Loading...
PCm20121106CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved 12/4/12 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES 6:00 PM Tuesday November 6, 2012 Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue Mayor Chiaverotti called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT Mayor Kathy Chiaverotti, Ald. Soltysiak, Commissioners Hulbert, Noah, Buckmaster, Stinebaugh and Jacques and Director Muenkel. Director Muenkel noted that the meeting was properly noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2012 MEETING Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2012 meeting. Commissioner Jacques seconded. Upon a roll call vote, motion to approve the minutes was ADOPTED unanimously. OLD BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION None. OLD BUSINESS SCHEDULED FOR DEFERRAL None. CONSENT BUSINESS Commissioner Stinebaugh made a motion to approve Resolutions #P.C. 050, 052, 054, 055, and 056-2012 engross. Commissioner Hulbert seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION #P.C. 050-2012 — Approval of a Two Lot Certified Survey Map for the Lapp property located in the SW '/4 of Section 13 (Tax Key No. 2211.061 & 2211.051.002 / W136 S8355 Holz Drive). Resolution #P.C. 050-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. RESOLUTION #P.C. 052-2012 — Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for Accu Stamping & Manufacturing located in the NW '/4 of Section 16 (Tax Key No. 2221.013 / S80 W18797 Apollo Drive). Resolution #P.C. 052-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. RESOLUTION #P.C. 054-2012 — Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for Midwest Air Parts located in the SE '/4 of Section 17 (Tax Key No. 2228.999.018 W19222 Enterprise Drive). Resolution #P.C. 054-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. - RESOLUTION #P.C. 055-2012 — Approval for the sale of fireworks for Vince and Heather Siegel at the Piggly Wiggly property located in the SE'/4 of Section 8 (Tax Key No. 2192.973 / W189 S7847 Racine Ave). Resolution #P.C. 055-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. RESOLUTION #P.C. 056-2012 — Approval for the sale of fireworks for Vince and Heather Siegel at the Jetz Fuel property located in the SW 1/4 of Section 2 (Tax Key No. 2167.995.011 / S69 W15461 Janesville Road). Resolution #P.C. 056-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. NEW BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION Plan Commission Minutes, continued November 6, 2012 RESOLUTION #P.C. 051-2012 — Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan Amendment for the Naturescapes property located in the NW '/4 of Section 16 (Tax Key No. 2222.984.011 / S82 W 18653 Gemini Drive). Commissioner Stinebaugh made a motion to ADOPT Resolution #P.C. 051-2012. Commissioner Hulbert seconded. Director Muenkel explained that the petitioner is requesting to not install a portion of the fencing that they originally had on the Planning Commission approved plans back in 2010. They do have fencing up on the east side of the lot and will have a gate at the entrance. However, they are looking to not install the north, south, and west sides of the lot. The fencing really was a petitioner driven proposal in the first place for security reasons, however, after the site is relatively complete they have found that the bio-retention swales and drainage ditches on the north, south, and west sides completes this need. If Plan Commission read the supplement they found that staff had no issue with not having the fencing as there is landscaping and the retention swales in their places. However, before granting this approval staff wanted a few erosion control issues cleaned up. Staff is happy to note that the issues have all been taken care of as of today and thus recommends approval of the removal of fencing from the plans. There is a new request though that the petitioner has. A letter from the requests that they change their landscape plan to allow the east 9 feet of the property and the west 11 feet of the property to become a full mulch landscape bed instead of covering this area with grass. Staff has a new resolution in front of PC tonight that allows this change but puts stipulations on the property. One, that all mulching areas on the property shall be replaced with fresh coats of mulch two (2) times a year and the petitioner should let the Community Development Department know when the fresh coats are applied and the second being that all mulch areas shall be free from weed growth at all times. Commissioner Hulbert questioned whether staff will conduct an on -site inspection. Director Muenkel stated that staff will conduct on -site inspections. Commissioner Noah ask how the much was going to be prevented from eroding away on the steeper slopes. Todd Furry, the petitioner, stated that there will be boulders placed on the slope to help prevent erosion. Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to AMEND Resolution #P.C. 051-2012 to add the following to the end of the second BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED "....and CDD staff shall complete an onsite inspection to verify the new mulch." Commissioner Stinebaugh seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Resolution #P.C. 051-2012 was AMENDED 7-0. Upon a roll call vote, Amended Resolution #P.C. 051-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. RESOLUTION #P.C. 053-2012 — Approval of a Building, Site and Operation Plan for DJ's Pub and Grill located in the SW '/4 of Section 9 (Tax Key No. 2195.999 / S76 W18040 Janesville Road). Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to ADOPT Resolution #P.C. 053-2012. Commissioner Jacques seconded. Director Muenkel explained that the submittal tonight is for the DJs Pub and Grill property as they are requesting to remove all current structures from the property and rebuild a new 3,500 square foot restaurant and a 3,803 square foot 4-family building. As PC may recall, a rezoning ordinance was approved earlier this year to allow the use proposed tonight under the DR-1 zoning. The zoning ordinance had a couple contingencies though. One was that all commercial activities had to be on the south 360' of the property and that no more than four residential units could be proposed for the property. The submittal we are discussing tonight does meet these requirements. The site plan shows the new restaurant structure up towards Janesville Road and a new four - unit residential structure towards the rear of the property towards Little Muskego Lake. A parking lot and stormwater pond are shown to exist in between the two structures on the site. PAGE 2 Plan Commission Minutes, continued November 6, 2012 Vehicular access around the site plan meets code as two-way drive aisles are at least 24 feet in width and at least 18 feet in width where one-way driving access is to occur. Access to the site is to all stem from one location along Janesville Road along the southeast corner of the site. Parking codes state that all commercial vehicular access ways and parking stalls should be at least 10 feet from an adjoining residential use. The site plan shows the commercial parking lot to be 10 feet from the west property line and 12 feet from the east property line. Any off street commercial parking area requires screening from an abutting residential use per code. The code states that a planting screen, landscaped fence, or wall at least 4 feet in height is required subject to Planning Commission approvals. The submittal includes details showing that a new 6-foot high board on board cedar fencing is to be installed along the east and west property lines to totally screen the parking lot operations from the abutting properties. The restaurant proposed looks to be a one-story structure with a basement. The first floor would consist of 3,500 SF of restaurant space with an additional 421 SF seasonal covered deck out along Janesville Road. The basement would consist of another 3,500 SF of space with all but 800 SF (meeting room) to be used for storage. The restaurant is to be built right up along Janesville Road, within 10 feet from the front property line, which is allowed and encouraged in the DR-1 zoning district. The building materials for the proposed restaurant consist mainly of an ashlar pattern stone veneer, stucco finishes, architectural concrete brick, aluminum framed doors/windows, and dimensional shingles for the roof. The General Design Guide calls for 50% masonry product. The structure proposed is comprised of 62.6% masonry architecture. The proposed 3,803 SF 4-family structure is situated at the far rear of the property approximately 50 feet off the rear lot line of the property, 5 feet off the west property line, and 10 feet off the east property line. The structure meets the offsets in the DR-1 zoning district which governs this area. The structure is to be stacked with two 2-bedroom units on the bottom floor (-1,000 SF each) and two 2-bedroom units on the second floor (-1,400 SF each). The building materials for the proposed 4-family structure consist mainly of brick veneer, smart -side siding/trim, and asphalt dimensional shingles. The General Design Guide calls for 50% masonry product. Staff calculated the structure proposed with approximately 57.3% in total masonry product used. Review of the landscape plan is pending and the City Forester will work with the petitioner based upon any changes/additions that are needed. Upon initial review however, staff does have it in the resolution to double the amount of trees along the fence line along the main parking lot. No landscape islands are found every 10 parking stalls but Plan Commission can waive this requirement. Staff believes that having the parking lot totally enclosed by the fencing and the uniqueness of the property, in size and dimensions, should allow this so the most parking stalls can be found. The resolution is worded to allow the parking lot landscaping as shown. Two dual fixture 14-foot light poles and three single fixture 14-foot lightpoles are shown on the photometric plan to light up the restaurant parking lot. The supplement shows that the lights are to be zero degree cutoff fixtures. The photometric plan needs updates to meet the 0.5 foot- candles at the property lines. Shielding of lights may have to occur for this. The site plan does note that bollards for the lighting will be a 3-foot concrete base. Zoning code only allows 6-inch bollards and the resolution is subject to this. However, as noted above in the site plan section the petitioners are requesting to forgo having a landscape island every ten parking stalls since the parking lot is completely enclosed in the rear of the property. Thus, one of the pole lights is to be placed in the middle of the parking lot and staff is allowing this one lightpole to be on a larger bollard for the lights protection. However, the bollard and light may not exceed 15 feet in height as code only allows lights to be 15 feet in height. PAGE 3 Plan Commission Minutes, continued November 6, 2012 The development will be served by existing public sanitary sewer and water. Stormwater management is required for "quality" issues and is addressed in the submitted plans. A quality pond is found on the site plan between the 4-unit residential structure and the commercial parking lot. Parking for the 4-unit residential structure is shown as two garage enclosed spaces per residential unit along with ample space for a couple cars to park in front of each garage. The site plan meets parking codes. Parking for the restaurant structure is shown as 46 stalls all meeting the city code dimensions for angled parking dimensions (9.5'x18'). The amount of parking stalls required per code in a restaurant use is 2 parking stalls per 100 square feet of customer floor area (CFA) in the proposed structure. Calculations show that there is approximately 2,090 square feet of CFA on the first floor and then the submittal shows that a meeting room of 800 SF of CFA will be found in the basement of the structure. Thus 2,890 SF of CFA requires 58 parking stalls (2890/100*2). The petitioners acknowledge that they are short 12 parking stalls when you take into account the zoning code measurements. Planning Commission will have to review what amount of parking stalls they will allow. Approval is recommended subject to all the contingencies staff mentioned along with more discussion on the parking requirements. Commissioner Buckmaster questioned if there was a Condition Use Grant (CUG) involved with this request. Director Muenkel stated that the DR-1 zoning allows the proposed uses and as such no CUG would be required. Alderman Soltysiak commented that he liked the commercial part of the plan and his only concern is the access to the residential portion of the property. The one-way travel into the residential area and out of the residential area could cause problems. Director Muenkel clarified that the original draft plans did account for two-way traffic, but with the number of parking stalls required, one-way traffic lanes were the option the petitioner choose. Director Muenkel added that the Zoning Code allows the Plan Commission the ability to reduce the typical 10 foot offset requirement for parking/drive aisles. This means that if the east parking lot line was shifted 6 feet closer to the east, then a two-way drive aisle, at the required width of 24 feet, can fit within the plans. Since there is a board -on -board fence on that side of the lot, the shifting of the drive lane should not be an issue. Commissioner Hulbert agreed that the altered access was a better fit for the site. There were two other questions that he had. The first question related to boat/pier access to the business. Mr. Burback stated that the site does not have lake access/frontage. Director Muenkel clarified that if lake access/frontage is ever gained and access from the lake to the business was wanted, further Plan Commission review would be required at that time. Commissioner Hulbert also said that the petitioner needs to meet the required number of parking stalls. This means the basement portion of the restaurant should just be used for storage uses and not any public use. If additional parking can be worked out at a later date, then this can be re -looked examined at that time. Heidi Lindhorst, the neighbor the west, had a few questions. The first one was relating to the fence and screening her home from the new commercial parking lot. She believed that a 6 foot tall fence would not be tall enough. Director Muenkel stated that additional landscaping is going to be added in this area. There was some discussion on whether an 8 foot fence would be tall enough to ease their concerns. Commissioner Hulbert added that the code only requires a 4 PAGE 4 Plan Commission Minutes, continued November 6, 2012 foot fence and the goal is not to screen the view of all vehicles, but to rather to screen the headlights from the cars onto the residential properties. Commissioner Noah further explained that the commercial parking would not even begin until south of the shed on the Lindhorst property. Alderman Soltysiak believed that the additional landscaping in this area would do a lot to address the neighbor's concerns. Heidi Linhorst's other concern was the location/distance of the new residential structure from the lake in relation to the distance of her home from the lake. Heidi Lindhorst was worried that she is going to lose some lake views, along with the sun due to the placement of the new residential building. She asked that the home be slid back slightly away from the lake. Director Muenkel offered the suggestion of possibly swapping the side offsets of the new residential structure so that 10 feet would be met on the west and 5 feet would be met to the east. Director Muenkel added that the location and size of the bio swale may be able to be altered, which could possibly allow the bio swale to shift south. If it were shifted to the south, then the residential building could be moved south too. The petitioner agreed that they would try to do this. Alderman Soltysiak clarified that the angled parking stalls needed to be realigning to avoid people from cutting across traffic to get into the stalls. He stated that with the realignment, at least 42 parking spaces must remain. Altering the traffic pattern to flow clockwise through the site would solve the cross traffic concern. Some parking stall angles will then have to be rotated to work with the new traffic pattern. Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to AMEND Resolution #P.C. 053-2012 and Commissioner Noah seconded to add the following: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the access lane along the east property line shall expand to a two-way access of at least 24 feet in width and that the parking stalls should switch to accommodate this traffic pattern. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission will allow the parking lot and access lanes to be as close as 6 feet from the east property line. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The building permit submitted plans shall reflect the basement as having no use for customers of the restaurant (remove meeting room use) so the parking codes can be met. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the 4-unit residential building shall switch the offsets shown on the plan so the west property line offset is 10 feet and the east property offset is now 5 feet. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the petitioner was receptive at the 11/6/12 Plan Commission meeting to moving the 4-unit residential building further south on the property should they be able to minimize the needed area of the stormwater pond. The Plan Commission further encourages this notion of moving back the building if the petitioner can accommodate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That additional landscaping shall be found along the west property line from the 4-unit residential building south to the north end of the commercial parking lot. PAGE 5 Plan Commission Minutes, continued November 6, 2012 Upon a roll call vote, Resolution #P.C. 053-2012 was AMENDED 7-0. Upon a roll call vote, Amended Resolution #P.C. 053-2012 was ADOPTED unanimously. NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE None. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hulbert made a motion to adjourn at 7:04 PM. Commissioner Stinebaugh seconded. Upon a voice vote, motion carried. With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Muenkel, AICP Community Development Director PAGE 6