MINUTES OF THE
OAK CREEK
Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Marhal, Commissioner Siira, Commissioner Kopplin, Mayor Bolender, Commissioner Foeckler, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson. Also present were Director of Community Development Douglas Seymour and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.
Commissioner Siira motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 9, 2003. Commissioner Kopplin seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the September 2, 2003, Common Council meeting. No comments or concerns from the Commission
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Gabaldon Properties-OCD Partners, LLC was requesting approval of a certified survey map and approval of a planned unit development designation for the properties at 8903, 8959 and 8989 S. Howell Avenue.
Mr. Charles Gabaldon, Gabaldon Properties, explained that the site was an 18-acre parcel immediately north of the Kohl’s department store. It is currently vacant with the exception of two residential homes that would be demolished with the development. The proposal would be to change the property lines of the parcels to create three parcels. Parcel one would be the Target store owned by the Target Corporation and parcels 2 and 3 would be owned by Gabaldon Properties for development.
The proposal would be to put Target on the west side of the parcel. They are currently working with Kohl’s department store to bring in two access drives to tie the two developments together. Both retailers are together in many developments across the country and are very complimentary to each other. Together they would create a strong retail presence and would create a focus in the city center area. There are right of ways on the back of the property that would align with a future road that would be built. It comes across the Kohl’s department store from the south and would connect the condo development all the way to Centennial Drive.
Mr. Gabaldon explained the parking lot layout and the layout of the detention facilities. Man made detention ponds and a forebay would be constructed on the west side of the site to accommodate the westerly two-thirds of the site. Water would drain into the detention basin and settle and then drain into an existing wetland area. It would be functional and practical for the site leaving green space and natural amenities that would be preserved.
On the front of the site there will be two commercial outlots. Outlot A could be a 19,000 to 20,000 square foot building and outlot B has the potential for a 7,000 to 10,000 square foot building. Both of the outlot buildings are meant to be single story buildings. They would add curb appeal to Howell Avenue. Mr. Gabaldon explained what types of tenants he would be looking to market the outlots to and what they would add to the project and to the City of Oak Creek.
Ms. Jana Bean, Site Development Manager for the Target Corporation, explained that the proposed building would be a 124,000 square foot general merchandise building. There would be about 150 employees and the Target Corporation would be spending about $300,000 in the community on building supplies. They would be looking to open the building in March 2005. Store hours would be from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sundays. Target contributes approximately 5% of its federally taxed income for community involvement programs. There would be many other opportunities for the Target Corporation to help the community and its schools.
The building would be a non-prototypical building that would be above and beyond. They will be congruent with the Kohl’s store. The entrance will be on the right hand side and there will be architectural interest on the front of the building and the vestibule will be protruding with colored concrete along the front and bulls eye stamps for more architectural interest. There will be a pedestrian area along the building with landscaping to help provide screening for the store. There will be brick banding areas on the front of the store up to eight feet high. Ms. Bean continued to explain the areas of brick and colored concrete that would be on the building from the elevations that were provided to the Commission.
Mr. Seymour explained that the first item was a certified survey map that Gabaldon Properties was requesting to redivide the properties at 8903, 8959 and 8989 S. Howell Avenue. The three properties would be subdivided into parcels of 12. 1572, 1.7066, 2.2721 and .6374 acres. Commercial outlots do not mean that it is not a buildable parcel. They are buildable outlots to the anchor store and would be zoned commercial business.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned what the setback along the highway should be. Mr. Paul Phillips, R.A. Smith, explained that they were requesting a variance from the state on the fifty-foot setback to a ten-foot setback. Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if the project could move forward if the variance was not granted. Mr. Phillips stated that they would be able to meet the fifty-foot setback.
Alderwoman Ann Lampe, 3rd District, expressed her concerns for the intersection at Centennial and Howell Avenue and wanted to know if traffic signals at the intersection could be part of the development agreement if the State did not recommend them. Mr. Seymour assured her that the State would require that installation of traffic signals as part of this development.
Mr. Gabaldon explained that he has been working with the Department of Transportation and have conducted their own traffic impact analysis. They have presented it to the Department of Transportation for a stop light at Centennial and Howell. They fully intend to see a stop light at that intersection because it is the right thing to do and would focus the customers in and out of the area.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the opening of the store would be contingent on Aspen Avenue going through to Centennial. Mr. Seymour explained that with a March 2005 opening date the road should be in prior to that date. The key is that the City’s agreement with Continental Properties allows them a year after notification to accomplish the physical construction of the road.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the use of Aspen Avenue for trucks and customers. Mr. Seymour explained that the sight plan is more conducive for customers entering from Centennial drive or southbound Howell Avenue. He explained that the key for all retail developments is connectivity. If you are at one of the two stores you can get to the other store without going onto Howell Avenue.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that truck drivers do not always follow the signs and to protect the residents that there be a sign that would not allow turns going further south on Centennial. Mr. Seymour stated that if signage would help the situation there should not be problem with the posting of a sign.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned if it would only be a right turn in and out of the Target parking lot. Mr. Seymour stated that was correct. There would be no median opening on Howell Avenue. They would be using the existing opening on Centennial Drive.
Commissioner Siira questioned if there would be provisions within the site and the parking lot that accommodate pedestrian traffic. Mr. Seymour stated the sidewalk along Centennial Drive would be the primary means of access and it would be a short stint from the sidewalk along Centennial to the main entrance to the building. There would also be areas of landscaping in the parking lot that would allow for an internal path from Howell Avenue, but as far as pedestrian traffic is concerned the sidewalk along Centennial Drive and the connection at the store entrance would be a more feasible alternative.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the access point from Kohl’s would have a sidewalk access. Mr. Seymour stated there would be no sidewalk at that location.
Commissioner Siira questioned if a cross access easement would be needed with Kohl’s or was Kohl’s fully supportive of the access. Mr. Seymour explained that an access easement would be required from Continental Properties and that was provided for in review of the Kohl’s store.
Commissioner Kopplin asked for senior citizen only parking areas in the parking lot.
Commissioner Jackson requested a copy of the traffic plan that was presented to the State. Mr. Phillips stated the traffic study was done by Traffic Analysis and Design and a copy would be given to the City.
Mr. Seymour explained that the detailed site plans were not being approved at this time but that only the land division and a recommendation for a planned unit development were being considered at this time.
Commissioner Jackson questioned if the curb sweeps matched on Aspen Avenue. Mr. Phillips explained that he noticed that and would fix the CSM to match the site plan.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know what would be going on the outlots and then suggested that an Outback or a Pinara’s go on these sites.
Mr. Gabaldon stated that he has done business with the tenants that the Mayor mentioned and they do maintain active relationships with those types of tenants and are aware of the expansion plans of those types of tenants.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the wetland mitigation would be provided at another area in town. Mr. Seymour explained that the City was working with the applicant to locate other sites within the City and the Oak Creek watershed that would fulfill the requirement for mitigation of the wetlands.
Ms. Jana Bean explained that Target Corporation was currently looking within the City of Oak Creek for sites. Because of the coordination of this that is why the Corporation is looking at the 2005 opening date and not a late 2004 date.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the properties at 8903, 8959 and 8989 S. Howell Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained that Gabaldon Properties-OCD Partners, LLC was requesting approval of a planned unit development designation for the properties at 8903, 8959 and 8989 S. Howell Avenue. The principal reason for the request in this situation is for the reduction of parking spaces and for some leniency in terms of the sign code.
It is the proposal of the applicant to provide five parking spaces per every 1,000 gross square of retail for the Target store. They feel it provides them with the appropriate number of parking spaces. With respect to signage there is a proposal for a pole sign on one of the outlots and that would require a PUD.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if the wetlands were mitigated and if the wetlands were to be used for storage of stormwater off site who would maintain the mitigated wetland and who would own the wetland.
Mr. Seymour explained that would have to be worked out. If they chose a site that was under the control of the City there would need to be some agreement that would dictate those types of issues.
Ms. Bean stated as part of their permit the applicant for the wetlands mitigation would be required to maintain and make sure that the plant materials are growing and in tact for three to five years. Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know what would happen after the three to five years. Mr. Seymour stated that the goal would be to establish wetlands that were self-supporting and would require no maintenance. Ms. Bean stated Target Corp. has a property management group that maintains all of their facilities and once a mitigation site is locked into they would be able to provide more information.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the properties at 8903, 8959 and 8989 S. Howell Avenue be granted a planned unit designation after a public hearing.
Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that The Legacy Development Company was requesting Plan Commission review of a conceptual plan for a 25 lot single-family subdivision at 2021 E. Drexel Avenue.
Mr. John Helding, Legacy Development Company, explained that they would be looking to put in 25 single-family homes with half acres lots. The parcel of land is difficult to develop because it is narrow and because of the length of the street. The road to the south would connect to Forest Hill and the strip is a City owned piece that they are looking at to connect to Forest Hill. He also explained that he received one call from a neighbor who was concerned about traffic coming out onto Oak Ridge Lane and he recognizes that it is a concern but until the whole neighborhood is developed this would be the only outlet to Drexel Avenue at this time. There would be more traffic but only from 25 additional lots which should not be too much for a city street. Currently they are asking for the rezone because of the fact that several of the lots are close to the 115 feet but cannot make it and that would be the reason for the rezone. As far as the density they are well below with close to one lot per acre with a 24-acre parcel and 25 lots proposed. The strip that goes out to Drexel they would propose to sell to a neighbor as an addition to one of their lots.
Mr. Dave Borchardt, Landcraft Engineering, explained that they would also propose to rezone that lot to Rs-4 if possible and if not divide it among the adjacent landowners.
Mr. Helding stated it was not an important issue at this point and they were looking for input at this time.
Mayor Bolender questioned how wide the strip of land was. Mr. Helding stated it was 93 feet. Mayor Bolender stated that he had a problem with that.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the number of lots that were proposed on the north end of the parcel. Mr. Helding explained there would be four lots on the north end and that the lot on Drexel was new to him and he did not feel it would make a very desirable lot.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the triangle shaped parcel on the south end of the parcel was a proposed lot. Mr. Helding explained it was an outlot that was only 4500 square feet. Mr. Seymour explained that it could be set up as a possible recombination with future redivision of the lands to the south if that would every happen.
Mr. Helding explained that the Legacy Development Company has created conservation subdivisions in Racine County with clustered homes and open space. Mayor Bolender wanted to know where they were. Mr. Helding stated they have done the Old Field Settlement, which is on Bell Road, The Ponds of Caledonia – phase 1 and phase 2, which are a half-mile east of I-94 on Highway G. They held the parade of homes there last year with ten area homebuilders participating. It was the first parade of homes in the Caledonia area that was endorsed by the Milwaukee Builders Association. They have also done Woodland Pines, which is a single-family condominium development with 20 units on 10 acres. It was on a wooded area and they were able to preserve 5 of the 10 acres in woods.
This particular development does not lend itself to the conservation development. They were looking at the whole piece but could not come to an agreement on the rest of the land. The parcel that he is working with would create a nice backdrop for homes.
Mayor Bolender questioned if on the north end at the top if that would be a lot. Mr. Helding stated that it would not. He would either create an outlot there or would try to sell it to the neighbors to add to their lots.
Commissioner Kopplin asked if the proposed road coming out onto Forest Hill was going to be on the parcel that the City bought. Mr. Seymour stated that it was the parcel that the City bought for watermain purposes. The City acquired that parcel as part of a watermain project along Forest Hill.
Commissioner Siira questioned the difference between the existing residential lots and the proposed development. Mr. Seymour explained that the minimum home area is actually greater in the Rs-2 zoning than it is in the Rs-1 zoning. Given a half-acre lot he does not expect to see anywhere near the minimum square footages that are required by the Code but expects to see quite a bit more. It is very rare that they see anything approaching the minimums in the City these days.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know if Mr. Helding had any other concepts in mind at this time. Mr. Helding explained that he looked at a lot of different concepts and this is the one they are presenting at this time. He stated he felt three outlets from this area would be too many. There would be two more proposed on the parcels to the west and they get close together if you do them all.
Alderwoman Lampe commented that she received calls regarding the proposed road out to Forest Hill. Because Forest Hill is a straight shot the residents have enough problems with traffic on their road and they do not want this proposed road to go in. They would rather see a development with roads out in the future development to the west.
Mr. Seymour questioned if Mr. Helding planned on physically making the connection as part of this development or if it was shown as a future connection to Forest Hill. Mr. Helding replied at this time it is a possibility that they could have done that but would be happy not to make the connection
Alderwoman Lampe stated from what she could see only 5 of the 25 lots meet the minimum lot width. She would like the Plan Commission to remember that even though a half-acre if a very big lot by standards in Oak Creek this is zoned Rs-1 and they are pursuing it knowing that it is Rs-1. The City has very little Rs-1 land left in Oak Creek and she worries about this becoming Rs-2 and spreading farther west into the land to the west.
Mayor Bolender stated that he would not see this parcel rezoned into Rs-2. It would be 115 feet half acre lots. It would be a half-acre haven and the City would not welcome with open arms smaller and less spacious areas. The City is half developed and he will see that the other half gets a fair shake. Mayor Bolender also stated he would not go with changing this and if the people up here (Plan Commission) want it to happen then he will have a little argument with them. Mayor Bolender stated he is going to set a different standard than what was previously set in this community and the message is bring back something that makes more sense than this proposal.
Mr. Helding asked if he could get some in put on the road connections. Mayor Bolender stated they were going to stop the racetrack effect on roads in Oak Creek. Every time you dump a heavy subdivision into a road the people who live on the road can’t get out of their driveways. It is nice that we want to have people exit their subdivision and get onto the expressway. The people who live here have a standard that they would like to maintain and that is why they came to Oak Creek. The new slogan is going to be “Where the City meets the Country”. He also stated that he has a problem with dumping a lot of traffic onto Forest Hill because the road is not setup for heavy traffic.
Mr. Helding explained they followed the neighborhood plan on the bottom and if that is not the way they want it then they will definitely redesign the proposal. Mayor Bolender stated he would have to lose some of the houses and go with the existing rules because he was not going to rezone into a smaller acreage for the benefit of a few.
Mr. Helding wanted to know if they would like to see a cul-de-sac on the south end versus a street coming out to Forest Hill. Mayor Bolender stated he was not fond of cul-de-sacs because of the Fire Department. If a cul-de-sac would fit and he could come up with a plan that the Mayor and the Plan Commission deemed feasible for the neighborhood they would take a look at it. This is an older established neighborhood and the intrusion of Mr. Helding’s development would land with a bang and Mayor Bolender wants it to slide in.
Mr. Helding stated from his understanding the Mayor wanted him to come back with a plan that has the correct frontage, the correct Rs-1 zoning requirements with the existing neighborhood plan for streets or a plan for something on the south end instead of a proposed street. Mayor Bolender stated that he would like him to have, as little impact on one street as is possible. You can dump the whole development onto one street and that is the easiest way. When he looks at a subdivision that has kids walking to bus stops and you dump 25 more homes you have 50 cars blowing out of there every morning. He fears that amount of traffic into the subdivision already. That is like mixing alcohol and gasoline and he would like it to have less impact on the community that is already established in the area if it is possible.
Mr. Earl Hoffman, 2040 E. Forest Hill Avenue, his property backs up to the proposed road coming out to Forest Hill. The City put in designated laterals coming in off of the water line at the time of installation to access his property. If you put in a cul-de-sac it would land lock the west side of his property. He agrees there is too much traffic on Forest Hill.
Mr. Larry Dreher, 8121 S. Long Meadow Drive, stated he was concerned with the current traffic on Long Meadow Drive and did not want to see more traffic put on his street.
Mr. Brad Shawnda, 2009 E. Forest Hill Avenue, stated he was against coming out onto Forest Hill Avenue. He thought that Drexel could support more traffic than Forest Hill Avenue.
Ms. Penny Seidner, 2136 E. Forest Hill Avenue, expressed her concern for the traffic on Forest Hill Avenue. There is no parking on Forest Hill and the traffic has already increased because of the subdivisions to the east. With the possibility of 25 lots there could be upwards of 200 cars per day could be coming onto Forest Hill from the development and would cause major problems. She would like to see the access to Forest Hill removed.
Mr. John Brooks, 8231 S. Wood Ridge Drive, stated he felt the City needed to aggressively pursue developments of this type. He stated Oak Creek was losing ground to cities like Franklin and Muskego and the City needed to give the green light to high-end developments such as this.
Mr. Jim Merkel, 1825 E. Drexel Avenue, stated the road out to Drexel Avenue would not be a good idea because there is a hill that crests and you cannot see cars coming.
Commissioner Kopplin reiterated that the road to Drexel Avenue would be a potential problem because of the hill.
Mr. Lou Hirlemann, 8080 Long Meadow Drive, stated Long Meadow Drive was not a straight road and that at night it was difficult to see the road and it would not be a safe condition to add more traffic on the road.
Mr. Scott Nienow, 8050 S. Grewen Drive, questioned if the area to the west was in a flight path and was entitled to any abatement. Mr. Seymour explained the entire area was affected by airport noise and anything that would develop in the area the County would likely require that a notation be noted on the plat so that anyone purchasing homes in the area would be aware that it is subject to increased flight noise because it is in a flight path.
Commissioner Kopplin explained that there was a part 151 study being done at the airport but that it would take another year to two years to complete. Prior to that on the north side of Drexel the airport did buy one parcel of land.
Ms. Debbie Griffin, 7921 S. Long Meadow Drive, expressed her concern for the traffic onto her street from Drexel Avenue with the development.
Mr. Louie Sprague, 2201 E. Oak Ridge Lane, stated the most compelling argument was the one that highlighted the fact that the developer was taking advantage of a sliver of land and trying to expedite building it to quickly get a buck at the cost of everybody who comes in contact with it.
Alderwoman Lampe reminded the Commission that the proposed street pattern to the west had the correct frontage. If it was possible in that area why can’t it be possible in the proposed area?
Mr. Helding thanked the Commission for the feedback and stated he would look at coming out onto Drexel if the site distances would allow for it. He also stated that the only deviation from the neighborhood plan was that E. Green Valley Lane was teed instead of going through and wanted to know if the Commission had any comments on that particular street.
Mr. Seymour stated the connections are maintained very close to what was on the official map at this time and very close to what was on the official map when Highland Meadows developed. It was really the intention to extend Oak Ridge Land and Green Valley Lane. It is not that much of a change from the adopted street pattern. The comments are valid with respect to lot width and it is important to note that the lots do meet half-acre minimums and are substantially larger than probably 95% of the lots in Oak Creek. It is also important to note with traffic patterns that these are subdivision streets that are designed as subdivision streets and can accommodate the traffic from an additional 25 homes. People will take exception to that but it is a fact. Traffic is not supposed to be going 40 or 50 miles per hour and maybe another means of controlling that needs to be looked at. The City has to work with everyone involved, the neighbors and the property owners and come up with a plan that makes sense for flow of traffic and pedestrians within the neighborhood. He would hope that no one walks away with the idea that there will be no connection to Highland Meadows because that is highly unlikely.
Alderwoman Lampe stated that if someone owns property and it is zoned a certain zoning and the developer meets all the requirements for that zoning they have the right to build on that land. That is the law and they have the right. We do not have the responsibility to change the zoning to make it possible for someone to build on land. You might state that it is more than half an acre and substantially larger lots but why do we have to go by only half of the criteria. Mr. Seymour stated he was not endorsing proposed rezoning. Alderwoman Lampe wanted the Commission to remember that the Council just looked at all of the lot sizes and in a couple cases increased what the size would be so that lots would be bigger in Oak Creek. We would be selling ourselves short to say well each lot is only a few feet less to make it economically feasible for developer when the surrounding properties believe that this should be zoned Rs-1. Mr. Seymour explained that looking at it preliminarily there would be about four fewer lots.
Mr. Seymour explained he just did not want people to walk away from this meeting thinking that there would not be anything connecting with Highland Meadows because that would not be the case.
Commissioner Dickmann stated that until the area to the west was developed so that you have more roads going out of there the vehicles go through on Oak Ridge and Green Valley and everything ends up on Long Meadow. Long Meadow would then be acting as a feeder street instead of a subdivision street. When the entire area is developed then the pressure would come off of Long Meadow. We cannot hold it until the area to the west is developed but would like to see it developed as a package.
Mr. Helding stated he would try to stick as close to the neighborhood plan as possible. They did try to purchase the rest of the property but it was not for sale at this time. They will be pursuing this and will follow the guidelines that the Commission has laid before them.
Commissioner Kopplin expressed concern for lowering the lot sizes and lowering the lot sizes in the entire area.
Commissioner Correll stated it was clear it would be Rs-1 or it would not pass through the Commission.
Mayor Bolender commented that Oak Creek once had a great plan they were going to have equestrian areas, and spacious lots and they keep cutting their throats. We seem to enjoy making ourselves miserable. He has a very definite plan in mind about getting into some real quality in Oak Creek. Every time he says half-acre lots a lot of guys jump up and down and say it is not real development. It is called real quality of life and we have a very beautiful area and we have 50% left and we can screw it up and curse ourselves afterwards or we can stop and take a look at what we really want and what the people want. People move to Oak Creek for a certain reason and when we destroy that reason they will move some place else and we will be stuck with somebody else. He has a vision for the City and it is that we not cram as much as we can on every acre because we keep lowering the standards to make people happy. We are going to start making the people who are here already happy versus the people that want to come here and do things and we should agree with it. He requested the developer go back and really go through this because he is not going to accept anything less than half-acre lots.
Alderwoman Lampe requested extended notification to include the entire subdivision on the corner and the houses along Forest Hill if anything else comes up with this development.
Mr. Seymour explained that this item is a revised site and building plan for 14 buildings of self-storage for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road. The Plan Commission approved the plans for this development earlier this year. One of the conditions of that approval was that the plans were revised to increase the setback along Ryan Road to the previously approved distance of 248 feet (to the office) (318 feet to the first storage building).
The applicants have indicated that they were not made aware of this condition, and have proceeded with their development plans based on the original plans that were presented to the Commission, showing a setback of 154 feet to the office (224 feet to the first storage building). They are requesting that the approval of the Plan Commission be modified to reflect the 154-foot setback.
Mr. Ray Leffler, Ryan Road Storage, explained that there was some confusion on his part at the meeting in May. He did receive the Plan Commission report that listed the five conditions that were talked about. Most of them they were fine with and a lot of time was spent on the setback requirement. He stated that he explained his position and what he was looking for and thought that he had a favorable response based on the presentation. It was different than what was in the May 27, 2003 letter. They went ahead in July with their plans because they did not receive a follow up letter with the conditions. There was a letter sent out on June 13, 2003, to Jeff Grahl at Ott Development with the same seven conditions that was sent to him. The letter was never forwarded to Mr. Leffler so they submitted plans for DNR approval and storm sewer and sewer and water and got approvals from the departments. It was built the way the plan was submitted to the Engineering Department and to the State and everyone else. That was under the pretence that they could move forward on the setback, that was one of the main issues. They came in for building permits in August and thought everything was running smoothly and were very surprised. He stated he met with Alderman Koehler and talked about some different things as far as setbacks. He showed pictures of the Cummins site and overlaid the Ryan Road Storage site plan so the Commission could see the setbacks in relation to the Cummins site plan. Mr. Leffler pointed out that the elevations for the buildings in the staff report were not the correct elevations because they had agreed to change the elevations at the May 14 meeting. He showed samples of the brick that was going to be used and the block that was going to be used on the west side. He stated that he knew they had to have an all brick wall on the west sidewall and the southerly front. He also stated that he knew that the caretaker building needed to be turned and that the doors on building 2 were being removed. The color combinations would include a hunter green roof. The infrastructure was all in and they would be getting sewer and water, storm sewer and ponds. Everything was in according to the site plan that was submitted and installed the infrastructure the same way.
Mr. Seymour questioned if this was being done based on the building permit for Cummins because he never actually received a building permit. Mr. Leffler replied that the whole site plan submitted had joint site costs between Cummins and Ryan Road Storage to the tune of a half million dollars putting in the storm sewer which was all in at this time according to the plan.
Mr. Leffler explained that the overhead doors and the caretakers’ quarters had been moved and there are separate addresses as indicated at the May 14, 2003, meeting. There is also a revised lighting plan and the landscaping plan has been submitted. The grading plan has been submitted and accepted. The only issue is the setback requirement.
Mr. Seymour clarified that all the conditions approved by the Plan Commission were addressed accept for the one condition. They were aware of the other conditions accept for the first one. They have all worked together and have tried to make this development compatible with the area. Someone screwed up and it is not fair for the Commission to go back and say because that happened now we are going to go back and back track on an approval that was already made. It is unfortunate and the Commission is able to come to its own judgement on that but he would have a hard time seeing circumstances under which the original plan with the lessened setbacks would be a benefit to the site and the community.
Mr. Leffler explained that they were trying to work with Alderman Koehler and he had brought up some suggestions of changing the westerly two buildings and taking a section out and leaving the setback the same.
Mayor Bolender questioned what the screw up was. Mr. Seymour explained that the miscommunication that occurred was that the developers of the infrastructure for the site and the ordering of materials for the buildings did not take into account the Commissions increased setbacks and ordered the site and materials based on the proposed plan by the applicants. He pointed out that the graphics showed that the setback that was approved by the Plan Commission was 248 feet to the office and 318 feet to the first building. The proposal is substantially less than that. The actions that were taken were based on erroneous information and a plan that was not approved by the Commission. It was clearly a different plan that was approved by the Commission. The subsequent actions by those that were ordering materials or developing the site did not reflect the correct approved site plan.
Mr. Leffler stated that they never submitted a site plan reflecting 248 feet, which was a requirement from the May 27 letter. That was a recommendation that was made in the letter and approved by the Plan Commission on the 27th and he thought the amended one was the plan that was accepted. That is why when he did not get the letter until August he was not aware of that condition. He made a plea at the meeting and it sounded like he had some positive responses in May that it was an acceptable alternative. He did not know until August that when he applied for the building permits that it was not accepted. He has never done a plan layout showing anything back at 248 or 318 feet. It was in the letter of May 27th as a recommendation coming from Doug. They were looking as an alternative to the setbacks to taking some buildings out of the two westerly buildings. They are trying to live with some of the infrastructure that was put in. There is no way they would have put in a half million dollars of infrastructure if it was not going to work. They would not have started that portion of the project considering they have shared costs with the Cummins project for the site for grading, drainage and the whole works if they had known that.
Mr. Seymour asked what infrastructure specifically was put in that was in excess of that with which would have been required for the plan that was approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. Leffler explained that it would have taken the plan back approximately 90 feet and that would mean that all of the units would be chopped off by 1/3.
Mr. Seymour asked what infrastructure was put in place that would have gone to waste had he built it according to the approved plan. Mr. Leffler stated that they probably would not have put, as much storm sewer and hydrants and water location could have been different at this point. There are a number of different things they could have done in a looping system that still would have functioned without moving as much dirt. The ponds would still be needed.
Mr. Seymour stated that it was a minimal amount and the real question is that they are losing units. Mr. Leffler stated that was an important consideration.
Commissioner Marhal wanted to know if Mr. Leffler had calculated the future impact of the loss of the units in rent. Mr. Leffler stated it would greatly impact the whole facility. It would be a loss of a 1/3 of the buildings and one of them is a climate-controlled building that has inside entry. More lights would have to go in on the driveway and a number of different things.
Mr. Seymour stated the adjustment needed to be made because of the size of the parcel that Cummins was buying was substantially greater than what Kendor would have bought. He explained that some of the loss of income would be picked up in the sale of the land to Cummins. These are all factors that were considered when the Commission made their approval to hold the original setbacks that were brought forward as part of the conditional use permit for the storage units.
Mr. Leffler stated one of the things that was done when they brought Kendor and then came back with the Cummins proposal was to sell the piece to Cummins for less than they could have sold it to Kendor because they knew at that time that they needed to have a good looking building on the site. That was a condition that they heard many times coming back and forth many times. They made some suggestions and participated in some site work to get the Cummins site to come. They did do a lot of work with the Cummins people just so they could move forward. They are already down to 424 units on the site the way it is shown.
Commissioner Marhal stated that Cummins had a 127-foot setback. Mr. Leffler stated that it was actually 127 feet from back to curb. There is a 20-foot from curb to the right-of-way line. They are actually 107 feet from the right-of-way line.
Commissioner Marhal stated it was less than 154 feet. Mr. Seymour agreed. Commissioner Marhal wanted to know how that setback came about. Mr. Seymour explained that the setback was established for self-storage facilities because they are not the preferred method for developing properties in the City of Oak Creek. There are a lot of impacts associated with self service storage facilities and the Plan Commission and Common Council had to make some very careful considerations when deciding whether or not this property was appropriate for mini warehouses. One of the considerations was that this afforded the opportunity to develop the front and have the self-storage facilities in the back where they did not have the visual impact that they would have if developed along Ryan Road or even as proposed at this time. One of the things that tipped the scales in favor of the issuance of the conditional use permit is that it would have allowed the development of the storage units behind the commercial development. Had this site plan come in like this from day one he cannot be assured that it would have been allowed the conditional use permit.
Alderman Koehler explained that this was a tough call and he pushed for building standards on this parcel. He discussed it Mr. Leffler and given the history and the dealings with Mr. Leffler there was a glitch in the system and he did not receive the letter in time or he would have complied with the conditions. His main concern was the length of the front three buildings. Now that the pads are laid out and the infrastructure where it is he is stuck because he is not at the proper setbacks. He stated that he walked the site with Mr. Leffler and his solution would be to break up the two front buildings on the west end of the property line and make a green space area. It would break the long façade of the building and be a trade off for the setback from Ryan Road. He stated that he thought Cummins was too close to Ryan Road and that he wished he could push it back further. He does not feel that Mr. Leffler’s buildings being 70 feet closer would make a big difference if in fact he would break the buildings up.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know if Alderman Koehler was more concerned with the length of the buildings than as to how far south they were setback. Alderman Koehler replied that was correct he was concerned with the length of the buildings. He stated that he suggested that Mr. Leffler stagger the breaks to break up the lines of the buildings.
Commissioner Marhal questioned how many units would be sacrificed. Mr. Leffler stated about 6 or 8 units.
Commissioner Siira asked Mr. Leffler if he was at the May 27 meeting. Mr. Leffler stated he was at the meeting. Commissioner Siira stated he made the motion and the first condition of approval was the setback issue and it seems that he did not update his plan based on the conditions that were listed. It seems that the conditions were listed and that Mr. Leffler referenced the fact that he did not get a copy of the letter, which he assumes, means a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Seymour clarified that the letter went out the Mr. Jeff Grahl who was the contact person for Cummins and whether Ray was the contact for Ryan Road storage and Jeff for Cummins in the joint development may be the reason why Jeff was copied on the approval letter.
Commissioner Siira stated his point was that if Mr. Leffler was at the meeting it would seem that he would have had to leave the meeting with a clear understanding of what was talked about. Item number 1 was to increase the setback to 248 feet.
Mr. Leffler explained that it was an issue that was talked about and he thought he made a presentation of where the buildings would be set he thought they were okay with the setback that he had requested. There is no question he knew that it was on the May 27 letter when he came in because he had a copy of that ahead of time. At the meeting he tried to make the point on why he wanted them moved forward.
Mayor Bolender stated that they walked out with a clear understanding that we had pushed it back. He stated that he thought Mr. Siira was absolutely correct, ignorance is no excuse and the point is that he appreciates what the problem is but because a letter got sent to the wrong place and he will deal with that aspect later it just seems to him that they were pushing themselves and trying to find a way and yet it all seemed so clear when they walked out of the meeting. If there was a question and Mr. Leffler had the slightest feeling of discomfort with the situation a simple phone call could have probably really work out well. He stated that he could say that a letter should have been sent to somebody else but he knew that Mr. Leffler was at the meeting at the time of approval. It was very clear in his mind and that of the Commission that was the plan. You should be worried if you are digging trenches and putting pipe in the ground and were not sure of the approval. To just say I built it and now I need a change he has a problem with that. He has a problem with the accountability of different things. Mr. Leffler’s accountability an that of the City matters and a precedent would be set. If the pipes are in the wrong place we will just make it work. If there were questions they should have been answered in Mr. Leffler’s mind before he started. Just because he did not get a letter does not mean he can do what he wants.
Mr. Leffler explained that he did not do what he thought he wanted to. He submitted his final plans to the Engineering Department and spent weeks working with the DOT and his engineer had the same plan and if they had known about the setback they would have changed all the plans for submittal.
Commissioner Correll stated that the minutes reflect that Mr. Leffler explained at the May meeting that with the different sale amount to Cummins it would be fewer units and from the property line 220 feet back is where the first building starts. The rest of the notes do not bring up any conversation on that issue other than that it ends up as item one of the conditions. There was not a lot of conversation on that point but rather what the buildings were going to look like. If something was missed it was not clear-cut that it would be 248 feet back. A statement was made that it would be 220 feet back and no one challenged that point in the rest of the notes. It was a big error involving a lot of money but we need to be reasonable when we look at the notes from the meeting.
Commissioner Peterson stated that she shares the concern of the Commission that she does not see 254 feet in the minutes. The other seven conditions managed to be met how is it that the first was missed she has a hard time understanding that point. To simply break up buildings is a separate issue and we are talking about setbacks.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if revised site and building plans came back to someone in Planning or Engineering. Mr. Seymour replied that he never saw any revised site and building plans, which would not be uncommon until the application for building permits.
Mayor Bolender questioned if it came back to Engineering what would the channel of communication between Planning and Engineering. Mr. Seymour explained that when a building permit comes in for Cummins they look at the plans that were approved by the Plan Commission for Cummins. When it comes in you go back and look at what was approved by the Plan Commission and what conditions were attached to that approval and check that against the plans that were submitted and if it matches it get the blessing of Planning and if it does not it gets sent back. If there was infrastructure over and above what was required for Cummins he did not know if that the Engineering Department would necessarily look at the approved site plans for the self-storage units because it was just something that was being done as part of the development of the Cummins site. He would not speak for the Engineering Department because he was not part of that process. It is a case where you take a look at the plans that were approved for the site and make your recommendations and approvals accordingly.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if there was an opportunity for Mr. Leffler to come back to the Commission and submit a new plan and have this changed. He was concerned about the financial impact that Mr. Leffler may be facing as a result of the error.
Mr. Seymour stated that the Commission has the discretion to make revisions to the previously approved plans. He has expressed what he feels would be the most appropriate course of action for the City to pursue in this situation. He respects that there are differing opinions and he respects those opinions. If the Commission feels that a lesser setback is appropriate in this case he would be happy to work with Mr. Leffler to make that happen. His feeling should be clear that he feels the original setback should be held.
Commissioner Marhal explained that he believed that as you look at the plan that the storage facility would compliment Cummins facility. Cummins is too close to the road and Ryan Road storage will be aesthetically pleasing and the fence is aesthetically pleasing also. Going past the current Cummins facility you see trucks and smoke and moving the setbacks should be a benefit.
Commissioner Correll agreed that he was not part of the Commission that gave the lesser setback. Understanding that and looking at the aerial views he believes that Mr. Leffler did not do this intentionally. There is an error but we can improve on it with what we are doing with the change.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the Commission could make this a win win situation for both the City and Ryan Road Storage.
Mayor Bolender stated they should compromise the distance. Commissioner Marhal wanted to know if they were negotiating the setbacks.
Mayor Bolender stated that this was a nice situation that the City got it self into and he promised the Council and the Plan Commission something. He recently sat through another issue and now he is angry. The anger is towards accountability and he will get to the bottom of this situation and the way the City does business. Mr. Leffler is up the creek and the City is also so now we should compromise. He cannot take it out on Mr. Leffler but he can take it out on the lack of we just did not do this or maybe we did that or maybe this got screwed up. It is not going to be that way anymore, it is going to be guys you did it wrong and you get burned. He stated that who ever he had to burn he was going to. This situation is not going to happen again.
Mr. Seymour stated that he hated to take exception to what Mayor Bolender was saying but they could talk about it. To automatically pin it on staff is making a decision before he reviews the facts. There is one indisputable fact that, the Commission said one thing and thing and whoever did something else. It is not necessarily a problem with staff.
Commissioner Marhal stated he would like to make a motion. Mayor Bolender requested that he wait.
Mr. Jim O’Malley, 8536 River Terrace Drive, stated that he was at the May 27, 2003 meeting and the reference to the setback was the first thing brought up by Alderman Kopplin. Mr. Leffler did explain what the setback is on the site to make sure that what you were looking at was not what the setback was as pointed out in the first item. He stated that he did not know what the setback was to become. With the description of the property the Commission spent time discussing the fascia of the building being turned to face the front. In listening to the tapes from the meeting they did say in every response by the Commissioners that with that change the plan would be fine. The tape kept referring to this plan.
Mr. Seymour asked Mr. O’Malley what the tapes reflected when it came time for the motion. Mr. O’Malley replied that it said items number 1 –5 to be adopted and then went on to say what the other three conditions would be. Because he did not know what items number 1-5 were he did not take to know that item number 1, because it did not say specifically go item by item, what they were to be. The reference at the end was that it was approved with items 1-5 and the adding of numbers 6,7 and 8.
Mr. Seymour asked Mr. O’Malley if he did not know what the items were why was he satisfied with the motion. The Commission made a decision and Ryan Road had representation at the meeting when the decision was made. The decision was put down on paper. If it is found that the Planning Department made a mistake on this he would take responsibility for that, but he did not think that was what happened. The responsibility lies with Ryan Road Storage. The Commission can do what they feel is necessary but to maneuver it as a miscommunication and everything is okay may be counter productive to what the Common Council did when they passed the conditional use permit for this development.
Mr. O’Malley clarified that coming to the meeting there was not a meeting with Planning saying we understand what you are going to be requesting is putting it back further. The plan was presented at the meeting this way at the meeting. To discussion of the setback was a very quick discussion and then Mr. Leffler explained what was supposed to be in the front of the building. Although the actual area of land that Cummins is purchased is larger than the Kendor the Kendor by easement was actually larger because of the easement for additional parking in the front. The project is a wonderful tax base for the City because it does not create students, noise or any kind bad type neighbor.
Mr. Seymour explained that was why the Common Council authorized the issuance of a conditional use permit for that within the context of the original setback. It is very simple for those on the Plan Commission or Common Council, if they felt they would have approved the conditional use permit with that setback than vote yes and change it. If you don’t and feel the original setbacks are more appropriate than regrettably the original setbacks need to be held in this instance.
Alderwoman Lampe suggested that the Commission and the Council read each condition in full so that everyone is aware of what the original conditions are to be.
Mayor Bolender stated that his anger lies with the fact of the miscommunication and things like that. That he will deal with, but he has no problem with Mr. Leffler and can see his plight. He stated that he has seen to many of these. He understands that Mr. Seymour has a lot of work and maybe it needs to be addressed but we cannot let mistakes like this go on. It makes the City look like it is not doing its homework and makes certain departments look bad. The City needs to polish its appearance.
Alderwoman Lampe stated part of that is not the staffs’ fault. We are asking a lot of the departments based on how they are manned. Maybe we all need to take the extra step to make sure everything is understood and everything is following the way it should. We all need to help each other because there are fewer around to do the work. A closer tie with Engineering would help in that regard.
Mayor Bolender was glad that Alderwoman Lampe brought that up because he has some plans for combining and changing things in regards to the departments and how the operate and the accountability of those departments. He stated that he could not really hold Mr. Seymour at fault but that he was going to push his proposals to streamline city government quit vigorously.
Commissioner Peterson stated that does not dismiss the accountability of the developer to find out what is supposed to be going on. He could have called or gotten the minutes and it may not be appropriate to put all the blame on the staff.
Commissioner Kopplin asked if the developer receives a copy of the condition and restrictions. Mr. Seymour explained that the conditions and restrictions were part of the conditional use permit process that was done prior to the approval of the detailed site and building plan. They should have a copy of the conditions and restrictions.
Commissioner Kopplin asked if they would have a copy of what was specified in the minutes or would that have occurred after the fact. Mr. Seymour stated that the conditional use permit was back from somewhere in 2002. When they come forward to plan commission with detailed site and building plans the conditions and restrictions are referenced to see what the proper setbacks should be and to see if there are any other unique characteristics that the Common Council put in place to regulate the conditional use. At that point and time he could not be sure if they had a copy of the conditions and restrictions. He could not say if they had them at the time they submitted site plans.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if the real issue was the fact that the infrastructure was in and it would cost and exurbanite amount because of whoever’s mistake to extend that or is the true issue by moving it back you loose units. That is the issue that the Commissioners would have originally voted. It was his understanding when this came up was that Ryan Road was proposing, because the site was smaller, to move things up to maintain the established amount of buildings. It was his understanding from the motion that was made that the Commission was saying that they do not agree that you can keep the same number of buildings because it is a smaller site now and therefore you have to deal with that fact and the Commission is going to hold you to the original setbacks and not accept the new setbacks. There are two very distinct issues and it could be kind of a cloak to say that this is all about the infrastructure being in when originally this was all about how many units were going to be allowed because of the smaller site than with the Kendor property. The costs of the infrastructure would seem to be minimal compared to the losing the units, which seems to be the core issue.
Commissioner Correll stated that when he
reviewed the notes from the meeting the majority of the conversation was
how to aesthetically make this fit with the other development on Ryan
Road. For whoever to get the most out their property is
not for the Commission to decide. Commissioner Correll also asked Commissioner
Siira if it was his intention to make the motion with the setbacks as a
listed condition.
Commissioner Siira stated that he did say the five listed conditions and felt that with this use the setback that was listed was appropriate. This type of development is not one that you would want to front a major highway. The further it is set back off of Ryan Road the better.
Mayor Bolender asked Mr. Leffler what he had laid in at this point. Mr. Leffler stated that everything was set to grade to put the pads in exactly as the site plan was submitted to the Engineering Department. They have signed a contract for delivery of the buildings.
Mayor Bolender asked how far in the laterals were at this point. Alderman Koehler replied that they were set up for the building layout as seen on the current site plan. Mayor Bolender questioned if it was only stubbed to the foundation. Alderman Koehler replied that he did not need to go into the buildings so he stubbed them away. If the building had to be pushed back then the laterals would have to be extended. Mayor Bolender wanted to know how many feet of lateral would have to be added. Commissioner Foeckler replied 90 feet of lateral.
Mayor Bolender questioned if Mr. Leffler had any foundations poured. Mr. Leffler replied that they were not.
Mayor Bolender stated this was not a question of where it ends they need 90 more feet of water and sewer pipe. Actually they issue is less units.
Commissioner Marhal commented that the Commission was dealing with a profit oriented organization and we change the plan it will cost him more money to change the plan and run the lateral and he will lose units and that will cost him money every month for the life of the project. Quite frankly there is no difference aesthetically to moving the project back. It would be to Mr. Leffler’s benefit and the City’s to have it closer to the road be cause it is a nice looking building and a nice looking fence.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission approve the proposed revised site and building plans for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road.
Commissioner Correll suggested that the motion read subject to the changes suggested by Alderman Koehler.
Commissioner Marhal questioned the type of impact that would have splitting the units and felt it would be a fair compromise on the Commission’s part.
Commissioner Marhal changed his motion to reflect that the approval would be subject to the suggestions made by Alderman Koehler and wanted to see the plans.
Mayor Bolender suggested the item be put on hold.
Commissioner Correll questioned if a second could be made without the plans on the table. If the motion was to be subject to review of the plans Commissioner Correll stated he would second.
Commissioner Marhal stated the motion would be subject to review of the plans.
Commissioner Correll seconds.
Commissioner Kopplin stated she had spoke with the City Attorney and the Commission cannot make decisions on economic benefits.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission approve the proposed revised site and building plans for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road subject to review of the revised plans by the Plan Commission.
Mr. Seymour suggested that if the Commission desired to work and look for alternatives for the development of the project then the Commission should indicate that desire and hold this item for further review. To hold the item if the majority of the Commission is not in favor then they would not be doing anyone any favors. There needs to be an expression by the Commission as to whether they would support modification to the site plan. If the majority of the Commission feels that there should be no modification then it should be dealt with at this time. If there is room for negotiation after review of the revised site plan and the majority of the Commissioners feel that way it should just be held. Just to hold it prolongs a decision.
Commissioner Foeckler stated if a condo developer came in with ten acres of land and proposed ten buildings on that land and sold off two acres down the line and came back and said he wanted to keep the ten buildings the Commission would say no remove the buildings. It was the Commissions feelings that a bigger parcel of land was sold to Cummins and decreased the developable area and buildings needed to be taken out to accommodate that and whether there was a gain or not from Cummins is not the issue.
Commission Dickmann stated he agreed with Commissioner Foeckler. Mr. Leffler was present at the meeting and it was the intent of the Commission that the buildings be moved back and economic feasibility did not go into the decision and should not be a factor. Mr. Leffler had the opportunity to read the minutes and make a call before now. The costs of making the changes to move it back are not that great.
Mayor Bolender stated the position of the Plan Commission is not that of economic problems.
Commissioner Marhal stated he felt that the economic development of any company should be always taken into consideration otherwise no companies are going to come into the City.
Mr. Seymour agreed with Commissioner Marhal and supported that concept where it is available to the Commission as an item of discretion.
Commissioner Marhal stated it was a very gray area and if a motion was made accepting items 1-8 maybe the Commission errored in not spelling it out.
Mr. O’Malley stated taking away the financial burden that it may cause to the development the aesthetics of the project are the important part of looking at this development. The intent of coming to the Commission and pointing out what was going to be done to make this an attractive project and blend with the Cummins project. The buildings would start right where the large doors are for the Cummins project. The office building was intentionally designed to be something to draw the eye to a quality development. Most of these types of developments have small sales office rooms. This building would have almost 1200 square feet on the first floor for retail. The cost of this kind of development is nothing like the Commission has ever seen on self-storage buildings. This is a high-grade type of development. Mr. O’Malley stated it was a misunderstanding by himself and Mr. Leffler. They walked out misunderstanding the motion. If they had received the letter in June they would have been aware of the mistake. This was not an intentional act to try and get financial gain. To listen to the tapes from the meeting it sounded like with the changes to the buildings that were being requested it would be all right to have the setback closer to Ryan Road.
Mayor Bolender stated that he had a right to be upset with the way things were being done and would work that out, but with this problem in mind everything that has been said has been said in an appropriate manner. There is a problem here and we know that it if we stick it and say it stays the way it is and to bad we send a bad message. A message would be sent that mistakes have been made. The Commission needs roll into something and salvage what they can.
Mayor Bolender respects Mr. Seymour’s opinion that the Commission should hold tight but it would not leave the Commission in a very good position. Mr. Seymour replied that everyone has made his or her feelings known and we have been preaching consistency and that the bar is going to be raised. This is not raising the bar.
Mayor Bolender replied that he would let Department heads have one up on him and say the Mayor waffled on this one but there needs to be a solution to this problem. Mayor Bolender wanted to know in the motion how many units would be taken out. The economic impact is not be the topic of a planning commission.
Commissioner Marhal stated that it needed to be taken into consideration because if it is not economically feasible for a company to come to the City then they are not going to come.
Mr. Seymour stated you run the risk of having the Plan Commission over ride any decision by the Common Council when they adopted the conditions and restrictions. If the Common Council says 248 feet the Plan Commission does not have the authority to say otherwise.
Commissioner Correll stated it was not based just on that it was also based on a situation that evolved and if economics has nothing to do with anything then why does the Commission so quickly create a PUD to look at sign changes.
Mr. Seymour replied that if by the same token Target would come back and say for whatever reason we know what was approved but now the store would be 200,000 feet and the parking needs to be reduced even more. Regardless of feelings regarding this particular situation the Commission is not entrusted with the power to make a decision, which is contrary to that which, the Common Council made.
Commissioner Correll states it was made for the signage change for the Target project. Mr. Seymour explained that the Commission did not make that decision the Common Council would make that decision.
Commissioner Correll explained that they passed it through the Plan Commission and now they would be making the same type of decision on this item. Mr. Seymour stated it was not the same type of decision.
Commissioner Correll stated whether or not Mr. Leffler makes money or not was not his personal concern. The Commission is aware of the situation lets vote on it and make a decision.
Commissioner Jackson added that his vote in May was based on the position that the Cummins site took up more land and the number of buildings would need to be reduced and the 248-foot setback was what he voted on.
Alderman Koehler stated the key word was to think out of the box. There obviously was a mistake and it is a mistake that has to be rectified. It is a situation that needs to be looked at and has to have a solution. He stated that a minimum of 20 feet between the buildings was what he discussed with Mr. Leffler.
Mr. Seymour requested time to look at the conditions and restrictions that the Common Council approved.
Alderman Lampe suggested that Mr. Seymour check the conditions and restrictions because if something is voted on contrary to the conditions and restrictions it can not stand on its own. The conditions and restrictions would have to be revised at the Common Council level. Revising the site plan does not need to go to Council.
Commissioner Foeckler commented that the silver lining in the mistake that was made is possibly the fact that the buildings would be pushed up and block some of the garage doors on the Cummins property.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop questioned if this was a revised plan because there was not a mention of the alternative fire access roads that were included in all previous agreements. Mr. Leffler replied that it would be included in the revised plan if it gets passed.
Mr. Seymour stated that in the review of the conditions and restrictions there was no mention of a numerical setback other than that of the fifty feet that was required by Trans 233. If the Commission chooses to adopt a motion, which would authorize the review of a revised site plan, he could not see anything in the conditions and restrictions that would prohibit them from doing that.
Commissioner Marhal stated that they now have the ability to make a bad situation into a good situation.
Mr. Seymour asked for a repeat of the motion so everyone was clear of what they were voting on.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission approve the proposed revised site and building plans for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road subject to review of the revised plans by the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Correll seconds.
Roll call, Dickmann aye, Jackson nay, Marhal aye, Siira nay, Kopplin nay, Bolender nay, Foeckler nay, Correll aye, and Peterson nay. The motioned failed.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the Commission understood the motion.
Commissioner Peterson suggested that the motion was incorrectly worded.
Mr. Seymour stated that if the Commission feels that they did not vote correctly on the motion the time to reconsider is now.
Commissioner Kopplin motioned to reconsider. Peterson seconds. Roll call, Dickmann aye, Jackson nay, Marhal aye, Siira aye, Kopplin aye, Bolender aye, Foeckler nay, Correll aye, and Peterson aye. Motion to reconsider passed.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission review a revised site plan for the building plans for Ryan Road Storage at 840 W. Ryan Road.
Commissioner Peterson suggested that the Commission consider that Mr. Leffler managed to remember to do conditions 2-8 were already incorporated. The only issue is the setback issue and the other items may still be concerns going forward.
Commissioner Correll suggested stated that the revised plan includes items 2-8.
Mr. Seymour stated that if the Commission felt that they would like to see a revised site plan for Ryan Road Storage and truly believe that what is being proposed in terms of the setbacks is the correct thing to do then the motion would be to hold the item.
Motion on the floor by Commissioner Marhal dies.
Commissioner Dickmann motions to hold the item until the applicant comes in with a revised site plan taking into account items which were review at the September 23, 2003, Plan Commission meeting.
Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, Dickmann aye, Jackson aye, Marhal aye, Siira aye, Kopplin aye, Bolender aye, Foeckler nay, Correll aye, and Peterson aye.
Commissioner Foeckler motioned to adjourn. Kopplin seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.