MINUTES OF THE
OAK CREEK
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003
Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Marhal, Commissioner Siira, Commissioner Foeckler, Mayor Bolender, Commissioner Kopplin, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Jackson. Douglas Seymour, Director of Community Development was also present.
Commissioner Siira motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 13, 2003 with a change to the second on the Cummins NPower motion. Commissioner Dickmann second. All voted aye. Minutes were approved.
Mr. Seymour updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the May 20, 2003 Common Council meeting.
No Comments or questions from the commission.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Barbara Cavolaski was requesting that the official map for the Northwest 1/4 of Section 19 be amended to remove a cul de sac from her vacant property at the end of Grays Lane.
The applicant is concerned that the presence of the officially mapped cul de sac on her property is severely devaluing that property because of the cost to construct the improvements per the official map. The current official map for this property came about as a result of recommendations made by an appointed citizen’s ad hoc committee with respect to future land use, including street patterns.
Barbara Cavolaski, expressed her concern for the loss of her land to put in the cul de sac and the cost for laterals and the cost of the cul de sac. She explained to the Commission that the costs to put in the cul de sac and laterals would not allow her to be able to sell the property with any profit. She would like to know why one property has to bare the cost of the entire cost for the cul de sac.
Mr. Seymour explained the official map process to the Commission and how changes are made to the street patterns. The issues in front of the Commission at this time were of economics and one of the design of the cul de sac. The only issue the Plan Commission could address at this point would be the geometry of the cul de sac. The funding mechanism for the cul de sac would make some sense but the Common Council must make decisions on alternative funding mechanisms. The Plan Commission could consider an alternative that would center the cul de sac on the end of the road. Perhaps the Commission could further study the possibility of modifying the geometry of the cul de sac or revisit the entire issue of access to Grays Lane. Even with the cul de sac Grays Lane exceeds the minimum standard for the length of cul de sacs or dead ends in the City of Oak Creek. The residents of Grays Lane and 20th Street did not want the streets to go through.
Commissioner Dickmann commented that Grays Lane has no other cross streets and the need for a cul de sac or some other means of access is important.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know if the cross street on the map would connect in the future. Mr. Seymour explained that the street shown on the official map was for emergency access only.
Mayor Bolender expressed concern with the cost burden of the cul de sac being placed on one property owner.
Commissioner Foeckler was concerned that the cul de sac could not be relocated centrally because of the structures on the properties to the south. The only option would be to leave the cul de sac the way it is or relocate it further to the east.
Mr. Seymour stated that the other alternative, which is beyond the ability of the Plan Commission, would be to look at who benefits by the inclusion of the cul de sac and perhaps spread the cost through out the neighborhood or the City.
Commissioner Marhal wanted to know why the cul de sac could not extend to the property to the east. Commissioner Jackson explained that property belongs to another owner and if the other property owner wanted to extend the cul de sac for development purposes he could attempt to purchase the property on Grays Lane and extend the cul de sac if he so chooses.
Mr. Seymour explained that it might appear to solve the problem there is still the larger economic problem that even if it were extended beyond the property you would still be responsible for extending the street and developing a temporary cul de sac in the easement area.
Mayor Bolender stated that he feels like the property owner on Grays Lane has the total financial burden and the developer across the street shares nothing. He would like to see the cul de sac shared with another property owner.
Mr. Seymour cautioned that it might solve the problem on paper there is still the cost of extending Grays Lane across the entire length of the property and then developing a temporary cul de sac.
Commissioner Correll explained from his point of view that if the cul de sac was centered the road would still have to be extended which would cost comparable and the economic problem would not be solved.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if property owners along the whole road would be charged with the cost of the new road. Mr. Seymour explained that is a policy decision that the Common Council would have to make. Historically the developer would be responsible for the costs of the road.
Mayor Bolender questioned if something temporary could be put in until a developer came in with a plan. Mr. Seymour stated if you knew what the street pattern would ultimately be that would work but you can’t know what will happen in the future.
Commissioner Kopplin explained that the City stopped allowing temporary cul de sacs because of the financial problems they cause with future developments.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop stated the Fire Department has always been in favor of cul de sacs at the end of these streets. If this street is allowed to stay nonconforming how will we enforce it in other locations? The cul de sacs need to be there for the safety of the people and the ability to provide adequate services. If the Council feels the design manuals are not valid then they should be changed to reflect that feeling.
Mayor Bolender questioned the need for cul de sacs on every street that dead-ends. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained that the design manual specifies that any street that is 500 feet or fifteen lots is the maximum length for a cul de sac on any City street and that all dead end streets will be cul de sacs in the future.
Ms. Cavolaski wanted to know if she has been paying property taxes on a parcel that is unusable. Mayor Bolender stated that seems to be the case. Ms. Cavolaski wanted to know if nothing was done about this would she have to continue to pay taxes on a parcel that can never be used. Mr. Seymour stated if it does not go through that she would have a strong case to make with the Assessor that the property taxes for the parcel should be lowered.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know if there was an alternative that could be worked out with this issue. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained that it was not just a Fire Department issue. It was also a safety issue with snowplows and garbage trucks. There is no place for these vehicles to safely turn around on this street except on private property.
Mr. Jim Beaver, 2024 W. Grays Lane, explained that he has a number of vehicles turning around in his driveway every single day. He expressed the need for a cul de sac in this area for trucks and other traffic to turn around without going on his property. He also expressed his concern for one property owner having to bare the burden of the entire cost for the cul de sac.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the land with the cul de sac was a nonconforming lot. Mr. Seymour stated it was a conforming lot for the zoning but it needed the infrastructure in order to build on the lot.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know if perhaps a flared cul de sac could be put in to help the situation by reducing the amount of cul de sac that needed to be put in. Mr. Seymour explained that might be able to happen but the amount of space that the cul de sac was taking up was not the issue but that it was an economic issue.
Ms. Cavolaski stated that the issue for her was an economic issue and also the amount of land that would be taken up with the cul de sac.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know why it could not be put on the property to the east. Mr. Seymour explained that you could move the cul de sac to the east but that it would not solve the situation for Ms. Cavolaski. She would need to develop the road across her property and also acquire the land further east to put in a temporary cul de sac on the property to the east.
Chester Szydel, 2216 Grays Lane, explained that there is a paved area on 20th Street gets wider as the road comes to an end that gives it the effect of a cul de sac.
Mayor Bolender stated that he would like to see the expenses shared by the neighboring landowners.
Ms. Cavolaski wanted to know if she could just have the property reassessed and put up a fence and leave the property as is. Mr. Seymour stated that could be a possibility. Commissioner Kopplin stated when the property to the east was ready to develop he could come to her for access to his property.
Commissioner Correll stated that it comes down to an economic issue because everyone agrees there needs to be a cul de sac in this area. He wanted to know where this would need to go to become an economic discussion. Mr. Seymour stated it would be up to the Common Council to address that issue.
Commissioner Peterson wanted to be sure that all alternatives to a cul de sac were exhausted before sending this issue to the Council. Mr. Seymour explained that there are alternatives to the cul de sac, although none are as favorable, such as a hammerhead that allows for some turning movement. The alternatives he was referring to were the ones available to the City in amending the official map on a larger scale to provide a second point of access not only to Grays Lane but to the subdivision that may develop in the future to the east.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the official map for the northwest one-quarter of Section 19 not be amended as illustrated after a public hearing.
Commissioner Siira second. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Grace Lutheran Church was requesting Plan Commission approval of a certified survey map that would subdivide the property at 8537 S. Pennsylvania Avenue into parcels of 10.86 and 14.4 acres. The 10.86 acre parcel is the location of the Belmont Grove subdivision, for which a preliminary plat was approved by the Commission in August of last year.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know what parcel the subdivision was being proposed on. Mr. Seymour stated it was proposed on parcel 2.
Commissioner Foeckler motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the property at 8537 S. Pennsylvania Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Siira seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting that the property at 211 E. Oak Street be rezoned from Rs-2, Single Family Residential to I-1, Institutional to expand the church parking lot.
Tim Finke, T.L.Finke and Associates, explained to the commission that the church is aware of the contingencies on the property but did not want to commit at this time to anything specific. The church has a meeting planned to discuss this issue.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if the church was intending to use the house as a school or for classrooms of any type.
Mr. Finke stated there are no plans to make it a school building of any kind. If there were to be school planned in the future it would be an addition to the church building.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to make it clear that if the church intended to use the building for classes it would have to hook up to the sanitary sewer across the street.
Commissioner Kopplin motioned that the Commission recommend to the common Council that the property at 211 E. Oak Street be rezoned from Rs-2, Single Family Residential to I-1, Institutional after a public hearing.
Commissioner Marhal second. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Capstone Quadrangle was requesting Plan Commission approval of site, building and landscaping plans for the Capstone Business Center at Creekside, a 91,364 square foot multi-tenant office and warehouse building in the Creekside Corporate Park.
Mr. Mike Faber, Capstone Quadrangle, explained to the Commission what they were looking to do with the site and the reasoning for the relocation of the road and the modifications they have made to their building to have it fit the site. He also explained that they would be looking for a variance from the DOT setback to allow them to have a larger building. If they were to get the variance they would bring the building plan back before the plan commission to add the twenty feet to the building. The walls of the building would have knockout panels to add windows and doors for potential tenants if needed.
Mr. Seymour wanted to know if the evergreens were moved to the ends of the building to maintain visibility from the freeway. Mr. Faber explained that the only place that you would be able to see the site on the surface would be from southbound I-94. There will be some vegetation along the western property boundary but most of the landscaping will be to the sides and front of the building.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know if the three bump out sections of the front of the building are the same height as the main building. Mr. Faber stated they are about three feet taller to help break up the façade and help those elements feel more like the office portion of the building. The tops of the sections will a hefty relief of stepped back cornice.
Mayor Bolender asked how many businesses could be housed in this building. Mr. Faber stated at the most four light assembly or light manufacturing or warehouse businesses.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know if the maximum number of bay doors would be twelve. Mr. Faber stated that for flexibility they show twelve bays but they will have knockout panels in the event that they need to add or relocated bays as necessary.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know if they anticipated any traffic problems with twelve bays. Mr. Faber explained that trucks would come in and be able to back in over their left shoulder and leave along the property line with a shared driveway with the other lot. With the ease of coming in and out he did not anticipate a problem.
Commissioner Siira questioned how this development would impact the area to the south of this development. In the original general development plan the truck courts were to be between the two big boxes along the freeway. The fact that these are moved along the freeway is acceptable with this building but the concern is with the same truck dock configuration continuing down to the future building to the south. If that pattern were to be continued he would like to be assured that there would be no semi truck traffic along the berm.
Michael DeMichelle, DeMattia Group, explained that the there were no residences equal to the land to the south. He could not anticipate what would happen on the parcel to the south.
Commissioner Siira stated that he thought the proposal in front of the Commission was a nicely designed building but was concerned with what might be happening on the parcel to the south in the future. The original plan for the entire development was to shield the truck court to the adjacent residential areas with the buildings and the berm.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know if the HVAC equipment would be hidden on top of the building. Mr. Faber stated that the HVAC would be placed back far enough on the building that it would not be visible and would also be hidden by the bump outs.
Mr. Faber showed the Commission the building material samples and explained the color layout.
Commissioner Siira asked for clarification of the location of glass on the building. Mr. Faber stated there would be glass on both corners and along the upper east side of the building. They would like to leave the lower windows out only in the center sections until the building was leased.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know the height difference between this building and the first building in the park. Mr. Faber stated this building would be considerably taller.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know the initial planting size of the secondary façade areas. Mr. Faber stated the concept was a soldier like fashion with very tall trees but was not sure at this time how tall they would be initially. He believes they would be 2.5” caliper maples to start.
Mr. Faber requested that they be allowed to have a standard monument sign facing the street and above each of the tenant entrances. They would also like to have signage facing the freeway on the west side of the building. They would be looking for a conceptual approval of signage at this point.
Mr. Seymour explained that the proper way to do that would be to incorporate some language into a revised PUD document.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that he was not adverse to allowing extra signage given the location of the building and the ability to attract quality tenants.
Mr. Don Schatzen, 9210 S. 8th Avenue, wanted to know if this building would be illuminated at night for safety. Mr. Seymour stated there are wall packs on the side of the building as well as individual lighting for the parking lot, which serves as secondary street lighting for the private drive.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Plan Commission approve the site, building and landscaping plans for the Capstone Business Center at Creekside Corporate Park subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Siira seconds.
Mr. Seymour explained that the motion allows for the flexibility for the window placement on the elevations.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the tightly spaced upper windows would stay as shown.
Chuck Koehler, 901 W. Ryan Road, Alderman, stated that he had concerns for leaving the center windows as knockouts on the lower portion. He would like to see some windows and doors placed in at this time. He was also concerned that there was no anchor tenant at this time.
Mr. Faber stated that they would try but in the current market place it helps to have the building up to attract the tenants.
Alderman Koehler was also concerned with the truck traffic with the building to the south and he did not want to see the traffic to close to the residential area.
Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Ryan Road Storage was requesting Plan Commission approval of revised site and building plans for 14 buildings of self-storage for the property at 840 W. Ryan Road.
Commissioner Kopplin asked why the buildings were moved closer to Ryan Road. Mr. Seymour explained that the Cummins site was larger than the original Kendor site, which displaced some of the units that would have gone behind their building.
Commissioner Kopplin stated she did not want to see the buildings come that close to Ryan Road.
Mr. Ray Leffler, Ryan Road Storage, explained that the original Kendor site was 3.25 acres and the Cummins site is 3.81 acres. The Cummins site is about a half an acre larger because they needed the additional land for a turning radius for the trucks to be able to maneuver through the lot. With the Kendor plan there would have been 444 units and with the Cummins plan there would only be 428 storage units. From the property line 220 feet back is where the first building starts.
Commissioner Siira asked if the house would face the west. Mr. Leffler explained that it would be facing the west and would be a brick building. All of the storage units would have gabled roofs and a decade 90 block to match the Cummins building.
Commissioner Siira expressed concern for the caretakers building and elevations for the rest of the building. He also expressed concern for the three different end walls of the storage buildings that face Ryan Road. He would like to see the caretakers building conceal more of the storage units similar to the development on 76th Street and Ryan Road. Mr. Leffler explained that all three of the buildings have been changed to have gable roofs to look uniform. There would not be a lean-to building look to the buildings. There will be three different widths to the buildings, which give the buildings some dimension.
Mr. Seymour explained that if the Commission did endorse the revised site plan that it should be conditional upon the removal of the overhead doors from the southern elevation of any of the buildings. Mr. Leffler stated that there are not any overhead doors on the south elevation. There will be two doors on either of the other sides of the buildings.
Mr. Siira wanted to know what the south elevation of the office building would look like. Mr. Leffler stated it would have some windows in it and he could shift the front of the building to the south if the Commission wanted to see that.
Commissioner Marhal stated Cummins would be the dominant structure. He also stated that he would like to see the office building facing the south. Mr. Leffler stated they would shift the office building to face the south.
Mr. Chuck Koehler, Alderman 4th District, wanted to know what type of roof construction would be on the buildings. Mr. Leffler stated it would be a standing metal seam roof.
Alderman Koehler stated he would like to see some false glass block windows on the south elevations to break up the blank façade. Mr. Leffler stated they could do that.
Commissioner Siira asked Alderman Koehler what his opinion on the fence along the west property line being incorporated into the structures. Alderman Koehler wanted to see the fence on the property line as opposed to incorporating it into the building.
Mayor Bolender stated the idea of a fence makes it to institutionalized. Alderman Koehler would like to see the fence for security purposes and aesthetic purposes.
Mr. Leffler explained the fence would be a classy style six-foot high wrought iron fence not a chain link fence.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that he would not be in favor of this development based on his past opposition of the project. This is a poor use of green space in the City of Oak Creek to put asphalt and fourteen building for a business that would provide few jobs.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Commission approve the revised site and building plans for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal requested clarification to condition No. 5. Does the Commission want to see the fence incorporated into the buildings or be run along the entire west property line. Commissioner Siira stated he believed the motion called for a fence around the entire west property line.
Mr. Seymour clarified that the staff recommendation was to not have a complete fence on the west property line. For clarification on the motion Mr. Seymour asked Commissioner Siira if he was revising his motion to remove bullet No. 5. Commissioner Siira so moved.
Commissioner Kopplin seconds. Roll call, Dickmann aye, Peterson aye, Marhal aye, Siira aye, Foeckler nay, Bolender aye, Kopplin aye, Correll aye, and Jackson aye.
Commissioner Kopplin moved to adjourn. Commissioner Dickmann second. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.