Loading...
CCR20011840 AMENDED COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEG0 RESOLUTION #184-2001 RESOLUTION AS TO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE QUIETWOOD CREEK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, a Petition was submitted by Joanne Gorenc for Building, Site and Operational Plan approval and a Conditional Use Grant for a 9-15 bed Community Based Residential Facility at the property located at W158 S7462 Quietwood Drive, and WHEREAS, Said property is currently zoned RS-3 / OPD Suburban Residence District with Planned Development District Overlay, and WHEREAS, On August 21, 2001 the Plan Commission adopted Resolution #129-2001, pursuant to Section 17:6.02 (6) C. recommending to Common Council that the petition for an amendment to the Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek represented a substantial change to the approved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, as established by Common Council Resolution #157-2000 and Ordinance #1033, and WHEREAS, On August 28, 2001 the Common Council adopted Resolution #170-2001, determining the petition to be a substantial change to the approved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, and established a Public Hearing Date of September 25, 2001 to hear public comment on the proposal, and WHEREAS, The Plan Commission denied the petition by defeat of Resolution #PC 97a- 2001, in part pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, and by such action has not recommended the substantial change to the Common Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Muskego does hereby deny the petition for a change to the Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek based on the following: 1 2 Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, the Common Council finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment to the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District will be compatible with the character established for the area, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. and Section 17:6.03 of the Zoning Code, the Common Council finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic impact of the development in terms of income levels, property values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the community as that which would be anticipated under the base zoning, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 Reso. #184-2001 3. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, the Common Council finds that school service demands are expected to be less than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 4. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, the Common Council finds that needs for additional services including refuse, recycling, bio- hazardous waste removal, and emergency services, are clearly demonstrated to be higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097- 2001 5. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, the Common Council finds that the traffic impact is higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 6. Pursuant to request to withdraw the petition submitted in writing by JoAnne Gorenc through correspondence dated September 21,2001 DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER ,2001 SPONSORED BY: Ald. William Le Doux This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #184-2001 which was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego. 9/0ljmb w k-Treasurer September 2 1,200 1 Mayor David De Angelis M MUSKEG0 PLANNING City of Muskego cc . rq A tf (3rc PO Box 749 Muskego, WI 53 150 Re: Withdrawal of Conditional Use Waiver Request OA6' CiCRK This is a formal letter requesting the withdrawal of my application for a Conditional Use Grant for a 9-15 bed Community Based Residential Facility in Quietwood Creek Subdivision, lot 97. Based on the action of the City of Muskego Plan Commission regarding Resolution 097-2001 on September 4, 2001 meeting, it is my understanding that my request for a Conditional Use Grant was denied. ALDEf?rn&d ATT~ fEgLc ~RIRNTURK Y I will not be attending the Public Hearing scheduled for September 25, 2001 and request that the City of Muskego remove my request from the agenda. It is my understanding that my building plans have met all City requirements and I can apply immediately for a building permit. If I need to provide any additional information to the City of Muskego, I ask that you inform me within 10 days of this letter or I will assume the requirements have been met. I would like to thank you and your staff for its assistance regarding my Conditional Use request. I will no longer need your assistance. I reserve the right to re-apply for a Conditional Use at a later date. Sincerelv. LfoAnne C. Gorenc S83 W17588 Cedarcrest Lane Muskego, WI 53150 262-679-8356 City of Muskego Plan Commission Supplement PC 097-2 For the meeting of: September 4,2001 001 REQUEST. BSO and CUG approval, 9-15 bed Community Based Residential Facility and recommendation to Common COUnCil for the approval of substantial change to the Quretwood Creek Planned Development Distrjct. W158 S7462 Quietwood Drive / Tax Key No, 2197.023 SE X of SECTION 10 PETITIONER: JoAnne Gorenc INTRODUCED: July 17,2001 LAST AGENDA: July 17, 2001 PREPARED BY: Brian Turk BACKGROUND PC 097-2001 On July 17, 2001 the Plan Commission held a public hearing relating to a Conditional Use Grant and application for Building Site and Operation Plan for the purpose of establishing a 9 bedroom Class-C Non-ambulatory Community Based Residential Facility (CBRF) on Lot 97 of Quietwood Creek. Public hearing minutes are attached for your reference. Following the Public Hearing, the Plan Commission addressed the matter by Resolution #097-2001, The petition was deferred pending receipt of additional information from petitioner, and pending receipt of legal opinions from City's special counsel. The opinion of legal counsel was received on August 20, 2001, Petitioner submitted the items requested by Plan Commission on August 21, 2001 During legal counsel's review, it was determined that the Developers Agreement and Planned Development District regulations for Quietwood Creek precluded the use of any parcel for developments other than single family and could be permitted without further action by the City. However, the application for a 9-15 bed facility is not residential. Legal Counsel noted that 1-8 bed CBRF's are classified as single family residential as a matter of law, classified as single family residential, is properly accommodated by conditional use grant pursuant to prior Plan Commission determinations, and in this case would also require an amendment to the approved Planned Development District regulations for Quietwood Creek. As a result of legal counsel's determinations, on August 21, 2001 the Plan Commission took action by Resolution #PC 129-2001 to determine that a 9-15 bed CBRF is a substantial change to the Planned Development District regulations for Quietwood Creek. On August 28, 2001 the Common Council reviewed Plan Commission's recommendations and adopted Resolution #170-2001, determining the substantial change and setting a public hearing date of September 25. 2001 Petitioner has completed submittal items requested by Plan Commission on July 17, 2001 (completeness is act on petitioner's request and make recommendations to Council regarding amendment to the Planned discussed along with staff commentary. in greater detail below). At this point, Plan Commission is in a position to Development District. It should be noted that both items - the Plan Commission Conditional Use / BSO petition and the Common Council's Amendment to Quietwood Creek Planned Development District - must occur in order for the petition to be approved. 'I Supplement PC #097-2001 Page 2 of 5 STAFF DISCUSSION PC 097-2001 0 For ease of review, the matter is addressed by topic: Conditional Use Grant and Buildinq Site and Operation Plan Issues From Julv 17Ih Public Hearinq: 1 Structure - Zoninq: The proposed building meets the bulk requirements of the zoning ordinance. Questions arose whether or not window wells are considered encroachments into the side yard utility easement. They are not. The zoning code does not regulate below-grade structures, Any railings required are regulated as fences, which are permitted in easements. Staff recommended the inclusion of raised panel garage doors - this is included in the approving resolution. It should be noted that the structure and associated paving as shown on the plat of survey submitted by petitioner maximizes the lot's coverage Administrative Rules may not be paved, but may be wood planked or stoned (which are not calculated as allowances. Any additional paved walks, patios, or egress points required to meet building codes or CBRF the petition will not comply with local ordinances. lot coverage). If such treatments are not permitted by building codes or CBRF administrative rules, then 2. Structure - Buildinq Codes: The Building and Engineering Director has reviewed the construction plans provided, and finds that they do not meet applicable codes in several respects. While several of these of portions of the building in order to meet both State building codes and the City's bulk zoning issues may be resolved through submittal of corrected plans, other code provisions may require a redesign requirements. In this instance, a second full zoning review would need to occur in conjunction with a resubmittal. Further, petitioner is requesting local plan approval prior to submittal of plans to the approvals with incomplete information. Should the Department of Health and Family Services require Department of Health and Family Services. This places the City in the position of granting conditional substantial modifications to the Plans, the petitioner may be required to submit yet a third set of revised change to plans. The August 17, 2001 memorandum from legal counsel stated that "under the plain plans, and may even be required reappear before the Plan Commission in the application for a substantial language of 62.23(7)(i) Wis. Stats., obtaining licensure from the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. ,is a condition precedent to a facility's entitlement to apply for, and receive, special zoning approval from the municipality."' Staff is opposed to granting an approval subject to DHS plan approvals. The City should be in the position of reviewing a final set of construction-ready plans. 3. Traffic: The Director of Building and Engineering has provided a memorandum which identified the impact of a 9-15 bed CBRF vs. a traditional single family home. This impact is not sufficient to warrant a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the subdivision's major intersections. However, it is sufficient to note that the impact is greater than that of a single family residence. The issues raised during the public hearing the adequacy of on-street parking, off-street parking, and snow removal. Planning staff is primarily concerned with the provision of off-street, garaged parking for all employees. This requirement is intended to retain the exclusive single family residential character of the neighborhood. Staff's of Health and Family Services. concern can not be resolved until staffing levels have been formally determined by the Department 4. Nonresident - Operator: The petitioner has not committed to residing on the premises. There has been The former enhances the argument that the operation is commercial in nature and in conflict with the substantial testimony regarding the acceptability of an absentee operator, and the operator's credentials. exclusive single family residential district created by the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District. The latter will be determined by the Department of Health and Family Services in association with approval of staffing levels and plan review / licensure. Until such time, the City is being requested to act on incomplete information. 5. Refuse Disposal: Petitioner has not brought forth solutions to the issues raised during the public hearing. Staff recommends that the petitioner be required to provide the Planning Department with executed solid waste disposal contracts and recycling contracts, which are approved by the Planning Director and Legal Counsel, prior to issuance of building permits. e ' Legal Opinion of August 1, 2001, Page 8 Supplement PC #097-2001 Page 3 of 5 6. Disposal of Medical Waste: Petitioner has not brought forth solutions to the issues raised during the public hearing. Staff recommends that the petitioner be required to provide the Planning Department with executed bio-hazard waste disposal contracts, which are approved by the Planning Director and Legal Counsel, prior to issuance of building permits. 7 Pond Safety: Petitioner has indicated a willingness to fence the yard to secure it from any potential "wanderers" No plans have been submitted. Fences in residential zones are typically approved administratively, and may be located directly on the lot line. As this fencing relates to a petition for a conditional use, the Plan Commission may place design and dimensional requirements on any such fence. Staff recommends 6' overall height, comprised of 4' solid board-on-board cedar with 2' lattice cedar cap. However, the developer's deed restrictions should prevail, and the final fence design should be subject to then approval of Quietwood Creek LLC. A minimum of two gates are recommended. 8. Fire Safety: Sprinkler plans have been submitted to Fire Inspector and the Director of Building and Engineering. The Fire Inspector's review revealed no outstanding issues. No staff recommendation is required on this item. 9. Staffinfa levels: Petitioner has indicated two staff members per shift. There has been conflicting testimony final determinations in association with plan review and licensure. Until such time, the City is acting on regarding the acceptability of this staffing level. The Department of Health and Family Services will make incomplete information, especially with regards to adequacy of parking. 10. State Licensure: The State will not license the CBRF prior to its construction and final inspection. However, the State will review construction plans in advance of the Plan's Commission's decision on whether or not to grant approval. Petitioner is on record opposing such a requirement, due to its cost. City's legal Counsel notes that a requirement for State plan approval in advance of Plan Commission decision is a valid requirement. Given the uncertain nature of code compliance relating to open space and parking (as noted in #I, #2, #8, and #9 above) staff would support such a requirement. 11 Nuisance Noise: Concerns were raised at the public hearing, especially with regards to door alarms and emergency service calls. If the Conditional Use Grant is granted and such alarms are deployed, the Police Department considers them to be a part of the approved operations. As such they are not cited under the ordinance. The Plan Commission may consider the alarm and its detrimental effects on the City's nuisance ordinance. Emergency calls are likewise not subject to citation under the nuisance approved, the associated noise becomes a part of the plan approval. neighborhood when deliberating the petitioner's request. However, be advised that once a plan is 12. Deed Restrictions: The City does not enforce the developer's deed restrictions. However, under the construction, and is required to comply with all terms and conditions of said restrictions. Failure to comply restrictions petitioner is required to receive architectural approval from Carity Land Corporation prior to might result in civil suits against the petitioner, brought by the developer and / or lot owners. No staff recommendation is required on this item. 13. Liqhtlnq: Petitioner has indicated that there will be no outdoor illumination other than standard residential this item. lighting. The Resolution is drafted to state this requirement. No staff recommendation is required on Conditional Use Grant and Buildinq Site and Operation Plan - Matters of Procedure Pursuant to Section 17:6.03 of the Zoning Code, applications for a conditional use must be submitted to the Plan Commission, which must grant or deny the request based on: General considerations as to the effect of such grant on the health, general welfare, safety and economic prosperity of the City and specifically of the immediate neighborhood in which such use would be located, attractiveness. the movement of traffic, the demand for related services, the possible hazards, harmful, including such considerations as the effect on the established character and quality of the area, its physical would be appropriate to carrying out the intent of conditional grants as expressed in s. 17501 noxious. offensive or nuisance effect as a result of noise, dust, smoke or odor, and such other lactors as The issues stated in 17503 are addressed in the discussion below I Supplement PC #097-2001 Page 4 of 5 Substantial Chanqe to the ADDrOVed Planned Development District - Matters of Procedure As noted in the staff report for Resolution #PC 129-2001, when reviewing the acceptability of a requested substantial change, then Plan Commission shall, in part, consider Section 17:6,02(5)(C) which states, C. In the case of proposed residential developments. 1. That such development will create an altractive residential environment of sustained desirability and economic stability. compatible with the character established for the area by the community General [Comprehensive] Plan, and where lhe economic impact of the development in terns of income levels, property values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the community as that which could be anticipated under /he base zoning. 2. The population composition of the development will not alter adversely the impact upon school or other municipal service requirements as anticipated under the existing basic zoning and General [Comprehensive] Plan. [Comprehensive] Plan. 3. That the project will not create traffic or parking demand incompatible with that anticipated under the General Planning staff offers the following: 14. Staff believes that the development may be attractive in its surroundings provided that architectural enhancements are made to the garage door, and provided that the structure and its associated paved areas are in compliance with the bulk regulations of the zoning code, as noted in #1 and #2 above. The petitioner has compatible with the character established for the area. The record of the public hearing paints a picture to the not demonstrated that the proposed amendment to the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District will be with the exclusive single family residential zone. Many concur that 8 or fewer residents would be compatible, contrary. Lot owners, residents, and the developer all concur that the scale of the operation is out of character but 9-15 is tantamount to multiple family development. It should be noted that multiple family development was proposed for Quietwood Creek and defeated following public hearing in 1999. A such, 9-15 person facility can be reasonably deemed to be incompatible with the character and quality of the exclusive single family residential zone. Further, petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic impact of the development in terms of income levels, property values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the community as that which would be anticipated under the base zoning. In the record of the public hearing one adjacent property owner testified that her parcel is un-saleable. A follow-up discussion between Planning Staff and that parcel owner on August 28, 2001 found that the owner has still not sold the property. Petitioner did provide the with the intent of demonstrating no impact on property valusation. However, this data was not provided in a Planning Department with a copy of assessment data for the neighborhood surrounding the Bristlecone CBRF, assessment neighborhood as classified by the City Assessor, and did not compare that assessment format where statistical relevance could be ascertained. The petitioner did not present information for the entire assessment neighborhoods would be required in order for petitioner to demonstrate a lack of impact. Service neighborhood to others in the City to demonstrate causal or non-causal relationships. A regression analysis of impacts can be summarized as high-impact and less desirable for reasons described in #15, below. 15. School service demands are expected to be less (generally by 1-3 pupils) than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan. However, needs for additional services including refuse, recycling, bio-hazardous waste removal, and emergency services. are clearly demonstrated to be higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan. Refuse services can be anticipated to be 200% of a single family residence petitioner, but based on petitioner's testimony, is believed to occur at a dramatically higher rate of occurrence Presence of, and disposal associated with, bio-hazardous materials is not specifically quantified by the than a single family residence. Emergency service requests for a less-than 8 unit CBRF in Muskego demonstrate a call rate more than 800% than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan. A 9-15 unit facility can reasonably be expected to generate a higher call rate than the facility of record on Bristlecone Lane. The impact attributed to the facility can be reasonably deemed to be incompatible with the character and quality of the exclusive single family residential zone. 16. The memorandum provided by the Building and Engineering Director demonstrates that the traffic impact is higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan. The impact attributed to the facility can be reasonably deemed to be incompatible with the character and quality of the exclusive single family residential Supplement PC #097-2001 Page 5 of 5 m STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC 097-2001 w Although the plans are somewhat incomplete, a substantial number of issues have been resolved to staff satisfaction to allow the preparation of Resolution amendments to depict conditional approval on the Conditional Use Grant and Building Site and Operation Plan. Under most circumstances, Planning Staff would request the deferral of Plan Commission action following the Department of Health and Family Services' review of building plans. However, in review of the requirements of Zoning Code, Section 17:6.03 pertaining to the review standards for the grant of Conditional Use Permits, staff does not support the petition for a 9 bedroom CBRF, and believes that the added cost to petitioner for the DHS plan review is unwarranted in light of a negative staff evaluation. Further, In review of the requirements of Code Section 17:6,02(5)(c) staff does not support the amendment to the Planned Development District for Quietwood Creek to permit a 9 bedroom CBRF as a conditional use. The following summarizes the reasons for staffs opinion: 2. Lack of plan review by the Department of Health and Family Services does not allow staff to ascertain the 1, Building plans are incomplete to the extent that zoning compliance is called into question. adequacy of garaged off-street parking. Without definitive staffing levels, the neighborhood compatibility is 3. Economic and property value impact has not been demonstrated by petitioner to meet the criteria of questionable. 4. Service impacts do not meet the criteria of Section 17:6.02(5)(~)(2) of the Zoning Code. Section 17:6.02(5)(~)(1) of the Zoning Code. 5. Traffic impact does not meet the criteria of Section 17:6.02(5)(~)(3) of the Zoning Code. Staff does support the petitioner's alternative of record -the development of an 8 unit CBRF on the subject parcel. This alternative would not require the petitioner to seek Conditional Use Grant, Building Site and Operation Plan approval, or Substantial Change to the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District. It would still obligate the petitioner to comply with local zoning codes, building codes, and licensure requirements of the Department of Health and Family Services. 0 As a matter of procedure, Resolutions are always drafted in the Affirmative / Approving form. As such, Resolution #PC 097-2001 has been drafted to include Conditional Use Grant and Building Site and Operation Plan conditions of approval. Further, the Resolution has been amended to reflect the findings of appropriateness of the Conditional development of an 8 unit CBRF on the subject property. Use Grant pursuant to 17:6.02 and Substantial Change pursuant to 17:6.03. The Resolution further supports the Amendment of Resolution #PC 097-2001 to state the findings of the Plan Commission as depicted in version "a", and subsequent denial of the Resolution. COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEG0 RESOLUTION #184-2001 RESOLUTION AS TO SUBSTANTIAL UIETWOOD CREEK PLANNED DEVE WHEREAS, a Petition was submitted oanne Gorenc for Building, Site and Operational Plan approval and a Co nt for a 9-15 bed Community Based Residential Facility at the prope 8 S7462 Quietwood Drive, and D Suburban Residence District solution #129-2001, Council that the petition for an amendment to t ent District of Quietwood Creek represented a substant' ved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, as n Council Resolution 157-2000 and Ordinance #1033, and mmon Council adopted Resolution #170-2001, he approved Planned Creek, and established a Public Hearing Date of omment on the proposal, and n denied the petition by defeat of Resolution #PC 97a- 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code, and by such e substantial change to the Common Council. ommon Council of the itional conditions) the ood Creek based on the following: 1 Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code the Common Council finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment to the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District will be compatible with the character established for the area, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 2. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. and Section 17:6.03 of the Zoning Code the Common Council finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic impact of the development in terms of income levels, property values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the community as that which would be anticipated under the base zoning, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 3. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code the Common Council finds that school service demands are expected to be less than that of a Reso. # 184-200 I single family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 0 4. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code the Common Council finds that needs for additional services including refuse, recycling, bio- hazardous waste removal, and emergency services, are clearly demonstrated to be higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097- 2001 5. Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5) B. and C. of the Zoning Code the Common Council finds that the traffic impact is higher than that of a single family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 DATED THIS __ DAY OF ,2001 SPONSORED BY: Ald. William Le Doux ~ This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #184-200 ! was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego. 1 which Clerk-Treasurer 9lOljmb a RESOLUTION #P.C.097a-2001 - APPROVAL OF A BUILDING SITE AND OPERATION PLAN AND AMBULATORY COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY, AND APPROVAL OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE QUIETWOOD CREEK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT IN THE SE % OF SECTION 10 (TAX KEY NO. 2197.023 / W158 S7462 QUIETWOOD DRIVE) CONDITIONAL USE GRANT FOR A 9 BEDROOM CLASS-C NON- WHEREAS, On April 24, 2001 plans were submitted by Joanne Gorenc for a conceptual Building, Site and Operation Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Community Based Residential Facility at the property located at W158 S7462 Quietwood Drive, and WHEREAS, On May 29, 2001 revised building plans were received, and on June 1, 2001 a revised plat of survey and grading plan was received, and WHEREAS, On June 19, 2001 the Plan Commission referred the matter to public hearing pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, On July 6, 2001 plans were submitted by Joanne Gorenc for a final Building, Site and Operation Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Community Based Residential Facility, and WHEREAS, On July 17, 2001 the Plan Commission held a Public Hearinq on the petition for a Conditional Use Permit, and deferred action pending receipt of revised submittals and pendinq receipt of opinions from leqal counsel, and WHEREAS, On Auqust 20, 2001 the Planning Department received the opinions of leqal counsel as requested by the Plan Commission on July 17, 2001, and WHEREAS, On Auqust 21, 2001 the Planninq Department received the revised submittals from the petitioner as requested by the Plan Commission on July 17, 2001, and WHEREAS, Said property is currently zoned RS-3 I OPD Suburban Residence District with Planned Development District Overlay, and sa+usc /F, :: ,mwttW a WHEREAS, On Auqust 21, 2001 the Plan Commission adopted Resolution #129- 2001, recommendinq to Common Council that the petition represented a substantial chanqe to the approved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, as established by Common Council Resolution 157-2001 and Ordinance #1033. and 0 PC Resolution #097-2001 Page 2 of 6 t a WHEREAS, On Auqust 28, 2001 the Common Council adopted Resolution #170- 2001, determininq the petition to be a substantial chanqe to the approved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, and established a Public Hearinq Date of September 25, 2001 to hear public comment on the proposal, and WHEREAS, In the review of Planned Development Districts, pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5)(C) of the Zoning Code, in the case of proposed residential developments, the Plan Commission is to review the petition, and in doinq so, shall make findinqs that: 1. Such development will create an attractive residential environment of sustained desirability and economic stability, compatible wfth the character established for the area by the community General [Comprehensive/ Plan, and where the economic impact of the development in terms of income levels, properiy values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the communily as that which could be anticipated under the base zoninq. 2. The population composition of the development will not alter adversely the Impact upon school or other municipal service requirements as anticipated under the existinq basic zoninq and General [Comprehensive/ Plan. 3. That the project will not create traffic or parking demand incompatible wilh that anticipated under the General [Comprehensive] Plan. 0 WHEREAS, Followinq an approval of a Substantial Chanqe to the Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, the petition is permitted by Conditional Use Grant upon amendment to the Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 17:6.03 of the Zoninq Code, applications for a conditional use must be submitted to the Plan Commission, which must qrant or deny the request based on: General considerations as to the effect of such qrant on the health, qeneral welfare, safety and economic prosperity of the City and specificallv of the immediate neiqhborhood in which such use would be located, Includinq such considerations as the effect on the established character and quality of the area, its physical attractiveness, the movement of traffic, the demand for related a result of noise. dust, smoke or odor, and such other factors as would be services, the posslble hazards, harmful, noxious, offensive or nuisance effect as approprlate to carrvinq out the intent of conditional grants as expressed in s 17:5.01. WHEREAS, The proposed structure includes nine bedrooms and four bathrooms, and may accommodate 9 - 15 residents, and said structure is permitted subject to meeting the bulk requirements of the zoning district, Building, Site and Operation Plan, and Conditional Use Grant approval, and PC Resolution #097-2001 Page 3 of 6 WHEREAS, The Planning Department has determined that the submittal dated July 6, 2001 conforms to the bulk requirements for a single family residence in the RS-3/0PD Suburban Residence district with Planned Development District Overlay of Quietwood Creek, and WHEREAS, On Auqust 29, 2001 the Director of Buildinq and Enqineering provided written determinations that the August 21, 2001 submittals do not conform to applicable Buildinq Codes, and compliance with said Codes may require substantial alteration to the buildinq. which in turn may require further review for compliance with bulk zoninq requirements, and WHEREAS, On Auqust 29, 2001 the Fire Inspector provided written determinations that the Auqust 21, 2001 submittals conform to the City of Muskeqo Fire Code, and WHEREAS, The property is subject to architectural control by the Developer of Quietwood Creek, and the Plan Commission may impose additional architectural requirements on all proposed Building, Site and Operation Plans, as specified in the Muskego Design Guide, and WHEREAS, The plan includes two interior parking spaces, and three exterior off- street parking spaces, and WHEREAS, No exterior signage is proposed, and WHEREAS, Outdoor liqhtinq is proposed in the form of standard residential fixtures, and WHEREAS, The operation of a 9 - 15 bed Community Based Residential Facility is subject to Chapter HFS 83 of Wisconsin Administrative Code, and related Sections of Wisconsin Statutes, including provisions for licensure. WHEREAS, Petitioner has not applied for the review of construction plans throuqh the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and said application and plan approval may be a requirement of Plan Commission approval, and WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns reqarding solid waste and recyclinq removal were raised and not resolved, and WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns reqarding bio-hazardous waste removal were raised and not resolved, and WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns reqarding manaqement of the facilitv by a non-resident operator. and appropriate staff levels were raised and not resolved, and 1 PC Resolution #097-2001 Page 4 oT6 0 WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns regardinq traffic impacts, includinq deliveries, on-street parkinq. and off-street parking, and adequacy of snow removal were raised, and WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns reqardinq safetv of wanderinq residents in proximity to the retention pond were raised and not resolved, and WHEREAS, As a part of the July 17, 2001 Public Hearinq, concerns reqardinq nuisance noise relating to alarms were raised and pursuant to Municipal Code, upon approval of a Buildinq Site and Operation Plan, such noises are not classified as nuisances as they are a part of the approved plan. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission qptweckapproves the Building, Site and Operation Plan and Conditional Use Grant recommends that the Common Council approve the Substantial Chanqe to the approved Planned Development District of Quietwood Creek, as submitted July 6, 2001, and amended Auqust 21, 2001 by Joanne Gorenc for a 9 bedroom Class-C Non-ambulatory Community Based Residential Facility for the elderly located at W158 S7562 Quietwood Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That with regards to architectural treatment, the petitioner shall use raised panel garage doors to enhance the street appearance and aesthetics of the residence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That exterior parking shall be provided for three (3) cars, and indoor parkinq for two (2) cars, and all operators and employees shall park inside the attached garage, except for a 30 minute period twice per day during shift changes, where exterior off-street employee parking shall be permitted. a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the cmd&waL Conditional Use Grant shall be subject to the Planninq Department's receipt of a COPY of the approved m operating license from the State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and provision of copies of same to the Planning Department for inclusion in the property file. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Conditional Use Grant shall be subiect to the Planninq Department's approval of contracts for solid waste disposal and recyclinq removal. .. PC Resolution #097-2001 Paze 5 of 6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the conditional Use Grant shall be subiect to the Planninq Department's approval of siqned contracts for bio-hazardous waste disposal. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the conditional Use Grant shall be subiect to the approval by Quietwood Creek LLC of the installation of a rear yard fence to secure the yard from the retention pond. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pursuant to Section 17:6,02(5)(c) and Section 17:6.03 of the Zoninq Code the Plan Commission finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment to the Quietwood Creek Planned Development District will be compatible with the character established for the area, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5)(c) and Section 17603 of the Zoninq Code the Plan Commission finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic impact of the development in terms of income levels, property values, and service demands is at least as beneficial to the community as that which would be anticipated under the base zoninq, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097- 2001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5)(c) and Section 17:6.03 of the Zoninq Code the Plan Commission finds that school service demands are expected to be less than that of a sinqle family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5)(c) and Section 17:6.03 of the Zoninq Code the Plan Commission finds that needs for additional services includinq refuse, recyclinq, bio-hazardous waste removal, and emerqency services, are clearly demonstrated to be hiqher than that of a sinqle family residence anticipated by the Plan, as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097-2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pursuant to Section 17:6.02(5)(c) and Section 17603 of the Zoninq Code the Plan Commission finds that the traffic impact is hiqher than that of a sinqle family residence anticipated by the Plan as described in the September 4, 2001 Staff Supplement for Resolution #PC 097- 2001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the conditional Use Grant shall be subject to review on an annual basis. I PC Resolution #097-2001 Paxe 6 of 6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, If petitioner does not commence construction activity or otherwise beqin operation pursuant to this Conditional Use qrant within 24 months of the date of approval the Conditional Use Grant shall expire and this approval shall be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Where uses authorized by this Conditional Use Grant are discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months or are discontinued for eiqhteen (18) cumulative months in any three (3) year period, the Conditional Use Grant shall expire and this approval shall be null and void. Plan Commission City of Muskego Adopted: Defeated: September 4, 2001 Deferred: July 17, 2001, August 7, 2001, August 21, 2001 Introduced: July 17, 2001 ATTEST. Sandi Asti, Recording Secretary