MINUTES OF THE
OAK CREEK
Mayor Richards called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Rottel, Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner Nirode, Commissioner Siira, Commissioner Jackson, Mayor Richards, Commissioner Siepert, Commissioner Kopplin, Commissioner Foeckler and Commissioner Buchholz. Doug Seymour, Director of Community Development was also present.
Commissioner Siepert motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 25, 2003. Commissioner Kopplin second. All voted aye. Minutes were approved.
Commissioner Jackson stated that he would like to see the Commissioners change the motion for the Oakwood Crossings item from the previous two Plan Commission meetings. Commissioner Jackson would like to see more emphasis on the traffic signals and the improvements to Oakwood Road. He stated that he would like to add to item 3 of the conditions to include public water and public onsite roadway and public improvements to Oakwood Road itself and traffic signals at Howell and Oakwood Road. He would like it to state more of what the public improvements should be.
Mr. Seymour stated that if the Commission feels that there was discussion that was omitted as part of the whole item that would clarify what that condition of the motion meant it would be more appropriate to clarify the minutes to reflect what was said. To read in exact wording to a motion that was not there might be difficult.
Mayor Richards wanted clarification as to what exactly Commissioner Jackson was suggesting was not in the conditions.
Commissioner Jackson stated that the public improvement part should specifically state a public road on the site itself and the improvements to Oakwood Road and the traffic signals on Howell and Oakwood.
Mayor Richards questioned whether or not that would be covered under the public facility improvements.
Commissioner Jackson stated that it is but we don’t specifically say that.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if it could be covered in the development agreement.
Mr. Seymour stated that it can and most likely would be but Commissioner Jackson was saying was that the minutes should be reflective of the Commissions very strong desire to make sure that those specific improvements are included in that development agreement.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that that was not the way the motion was made.
Mr. Seymour stated that if they wanted to add clarifying language to the minutes but not necessarily the motion that could be done.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that you could not change the motion. It would have to be added to the agenda for reconsideration and added at that time.
Mayor Richards stated that he felt that nothing needed to be amended and in all reality Council would have to approve the development agreement. The intent was that all the facility improvements had to be done prior to the issuance of building permits. It will come back in front of Council and Council can certainly debate the issue at that time.
Commissioner Jackson stated that helps but he did not want to start listing everything in the agreement if it was not the intent.
Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the March 4, 2003, Common Council meeting.
No questions or comments on the Common Council actions.
4311 E. Oakwood Road
Tax Key No.: 962-9014
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Mr. Kinlow was requesting approval of a conditional use permit that would allow for the expansion in height of the existing television tower at 4311 E. Oakwood Road from 500 feet to 749 feet in height. This property is zoned B-4, CU, Highway Business, and already has a conditional use permit for a cellular communications tower. This is not the same tower that was approved under that 1996 conditional use permit. Nonetheless, whenever a pre-existing conditional use for a property is expanded it is required to go through as if it were a new conditional use.
In order to meet the minimum requirements of the Municipal Code the expanded tower would need to be set back a minimum of 249.6 feet. If the Commission and Council, after any required variance, were to approve this expanded tower, it should be with the condition that any lighting be limited to the minimum FAA requirements, which may include dual intensity strobe lights and/or ground shielding.
Commissioner Dickmann asked if this item was put on hold the last time it was presented for exact square footages.
Mr. Seymour stated that was one of the main issues that he had adequate setbacks and for clarification on the types of lighting systems that could be used or what types of modifications could be made to the lighting system.
Mr. Joel Kinlow stated that he could have the light directed upward and outward to reduce the negative effect on the neighbors at night.
Mr. Seymour wanted to know if the FAA would allow him to go to a nighttime lighting level of just the red lights.
Mr. Kinlow stated that he was under the impression that you would have to have the same lighting at night as during the day. With just the red lights you would have to paint the tower every so often.
Mr. Seymour stated that there are different lighting levels required whether it is dawn or evening. In many cases the evening lighting can be reduced to only the red lights. Whatever the minimum lighting required by the FAA is what the Commission should be requiring before any expansion of the tower. If the FAA does not require high intensity strobes we should not have them.
Mr. Kinlow stated that he would check that but there are not two sets of lights on the tower.
Mayor Richards stated that he thought that was the reason the item was held the first time.
Mr. Kinlow stated that he was under the impression that the Commission just wanted to know if the lights could be adjusted not to reflect down. He also stated that they could be adjusted.
Mr. Seymour wanted to know if the FAA would allow him to go to a nighttime lighting level of just the red lights or were the high intensity strobes required even at night.
Mr. Kinlow stated that as far as he knew you had to have the same lighting at night as during the day. One of the reasons you have to have the same lighting is so that you don’t have to paint the tower.
Mr. Seymour stated that there are different lighting levels required whether it is day or night and in many cases the evening lighting can be reduced to the red lights only. He was not suggesting that was the case here because there might be some special circumstances here with its relationship to the airport. Whatever the minimum requirements are by the FAA is what should be required for any expansion of the tower. If the FAA does not require the high intensity strobes they should not be allowed.
Mr. Kinlow stated that he would check that but there are not two sets of lights on the tower and he does not know if it is allowed to cut them down at night.
Mayor Richards stated that he thought that was what Mr. Kinlow was going to be checking on after the last meeting.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that in the Lighting Guidelines under item no. “42 Lighting Systems, a) Aviation Red Obstruction Lights. Use flashing beacons and/or steady burning lights during nighttime.” This is the minimum standard required.
Mr. Seymour stated that the main point is that without the granting of a variance the Commission would not be allowed to approve a tower height of more than 607 feet. According to the Code the tower shall not exceed a height of three times the distance from the lot line.
Mr. Kinlow stated that two of the anchor points would meet that requirement and only one does not.
Mr. Kinlow wanted to know if he could move the tower back on the lot if needed to meet the requirements.
Mr. Seymour stated that it could be done assuming that the Council approved the Conditional Use.
Mayor Richards stated that the Commission could approve this if the location would meet the requirements. Without looking at the CSM we cannot be certain that you could move the tower to a point that would give the setbacks that are needed.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that the Building Code was updated in 1995 and at that time some of the tower guidelines were also updated so that if they fell they would not fall and damage anyone else’s property.
Mr. Seymour stated that he could not say for sure that there was a change made but the rational for having a standard such as that would be to minimize the impact on surrounding properties. Recognizing that a 1000-foot tower would not fall 1000 feet the setback is not equal to the height of the tower.
Mayor Richards suggested that this item be put on hold until such a time as a survey could be prepared to show exactly where the tower could go to meet the 250 foot radius on the property before approval from the Plan Commission.
Mr. Seymour stated that there are two choices at this point, one is that the tower be relocated so that it would have 249.6-foot setback minimum from adjacent property lines or apply for a variance from the Board of Appeals and state your case before them. As it stands at this point neither the Commission nor the Common Council could approve a height at 750 feet.
Commissioner Dickmann asked for clarification of the point where setbacks are measured. Would it be from the center point of the structure because the feet are out from the main point?
Mr. Seymour stated that the rational way of looking at it would be any point at the base of the tower.
Mayor Richard stated that Mr. Kinlow would just need to prove to the Commission that he had enough room to move the tower on the lot and bring it back to the Commission.
Carol Grundy, 9280 S. Nicholson Road, wanted to know if the FAA approved the height of the tower.
Mayor Richards stated that the FAA already approved it.
6312 and 6508 S. 27th Street
Tax Key No.: 715-9018, 715-9985-001
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that NDC, Inc. was requesting approval of architectural plans for an exterior remodeling of the Tri City Shopping Center for the properties at 6312 and 6508 S. 27th Street. These remodeling plans complement the already approved plans for reconstruction of the food store at that location.
Mr. Vince Milewski, NDC Inc., presented plans for the proposed remodel to the Commission.
Commissioner Siira asked if the same materials would be used on the remodel as were being used on the approved new Pick n’ Save building and also wanted to know if any signage was being added.
Mr. Milewski stated that they would be the same materials and that they would be taking down the bank sign and putting a new sign and would be taking down the hardware sign and putting it in a new location.
Commissioner Siepert wanted to know if the remodeling would be taking place the same time as the reconstruction.
Mr. Milewski stated that they would be done at the same time.
Commissioner Rottel motioned that the Commission approve the architectural plans for the exterior remodeling of the Tri City Shopping Center at 6312 and 6508 S. 27th Street.
Commissioner Dickmann second. Roll call, all voted aye.
The following two items were taken as one motion:
840 W. Ryan Road
Tax Key No.: 876-9994
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Ray Leffler was requesting approval of a rezone and conditional use permit for a portion of the property at 840 W. Ryan Road. Late last year the Common Council approved Ordinance 2216 rezoning a portion of this same property from M-1, Manufacturing to B-4, Highway Business with a conditional use permit for marine sales and service. Mr. Leffler is proposing to develop a 29,320 square foot office and shop/warehouse facility on the site for Cummins NPower. In order to do that they would need to obtain a conditional use permit in the M-1, Manufacturing zoning district. The boundaries of the existing conditional use permit for self service storage facilities on the site will need to be modified.
Mayor Richards wanted to know how they could get rid of the parking of trucks in the front of the building.
Jeff Grahl, Ott Development, stated that the trucks would not be permanently parked there but that it was just a staging area and the trucks would only be there for about 5-10 minutes.
Commissioner Rottel wanted to know how many trucks on average would be parked in the rear during the day.
Mr. Grahl stated that there were approximately 22 parking stalls and that the trucks would only be parked there for 24–48 hours before being worked on. Cummins NPower averages between 10–12 vehicles a day. There are twelve service bays in the building along with one additional bay for cleaning or washing and another for longer RV’s.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know what was the likelihood of three trucks being queued there at one time.
Mr. Grahl stated that it was very small. Most of the trucks being serviced already have an appointment and don’t need to stop at the front for a service ticket and can just pull through and drop off the truck in the back. In the past five months he has only seen two vehicles waiting a few times.
Mayor Richards wanted to know how visible the trucks would be in the parking location.
Mr. Grahl stated that the setback off of Ryan Road to the pavement was 40 feet, which would be landscaped if front of Ryan Road. Coming from the east going west the railroad track and with the rise between the road and the property you would not see the vehicles. The proposed storage warehouse facilities would wrap around the property so that coming from the west going east a lot of the trucks would be hidden by that development.
Commissioner Siira requested clarification as to where the security fence began and ended on the property and what the height of the fence would be.
Mr. Grahl stated that the security fence started along the edge of the building with a movable gate and went along the property line all the way around the building back to the other side with another movable gate. Also, at this time they are working with the storage people for a shared easement to share the fence. The fence should be about 6 – 8 feet high.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop stated that with regards to the fence in the rear there was a previous agreement for an emergency alternative access between the two properties on the north side of this property. That access would be required for both properties to proceed and build.
Mr. Grahl stated that he was not aware of that but that he could provide for one on the site plan.
Commissioner Siira asked if there was some specific reason the trucks in queuing had to be in the front of the building and what was the purpose of stopping at this point.
Mr. Grahl stated that the reason for queuing at that point was because that was where the office portion would be and they would stop and come in for instructions. Most of the trucks that have to stop at that point do not have an appointment.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know if the truck queuing could be moved further east to accommodate the neighbors on Ryan Road.
Mr. Grahl stated that he would review that issue with Cummins and if possible reflect that in the site plan when that came in for review.
Commissioner Siepert stated that he would like to see landscaping in front of the queuing area to help break it up.
Mr. Grahl had already anticipated putting quit a bit of landscaping in front of the queuing area.
Mayor Richards stated that with the topography being so great in grade at that particular point that he would like to see some higher end commercial in that area. With the trucks in the front you do not get a profile of a nice commercial business. Based on the layout presented you would see a significant amount of trucks from the east going west and this package does not fit at that site.
Mr. Grahl explained that the number of trucks that would be in front of the building would not be parked in that area just stopping for a few minutes to get a service ticket and then would be moved to the back of the building. With landscaping and the tracks to the east side Cummins felt that placing the trucks on the east side would minimize the effect and the trucks in the back of the lot would be shielded by the building. He also stated that the trucks would be 400 –500 feet off of the road. The entire area to the west of the property should be very dense with warehouse/storage units.
Mayor Richards stated that he was not as concerned about the west end of the building. When the approval was made for Kendor there was to be some nice landscaping around the side of the building and orientating it such that when going eastbound you would see a nice high-end commercial building. By locating the queue in the front everything would be destroyed. The same thing happens on the east side by having all the trucks lined up in that particular location. Unless there is some significant landscaping of some sort to hide semi trucks everything will be destroyed and totally visible along that section of Ryan Road.
Mr. Grahl suggested putting a berm along that line of site to help break the site line.
Mr. Seymour asked what the projected elevation of the parking lot was relative to the railroad tracks.
Mr. Grahl stated that roughly the driveway would be at the same grade. He stated that it would be elevated from Ryan Road at the far eastern point and will roughly be at the elevation of the railroad tracks.
Commissioner Dickmann expressed his concern for being able to see the large trucks and having them turn out onto Ryan Road.
Mr. Grahl stated that he was speaking with the Department of Transportation and they would require a left turn lane at the location of the curb cut.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if the 40-foot setback would actually be a 50-foot setback because of Trans 233.
Mr. Seymour stated that it would be the 50-foot setback.
Mr. Chuck Koehler, 901 W. Ryan Road, 6th District Alderman, stated that he had some concerns with the staging of the trucks and the amount of time the trucks would be parked at that location. He wanted to know why the trucks could not be staged on the east side of the property line. He would like to see this building match the Aldi building and not be covered up in the front on Ryan Road. Also he thought the biggest problem with vision would be coming from the west headed towards the east.
Commissioner Foeckler wanted to know what Alderman Koehler’s reaction was to the operation being open until midnight.
Alderman Koehler stated that he was not concerned with the hours of operation ending at midnight but would prefer to see them close at eleven.
Mr. Grahl wanted to know if the Commission would prefer to see the site flipped so that the parking that was on the east side would be on the west side and the building was shoved further to the east.
Mayor Richards stated that you would have more opportunities to do landscaping on the west end then you do on the east end. You could add some landscaping like a berm to screen out the trucks. If you try to put the trucks on the east end you have a wide-open view for a half-mile down Ryan Road. There is potential for relocating that lot so that the parking is closer towards the west end and is landscaped and relocating the truck queue off of the front corner of the building.
Mr. Grahl stated that if the parking is flipped to the west side and landscaped with creating a berm on the east side that would help to screen the view as well.
Mayor Richards stated that you might not have to put a berm along the railroad tracks if the trucks were not there.
Mr. Grahl stated that there would still be trucks at the rear of the lot.
Mayor Richards stated that the closer the trucks are to the railroad tracks those are the ones that are going to be more noticeable.
Mr. Seymour stated that the east side offers the better opportunities for shielding from casual view.
Mayor Richards stated that it could be done landscaping wise as long as the view of trucks would be shielded.
Alderman Koehler stated that he would like to see parking shifted to the east more because the building would aid in shielding the trucks on that end.
Mayor Richards stated that the bottom line was that it needed to be screened.
Mr. Grahl stated that with screening the best option would be to leave the plan the way it was and create between berms and landscaping on the west side as a screen.
Ms. Ann Lampe, 3rd District Alderman, stated that she did not want to see screening with a security fence with slates.
Mayor Richards stated that the fence could be put up with or without the slates as long as the landscaping was in front it to screen out the fence.
Commissioner Siepert wanted to know what the height of the storage facilities would be.
Mr. Seymour stated that to his best recollection it was about 12 feet.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that she would like to see the layout of the storage buildings in comparison to this proposal. She also wanted to know when the storage facility would be able to present its plans.
Mr. Seymour stated that they were waiting for the conditional use process to be over but that they should have plans available to present to the Commission at this time.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know if there would be overhead doors on both sides of the building.
Mr. Grahl stated that there would be six on each side of the building.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned whether or not this was the proper site for this facility after listening to all the problems with the landscaping and now the doors.
Commissioner Buchholz stated that he did not want to see any more trucks on this side of the interstate. If there was to be another trucking company it should be on the west side of the interstate were it is busy currently and not pollute the east side.
Mr. Grahl stated that the existing Cummins facility is currently on the east side of the interstate already.
Mark VerHalen, 1200 E. Ryan Road, stated that he was confused as to what direction the City was going trying to get ride of another existing business in Oak Creek. He agrees that there is some tweaking that could be done to the site but everyone has to realize that times are getting tough and we should not discourage business but promote it. Business with Cummins at there current location has had no complaints as far as noise or lights or truck traffic. Also, he feels that the Commission is missing the boat as far as presence of trucks. If you drive up Ryan Road and look to the north at the Aldi site all you see at night are fifty truck docks with blinking lights. There are probably thirty to forty semi trailers parked in their lot at any given time. Not that this would be the best thing for this location because there is always something that could go in that is better but there is a similar type of operation to the north. It may not be the perfect mix but the City should be looking to promote the businesses staying in Oak Creek rather than trying to get rid of them.
Mayor Richards stated that Aldi was intentionally recessed much farther back off of Ryan Road with the potential at some point and time to have a high-end office go up on Ryan Road. There were proposals for a hotel across the street. Those would not be compatible with this proposal and that is what is being promoted, something a little higher scale commercial without trucks on Ryan Road.
Mr. VerHalen stated that he still had concerns. The Commission and Council turned the hotel across the street down as well. If Cummins would move to this location their current location would be vacant and that could possibly turn into a hotel or something of that nature closer to the freeway. You maybe lose exactly what you want for this location but its close and you have the potential to gain something else where you have more visibility by the freeway. You need to weigh all the possibilities because there is the possibility that if they are turned down they may go someplace other than Oak Creek and Oak Creek would lose a business.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that the Commission could work with Cummins at this site. Ryan Road has truck traffic like you would not believe and we should not be offended by it because this country has most of its deliveries by truck. The Commission should work with Cummins to do what needs to be done to make this an attractive site.
Commissioner Siepert motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that portions of the property at 840 W. Ryan Road be rezoned from B-4, Highway Business to M-1, Manufacturing and be granted a conditional use permit for truck service after a public hearing.
Commissioner Kopplin second.
Roll call, Rottel, aye, Dickmann, nay, Nirode, aye, Siira, aye, Jackson, nay, Mayor Richards, nay, Siepert, aye, Kopplin, aye, Foeckler, nay, Buchholz, nay. Motion failed.
Mr. Seymour called for a new motion.
Mayor Richards stated that is the way it goes to Council whether it was approved or not does not make a difference.
Mr. Seymour asked for clarification that this proceed to Common Council without a recommendation to approve without conditions and restrictions for a public hearing.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that even though she approved it that does not mean after a public hearing she does not have the right to change her mind.
Mr. Seymour stated that it would move on to a public hearing with no motion from the Plan Commission.
Alderman Lampe requested to have conditions and restrictions be presented to Council so that it could have a viable discussion.
Mr. Seymour stated that if the Common Council feels otherwise they could direct staff to go back and prepare conditions and restrictions. In the absence of any endorsement from the Plan Commission staff could not prepare conditions and restrictions.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that the Council could put the item on hold after a public hearing and not take a vote on the item.
1000 E. Oakwood Road
Tax Key No.: 922-9931-008
Mr. Seymour explained that Fred Wobick was requesting approval of a certified survey map that would subdivide a 27,818 square foot parcel. An officially mapped street providing internal access from Shepard Avenue affects this property. Mr. Wobick had previously applied to remove this street from the official map. That request was withdrawn. In light of the Commission’s stance on retaining this officially mapped street, it appears that the proposed division of land would be appropriate.
Mr. Wobick should consider whether he wants to divide the 75-foot wide section of land along Oakwood Road at this time. On March 31, 2003 the Common Council will consider a text amendment that would increase the minimum lot size for parcels within the Rs-3 zoning district from 75 to 80 feet. If this proposed amendment is successful, it would make it more difficult for the landowner to divide this lot in the future.
Alderman Lampe wanted to know if the process for the lot on Oakwood Road would need to be started at this time in order for it to be done before the public hearing.
Mr. Seymour explained that the rules as far as implementing the text amendment change have not been established. If he has a certified survey map that shows that lot that has been recommended for approval from the Plan Commission that would in fact be a legal lot under the new code.
Mr. Wobick questioned if he needed to get going on parcel 3 immediately.
Mr. Seymour stated that he should have his surveyor put the lot on the certified survey map.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the property at 1000 E. Oakwood Road be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That any technical corrections be completed prior to recording of the map.
2. That a grading and drainage plan for Parcel 1 be approved by the City Engineer prior to recording of the map.
3. That the lot width for Parcel 1 be reduced by 0.11 feet.
Commissioner Kopplin seconds.
Mayor Richards stated that the Commission should add a condition for parcel 3 if Mr. Wobick wanted to include that parcel at this time.
4. That a third parcel be created with the 75 foot of frontage along Oakwood Road.
First and second concur. Roll call, all voted aye.
10301 S. 13th Street
Tax Key No.: 953-9999-003
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Saint Stephen Catholic Church is requesting Plan Commission approval of site, building and landscaping plans for a 1000-seat worship facility at 10301 S. 13th Street. This property was rezoned I-1, Institutional in August 2001. The first phase of the project would be a 44,578 square foot church facility with seating for 1031 persons and the initial parking is slightly more than that required by the Code.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if the wetland were used for their detention pond the homeowners would turn over the maintenance of that pond to the church.
Mr. Seymour stated that it is a possibility. It takes the responsibility away from sixty homeowners and turns it over to the church, which would have had to maintain that pond on their property anyway. It is just merely a suggestion by the Engineering Department at this time.
Commissioner Kopplin explained that the reasoning behind her question was after a while ponds need to be cleaned out and that can be quite an expense for the church.
Mr. Seymour stated whether or not they face that prospect with their own pond or whether they face it with a joint pond there is still the potential for expenses.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the amount of seating requested at this time and what was being done with the family living center.
Mr. Paul Stefanske, Groth Design Group, showed drawings of the proposed building to the Commission. The master plan is approximately 95,000 square feet and does include worship seating of over 1000 seats. At this point, they would be seeking approval for approximately 45,000 square feet and seating for 600 people. The family life center would be in phase two and would be directly off of Oakwood Road.
Mayor Richards inquired about the types of building materials that would be used.
Mr. Stefanske stated that primarily the exterior of the building would be brick but there are no final colors choices at this time. There are two areas of the building that would be connection points to the future phases that would not be brick but would be a wood siding type of product. The roofing would be an asphalt shingle with metal fascia and down spouts.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop pointed out that the City of Oak Creek has several fire prevention code requirements that exceed the Wisconsin State Code and presented Mr. Stefanske with a copy of that Code. He also stated that if the building would no longer be facing 13th Street the address should reflect its location on Oakwood Road.
Erin Poth, 10339 S. 13th Street, stated that her property faces the east elevation of the proposed church. She inquired as to where the main entrance to the church would be.
Mr. Stefanske stated that the main entrance for the church would be from the southwest side of the building. The eastern drop off area is being provided as a convenience to staff and weekday visitors.
Ms. Poth stated that her concern was that she would be seeing cars coming and going all week long and parking near her lot line.
Mr. Seymour stated that parking would be about 65 feet from her lot line, which is in excess of the required setback.
Mr. Stefanske stated that the City has landscape screening requirements between parking and adjacent residential properties, which the church is aware of and will be screening.
Ms. Poth wanted to know if the landscaping was a guarantee or would it be cut back if the church ran into budget constraints. She also stated that she was not happy that there is going to be parking directly behind her property.
Mayor Richards stated that the landscaping would be part of the approval and is a City requirement.
Mr. Seymour questioned whether or not the motion would include approval of the architectural plans.
Mr. Stefanske stated that the only thing that would need to be reviewed further would be the color of the building.
Mayor Richards asked the Commission if they were concerned about the colors of the building.
Commissioner Siira stated that if the colors were consistent with the rendering the Commission would be supportive.
Mr. Stefanske stated that it was his understanding that the Commission was concerned with the color choice and the renderings do reflect the general direction. Bricks or specific materials have not been selected at this point.
Commissioner Siira stated that he was happy with the way the building was sited on the property and that it fronts Oakwood Road with the parking behind the building. The design of the building is very sensitive to the surrounding residential area with the gable roof throughout the building.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Commission approve the site, building and landscaping plans for the first phase of the Saint Stephen Church at 10301 S. 13th Street subject to the following conditions:
1. That stormwater management plans are approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. That exterior lighting plans are approved by the Electrical Inspector prior to the issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Rottel, second. Roll call, all voted aye.
Rezone – Steven and Deborah Wiedenfeld
6616 and 6622 S. 27th Street
Tax Key No.: 715-9981-002 and 715-9980
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Steve and Deborah Wiedenfeld were requesting that the properties at 6616 and 6622 S. 27th Street be rezoned from B-4, Highway Business and Rs-4, Single Family Residential to B-1, Local Business. It is their intention to remove the existing home on the properties and replace it with a small office building of 2,760 square feet. The development of a small office building in the B-1, Local Business designation, which is the least intensive of the commercial zoning districts, would serve to implement the objectives of the comprehensive plan for this neighborhood.
Mr. Seymour read the following letter into the record:
March 10, 2003
Dear Mr. Seymour and Members of the Plan Commission:
My name is Randall Willms and my wife is Nancy Willms. We live at 2620 W. Sycamore Ave. This letter is in regard to the rezoning request of Steven and Deborah Wiedenfeld for the property located at 6616 and 6622 S. 27th Street. My wife and I are unable to attend the Plan Commission meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 due to other commitments and would ask that this letter be read into the record of that meeting.
We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of this property to allow for a local business that would be literally in our backyard. Our rear property line abuts the side lot line of the 27th Street property. According to the site plan sent to us, the proposed structure would fall approximately west of our west property line and the proposed parking lot would be directly behind our property. This is unacceptable for the following reasons:
This is a residential area. Seven residential properties abut this property on the south and the east. When we purchased our home and property, we were expecting it to remain a residential area and not turned into the neighborhood business park. There is much open land available in the near vicinity on S. 27th Street which would not impact residential homes.
Privacy is an issue. Once again, our expectations as property owners is that we would be able to enjoy our own backyard with a modicum of privacy. If this proposal passes, we can look forward to looking out our kitchen window and seeing a massive parking lot and cars in the place of what used to be a wonderful green space with trees and various wildlife. This green space also serves as a buffer zone from the current business further north on S. 27th Street. Would you enjoy sitting out in your backyard on a nice summer afternoon or evening knowing that whomever is in that parking lot can see exactly what you are doing?
Drainage on the 6622 property is an issue. Currently when there is a moderate rainfall, this lot has a water drainage problem. Approximately one-half of that property is under water. This water then finally dissipates after about a 24-hour time period. We are aware of this problem because our property’s northeast corner is affected and is usually also very wet at that time. If this parking lot is constructed, where will this water go? This water will more than likely be in our backyard.
Increased traffic will have a negative influence. We currently experience many illegal U-turns at the corner of S. 27th & Sycamore, even though there is a posted sign. This will continue and increase with the addition of another business property on S. 27th north of Sycamore due to the difficulty of reaching that section of the road if you are traveling south. Along with our neighbors, we currently experience quite a number of hazardous turnarounds in our driveways. This would also increase that problem.
Increased noise and trash has a negative impact on a residential area. We currently have two large complexes near us. We already have Wal-Mart and Menards to thank for much trash and noise. With a moderate west wind, the homes on the north side of Sycamore look like a trash dump from all the paper and debris that ends up in our yards and in our trees.
In conclusion, we are opposed to the rezoning of these properties due to the negative impact it will have on the W. Sycamore residential area.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Willms
Nancy B. Willms
Don Krukowski, Architect/Planners S.C., stated that this property is primarily zoned business at this point. There is a small residential area that is being proposed to add to the business district. The building that is being proposed is residential in size and would have a residential character. The parking that is shown on the site plan is what is required by the City Code and is more than what would be needed for the business. The site drains from the east to the west and with the proper grading should work fine.
Commissioner Foeckler inquired as to whether this site plan comes close to a thirty percent green space.
Mr. Krukowski stated that the site has about forty percent green space at this time.
Mr. Seymour stated that he did not review the plans for the green space context but there would need to be substantial revisions to the site plan if it were to be approvable by the Commission. The owners did receive a copy of the setback requirements for this parcel. The setback for the front of the building would need to be fifty feet including the parking area. The building would need to be setback twenty feet in addition to whatever the side setbacks would be in a residential area.
Commission Foeckler wanted to know what was going to be done with the stormwater.
Mr. Krukowski stated that the site drains naturally from the west to the east and he would assume that they would install a catch basin on the west side of the property.
Mr. Seymour asked if this was more than a half-acre of impervious surface.
Mr. Krukowski stated that there was 300 by 86 feet so it would be about just over a half acre.
Mr. Seymour stated that if it were over a half-acre than it would need to comply with the stormwater management ordinance.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that he could not see this being able to happen with all the setbacks and stormwater issues. The site is just to small to make it all fit. He is not opposed to a residential sized office building going in this area but is concerned with the parking that takes up green space.
Mr. Krukowski stated that at this point they do have forty percent green space, which is more than the Code requires.
Mr. Seymour stated that with respect to the parking issue alone the Commission does have the discretion to modify the allowed number of parking spaces as long as additional areas are provided on the site. There are certainly some challenges in making this site work and before we embark on this process the applicant and the Commission should be aware of what those challenges are.
Commissioner Kopplin asked if there was a storm drain system in 27th Street.
Commissioner Jackson stated that he did not think there was storm sewer actually on 27th Street that is readily available for this site. Whether it would be under the ordinance or not is borderline. If the parking were decreased they would not have to do detention. That call cannot be made at this point.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the natural flow of the water because the neighbors are saying that the water is flowing the opposite way.
Mr. Krukowski stated that according to the survey the grades show that it is higher on the east than on the west.
Kathleen Draver, 6631 S. 26th Street, stated that her property is directly behind the proposed parking lot. She stated that there is always water out there and that she did not want to sit in her backyard in the summer time and look at cars.
Karin Kleineider, owner of Ray’s RV Sales, stated that she has lived next door for 21 years. When she started her business she was told that she needed to talk to all of the neighbors and all the neighbors were backing them but were concerned about the backyard. They did not want to see anything in the backyard. She stated that she was upset because she was raising children and did not want to look at a business parking lot and a dumpster next door to her. She would like to see a fence at the very least so that she would not have to see any of these things. Another thing would be the extra traffic on 27th Street.
Mr. Seymour stated that the property next to her is already zoned B-4 which is highway business, which is essentially the same zone as the property she owns.
Ms. Kleineider asked for clarification on the site plan and the placement of the driveway. When she started her business she was told that she needed to put up trees on both sides of her property so that no one could see the truck caps. If they are allowed to go ahead with this project she wants them to put up a fence so that she cannot see a car or anything else.
Mayor Richards stated that it would be appropriate if her zoning was residential. These two properties are totally compatible. Quite frankly because of the zoning on Ms. Kleineider’s property her complaints are not valid.
Ms. Kleineider wanted to know why they were required to screen with trees when they came in with their business if this parcel does not have to.
Mr. Seymour clarified that just because you have a property adjacent to a commercial zoning district does not mean that you get a waiver from the landscaping requirements. There still needs to be a site and building plan approved by the Commission. If it is appropriate that there be landscaping adjacent to parking or drive areas especially as you get further east on the property that is something that this Commission would consider. To say that you would not have those protections as an adjacent property owner is not true. Being a commercial zoning district adjacent to a commercial zoning district the statutorial need to provide a greater means of screening or buffering is probably not there even though the Commission would consider the desires of adjacent property owners when reviewing the site plan.
Mayor Richards wanted to know if the normal response to this situation should be just as what’s being proposed with the building in front and the lots in the back. Based on the existing conditions what happens if we make it more compatible with the existing neighborhood and locate the building in line with the property to the north and have the parking in the front and leave the back green space.
Norman Rienum, 6635 S. 26th Street, stated that he lived in the Cedar Hills subdivision since it was built and they have always had a water problem in the back of the lots. To put parking back there would make it worse.
Mayor Richards stated that is why he was suggesting not allowing that situation and if it was allowed the developer would have to grade the property in such a fashion that it would take the water away from the neighbors.
Commissioner Foeckler inquired as to how many parking spaces would actually be needed by the applicants.
Mr. Krukowski stated that they probably only needed half of what were shown but that the Code required all of the spaces.
Mayor Richards wanted to know his feelings on locating the building further north in line with the other buildings and putting the parking in the front.
Mr. Krukowski stated that he would be in favor of that plan and it would work better for them with the parking in the front.
Mayor Richards suggested that they go back and try to make the layout more compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that some information on stormwater would also need to be presented because it would be a big issue in this area. He also stated that he has doubts if this would fit on the lot but would be in favor moving along with the variance on lessening the parking.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know if it goes back and they look at the other option discussed what would the setbacks be from the north and south property lines.
Mr. Seymour stated that from the south property line he believed it would be thirty-five feet because of the fifteen foot side setback accompanied by a twenty foot buffer yard. From the north it would probably be fifteen feet with a side yard setback in a commercial zoning district.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that his expectations would be that the building would not be any further back than the building to the north as well.
Mr. Don Kleineider, Ray’s RV Sales, questioned the fifteen-foot setback from commercial property, because the driveway was only setback five feet from the property line.
Mr. Seymour stated that it was fifteen feet for the building and five feet for the parking lot.
This item was held for a new site plan.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Nirode second. Roll call, all voted aye.