Loading...
Plan Commission Packet - 8/5/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA August 5, 2014 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 1, 2014 MEETING. CONSENT BUSINESS Recommended for approval en gross. RESOLUTION #PC 044-2014 - Approval of a Two Lot Extraterritorial Certified Survey Map for the Fuller property located in the Town of Vernon. RESOLUTION #PC 045-2014 - Approval of a Second Accessory Structure for the Rogers property located in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 (Tax Key No. 2174.077 / S66 W18560 Jewel Crest Drive). NEW BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION #PC 043-2014 - Recommendation to Council to Amend the Zoning Map and 2020 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Muskego for Ener-Con Companies for properties located in the SE 1/4 of Section 9 (Tax Key Nos. 2195.999, 2193.970.028, 2193.970.029 / Janesville Road). MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, CONTACT MUSKEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (262) 679-4136. Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 1, 2014 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Mayor Chiaverotti called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Kathy Chiaverotti, Alderman Wolfe, Commissioners Buckmaster, Stinebaugh, and Jacques. Also present Director Muenkel and Recording Secretary McMullen. Absent: Commissioner Hulbert and Commissioner Bartlett. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on June 26, 2014. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3, 2014 MEETING Alderman Wolfe made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2014 meeting. Commissioner Jacques seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. PUBLIC HEARING Alex Simic, for Storage Master, LLC, requests a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the Muskego Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of allowing a mini-storage facility on the property located at S66 W14444 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2165.973. CONSENT BUSINESS Recommended for approval en gross. Commissioner Jacques made a motion to approve CONSENT BUSINESS. Commissioner Buckmaster seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. RESOLUTION #PC 038-2014 - Approval for the sale of fireworks for TNT Fireworks at the Wal-Mart property located in the NE 1/4 of Section 3 (Tax Key No. 2169.999.003 / W159 S6530 Moorland Rd). RESOLUTION #PC 039-2014 - Approval of a Three Lot Certified Survey Map for the Ingold property located in the SE 1/4 of Section 9 (S76 W17501 Janesville Rd / Tax Key No. 2196.958.001). RESOLUTION #PC 041-2014 - Approval of a Two Lot Extraterritorial Certified Survey Map for the Malkovich property located in the Town of Norway. RESOLUTION #PC 042-2014 - Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for American Advantage - P&L Insurance Agency located in the SW 1/4 of Section 9 (S76 W18180 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2195.991). NEW BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION #PC 040-2014 - Approval of a Conditional Use Grant and Building, Site, and Operation Plan for Storage Master, LLC located in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 ( S66 W14444 Janesville Rd / Tax Key No. 2165.973). Commissioner Buckmaster made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #PC 040-2014 - Approval of a Conditional Use Grant and Building, Site, and Operation Plan for Storage Master, LLC located in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 ( S66 W14444 Janesville Rd / Tax Key No. 2165.973). Commissioner Jacques seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Buckmaster made a motion to adjourn at 6:19 PM. Commissioner Jacques seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 044-2014 For the meeting of: August 5, 2014 REQUEST: Extraterritorial Certified Survey Map for a Two Lot Land Division SE ¼ of Section 9, Town of Vernon PETITIONER: Ryan Fuller INTRODUCED: August 5, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP BACKGROUND PC 044-2014 The property is located along Hi-Lo Drive in the Town of Vernon. The CSM is for a two lot land division and is within the extraterritorial review authority of the City as defined by State Statute. STAFF DISCUSSION PC 044-2014 The petitioner is proposing to create two (2) new parcels, which will range in size from 2 acres to 4 acres. There will be no adverse drainage impacts to the City of Muskego. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 044-2014 Approval of Resolution # PC 044-2014 RESOLUTION #P.C. 044-2014 APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT EXTRATERRITORIAL CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR THE FULLER PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 9 IN THE TOWN OF VERNON WHEREAS, A Certified Survey Map for a two lot land division was submitted by Ryan Fuller for a property located in the SE ¼ of Section 9, Town of Vernon, and WHEREAS, This property is located within the jurisdiction of the extraterritorial powers of the City of Muskego and approval by the Plan Commission is necessary under the City’s subdivi sion regulations, and WHEREAS, There will be no adverse drainage impacts to the City of Muskego as determined by the Engineering Department, and WHEREAS, The Town of Vernon must also approve all certified survey maps within their jurisdiction. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves the extraterritorial Certified Survey Map for a two lot land division submitted by Ryan Fuller for a property located in the SE ¼ of Section 9, Town of Vernon, and recommends the same to the Common Council. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Denied: Deferred: Introduced: August 5, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 045-2014 For the meeting of: August 5, 2014 REQUEST: Second Accessory Structure Tax Key No. 2174.077 / S66 W18560 Jewel Crest Drive NW ¼ of Section 4 PETITIONER: Thomas Rogers INTRODUCED: August 5, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP BACKGROUND PC 045-2014 The petitioner proposes to construct a 576 square foot accessory structure on site. This building will be the second accessory structure on this lot. Plans are attached for your review. PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 045-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the area for medium density residential land use. The proposal for this residential outbuilding is consistent with the Plan. Zoning: The property is zoned ERS-3 Existing Suburban Residence District. Accessory structures totaling around 1,336 square feet are permitted on the subject property. The current proposal measures 576 square feet in area. There is one other accessory structure and one garden shed that exist on the lot, which total 619 square feet in size. The grand total of all accessory structure square footage with the proposed accessory structure equals 1,195 square feet. The proposal meets the bulk requirements of the Zoning Code. STAFF DISCUSSION PC 045-2014 Design Guide requirements state that Planning Commission approval is needed for more than one accessory structure on a lot when it is being used for residential purposes . Plan Commission approvals are being sought since there is already another accessory structure on this lot. The architectural requirements state that the accessory structure should have similar materials and colors as the principal residence. The proposed building is proposed to be clad with gray siding and gray shingles and said proposal does meet the Plan Commission’s standards for administrative approval of residential accessory structures and said building will match the colors used on the existing home and accessory structure. The new building is 24’ x 24’ (576 SF) in size. There currently is an existing accessory structure on site that is 520 square feet in size and a garden shed that is 99 square feet in size. The combined size of all three buildings (1,195 SF) is within the allowed size limit (1,336 SF) for this property. The petitioner has stated that the newly proposed building will be used for personal storage. The Resolution also states the following items: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the building cannot be used for the operations of a business. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the floor of the entire building must be concrete. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the colors of the proposed building must match the colors of the home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 045-2014 Approval of Resolution #PC 045-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0100200 Fee t Ag en da Item(s) Pr op er tie s Zon in g D istr ic ts Rig ht -o f-Way Hy dr og rap hy Supp lem ental MapRESOLUTION #PC 04 5-2014 Tho mas R o ger sS66 W 185 60 Je we l C re st D rive J A N E S V I L L E L O O M I S R D RA CIN E AV DURHAM W O O D S CO LL EG E Pre p ar ed b y C ity o f Mu ske g o P la n n in g D e p ar tm e nt Da te : 7 /2 9/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 045-2014 APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THE ROGERS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 4 (TAX KEY NO. 2174.077 / S66 W18560 JEWEL CREST DRIVE) WHEREAS, A site plan and building drawings were submitted to construct a 576 square foot accessory structure on the property located at S66 W18560 Jewel Crest Drive (Tax Key No. 2174.077), and WHEREAS, The property is zoned ERS-3 Existing Suburban Residence District, and whereas said structure is a permitted accessory use and subject to Plan Commission review due to more than one accessory structure on the lot, and WHEREAS, One accessory structure totaling 520 square feet, a garden shed totaling 99 square feet, and a home residence currently reside on the property, and WHEREAS, The combined total of the two (2) accessory structures and the one (1) garden shed will be 1,195 square feet, which is within the allowed limit, and WHEREAS, The total square footage for accessory structures on this property is limited to 1,336 square feet, and said proposal meets the bulk requirements of the Zoning Code, and WHEREAS, The accessory structure will be used for personal storage, and WHEREAS, The proposed height is approximately 13 feet, as measured by code, which is allowed in said zoning district. WHEREAS, The structure is proposed to be clad with gray siding and gray shingles and said proposal does meet the Plan Commission’s standards for administrative approval of residential accessory structures and said building will match the colors used on the existing home and accessory structure. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves a 576 square foot accessory structure for the Rogers property located at S66 W18560 Jewel Crest Drive (Tax Key No. 2174.077). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the colors of the proposed building must match the colors of the home. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the floor of the entire building must be concrete. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the building cannot be used for the operations of any business activities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That failure to comply with the terms of this resolution and the approved site plans shall result in the issuance of fines of $100 per day per violation, the initiation of legal action, or both. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: August 5, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 043-2014 For the meeting of: August 5, 2014 REQUEST: Rezoning from RL-3 to PD-14 and a PD-14 Amendment and a 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Tax Key Nos. 2193.970.029, 2193.970.028, & 2195.999 SE ¼ of Section 9 PETITIONER: Ener-Con Companies Inc. (Mike Dilworth) INTRODUCED: August 5, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 043-2014 Petitioner has submitted a rezoning request along three (3) parcels along Janesville Road just north of Pioneer Drive. Petitioner owns the two east parcels and has contract for the western parcel. Rezoning request is to amend the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District for the two easternmost parcels per the submittal described in more detail below AND to rezone the westernmost parcel from RL-3 Lakeshore Residence District to be included in the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District per the submittal described in more detail below. Plan Commission will note that the petitioner has changed the proposal as submitted to the public hearing by quite a bit. The petitioner has submitted a new narrative and site plan in reaction to the comments at the public hearing and all those changes are detailed below. Those original changes are dated as the 7/29/14 submittal. UPDATE 8/1/2014 – Since the PC supplement went out online the developer has since submitted a few minor revisions in reaction to the calls they have received. Those revisions are reflected in the plans dated 8/1/14 attached and are detailed below. PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 043-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the areas for Medium Density Residential use. The proposal would require amendment to High Density Residential Use in the Plan. Zoning: Discussed in detail below along with a proposed concept plan of why the rezoning is being requested. Park and Open Space Plan: No acquisitions or trail requirements are proposed in this area. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Conservation Plan: No acquisition or management priorities are depicted in this area. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Street System Plan: Janesville Road was previously dedicated. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Adopted 208 Sanitary Sewer Service Area: Public sanitary sewer serves the property. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Water Capacity Assessment District: The property is served by public water service. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Stormwater Management Stormwater management would be required for the future concept Plan: development shown as part of the rezoning. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Design Guides The Downtown Design Guide and General Design Guide govern this area and would be required for the future concept development shown as part of the rezoning.. Redevelopment District #2 The parcel is located in the City’s Redevelopment District #2. The Plan discusses no recommendations for or against the proposed rezoning. DISCUSSION PC 043-2014 Ener-Con Companies Inc. is petitioning for a rezoning for three (3) properties along Janesville Road just north of Pioneer Drive. The properties and rezoning requests consist of the following:  Tax Key No. 2193.970.029 owned by Michael Dilworth (easternmost parcel) o 3.132 acres of land with residential structure existing upon it o 231.94 feet of Little Muskego Lake frontage o 204.46 of Janesville Road frontage o $1,382,000 Assessed value ($524,400 land / $857,600 impr ovements) o Rezoning request for this parcel is to amend the existing PD -14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District it currently resides in per the submittal described in more detail below.  Tax Key No. 2193.970.028 owned by Michael Dilworth(central parcel) o 2.129 acres of land with residential structure existing upon it o 195.31 feet of Little Muskego Lake frontage o 264.08 of Janesville Road frontage o $957,700 Assessed value ($478,100 land / $479,600 improvements) o Rezoning request for this parcel is to amend the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District it currently resides in per the submittal described in more detail below.  Tax Key No. 2195.999 owned by Dan Hewitt (westernmost parcel) o 1.44 acres of vacant land o 0 feet of Little Muskego Lake frontage o 116.86 of Janesville Road frontage o $155,600 Assessed value ($155,600 land / $0 improvements) o Rezoning request for this parcel is to rezone the parcel from RL-3 Lakeshore Residence District to be included in the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District per the submittal described in more detail below. Rezoning Concept Plan The rezoning request is to take the three parcels noted above to amend them in the existing PD -14 Planned Development Zoning District. The attached developer submittal provides the intentions of the amendments to the planned development in detail. In general, the proposal is to develop the properties to amend the PD as follows below, subject to future Planning Commission/Council approvals. Full site pla ns, building elevations, and renderings are included in the submittal attached. The original submittal was as follows:  Remove the residential structure and associated accessory structures on the middle parcel but retain the single family home on the easternmost parcel.  Create a new single-family gated community along the northwest portion of the property along Little Muskego Lake consisting of seven (7) garden homes. Setbacks to vary. Homes to have “high end architecture”, private pool, and lake frontage/piers.  Create senior housing units consisting of two (2) structures situated up along Janesville Road with a setback of as close as 10 feet. Structures would consist of a twenty (20) unit complex to the east and a ten (10) unit complex to the west. Buildings would be built in two stories with full masonry construction and would include underground parking.  Piers with boat slips are intended consisting of a pier to be retained for the existing single-family home, individual piers for the garden homes, and one pier for the senior housing complex to utilize; The amount of boat slips and piers is strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR,  The site plan would have one entrance to line up with the existing Janesville Road/Pioneer Drive intersection. Access would com e in from Janesville Road and stem off to the above stated uses. The new submittal, dated 7/29/14, is the same except that the multi-family density is now changed from two structures with 30 total units to one structure with 24 units. The seven garden homes along the lake have been reduced to six homes. The multi-family building is now setback further from the roadway at 30 feet and the multi-family structures aren’t along the whole frontage of Janesville Road now. Lastly, the senior housing has been rem oved and the housing is open to any age user. UPDATE 8/1/2014 – As stated above, since the PC supplement went out online the developer has since submitted a few more revisions in reaction to the calls they have received. These only consist of keeping the multi-family unit as for senior housing now, increasing the amount of spacing between the garden homes from 15 feet to 20 feet, adding a dedicated and fenced in trail for the senior housing to the lake, adding gates so the boat launch as part of the easter nmost house is totally private, and reducing the overall future square footage of the single family garden homes. Most of these revisions would be part of a future Plan Commission BSO approval as they are unrelated to the rezoning density issues. Since the variations are non-substantial in regards to the rezoning, the Plan Commission and Council can still react to them without needs of a new public hearing. PD-14 History The original Bay Breeze planned development (PD-14) was approved back in 1990 and allowed the 74 units of Bay Breeze condominiums as they exist today. Originally the city approved a mixed use facility (offices & restaurant) and a seven (7) parcel single family development for the PD west of the Bay Breeze condominiums. Over time the PD was amended to remove the mixed use facility, but up to 10 units of residential were allowed in its place. Along with the prior seven (7) units of residential, a total of seventeen (17) units were allowed where four (4) single family structures now exist today. The original PD-14 density was not based on any specific calculations but on how the development fit into the surrounding neighborhood at the time. Former DJs Parcel History The former DJs Bar and Grill property is zoned RL-3 which allows land divisions under the RS-3 density (15,000 SF per parcel). Recent approvals for that site by the Council did allow up to four (4) units of residential along with the allowance to rebuild a bar/restaurant. The Council approved the DR -1 zoning district there, contingent on the restaurant and up to 4 units getting built which is now not taking place. One note is that the DR-1 zoning district does allow 1 residential unit per 7,200 square feet of land area. Proposed Development Density Original Plan: In all, the density created by this plan would be a total of thirty-eight (38) units over approximately 6.7 acres, which results in approx. 5.7 units/acre or 1 unit per 7,680 square feet. This density is slightly different than what is calculated in the developer narrative as actual parcel square footages were now confirmed by staff. Eight (8) of these units would be single family residential homes (7 garden homes and one existing home) and thirty (30) of the units would be the senior housing. Again as the developer narrative details, the new PD-14 would now have a total of forty (40) units now west of the Bay Breeze condos consisting of the three (3) easternmost single -family residential homes to remain, the seven (7) garden homes, and the 30 units of senior housing. Wh en considering four (4) units were allowed for the DJs parcel (per the recent Council approval) and 17 units were allowed in the original PD, this forty (40) units is nineteen (19) units more than what the original PD -14 zoning had back in 1990. The Bay Breeze Condos are at 4 units/acre OR 1 unit for every 10,949 SF (74 units on 18.6 acres (810,216 SF)) and are shown as High Density uses in the 2020 Comp Plan. New Plan: In all, the density created by the new plan would be a total of 31 units over approxim ately 6.7 acres, which results in approx. 1 unit per 9,415 square feet. Seven of these units would be single family residential homes (6 garden homes and one existing home) and 24 of the units would be multi -family (open to any age user). The new PD-14 would now have a total of 33 units now west of the Bay Breeze condos consisting of the three (3) easternmost single-family residential homes to remain, the six garden homes, and the 24 units of multi-family housing. When considering four (4) units were allo wed for the DJs parcel (per the recent Council approval) and 17 units were allowed in the original PD, this 33 units is 12 units more than what the original PD-14 zoning had back in 1990. The Bay Breeze Condos are at 4 units/acre OR 1 unit for every 10,949 SF (74 units on 18.6 acres (810,216 SF)) and are shown as High Density uses in the 2020 Comp Plan. Some inquiries have been made on what surrounding development densities are on and around the Janesville Road downtown area. Here are some of those densities:  Freedom Square (Zoned PD-2): 60 units on ~7.3 acres = 1 unit per 5,300 SF  Willow Pond (Zoned RM-1): 108 units on ~11 acres (excluding wetlands) = 1 unit per 4,437 SF  Lindale Villas (Zoned PD-40): 48 units on ~4.9 acres = 1 unit per 4,447 SF  Lake Ridge (Zoned RM-1 behind Pick n Save): 144 units on ~17.4 acres = 1 unit per 5,260 SF  Basse PD (Zoned PD-42 Previous approval not built on Janesville Road between Bay Lane and Martin Drive): 96 units on ~10.5 acres = 1 unit per 4,719 SF Planned Development Zoning Ordinance A planned development zoning district is written in the City’s zoning code to allow development, subject to Council determination, as follows: This district is intended to allow for greater freedom, imagination, and flexibility in the development of land while insuring substantial compliance to the intent of the normal district regulations of this ordinance. To this intent it allows diversification and variation in the relationship of uses, structures, open spaces, and heights of structures in developments conceived, and planned as comprehensive and cohesive unified projects. It is further intended to encourage more rational and economic development with relationship to public services, and to encourage the preservation of open land. Individual uses and structures in a Planned Development Project District need not comply with the specific building location, height, building size, lot size, and open space requirements of the underlying basic district provided that the spirit and intent of su ch requirements are complied with in the total development plan for such project consistent with the criteria as established in the basis for approval below. As mentioned, the past PD-14 didn’t have a general density that it was following when the first PD was approved. Rather, the Council at that time approved the development based on how it fit into the neighborhood along the lake and Janesville Road. Overall, the Council has flexibility in approving a planned development amendment request as they can attribute the density to existing zoning districts that are in place should they want to. For reference, the proposed unit density lines up between the city’s RM - 1 (1 unit per 5,000 SF), DR -1 (1 unit per 7,200 SF), and RM-2 (1 unit per 10,000 SF) zoning districts at 1 unit per 9,415 square feet. 2020 Comprehensive Plan The 2020 Comprehensive Plan has this area reserved for Medium Density Residential Uses (1 -2.99 units/acre OR up to 1 unit for every 14,568 square feet (43,568 SF/2.99)). As part of the rezon ing amendment the request would be for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to be changed to High Density Residential Uses (>3 units/acre) to comply with the housing density proposed. High density uses are consistent with the Bay Breeze condos in the 2020 Plan. The 2020 Plan specifically discusses allowing 2020 Land Use Plan Amendments by the Council and Planning Commission as follows: Plan Amendments: The Comprehensive Plan is not a strict blueprint for development and land use patterns in the City of Muskego. The Plan will be flexible as constraints of the environment and community desires may change. The recommendations and objectives set forth herein were based upon existing factual data and the spoken priorities of those involved in the planning process. During the course of the planning process, it was known by those involved that constraints of the environment, infrastructure needs, or individual aspirations might change. Thus, this Plan should be amended if demonstrated as appropriate to the Common Council. However, amendments should only be made after a rational evaluation of the existing conditions and the potential impacts of such a change are made. Thus, this Plan recommends that the following be answered and/or shown to the Common Council and Planning Commission before any amendment request is fulfilled: 1. What has changed with the parcel(s) since the adoption of the 2020 Plan that warrants a new thinking/direction for the area? 2. Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent in all respects to the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances, is in conformity with the general plans for community development, would not be contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the City or of the immediate neighborhood, that the specific development plans have been prepared with competent professional advice and guidance, and that the benefits and improved design of the resultant development justifies the variation from the normal requirements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Any other criteria that the Council and/or Planning Commission deems necessary. Said criteria may be adopted in the form of an adopted policy by the aforementioned bodies of Muskego government. Piers/Boat Slips The proposed boat slips and associated piers that the developer notes on their conceptual submittal are strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR. Plan Commission may have known that the original submittal included much more density of boat slips. However, since that time staff found that the developer was mis-informed by the WDNR. Since Little Muskego Lake is deemed an ASNRI (Area of Special Natural Resource Interest) Lake, the lake doesn’t qualify, per State Code, for the double density of boat slips. Apparently, the Lake Chubsucker habitat is found upstream and downstream of the lake which makes this an ASNRI lake. Thus, the development would simply receive the amount of boat slips that it is currently allowed by the lake frontage today. On the 400 feet of frontage they would be allowed up to 18 boat slip s (9 boats and 9 personal watercraft), thus no increased boats on the lake would take place than what is allowed today for the property. One last note about the boat slips/piers is that even though the original plan indicated possible slips reserved for police/fire safety, the departments are already set on their needs for the lake in other places. However, usage of the boat launch at opportune safety times is still desired if possible in the future. Public Hearing The Council held the public hearing for this request at their Tuesday July 22nd meeting. At that meeting 15 people spoke and one person submitted a letter to be attached to the public hearing minutes. Some people spoke against the rezoning and a few spoke neither for/against but simply to get c oncerns out. Staff has included most all the comments/questions heard at the meeting along with answers or comments to those statements or questions below. The submitted letter is attached to the supplement. Plan Commission can find the full audio/video on the City’s website under the “Government”, “Boards”, “Common Council” section.  Little Muskego Lake (LML) is by Milwaukee County which has most registered boats in State  There is no speed limit on LML  10-foot setback seems too close for senior housing to Janesville Road  The staff supplement is wrong as the development in total is 6.04 acres, as measured from the Waukesha County Tax Documents, and not the staff stated 6.7 acres. The 6.7 acres is correct. Waukesha County tax documents don’t always associat e truly with the actual surveys of the property. Staff attached the actual Certified Survey Map and Plat of Survey for the properties herein showing the 6.7 acres is correct.  This density is radically different than the Bay Breeze Condo density  Proposal ignores regular setbacks/offsets  Will have mosquito problems with stormwater pond  The staff supplement is wrong on the amount of lake frontage and thus the calculation on the amount of boat slips allowed is wrong as well. Calculates 394 feet and not the stat ed 410.72 feet. The 410.72 feet is correct. As seen on the original Certified Survey Map attached for these properties, the frontage is 178.78’ + 16.53 + 215.41. The 16.53 foot amount is commonly missed.  The amount of boats allowed and personal watercraft allowed are shown wrong. As stated above, the amount of boat slips is strictly governed by State Code. Code allows 2 boat slips for the first 50 feet of frontage and one boat slip for each additional 50 feet of frontage. Further one slip for a personal watercraft is also allowed to double this total. Thus, 400 feet of frontage is allowed 9 boats and up to 9 personal watercraft as shown on the developer’s submittal today. The intention is to have this development be all one parcel governed under a condo plat and condo homeowner’s restrictions which would allow the frontage to be treated as one whole stretch.  The development would have an adverse effect on property value from over-usage.  Development would have adverse effect on public safety  Development would reduce tax base  Development should only be allowed if there is a reason and if the City can gain from it. What is that reason?  Developer should come back with a project under the current zoning.  Idle Isle boat launch is already overwhelmed  CDA should discuss this since it is in the Redevelopment District #2. The CDA discussed this at their July 15th meeting. They were notified of the proposal and process. There is no action items in the Redevelopment District #2 Plan relating to development in this area t hus no direct recommendation is required.  Consider business here, not residential  Business uses the least amount of services  The senior housing could allow rentals  Pier calculation is wrong as multiple parcels are found on frontages. See staff comment above.  DNR won’t permit trees to come down that are close to shoreline  10-foot setback for senior housing from Janesville Road requires variance. No variance is required. The rezoning to a PD can allow the 10 foot setback. The 10 foot setback along Janesville Road is setup via our existing DR-1 zoning which was put in place to bring buildings closer to the sidewalk and street and promote a more walkable community and establish vehicles behind like a traditional downtown development would.  Senior Housing buildings take lake view away  What does community get out of this?  Runoff negative for lake and we should protect against this.  Lake frontage numbers wrong. See staff comments above.  How would seniors get to lake (the pier reserved for them)?  $1 million homes not worth that much and condo costs are wrong. Staff has provided a letter from the City Assessor on cost thoughts herein.  6.7 acreage not right. See staff comments above.  Process is distasteful as the developer packet has been modified and you can’t do that less than 10 days before the public hearing. The original submittal by the developer came into City Hall on June 24, 2014. Since that time the developer submitted a more precisely engineered site plan, a colored rendering to show how the senior housing may look, and updates to what piers are allowed by the DNR. None of these changes affected the requirements of the public hearing and the overall rezoning. If any substantial changes occurred, such as changing the district the developer wanted to rezone to OR the 2020 Comp Plan density, then a new public hearing date may have had to be established, but not in this case.  This development will impact boat traffic on lake  Example of showing that a developers job is to maximize profitability  No good reason to change densities  How do 30 units share a pier and 1 pontoon boat? This is an item the Plan Commission can regulate at a future BSO approval time.  How does private boat launch and pier sign-outs work with development? These are items the Plan Commission can regulate at a future BSO approval time.  We can’t control existing lake access points, how we control this one?  If city is considering this we should have the assessor give us what a true assessment might be here if built out as shown. Staff has provided a letter from the City Assessor on cost thoughts herein.  Don’t believe that garden homes could sell for $1 mil each as Bay Breeze condos can’t sell for $800,000.  Bay Breeze densities and rest of PD densities were good for area at the original time of approvals  This is spot zoning  Janesville Road may be able to handle this development but can lake?  Will the stormwater plan be up to snuff; stormwater ponds are old technology  This is very different than the originally approved PD  Lake crowded already and safety is key; development will bring more boats  What is the real plan here? DJs was approved but now gone?  Do homework on the math of this project.  Lives next door and the proposed development is like a small city  Please make any rezoning completely conditional  Don’t approve plan  How did Bay Breeze end up with marina and will this development end up the same in the future. Bay Breeze was allowed under different State codes that don’t exist anymore and are not allowed anymore by the State.  May be fine for Pewaukee Lake where the lake acreage is quite different  Senior housing will block view of lake, hinder beauty of road and will be an eyesore  Too crowded, but like the single family homes  Garages too close in single family homes; are they realistic? Written Comments attached to minutes:  Values will be better if garden homes spread out and less dense. Recommends 5 units instead of the 7 units.  Restrictions on the future use of the private boat launch should be addressed.  Senior housing too dense. Recommends 14 units instead of 30 based on 1 unit per 7,000 SF if just measuring the acreage right around the senior family housing structures, not the overall acreage in the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 043-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 043-2014 subject to the developer submitted changes following the comments heard from the public hearing:  That the overall density change from the original 38 proposed units down to 31 units consisting of 6 garden homes, instead of 7, and 24 units of multi-family housing in one structure rather than 30 units in two structures. The eastern most existing single-family house to remain as shown. Further that the approval is subject to the following as well:  The resolution is subject to a recommendation to the Council to include in the ordi nance that no future units are approved for this site so as not to allow the existing single -family site to be developed similar to this approval in the future.  The resolution is subject to a recommendation to the Council to include in the ordinance that the rezoning only takes effect upon approval and execution of Plan Commission approved BSO Plans for all elements of the proposed development and Common Council approved developer’s agreements outlining developer improvements. Overall staff would recommend this rezoning, under this new density scenario, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal reacted to the public hearing where most people spoke against the density. The newly proposed development reduced the density, created greater setbacks, and allowed th e frontage of Janesville Road to remain mostly the same so as not to take away from perceived lakeviews. 2. The Planning Commission will have full control on the development via Building, Site, and Operation Plan (BSO) approvals. The BSO approvals can assure the proper fit of this density development into the surrounding neighborhood at that future time. Plan Commission can govern site planning, appropriate development border buffer, accessibility issues, architecture, condo plats and associated declarations/restrictions on how the various owners use the overall property, piers, and boat launch. 3. The proposal meets objectives in the City’s adopted Marketing Plan including the following: a. Janesville Road Corridor Specific Strategies: i. Look for opportunities for high-quality multifamily development. ii. Target opportunities for mixed-use, multi-story development to bring more office and residential density to the corridor and the center of the community. 4. The proposal meets objectives in the City’s Comp Plan including the following: a. Housing Objective: Develop new neighborhoods or individual developments that increase the diversity of housing options in the city, consistent with the City’s Land Use objectives. b. Housing Recommendation: Adopt the 2020 Future Land Use Map proposed in this Plan. This Plan is largely an extension of the 2010 Plan. It allows for a mix of densities of developable land that provide a diverse array of housing options, which include affordable opportunities and housing for elderly. This will work to keep families together and allow diverse populations to exist. While some lands will allow low -density single- family development, opportunities will still exist in some of the more urban areas of Muskego for higher density residential uses and mixed-use developments. c. Economic Development Recommendation: The downtown of Muskego (generally located along Janesville Road) should be focused upon in order to facilitate groupings of viable businesses. The downtown should work around the future Janesville Road reconstruction project to incorporate a sense of place and destination for residents and visitors. The following recommendations are sought to aid the future viability of Muskego’s downtown: i. Explore the formulation of a Business Improvement District (BID) pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes once increased development of the “downtown” takes place. ii. Encourage, where applicable, a high degree of commercial, retail, office, and residential use in the downtown area. Continue to allow amendments to the Zoning Code, when required, to permit greater flexibility in the uses of downtown property. iii. Work towards a “park-once-and-walk” downtown. iv. Amend the Downtown Design Guide to reflect the identities and boundaries found within the “downtown.” 5. This density is more in line with the Bay Breeze density to the east and in line with the City’s RM- 2 multi-family zoning district of 1 unit per 10,000 SF, which is not the most dense zoning district the city has. 6. The overall density and layout exists off a County Highway and given the s ite size and layout the development should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood as the development progresses thru future Plan Commission BSO approvals. 7. The development would not add any changes to the lake compared to what exists to day and future Plan Commission BSO approvals can further govern operations and access on the site plan. 8. Many of the city’s multi-family housing developments around Janesville Road meet or exceed the same densities that are found in this proposal and many o f these formally approved developments are of less architectural quality. As noted above in the supplement, most multi - family developments along Janesville Road and the “downtown” of Muskego follow the City’s RM - 1 zoning which is more in line with 1 unit per 5,000 SF. 9. The proposal does increase the tax base for the community while requiring limited services. OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR Laura Mecha Assessor (262) 679-4143 lmecha@cityofmuskego.org MEMO (amended) 7/30/2014 TO: Jeff Muenkel, Community Development Director From: Laura Mecha, City Assessor RE: Muskego Beach As per your request, I have investigated possible market values on the various elements of the Ener -Con project at the intersection of Pioneer and Janesville Road. In regards to the stacked condos, I have looked at stacked condos, and the back condos of Bay Breeze located within the City of Muskego. The plans were not definitive as to square footage or amenities oth er than underground parking and possible lake rights. Based on the size of the building, I do not see the sizes being greater than 1200 square feet per unit. So they could be 2+ BR’s with 2 BA units. The $250,000/$290,000 price tag may be a touch high. Otherwise I would estimate the price per unit to run an average of $190,000 for the 24 condos. For the garden homes, I had better data regarding the development and the layout. One million dollars per unit is a little bit strong. The highest Bay Breeze lake side condo sale was in 2006 at $655,000. That condo unit resold in 2012 for $535,000. So I looked farther into Lake Country and looked at lakefront condos, stacked and separate, to get a sense of value, and LOCATION is going to be the driving force. Little Muskego Lake is never mentioned in conjunction with Lake Country. We are the poor relations. Breezy Point in Oconomowoc on Okauchee Lake is probably the best comps with one listing so far of $589,000. They are assessed between $60 0,000 and $740,000. The low end of $600,000 per home would be the better bet for Little Muskego Lake. For $1,000,000 on this lake you would be looking at a single family residence on your own piece of 60 -75 feet of frontage with a comparable building size. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0130260 Fee t Ag en da Item(s) Pr op er tie s Zon in g D istr ic ts Rig ht -o f-Way Hy dr og rap hy Supp lem ental MapRESOLUTION #PC 04 3-2014 En er -Con C om pan ies Ja nes ville R oad J A N E S V I L L E L O O M I S R D RA CIN E AV DURHAM W O O D S CO LL EG E Pre p ar ed b y C ity o f Mu ske g o P la n n in g D e p ar tm e nt Da te : 7 /2 9/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 043-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO FOR ENER-CON COMPANIES FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 9 (TAX KEY NOs. 2195.999, 2193.970.028, & 2193.970.029 / JANESVILLE ROAD) WHEREAS, On June 24, 2014 a petition for a rezoning was submitted by Ener-Con Companies, Inc. to rezone three (3) properties along Janesville Road just north of Pioneer Drive (Tax Key Nos. 2195.999, 2193.970.028, & 2193.970.029/ Janesville Road), and WHEREAS, The rezoning request is to amend the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District for the two easternmost parcels and to rezone the westernmost parcel from RL-3 Lakeshore Residence District to be included in the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District all per the rezoning development submittal, and WHEREAS, The original rezoning development submittal included the following amendments to the PD-14:  Remove the residential structure and associated accessory structures on the middle parcel but retain the single family home on the easternmost parcel.  Create a new single-family gated community along the northwest portion of the property along Little Muskego Lake consisting of seven (7) garden homes. Setbacks to vary. Homes to have “high end architecture”, private pool, and lake frontage/piers.  Create senior housing units consisting of two (2) structures situated up along Janesville Road with a setback of as close as 10 feet. Structures would consist of a twenty (20) unit complex to the east and a ten (10) unit complex to the west. Buildings would be built in two stories with full masonry construction and would include underground parking.  Piers with boat slips are intended consisting of a pier to be retained for the existing single-family home, individual piers for the garden homes, and one pier for the senior housing complex to utilize; The amount of boat slips and piers is strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR,  The site plan would have one entrance to line up with the existing Janesville Road/Pioneer Drive intersection. Access would come in from Janesville Road and stem off to the above stated uses, and WHEREAS, A Public Hearing for the rezoning was heard before the Common Council on July 22nd, 2014, and WHEREAS, Based upon comments from the Public Hearing a revised rezoning development submittal was submitted that includes the following amendments to the PD-14:  Remove the residential structure and associated accessory structures on the middle parcel but retain the single-family home on the easternmost parcel.  Create a new single-family gated community along the northwest portion of the property along Little Muskego Lake consisting of six (6) garden homes. Setbacks to vary. Homes to have “high end architecture” and lake frontage/piers.  Create senior family housing units contained within one (1) structure situated up along Janesville Road with a setback of as close as 30 feet. The structure would consist of a twenty-four (24) unit complex located in the southwestern portion of the development. The building would be built with two stories with full masonry construction and would include underground parking.  Piers with boat slips are intended consisting of two (2) piers to be retained for the existing single-family home, individual piers for the garden homes (six (6) of them), and one (1) pier for the multi-family housing complex to utilize; The amount of boat slips and piers is strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR.  The site plan would have one entrance to line up with the existing Janesville Road/Pioneer Drive intersection and another access point along the western portion of the site. Access for all units would come in from Janesville Road and stem off to the above stated uses, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan already identifies this area for medium density residential land uses and requires an amendment to high density residential uses, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan is allowed to be changed by the Planning Commission and Common Council when it is deemed that the request has found that it is consistent in all respects to the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances, is in conformity with the general plans for community development, would not be contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the City or of the immediate neighborhood, that the specific development plans have been prepared with competent professional advice and guidance, and that the benefits and improved design of the resultant development justifies the variation from the normal requirements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, A Planned Development Zoning District allows for greater freedom, imagination, and flexibility in the development of land while insuring substantial compliance to the intent of the normal district regulations of the City’s ordinances, and WHEREAS, The property is currently served by municipal sanitary sewer and municipal water. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission does hereby recommend approval to the Common Council for the rezoning to amend the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District for the two easternmost parcels and to rezone the westernmost parcel from RL-3 Lakeshore Residence District to be included in the existing PD-14 Bay Breeze Planned Development Zoning District (Tax Key Nos. 2195.999, 2193.970.028, & 2193.970.029/ Janesville Road). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the overall density change from the original 38 proposed units down to 31 units consisting of 6 garden homes, instead of 7, and 24 units of multi-family housing in one structure rather than 30 units in two structures. The eastern most existing single -family house to remain as shown. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution recommends to the Council to include in the ordinance that no future units are approved for this site so as not to allow the existing single-family site to be developed similar to this approval in the future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution recommends to the Council to include in the ordinance that the rezoning only takes effect upon approval and execution of Plan Commission approved BSO Plans for all elements of the proposed development and Common Council approved developer’s agreements outlining developer improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution recommends to the Council to include in the ordinance that a future BSO approval by the Planning Commission may result in less units for the garden homes and/or the multi-family units if Planning Commission asserts that proposed site improvements don’t necessitate the amount of units originally desired as part of the rezoning ordinance approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Plan Commission finds that the 2020 Plan can be amended in this instance as the proposed concept plan as part of the rezoning request is consistent to the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances, is in conformity with the general plans for community development, and would not be contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the City or of the immediate neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Plan Commission approvals (Building, Site and Operation Plans, Condo Plats, CSMs, etc.) will be required in the future for all uses shown in the concept plan for this proposed rezoning. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: August 5, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary With the above changes made to accommodate some resident apprehension, as well as the current interest in the garden homes, we feel that this project will be beneficial for the City of Muskego as well as all Muskego Residents in relation to tax revenue and economic development. 11 80' SCALE 1"=40' 40'0'40'80' Te l e : ( 2 6 2 ) 6 3 4 - 5 5 8 8 F a x : ( 2 6 2 ) 6 3 4 - 5 0 2 4 14 5 8 H o r i z o n B l v d . S u i t e 2 0 0 , R a c i n e , W I . 5 3 4 0 6 W e b s i t e w w w . n m b s c . n e t 11 80' SCALE 1"=40' 40'0'40'80' Te l e : ( 2 6 2 ) 6 3 4 - 5 5 8 8 F a x : ( 2 6 2 ) 6 3 4 - 5 0 2 4 14 5 8 H o r i z o n B l v d . S u i t e 2 0 0 , R a c i n e , W I . 5 3 4 0 6 W e b s i t e w w w . n m b s c . n e t *Rendering reflects exterior material & color selection only; See architectural drawings for building design/ construction specifications Pier/ Boat Slip Density Allowance per WDNR  Current lake frontage of 2 parcels is 410.72’ (231.94’ + 178.78’)    2 boat slips are allowed for first 50’ plus 1 boat slip for every 50’ of frontage thereafter which equals 9  boat slips for 400 feet of frontage.  Additionally an equal amount of slips for personal watercraft are  allowed. Thus a total of 18 slips are allowed allowing 9 boats and 9 personal watercraft.  The numbers of  piers aren’t regulated.    Current submittal anticipates the following totaling a need for 34 boat slips:   A pier for each beach house equaling seven (7) piers. Each pier would have 2 slips allowing 1  boat and 1 personal watercraft. 14 total slips   One pier reserved for the multi‐family senior housing owners that would have 2 slips allowing 1  boats and 1 personal watercraft. 2 total slips   Existing pier to remain for single family house that contains room for 2 boat slips.   A pier was originally allotted for City Fire and Police rescue in the past submittal and is now  found not to be required.  CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMON COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2014 Public Comment The following spoke in favor of the Park Arthur West project: Terri Boyer, W199 S7184 Simandl Drive Bill Wisialowski, S84 W13177 Blue Heron Lane Public Hearing Ms. Mueller read the public hearing notice. Community Development Director Muenkel presented a review of the Ener-Con rezoning petition for three properties along Janesville Road just north of Pioneer Drive. The concept plan would remove the residential structure on the middle parcel, create a new single-family gated community along Little Muskego Lake consisting of seven garden homes and create two condo structures for 30 senior housing units along Janesville Road. Mr. Muenkel stated the rezoning would amend the existing planned development district to allow the proposed densities and land uses. The rezoning would also require an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to reflect a change from medium density residential to high density residential. Regarding the number of piers/boat slips, Mr. Muenkel stated that the DNR has determined that “double density” would not be allowed. The amount of boats would simply be the normal amount allowed by right today. Mr. Muenkel stated following tonight’s public hearing, the next step in the rezoning process is a recommendation from the Plan Commission. That meeting will be held on August 5. If the Plan Commission action is completed, the Council could formally act on the rezoning ordinance at its August 12 meeting. He noted that if the rezoning is granted, the developers still need full Building, Site and Operation Plan approve from the Plan Commission. Before opening the hearing to the public, Mayor Chiaverotti noted that Mr. and Mrs. Sam Maglio submitted a written opinion for the record because they could not be present. The following individuals spoke: Ken Fries, W175 S7229 Lake Drive Debra Bolton, W186 S7543 Kingston Drive Walter Spitzer, W182 S6565 Garnet Drive Dean Wolfram, W178 S6968 Shady Lane Suzi Link, W172 S7297 Lannon Drive Mark Oliver, S75 W17674 Harbor Circle Dave Taube, S75 W 18687 Kingston Drive Lorie Oliver, S75 W17674 Harbor Circle Mark Schmalz, S75 W18703 Kingston Drive Jamie Gress, W180 S6935 Muskego Drive Heidi Lindhorst, S75 W18094 Boszhardt Lane Michael Fagan, W182 S6565 Muskego Drive Jean Root, S70 W17697 Muskego Drive Zeke Stanis, S76 W18590 Kingston Drive Jim Lindhorst, S75 W18094 Boszhardt Lane The following issues/concerns were noted or raised:  Boat density and safety on the lake.  Ten foot setbacks from Janesville Road for condo buildings and decreased offsets for the single family homes.  2020 Comp Plan reflects medium density; proposed density is excessive.  Required retention pond will not be an asset; a pond is old technology.  Proposal could have an adverse effect on lake property values.  Proposal only offers advantages for the developer with nothing for the City.  Lake activity is already oversaturated.  Why is the proposal not being reviewed by the CDA?  Business use should be encouraged vs. residential.  Potential issues regarding resale of condos.  Garden homes are overpriced.  Condo buildings will affect view of lake.  Runoff will have negative influence on the lake.  Number of piers in question.  Proposed values are overstated. City Assessor should be consulted.  How will gate for private launch be controlled?  City needs to look at the proposal carefully. Potential foreclosure is a concern.  Inappropriate to amend the existing PD-14; a new zoning district should be created because the development is so different.  Will the plan change as soon as the rezoning is approved?  The beautification of the newly reconstructed Janesville Road will be affected by the close proximity of the two-story multifamily buildings. The Mayor declared the hearing closed.