 9 9 7 . 8 5 7 . 7 % 4 2 . 3 % FA - 4 3 0 . 3 6 7 3 8 4 . 0 2 0 4 . 1 2 9 1 . 7 1 5 5 . 0 2 1 6 . 1 1 1 4 . 8 1 4 2 . 3 7 5 . 7 5 3 . 1 % 4 6 . 9 % FA - 4 4 1 . 2 3 5 9 8 3 . 8 7 3 1 . 0 7 4 3 . 0 5 5 1 . 4 5 4 6 . 4 4 0 4 . 6 3 5 5 . 9 2 6 2 . 6 7 4 . 3 % 2 5 . 7 % FA - 4 5 0 . 8 6 8 6 7 2 . 6 4 4 3 . 0 5 0 8 . 9 3 3 4 . 9 3 7 4 . 9 2 4 7 . 0 2 4 4 . 5 1 6 2 . 3 6 5 . 9 % 3 4 . 1 % FA - 4 6 0 . 7 7 4 6 0 3 . 2 3 9 4 . 3 4 5 6 . 7 2 9 7 . 9 3 3 6 . 5 2 1 9 . 3 2 1 9 . 4 1 4 3 . 4 6 5 . 4 % 3 4 . 6 % FA - 4 7 1 . 5 5 6 1 1 8 6 . 6 7 8 0 . 5 8 9 6 . 2 5 8 9 . 2 6 5 9 . 5 4 3 2 . 8 4 3 1 . 3 2 8 1 . 5 6 5 . 8 % 3 4 . 2 % FA - 4 8 1 . 4 9 4 1 1 5 5 . 8 7 7 9 . 1 8 7 2 . 1 5 8 8 . 2 6 4 0 . 8 4 3 2 . 1 4 1 8 . 0 2 8 1 . 0 6 7 . 4 % 3 2 . 6 % FA - 5 0 0 . 2 3 7 2 0 6 . 0 6 . 2 1 5 3 . 9 4 . 7 1 1 1 . 8 3 . 4 7 1 . 5 2 . 2 3 . 0 % 9 7 . 0 % FA - 6 0 0 . 1 3 2 1 4 2 . 7 1 2 . 9 1 0 7 . 3 8 . 8 7 8 . 6 5 . 9 5 0 . 9 3 . 4 9 . 0 % 9 1 . 0 % FA - 7 0 0 . 4 6 1 5 2 6 . 8 3 2 0 . 8 3 9 7 . 9 2 4 2 . 0 2 9 3 . 1 1 7 8 . 0 1 9 2 . 2 1 1 6 . 2 6 0 . 9 % 3 9 . 1 % FA - 8 0 0 . 5 3 9 3 3 7 . 9 2 0 3 . 6 2 4 4 . 6 1 4 8 . 1 1 7 1 . 0 1 0 4 . 3 1 0 2 . 9 6 3 . 7 6 0 . 3 % 3 9 . 7 % Pr o p o s e d Co n d i t i o n 10 0 - y r 5 0 - y r Pr o p o s e d Co n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d Co n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n % Reduction of Existing Condition 100-yr Qpeak % o f E x i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n 1 0 0 - y r Qpeak Fl o w An a l y s i s Lo c a t i o n Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d Co n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n 25 - y r 1 0 - y r Pe a k R u n o f f - Q pe a k ( c f s ) Dr a i n a g e Are a (m i 2) G: \ P u b l i c \ Y o r k v i l l e \ 2 0 0 5 \ Y O 0 5 2 4 S W S t o r m w a t e r S t u d y \ E n g \ f i n a l _ h m s o u t p u t . x l s SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois EXHIBITS SOUTHWEST STORMWATER STUDY United City of Yorkville Kendall County, Illinois APPENDIX UUNNDDEERR SSEEPPAARRAATTEE CCOOVVEERR PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION PC 2015-05 NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT KBL Community Center LLC, petitioner, has filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, requesting special use permit approval for the construction and operation of a community center with an air-supported sports dome structure within an existing R-2 Single Family Traditional Residence District. The real property is located on Fox Road, between Pavilion Road and Ford Drive in Yorkville, Illinois. The legal description is as follows: RECORD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARENT PARCEL: THAT PART OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, WHICH POINT, PREVIOUSLY MONUMENTED BY A CONCRETE MONUMENT, IS REPORTED TO BE 50.54 FEET, SOUTH 61 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE SOUTH 61 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD, 1,437.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST, 406.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, 1,326.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 1,405.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, 1,556.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, 393.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, 11.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST 2,406.69 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF FOX ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 581.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, 784.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, (EXCEPT THAT PART IN FOX GLEN, BEING THAT PART OF THE FOREGOING NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF FOX ROAD, AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER LINE OF FOX ROAD AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS "FOX GLEN, KENDALL TOWNSHIP, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 19 IN SAID SUBDIVISION EXTENDED, 835.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST 217.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST 708.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 138.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID FOX ROAD; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST 35.00 FEET TO SAID CENTER LINE; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING) IN THE TOWNSHIP OF KENDALL, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF THE SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF FOX GLEN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT 896802, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF FOX ROAD, AS MONUMENTED AND OCCUPIED; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 400.00 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 64 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 555.17 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 330.78 FEET, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, BEING A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,763.03 FEET A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 63 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 09 EAST AND A CHORD OF 330.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHERLY 248.45 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TOT THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS SOUTH 19 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 247.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT 201500000324, 777.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR SAID EASTERLY LINE, 740.50 FEET TO THE SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 979.16 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST ALONG A SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 11.17 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 393.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 1,556.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE NORTH 24 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 26 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 1,405.86 FEET TO A BEND POINT IN SAID LANDS; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, 150.83 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, ALONG A NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, PERPENDICULAR TO LAST DESCRIBED LINE, 217.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, ALONG A WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 708.61 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, ALONG A NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 139.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST, ALONG A WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID CENTERLINE, 35.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF THE SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF FOX GLEN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT 896802, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF FOX ROAD, AS MONUMENTED AND OCCUPIED; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 955.17 TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 330.78 FEET, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, BEING A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,763.03 FEET A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 63 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 09 EAST AND A CHORD OF 330.77 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 94.38 FEET, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, BEING CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,763.03 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 63 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 94.38 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 63 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 752.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT 201500000324; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 1427.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EASTERLY LINE, 740.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 777.59 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHERLY, 248.45 FEET, ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 19 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST AND A CHORD OF 247.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 26 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, 198.99 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. The application materials for the proposed Special Use are on file with the City Clerk. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Plan Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on said application on Wednesday, May 13, 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 From: To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:Air-supported dome Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 3:01:52 PM Dear Ms. Noble, Please forward the following note to all members of the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of appeals. Thank you, Pat Kalas 45 Fox Glen Dr. W Yorkville To Whom it may Concern, My husband and I moved eight years ago from Chicago to the Fox Glen neighborhood. We like living near Yorkville and enjoy our home in this semi-rural area. We are very concerned about the possibility of a 75 foot dome being built across Fox Road from our home. In our opinion, the height of the dome seems quite out-of- place in this residential area. We saw many of these air-supported domes in and around Chicago; they definitely have to be considered eyesores, especially near homes. A 10ft. berm would do very little to shield a 75ft. high, 123,750 sq. ft.(!) structure. One of our fears is that the dome will almost surely cause a drop in local real estate values. Another fear is that construction of a building of that size will involve much traffic and a lot of noise. Traffic after the dome is built is also a worry. Fox Road is, after all, only a two-lane road which already has a large amount of traffic. We respectfully ask whether any of you would favor a building of that size across from your home. Think about it. Sincerely, Pat Kalas 45 Fox Glen Dr. W Yorkville, IL 60560 From: To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:Apposed to Proposed Sports Dome Project on Fox Rd Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:46:27 PM Kristi, Director of Community Development, My husband and I have concerns about the proposed sports dome project on Fox Road. We are sending this email and are asking you to please forward it to all the members of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. We thank you very much for doing such. Sandra and Larry Small 221 Windham Circle Yorkville, IL 60560 To All Members of Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, We are much apposed to the Sports Dome being proposed on Fox Road. We hope you will consider our concerns and vote against the variance to allow a dome 75 feet in height to be built in a zoned residential area. We feel this would not look good aesthetically in this area nor could Fox Road handle the traffic. We also feel such a complex would have a negative effect upon the nearby home owners property values. We urge you to look at this proposal carefully from all perspectives and say NO to such a development. We have been Yorkville residents since 1970. Thank you for your considerations, Sandra and Larry Small 221 Windham Circle (River's Edge Subdivision) Yorkville, IL 60560 From:Jackie Milschewski To: Cc:Larry Kot; Bart Olson; Gary Golinski; Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:Re: Sports Dome on Fox Rd. Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:39:05 PM Michelle, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the proposed sport dome. I've copied city staff in my reply so that this information can be shared. Jackie Milschewski From: To: <jackie2ward@sbcglobal.net>; Subject: Sports Dome on Fox Rd. Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 3:39:21 PM Dear Mrs. Milschewski, Hello! I live in River's Edge Subdivision off of Fox Road and I saw in the Record (first reading it now) that there is a sports dome going up directly across from Hoover's entrance. This whole concept sounds great if it was off a main road like Rt. 47 or Rt. 71. It is in no way appealing when it is jammed in a space that was meant for homes and is surrounded by subdivisions. The paper says she wants to rezone it and is asking to bend the rules for height to 75 feet! I am not sure why so many people keep coming to Yorkville asking to put strange requests like landfills, domes, etc. in and obviously not care about the citizens who are already here. Why can't we get things like chain restaurants and businesses coming here instead? Fox Road cannot handle the amount of traffic they are proposing (286 parking spots). Sporting events of any kind attract all kinds of traffic which both Fox and Pavillion are in NO condition to handle! Also, traffic backs up as is on Fox at the light. I would hate to see when an event is over and everyone is piling up all the way down Fox. We chose this subdivision because it is quiet and surrounded by residents, not businesses. A community center should be off a main street for all to see and have easy access to. I know a lot of my neighbors are concerned with the traffic, but are afraid to say anything because the center is for people with special needs and they don't want to look like the bad guy. I have nothing against special needs people, but I do have an issue with something zoned from agricultural to residential to now for business. She says it's a community for special needs children, but it is a business. All I see is my property value going down because of all the noise from the added traffic, plus the noise of the fan running this giant white eye sore. They say you can only hear it for 30 feet, but sound does travel out here in the open land. If it was an actual building that would even help, but a dome? The one in Montgomery is hideous! Fox Road is so pretty and scenic and the thought of putting this white 75 foot tall squishy Pillsbury Dough Boy structure up is just insane. We don't even have any sidewalks down Fox, but we will have a dome. I am livid that the counsel would be warm to this idea in THIS location. It is not my problem this woman Justine Brummel bought this property. Why she thought "hey, this is a great place for a community center right smack on a two lane road in the middle of subdivisions in a quiet, scenic area" was a great idea is beyond me. It's because she has an idea and we all have to pay for it and she's going to do it whether we like it or not. I am sure all my ranting and raving will get no where, but I just felt I had to say something since everyone else is afraid to say the obvious because this is a center for special needs children. I just plain do not want that structure anywhere on Fox. She said she was doing a dome because it is cheaper. Well, I could throw a camper on my lot and say that's what I am doing because it is cheaper. Wrong structure for the wrong space. Actually, there is land for sale next to the water park and that would be a perfect spot for it, not on Fox. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Michelle Nicholson My husband and I moved to Yorkville in 2014 after living and raising a family in rural Kendall County for over 30 years. My husband is retired from farming and I retired from a 26 year teaching career at a school in Kendall County. We were attracted to the White Oak Subdivision because of its rural charm and access to both conservation areas and city amenities. We also chose to live here to be close to my son who is a small business owner in Yorkville and a father to three children, two of whom attend Yorkville Public Schools. There are three reasons why we are not in support of the sports dome on Fox Road: incompatible land-uses, lack of clarity as to what the dome will be used for, and costs to the city. Incompatible land-use. The sports dome concept is not a new one. There are a number of these types of domes in the Chicago area, including two in nearby Aurora/Montgomery and Bolingbrook. These communities have chosen to locate these facilities on major highways in commercial/industrial type settings. Our city has four major highways (one of which is in the middle of a major expansion project) that could more seamlessly absorb increased traffic associated with a major sports complex. There are compelling economic reasons why communities concentrate similar land-uses – not only does this practice help make cities attractive and keeps residential areas quiet, but it helps concentrate costs associated with infrastructure, public services and roads so that the city can plan and budget appropriately for these types of projects. It would benefit everyone, including the taxpayers, if this type of facility could be placed in an area where capital expansions are already occurring or are already planned for. Also changing current zoning and allowing a commercial facility in an area zoned residential is opening a Pandora’s Box and compromising the integrity of zoning laws. Also has the noise issue been addressed? After speaking with one person, who used to reside near a dome facility, they said that the noise of keeping the dome inflated could be heard up to a mile away around the clock. Additionally, we are concerned that this facility could negatively impact the Fox Road residential and conservation corridor. The conservation areas on Fox Road not only serve Yorkville residents but also attract residents from other communities that spend money in Yorkville at restaurants and other retail outlets. The dome will change the feel of this corridor. Lack of clarity around dome operations. According to the 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, there are 65 children between the ages of 5-17 in Yorkville (<2% of the city’s school-age population) with a disability/special needs. This project is being portrayed as a facility to serve the city’s children with disabilities but it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a sports dome could be efficiently run with less than 100 members. Have the city and the property owner explored targeted programming options to serve these children at existing facilities (e.g., Club 47, Plano YMCA)? If the city could establish this type of partnership, it could provide a win-win solution to ensure that this important segment of the city’s population is cared for, while also ensure that our existing public facilities are fully utilized. If the intent of the facility is to also serve other segments of the population, has the true need for the sports dome been quantified? Does Yorkville Public Schools need an indoor sports facility and do they have the money to pay rental fees to access the facility? An article in the Kendall County Record stated that this facility would be rented out. Why are 286 parking spaces needed? A lot of questions exist as to who is going to use the facility and how often the facility will be utilized. Cost to the city. Has anyone fully scoped what type of service expansion (e.g., sewer, water, road) might be required to support this project in a residential area? Is the city in a position to financially support this project? As a former educator and mother, I am fully in support of providing services to Yorkville’s children with disabilities/special needs. They are an important part of our community, and are just as deserving of programs and services as any other segment of the population. However, this project doesn’t seem to be the right fit to accomplish this goal. This project could be costly to the community and it will jeopardize the Fox Road residential and conservation corridor, which is one of the most unique parts of the city. There is a lack of clarity as to the exact intent of the sports dome, which makes it difficult to truly assess the costs and benefits of the project. If the sports dome continues to generate interest in the community, I would encourage the City Manager and the City Council to require a more specific project proposal and identify a more compatible land parcel in the city that can better service this type of facility and its intended uses and not base the location of this sports dome on where one community member just happens to own land. Nancy Thompson From: To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble Cc: Subject:KBL COMMUNITY CENTER Date:Thursday, May 07, 2015 10:22:48 AM Kristi, Can you please forward this e-mail to all of the Yorkville board members. I want to express my concern with the proposed location of the KBL community center on Fox Road. I believe the location for this project is wrong for a number of reasons: 1. Fox road is not designed to carry such an influx of traffic. 2. Route 47, Route 71 or Route 126 are better designed to handle the traffic. 3. Residential areas should not be mixed with commercial development. 4. Adding a well and septic filed for hundreds of people to use near our surrounding farms could be an issue. 5. Home prices could be negatively affected, as people will not want to located so close to a commercial establishment. 6. New developers will shy away from Fox road and the surrounding area. 7. The noise could be an issue to current homeowners in the area. 8. The height of the proposed complex far exceeds what the regulations allow. 9. Fox road is the only way to access Rte. 47 and the local businesses. Added traffic will be an issue. Why would the city consider putting such a complex on Fox road with so many issues at hand. We have so much open land for commercial development along roads that can handle the traffic and are much better suited for such a development. Think about the lost revenue from developers who will probably not want to build new subdivisions along Fox due to this complex. The city can’t afford to fix our current streets in many parts of the city, how do you propose to maintain repairs on Fox road due to added traffic or afford new turn lanes and stop lights to allow current homeowners to exit their sub-divisions due to the added traffic? New commercial business is good for our city, but not in the proposed location on Fox Road. There are so many negatives issues associated with this project I hope the city thinks this through. Yorkville should look at cities like Naperville and take note of how they moved from a small town to what they are today and how the city has been designed. Listen to what the neighbors of this complex are saying and not just your pocket books. Sincerely, Joseph and Carolyn Panozzo 267 Windham Circle Yorkville, Il. 60560 Rivers Edge subdivision From:Bart Olson To:Bart Olson Cc:Gary Golinski; Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:FW: Support of dome Date:Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:13:54 PM Hello all (elected officials blindcopied), Another KBL email below. Thanks, Bart Olson, ICMA-CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Jackie Milschewski [mailto:jackie2ward@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:00 PM To: Jane Poppish Cc: Bart Olson Subject: Re: Support of dome Jane, Thank you for sharing your concern. I've copied the City Administrator Bart Olson so he can share this with the entire City Council. Jackie Milschewski On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Jane Poppish wrote: Dear Alderman, My name is Jane Ferris and I wanted to voice my full support for the sports dome. As a mother of a special needs child, there are very limited social activities for these children. Since this dome will facilitate extra curricular activities for the children who need them the most, this dome will be vital to the community. Also, just for children in regular sports, it will also save parents from having far drives for their childrens sporting events. This dome is much needed here in yorkville. Please see that this dome happens for our community. Thank you. Jane Ferris Happy Connecting. Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 5 From:Bart Olson To:Bart Olson Cc:Gary Golinski; Kathleen Field Orr; Krysti Barksdale-Noble Subject:FW: NO Sports Dome Date:Monday, May 04, 2015 3:06:58 PM Hello all (elected officials blindcopied), Please see below for a letter on the KBL Community Center. Thanks, Bart Olson, ICMA-CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Jackie Milschewski [mailto:jackie2ward@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 3:06 PM To: Bart Olson Subject: Re: NO Sports Dome That would be great. On Monday, May 4, 2015, Bart Olson <BOlson@yorkville.il.us> wrote: Would you like me to forward this along to everyone else? Bart Olson, ICMA-CM City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson@yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Jackie Milschewski [mailto:jackie2ward@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 3:06 PM To: Deb Fox Cc: Bart Olson Subject: Re: NO Sports Dome Thank you for sharing your concern. I will share it with city staff and the City Council. Jackie Milschewski On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Deb Fox wrote: Dear Ms. Milschewski, I'm respectfully expressing my sincere opposition to the proposed sports dome on Fox Road. We live on Norway a Circle and our lot backs up to Fox Road. The proposed sports dome is less than 1 mile from my back door. My points against this are: 1). This is a zoned residential area - houses would make a different kind of impact on the surrounding area than a huge, noisy, eyesore of a structure as this will inevitably be. 2). There is no way this structure and its events will not negatively affect our property values which have already taken enough of a hit in recent years. 3). I have many many doubts about the actual planned usage of this project. The "special needs children" for whom it is being built have had little mention in the arguments I have heard in favor of it. I have heard it called a "Community Center" and a space for high school students to run indoors which apparently they can't do at this time. I sincerely doubt they or any Community group will be allowed to use this without cost. In other words, I am suspicious that this is the altruistic project that it has been suggested it is by it's builders. 4). Appearance - this is a 7 and a half story high structure - there is no way it will not be visible all around the area. I cannot believe anyone would think this will be anything but hideous. 5). Noise - the construction of this venture will be noisy. The structure itself will be noisy with the constant humming of motors to keep it inflated. The vehicles coming and going - often at the same time will be noisy. We have no idea of future activities that may be held there - concerts - competitions - who knows? - and all of them will be noisy to possibly unbearable. We will be prisoners in our homes with no way of being able to open our windows. 6). City services - there is at the moment no water or sewer there - how is this city supposed to accommodate this when our finances are already strained. 7). The Future - since the variance request is written vaguely, we have no way of knowing what direction future plans will take. This is a slippery slope which will impact those of us closest to the project and we fear for the stability of our future. Please vote NO on this venture. Sincerely Deborah and Clifford Fox 447 Norway Circle Yorkville 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 Table 10.17.01 Residential District Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at a maximum 50% opacity Interior Side Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a non-residential use Corner Side Yard 4 Feet 5 Feet if at a maximum 50% opacity Rear Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a non-residential use Background: As the Plan Commission will recall, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted on November 25, 2014 and placed into effect on January 1, 2015. Since that time, staff has received several fence permit applications for corner lots from residential property owners as well as business property owners. The current section of the zoning ordinance indicates that a corner side yard may allow a maximum of 3 feet in height or 4 feet if at a maximum 50% opacity for residential and business districts. Suggested Text Amendments: The following is the proposed text amendment revising the allowable fence height in the Residential and Business Districts: Table 10.17.02 Business District Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at least 50% opacity Interior Side Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a residential use Corner Side Yard 4 Feet 5 Feet if at a maximum 50% opacity Memorandum To: Plan Commission From: Chris Heinen, Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: May 6, 2015 Subject: PC 2015-07 Fence Height for Corner Yards (Text Amendment) Staff Recommendation Summary: Staff has reviewed the text amendment and would support the change in height. The previous zoning ordinance allowed a maximum of 6 feet in height for all yards on residential and business lots. The additional foot increase would not impact the overall site distance requirements from intersections. Staff recommends the following text amendment: 1. Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening in the Zoning Ordinance to revise Table 10.17.01, Residential District Fence Heights and Table 10.17.02, Business District Fence Heights in corner side yards from a maximum height of 3 feet to 4 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet to 5, if the fence is not more than 50% opaque. Staff will be available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have regarding the text amendment. This was presented at the Economic Development Committee meeting on May 5th with no questions. This will next be heard at the May 26th City Council meeting 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 May 13, 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 17: Fencing and Screening in the Zoning Ordinance to revise Table 10.17.01, Residential District Fence Heights and Table 10.17.02, Business District Fence Heights in corner side yards from a maximum height of 3 feet to 4 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet to 5, if the fence is not more than 50% opaque, as presented by staff in a memorandum dated May 6, 2015 and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the Plan Commission}…. Attachments: 1. Current Chapter 17 of the United City of Yorkville’s Municipal Zoning Ordinance. 2. Copy of Public Notice. Rear Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a residential use CHAPTER 17 Fencing and Screening 10-17-1: Purpose The intent of this chapter is to set guidelines for constructing fences and screening on properties to conceal buildings, structures and undesirable views. The following regulations are made so the city can promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 10-17-2: Fencing Standards A. Regulations for All Zoning Districts 1. Fences of more than 36 inches in height require a building permit. 2. All fences must be erected so that the finished side of the fence faces outward or away from the lot on which the fence is erected. 3. No more than two different types of fencing material are permitted per fence. B. Placement 1. Fences may be built up to the property line, but shall not extend beyond the front plane of the primary structure facade in residential and business districts, and must be located entirely on the property of the owner constructing it. Fences may be constructed within an easement, though future work within the easement may result in the removal of the fence. Fences are not allowed in some types of restricted easements, such as those dedicated for landscape, sidewalks, trails, access or where otherwise limited by an easement document. 2. The property owner is responsible for locating property lines, prior to the installation of the fence. 3. Fences, walls or hedges shall not encroach on any public right-of-way. 4. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to insure that a fence does not block or obstruct the flow of storm water. 5. No solid fence, wall, hedge or shrubbery which exceeds 3 feet above the street grade shall be permitted within the sight distance triangle formed at the intersection of any two 2 street right-of-way lines. 6. The intersection of any street right-of-way lines with any service entrance drive (both sides of such drive), by a line drawn between such right-of-way lines, and/or such right-of-way line and service entrance drive line, at a distance along such line of 25 feet from the point of intersection thereof. C. Maintenance 1. It shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or occupant of the property where a fence is erected to maintain the fence in good repair at all times. 2. Missing boards, pickets or posts shall be replaced with material of the same type and quality. 3. Fences shall be maintained in an upright condition. D. Prohibited Fences 1. Fences or enclosures charged with or designed to be charged with electrical current are prohibited. 2. Any fence made of, in whole or in part, cloth, canvas or other like material is prohibited. 3. No Fence shall be constructed of used or discarded materials in disrepair, including, but not limited to, pallets, tree trunks, trash, tires, junk, or other similar items. [ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ] [ 122 ] Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening E. Regulations for Residential Districts 1. Height Except as otherwise permitted in this ordinance, annexation agreements, Planned Unit Developments or any other development related agreements or Ordinances fences shall not exceed the maximum height as listed in Table 10.17.01. 2. Materials The following materials are acceptable for any residential district fence: • Stone • Brick • Natural Rot Resistant Wood (Cedar, Cyprus, Redwood) • Cast or Wrought Iron • Plastic • Aluminum • Composite Wood and Plastic • Vinyl Coated Chain Link (rear and side yard only) 3. These materials are an example of acceptable fencing. The Community Development Director has the right to approve similar materials not listed as long as they are consistent with the surrounding land use. F. Regulations for Business Districts 1. Height Except as otherwise permitted in this ordinance, annexation agreements, Planned Unit Developments or any other development related agreements or Ordinances fences shall not exceed the maximum height as listed in Table 10.17.02. Table 10.17.02 Business District Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at least 50% opacity Interior Side Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a residential use Corner Side Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at least 50% opacity Rear Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a residential use 2. Materials The following materials are acceptable for any business district fence: • Stone • Brick • Natural Rot Resistant Wood (Cedar, Cyprus, Redwood) • Cast or Wrought Iron • Plastic • Aluminum • Composite Wood and Plastic • Vinyl Coated Chain Link (rear and side yard only) 3. These materials are an example of acceptable fencing. The Community Development Director has the right to approve similar materials not listed as long as they are consistent with the surrounding land use. Table 10.17.01 Residential District Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at a maximum 50% opacity Interior Side Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a non-residential use Corner Side Yard 3 Feet 4 Feet if at a maximum 50% opacity Rear Yard 6 Feet 8 Feet if adjacent to a non-residential use [ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ] [ 123 ] Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening G. Regulations for Industrial Districts 1. Height Except as otherwise permitted in this ordinance, annexation agreements, Planned Unit Developments or any other development related agreements or Ordinances fences shall not exceed the maximum height as listed in Table 10.17.03. Table 10.17.03 Manufacturing District Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 8 Feet Interior Side Yard 8 Feet Corner Side Yard 8 Feet Rear Yard 8 Feet 2. Materials The following materials are acceptable for any industrial district fence: • Stone • Brick • Finished Wood • Cast or Wrought Iron • Plastic • Aluminum • Composite Wood and Plastic • Chain Link • Barbed Wire (starting at a minimum elevation of 6’ above grade) 3. These materials are an example of acceptable fencing. The Community Development Director has the right to approve similar materials not listed as long as they are consistent with the surrounding land use. H. Regulations for Public Uses and Utilities 1. Height Except as otherwise permitted in this ordinance, annexation agreements, Planned Unit Developments or any other development related agreements or Ordinances fences shall not exceed the maximum height as listed in Table 10.17.04. Table 10.17.04 Utility Fence Heights Yard Maximum Height Front Yard 8 Feet Interior Side Yard 8 Feet Corner Side Yard 8 Feet Rear Yard 8 Feet 2. Materials The following materials are acceptable for any utility fence: • Stone • Brick • Finished Wood • Cast or Wrought Iron • Plastic • Aluminum • Composite Wood and Plastic • Chain Link • Barbed Wire (starting at a minimum elevation of 6’ above grade) 3. These materials are an example of acceptable fencing. The Community Development Director has the right to approve similar materials not listed as long as they are consistent with the surrounding land use. [ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ] [ 124 ] Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening 10-17-3: Screening Service yards, loading docks, large refuse containers and other like places that tend to be unsightly shall be screened from view. Screening shall be equally effective at all times of the year. A. Large Refuse Containers Commercial trash dumpsters and other large waste receptacles or equipment shall be screened on three sides with a solid opaque material wall at least six feet (6’) in height or to the extent where the wall screens the dumpster from view. The material must match the building and have an opaque single or double access gate on the fourth side. A detail of the enclosure is required on the plan. Landscaping is preferred to be put around the perimeter of the three solid walls. Industrial uses do not have to create an enclosure as long as the container cannot be seen from the public view. B. Utilities All utility equipment (meters, transformers, etc.) shall be screened with appropriate plantings if located on the ground or false walls or parapets if located on the roof. False walls or parapets are not required for buildings located in a manufacturing district. The Community Development Director shall decide the acceptable amount of screening during the plan review process. C. Loading Areas When located across a street from residential zoned property, all garage doors and loading areas on non- residential property shall be concealed from view from adjoining residential zoned property with a combination of landscaping and/or hardscape screening such as solid gates or walls. [ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ] [ 125 ] Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening 10-17-4: Fencing Material Examples Table 10.17.05 Fencing Material Examples Na t u r a l Ro t Re s i s t a n t Woo d Ir o n Pl a s t i c / V i n y l Vi n y l Co a t e d Ch a i n L i n k [ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ] [ 126 ] PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION PC 2015-07 NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening in the Zoning Ordinance to revise Table 10.17.01, Residential District Fence Heights and Table 10.17.02, Business District Fence Heights in corner side yards from a maximum height of 3 feet to 4 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet to 5, if the fence is not more than 50% opaque. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Plan Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on said application on Wednesday, May 13, 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