Planning & Zoning Commission

AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission January 11, 2017 6:00 PM A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) C. CITIZEN COMMENTS (OPEN FLOOR TO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON RECORD) D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. NOVEMBER 20, 2016 MEETING 2. DECEMBER 14, 2016 MEETING E. OLD BUSINESS F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing on Text Amendments to Article 7.14 “Design Requirements for New Residential Construction” of the Unified Development Ordinance 2. Discussion on Video Gaming G. CONSIDERATIONS H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J. ADJOURNMENT PZC083-16  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 6:00 PM The Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 30, 2016 at City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street in the Council Chambers. Chair Christina Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. A. ROLL CALL Natalie Nelson called the roll. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present at roll call: Chair Christina Atherton, David Castro, Matthew Crull, and Jerry Wright. Absent: Deborah Nier Also present from the City of DeKalb were: Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Interim Principal Planner Dan Olson, and Administrative Assistant Natalie Nelson. B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the agenda for November 30, 2016. D. Castro motioned to approve the agenda, J. Wright seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. C. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the minutes for November 16, 2016. D. Castro requested correction of three small typographical errors on pages four and five. N. Nelson will make the requested corrections. J. Wright motioned to approve the minutes as noted, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. E. OLD BUSINESS None. Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 6 F. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing (continued from November 16, 2016 meeting), on requests by Pearl Street Commercial represented by Steven Schwartz for a proposed Lincoln-Peace Planned Development resubdivision which requires a zoning map amendment to PD-C Planned Development Commercial zoning and approval of preliminary plats/plans for the subject property located at 2111-2131 E. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb. At 6:02 PM, Chair Atherton re-opened public hearing. Representing the petitioner, Pearl Street Commercial, Jim Stoddard of the firm Klein, Stoddard, Buck & Lewis, located at 2045 Aberdeen Ct. and resident at 740 W. State St., both in Sycamore, Illinois, addressed the Commission. He introduced Steven Schwartz representing Pearl Street Commercial LLC, Ryan Swanson from ARC Design Resources Inc., and Lauren Downing also from ARC Design. He also introduced the present owners of the property in question, James Kaelin, his family, wife, and daughter Sally Kaelin Mullis, all of whom are in support of the proposed development. Mr. Schwartz of 2519 Fielding Dr., Glen Ellyn, Illinois, and principal at Pearl Street Commercial, addressed the Commission. He stated he was the developer of the Dunkin Donuts-Jersey Mike’s location on Annie Glidden and W. Lincoln Hwy. Over the past 9 months, he has worked with the City and the Kaelin family to prepare the proposed preliminary development plan presented. He hoped to be able to move forward with City Council consideration of the final plan in January. He thanked the Kaelin family for their presence at the meeting and commended them upon their over 60 years’ presence in the community at on the property, running their florist business while raising their family. He displayed aerial photos of the site on the screen at the northwest corner of Peace Road and Lincoln Highway, occupying 4.96 acres. The site includes the existing storage facility, the floral shop and greenhouses, the original currently-uninhabited Kaelin family home, and a retention area. He noted that the floral shop will close December 23rd. The proposed plan will consolidate three curb cuts into one on the west end of the site. He pointed out the zoning of the site and the surrounding properties. The proposed plan requests to subdivide the property into two lots: one for the existing storage facility on the north end and one for the development of a Casey’s General Store on the south end. A non-mountable median will be placed in the middle of Peace Road to prevent left turns into and out of the lot. Design elements, including building materials and signage, were also presented. He stated they have worked diligently with City staff to make their plans conform to the City’s UDO. Ryan Swanson of ARC Design Resources in Loves Park spoke regarding his experience with working on Casey’s stores in several different locations. He  Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 6 displayed on the monitor the locations on the site of the 4,400 square-foot convenience store, a canopy covering eight fuel dispensers, 14 parking stalls, delivery area, the driveways, trash enclosure, and underground storage tank locations. Improvements on Peace Road include extending the south-bound right- turn lane about 200 feet to facilitate entering the facility. He pointed out the location of features of the development, including planned underground water retention, landscaping, and lighting. The architecture of the convenience store will be similar to the Sycamore store, but larger, with antique red brick walls, red shingled roof, and additional windows. The canopy columns will match the building’s brick. The ground sign for Casey’s will be no larger than the 50-square-foot maximum, as required by the UDO. D. Castro requested City staff to present comments and background. CITY STAFF REPORT Planner Dan Olson summarized the proposed development. He mentioned the developer’s willingness to comply with the City’s requests for modifications to the architectural elevations and landscaping. He also confirmed adherence to the City’s UDO and Comprehensive Plan guidelines. The recommendation from City staff to the Commission is approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and supporting materials. He requested that the Commission also to include in its approval the new details for the Casey’s and Casey’s/Self-Storage ground signs, submitted and dated November 30, 2016, which include an additional fuel type and price area. In addition, he requested the recommendation include the removal of self-service storage from #21 of the prohibited use list in the staff report. CITIZEN COMMENTS At 6:26 PM, Chair Atherton invited members of the audience to comment. No public comments were made. Chair Atherton closed public comments at 6:27 PM. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioners asked for clarification of certain aspects of the proposal. City staff confirmed that the Commission may recommend to City Council approval of both the zoning map amendment and the preliminary plats/plans at the same time in the same motion. City staff confirmed that City Council will conduct a public hearing and take action upon a proposed amendment to the 2004 Annexation Agreement after the Commission makes its recommendations. The petitioner confirmed that the original Kaelin home on the site is uninhabitable and will be demolished, along with the other existing buildings on site. The currently occupied Kaelin home, located west of the site, will remain. Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 Page 4 of 6 City staff explained to the Commission that they should not consider the developer’s agreement to donate funds to the City for future installation of ornamental street lighting and a City of DeKalb monument sign in its deliberation of the current proposal. Staff noted that when presented to City Council for consideration, the annexation agreement amendment will address these items. Chair Atherton asked if access to Lincoln Highway from the remaining Kaelin home will go through the Casey’s property. The petitioner explained that the land on which the driveway is situated was licensed through Com Ed by the former owner of the land when it was one large parcel. The Kaelin family has renewed this license through 2019, and they may continue to do so. The petitioner added this arrangement is not a problem for Casey’s and will continue as long as Com Ed desires. If Com Ed decides to remove the driveway, they would be responsible for constructing a new driveway to provide access directly to Lincoln Highway. The petitioner confirmed that the proposed convenience store will likely seek to operate 24 hours. City staff was not aware of any regulations that may prevent this, but they will research and provide feedback at the next Commission meeting and when presenting to City Council. D. Castro asked if sidewalk installation along the right-of-way will be required as part of the current proposal. He recommended that the Commission consider the importance of connecting sidewalks throughout the City as land is developed. City staff replied that the current proposal includes reconstructing the current sidewalk, which is in poor condition. Chair Atherton asked if the proposed median will cause additional traffic problems to an already accident-prone intersection. J. Charlton reported that the City’s Design Review Team (DRT) expressed a similar concern. A fully landscaped island was suggested initially but ultimately not recommended due to possible future area improvements and lane alignment challenges. The petitioner stated that the proposed median was designed according to IDOT standards with a ramp up to six inches and rumble strips at each end. Chair Atherton voiced support for the proposal and thanked the developers and City staff for working together to make it happen. She stated that the loss of the floral shop was unfortunate. She also confirmed that both the Commission’s recommendation and an amendment to the annexation agreement would be considered at the same time when heard by City Council. Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve a zoning map amendment and preliminary plat/plan. MOTION M. Crull presented a motion: Based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward its findings  Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 Page 5 of 6 of fact and recommend to the City Council approval of a zoning map amendment from the “GC” General Commercial and “LI” Light Industrial Districts to the “PD-C” Planned Development – Commercial District for the subject property and approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Development Plan as described in Exhibit I and subject to the following conditions: 1) Lot 1 will be permitted to have a gasoline service station with associated convenience store. Uses listed in Exhibit II of the staff report shall be prohibited. No additional outdoor storage, sales or activity shall be permitted except adjacent to the proposed convenience store building and no storage shall exceed 4 feet in height, block any windows and a 3 foot wide minimum pedestrian access shall be maintained. 2) Lot 2 will be permitted to have a self-storage facility. Uses listed in Exhibit II of the staff report shall be prohibited with the removal of self-service storage facility from the list. No additional outdoor storage, sales or activity shall be permitted, and no outdoor storage of vehicles, trailers, RV’s or other items shall be permitted. 3) Final Engineering Plans and a Final Plat shall be submitted with proper applications. 4) That the remaining comments as listed in Exhibit III shall be addressed to the satisfaction of staff or outside agency. 5) That a waiver of Article 13.07.02 (3) Business Signs – Wall, to allow for three (3) wall signs on the south building elevation including one 64 square feet “Casey’s General Store” sign and two (2) “Home To Go” wall signs not exceeding 8 square feet each in lieu of the allowable 105 square foot sign be approved per the details provided in the Casey’s Sign Packet dated 11-23-16. 6) That waiver of Article 13.07.05 (1) Gasoline Station Canopy Signs, to allow three (3) 17.5 square foot Casey’s General Store canopy signs in lieu of the allowable two (2) canopy signs at a maximum of 10 square feet be approved per the detail provided in the Casey’s Sign Packet dated 11-23-16. 7) No other permanent signs are allowed on the subject property and temporary signs shall only be allowed per Article 13.05.06 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 8) Sign details dated 11-30-16 shall be added to Exhibit I. J. Wright seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission November 30, 2016 Page 6 of 6 VOTE A roll call vote was taken. Aye: D. Castro, M. Crull, J. Wright, Chair Atherton, Nay: none. The motion was approved 4-0-0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission. G. CONSIDERATIONS None. H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Staff noted the December 14th Commission meeting agenda will include the Casey’s final plan/plat approval. This will allow City Council to consider the whole proposal in January so that the petitioner can hopefully begin construction in early spring 2017. Also on the agenda will be a Concept Plan Review for the DeKalb Sanitary District plant expansion on Sycamore Road. This meeting is for public information only, not a formal public hearing. Surrounding property owners will be notified of this informational meeting as a courtesy. A formal public hearing is planned for January, 2017. I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. J. ADJOURNMENT Seeing and hearing no further comments, Chair Atherton requested a motion to adjourn. D. Castro motioned to adjourn, J. Wright seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 PM. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on [DATE].  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 14, 2016 The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on December 14, 2016 at the City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 S. Fourth St., DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:20 PM. A. ROLL CALL Brenda Hart called the roll and the following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Matthew Crull, Jerry Wright and Chair Atherton. Members absent at roll call were: David Castro and Deborah Nier. Also present were: JoEllen Charlton, Community Development Director and Dan Olson, Interim Principle Planner. No quorum was present; therefore, no official business could be conducted. B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA – ADDITIONS / DELETIONS None C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None E. OLD BUSINESS None F. NEW BUSINESS None G. ADJOURNMENT __________________________________________ Brenda Hart, Administrative Assistant  City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 6, 2017 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Dan Olson, Interim Principal Planner SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Article 7.14 “Design Requirements for New Residential Construction” of the Unified Development Ordinance GENERAL INFORMATION: Since last summer, the Mayor and City Council have been working on and approving changes to the City’s various boards, commissions and committees to consolidate duties, avoid duplication and help the groups function more effectively and efficiently. One of the committee’s that was looked at was the Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC’s duties and responsibilities are covered in Chapter 48 of the Municipal Code and their intent is to assure the compatibility of new residential construction with the character of the City’s neighborhoods. Due to the slowdown in the housing market and other factors, the DRC has not met in over 7 years and the intent is to eliminate the committee and transfer its duties. Article 7.14 “Design Requirements for New Residential Construction” of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) describes the duties of the DRC in the review of new homes. Since the intent is to dissolve the DRC, the UDO needs to be amended. ANALYSIS: Per Article 7.14 of the UDO, the DRC reviews all new residential dwellings proposed in the City. For subdivisions approved after January 1, 1990, only new homes proposed after 90% of the development is built out require review by the DRC. Each proposed new home is reviewed based upon the Design Guidelines and Checklist in the UDO, which is Appendix 7-A (attached). The guidelines use a scoring system to determine the appropriateness of the design of the new home. PZC073-16 For new homes proposed in a Historic District or designated a Local Landmark, the application is referred first to the Landmark Commission for review and comment prior to a decision by the DRC. The definitions for Historic District and Local Landmark are located in Chapter 44 “Landmark Commission” of the Municipal Code. The DRC has not met in over 7 years because there has not been any new homes proposed in the Historic District or on a site designated a Local Landmark. In addition, there have been no new homes proposed in areas outside the Historic District or in a subdivision approved after January 1, 1990 that is beyond 90% built out. Since the DRC has not met in several years, the intent is to absorb the DRC’s duties into the Landmark Commission or carried out by the Community Development Director or designee. The proposed text amendments would require that new homes proposed in a Historic District or a designated Local Landmark, would be reviewed by the Landmark Commission. The Landmark Commission’s purpose is promoting preservation issues in the City and one of their current duties is providing comments to the DRC on new dwellings proposed in a Historic District or which is a Local Landmark. For new homes outside a Historic District, not designated a Local Landmark or in subdivisions approved on or after January 1, 1990 that are beyond 90% built out, the Community Development Director of designee would review the application. It is proposed that both the Landmark Commission and the Community Development Director or designee would use the current Design Guidelines and Checklist located in Appendix 7-A of the UDO in their deliberations regarding the appropriateness of new home designs. In addition, the language in Article 7.14 allowing an applicant to appeal a negative ruling to the City Council will be maintained. Text amendment procedures are described in Article 20 of the UDO. They are subject to public hearing, review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and approval of an ordinance by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. The granting of this text amendment does not authorize approval for any specific property. Once the Planning and Zoning Commission makes their recommendation regarding the text amendments to the UDO, the plan is to prepare Ordinances deleting Chapter 48 “Design Review Committee” in its entirety and amending Chapter 44 “Landmark Commission” and the UDO to absorb the duties of the DRC. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the text amendments to Article 7.14 of the UDO to absorb the Development Review Page |2 Committee’s duties into the Landmark Commission or the Community Development Director or designee as indicated in Exhibit I. Page |3  EXHIBIT I 7.14 Design Requirements for New Residential Construction in Older Neighborhoods (ORD 06-94 & 09-31) The intent and purpose of this Article is to assure the compatibility of new construction with the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, in order to protect, preserve and enhance the architectural character, protect and enhance property values, and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents. 7.14.01 Applicability a. These regulations shall apply to all new residential construction in the City of DeKalb, as further outlined below; b. For lots created on or after January 1, 1990, the terms of the covenants of the subdivision, annexation agreement, Planned Development or other conditions of approval of the subdivision or Planned Development, shall apply. However, the provisions of this Article shall apply to any construction of new principal residential structures occurring after 90% or more of the residential lots within that subdivision have been improved; c. In the case where these provisions conflict with the provisions of existing covenants or terms of approval, the more restrictive shall apply; d. In the case where these provisions conflict with the provisions of the Landmark District Commission regulations or other Municipal Code provisions, the more restrictive shall apply. 7.14.02 Provisions Each proposed new residential principal structure shall be reviewed based upon the Design Guidelines & Checklist set forth in Appendix 7-A, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance, and shall be referred to the Design Review Committee Landmark Commission or Community Development Director or designee for approval. 7.14.03 Process a. All building permit applications for new residential dwellings shall be referred to the Design Review CommitteeLandmark Commission if located. If in a Historic District, or if the property is a Local Landmark, the application shall be referred to the Landmark Commission for review and comment prior to referral to the Design Review Committee. b. b. All building permit applications for new residential dwellings shall be referred to the Community Development Director or designee if not located in a Historic District, or if the property is not a Local Landmark. b.c. An applicant shall provide supporting materials as outlined in the Design Review Process letter Application Form. c.d. The Design Review Committee Landmark Commission and Community Development Director or designee shall consider the application and supporting materials based upon the Design Guidelines & Checklist. A minimum score of 75% is required in each of the applicable guideline categories for project approval. 7.14.04 Powers of the Design Review CommitteeLandmark Commission and Community Development Director or Designee After review of a proposal, the Design Review Committee Landmark Commission and Community Development Director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. Denial of the application shall be based upon the failure of the application to obtain sufficient points on the Design Guidelines & Checklist. 7.14.05 Effect of Denial, Appeal a. If the permit is denied the applicant may submit a revised plan. In the case of submittal of a revised plan, the procedure shall be the same as a new design review application. b. In the case that the applicant has been denied, and the applicant disagrees with the ruling of the Design Review CommitteeLandmark Commission or Community Development Director or designee, the applicant may appeal the ruling to the City Council. The City Council shall have the final determination on the proposed residential structure. c. In the case that a building permit was denied for reasons other than the ruling of the Design Review CommitteeLandmark Commission or Community Development Director or designee, any appeal shall follow the due course set forth in the appropriate code for which the permit was denied.  Appendix 7-A Design Guidelines and Checklist City of DeKalb, IL Instructions: A minimum score of 75% is required in each of the Guideline Categories for project approval. Any individual criteria which is not applicable to a particular project will not be included in the scoring process. Applicant Name: Address of Project: GUIDELINE #1 - STREETSCAPE RHYTHM: New infill construction should attempt to maintain the existing overall pattern and rhythm of the streetscape. The following characteristics define how well the building Maximum CD Director or Landmark will meet this rhythm: Points Applicant Designee Commission EXAMPLES 1.1. Massing and Scale: The massing and scale of new buildings should follow the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. The scale and volume of the new building should respect its neighbors and not overwhelm them or stand out due to inappropriate size. If the infill building is larger than those nearby, consider adjusting the massing to allow large roof forms to be articulated and broken down into smaller well-scaled components. 10 1.2. Setbacks: The new building should follow the predominant street setback and side yard setbacks of existing properties on the street and adjacent properties. 5 1.3. Building Height: The new building should be similar in height Appropriate infill: New house maintains overall massing rhythm, sideyard spacing and aligns with predominant to the houses on the street. Consideration should be given to the street setback. height of the building at both the eave of the roof and at the ridge of the roof. 10 1.4. Floor Elevations: The new building should emulate the predominant levels of floor elevations on the street. 5 1.5. Public – Private Transitions: Some neighborhoods have very specific patterns of transition from the public street to the private interior of the home. Porches and stoops are part of the pattern and create a transition from a semi-private porch to the private zone of the interior. The new building should honor the pattern on their street for open porches, covered stoops, or other forms that may be predominant on the street. 10 Guideline #1 Total: 40 Inappropriate Infill: New house is more massive, disrupts rhythm along street and does not follow existing Guideline #1 Minimum Points Required: 30 alignment. GUIDELINE #2 - SITE DEVELOPMENT: Lot coverage and placement of the house and garage shall be consistent with predominant successful patterns in the neighborhood and shall conform to the other Design Guidelines outlined herein. In addition, site development should maintain existing trees, provide opportunities for new landscaping, and Maximum CD Director or Landmark not overwhelm a site. Points Applicant Designee Commission EXAMPLES 2.1. Lot Coverage: The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) may allow a larger square footage than is compatible with criteria 1.1. If the footprint size of the homes in the neighborhood is less than the maximum area allowed in the UDO, the lesser square footage shall be followed. 10 2.2. Placement on Corner Lots: Set backs on corner lots shall respect and utilize the rhythm on both streets. Placement of garages and accessory structures and use of landscaping for corner lots is of particular importance. 5 2.3. Garage Location: Location of the garage and driveway shall follow the predominant patterns of the street. Houses located on alleys should have drives and garages sited at the back of the house. Appropriate: Recessed garages is downplayed, 10 emphasizing house at streetfront 2.4. Preserve Significant Trees: The size, location and type of trees of 6" caliper or larger shall be indicated on a site plan. The placement and design of the house should take into account the tree canopy, root zone and site grading to avoid disturbing top soil. Trees on adjacent properties shall also be included in the evaluation for potential disturbance due to construction operations. 10 2.5. New Landscaping: Infill housing typically occurs on streets with mature trees and landscaping. The use of new trees, shrubs and planting areas shall be included in the building design process and be considered part of the overall streetscape and "good neighbor" criteria. 5 Guideline #2 Total: 40 Guideline #2 Minimum Points Required: 30 Inappropriate: Garage-dominated “snout” house. GUIDELINE #3 - ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL: Use architectural detail to create visual interest and support the best architectural patterns of the neighborhood. Maximum CD Director or Landmark Points Applicant Designee Commission EXAMPLES 3.1. Entry Features or Front Porches: Porch and entry feature details shall be consistent with street elevation character rather than mimic backyard deck construction. 10 3.2. Façade Scale and Character: The façade shall create visual interest, human scale and reflect good elements of the surrounding neighborhood. Doors, windows, and roof elements shall be proportional to the façade. Use of bay windows, gables and other roof variation can be used to avoid large blank walls or monolithic roofs. The size, proportion, and type of windows should be consistent with the predominant pattern of windows on the street. 10 3.3. Architectural Detail/ Appropriate Materials: Façade details such as window and door trim, corner boards, frieze and fascia boards, columns and brackets can go a long way to creating character and a sense of authenticity. Material selection shall also be consistent with the size, scale and style of neighboring structures. 10 Appropriate: Details are consistent on all sides 3.4. Utilize Four-sided Architecture: The character and detail of the façade shall be consistent on all sides of the house, and recognize that all sides are visible and affect the character of the street. Window size and proportion, use of materials and detailing should be consistent on four sides and work to create an authentic presence on the street. Roof forms, windows styles, siding and detailing all are elements of four-sided architecture. 10 3.5. Garage Design: Style, mass and use of detail for the garage shall be consistent with the character of the main structure. Dormers, windows or gables shall be used to break up large roofs or walls. Single doors are preferable to double doors. Avoid using standard "one-style-fits-all" garage packages for detached garages. Attached garages with second floors should avoid monolithic, two- story appearance by using gables, dormers or partially recessed rooflines at the second floor to avoid the appearance of a large box. 10 Guideline #3 Total: 50 Inppropriate: Details and material use are not Guideline #3 Minimum Points Required: consistent. 38 GUIDELINE #4 - GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICIES: New infill projects should be designed to be a "good neighbor" to adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to visual design compatibility, other considerations should be addressed, including maintaining privacy Maximum CD Director or Landmark and access to views, light and air. Points Applicant Designee Commission EXAMPLES 4.1. Obstruction: Locate taller portions of buildings to minimize obstruction of sunlight to adjacent yards and rooms. 5 4.2. View: Consider neighbor's views in placement and size of new building elements. 5 4.3. Privacy: Windows, balconies and decks should be located to respect privacy of neighboring properties. Consider using landscape elements and fences to buffer views and maintain privacy. 5 4.4. Exterior Lighting: Minimize the impact of exterior lighting on adjacent properties. Use recessed down light fixtures or shields. Avoid floodlights and non-shielded point source lights. Use motion sensors and timers to control fixtures. (see 10.05 of the UDO) 5 4.5. Fencing: Fencing design, material and height should be consistent with the principle building(s) on the subject and adjacent properties. 5 Guideline #4 Total: 25 Guideline #4 Minimum Points Required: 19 GUIDELINE #5 - PROXIMITY TO LANDMARKS: New construction located adjacent to or near a designated historic structure or district shall be respectful of such designation. This guideline shall only be considered part of the checklist if applicable. Maximum CD Director or Landmark Points Applicant Designee Commission EXAMPLES 5.1. Preserve Quality: The quality of nearby landmarks or historic districts shall be preserved by avoiding excessively similar or dissimilar newly constructed buildings that detract from a landmark or district's character. 10 5.2. Obstruction: Landmarks should not be dwarfed or obstructed from view by nearby buildings. 10 5.3. Recommendation: The recommendation(s) of the Landmarks Commission have been met. 10 Guideline #5 Total: 30 Guideline #5 Minimum Points Required: 23 Total Maximum Points 185 Required Minimum Score Guideline #1: 30 Guideline #2: 30 Guideline #3: 38 Guideline #4: 19 Guideline #5: 23  City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 6, 2017 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Jo Ellen Charlton, Community Development Director Dan Olson, Interim Principal Planner SUBJECT: Video Gaming Discussion – Potential Amendments to the UDO GENERAL INFORMATION: In 2009, the State of Illinois passed the Video Gaming Act, which authorized the placement of up to five Video Gaming Terminals (VGT) in licensed retail establishments, truck stops, and veteran and fraternal establishments. At that time, the City of DeKalb engaged in extensive public discussion of the topic, and ultimately proceeded to authorize video gaming to occur in limited types of licensed liquor establishments. The City Council enacted ordinances that restricted VGT placement by prohibiting them at restaurants that are required to serve food with purchases of alcohol, and at any facility which has a combination license authorizing use of any portion of the premises as a restaurant. The City does allow VGTs at Golf Courses with restaurants. The City’s first video gaming establishment was approved in 2013. As of November, 2016 there were 18 video gaming establishments with 76 terminals in the City. ANALYSIS: The City has since seen substantial growth in the expansion of video gaming facilities, and has seen the clustering of these facilities into significant density in targeted areas of the City. The City has explored the ramifications of video gaming, particularly where such uses are implemented in a fashion such that video gaming becomes the primary use of the facility. At two meetings last summer, the City Council discussed video gaming and its implications including placing additional limitations on the facilities. On September 12, 2016, the City Council approved a moratorium on the issuance of licensing for video gaming terminals through March 13, 2017. The six month moratorium was approved to allow the City time to study our video gaming regulations and come up with desired changes. We are bringing this matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion regarding the following items that will require amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 1) creating a new zoning classification and definition for video gaming/modifying the definitions for accessory and principal use, 2) what zoning districts should video gaming be a permitted or special use, and 3) additional limitations the City should place on video gaming businesses. The City’s UDO does not reference “video gaming”, however, the City has interpreted and has allowed video gaming as a principal use as a “bar”. “Bars” are allowed as “permitted” uses only in Central Business District (CBD) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts, while they are allowed only as a special use in the Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district. Whether or not bars are permitted or special in any of the City’s Planned Development (PD) projects is dependent on the ordinances approved for each of the City’s PDs. While the City’s existing regulations are comprehensive in the restriction of these businesses as accessory uses in existing businesses, there are no restrictions on video gaming businesses operating as a principal use. At the Council discussions last summer, there was consensus that video gaming operating as an accessory use within an existing licensed bar should not be further restricted by the City. With regard to video gaming establishments that operate as a principal use, the City Council had concerns about the possibility that multiple video gaming businesses could open in very close proximity to each other. Create New Classification and Definition for Video Gaming Amend the Article 3 “Definitions” section of the UDO to create a specific definition for video gaming and review and modify, if necessary, the definitions for accessory use and principal use. The definition for video gaming should include language that clearly categorizes it as a principle use. Zoning Districts Where Video Gaming Would be a Permitted or Special Use Video gaming establishment (interpreted as “bars” per the UDO) are allowed as “permitted” uses only in Central Business District (CBD) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts, while they are allowed only as a special use in the Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district. The staff recommends to continue to allow video gaming as an accessory use as currently allowed by the UDO, except that video gaming as a principal use should not be allowed in the downtown CBD. The CBD has five video gaming establishments, however none are operating in the district as a principal use. Given the importance of retaining key spaces for traditional downtown shopping experiences, staff recommends these spaces be excluded from further licensing for video gaming as a principal use, and that downtown spaces remain available for traditional retailers and approved commercial operations. This restriction would not impact a bar or brew pub that might wish to Page |2 open or existing uses such as O’Leary’s who currently enjoys video gaming as an accessory use to their business. Additional Restrictions for Video Gaming Operations The City currently has no zoning regulations that would restrict multiple video gaming businesses opening up in the same shopping center or in close proximity to each other. An entire shopping center could be utilized by multiple video gaming businesses, each with five machines authorized by the State license, if the City issued liquor licenses to each entity. A very small 1,500 linear foot stretch along Sycamore Road contains nearly 23% of all video gaming businesses in the community. Given that it has become fairly evident that video gaming facilities (particularly those that operate as principal uses) do not behave in an otherwise predictable commercial manner, additional limitations are warranted. 1. Establish a limitation on the video gaming licenses so that no more than one is allowed in any continuous shopping center building (multi-tenant building). 2. Add a restriction that they cannot be located on a property that is within 250’ or some other acceptable distance from another video gaming facility. 3. If additional limitations to principal use video gaming establishments are desired, a restriction could be added that would also limit the locations of new principal use video gaming establishments to not closer than 100’ (or more as determined by the City), from the property line of a building where another video gaming business is already located. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: No official action or motion is required. Staff asks the Commission to provide direction per the discussion items in the memo. With the Commission’s input, staff will prepare and process a text amendment for review and recommendation by the Commission, which would allow for additional public comment via the public hearing process. Final authority to amend any regulations regarding video gaming rests with the City Council. We plan to set a public hearing date of February 15th in front of the Commission regarding the proposed text amendments. The intent is to have the amendments to the UDO approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of the moratorium on March 13th. Provided in the packet are the staff memos dated July 6, 2016 and August 17, 2016 that were presented to the City Council. The memos provide a thorough review of video gaming in the City and also include maps showing the location of video gaming establishments in the City. Also include in the packet is the City Zoning Map. Page |3 DATE: July 6, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor John Rey City Council FROM: Anne Marie Gaura, City Manager Ellen Divita, Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Video Gaming Terminal Discussion. I. Summary In the past six months, questions about limiting video gaming have been raised. This memo provides the history, ordinances, and data related to video gaming in the City and is intended for Council discussion and direction. II. Background Video Gaming facilities have become more popular in recent years with enactment of the Illinois Video Gaming Act (VGA) which passed in July 2009. The VGA authorized the placement of up to five Video Gaming Terminals (VGT) in licensed retail establishments, truck stops, and veteran and fraternal establishments. The VGA established requirements, including alcohol licensing at certain categories of establishments with VGTs, locations on the premises where VGTs are allowed, and the permissible methods for winnings payouts. In addition, the VGA provided for incorporated municipalities and counties (for unincorporated areas) to choose to prohibit VGTs within their jurisdictions by passing an ordinance or through successful passage of a voter referendum. The City Council enacted ordinances that restricted VGT placement by prohibiting them at restaurants that are required to serve food with purchases of alcohol, and at any facility which has a combination license authorizing use of any portion of the premises as a restaurant. The City does allow VGTs at Golf Courses with restaurants. Currently, 19 establishments operate with a total of 79 terminals. Seven of these establishments are within one mile from each other on Sycamore Road including three within 800 feet of each other. Three more VGT licenses are pending and would add 15 VGTs (five at each of the three locations). Page |1 Revenue generated through taxation on VGTs is considerable. Between 2013 and May 2016 VGTs have generated a grand total of $282,960.92 in taxes to the City from 17 establishments with a total of 71 VGTs. In March of 2015, the City approved its first license for a facility where video gambling was the principal use of the business. This newer business model is different than adding VGT’s to existing businesses as accessory uses where the business would continue with or without the gaming devices. Instead, video gaming businesses operating as a principal use target smaller commercial spaces (generally around 1,200 square feet) in established multi-tenant shopping centers so they can target their primary market of people, who are out at all times of the day running errands. These newer video gaming businesses are typically open longer hours than most bars, and are just as likely to serve coffee, breakfast and lunch items as they are to serve liquor. Most entrepreneurs seeking locations for this business model admit that the liquor license for them is merely a means to an end as they would be happy to operate these businesses without a liquor license. Exhibit 1 on the next page lists all businesses in DeKalb that have video gaming licenses, including three that are pending. All three pending licenses and two licenses issued in the last three months are for video gaming businesses operating as the principal use. Because there is little start-up costs required when compared to the start-up costs for bars and other uses where video gaming is an accessory use, it is these business models that have the potential to proliferate quickly and have a negative impact on the community if not regulated. The City currently has no zoning regulations that would restrict multiple video gaming businesses opening up in the same shopping center. An entire shopping center could be utilized by multiple video gaming businesses, each with the five machines authorized by the State license, if the City issued liquor licenses to each entity. It is these newest video gaming businesses operating as principal uses that have prompted many local governments to consider new restrictions on the use. Restrictions can be written into liquor codes, zoning ordinances or a combination of both. Many communities are regulating video gaming businesses that are principal uses as special uses in named zoning districts. If this were done in the City, new video gaming businesses opening as a principal use would only be allowed after a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. All existing video gaming businesses operating as principal uses would become non-conforming. Another strategy used by communities to regulate video gaming businesses operating as a principal use involves liquor code amendments that tie the liquor license to the service of “prepared food,” which generally thins out the supply of businesses willing to make that investment. Page |2  Exhibit 1 Liquor # of Business Date Class Use Type Machines Business Address Issued 518 East BAR Accessory 5 K.J.'s Tap Lincoln 1/9/2013 1730 HOSP Accessory 5 Mardi Gras Lanes Sycamore 1/9/2013 260 East OSP/BAR Accessory 4 O'Leary's Irish Pub & Grill Lincoln 3/11/2013 722 East BAR Accessory 5 Sullivan's Tavern Lincoln 6/13/2013 1000 West BAR Accessory 3 Molly's Bar and The Bottle Store Lincoln 7/1/2013 DeKalb Moose Family Center 1231 East PENP Accessory 4 #586 Lincoln 9/11/2013 142 East BAR Accessory 5 Lord Stanley's Bar & Grill Lincoln 11/22/2013 1204 South PENP Accessory 4 American Legion Post #66 4th 3/28/2014 209 South Annie PENP Accessory 3 BPOE Elks DeKalb Lodge #765 Glidden 4/22/2014 1312 West HOSP/BAR Accessory 3 Fatty's Pub & Grill Lincoln 9/23/2014 241 East BAR Accessory 4 Hometown Sports Bar & Grill Lincoln 9/24/2014 2410 BAR Principal 5 Suzi's XIII Sycamore 3/20/2015 1336 East PENP Accessory 3 DeKalb Columbus Club Lincoln 4/14/2015 2581 BAR Principal 5 Shelby's Sycamore 8/7/2015 210 South GOLF Accessory 3 Chicago Golf & Tiki Tees Pointe 9/21/2015 870 W. BAR Accessory 5 Ray's Chicago BBQ and Slots Lincoln 10/16/2015 1016 and Twins Tavern & Discount 1028 South BAR Accessory 3 Liquors 4th 12/28/2015 1704 BAR Principal 5 Lacey's Place, LLC Sycamore 4/6/2016 1406 B BAR Principal 5 Cj's Gaming, LLC Sycamore 6/13/2016 1812 PENDING Principal Lucky Poker Sycamore Ap 5/10/16 3260 PENDING Principal Lucky Poker (2nd Location) Sycamore Ap 5/10/16 1792 PENDING Principal Charley's Video Gaming Sycamore Ap 6/7/16 Page |3 Currently, the fees for VGTs include a $25 application fee and a $25 per-machine annual fee, the lowest total cost to business owners when compared to those communities surveyed earlier this year. Of the similar nearby municipalities that permit video gaming, the application fee varies from $100 to $500, and the per-machine fee varies from $25 to $1,000. A first reading on an ordinance amending VGT fees is included on the City Council’s July 11, 2016 agenda. In addition to considering whether fees should be amended for video gaming businesses, there are a number of options the Council can consider with regard to allowing future growth of video gaming businesses: 1. Keep video gaming businesses operating as a principal use unregulated and allow as many of them as the market will bear. 2. Amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow VGTs only as an accessory use in existing businesses. All existing video gaming businesses operating as a principal use would become non-conforming. 3. Regulate video gaming businesses that operate as a principal use and list them in only those zoning districts where they would be allowed. This would allow them to be excluded from certain zoning districts. As a principal use, the City could also decide whether to authorize them as permitted or special uses. A special use designation would require a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. Regulating video gaming as a principal use could also include standards such as minimum separation requirements, or no more than one per multi-tenant center, etc. III. Community Groups/Interested Parties Contacted This item is anticipated to be discussed at a July 11, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, to provide an opportunity for public comment and feedback. IV. Legal Impact The City has the legal authority to amend fees associated with Video Gaming licenses and to amend the UDO to add regulations that would place additional limitations on the number and location of video gaming businesses if direction is provided by the City Council to do so. V. Financial Impact Limiting the number of establishments that are permitted to have VGTs or the total number of VGTs permitted in DeKalb may limit further growth in the amount DeKalb receives as its share of VGT Tax Distribution. VI. Options City staff requests the City Council to discuss the status of VGTs in the City. Page |4 VII. Recommendation City staff requests the City Council provide guidance for future VGTs in the City. While the City’s existing regulations are comprehensive in the restriction of VGT’s as accessory uses in existing businesses, there are no restrictions on video gaming businesses operating as a principal use. Staff recommends the Council focus possible restrictions on this category of video gaming businesses if there is a desire to add regulations. Questions to consider include whether they should be allowed as permitted or special uses, and whether specific standards should be evaluated as part of each request. These standards could include limitations that restrict them from certain zoning districts such as the downtown, minimum separation between businesses, not more than one in a single shopping center, etc. Based on the Council’s direction, possible amendments to the UDO can be drafted and considered at a future meeting by the Council, or the Council could give direction to forward drafted amendments directly to the PZC directly for public hearing and recommendation. Page |5 DATE: August 17, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor John Rey City Council FROM: Anne Marie Gaura, City Manager Ellen Divita, Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Video Gaming Businesses I. Summary The City Council last discussed whether or not to impose limitations on the number or locations of video gaming businesses at their July 11, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that meeting, there was consensus that video gaming operating as an accessory use within an existing licensed bar should not be further restricted by the City. With regard to video gaming establishments that operate as a principal use, the City Council had concerns about the possibility that multiple video gaming businesses could open in one shopping center or in very close proximity to each other. Additional information was requested regarding the differences between video gaming as a principal versus accessory use, where video gaming is currently allowed, and possible options to restrict video gaming establishments without being arbitrary. II. Background History of Video Gaming in DeKalb A map showing the location of all video gaming establishments in the City existing or pending is shown in Exhibit 1 on the following page. The map identifies establishments as “accessory” if they are located within bars or other already licensed establishments, as “principal” if they opened with video gaming as their primary business, and as “pending” if they are either approved or soon to be approved but not yet operational. The City’s first video gaming establishment did not operate until January of 2013, when KJ’s tap and the Bowling alley were issued the first licenses. At that time, video gaming was supported by the business community and seen by many as a way to supplement the income of bars and certain other liquor license holders such as entertainment venues like the bowling alley, or not-for-profit entities, like the Moose, who was licensed later in 2013. A total of seven video gaming licenses were issued in DeKalb in 2013. Four Page |1 establishments opened in 2014. Two were accessories to bars (Fatty’s and Hometown Sportsbar and Grill), and two were in not-for-profit establishments (American Legion and Elks). Exhibit 1 Page |2 In 2015, the City received its first proposals for video gaming establishments to open as principal uses. Suzie’s, at 2410 Sycamore, was DeKalb’s first to begin the process, but they didn’t open and begin reporting gaming revenues until May of 2016. Shelby’s, at 2581 Sycamore, was the City’s first licensed video gaming establishment to open and operate in 2015. They opened in August, and by September had captured 25 percent of all the money inserted into all slot machines in the City’s then 15 establishments. Prior to that time, the bowling alley (also on Sycamore Road) was consistently the top location for money to be inserted into slot machines. For example, in July, which is the month before Shelby’s opened, the bowling alley captured nearly 22 percent of the total amount gambled in the City. The bowling alley’s share of the total amount gambled dropped to 18 percent by September, a month after Shelby’s opened With free access to revenue data on the State’s gaming website, it doesn’t take long for investors to learn where the new hotspots for potential video gaming locations might be located. Furthermore, the trend in video gaming to open them as stand-alone establishment instead of as an accessory to an existing business was a logical next step for investors to consider. Investors soon learned that some towns’ definitions of “bars” made it fairly easy and attractive to request new liquor licenses for a “bar”, when all they really intended was to get the liquor license as a means to operate a gaming facility, with the sales of liquor not required to be successful. This request initially caught many towns off guard not realizing that by issuing a liquor license for a bar that was intended for a video gaming facility, that they were actually allowing a use that most zoning codes did not define or regulate. Unlike bars that include video gaming as an accessory use and find space within their facility to accommodate a few slot machines, video gaming as a principal use is laid out quite differently. First, most principal use facilities are smaller in total square footage than traditional bars. Because the State of Illinois only allows up to five machines per licensed establishment, investors quickly learned to target communities that would issue liquor licenses for “bars” that had no “kitchen” requirements with their liquor license. If liquor licenses would be issued with no requirement to operate a full-service kitchen, start-up costs for a new video gaming business in an existing strip center would be very low. Investors first looked for the smallest spaces they could find and proposed layouts with enough room for the five gaming machines, required bathrooms, and some private office areas. The “next generation” of video gaming establishments as principal uses may have added a separate space to relax, enjoy a drink or enjoy company of those that might come with you, such as illustrated in the photograph below for a similar type of establishment. Page |3 Most investors find spaces in the 1,200 to 2,000 square foot range to be adequate for their principal use video gaming businesses. Vacant store fronts in downtowns and strip shopping centers became the location of choice for these investors given their availability during an otherwise “down” market. What wasn’t immediately obvious was that these spaces attract a different, yet equally lucrative market in the housewives, seniors and other daytime consumers that frequent strip shopping centers for their other shopping needs. While bars cater to the “bar scene” that attracts most customers at night, a location in a strip shopping center could be operated successfully all day. And while the liquor license is the key to what allows them to operate in compliance with the State Statute, these facilities do not rely on liquor (or food) sales to be successful. As stated above, Shelby’s entered the market late in 2015 and immediately enjoyed 25% of all the money inserted into machines located in the 14 establishments operating in the City during the first full month they were open. They continued to corner between 21% and 24% of the total market of money gambled from the time they opened until the next two principal use video gaming establishments (Suzie’s and CJ’s on Sycamore Road) started reporting revenue in May and June of 2016. Shelby’s share dropped to 18 percent in the month of June, which is the last month data is available on the State’s website. Moving forward, four additional video gaming establishments have been, or will be, approved on Sycamore Road as principal use businesses. Exhibit 2 on the next page shows the location of the eight existing or soon-to-be open video gaming establishments located along Sycamore Road. Seven are located within about one mile of each other. Five, including Shelby’s, are located within a 1,500 linear foot strip along Sycamore Road. Given the availability of competitive data on the website and the recent interest in locating five establishments within 1,500 feet of each other, it is clear that the new form of video gaming as a principal use does not operate in the market as most businesses. While most businesses want to be located in popular commercial corridors and cluster with complementary businesses, it would be unusual for five like businesses to locate within 1,500 of each other, with all hoping to be successful. The relatively low start-up costs to open these businesses in vacant spaces when kitchens are not required to open a bar make the “gamble” worth it. If it doesn’t work out, they can likely quickly set up shop somewhere down the road just as easily, with little risk. Not surprisingly, the only requests for liquor licenses in 2016 have been for “bars” intending to operate video gaming as a principal use. While the City would likely welcome a new full-service bar with food service to the community and the video gaming that would likely come with it, there have been no requests for these uses that the City would likely embrace. Page |4 Exhibit 2 Page |5 Where Does DeKalb Zoning Allow Video Gaming The City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not reference “video gaming”. Therefore, under the strictest interpretation of the UDO, video gaming is not allowed as a principal use. Historically, however, the City interpreted and has allowed video gaming as a principal use as a “bar”. “Bars” are allowed as “permitted” uses only in Central Business District (CBD) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts, while they are allowed only as a special use in the Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district. Whether or not bars are permitted or special in any of the City’s Planned Development (PD) projects is dependent on the ordinances approved for each of the City’s PDs. Parking Requirements Another factor now being considered when liquor licenses are being reviewed for video gaming establishments is whether individual strip shopping centers have adequate parking based on the UDO. The UDO requires parking in strip shopping centers to meet the sum of the requirements for each type of use. This means that a change in one use in a shopping center can change the total parking requirement for the entire center. So, while bars have a higher parking requirement than most retail uses, a request for a “bar”/video gaming establishment may cause a strip shopping center’s parking requirement to exceed available existing parking, which would be grounds to deny a video gaming establishment. Central Business District Considerations The Central Business District has five video gaming establishments as shown in Exhibit 3 on the next page. There are currently no video gaming establishments operating in the CBD as a principal use. Given the importance of retaining key spaces for traditional downtown shopping experiences, staff recommends these spaces be excluded from further licensing for video gaming as a principal use, and that downtown spaces remain available for traditional retailers and approved commercial operations. This restriction would not impact a bar or brew pub that might wish to open. These establishments would be similar to existing uses such as O’Leary’s who currently enjoys video gaming as an accessory use to their business in the Central Business District. Page |6  Exhibit 3 Fiscal Impacts of New Video Gaming Establishments While it is true that the addition of new gaming facilities continues to produce a general increase in the overall amount of money played into gaming machines in the City as shown in Exhibit 4 below, the impact of additional gaming facilities on the amount played in bars and not-for-profits may be impacted. Not-for-profits, in particular, are beginning to experience a downward trend in the amount played in their facilities as new facilities are added to the market as shown in Exhibit 5 on the next page. While there is not yet enough data to support any predictable trends as to when gambling does not increase even when new facilities are added, it is important to note that four approved or soon to be approved facilities are not yet operational and are therefore not included in the State’s revenue reports. Regardless of the Council’s direction on this topic, staff will continue to monitor the monthly reports from the State, and will report any significant trends that might arise. At some point, the City will reach a saturation for this business. Staff suggests it would best to reach this saturation with a mix of businesses that were distributed more evenly across the community, rather than clustered tightly together in one area. Page |7  Exhibit 4 Trend of Total Money Played Into Video Games $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- Jun-15 Jul-15 Nov-15 Jun-16 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Exhibit 5 Not For Profits January-June 2016 $250,000.00 $200,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $- January February March April May June 1 Knights of Columus 1 Moose 1 Elks 1 American Legion Considerations in Other Locations Not Yet Served by Video Gaming The Council’s last discussion questioned whether it would be appropriate to add limits to the number of principal use video gaming facilities to avoid what has happened on Sycamore Road. Concerns were expressed as to how the City might make these restrictions without being arbitrary. As stated above, video gaming is only allowed as a permitted use in the GC and CBD Zoning Districts, and that they might be allowed in the Planned Development Commercial (PDC) district depending on how those ordinances were written when the project was approved. They are also allowed in LC District, but only if granted a special use, requiring a public hearing. If the Council decides to restrict them in the CBD as recommended by staff, attention would then turn to properties zoned GC and PDC, and to a lesser extent LC zones. Note that Exhibits 2 and 3 showed a 100’ buffer around each of the properties upon which an existing video gaming facility is located. Page |8 Exhibit 6 on the next page shows all properties zoned LC, GC and PDC in the City, along with the existing video gaming facilities and a 250’ buffer around each facility. As discussed above, a very small 1,500 linear foot stretch along Sycamore Road does or will contain nearly 23% of all video gaming businesses in the community. Given that it has become fairly evident that video gaming facilities (particularly those that operate as principal uses) do not behave in an otherwise predictable commercial manner, the City has asked as to how they might be limited. Staff sees three alternatives as follows: 1. Do nothing. Let as many open up wherever they want. 2. Establish a limitation on the video gaming licenses so that no more than 1 is allowed in any continuous shopping center building. 3. In addition to number 2, add a restriction that they cannot be located on a property that is within 250’ or some other acceptable distance from another video gaming facility. A “do nothing” approach could result in clusters of establishments that start, fail and return empty storefronts to struggling areas. By looking at the areas in Exhibit 6 on the next page that do not contain existing video gaming facilities, it is possible to understand where additional video gaming facilities might be located in the future. There are “untapped” locations in the City that could become the next target for video gaming businesses as a principal use to cluster next to each other as they have done on Sycamore Road. Implementing options numbered 2 or 3 above would allow some currently under-served areas to add new establishments without being as excessive as Sycamore Road. Additional video gaming locations will continue to have an impact on the amounts played in other existing venues. At some point, the amount played in each establishment will level off and possibly decline as assumedly there are only so many gambling dollars available. Social and “Quality of Life” Impact of Video Gaming At the July 11th meeting, the Council questioned Police Chief Lowery as to whether there were any crime statistics related to video gaming. While he responded that there was no direct evidence of increased crime as a result of video gaming, he did comment that it would be hard to estimate whether there was any correlation between gambling and certain crimes like domestic violence that occur in the community. These crimes happen for a variety of reasons, some of which could be due to financial hardships caused by gambling addicts and their impact on the family. Additional impacts of pathological and problem gambling include lost work time, bankruptcies and other financial hardships on families. It may be more important than most think to regulate gambling in a community like DeKalb where many residents already depend on social services, as increased gambling addiction may lead to an increase in the need for the City to provide and fund more social services. Page |9 Some perceive that a large presence of video gaming establishments in a community or along a corridor promote a bad “Vegas-like” image and are a negative influence on a community’s “quality of life.” This may be subjective, but something many feel is important when protecting the “health, safety and welfare” of the community. Exhibit 6 P a g e | 10 State Statute Modifications In thinking about whether to limit the number of new video gaming establishment that operate as a principal use, the Council may want to consider what would happen if the State amended their laws. For example, if the state increased the number of allowed gaming machines from 5 to 10, or 15 or 20, how would that affect the City? Instead of 1,200-2,000 square foot stand-alone facilities, the City could be asked to amend its license for a facility that requests double the space. If the liquor license is unlimited and the use has been “permitted” previously, the obvious conclusion would be to allow the expansion. What if that expansion included a whole shopping center? While this may not be necessary given the current State Statute, staff will continue to monitor State activities and advise the Council if/when things change. III. Community Groups/Interested Parties Contacted This item is anticipated to be discussed at the August 22, 2016 Council meeting as a follow up to the July 11, 2016 Committee of the Whole discussion. The public will be provided an opportunity to provide comment and feedback. Valuable additional public input from a possible public hearing before the Plan Commission could be obtained if the City Council provides direction to process a text amendment. IV. Legal Impact The City has the legal authority to amend City Code and/or the UDO to add regulations that would place additional limitations on the number and location of video gaming businesses if direction is provided by the City Council to do so. V. Financial Impact Limiting the number of establishments that are permitted to have video gaming terminals (VGT) or the total number of VGTs permitted in DeKalb may limit further growth in the amount DeKalb receives as its share of VGT Tax Distribution. It could also stabilize the amount of revenues to be expected, on average, by certain City establishments that rely on the revenues to be successful or to fund their not-for-profit programs. VI. Options City staff requests the following from the City Council: 1. Confirm a “do nothing” approach and let the market dictate the number and location of video gaming establishment regardless of whether they are accessory to existing businesses or principal uses. 2. Confirm “no objection” to continuing video gaming as an accessory use to existing “bars” or other authorized liquor license establishments as long as they comply with all other UDO requirements. P a g e | 11 3. Prepare and process a UDO amendment that would be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for review and public hearing that would add and define video gaming, with the following additional amendments: a. Continue to allow video gaming as an accessory use as currently allowed by the UDO, except that video gaming as a principal use shall not be allowed in the downtown CBD. b. Limit principal use video gaming establishments in all other districts when allowed (either permitted or special use) so that there shall be no more than one (1) establishment in any one building or structure. c. If additional limitations to principal use video gaming establishments are desired, add a restriction that would also limit the locations of new principal use video gaming establishments to not closer than 100’ (or more as determined by the Council), from the property line of a building where another video gaming business is already located. VII. Recommendation City staff requests the City Council provide guidance for future video gaming businesses in the City. While the City’s existing regulations are comprehensive in the restriction of these businesses as accessory uses in existing businesses, there are no restrictions on video gaming businesses operating as a principal use. Staff recommends the Council focus possible restrictions on this category of video gaming businesses as recommended in Section VI “Options” above, if there is a desire to add regulations. If the Council provides this direction, staff will prepare and process a text amendment for review and recommendation by the PZC, which would allow for additional public comment via the public hearing process. Final authority to amend any regulations regarding video gaming rests with the City Council, who would have an opportunity to review the matter further after public comment and the review and recommendation by the PZC. P a g e | 12  Existing and Pending Video Gaming Establishments Liquor # of Business Date Class Use Type Machines Business Address Issued 518 East BAR Accessory 5 K.J.'s Tap Lincoln 1/9/2013 1730 HOSP Accessory 5 Mardi Gras Lanes Sycamore 1/9/2013 260 East OSP/BAR Accessory 4 O'Leary's Irish Pub & Grill Lincoln 3/11/2013 722 East BAR Accessory 5 Sullivan's Tavern Lincoln 6/13/2013 1000 West BAR Accessory 3 Molly's Bar and The Bottle Store Lincoln 7/1/2013 DeKalb Moose Family Center 1231 East PENP Accessory 4 #586 Lincoln 9/11/2013 142 East BAR Accessory 5 Lord Stanley's Bar & Grill Lincoln 11/22/2013 1204 South PENP Accessory 4 American Legion Post #66 4th 3/28/2014 209 South Annie PENP Accessory 3 BPOE Elks DeKalb Lodge #765 Glidden 4/22/2014 1312 West HOSP/BAR Accessory 3 Fatty's Pub & Grill Lincoln 9/23/2014 241 East BAR Accessory 4 Hometown Sports Bar & Grill Lincoln 9/24/2014 2410 BAR Principal 5 Suzi's XIII Sycamore 3/20/2015 1336 East PENP Accessory 3 DeKalb Columbus Club Lincoln 4/14/2015 2581 BAR Principal 5 Shelby's Sycamore 8/7/2015 210 South GOLF Accessory 3 Chicago Golf & Tiki Tees Pointe 9/21/2015 870 W. BAR Accessory 5 Ray's Chicago BBQ and Slots Lincoln 10/16/2015 1016 and Twins Tavern & Discount 1028 South BAR Accessory 3 Liquors 4th 12/28/2015 1704 BAR Principal Pending 5 Lacey's Place, LLC Sycamore 4/6/2016 1406 B BAR Principal 5 Cj's Gaming, LLC Sycamore 6/13/2016 1812 PENDING Principal Pending 5 Lucky Poker Sycamore Ap 5/10/16 3260 PENDING Principal Pending 5 Lucky Poker (2nd Location) Sycamore Ap 5/10/16 1792 PENDING Principal Pending 5 Charley's Video Gaming Sycamore Ap 6/7/16 P a g e | 13