The URL can be used to link to this page

Plan Commission Packet - 10/7/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA October 7, 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 SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 MEETING. CONSENT BUSINESS Recommended for approval en gross. RESOLUTION #PC 047-2014 - Approval of a One (1) Lot Certified Survey Map to Combine Four (4) properties for the English Creek LLC properties located in the NE 1/4 of Section 17 (S80 W19101 Janesville Road / Tax Key Nos. 2225.982, 2225.981, 2225.980, 2221.021). RESOLUTION #PC 048-2014 - Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for Tudor Oaks Retirement Community located in the SW 1/4 of Section 12 (S77 W12929 McShane Dr / Tax Key No. 2207.999.002). RESOLUTON #PC 049-2014 - Recommendation to Common Council to Amend Chapter 14 Floodplain Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego. RESOLUTION #PC 050-2014 - Approval of an operations review of the Fox Valley Retriever Club located on the Advanced Disposal Emerald Park Landfill property in the NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 of Section 35 (Loomis Drive / Tax Key No. 2297.997) RESOLUTION #PC 051-2014 - Approval of a Right of Way Vacation for the Waste Management property located in the NE & NW 1/4 of Section 18 (Tax Key Nos. 2229.989.002, 2230.994, 2230.995, and 2230.999.001 / Wauer Lane). NEW BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION #PC 052-2014 - Recommendation to Common Council to Amend the Zoning Map 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). RESOLUTION #PC 053-2014 - Recommendation to Common Council to Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Muskego for Chrisben III, LLC for a property located in the NW 1/4 of Section 10 (S73 W16437 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.948). RESOLUTION #PC 054-2014 - Recommendation to Common Council to Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Muskego for Towne Realty (Wildflower Farms Subdivision) for properties located in the NE 1/4 of Section 24 (North Cape Rd / Tax Key Nos. 2253.998.003 & 2253.998.004). RESOLUTION #PC 055-2014 - Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for Frey Auto located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34 (S106 W16301 Loomis Road / Tax Key No. 2293.996.002). RESOLUTON #PC 056-2014 - Recommendation to Common Council to Amend Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego Municipal Code relating to the allowance of fowl on residential parcels. RESOLUTION #PC 057-2014 - Approval of a sign for the Storage Master property located in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 (Tax Key No. 2165.973 / S66 W14444 Janesville Rd). 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 September 2, 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 Hulbert, Bartlett, Stinebaugh, and Jacques. Also present Director Muenkel and Recording Secretary McMullen. Absent: Commissioner Buckmaster. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on August 26, 2014. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5, 2014 MEETING. Commissioner Jacques made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 5, 2014 meeting. Commissioner Bartlett seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Commissioner Bartlett abstained. NEW BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION #PC 046-2014 - Approval of a Building, Site, and Operation Plan and Certified Survey Map for Taco Bell located in the SE 1/4 of Section 3 and the SW 1/4 of Section 2 (Janesville Road / Tax Key Nos. 2172.030.004 & 2172.030.005). Commissioner Jacques made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #PC 046-2014 - Approval of a Building, Site, and Operation Plan and Certified Survey Map for Taco Bell located in the SE 1/4 of Section 3 and the SW 1/4 of Section 2 (Janesville Road / Tax Key Nos. 2172.030.004 & 2172.030.005). Commissioner Stinebaugh seconded. Commissioner Stinebaugh made a motion to amend to include: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a Plan Commission review will take place, six months after occupancy, to review any concerns over noise, refuse, screening, and traffic. Said review may require extra implementation measures at that time. Commissioner Hulbert seconded. Motion Passed 6 in favor. Motion Passed 6 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to adjourn at 6:20 PM. Alderman Wolfe seconded. Motion Passed 6 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 047-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: One (1) Lot Land Combination– English Creek LLC property Janesville Road/Mercury Drive / Tax Key Number: 2225.982, 2225.981, 22250.980, and 22210.021 NE ¼ of Section 17 PETITIONER: DAAR Engineering, Inc. INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP BACKGROUND PC 047-2014 The petitioner is proposing to combine four (4) lots by Certified Survey Map to create one (1) parcel. After the combination the lot size will be 1.77 acres. This CSM was a requirement of the InPro office expansion BSO approval from Plan Commission as part of Resolution #026-2014 PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 047-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the area for Commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Zoning: The property is zoned PD-45 – InPro Planned Development. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Parks and Conservation Plan: The 2012-2016 Plan does not depict any park or conservation areas on this site. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. Street System Plan: All required right-of-way is being dedicated as part of the CSM. Adopted 208 Sanitary Sewer Service Area: The lots are/will be served by municipal sewer. Water Capacity Assessment District: The lots are/will be served by municipal water. Stormwater Management Plan: Stormwater management is required and will be facilitated with underground storage. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. DISCUSSION PC 047-2014 Upon review of the CSM, the bulk requirements of the code appear to be met. There are some minor technical corrections that need to occur that will need to be addressed before the CSM can be signed by the City and recorded. Staff recommends approval subject to meeting all technical corrections received from the Engineering Division. The Resolution is drafted accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 047-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 047-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0110220 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 7-2014 In Pro C or po rationS80 W 191 01 Ja nes v ille Ro ad 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 047-2014 APPROVAL OF A ONE (1) LOT CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR THE ENGLISH CREEK LLC PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 17 (TAX KEY NO. 2225.982, 2225.981, 2225.980, and 2221.021 / JANESVILLE RD & MERCURY DRIVE) WHEREAS, On September 16, 2014 a Certified Survey Map was submitted by DAAR Engineering for a one (1) lot certified survey map to combine four (4) lots located in the NE ¼ of Section 17 (Tax Key No. 2225.982, 2225.981, 2225.980, and 2221.021 / Janesville Road & Mercury Drive), and WHEREAS, This CSM was a requirement of the InPro office expansion BSO approval from Plan Commission as part of Resolution #026-2014, and WHEREAS, The combined parcel will be 1.77 acres, and WHEREAS, The properties are zoned PD-45 InPro Planned Development, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Plan depicts the area for Industrial uses and the proposal is consistent with the plan, and WHEREAS, All lots are/will be served by municipal sewer and water. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves of a Certified Survey Map submitted by DAAR Engineering combining four (4) lots into one (1) lot located in the NE ¼ of Section 17 (Tax Key No. 2225.982, 2225.981, 2225.980, and 2221.021 / Janesville Rd and Mercury Dr), subject to resolution of technical discrepancies as identified by the City Engineers, and payment of all applicable fees in Section 18.14(3) of the Land Division Ordinance and outstanding assessments if applicable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That all technical corrections from the City will need to be addressed before the Certified Survey Map can be signed and recorded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a digital file of this CSM shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Common Council Ordinance No. 1118 and Resolution 196-2002. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 048-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Building Site and Operation Plan Amendment for Tudor Oaks Retirement Community S77 W12929 McShane Drive / Tax Key No. 2207.999.002 SW ¼ of Section 12 PETITIONER: Robert Snyder INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N / A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 048-2014 Petitioner proposes to construct a small dog park to accommodate the pet owners within the Tudor Oaks community. Plan Commission approval is required since the area desired is an amendment to the originally approved site plan by the city. DISCUSSION PC 048-2014 The dog park proposal includes an approximate 6,000 square foot of grassy area, a 16’ x 18’ concrete slab, an open-sided shingled roofed Ramada building on the slab, and a 38’ x 4’ sidewalk leading to it. The dog park would be completely enclosed with a 4’ high chain link fence with a gate for resident and maintenance vehicle access. The area would reside on the southern half of the campus next to the Tudor Oaks “man cave” building. Today there are approximately twelve (12) dogs between the Tudor Oaks residents that are allowed to have pets. Not many more dogs are envisioned in the future. The proposed facilities are approv ed by the Tudor Oaks personnel. Given the southern location and reserved daytime use it shouldn’t affect any other uses on the site. The closest land to this site is the school district owned lands to the south which are farmed. The closest residence to this area is over 1,500 feet away. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 048-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 048-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI05401,080 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 8-2014 Tu dor Oak s S7 7 W 129 29 M cSh ane Dr ive 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 048-2014 APPROVAL OF A BUILDING, SITE, AND OPERATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TUDOR OAKS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY LOCATED IN THE SW ¼ OF SECTION 12 (S77 W12929 MCSHANE DRIVE / TAX KEY NO. 2207.999.002) WHEREAS, Plans were submitted on September 16, 2014 by Robert Snyder for an amendment to the existing site approvals for Tudor Oaks Retirement Community to add a dog park, said property is located at S77 W12929 McShane Drive (Tax Key No. 2207.999.002), and WHEREAS, Said property is currently zoned PD-6, Tudor Oaks Planned Development District, and current uses are permitted by right, and WHEREAS, The dog park will be located in the south side of the property next to the “man cave” building, and WHEREAS, The dog park will include 6,000 square fee t of grassy area, a 16’ x 18’ concrete slab with an open-sided, shingle-roofed Ramada building on the slab, a 38’ x 4’ sidewalk , and a 4’ high chain link fence surrounding the dog park, and WHEREAS, The dog park will be used by Tudor Oak’s residents only. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves of a building, site and operation plan amendment, submitted by Robert Snyder, for Tudor Oaks Retirement Community located at S77 W12929 McShane (Tax Key No. 2207.999.002). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of said plans be kept on file in the Building Department and that all aspects of this plan shall be maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise authorized by the Plan Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That failure to comply with the app roval contained in this resolution shall result in the imposition of fines of $100 per day, the initiation of legal action, or both. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 049-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Recommendation to Common Council to amend Chapter 14 Floodplain Zoning Ordinance PETITIONER: City of Muskego INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP DISCUSSION PC 049-2014 The City of Muskego is required to have a Floodplain Ordinance in order to be part of the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program). By participating in the NFIP the residents of Muskego are eligi ble to get flood insurance. One of the main conditions of the NFIP program is that the City must adopt the required codes/regulations, as they are amended or revised, which in this case is before the effective date of the new information (November 5, 2014). The original Floodplain regulations and maps dated back to 1982 and in 2008 all of the regulations and maps were redone, with minor amendments occurring since that time period. The revised Floodplain Insurance Study (FIS) has been finalized by FEMA recently and now the City is required to update our Floodplain Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new FIS and revised maps. The basic principles of the Floodplain Zoning Ordinance are not changing as part of these required updates. The public hearing for this ordinance amendment will be held on October 14, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 049-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 049-2014 RESOLUTION #P.C. 049-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COMMON COUNCIL TO AMEND CHAPTER 14 (FLOODPLAIN ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO WHEREAS, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code regulates floodplain development within the City of Muskego, and WHEREAS, The City of Muskego is required to have a Floodplain Ordinance in order to be part of the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) and by participating in the NFIP the residents of Muskego are eligible to get flood insurance, and WHEREAS, One of the main conditions of the NFIP program is that the City must adopt the required codes/regulations, as they are amended or revised, which in this case is before the effective date of the new information (November 5, 2014), and WHEREAS, The original Floodplain regulations and maps dated back to 1982 and in 2008 all of the regulations and maps were redone, with minor amendments occurring since that time period, and WHEREAS, The revised Floodplain Insurance Study (FIS) has been finalized by FEMA recently and now the City is required to update our Floodplain Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new FIS and revised maps, and WHEREAS, The basic principles of the Floodplain Zoning Ordinance are not changing as part of these required updates, and WHEREAS, The Floodplain Zoning Ordinance regulates the two areas of the floodplain known as the floodway and the floodfringe, and WHEREAS, A public hearing is scheduled to consider the amendm ents on October 14, 2014. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission recommend s the proposed changes to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code relating to floodplain regulations and mapping to the Common Council. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission recommends the attached changes to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code as attached. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 050-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Approval of an operations review of the Fox Valley Retriever Club on the Advanced Disposal Emerald Park Landfill property Loomis Drive / Tax Key No. 2297.997 NE ¼ & SE ¼ of Section 35 PETITIONER: Planning INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 050-2014 The parcel was granted approval by Plan Commission on June 3, 2014 to conduct dog training operations on the site. A one-time review of the operations was required as part of the approvals. STAFF DISCUSSION PC 050-2014 Discussions with the local Alderman (who lives adjacent to the site) and review with the Police Department found no issues over the summer months. Should any warranted complaints arise affecting the approved site and operation plan staff would bring the item back to Planning Commission for discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 050-2014 Approval of Resolution # PC 050-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI09701,940 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 05 0-2014 Fox Va lley Re tr iev er C lu b Loo mis D riv e 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 050-2014 APPROVAL OF A REVIEW OF THE FOX VALLEY RETRIEVER CLUB LOCATED ON THE ADVANCED DISPOSAL EMERALD PARK LANDFILL PROPERTY IN THE NE ¼ & SE ¼ OF SECTION 35 (LOOMIS DRIVE / TAX KEY NO. 2297.997). WHEREAS, The Plan Commission on June 3, 2014, granted a Conditional Use permit for the Fox Valley Retriever Club on the Advanced Disposal Emerald Park Landfill property located on Loomis Drive for the operation of dog training, and WHEREAS, A one-time review of the club’s operations by the Plan Commission was a condition of approval, and WHEREAS, Discussions with the local Alderman (who lives adjacent to the site) and review with the Police Department found no issues over the summer months. THEREFORE BE RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission approves of the review of the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Should any warranted complaints arise affecting the approved site and operation plan that the item would come back to Planning Commission for discussion. Plan Department City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 051-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Right-of-Way Vacation Wauer Lane / Tax Key Nos. 2229.989.002, 2230.994, 2230.995, 2230.999.001 NE & NW ¼ of Section 18 PETITIONER: Waste Management INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 051-2014 The petitioner’s goal is to vacate Wauer Lane which is found within the Waste Management lands along Crowbar Drive. The right-of-way served the development back when the waste site was open to the public. Wauer Lane is now not required and will aid Waste Management in cleaning up property boundary lines for this area in the future. DISCUSSION PC 051-2014 Relating to the right-of-way vacation, all of the proper documents have been submitted to proceed with the right-of-way request. The request is also proceeding through the Public Works Committee for their review. There are no expected major concerns with this right-of-way vacation request. With the vacation, each tax key parcel abutting the vacated right of way gets half of the adjacent right-of-way back as part of their lot. The Planning and Engineering Divisions do not see any major problems with the requested vacation. As such, staff is recommending approval of the right-of-way vacation, subject to any pending Engineering comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 051-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 051-2014, subject to all technical corrections and revisions listed above and in the Resolution. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0390780 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 05 1-2014 Was te Man age men t Waue r La ne 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C.051-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COMMON COUNCIL TO VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WAUER LANE LOCATED IN THE NE & NW ¼ OF SECTION 18 (TAX KEY NOS. 2229.989.002, 2230.994, 2230.995, AND 2230.999.001 / WAUER LANE) WHEREAS, On August 15, 2014 plans were submitted by Larry Buechel (Waste Management) for a Right-of-Way Vacation located in the NE & NW ¼ of Section 18 (Wauer Lane / Tax Key Numbers 2229.989.002, 2230.994, 2230.995 & 2230.999.001), and WHEREAS, The petitioner’s goal is to vacate Wauer Lane which totally resides in the Waste Management lands at this time, and WHEREAS, Wauer Lane is not required and will aid Waste Management in cleaning up property boundary lines for this area in the future, and WHEREAS, The Public Works Committee and Common Council require review of the vacation before official approvals can be given, and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department does not see any problems with the requested vacation. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves the Right-of-Way vacation located in the NE & NW ¼ of Section 18 (Wauer Lane / Tax Key Numbers 2229.989.002, 2230.994, 2230.995 & 2230.999.001). Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 052-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Rezoning from RL-3 to PD-14 and a PD-14 Amendment Tax Key Nos. 2193.970.028, 2193.970.029, and 2195.999 SE ¼ of Section 9 PETITIONER: Ener-Con Companies Inc. (Mike Dilworth) INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 052-2014 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 this is a new updated petition from Ener-Con. Plan Commission and Council denied the past submittal since the density didn’t comply with the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan density. PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 052-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the areas for Medium Density Residential use. The proposal is consistent with 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 Plan: Stormwater management would be required for the future concept 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 Pl an discusses no recommendations for or against the proposed rezoning. The Community Development Authority reviewed the item and found the same. DISCUSSION PC 052-2014 Ener-Con Companies Inc. is petitioning for a rezoning for three (3) properties along Ja nesville Road just north of Pioneer Drive. These are the same properties that were requested for a rezoning back in July 2014 by Ener -Con. 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 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. 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 intent ions of the amendments to the planned development in detail. In general, the proposal is to develop the properties as follows below, subject to future Planning Commission approvals. A site plan, building elevations, and renderings are included in the submi ttal attached.  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 community along the northwest portion of the property along Little Muskego Lake consisting of five (5) garden homes. Homes to have “high end architecture”, private pool, and lake frontage/piers.  Create multi-family housing units consisting of one (1) structure situated up along Janesville Road. Structure would consist of a twelve (12) unit complex to the west. Building would be built in two stories with full masonry construction and would include underground parking. Every unit would have lake views.  Piers with boat slips are intended consisting of a pier to be retained for the existing single-family home and individual piers for the garden homes. No piers for the multi-family units. The amount of boat slips and piers is strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR. 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 B ay 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 fo ur (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 In all, the density created by this plan would be a total of eighteen (18) units over approximately 6.717 acres, which results in approx. 2.69 units/acre or 1 unit per 16,214 square feet. Six (6) of these units would be single family residential homes (5 garden homes and one existing home) and twelve (12) of the units would be the multi -family housing. Again as the developer’s narrative details, the new PD-14 would now have a total of twenty (20) units now west of the Bay Breeze condos consisting of the three (3) easternmost single-family residential homes to remain, the five (5) garden homes, and the twelve (12) units of multi-family housing. When 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 twenty (20) units is less 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. 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 ser vices, 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 such 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 is comparable to the City’s RS-3 single-family zoning district density of 1 unit per 15,000 square feet. 2020 Comprehensive Plan The previous July submittal required a 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment as part of the rezoning. The request today does not require an amendment. 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)) and the requested density today shows a total of 18 units on the 6.717 acres resulting in 2.69 units/acre or 1 unit for 16,214 sq uare feet. Comparison to July 2014 Proposal Sept. 2014 July 2014 (Proposal that was reduced at the Planning Commission) Units Proposed: 18 Units Proposed: 31 Unit Types: 5 garden homes, 12 multi-fam. units, 1 exist. Home Unit Types: 6 garden homes, 24 senior-housing units, 1 exist. home Proposed Unit Density/acre: 2.69 Proposed Unit Density/acre: 4.62 Proposed Unit Density/square foot: 1 per 16,214 SF Proposed Unit Density/square foot: 1 per 9,438 SF Comp Plan Density: Medium Comp Plan Density: High Comp Plan Amendment Required: NO Comp Plan Amendment Required: YES Public Hearing The Council held the public hearing for this request at their Tuesday September 23rd meeting. At that meeting four (4) people spoke. See below to see what was stated along with staff comments if applicable:  The single-family home parcel acreage to the east shouldn’t be a part of the density calculation and encourages precedent. See staff recommendation below for notes relating to PD calculations for the pa st.  There will be runoff issues. All developments are required to get DNR, City, and strict MNSD approvals for stormwater management. In the end, more stormwater will be controlled over the 6.7 acres then what exists today.  This is contradictory to the rezoning approved in 1990  Where are the property lines? The petitioners intend to have this development be a condo plat in which there are no property lines but easements and homeowner’s restrictions governing the open areas around the structures. These restrictions/easements are subject to future Plan Commission BSO and Condo Plat approvals.  DNR pier frontage not right once property lines added in. Appear correct according to WDNR regulations under a condo plat scenario.  “Limited Common Area” around garden homes too small. These restrictions/easements are subject to future Plan Commission BSO and Condo Plat approvals.  The Planned Development has to be brand new, you can’t just amend the district and boundaries. The process is OK as presented under the City Attorney.  This is subject to lakeshore zoning and isn’t legal as presented. The process is OK as presented under the City Attorney.  Not the best use of the property for the neighborhood.  Need a more detailed plan.  Petitioner will benefit financially  Development shown on old DJ’s parcel too dense compared to what was allowed in past.  What is the “existing private lake access” and how will that be used?  Garden homes closer than most lake homes.  Alderman requested at the public hearing that it would be nice to know the general intentions of homeowners restrictions as part of a future condo plat. Staff requested this from the petitioners. As noted above, these restrictions/easements are subject to future Plan Commission BSO and Condo Plat approvals regardless. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 052-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 043-2014. The resolution is subject to:  The resolution is subject to a recommendation 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.  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. Plan Commission denied the past submittal for this parcel stating that any development should comply with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan density. This new proposal meets that density requirement now while also providing a more pleasing site and architecture plans. Other reasons for approval are as follows: 1. The Planning Commission will have full control on the de velopment 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 buffers, accessibility issues, architecture, condo plats and associated declarations/restrictions on how the various owners use the overall property, piers, and open spaces. 2. The density calculation is common in many of the past City of Muskego approvals in that you use the gross acreage regardless of where the development might take place. While the Commission could state that they want the density calculation not to include the existing single -family house and related acreage to the east, this would be contrary to past Planned Development District approvals. The planned development ordinance discusses using the gross acreage in making these types of calculations. Further, in the case of the Ener -Con petition, the petitioner loses all development rights to the easternmost single-family parcel as part of this rezoning if approved, which makes the density calculation as presented correct. Plan Commission should consider that if they agree with the density, would this proposal be any different if that same density was shown across the entire 6.7 acres? Staff believes that the proposal presented works due to it being situated along a County highway and that the future Plan Commission BSO approvals can make this proposed development work without issue. Lastly, we have to look no further than our other proposal of Wildflower Farms on the agenda tonight where the gross acreage is used in the overall density calculation for the Comprehensive Plan. A lot of this gross acreage is wetlands and future open space as well. 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 th at 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 al low 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. The overall density and layout exists off a County Highway and given the site 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. 6. The development would not add any changes to the lake compared to what exists today and future Plan Commission BSO approvals can further govern operations and access on the site plan. 7. Many of the city’s multi-family housing developments around Janesville Road exceed the densities that are found in this proposal and many of 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:  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 8. The proposal does increase the tax base for the community while requir ing limited services. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0125250 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 05 2-2014 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 052-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP 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 August 26, 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 submittal 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 community along the northwest portion of the property along Little Muskego Lake consisting of five (5) garden homes. Homes to have “high end architecture”, private pool, and lake frontage/piers,  Create multi-family housing units consisting of one (1) structure situated up along Janesville Road. Structure would consist of a twelve (12) unit complex to the west. Building would be built in two stories with full masonry construction and would include underground parking. Every unit would have lake views,  Piers with boat slips are intended consisting of a pier to be retained for the existing single-family home and individual piers for the garden homes. No piers for the multi-family units. The amount of boat slips and piers is strictly governed/permitted by the WDNR, and WHEREAS, A Public Hearing for the rezoning was heard before the Common Council on September 23, 2014, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan already identifies this area for medium density residential land uses (1-2.99 units/acre) and the proposal shows a density of 2.69 units/acre which doesn’t require a 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment, 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 west ernmost 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 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 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: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 053-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Rezoning from B-4 (Highway Business District) to DR-1 (Downtown Revival District). Tax Key No. 2198.948 / S73 W16437 Janesville Road NW ¼ of Section 10 PETITIONER: Chrisben III, LLC INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 053-2014 The petitioner requests a rezoning from B-4 Highway Business District to DR-1 Downtown Revival District to allow for the continued commercial use of their property. No 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are being proposed as part of this request. The lot is currently vacant and was the former home to Muskego Tire (Firestone). PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 053-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan currently depicts the area as commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with the plan. Zoning: The property is currently zoned B-4 Highway Business District. The proposal is to convert to the DR-1 Downtown Revival District. The DR- 1 zoning would allow reduced setbacks and offsets, which could help redevelopment of this property. DISCUSSION PC 053-2014 As mentioned above, the request is to rezone the property from B-4 Highway Business District to DR-1 Downtown Revival District. The DR-1 District allows parcels of 7,200 square feet in area and at least 60 feet in width, of which the current parcel conforms to. The DR-1 zoning would allow very similar uses as the current B-4 district allows, plus some additional uses. The reason that this request is being made is so that reduced setback and offsets can be applied to any redevelopments that may occur on site. The desire of the petitioner is to bring back approvals for a future office building on the site (concept site plan attached in the supplement). The rezoning could make the redevelopment more practical. Waukesha County currently owns the site but has a contract to sell to the petitioner upon rezoning approvals. A public hearing was heard before the Common Council on September 23, 2014 in which no one spoke. Plan Commission approval would be required in the future if there are ever any proposed uses for this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 053-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 053-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI075150 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 05 3-2014 Ch risbe n III, L LC S7 3 W 164 37 Ja nes v ille Rd 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 053-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM B-4 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO DR-1 DOWNTOWN REVIVAL DISTRICT FOR CHRISBEN III LLC FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NW ¼ OF SECTION 10 (TAX KEY NO. 2198.948) WHEREAS, On August 25, 2014 a petition to rezone a property from the B-4 (Highway Business District) to DR-1 (Downtown Revival District) was submitted. (Tax Key No. 2198.948 / S73 W16437 Janesville Road), and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan already identifies this area for commercial land use, and WHEREAS, A Public Hearing for the rezoning was heard before the Common Council on September 23, 2014, and WHEREAS, The proposed DR-1 district requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 SF and average lot width of 60’ per lot, and WHEREAS, The property is currently served by municipal sanitary sewer and municipal water, and WHEREAS, The site is currently vacant and the petitioner has future plans for an office building. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission does hereby recommend approval to the Common Council for the rezoning from B-4 Highway Business District to DR-1 Downtown Revival District (Tax Key No. 2198.948 / S73 W16437 Janesville Road). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Plan Commission approvals will be required in the future for any new uses/development. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 054-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Rezoning from RC-2 (Country Residence District) and RC-3 (Country Residence District) to a PD (Planned Development District). Tax Key No. 2253.998.003 & 2253.998.004 NE ¼ of Section 24 PETITIONER: Towne Realty INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP BACKGROUND PC 054-2014 Petitioners have submitted a rezoning request from RC-2 (Country Residence District) and RC-3 (Country Residence District) to a PD (Planned Development District) for what is known as the Wildflower Farms Subdivision. The Wildflower Farms Subdivision Planned Development rezoning was actually approved by Council and Planning Commission back in 2007 under a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. A preliminary plat was approved as well at that time. The PD approved at that time allowed a change from the RC-2 Country Residence District and RC-3 Country Residence District to PD Planned Development District using the RS-2 District as a base with lots of at least 20,000 square feet and 110 feet in width. The submitted subdivision plan at that time showed lot sizes of 23,000 square feet and greater. A total of 51 lots were originally approved. The reason for the Planned Development zoning in 2007 was to cluster the lots toward North Cape Road while preserving 23.41 acres (which is mostly build able) for dedication to the City or DNR for prairie restoration and conservation of the Big Muskego Wildlife Area. The City and DNR own lands attached to this piece to the south already and the DNR has been working on purchasing the land directly west of this parcel as well. The developers had been in front of the Conservation Commission and the Commission recommended approval of the development as long as a large portion of the land is dedicated to the preservation of the Big Muskego Lake Wildlife Area. The final approval by the Council and Planning Commission was to allow the Planned Development as long as the large western outlot was dedicated to the city for future conservation purposes as part of the Big Muskego Lake Wildlife Area. The past approved preliminary plat is attached for reference. An amendment to that original rezoning approval is sought tonight. Towne Realty now has the development under contract and has found various changes to the wetlands which warrant new approvals. Further, the city has possible new interests in regards to the previously dedicated outlot in terms of a new neighborhood park for the area that requires discussion per below. PLAN CONSISTENCY PC 054-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the areas for low density residential use (.5- .99/units an acre. The new proposal is consistent with the Plan as the density shown is at .84 units/acre. Zoning: The property is currently zoned RC-2 (Country Residence District) and RC-3 (Country Residence District). The zoning being requested is a PD (Planned Development District). Park and Conservation Plan: A neighborhood park is now requested in this area of the city and the developers show that they would be able to add new space in their dedicated outlot for such a park if the city desires. Trail needs are also depicted in the Plan for along North Cape Road. Park Board recommendations will be looked at in regards to these items at their October meeting. However, the Plan Commission resolution tonight recommends these items as well. Street System Plan: Various dedications will be required at preliminary plat time. 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 Plan: Stormwater management is required and will be facilitated with various storm outlots. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. DISCUSSION PC 054-2014 As stated above some amendments to the original rezoning and plat approvals are sought tonight . A couple variables have changed since the original plat approvals. Towne Realty has a contract to take over the Wildflower Farms Subdivision development and upon their research they have found that a new area of wetlands is now found on the east side of the proposed Boxhorn Reserve Drive towards the northern half of the plat (see attached map). These newly found wetlands fully compromise two (2) of the past approved lots (Lot #’s 19/20) and traverse over at least one more past approved lot (Lot #18). Towne Realty would like to retain the same lot count that was app roved back in 2007. Thus, the Planned Development rezoning request is before the Council which requests that the three (3) lots lost from the new wetlands is allowed to be replaced. Towne Realty proposes that the three lots are allowed to be platted along a new cul-de-sac that would stretch into the former conservation area that the Council previously required to be dedicated for conservation purposes as part of the Big Muskego Lake Wildlife Area. After consultation with staff during this process, it was found by Towne Realty that the city has been looking for an area for a neighborhood park to serve this quadrant of the community. This need is found in the City’s adopted Parks and Conservation Plan. The area Alderman has been working with the residents of this corridor for some time and a neighborhood park that could sustain a playground, parking lot, possible future pavilion, and around 5+ acres of open turf area for baseball/soccer fields is de sired. Thus, Towne Realty further amended their proposal to move two lots , and a stormwater pond, from the north part of the original plat down to this new southern cul-de-sac as well. They lastly are requesting to add two more lots to this new approval in return for moving the plat boundaries around to accommodate a new dedicated park outlot. Adding two more lots doesn’t affect the 2020 Comprehensive Plan density and the new lots were seen as a necessity by the developers due to the costs and constraints with removing the ponds and lots for the City’s future park outlot. Further, the cul-de-sac requires more costly utilities and stormwater needs due to the grades in this area. The plat approved back in 2007 showed a dedicated conservation outlot of approx imately 23.41 acres while the new proposal would reduce the conservation, or neighborhood park, outlot to approximately 13+ acres. Fifty-one (51) lots were approved in 2007 and a total of fifty-three (53) lots are now desired. All lots are still 23,000 square feet or greater and the plat is within the 2020 Comprehensive Plan density of .5 - .99 units an acre (new proposal shows a density of .84 units an acre). It is up to the Council and Planning Commission to decide if the proposed amendment generally fol lows the original approvals and doesn’t substantially impair the original notions behind those original approvals. The Conservation Commission had a meeting on September 17th and did discuss the proposed changes to the plat. The Commission discussed that it would be good to keep the dedicated open space acreage as originally approved. Suggestions were made that the lots could be made smaller to accommodate keeping the same dedicated acreage. Lastly, the Commission discussed that the plat could be modified for less conservation acreage in the event the Council finds some other benefit to the city (meaning the need for the neighborhood park). A public hearing was heard before the Common Council on September 23, 2014. The developer spoke along with one resident who lives to the south of the proposed development in the Boxhorn Reserve Subdivision. The resident expressed interest in having the dedicated outlot still connecting all the way down to the south like the original plat so as to have a future connection with the other WDNR lands to the south and west. Further, the resident would like to see the old barn preserved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 054-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 054-2014 Staff sees the amendments to the original approvals as very beneficial to the City of Muskego. We have an opportunity to fulfill the recommendations of the Parks and Conservation Plan and implement a new neighborhood park for this quadrant of the community. Further, trail systems will begin to come to fruition upon the final development of the subdivision. Lastly, it is important to note that the city will receive over $100,000 in park dedication fees ($1,900 per lot) that can go to startup of the new park . Staff does have a few items in the Plan Commission resolution to assur e the future development as intended per below. One item of recommendation does stipulate that the developers should find a way to make the dedicated outlot all one piece as it stems from north to south in order to assure a conservation corridor like it was originally intended back in 2007: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends the approval due to the new benefit of a neighborhood park being dedicated to the City of Muskego as per the recommendations of the currently adopted Parks and Conservation Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends that a future preliminary plat show a connection of the city dedicated outlot running from the new neighborhood park outlot all the way to the south end of the plat so the city can still have a conservation dedicated connection like what was originally approved in 2007. This will also allow a future conservation trail if desired to other Big Muskego Lake Wildlife boundary lots owned by the City and WDNR to the south and west of the proposed plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation Board recommend the same along with a recommendation that the developers install a trail along North Cape Road and a connecting trail to the new park from Durham Drive along Priegel Drive. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0330660 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 05 4-2014 To wn e Re alty No rth C ape Rd 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 : 9 /2 5/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 054-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RC-2 (COUNTRY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) AND RC-3 (COUNTRY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 24 (TAX KEY NO. 2253.998.003 & 2253.998.004) WHEREAS, On August 27, 2014 a petition to rezone properties from the RC-2 (Country Residence District) and RC-3 (Country Residence District) to a PD (Planned Development District) was submitted (Tax Key No. 2253.998.003 & 2253.998.004 /North Cape Road), and WHEREAS, These parcels previously received rezoning and preliminary plat approvals in 2007 and the petitioners require amendments to the previous approvals due to new substantial changes in the originally proposed layout, and WHEREAS, The previous PD approvals allowed 51 lots, all greater than 23,000 square feet, clustered to the east in return for a 23+ acre lot to the west to be dedicated to the City of Muskego for conservation purposes since the development lies within the adopted Big Muskego Lake Wildlife Area, and WHEREAS, New delineated wetlands have since been found and Towne Realty has worked with staff to propose a new layout that preserves the original lot count approved in 2007 while preserving the 2020 Comprehensive Plan density originally approved, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for low density residential uses consistent with a density of .5-.99 units an acre, and WHEREAS, Since 2007 a need for a neighborhood park has been found and adopted in the City’s Parks and Conservation Plan, and WHEREAS, Towne Realty now proposes to reconfigure lots in the original 2007 plat to allow a greater dedicated outlot along the northwest portion of the plat along Priegel Drive which would allow this outlot to be used for a future neighborhood park, and WHEREAS, The new proposal now shows a total of 53 lots, all of which are still over 23,000 square feet, resulting in a density of .84 units an acre which is still within the 2020 Comprehensive Plan guidelines of .5-.99 units an acre under the low density requirement, and WHEREAS, A Public Hearing for the rezoning was heard before the Common Council on September 23, 2014, and WHEREAS, The development will be served by existing public sanitary sewer and water. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission does hereby recommend approval to the Common Council for the rezoning to a PD (Planned Development District) for Towne Realty (Tax Key No. 2253.998.003 & 2253.998.004). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends the approval due to the new benefit of a neighborhood park being dedicated to the City of Muskego as per the recommendations of the currently adopted Parks and Conservation Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends that a future preliminary plat show a connection of the city dedicated outlot running from the new neighborhood park outlot all the way to the south end of the plat so the city can still have a conservation dedicated connection like what was originally approved in 2007. This will also allow a future conservation trail if desired to other Big Muskego Lake Wildlife boundary lots owned by the City and WDNR to the south and west of the proposed plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation Board recommend the same along with a recommendation that the developers install a trail along North Cape Road and a connecting trail to the new park from Durham Drive along Priegel Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of said plans be kept on file in the Building Department and that all aspects of this plan shall be maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise authorized by the Plan Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That failure to comply with the approval contained in this resolution shall result in the imposition of fines of $100 per day, the initiation of legal action, or both. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 055-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Business, Site, and Operation Plan Amendment for Frey Auto Tax Key No. 2296.996.002 / S106 W1630 Loomis Road NE ¼ of Section 34 PETITIONER: Nathan Laurent, Keller Inc. INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP BACKGROUND PC 055-2014 On September 22, 2014 a re-submittal was received from Keller, Inc. for Frey Auto for revisions to the auto sales and service building located along Loomis Road (Tax Key No. 2293.996.002). The original BSO’s and CUG were approved on September 6, 2011 under #PC 036-2011 and further modifications were approved on July 9, 2012 under #PC 036-2012 and March 4, 2014 under #PC 025-2014. The property owner is now making some additional changes to the building and site and as such is now seeking said amendment to their prior approvals. CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS 055-2014 Comprehensive Plan: The 2020 Plan depicts the property for commercial uses. The petition is consistent with the Plan. Zoning: The property is zoned B-4, Highway Business District. The use is permitted subject to CUG and BSO approval. STAFF DISCUSSION PC 055-2014 As noted above, this site received its original BSO and CUG approval on September 6, 2011 under #PC 036-2011 and further modifications were approved on July 9, 2012 under #PC 036-2012 and March 4, 2014 under #PC 025-2014. Work on the new building and site has now begun and the petitioner is now requesting two changes/additions to their approvals as follows: 1. Lower the masonry on the front elevation to a height of 10’-8” and allow EIFS on the upper portion of the elevation. 2. Construct a new 2,400 SF accessory structure on the southwest portion of the site. Since there is not a substantial change to the use of the site, a public hearing for the CUG amendment should not be required, unless the Plan Commission feels a new hearing is necessary. NOTE: All conditions of the previous BSO approvals (per #PC 036-2011, #PC 036-2012, and #PC 025-2014), other than those modified by the new resolution, are still applicable. Front Elevation Change The front elevation was originally approved by the Plan Commission to contain all masonry, except over the front window area and the petitioner would now like to only have masonry on the front elevation up to a height of 10’-8”, which is up to the vertical brick band on the façade. The masonry on the side elevations of the office area go up to 10’-8” and the upper portions of the walls are EIFS. The designer and the owner feel that by having the side and front elevations of the office area consist of the same materials, the architectural design is enhanced and the office area becomes more cohesive on all three visible elevations. They believe that by keeping the full masonry it detracts from the cohesiveness of the building. They believe that the overall design is more important than the specific use of materials, which has been considered before by the Plan Commission. Staff does not have a concern with the proposed modification. The resolution is drafted to allow the front façade materials changed per the petitioners request and if the Plan Commission would want to leave the front elev ation as was previously approved, then the resolution would need to be amended. Accessory Structure The accessory structure location was previously shown in concept on the site plans but architectural details were never previously provided. The accessory structure is proposed to be 60’ x 40’ in size (2,400 SF) and clad with steel panels, a steel roof, and contain a 42” masonry wainscoting band on the east elevation (facing the parking lot). The proposed masonry wainscoting will match (in color, size, and texture) the brick on the main building but will just be a thinner version. The colors of the walls and roof of the accessory structure will match those of the main building on site. The height of the accessory structure, as measured by code, is approximately 18’, which is within the allowed height l imit due to lot size and setback/offsets. In looking at the location of the accessory structure and how it fits within its surroundings and where it is most visible, it seems that some masonry may need to be added to help it more closely match the main building on site. Since the east and north elevations are both highly visible, the 42” masonry wainscoting band on the accessory structure (currently proposed only on the east elevation) should be added to the north elevation so that these two elevations (north and east) match architecturally. Staff did not feel that masonry was necessary on the west elevation due to the stormwater pond and tree line in this area. The Plan Commission may wish to discuss this western elevation further and possibly discuss if they would like the masonry band raised on the north or east elevations. The resolution is currently drafted only adding masonry on the north elevation. Note: The accessory structure must contain a full concrete or asphalt floor per the requirements of the Zoning Code and all colors on the new accessory structure must match those on the main building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 055-2014 Approval of Resolution PC 055-2014 MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0240480 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 05 5-2014 Fre y Au to S1 06 W 16 30 1 Lo omis Rd 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 : 9 /2 9/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C. 055-2014 APPROVAL OF A BUILDING SITE AND OPERATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR FREY AUTO LOCATED IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 34 (TAX KEY 2293.996.002 / S106 W16301 LOOMIS ROAD) WHEREAS, On September 22, 2014 a submittal was received from Keller, Inc. f or Frey Auto for revisions to a new auto sales and service building located along Loomis Road (Tax Key No. 2293.996.002), and WHEREAS, This property previously received approvals (BSO’s & CUG) to construct a new auto sales and service facility per Resolution #PC 036-2011 on September 6, 2011 and per Resolution #PC 036-2012 on July 9, 2012, and per Resolution #PC 025-2014 on March 4, 2014, and WHEREAS, Construction on the new building and site work has just begun, and WHEREAS, The petitioner is now requesting two changes/additions as follows: 1. Lower the masonry on the front elevation to a height of 10’-8” and allow EIFS on the upper portion of the elevation; 2. Construct a new 2,400 SF accessory structure on the southwest portion of the site, and WHEREAS, The front elevation was originally approved by the Plan Commission to contain all masonry, except over the front window area, and the petitioner would now like to only have masonry on the front elevation up to a height of 10’-8”, which is up to the vertical brick band on the façade, and WHEREAS, The masonry on the side elevations of the office area go up to 10’-8” and the upper portions of the walls are EIFS, and WHEREAS, By changing the front elevation to EFIS on the upper portions of the wall, the office area becomes more cohesive on all three visible elevations, and WHEREAS, The accessory structure location was previously shown in concept on the past approved site plans but architectural details were never previously provided, and WHEREAS, The accessory structure is proposed to be 60’ x 40’ in size (2,400 SF) and clad with steel panels, a steel roof, and contain a 42” masonry wainscoting band on the east elevation (facing the parking lot), and WHEREAS, The proposed masonry wainscoting will match (in color, size, and texture) the brick on the main building but will be a thinner material, and WHEREAS, The colors of the walls and roof of the accessory structure will match those of the main building on site, and WHEREAS, The height of the accessory structure, as measured by code, is approximately 18’, which is within the allowed height limit due to lot size and setback/offsets, and WHEREAS, The property is zoned B-4 Highway Business and allows an auto sales and service facility by conditional use grant (CUG), and WHEREAS, Since there is not a substantial change to the use of the site, a public hearing for the CUG amendment should not be required, and WHEREAS, The 2020 Comprehensive Plan shows this property as commercial uses and the proposal is consistent with the plan, and WHEREAS, All conditions of the previous BSO approvals (per #PC 036-2011, #PC 036-2012, & #PC 025-2014), other than those modified by this resolution, are still applicable. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves of the amended Building, Site and Operation Plan for Frey Auto located at S106 W16301 Loomis Road (Tax Key No. 2293.996.002). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the accessory structure must contain a full concrete or asphalt floor per the requirements of the Zoning Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That 42” masonry wainscoting band on the accessory structure (currently proposed on the east elevation) should be added to the north elevation so that the two most highly visible elevations (north and east) match architecturally. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That all colors on the new accessory structure must match those on the main building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any new/additional lighting for/around the accessory structure must be submitted for review and may requir e a revised photometric plan, if applicable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any bollards must be painted to match the colors of the principal structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That no outdoor storage of junked vehicles of any type is allowed on the site, other than in the enclosed storage area and all other storage, parts, equipment, etc. must be kept within the building or within the screened storage enclosure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That all roof top and ground mechanicals (including HVAC devices, electrical transformers, etc.) associated with the accessory structure must be screened from view and/or incorporated into the design of the site/structure (screening, etc.) and should be approved by the Planning Division. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That an annual review will still be required, as was previously required for Frey Auto’s previous location. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of said plans be kept on file and that all aspects of this plan shall be maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise authorized by the Plan Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That failure to comply with the approval contained in this resolution shall result in the imposition of fines of $100 per day, the initiation of legal action, or both. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Denied: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 056-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Recommendation to Common Council to amend Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance to allow fowl on residential parcels PETITIONER: City of Muskego INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel, AICP DISCUSSION PC 056-2014 The Committee of the Whole (COW) met in August 2014 to consider bringing forth an ordinance to allow backyard chickens on residential properties. Currently, chickens are only allowed on parcels of 120,000 square feet or greater. Considerable constituent input drove this discussion for COW. After deliberation, COW directed staff to put together a proposed ordinance (attached) that included language found in neighboring municipality ordinances. COW directed staff to make the ordinance aid on the extreme requirements so during the approval process Planning Commission and/or Council could remove language as they see it applying to the City of Muskego. A public hearing was heard before the September 23, 2014 Council in which eight (8) people spoke. One (1) person was against the ordinance stating that it could affect neighboring home values. The rest of the individuals stated some of the following:  The word “fowl” in the ordinance is too broad and opens the door to other non-wanted birds.  Many other cities have implemented such an ordinance.  Don’t have neighbor approval as part of ordinance; permit not needed either.  Can be educational to children  Growing trend  Plays to Muskego’s rural-ness  Dogs smell worse and you can have up to four unregulated  Property values unaffected  Hens don’t make noise  Benefits outweigh negatives STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 056-2014 Staff has the Plan Commission resolution written for approval with a recommendation to Council to: 1. Remove the word “fowl” replace it with the word “chickens”. The word fowl opens up the ordinance to chickens, turkey, geese, ducks, pheasants, and more which wasn’t the original intention of constituents to our elected officials. 2. Remove the requirement of a permit and neighbor approval. Staff has been administering the Zoning Code for decades without issue on the need to get any neighbor approvals and/or permits for many farm related animals. Like all other zoning codes, a complaint process should suffice. If issues arise in the next couple years we can always revisit this. The proposed ordinance is as follows. Chapter 17, Section 8.01(3)B.6 The keeping or raising of domestic livestock for show, breeding, or other use incidental to the principal use of the premises subject to the following: a. The keeping or raising of hogs, or fur bearing animals other than rabbits shall not be permitted. b. The raising of fowl for personal use, on lots less than 120,000 square feet, shall be considered an accessory use in all Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts and shall meet the following requirements below. 1. Up to a total of four (4) fowl allowed per single-family property. No fowl are allowed on commercial, industrial, or multi-family properties. 2. No roosters. 3. No slaughtering on site. 4. Fowl shall be kept within a secure outdoor enclosure of no more than 50 square feet and said enclosure must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Said enclosure must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent offensive odors. 5. Enclosures shall be located no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to neighboring dwellings and a minimum of ten (10) feet from the property line. 6. Fowl may not be kept in the front yard of a property. For the purpose of this code front yard is defined as between a home and a roadway. Homes that are located on multiple roadways are considered to have multiple front yards. 7. Fowl may not be kept within 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of any navigable waterway. 8. The chickens and/or ducks cannot cause a nuisance, unhealthy condition, or interfere with the normal use of property or enjoyment of life by humans or animals. 9. A Zoning Permit is required from the Community Development Department before the allowance of fowl per the ordinance herein. As part of the Zoning Permit, neighbor permission is required consisting of signoff from each adjoining property owner, including corner abutting owner s (but not across a roadway). 10. In the event a property owner/tenant does not first get a permit or if the property owner/tenant who has a valid permit does not follow the above requirements of the fowl ordinance, permanent revocation of the allowance of fowl on the property under this ordinance may take place. 11. By receiving an approved permit an applicant agrees to allow the city onsite inspections, upon agreed upon times, to review any complaints. 12. Failure to follow the requirements of this ordinance is subject to citations. b.c. Not more than one head of livestock, and 20 fowl, shall be permitted per 40,000 square feet of lot area nor shall any such livestock or fowl be permitted on a lot less than 120,000 square feet in area unless the requirements are met for fowl per section b. above. RESOLUTION #P.C. 056-2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COMMON COUNCIL TO AMEND CHAPTER 17 ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO TO ALLOW FOWL WHEREAS, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code regulates Zoning Codes within the City of Muskego, and WHEREAS, The Zoning Code regulates various animal related ordinances , and WHEREAS, The Committee of the Whole, after considerable constituent input, directed staff to bring forward an ordinance under Chapter 17 that may allow backyard fowl on properties of 120,000 square feet or less, and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on September 23, 2014 to consider the amendm ents. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission recommends the proposed changes to Chapter 1 7 of the Municipal Code relating to the allowance of fowl on residential properties to the Common Council subject to the following. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the wording of “fowl” in the proposed ordinance be changed to “Chickens.” BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ordinance should be treated like all other animal ordinances in the city which do not require a formal permit and do not require neighbor permission. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 057-2014 For the meeting of: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: Approval of a Sign for Storage Masters S66 W14444 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2165.973 NE ¼ of Section 2 PETITIONER: Cliff Bayer, Bauer Sign Co. INTRODUCED: October 7, 2014 LAST AGENDA: N/A PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP BACKGROUND PC 057-2014 Storage Master is in the process of renovating the former Salentine Auto site for their new storage facility. As part of the modifications to the building/site new signage is being looked at by the owner. Salentine Auto used to have a channel letter sign mounted on a lower roof canopy on the western s ide of the front elevation. At this time new channel letter signage is proposed in this same location for Storage Master. The newly proposed signage consists of the Storage Master logo, the company name, and the phone number of the business. Signage in this district is allowed to consume up to 5% of the façade area and the proposed signage meets said requirements. Plan Commission approvals for signage are sought when staff needs clarification if proposed signage fits within the goals and intentions of the sign code. Since the newly proposed channel letter signage contains the business phone number in a large f ont size, Plan Commission approvals are being sought. A sign permit has already been issued for just the logo and the business name, but the phone number portion was not approved as part of the original permit due to the needed Plan Commission review. Th is submittal is specifically for adding the phone number channel letters to the sign. DISCUSSION PC 057-2014 Typically in Muskego channel letter signage has included logos and business names. As noted above, this new signage also contains the business phone number in a font size that is the same size as the rest of the channel letters. Large format channel letter signage, such as proposed , have not typically included phone numbers in Muskego. Other types of signage appear to be more appropriate for these types of details on signage, such as typical wall signs, freestanding signs, etc. This exact sign proposal is unique in Muskego given the following:  Location of the channel letters on a projecting roof ledge  Being detached from the wall itself (not mounted to the wall face as channel letters typically are)  Phone number being as large as the other sign text  Being located within the Historic Crossroads Design Guide area  Being located within a Redevelopment District The petitioner has included some photo examples of signage at some of their existing sites. While these photos do show signs including the business phone number, these all are flat wall signs or freestanding signs and the phone number text size is smaller than other text on the signs. These are different applications than what is being proposed as part of this application. In this application the signage is comprised of channel letters, not mounted to a flat wall, and all of the sign text is the same size. The Plan Commission needs to decide if it feels this proposed sign design meets their intentions for signage on this site, as well as for the general business community as a whole in Muskego. The sign section of the Zoning Code states that the Plan Commission should look at the following relating to signs when brought to them for their review:  The exterior architectural presentation and functional plan of the proposed sign will be not so at variance with or so similar to the exterior architectural presentation and functional plan of signs already constructed or in the course of construction in the area, or so out of harmony with the area, as to potentially contribute to substantial depreciation in the property values of the area.  The proposed sign conforms to the location, size and style r equirements set forth in this Section.  The proposed sign conforms to the city's long range planning for the area as set forth in the city's master plan.  The proposed sign shares similar architectural or building material features of the principal building.  The proposed sign meets the design guidelines for the area erected.  The Plan Commission may establish guidelines, which further define and interpret this Section. Those guidelines, if any, shall be made available to all applicants. It has been expressed to the Community Development Department that there is a chance, but no guarantee, that additional wall signage may be proposed at some point on the building further to the east, in addition to possible freestanding/monument signage. If there would be additional signage, this could leave space for phone number placement. Below is an image from Google Street View showing the former Salentine Auto sign in this same location as a reference. Note: The resolution is currently drafted to approve the signage as proposed. If the Plan Commission would like to change what is approved, then the resolution would need to be amended first. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 057-2014 The Plan Commission needs to decide if it feels this proposed sign design meets their int entions for signage on this site, as well as for the general business community as a whole in Muskego. Since there are other possibilities for signage on this property (wall sign, freestanding signs, etc.), this may be something the Plan Commission may want to take into consideration. Reminder - A sign permit has already been issued for just the logo and the business name, but the phone number portion was not approved as part of the original permit due to the needed Plan Commission review. This submittal is sp ecifically for adding the phone number channel letters to the sign. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0150300 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 05 7-2014 Sto rag e Ma ster S6 6 W 144 44 Ja nes v ille Ro ad 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 : 9 /2 6/2 0 14 RESOLUTION #P.C.057-2014 APPROVAL OF A SIGN FOR STORAGE MASTER LOCATED IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 2 (S66 W1444 JANESVILLE ROAD / TAX KEY NO. 2165.973) WHERAS, The petitioner is requesting approval for a new sign for Storage Master located in the NE ¼ of Section 2 (S66 W14444 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2165.973), and WHEREAS, Storage Master is in the process of renovating the former Salentine Auto site for their new storage facility, and WHEREAS, Salentine Auto used to have a channel letter sign mounted on a lower roof canopy on the western side of the front elevation, and WHEREAS, At this time new channel letter signage is proposed in this same location for the new site user, Storage Master, and, WHEREAS, The new signage consists of the Storage Master logo, the company name, and the phone number of the business, and WHEREAS, Plan Commission approvals for signage are sought when staff needs clarification if proposed signage fits within the goals and intentions of the sign code, and WHEREAS, Signage in this district is allowed to consume up to 5% of the façade area and the proposed signage meets said requirements, and WHEREAS, This property is located within the Historic Crossroads Design Guide area and within a Redevelopment District. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approves of a sign for the Storage Master property located in the NE ¼ of Section 2 (S66 W14444 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2165.973). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That all new or altered signage requires a Sign Permit through the Community Development Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That failure to comply with the approval contained in this resolution shall result in the imposition of fines, the initiation of legal action, or both. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: Deferred: Introduced: October 7, 2014 ATTEST: Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary