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 Foeckler, Mayor Bolender, Commissioner Kopplin, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson. Also present were Director of Community Development Douglas Seymour, Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop and Building Commissioner Ed Chiechanowski.
Commissioner Siira motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 14, 2003. Commissioner Marhal seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the October 21 2003, Common Council meeting. No comments or concerns from the Commission
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that North Shore Bank was requesting Plan Commission approval of site and building plans for a 7,600 square foot branch bank with additional leased space at the southwest corner of Howell Avenue and Puetz Road. The property is zoned B-4, Highway Business. Financial institutions are permitted use in this zoning district.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned how slightly was the half-acre threshold exceeded. Mr. Seymour stated it was exceeded by approximately one parking space.
Mr. Dave Cecchini, United Construction, explained that they are working on changing the total amount of impervious surface to be under the half-acre threshold.
Mr. Seymour requested that Mr. Cecchini go over the intended uses and plans for the building and materials. Mr. Cecchini explained that it would be a masonry frame with a brick exterior. There would be accent panels that would be stained redwood and it will have a shingled roof with a peak height of twenty-two feet. The brick would be going all the way around the building except for the wood accent panels.
Commissioner Dickmann stated that this was a rather nondescript building and would do nothing for the corner.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the high windows on the east elevation were high windows or would they go into the bank space. Mr. Cecchini explained that they false window that did not go down into the bank space. Commissioner Siira stated that visually the south end looked a little more visually interesting than the leased space side of the building.
Mr. Cecchini explained that they could work on the elevations and make the north and south elevation patterns match.
Mayor Bolender explained that this area was the hub of the City and the building was not hub of the City type of design. He would rename Howell Avenue as banker’s row and of all the business he would like to see here he would like a Big Apple Bagel or a Starbucks coffee. Mr. Don Zien, Polacheck Company, explained that they have several tenants in mind along the lines of what the Mayor described.
Mr. Seymour questioned if the design and layout of the building lent itself well to the type of commercial and retail tenants that are in the industry today with the design of the building. The building looks as if there is no commercial presence with the building. Mr. Zien explained that because of the nature of the corner and being in the City center it could be the coffee type of tenants.
Mayor Bolender stated he had bigger plans for the downtown City of Oak Creek and would like to see something different in this spot. To throw a building in this spot just for the sake of having a building leaves the people with a building that is not a quality building. The building does not impress him and he does not care for the ideas presented.
Mr. Kurt Klappick, Polacheck Company, explained that he has been trying to market the property for over two years. Restaurants do not show interest to locate on this corner because they cannot afford the asking price of the property. If the neighboring property owners would reduce their price it may encourage restaurants to locate on those properties. At this time they are encouraging Karaboo Coffee to locate within the bank building. There are several other restaurants that they work with that they are talking with at this time. The St. Francis Bank on the other corner has the same visibility as would the North Shore Bank building and that is not the Tajmahal of buildings and has no distinguishing features. Banks add stability to the market place and stay within the community.
Mr. Seymour explained that no one was suggesting that a financial institution was not appropriate in this location but that looking at the larger opportunity the types of national tenants that Polacheck is looking at may not feel comfortable having their identity absorbed in the franchise building for the North Shore Bank. Opportunities present themselves to make the lease space more of a commercial center that includes a North Shore Bank.
Mayor Bolender stated the security and stability of the bank is well appreciated but the Commission is trying to build things into Oak Creek that we don’t presently have. We don’t have a lot of businesses that will service the people of this community. When people come home to Oak Creek it would be nice if they could stay in Oak Creek. There is no place to take the kids and the wife out to dinner and we need to get back to downtown. Mayor Bolender wanted the bank to become part of a little center of other businesses that the people want. The new commitment is to bring things into the community that can be used everyday. If the retailers are stuck in the corner of the bank nobody will know that they are there. If the building is built so that it does not look like a bank but like a commercial building with a food service of some type built into it would be beneficial to the City and to the Polacheck Company.
Mr. Klappick explained they would not be stuck in the corner they would be on the corner of the site. Mayor Bolender explained you would only see from the front of the building that it was a North Shore Bank. He wanted as many bangs for his dollar as possible and that means having the bank along with someone else. He did not want people to look at the building and think of it as a bank only and keep on going past the building.
Mr. Klappick stated the bank wanted to maximize the visibility of the tenants and decided to take the less prominent section of the building, which would lend itself to the supporting tenants. With proper signage it will add to the visibility of other tenants on a key corner.
Commissioner Siira suggested an element to set it off better as a corner property.
Commissioner Marhal stated the architecture of the building identified with North Shore Bank and not with other tenants that would be brought in.
Commissioner Correll stated the type of tenants that the Commission would like to see on the corner would not be able to afford the corner site on their own. He liked the way that North Shore was not taking the prominent spot in the building and was leaving that area for the potential tenants.
Commissioner Correll questioned the Commissions concern for North Shore being able to attract tenants. North Shore feels comfortable that they can attract tenants why would the Commission doubt that ability.
Arden Degner, 8540 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, commented that this building reminded him of the old Police Station from long ago, and if this was the best they could get they should have kept the old building.
Mr. Seymour questioned if the north elevation could be made more transparent in the leased area. Mr. Cecchini stated they could add more windows.
Mayor Bolender question what could be done to give the building more pizzazz. Mr. Cecchini stated he would work with Doug to see what could be done. Mr. Seymour replied that taking it piece by piece would not be a good idea. The architect should take a look to see what opportunities are available.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know what could be done to have North Shore Bank in its capacity as a lending institution but also bring more of a general business type of situation to the corner. This is a primary piece of ground in the City and he would not be doing the people of the community any favors if he just went with any business that came along.
Mr. Cecchini stated as the community grows more population supports more retail and as you get Target to move in you will have outlots in front of their development that are more affordable to restaurants. This corner lends itself to a more stable business that can afford more than what a small franchise type of business can afford. If something could be worked out that would a more window space and maybe some door lines that reach directly to the north end. North Shore wants a presence and the prominence of its architecture to fall in line with what would be recognized as a North Shore Bank.
Mr. Seymour compared this corner to the corner of National and Moreland in New Berlin and expressed that the opportunities are there for the types of tenants that the community is looking for. Some unique things could be done to this building to add to this community and enhance the reputation of North Shore Bank.
Commissioner Siira stated responding to the corner was the key to this location. Focusing in on the north elevation is not what needs to be done the east elevation is the key to this development. One suggestion would be to take the fire place element with the signage mounted on it and shift it towards the Howell Avenue façade and create some type of tower or anchor element responding to the intersection. What would really make it work would be to have some type of pedestrian covered canopy that runs the length of the building. It would really make it seem more like a retail building, realizing that it gets away from the prototypical image of a North Shore Bank. He stated that it would work better for the perspective retail tenants on the north end of the building. Secondary to that would be to break up the uninterrupted roof area. The fact that this site plan is located on the corner of Puetz and Howell almost requires it to do something a little different, the orientation of the building on the site or some other element that responds to the fact that it is on an intersection.
Commissioner Kopplin stated something needs to be done with this corner that can draw commercial businesses.
Mr. Zien commented that the kind of tenants that the community was looking for might fall right into place because of the fact of the rent structure.
Alderwoman Ann Lampe suggested that more landscaping be shown. She also stated she would like to see some type of hometown unique lighting for the site and maybe an old fashion clock tower.
Mayor Bolender suggested dressing up the building. He suggested the developer step up to the plate and build him something he could be proud of in the main heart of town. He wanted the community to look nice and have some type of scheme. One thing we can jam into the City is some nice looking building. We need some class here because we are finished with the unclassy and are going into the class as far as what comes into the community.
Commissioner Kopplin suggested some small planters under the covered walkway that Commissioner Siira spoke about earlier.
Commissioner Siira explained that there would be a lot of potential pedestrian traffic coming from the west and what ever is done needs to respond to that as well.
Mr. Seymour suggested that North Shore work to come up with alternative designs, which might accomplish all of the goals of the Commission. They would be a welcomed addition to the City and the City would hate to lose this one by going with just the standard design.
Mr. Darrell Eisenhardt, North Shore Bank, expressed his concern with the Commissions idea of what his building should look like. They are looking at bringing in a tenant in the food service area to help with the costs of the building and they need to have identity in the community. This is not going to be a food court type of building and North Shore will own the bank. He was not sure what the downtown concept was for the area.
Mr. Seymour stated he would hope that they would let their architects loose to the extent that they are able to come up with some concepts that can be presented to North Shore Bank for their approval. He stated that it could only enhance the profile of North Shore Bank in the community.
Commissioner Siira stated he would be willing to meet with the architects for North Shore Bank and offer some suggestions at any time.
Mayor Bolender stated the City needed a more classy building because it was downtown. The point is that the North Shore building could be the center of the downtown. He would like them to build a building that signifies that this is downtown Oak Creek. If they come back with a nicer building that fits the ideal location in the center of town.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that North Shore Bank had a wonderful building on Capital Drive and that the banks reputation on the east side was also wonderful and she would love to see them come to Oak Creek.
Mayor Bolender directed the item held.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that John Helding, Legacy Development Company was proposing an amendment to the official map for the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Helding previously appeared before the Commission in September of this year to discuss a conceptual development plan he had proposed for the property at 2021 E. Drexel Avenue. At the meeting, Mr. Helding had proposed the development of subdivision within the Rs-1 zoning district for that property that would have created 25 homes on 1/2-acre lots. As a result of the discussion with the Commission and neighborhood, Mr. Helding has revised his plans to include conservation type subdivision with lots meeting the standards of the existing Rs-1 zoning. Included, as part of the subdivision would be a 7.5-acre permanent open space for the subdivision including and aerated detention pond, picnic area and recreational footpath.
Mr. Seymour read into the record an email received by Mr. Bradley Schwanda:
I received a communication from your office today and I am totally opposed to any plan that would include a road or exit to Forest Hill Avenue. I work second shift and lose money every time I come to one of these meetings however, I will be in attendance on Tuesday night. I am and will be opposed to any plan that puts any more traffic on to our street. We have young children and are concerned for their safety. It is my feeling that this is a quality of life issue. We moved to Oak Creek for a certain quality of life and we are not interested in having it diminished.
Thank you,
Bradley Schwanda
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if the developer would was meeting the 115-foot lot width. Mr. Seymour explained that they would be meeting the required lot width for the zoning with the setback.
Commissioner Dickmann commented that Mr. Helding addressed some of the concerns of the residents in the area by reducing the traffic flow onto Long Meadow Drive. Mr. Seymour stated that the proposed street pattern has less impact traffic wise on the subdivision than the current street pattern.
Commissioner Correll stated that 1/3 of the homes have been taken out and with the changes there will be a lot less traffic than would have went that way.
Commissioner Peterson questioned what the finger of land sticking out to Drexel Avenue would be used for. Mr. Helding explained it was proposed as an outlot and would either be included in the common open space or would ideally be sold to one of the two existing neighbors.
Mr. Earl Hoffmannn, 2040 E. Forest Hill Avenue, explained that he was paying for sewer and water laterals going up on the west side of his property. If this would be passed he wanted to know if the City would give him his money back because he would lose any opportunity to develop his land.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know who told him the street was going to go in. Mr. Hoffmann replied that the City charged him for sewer and water laterals and now they are taking out the road. Mr. Seymour explained that there would not be that much of an impact on his property because he could put in a road and develop his lot.
Mr. Hoffmann explained that he would have to bare the entire cost of the roadway because the land to the north of his lot was designated as a conservation area and there would not be any development on that side.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know why the City would run a lateral into his property. Mr. Seymour explained that when the City puts in public works projects they often put in laterals for the benefit of property owners given that it is a relative low expense as opposed to coming back and digging it up at the time of development.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know why it would be run off of Forest Hill to the north. Mr. Seymour explained that when you do a master plan for an area you want to make sure that the utilities that you are putting in are available to the future development. When the utility put it in it was done according to the master plan of the City for that neighborhood.
Mayor Bolender questioned if he was charged because the City wanted to run sewer and water to the subdivision. Mr. Seymour explained that the Water and Sewer Utility could explain the policies that were in place at the time the project was put in.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if it was not economically feasible for Mr. Hoffman to put the street in could the assessment be taken off. Commissioner Jackson stated he has sewer and water running along his property, which is benefited, by having it whether the road goes in or not. That is how the assessment policy works; his property still receives the benefit.
Mr. Seymour explained that the likelihood of the roads between Mr. Hoffmann’s property and the Highland Meadows subdivision going in under today’s economic conditions is very slim. There would probably not be enough benefit versus the cost of extending the infrastructure. If the Commission and the Council feel that there is no real economic benefit and they can maintain their goals for traffic circulation within the neighborhood without that then they could think about eliminating that. At the same time policy needs to be looked at with respect to how they handle assessments in those situations, which is not the role of the Plan Commission.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned if the footpath and the picnic area could be moved and the location pond moved to provide for future development on the south end of the property. Mr. Helding replied that it would be possible to do that and add future lots along the proposed road to Forest Hill without moving the drainage pond.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned if it would be possible to swing the connection with the property to the west so that it does not come down to Forest Hill. Mr. Helding replied it could be done if the City wanted another access to the development. If the City prefers to have everything run out to Drexel it could easily be eliminated. Alderwoman Lampe stated the concern was having a straight shot from Forest Hill to Drexel was that people would try to avoid Pennsylvania and cut through the neighborhood. Mr. Helding replied that it could be eliminated if the City wanted it.
Mayor Bolender stated that there would be no idea of when the other property would be developed. If the City is going to muscle people into development then the gentleman who owns the property does not feel like doing it in his lifetime he should have that right.
Alderman Lampe explained that he would not necessarily have to do the development because there would still be access onto the proposed road. Mr. Hoffmann is worried about losing the buildability of his land because there is permanent open space across the street. If the picnic area was gone and the pond moved the south end could be developed along with Mr. Hoffmann’s land.
Mr. Helding stated that the concept behind conservation development is not to just build and run. They like to create open spaces when it is feasible to do. This particular piece brought out a lot of neighborhood complaints about traffic and drainage. If they were allowed to keep the open space which is preferable, there would not be a need for the cross street if the City would allow one access into the Hoffmann property with a cul-de-sac. It would be approximately a 600-foot street, which is feasible for a property of that size.
Mr. Jim Merkel, 1825 E. Drexel Avenue, brought up the point that the outlet onto Drexel Avenue that is closer to the development would be in a bad spot because of the hill on Drexel Avenue. The outlet to Drexel that is furthest west of the development would work well and the one to the east should be eliminated.
Mr. Larry Dreher, 8121 S. Long Meadow Drive, agreed that the road map is unworkable in many ways but the proposed development is not making it any worse. He strongly supports this project and the developer has done his best to meet the concerns of the neighborhood. If the subdivision goes through as proposed this would be an asset to the City of Oak Creek and the Highland Meadows subdivision.
Mr. Jeffrey Racine explained that his family owned a parcel of land on S. Pennsylvania Avenue. He expressed his concern for the additional streets across his property with the proposed map amendment. Mr. Helding explained that the streets existed on his property and has changed very little with the proposed map amendment.
Mr. Bradley Schwanda, 2009 E. Forest Hill Avenue, stated he would be opposed to any new traffic or roadway out onto Forest Hill.
Mr. Otto Satula, 2410 E. Forest Hill Avenue, stated the road pattern that Mr. Racine referred to he has disagreed with for forty years. It keeps getting changed and now it is extended out to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Legacy Development is a terrific plan and he has no opposition to the plan.
Mr. Tom Sprague, 2201 E. Oak Ridge Lane, reiterated that they asked a lot from the developer in terms of safety issues with the pressure on Long Meadow Drive. There has been a lot of work done to remedy the situation and he is supportive of the development to the point that it is safer except for the outlot on Drexel. He would like to see it used as an inlet into the development.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know if that option was ever considered. It would alleviate the Forest Hill traffic pattern and would also alleviate even more traffic off of Long Meadow Drive. Mr. Helding explained that it was looked at, but because another street was already added onto Drexel it seemed like to many streets onto Drexel at the time.
Mayor Bolender stated that those outlets onto Drexel were not being developed at this time and for now this proposed road may not be put in for twenty-five years and the traffic pattern goes out from Long Meadow where as you leave the exit into Drexel as a possible roadway to relieve the traffic from the neighborhood. Mr. Helding explained that they did not feel that eighteen homes would be that big of a traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Bolender stated that every time you add homes you add two cars in the morning and at night plus the traffic from the kids in the family. The outlot will just sit there and we will go on the premise that this will be developed and the problem is the land to the west may not be developed. The alternative would be to put the road in the outlot and not affecting the established neighborhood. Development is nice as long as it does not disturb what is already there.
Mr. Helding stated the proposal should accommodate what the Commission is looking for.
Commissioner Correll questioned where the hill on Drexel was in proportion with the proposed road coming out to Drexel. Mr. Merkel stated he was not sure where exactly the hill was but that if you look at the proposal the traffic is going to go out onto Drexel Avenue no matter what. Mayor Bolender stated that the finger of land was being wasted by saying the guy on the west has to develop to ease the situation. He does not like when people are forced to develop when they do not want to develop. There will be an outlot that will just lay there and then we will have a problem with who will be taking care of the lot. If a road was added at that point it could possibly be good for the neighborhood.
Commission Correll pointed out that the outlot was intended to be sold to the neighboring landowners. There will be a church across the street, the subdivision is well represented and knew about the eighteen lots and are in favor of the plan. Now we want to put another exit onto Drexel with possibly two that have not been done away with leaving potentially four exits onto Drexel.
Alderman Foeckler stated the neighborhood is endorsing this plan and the problem with using the finger of land is that the existing properties would have a road running practically through their house. There is a ripple effect with the whole project. The proposed development works but the problem is what to do with the land around the development.
Mr. Jack Hubbard, 2431 E. Green Valley Lane, expressed his concern for the Commission believing that the community endorses the plan. He does not endorse the plan and believes that and exit from the finger onto Drexel is needed.
Mr. Merkel suggested that the Commission go and see Drexel and the hill that he spoke of before they endorse a road coming onto Drexel from that area. Mayor Bolender stated it was a four lane road and there should not be a problem.
Mr. John Grekel, 2121 E. Oak Ridge Lane, stated he was in favor of access to Drexel from the finger of land. The church should not be a concern because they will not be crossing Drexel Avenue and going into the subdivision.
Mr. Lou Herleman, 8080 Long Meadow Drive, agrees with the neighbors that there should be an exit onto Drexel through the small lot and in addition to that the curve is a tight radius and would be a hazard for parking on the curved portion of the street.
Mayor Bolender questioned why there would be a problem putting the access to Drexel Avenue on the finger of land. Mr. Seymour explained that if the road was put in that location it could make the house to the west instantly nonconforming. Mayor Bolender suggested putting the street to the east side of the finger. The problem is that the church across the street would not be adding a volume of traffic everyday onto Drexel Avenue. You have a subdivision that has all those kids with no sidewalks and common sense states that the kids are going to ride on the road. If we put the subdivision in we need to see what the impact and danger level with more cars may add.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the Korean Church was proposing putting a school in across the street. The real estate agent said the property has been marketed for the last three years. The developer only came up with eighteen lots which is not typical for developers and the City should work with him.
Mr. Racine, 3011 W. Woodward Drive, reiterated that there was not a need for an outlet coming out onto Pennsylvania Avenue. He did not see how you could empty out a subdivision at that point because the street is narrow and the ditches are deep. He also stated that he was in favor of the traffic being diverted to the north and to the west.
Mayor Bolender questioned why Mr. Seymour was proposing the roads along Mr. Racine’s property along with the subdivision. Mr. Seymour explained to Mayor Bolender that he was not proposing anything that it was a proposal by the property owner for an official map amendment. None of the streets were in at this time nor where they all going to be put in with the proposed development.
Mr. Racine expressed his concern for the streets on his parcel of land and that he could not have a quality development on his parcel with all the roads running through.
Mr. Helding stated he laid out the map to be consistent with the neighborhood with an Rs-2 zoning. They could make some changes to allow the neighbors to build decent sized lots on the end of a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Bolender stated that Mr. Racine’s property was being cut up in to a Cudahy type of layout. Mr. Helding stated he could change the map back to the existing and end the road in a cul-de-sac.
Alderwoman Lampe reminded the Commission that the residents of Forest Hill did not want the traffic coming out onto Forest Hill. Mayor Bolender agreed with Alderwoman Lampe.
Mayor Bolender suggested the item be held for further review.
Alderwoman Lampe reminded the Commission that the two west properties could end up as conservancy and then the Commission would be looking at this again taking the roads off of the map.
Mr. Chu Vang, 1929 E. Drexel Avenue, commented that with his land he was not interested in developing it and was holding it to add a home of his own at some future date. His only concern at this time was that the new development did not drain onto his land and create a wet spot.
Mr. Seymour questioned if there was a street pattern that did not show any future street access to his property he would not have a problem with that. Mr. Vang replied that it would be okay with him because he only wants to build a house on his lot and keep the land for himself.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if there was an existing house on the property at this time. Mr. Vang replied that there was an existing house. Commissioner Kopplin questioned if he would have enough frontage to build two houses on that parcel of land. Mr. Seymour explained that the lot was wide enough to support two lots. Mr. Vang explained that his only problem would be with the future street and the setbacks from the street. Mr. Seymour stated that if he had no desire to develop his land in the future then the City could take a look at alternatives that contains the development to the east half of the quarter section because there would be no purpose to extend streets onto Mr. Vang’s property. If the property to the west of Mr. Vang did need to develop it could do so independently.
Mayor Bolender stated the item would be put on hold at this time.
Mr. Helding asked if he stayed with the existing road pattern and the half acre lots would he be entitled to plat it the way the Commission talked about or would the Commission prefer something similar to what he proposed.
Mayor Bolender stated there is a real concern for the traffic pattern with the number of kids who do not have sidewalks. The direction would be to somehow come up with something that does not inflict a great amount of danger to the kids of the existing subdivision.
Mr. Seymour questioned if the Commission felt that eighteen lots was excessive in that regard. Commissioner Dickmann stated that he felt Long Meadow Drive could handle the traffic. Mayor Bolender commented that the trouble with that would be that would be nice but there are kids playing in there and you have to consider the safety factor.
Ms. Diane Greco, 2121 Oak Ridge Lane, expressed her concern for the width of the streets and the number of children that play on them.
Mr. Rick Baldis, 8035 Long Meadow Drive, stated that the street is twenty-five feet wide and the finger going out to Drexel is ninety feet, which would give the landowners on both sides at least forty feet. There are approximately 75-80 children in the subdivision with twenty-five foot wide roads and no sidewalks and deep culverts. He would like the Commission to consider running a road out to Drexel Avenue through the finger that was an outlot at this time.
Alderwoman Lampe informed the Commission that running a road out the outlot would make the house to the west of it nonconforming. Running the traffic out that way seriously affects the property value of the homeowner to the west. Would it be possible to run a bike path along the finger to give the kids someplace to ride there bikes besides on the road.
Mr. Scott Nienow, 8040 S. Grewen Drive, stated he liked the layout of the subdivision and the curving streets were much more pleasing to the eye. He also stated he liked the layout but would like to see an exit on to Drexel Avenue.
Commissioner Kopplin stated the house next to the outlot would be made nonconforming if the street went through and that was a huge burden to put on somebody else. She asked the neighbors to consider what they would be doing to one of their neighbors. She also asked them if when they bought their homes did they ever consider that the land to the west would be developed beyond their subdivision.
Mr. Racine stated that it should not be the landowner’s responsibility to defend their properties it should be the developer’s responsibility to come up with something that is acceptable.
Mr. Seymour replied that while Mr. Helding may not be the property owner there is a property owner involved. He also stated that he did not believe the people would be satisfied if Mr. Helding developed the land according to the existing official map.
Mayor Bolender stated he was putting the item on hold and directed Mr. Seymour to sit down with the developers and go through this with them.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting Plan Commission approval of plans for an extended parking lot at 211 E. Oak Street. The parking lot would be increased in size to a total of 125 parking spaces. This addition, given its size, would not meet the minimum ½ acre requirement for inclusion under the City’s stormwater management ordinance. This property was recently rezoned to I-1, Institutional for this purpose.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if there would be any screening on the east side of the parking lot and what type of lighting would be used. Mr. Seymour replied that there would be a fence on the parking lot side of the existing residence, which would supply some level of screening. We do need to see a landscaping plan that shows more than which trees will be taken out but would show which trees are being put back in.
Mr. Tim Finke, T.L. Finke, explained that the landscaping applies to only the new parking and they will be applying the 5% landscaping within the parking lot. The existing residential driveway would be abandoned as suggested. Mr. Finke questioned if they would be allowed to move the current residential garage on a temporary basis rather than razing the building. Mr. Seymour stated that the standards do apply to accessory buildings but that there is a provision that the Plan Commission can modify the 75% for accessory buildings. If the Commission concurs staff would not have a problem modifying the standards for the accessory building given its location.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the accessory building had fewer windows for security purposes. Mr. Finke replied that was correct. The building was intended for storage of items that are currently stored in the church.
Mr. Finke questioned the process for lot combination. Mr. Seymour replied that it would most likely be a CSM but he would take a look at it and let him know.
Commissioner Kopplin clarified that the existing garage would be relocated closer to the street and then what would happen with the other building that was being moved. Mr. Finke replied that the Code dictates that four buildings are allowed so when the lots are combined they would like to relocate the existing residential garage to the back as the storage building instead of a new storage building. The first intention of the church is to expand the parking lot.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the preference was to have the accessory building or moving the garage. Mr. Finke stated the preference would be the accessory building as proposed.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the main drive was a one or a two-way drive onto Howell Avenue. Mr. Finke stated the main drive was a two-way drive. The intention is to expand the church structure and then add a circle drive out front and a loop drive to the parking lot.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the driveway to be closed was the one closest to the existing residence. Mr. Finke replied that was correct.
Commissioner Kopplin asked Mr. Otto Satula if landscaping would take care of his sons concerns. Mr. Satula felt that the church was complying with his son’s request for screening.
Mr. Frank Besalensek, 611 E. Oak Street, questioned the size of the parking lot and if they would need a holding pond. Mr. Seymour replied that they were putting down less than a half-acre of new impervious pavement and would not need a pond. Whatever happens here would be done in accordance with the grading and drainage plan that is approved by the Engineering Department for the new parking lot.
Mr. Finke explained that this is a short-term view and hopefully in a matter of only a few years they would be back before the Commission with a plan that requires a stormwater management plan.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the combination of the two lots had to be added into the motion. Mr. Seymour explained that it had to be done but it did not need to hold up the process.
Commissioner Kopplin stated if the properties needed to be combined it should be in the motion. Mr. Seymour replied that he did not want to force them into a situation where it would take them two months to combine the properties and then that would put them out until April before work can begin on the parking lot.
Mr. Finke suggested restricting construction of the storage building until the lot combination was done.
Commissioner Peterson motioned that the Commission approve the plans for the expanded parking lot and accessory building for the St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran church at 211 E. Oak Street provided that
Commissioner Kopplin seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that the City has received an offer from Thomas Jungck to purchase a 23,031 square foot portion of the property the City owns at 10511 S. Chicago Road (Scanlan Park). Mr. Jungck owns the adjacent property to the south, and is proposing to incorporate that portion of park as part of a proposed subdivision.
Commissioner Kopplin wanted to know if this was going to be part of the Emerald Meadows subdivision. Mr. Seymour replied that it would become part of the future Emerald Meadows subdivision.
Alderwoman Lampe explained to the Commission why the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission were requesting that the money from the sale land be used for development of the park.
Mayor Bolender wanted to know how big Scanlan Park was in acres. Mr. Seymour replied that it was about eight acres.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the sale of a portion of the property at 10511 S. Chicago Road would conform to the City’s general Development plan and should be considered favorable.
Commissioner Marhal seconds.
Arden Degner, 8540 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, suggested that this item be held until the schools had a chance to look at the site for a future school site. Mayor Bolender stated that he has had meetings with the School Board in regards to seeing what lands they could use to help the school system with land purchases.
Roll call, all voted aye.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Country Creek Homes, Inc. was requesting approval of the final plat for the subdivision known as Country Creek VI at 630 E. Elm Road and 10706R S. Howell Avenue. This subdivision will create 30 lots in the Rs-3, Single Family Residential subdivision along an extension of East Elm Road through to Howell Avenue. The public improvements have been certified as complete. Therefore, the plat can be presented to the Commission for recommendation to the Common Council.
Commissioner Dickmann commented that he received a call from concerned neighbor about the sod that was recently put in and the concern if the sod does not take over the winter. Mayor Bolender stated that if the sod does not take the developer would do it again.
Alderwoman Grabowski commented that Country Creek Homes has worked above and beyond what many developers would do and this turned out to be a good project.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the final plat for Country Creek VI be approved subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Siira seconds. Roll call, all voted aye.
Commissioner Marhal motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Foeckler seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.