MINUTES OF THE

OAK CREEK PLAN COMMISSION MEETING

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004

Acting Mayor Kopplin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Marhal, Commissioner Siira, Acting Mayor Kopplin, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson.  Also present were Director of Community Development Douglas Seymour and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.

Commissioners Foeckler and Dickmann were excused.

Official Map Amendment – Southeast ¼ of Section 28

Mr. Seymour:               Thank you.  The next item on the agenda is an official map amendment request for the Southeast one quarter of section 28.  And this is the area that is roughly bounded by Fitzsimmons Road on the north Oakwood Road on the south, Shepard on the west, and McGraw Drive on the east.  Micjensar Development, LLC is requesting to amend the official map for this quarter section.  This is the preliminary step in the possible development of a subdivision within the Rs-2, Single Family Residential zoning district tentatively called Shepard’s Orchard.  In order to proceed with such a subdivision, it would be necessary to amend the official map for this quarter section.  There are several issues that need to be considered when reviewing such a request.  This Commission has been through several in the past year and really the guiding principles remain the same and we will talk about that a little bit later.  But, when you are reviewing this request I would like to specifically consider a few things. 

First, our changes in lot design standards.  The current official map for this area was most recently amended in October of 2001.  Since that time, the lot area minimums for the Rs-2 zoning district have increased from 15,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet.  Since the future streets within this 1/4 section had been laid out according to the obsolete standard, it presents some challenges to design a subdivision in accordance with those streets.  In addition, property owners often, for various reasons, propose to develop their lands in a manner that is not consistent with the official map.  If they feel that there is a better way of doing things they are certainly welcome to petition the City to amend the official map. 

Now, when such a request is made, the City, the Common Council, Plan Commission needs to take a look at the impact of the ability to logically develop the adjacent properties in according with the existing official map and compare that with that same premise when looking at the proposed map.  Nearby by property owners certainly have an interest in maintaining certain aspects of an official map if it provides them the opportunity to subdivide their property in a cost effective manner.  And, if a person is proposing to remove this future opportunity or to alter it they need to demonstrate that any adverse affects on the property owners involved would be offset by the benefit to the neighborhood.  In other word, a property owner should not be able to amend the official map to maximize the development potential of his or her property at the detriment of surrounding properties.  This is most apparent at the southeast corner of the property, where the previous official map illustrated a cul de sac providing access to properties with the potential for redivision.  This potential would be eliminated under the new street pattern. 

I just want to point that out.  This is the existing street pattern and notice that these property owners if they got together and did a land division, or a consolidation and redivision, had the ability at least to subdivide the backs of their properties to provide some level of one, two or three lots.  I am not sure how many you can have back there.  But, this cul de sac, this public street access would afford them the opportunity to do so.  I am just bouncing back and forth between the two of them.  I am just going to put up the proposal, which you can see does not provide that same opportunity.  What we have found in the past is that over the course of time what one property owner thought would be appropriate, in terms of potentially dividing their property in the future may change.  Now that often happens if the lag time between this official map amendment is five or ten years.  This is 2001, so this is a little more than two years.  So, I think it is important to get commentary from those property owners as to their intent for possibly developing based on the old street pattern.  That is going to be an important consideration.  I guess that you should not be able to alter a street pattern to maximize the development of your property to the detriment of your surrounding property owners.

Another item to consider are the changes in the location of streets adjacent to existing residential properties.  Again, in 2001 the existing official map was drafted based on extensive input from the property owners in this neighborhood.  The resulting street pattern allowed for some separation between the existing homes and the future streets.  The proposed street pattern alters the location of streets within this neighborhood such that they now run adjacent to the properties at 1125 E. Oak Lane and 10074 S. Shepard Avenue.  This is a significant change for these two properties and the Commission needs to consider the input of those property owners when making the decision as to whether or not to amend the official map.  And specifically what we are talking about is, and again here comes the bouncing back and forth, here is the, take a look at the location of Oak Lane primarily adjacent to this property which I will refer to as the Stout property.  You can see that while Oak Lane would be extended to the east, I am sorry to the west, it did not create a corner lot here.  Under the proposal you can see that in addition to the westerly extension of Oak Lane that there would now be a north south street in effect making this a corner lot.  The same principle with these properties along Shepard Avenue.  You will notice that under the old official map the location of that street allowed for development adjacent to it such that this would not be a corner lot.  Now, under the proposal you see that a public street would now be abutting this property and it certainly does have some impacts on those property owners and those concerns need to be addressed and brought forward to this Commission and the Common Council as to if they feel this is appropriate given the feelings about that development.

Another issues potentially is the changes to the location of the streets in relation to the connecting street network.  The existing official map illustrates a public street accessing Shepard Avenue.  This future street aligns with another future street that is an extension of Oak Lane on the east side of the of Shepard Avenue.  You can see that under the existing official map here it extends across Shepard Avenue, here is the big retention basin and it aligns and is drawn based on the location of Oak Lane extended.  Section 4.102 of the Code requires that where streets intersect major streets, their alignment shall be continuous.  It would not be physically possible to move the alignment of Oak Lane on the east side of Shepard to meet the location proposed as part of this map amendment because of the location of that detention basin. 

While the proposed subdivision, in most circumstances follows the intent of the existing official map, because a lot of what happens on the interior of the subdivision, or the interior of the properties which does not physically impact the adjacent joint property owners we give a lot of discretion to owners of the property.  They can basically design roads within their subdivision and within their properties with a lot of flexibility as long as they don’t impact the adjacent property owners or the adjacent location of other streets.

So, for the most part, I would say that this subdivision does a pretty good job of laying out what would be a half, I am sorry, minimum 17,000 square foot lots and provides for a lot of open space.  There have been several informational meetings held between the developer and the neighborhood, the most recent as late as last night.  I guess having gone through this before most recently on Pennsylvania Avenue in the third district, what I said back then today holds true today obviously is that when ever you make change to the official map there is going to be impacts and it is the job of this Commission and ultimately the Common Council to determine whether or not the impacts on one property owner are enough to offset the gain that might be present to the neighborhood.  It is not an easy decision because there is winners and there is losers and the secret is trying to come up with a consensus of what is the best to develop for the neighborhood.  I think that in looking at this there certainly is a balance that you have to play.  You look at the existing street pattern and there are probably parts about the existing street pattern that people probably are not real happy with.  I know that the existing street pattern does present some challenges because the minimum lot size has changed for that zoning district and it may very well be obsolete or present some very significant challenges to develop under that street pattern.  At the same time, there are some choices to be made by some of those property owners who might be affected by the proposed changes.  I mean, I cannot speak for the Stouts.  I cannot speak for the people on the southeast corner of the subdivision.  I cannot speak for the people along Shepard Avenue as to how they would feel given the changes of moving the road closer to their property or eliminating the potential for redivision.  I think that is what the public hearing is for and ultimately depending upon the level of public involvement the Chair feels is appropriate for this evenings meeting.  Those are the issues that need to be brought forward by the residents of that neighborhood so that we can work together whether whatever street pattern is adopted.  Whether it is the existing one or whether or not it is a high bread of the two.  I think that there is room to work with all the parties that are involved to have something, which does make sense there, which doesn’t provide impacts, which are not tolerable by some of those adjacent property owners.  So with that, I think that there is a sense on the part of staff that the existing street pattern may not be appropriate and stopping short of saying that this street pattern that is proposed is the best for the neighborhood I cannot necessarily say that because there are a number of factors involved.  Those are the human factors that need to be considered by the Plan Commission and the Common Council.  Again, we need to hear from the Stouts.  We need to hear from the adjacent property owners.  What do they feel is the impact of moving those roads where they are being proposed and what alternatives exist which might alleviate some of those impacts and provide for a better subdivision layout.  So, that is where we are and I encourage Betty, the Chair, to open it up.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I am going to open it but before that I am going to do a little bit of talking myself.  Ah, I went back and spent the afternoon pulling the whole file from beginning to end of this because I remember this being a very hot topic at one time.  There were many comments and I pulled the old street pattern.  Now if you look on the back of your agenda item you will find the existing official map mending and that is the existing one I believe here and what the proposed amendment.   I’d like to pass this down to the Commissioners.  This is what existed before the ordinance came out that map amendment for the quarter section 28 what showed all the cross streets and so forth.  That was the old, that was the one that existed before the one that is now existing.  Just, there is a difference if you’ll notice the way it is laid out.  Entirely different.  Then we look at what they are proposing here with that and my question is, I just want, so you hear what I am saying cause I did spend time on this and then I am going to open it to you.  If you’ll notice there is one, two, three, four.  When you get over to this parcel where there is proposing to put this street they don’t own that parcel right now.  So, if somebody were to come and develop that parcel they could change the whole, whole pattern of this.  Then you’d have one and two entrances if it went that way.  And that is what I wanted you to be aware of.  I have some of the ordinances that I pulled.  What some of the agenda items, what the people themselves decided on ah exhibit A when they went with this.  And so, those are the things that I found out but, it was a very controversial thing at that time and a lot of people spoke and they came out with that the A was the best, would have been the existing pattern.  So now, any of the Commissioners have anything or do you want to hear from the audience first and then questions.  Okay.  I am going to open this to the audience and I’d like you to come up to the podium and state your name and your address and what your feelings are.

Mr. Wellstein:               My name is Frank Wellstein and I live at 160 W. Aspen Court in Oak Creek.  I am here tonight representing James and Linda Struhar who live at, what it is it 88 ...9981…9991 S. McGraw Drive.  Ah, in review of the issues that Doug went through he failed to mention the issue that I brought to his attention.  I wrote him a letter in October regarding the fact that the Struhar’s were ah, ah, opposed to the proposed change ah, that was presented ah, by the potential developer as to the street pattern in this area.  On their property which is being designated there by the little dot, there already is a reserved, a reservation for public street which was recorded by the City when that certified survey map was created in 1984.   I know that very well because I actually did the work, I was the registered land surveyor who did that certified survey map.  I am surprised it is not shown on the official map.  Most of these reservations are.  It is unusual.  But anyway, they oppose the change because the new plan as shown would eliminate access to a street from the rear of their property.  Ah, they have owned this property, the Surnowski’s who live adjacent, parents of Linda Struhar, have owned this property for fifty years.  Have been residents here in Oak Creek.  They sold the property to their daughter and her husband and that is when they divided off their home and allowed the Struhar’s to build their home on McGraw Drive.  Ah, they had planned on utilizing that property for all this time and ah, it just seems unconscionable to think that a resident who has been here this long would face a situation that you would change the map and eliminate the street access that they had and indicated for many many years.  Shown, requested by the City to reserve.  Just defies understanding so, they are strongly opposed to this change.  Thank you.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Would somebody please give the lady... No they will give you a mic. right there.  Would you just state your name and address please.

Mary Surnowski:          Yes.  I am Mary Surnowski.  I am the mother of Linda Struhar and we have been living here now for fifty years.  Now, the official map was adopted in 1960.  Now, they approached us years ago if we wanted to be land locked or we wanted a proposed road in the back.  And we said no we don’t want to be land locked, we would rather have the road back there.  Someday we could make use of that.  Well it took years and years and years.  Now, they come here, the developer came and he submitted a plan, the first plan which we didn’t go along with it because they land locked only, not only me but the family north of us and Dorothy Hansen.  Then it turned around and came along with the second plan, which they land locked me.  They let it open for the neighbor next to me and for the one north of him.  So, I did not care for this plan at all because I don’t know why we should be landlocked when all these years we have had this property.  Do you know what I mean?  And it has always been an official map for years and years and years.  I just don’t understand this at all.  I don’t approve of what they are trying to do.  And I am speaking here for my daughter.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Can I ask you a question?  Are you proposing the official map that was amended a long time ago which was done in 2001, where it shows that they have access to a road back in there...

Ms. Surnowski:            Right. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    That’s the one that you, that you are saying that existed.  You would like it to stay that way. Is what I am hearing? That’s what I am hearing you say.  Is that correct?

Ms. Surnowski:            Right.  Oh, I’m sorry.  Right that’s the one.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you.  Well I’ll open it to anyone who wants to speak.  Please give your name and your address.  Thank you.

Madeline Koenen:        Madeline Koenen.  10141 S. McGraw Drive.  I guess I am going to talk in generalalities.  First of all, we spent a lot of time in 2001 working out ah, ah, plot that was in agreement with everyone in the neighborhood.  Ah, and now they come in and want to change it.  I think we have to look at the impact of the number of lots that could be achieved with the change.  Ah, my understanding from the budget meeting is that we have to have $249,000 home for the City to break even.  Ah, and the homes that they are proposing I don’t think can meet that criteria.  I think even as a City we have to look at the impact on the school system and consequently all the residents and the taxes.  Ah, I’ve asked twice for a topographical survey regarding the drainage.  That is a very hot item regarding the drainage.  Our understanding is that everything from the center of that property east will drain east.  And that impacts all of us east of there.  The other thing is that where I work the understanding of Oak Creek is that this is where you go to buy your starter home and then you move up and you move out.  And I think we have to start changing that image that we have within the County.  And by doing that I think we have to upgrade our homes which means, increase our lots size wise.  Um, also and I know they are going to speak to it we are talking about property here that is not even involved in the subdivision and so I think that you have to understand that.  And I think that you will find that the consensus of the group here is that after all the work that we put in in 2001 and I believe and I think there were three or four meetings that we attended with probably a half a dozen different ideas out there that this is what we came up with and now all of a sudden we want to change it.  Um, so I, I, I think that ah, do you have any questions of me.  I have been there for twenty-five years plus.  Ah, do you have any questions of me and our families’ thoughts?

Mr. Seymour:               I guess not so much a question but just a few comments.  Right now there is no proposal to change any zoning on the property and we are not reviewing a subdivision we are reviewing an official map amendment.  So, while your concerns regarding drainage certainly have merit I guess I would encourage you to bring those back at a point when a subdivision potentially develops whether it is under this street pattern or the existing street pattern.

Ms. Koenen:                But I think these are things that you need to consider in changing the street pattern.

Mr. Seymour:               Well if there is, if there, certainly if you see a change in the street pattern which you feel would have an impact upon the drainage in the area I think that certainly this Commission would be interested in that.  I would certainly encourage you again whatever, whenever it develops, that you become involved in the platting process to work with the developer and the City on stormwater.  With respect to the zoning on the property, the zoning is Rs-2, that is a 17,000 square foot lot.  We are and I will tell you this getting to the point in Oak Creek where we getting that quarter million dollar package and I, it is the truth.  I think if you look at some of the lot prices alone in the City of Oak Creek and I am not kidding you and you can verify this readily that the lots which are offered for sale range from probably a little over quarter of an acre to a third of an acre and these lots prices are probably, if you can get a lot which is less than $70,000 I think that you’re getting a pretty good deal at this point and time.  This is just what I am trying to point out is that, that we are getting closer to being, becoming that self sufficient sort of home lot package that provides the revenue that is necessary to offset the expense in terms of the services which are provided.  Having said that, again I am going to come back and say that that’s not your call.  That is something that the Common Council is going to consider the fiscal impacts of this decision.  The Plan Commission is charged with looking at the land use impact.  I hope I can express those in terms of generalalities as far as what is happening in the City of Oak Creek.  The Commissioners are not going to base their recommendation on whether or not these lots are going to make money or whether there is more money to be made by the City under one street pattern or the other.  That is something the Common Council is going to do at the public hearing.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    And for just a moment, Mr. Jackson, Commissioner Jackson you wanted to talk for a moment.  You had your hand up so go ahead.

Commissioner Jackson:   Well just a question the last lady that spoke whether she is for or again the proposed one.  Do you favor what exists or oppose the proposed?

Ms. Koenen:                I definitely favor the existing.

Commissioner Jackson:   Existing.  Thank you.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Sir.

Tony Gerasch:              Good evening my name is Tony Gerasch 1225 E. Oak Lane and ah, you said water wasn’t a very important thing on the street.  I guess, I beg to differ.  That road has more water coming down it than it can hold right now.  I believe the change, the proposed change ah, for the new one not only cuts my neighbor on the end.  Cuts probably part of his yard out and I am not 100% sure on that but ah, I am not real thrilled with that.  He has got some small kids and I am not speaking for him but when I bought that lot on the end it was a cul de sac and it was nice for my kids to grow up. What I am saying, I guess what I am saying is I am worried about the water and you say that’s not what this meeting is about.  Well I am saying it is.

Mr. Seymour:               Well I guess, in saying that I am only alerting you to the fact that stormwater management plans are approved by the Commission and Common Council at the time that the subdivision is developed.  You will have those same stormwater, and I hope you have those same stormwater concerns whether a subdivision is developed under the existing street pattern or under the proposed street pattern.  And to the extent that any proposed changes to the street pattern you feel impact the stormwater situation that’s what we can discuss this evening.  But I mean, and we know that there is, we have been put on notice that there is stormwater concerns there and those will need to be addressed regardless of whether this developer proceeds to develop under the existing street pattern or under the proposed changes.

Mr. Gerasch:                Okay.

Mr. Seymour:               I am not saying that there is not a water problem there.  I am not saying water is not important.  I am saying that that is an issue will have to be handled regardless of what happens with this official map amendment at a later date.

Mr. Gerasch:                Okay.  Thank you.

Commissioner Marhal:    I got a question. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Joe.

Commissioner Marhal:    Question for Doug.  The main, the main reason for this change is because under the existing street pattern this was developed for 15,000 square foot lots?

Mr. Seymour:               The existing street pattern was based on a development pattern of 15,000 square foot lots.  I am not going to say that was the principle reason for the change.  I think that if you want to find out the principle reason for the changes we have a representative of the developer here and he can give you what he feels or why they are proposing changes to the official map.  I am just saying that that is a situation that has occurred which impacts upon the viability of the developing under the existing street pattern.

Commissioner Marhal:    And if we make, if this change is allowed, then the lot sizes would then be increased to a minimum of 17,000. 

Mr. Seymour:               They are the a minimum.  Right

Commissioner Marhal:    In either case.

Mr. Seymour:               In either case.

Mr. Gerasch:                Just to go on record, I am opposed to the new change.  Just so you know.

Art Laabs:                    My name is Art Laabs.  I live at 1208 E. Oak Lane.  I am at the dead end of Oak Lane on the north corner.  So this impacts me on the side.  We had a meeting last night and there were two issues brought up last night.  And I have two issues; first off, what we are seeing there is not what they showed us last night.  Last night they were saying something about they don’t have the okay for Oak Lane to go through and they were putting two outlets onto Shepard.  And there was some controversy with the Fire Department whether they would allow two outlets onto Shepard to consider the two outlets for this subdivision.  This is different from the meeting we had last night.

Mr. Seymour:               And do you want, this is not about the developers ability to secure the land to the extent...

Mr. Laabs:                   But, but.

Mr. Seymour:               Please let me finish because this is important.  Ah, this is not about the ability of the developers, ah ability to acquire the land for that, this is about whether or not those roads should go in.  I mean it is going to be a very simple matter between the developer and that property owner whether or not they are going to be able to secure that right of way.  If they can’t, if they can’t secure that right of way then they are going to have to pursue other options within the parameters of the Code to provide the required amount of access.

Mr. Laabs:                   Okay. But they are showing us something different.  Okay. Now the next thing is the proposed layout they have is designed around a lot layout that they showed to us in September that people did not care for.  One of the things is with our Planning Commission all their stuff says the natural draining water has to be taken into effect when they layout roads in a subdivision.  Now granted you are saying this is only for the road but these roads are laid out for his purpose of his lots to put a wet detention pond in the middle to maximize the value of his lots in the middle.  But, the only reason the roads are laid out as they are.  Now he also said that he had talked with the Engineering Department, here comes water again, that all the water from the north side of this has to drain down across Oak Lane and my culvert is the limiting point.  Well I don’t understand we are going to okay roads that provide him with a detention pond in the middle to maximize his lot but your saying that water drainage isn’t a part of how the roads fit.  It doesn’t make any sense to me.  The cart is before the horse.

Mr. Seymour:               I guess, the question I am going to ask you, how do you feel that the impact of stormwater on your property is going to change under the existing official map versus what is being proposed this evening.

Mr. Laabs:                   Water doesn’t run up hill.  He is putting his detention pond in the middle of his roads.  The old map has no provision for any kind of detention pond.  That would have to be decided but the roads that he has laid out are for the plan that he wants to do for his lots.  And that is the only reason the road layout is what he is proposing is for his lots.  How can we say that the road is the best for us?  We don’t know the stormwater management, he says that comes after he gets his road plans approved but his road plan is designed on him putting a detention pond in the middle.  I don’t understand how you can put the cart before the horse so to speak.  You know.  His road pattern, if he has got his plot map here, if I don’t know if you people have his plot map with where he shows detention ponds and things.  But it is right in the middle and if this road is approved the way it is there is no other way to do this other than what he wants whit his plan in the middle.  Okay.  And I am just throwing it here and I am against this until I think the rest of the things have to be addressed before the roads can be.

Mr. Seymour:               Well, I guess, just a minute.  Just to let you know that under the process you will not get someone to develop a full blown stormwater management plan before you have an official map change there.  I mean that is again I am going back to under a street pattern whether it is the existing street pattern or a proposed one.  Here is the existing street pattern...you have “x” number of linear feet of roads.  You have “x” square feet of building pads and driveways and such.  I mean you’re gonna have those same factors in play under the existing road pattern versus the proposed road pattern.  It is just a matter of how you deal with those in developing a drainage plan for the property.  Again, and I am not discounting concerns over stormwater because I know they are there.  They are everywhere in this City.  But, you really can’t ah, say all right....

Mr. Laabs:                   Once you approve his road plan he is free to go ahead and do his lots.

Mr. Seymour:               If he can provide a stormwater management plan that meets the Codes of the City of Oak Creek and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District.  Yes.

Mr. Laabs:                   But the City has already told him where the water is supposed to go before this ever came us.

Mr. Seymour:               I disagree.  I don’t think that the City has ever reviewed a stormwater management plan for this development. 

Mr. Laabs:                   That is what we were told by the developer.  He said his first thing is sitting down with the Engineering Department and...

Mr. Seymour:               He has sat down with myself; he has sat down with the City Engineering Department to discuss concepts for how he intends to handle the stormwater.  There is a big difference, huge difference between saying well I would like to handle the stormwater here and getting a stormwater management plan approved by the Engineering Department.  I don’t know Dusty, if you want to expound upon the requirements that he has to, or anyone has to go through to get stormwater management plans approved by the City.  But, there is a huge difference between showing a pond in the middle of a colored drawing and getting an approved stormwater management plan.  I’ve seen that before.  Thank you.  I’ve seen that before, and I’ve got it in the file already.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I think you need to pass that down and let...

Mr. Laabs:                   I think the rest of the Plan Commission can see what I am saying about his road arrangement with his parkland, his detention pond in the middle.  With the road arrangement he is approve, presenting tonight, if it is approved, his plan for the lots are almost guaranteed.  There is no other way you could subdivide it unless we start this whole process with roads again.

Mr. Seymour:               I guess, why would you propose something that you wouldn’t be able to develop under.  I guess I am just having a hard time getting the point across that those impacts, those stormwater impacts are going to be there no matter what.  We could spend a day talking about stormwater impacts cause we just don’t know the answers. 

Mr. Laabs:                   We are allowing them, we are going for roads that are against where the natural drainage of the land is and that is the way the roads are laid out.  That’s my only point here.  And the way it’s laid out because I’m against it.

Mr. Seymour:               So by moving the road further west you are saying they increasing the impact stormwater on the properties on Oak Lane.  That’s your concern.

Mr. Laabs:                   I’m concerned about where they plan on putting the roads in relation to detention ponds.  With how that detention pond is gonna hold water in relation to him telling me that all the water from the north side has to flow through my culvert.

Mr. Seymour:               Okay.  I just want to frame the question before the Commission here.

Mr. Laabs:                   And his point with all the water from the north side have to go through my culvert which right now can’t handle it.  And now you are going to put in a development where you are going to have swales and channeled water compared to a field, which is highs and lows and holds some water.  I don’t see it.

Mr. Seymour:               I guess I would invite you and regardless of what happens this evening I would invite you to sit down and with our Engineering Department and have them discuss with you what actually is involved in the stormwater management plan.  And what our requirements are for subdivisions.  I mean this is not going to be a ditch subdivision.  It is not going to be.  And you are required to retain water such that what leaves the site and here is where I get myself into trouble all the time because I never get it quite right.  But what leaves the site is actually in many cases at a rate which is less then what is under the existing conditions.  And before I get buried to deeply here I’m gonna defer to Dusty because he can explain a lot better than I can.  

Commissioner Jackson:   In a nutshell it is premature to talk about the drainage right now.  But, I can assure you that there is absolutely no approval what so ever of any kind of a drainage plan yet.  What we wait for and work with is a stormwater management plan presented for a proposed subdivision based on where the official roads are.  That is what we are trying to do now.  We are going to try to determine where those official roads are then if the developer continues along there will be a layout made how he wants to layout his lots and he is gonna come up with how and where he wants to do his stormwater and that is what we will look over and be in a position to approve or not approve. 

Mr. Laabs:                   Well I have one further comment.  He made that presentation to us back in September, told us he would be presenting it to the Plan Commission in October for the layout of the subdivision.  That is what we were told at a meeting.  Now all of a sudden we are into January, they called; we had a meeting last night.  What we were presented last night is different then what we are seeing today for the road layout.  Which doesn’t make sense to me and I am just gonna say I am against it for the reasons I’ve stated.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I have a question Henry.  You just said and if I’m heard you right you said that once they get this plan the ah, change the ah, zoning on the map we change the official map.  Then they come to you with looking where they are going to put their drainage based on their roads.  But if he has the roads laid out, the pattern here, then doesn’t that indicate that’s what you have to work with.  He’s already got the roads or can you make him change the roads based on what you’re engineering studies show.

Commissioner Jackson:   No.  An official road is an official road.  And if what we feel he proposes does not work he has to go back to the drawing board or redesign.  He has the option of perhaps going back himself and petitioning to change the roads through the same process that we are doing now.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you.

Ms. Koenen:                I’m back.  Madeline Koenen, 10141 S. McGraw Drive.  I’m not gonna talk about water.  On the proposed one, my understanding okay is that the nor... the entrance from Shepard does not line up with the official map for the west side of Shepard.

Mr. Seymour:               Yes.  I am going to put up the existing official map and you will see that in the black dashed lines.  This, the proposed, maybe you can lose the lights on this bank again, it will be easier to see.  But, the proposed would be in the red dashed lines.  You can see how it kind of overlays.

Ms. Koenen:                The other concern that I have is that there was discussion last night on reservation of land such as off Oakwood Road and off Fitzsimmons.  Um, versus dedication of land.  And I don’t understand that um, and that was a concern of the citizens.  The other thing was the proposed, which was not on this map of an emergency access road.  It would be in the southeastern corner that would go over the creek.  Because of only one entrance on the property without the dedication of Oakwood Road and Fitzsimmons.  I don’t know if I am right about that but that was my understanding as I think other people understood too.  So, I am concerned about this emergency access road and like I said last night it is a great haven for teenagers.  Um, and how can, how many subdivisions in Oak Creek have emergency access roads?

Mr. Seymour:               Okay.  A couple of things there, there are a few.  The purpose of having an official map is so we don’t have to have emergency access roads.  So, that we can do the planning that is necessary to provide the proper amount of access to subdivisions.  And while it may be true and it is yet to be seen that this developer or any developer whether or not they have the ability or the real estate rights to develop the roads in conjunction with the official map that should not have a bearing on the City’s planning effort to make sure that in the over all plan of things for neighborhoods that we provide that type of access.  I think we would be short sighted if as part of the neighborhood plan for this we said well lets turn Oak Lane into a stubbed dead end, leave it there and then put an emergency access road over the creek going out to a cul de sac going to Shepard Avenue.  I think that it makes sense to have Oak Lane go through as it does now.  Now whether or not it goes through straight as it is being proposed, whether is not there is a slight offset.  Those are the types of things, which can be adjusted.  But, I think it is important to note that Oak Lane has in the past been intended to go through and I think should still go through.  That is really why we didn’t show, we did have the exhibits that were provided to us did show an emergency access there.  But that is getting ahead of ourselves.  That is basically saying I am giving up on trying to secure the access to Oak Lane.  What this Commission is going to look at when they review official maps is that what is the appropriate access for a subdivision and for a neighborhood and to say that we are going to give up on that and put an emergency access on the official map is kind of giving up on a situation which I think that shouldn’t be given up on.  I think that the issue of whether or not this developer or any developer has the real estate rights to that right of way or that future right of way is an issue between them and the people that own that right of way.  And at this point, while it is very important, and I think that the developer and the people involved ah, know that it is very important, it does not have a bearing on the City’s consideration of this official map.

Betty Lewkowski:         Okay.  Betty Lewkowski, 9950 S. Shepard Avenue.  We own that parcel towards the north.  Okay.  What I am concerned of is the way he has it laid out that road is coming through my property, which he doesn’t, I mean he’s got this road there and it’s not his land even it’s my property. It is coming to a dead end cul de sac.

Mr. Seymour:               I’m sorry your on 9950 S. Shepard?

Ms. Lewkowski:           9950 S. Shepard.  We own that big parcel.

Mr. Seymour:               Okay.  I see.

Ms. Lewkowski:           My sister and I have that big parcel.

Mr. Seymour:               I see.  Let me pan out then for you.

Ms. Lewkowski:           The second house from the lot line there.

Mr. Seymour:               So you own this large....

Ms. Lewkowski:           Yes.  And the way he has it laid out those lots I mean they are long and deep.  We can’t properly develop the piece of land the way it is as now.  Now that is approximately twelve acres.  Now you are going to develop houses on each side of that.  I mean what kind of houses, lots are you gonna put in, put in there?

Commissioner Marhal:    What do you envision for the existing road with regards to lots?

Ms. Lewkowski:           Pardon.

Commissioner Marhal:    What do you envision with the existing road? How would the lots look to you with the existing road?

Ms. Lewkowski:           The pretzel road that we have right now?

Commissioner Marhal:    Right.

Ms. Lewkowski:           That would be a lot easier to develop.

Commissioner Marhal:    I don’t really see much difference other than a....

Commissioner Siira:      I think you would end up with maybe lots that would be orientated towards this street for example.  And I think what ah, Ms. Lewkowski is saying is that these would all be very long lots on either side of this drive.

Mr. Seymour:               They would be about 100 by 200.  About a half, a little less than half acre.

Commissioner Siira:      This intermediate drive would allow for maybe lots that were orientated in an east west direction. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           Right.

Commissioner Marhal:    Just a comment.  After looking at the proposed site plan and again this is strictly a comment it appears as though with the existing lot you are going to have more density, more homes, more lots would be put in there then what is being proposed.

Ms. Lewkowski:           You mean with the pretzel one?

Commissioner Marhal:    Pardon me.

Ms. Lewkowski:           You mean with the other one.

Commissioner Marhal:    With the one that is being proposed you’d have I think less density or fewer lots. 

Mr. Seymour:               I mean the density issue, I mean it’s the...

Ms. Lewkowski:           No.  You’ve got all these lots.

Mr. Seymour:               Excuse me...the requirements are what the requirements. I mean they are going to have to be 17,000 square feet and they are going to have to be 100 feet wide.  Ah, I think what the property owner is saying is that they feel they would be better off under the existing street pattern because the lots would be smaller and potentially more of them.  Ah, I guess just in doing a very rough estimation I estimated your lots under the new proposal would be about 200 feet deep, 100 feet of width would take about 20,000 square feet which is a little less than half acre.  Now if you are looking at the distance between the two north south streets that are on the official map right now that comes out to approximately 370 feet.  So, you are talking about a lot depth of 165 feet.  So, you have to look at what the trade off is as whether or not and this is something you are going to have to look at, whether or not you feel that picking up that additional 35 feet of lot in depth is going to be offset in the cost of providing the infrastructure for this north south section of the street.  Because that’s really the question that you have to answer.  Because really all, the other things, the other factors which affect your property are pretty much equal with the exception of what happens at your southeast corner. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           Well, right.  Now that is a dead end.  How is an emergency vehicle going to come all the way from um, from Shepard? They have to go all the way around and wind up on the other end if there is an emergency. 

Mr. Seymour:               No.  They would be coming from, most likely if you were to develop your land or sell it to someone who is developing your land they would have to secure another point of access. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           Yeah. Right that would be a dead end.  

Mr. Seymour:               No.  You are saying, lets assume for the moment that this is developed down here and your saying that you would, your saying that we would, your saying that you would come in here and just develop this long cul de sac.

Ms. Lewkowski:           What I am saying is that it ends there.

Mr. Seymour:               Right.  But there is a public street out to Fitzsimmons Road here.

Ms. Lewkowski:           Yeah but those people....

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I think that those people are here and going to speak tonight too.

Mr. Seymour:               Well that is all well and good I just wanted to provide a little historical prospective.  That that is not changing as a result of any proposal being made tonight.    I believe that there are a series of CSM’s that were done over the past decade and access to that back parcel was always a consideration.  And I am sorry, has that stayed in the family for the last ten years pretty much?

Ms. Lewkowski:           My grandfather owned all forty acres.

Mr. Seymour:               And the family is essentially the one who subdivided those lots adjacent to Fitzsimmons Road.

Ms. Lewkowski:           No.  No.  They were sold off you know.

Mr. Seymour:               Right.  With the consent of ...I mean the family is the one who has done the subdividing.  And as part of that process it was always known or stated by the City that you have to allow for access to the back portion of your lot.  I would not rely on the people to the south of you to provide that access.  It was by your actions that that access was limited to were it is.  So, the idea that you are going to be able to go in there and subdivide or sell to someone who is going to subdivide your property without access to Fitzsimmons Road, I don’t think that is going to happen.

Ms. Lewkowski:           Well that is what I am saying.  He more or less has got us land locked over there.

Mr. Seymour:               I don’t think he is the one that has got you land locked. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           There is a, if you like right there is a farmhouse on the corner of Shepard and Fitzsimmons.

Mr. Seymour:               Yes.

Ms. Lewkowski:           Okay.  Now the lots next to it is not a lot it is part of that parcel. 

Mr. Seymour:               Yes.

Ms. Lewkowski:           If we sell that where is the farmer going to come in.  We have that land farmed every year.  Now where is he going to come in? Is he gonna drive through that ah, all that brush between the access there or is he gonna be driving with his....

Mr. Seymour:               If you sell what?

Ms. Lewkowski:           If we farm...We are farming that land right now.  (Audience talking)

Mr. Seymour:               What I am saying is that this is all, this is all one property right now and if you can turn off the zoning you can see that a little bit better.  This is all one property now.  The City under its Codes would not allow you to subdivide this property such that you would land lock the acreage. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           So then why should we go with his plan that gives us just ah.  What I am trying to say is these are going to be beautiful homes there now, if the farmer wants to come in he is going to be dragging his machinery and his hay bailers, everything through these subdivisions to get onto my land.  Are they going to, are those people gonna like that.

Mr. Seymour:               How does he get on there now?

Ms. Lewkowski:           He comes in through the barn area there.  Where that barn is there. 

Mr. Seymour:               And why, why can’t he do that if the subdivision is developed?

Ms. Lewkowski:           Because in three or four years from now we are going sell that lot.

Mr. Seymour:               Well you are not going to be able to sell that lot unless you provide access to the back acreage. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           I’ve lived on that land for sixty-five years and your telling me that I can’t, I can’t sell that lot. 

Mr. Seymour:               I’m telling you that over the course of the last ten years that you have subdivided the lands along Fitzsimmons Road and you basically severely reduced the points at which you can take access to the back of the land. 

Ms. Lewkowski:           My father developed that.

Mr. Seymour:               Such to the point that there is really only one spot that you own that you can access the rest of your acreage.  Certainly the Common Council as per the land division process can and on occasion has allowed lots or acreage without access to a public street.  But the Code itself does not allow for that.  So, if you came in here with a certified survey map to break that lot off such that the remaining acreage did not have access or the proper amount of access onto a public street the recommendation of this staff and likely of this Commission would be to deny that because you have to provide that access.  And that is why, that’s why you have it right now.  And that is really the only reason that this is buildable back here because you have that access onto a public street.  

Ms. Lewkowski:           Well then there is no way that I am going to approve that new street because then the farmers can go through the subdivisions and get onto my property.  It is as simply as that.

Mr. Seymour:               Well, then the fact, I am just trying to tell you is that, I mean, you need to look at that and whether your approve of what’s happening or don’t approve of it.  Just take a look at it in terms of how it affects your ability to develop your land.  I’m not saying pro or con but I’m, I just want you to know what you are getting into there.

Ms. Lewkowski:           Well I am going to tell you something when I gave my approval for that pretzel Mr. Raffi, or Raffi here, he had this all drawn out and not thinking at that time.  We thought that maybe he was gonna acquire our land because parts of his lots are on our property.  That’s how it was laid out and that was the only reason I approved it at that time.  Because I was quite happy with the old one.  But I will never go for the new one.

Mr. Seymour:               Okay. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Anybody else want to speak?

Tim Stout:                     I’m Tim Stout.  Ah, I live at 1125 East Oak Lane.  And I would like to talk about the negative impact that this would have on our property.  Could you remove the yellow, or the red lines in that picture because that confuses me?  I would like to just go back a little bit.  My neighbor Mr. Garish said when we brought this property in 1999 it was, it’s a fairly good size piece of property.  And, I have four kids, three small, under age eleven that live there and it was on a cul de sac.  Even though the house hadn’t been lived in and was severally neglected we still bought the, we bought it because of the property and the location.  It was very nice for our family.  In 2001, when this plan was developed that map looked good to us because to the west there was no road.  There was plenty of land even if there were lots there.  It was still land it wasn’t a road.  In the existing map you have there you can see that Oak Lane jogs a little bit to the north.  We go from a cul de sac and now on the proposed land the proposed road going through its not even jogging to the north at all it’s going straight across.  Like I said earlier when we saw that map it looked good but someone has been out on my property and has laid markers exactly where that street is going to go and it literally is on my front door.  I lose over 20% of the land that I have in front of my house on the north.  In addition to that if you go to the proposed I now have a street that is less than 30 feet from the other side of my house on west.  So, I am severely against that, it puts me $150,000 plus improvements later, I go from the map that I liked in 2001 where I heard there was never going to be any development.  I am not necessarily against the development that is fine, it’s just that that map worked well for us.  Now we are taking away my entire front yard.  Oak Lane is going to become a race way and come to a dead stop there and then I am going to have a race way going north and south.  We did have and I think what my neighbors, the point that they were trying to get across is that we did have two meetings, one in September and one last night.  I think most of my neighbors concerns and maybe there are a few more that are going to get up and talk ah, after myself.  There concerns were really about the roads and how these roads affected all of our properties.  And, in the first meeting everyone gave their input as to what would be a better solution.  Go ahead with the development here is what we think would work as a solution for roads but it would be different then this proposed.  And we were guaranteed that those concerns would be addressed and there would be a future meeting.  Well the meeting was held again last night and absolutely nothing changed.  Nothing changed in the development.  Nothing changed in the road and I think that is why there is a lot of frustration on the part of my neighbors here is because I think all the concerns is ah, is on the part of the developer and he is not taking into account anything that the people said back in September or last night.  So that affects me severally, a corner lot you can argue but I think that is going to decrease the value of my property.  Losing over 20% is going to decrease the value of property.  I don’t have the cul de sac anymore.  I do have those ah, I am very concerned about the ah, my three children and having a road literally right in front of my house.  I mean that is a very generous drawing.  It is much closer, I mean I encourage you to drive by my house and look at the, the marks, the posts that are in, ah, in the ground.  They are right up to my ah, basically, up to my ah, the landscaping in front of my front door.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I saw your house today.  I was out there sir.  No I am talking.  Up here.

Mr. Stout:                     Oh, I’m sorry.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I took a ride today and I went with your alderman from the district and I took a ride for the whole subdivision.  Looked at everything on that street today.  I came back and I did some research.  I am gonna ask you a question.  The said something about Oak Street never going through.  Do you have an easement on your property?

Mr. Stout:                     Ah, yes.  Well I, there is a reservation.  I am sorry there is a reservation on the property.  So I own the land...

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Did that reservation show up on your certified survey map.

Mr. Stout:                     No.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you.

Mr. Stout:                     The road to the, just so I can summarize, sorry if I repeat myself.  The road to the west obviously is a, ah, a major negative for me.  Now I have Oak Lane and again the, one of the things that we brought up in both of these meetings was why not take Oak Lane if you go back to the existing.  Look at the proposed now, go back to the existing where I.... Go back to the existing there and you see that there is a small jog in there why not since I own, I also own part of the property on the other side of that street, why not move the the, the ah, proposed street as far north as you can and just curve it in to one of those pretzel streets.  That way I am not a corner lot.  I still have all the things that we bought the house for in the first place.  Ah, it will certainly help one of my neighbors who does have severe drainage problems.  It just seems to all of us ah, I shouldn’t say, ah, I take that back not all of us, but most of us that were at the first meeting and the second meeting that everything we said went in one ear and out the other.  There wasn’t any action, nothing changed.  The map we got on September 29 was the same as the one we got last night with a small exception, ah, of an addition of a road on Shepard Avenue.  Even that’s not here tonight.  So, I am very concerned that ah, Oak Lane is going to be the street that goes through and I am not saying that I am against it but I, I, ah, it has to go ah, to the north.  And that is all I have to say.

Mr. Seymour:               Thank you.  And those are exactly the types of comments that this Commission needs to hear, is how the proposed changes to the official map effect those individual property owners.

Commissioner Marhal:    Is the developer here?

Mr. Seymour:               Yes, he is.

Mr. Seymour:               Just one final comment.  And I know Mr. Stout you are working on behalf of the legal matters concerning that right of way and ah, your correct that is a matter between you and the developer and really this Commission, the City plays very little role in that.  So.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Does anybody else wish to speak?

Gary Hintz:                   Gary Hintz, 10065 S. McGraw.  Ah, Doug is there any reason that the existing map there can’t be developed with the new 17,000 square foot ah, minimums.

Mr. Seymour:               I mean there certainly, you can, you could probably make anything, you could develop anything.  Now, whether or not it make economic sense that is going to be up to the developer whether or not he wants to pursue that.  That is really not quite literally not within the preview of this Plan Commission. 

Mr. Hintz:                     But you could do it.

Mr. Seymour:               You could do it, sure.

Mr. Hintz:                     So, I thing what you have to look at is the Stout’s and any other existing people cannot move their houses.  The developer bought this piece of property; in fact I even think the person who bought it was the one who was involved in the first road change.  Ah, is buying the property knowing this is what exists he can back away from the property, do what ever he wants but, the people in the local area cannot move their houses.  And I think that is what you have looked at here.

Mr. Seymour:               I agree.  I mean you have to take a look at and how these changes affect the people who are there and the ability of those owners to develop their property.

Mr. Hintz:                     I think everybody was in agreement in 2001 to do this along with the property owner who owns the property now.  Um, I think it should just be left the way it is and if the lots, some might have to be a little bigger to accommodate it.  What is the advantage to changing it is economics, which is the developers, advantage nobody else’s.  So, I mean its an advantage to have some bigger lots which can still be sold for more money because they might be half acre versus a third acre.  I don’t see any reason to change the plan.

Mr. Seymour:               A comment was made earlier that it seems like ah, this Commission, this City is coming down on behalf of the developer and I just want you all to know that the process exists for anyone in this City to come in and propose an amendment to the official map.  Having said that it is incumbent upon the person who is applying for it to demonstrate that those impacts are going to be acceptable to the neighborhood at large.  So, this is a process, this is not something where the City is saying we are going to change this.  This is the first step in the process, which will ultimately lead to a public hearing before the Common Council, your elected officials.  They are the ones going to make the decision whether or not to amend that official map.  So, we are asking those questions and bringing those issues out, that’s why we are doing this.  That’s why this is front of the Plan Commission to bring those issues out. So your elected officials can make that informed decision.  So, I know it may appear as we are coming down on the side of the developer, I guess that is not true.  We are coming down on the side of the fairness and the side of letting the process work so the elected officials can make the appropriate decision.

Mr. Hintz:                     I just think in the past you see a lot of, it seems like in the favor of the developer because they are spending the big money to build this so the City tends to lead their way.  I know a couple of instances, so.  I think it should just stay the way its at.

Mr. Seymour:               Okay.  Thank you.

Mr. Stout:                     Tim Stout, 1125 E. Oak Lane.  My better half just corrected me that ah, and I am sorry I didn’t understand your question, I was, maybe I was just nervous.  The reservation ah, for future use on our property, we did know about that, but it did, ah the, person that sold the property to us, who is also the developer, or ah, part of the developer, they said that they needed that land for hay.  Since it was never going to be developed we did not pursue it any further.  So, sorry.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Will somebody asked a question and I’m going to answer it and maybe I shouldn’t but I’m going to answer it.  Somebody asked what’s the difference between a dedication and a reservation.  A reservation is something that is put on a map and it is reserved for something in the future.  A dedication is something where you dedicate the land.  Reservation, or ah, dedication is some cases before the City was here, um the City was here, we didn’t pay for those things and there was something put in re...quite a while ago where we bought right of way and accesses and so forth.  Because that was something that one of the engineers felt that was something necessary to do.  Reservations and dedications are two different animals and they can, there is a mechanism to take of some of those things to legally.  Because it was done in this City at one time and I know of a specific case where it was done.  Where somebody wanted a road and the people didn’t want it and it was a reservation and they could pull that and they did because there was no dedication accepted by the City but they did grant and easement and all of the utilities went into that property.  I know that because I did a lot of research and I did a lot of research today.  Believe me I spent almost eight hours just on this, looking at home through my files and everything else in the City here.  So, there is a difference between those two.  Somebody asked the question and I just want you to know.  Ah, I have, want to read into the record something that came out, to us from David Shapiro and it’s to Mr. Seymour, Plan Commission Meeting:

Dear Mr. Seymour:

I understand that Micjensar Development LLC wishes to change the official City map for the southeast 1/4 of Section 28.  I live at 10075 S. McGraw immediately adjacent to the proposed changes.  My property is approximately one and a half acres.  When I moved here I was supposed to be able to split it off at least one lot.  The proposed changes completely land locked my property.  The Plan Commission carefully reviewed southeast section 28 in 2001, at that time all interested parties where given a chance to speak and a compromise was reached.  The proposed changes will almost certainly affect my property as well as that of my neighbors.  Unfortunately do to a prior commitment I am unable to attend tonight’s Plan Commission Meeting.  I would like the Commission to know that I am opposed to the proposed changes.  Thank you for you time.

David Shapiro

Anybody else want to speak from the audience?

Ms. Jahns:                    Hi. My name is Linda Jahns and my husband and I live at 1224 E. Oak Lane and these are all my neighbors aren’t they wonderful.  I am here for two reasons, first of all um, the impact that this neighborhood has given myself actually for ten years because I am not an original resident of Oak Creek.  Um, but I have seen some development happening that I don’t like.  And this is one area that is going to develop whether we say yes or no to it and it horrifies me because you know why?  I am moving.  And my neighbors are going to remain and they are still raising their children, we have no children, my husband and I, they are grown ups, they are adults.  But, you know why I am selling?  Because my home is to big for me to keep and it deserves to have a family in it.  And, that is why I am concerned with what’s happening in this neighborhood.  Our neighborhood.  Neighborhoods belong to people who live in them and these are the folks out here.  And everyone up here needs to start looking at, oh my god where is Oak Creek going.  We are expanding, we are moving, we are jumping horses, God, when is it going to stop.  This development along with the one off of 32 and Oakwood is going to require more utilities, more schools, and we always tend to put that on the back burner.  I am leaving a good neighborhood; I am leaving a lovable neighborhood.  I am sorry to be leaving but we’re moving on again because I said we don’t want the home no more but we want to sell it to a family and what do I tell that future person who buys our home? Thank you. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you Mrs. Jahns.  Anybody else wish to speak? Dimity.

Alderwomen Grabowski:    Good evening, I am Dimity Grabowski and I am the Alderwomen of the fifth district.  And first of all what I would like to state is that I don’t believe Mr. and Mrs. Dorfner are here and they reside on Fitzsimmons Road.  Ah, they are opposed to this plan.  The Arnolds who I’d spoke to and also the Klein’s they are opposed to this proposed plan.  The Arnolds and the Klein’s, the Arnolds live at 1105, the Klein’s live at 1125 E. Fitzsimmons Road.  Ah, the reason I am bringing these two home owners names up because apparently they were not able to be here this evening but these two people would be effected ah, should East Fitzsimmons have the access to go through.  Is everybody from the Planning familiar with where I am talking about?

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Dimity, while you are talking the road would go on each on each one of their parcels.  That’s what it looks like.  This road going out to Fitzsimmons, is that what it is?

Alderwomen Grabowski:    That is correct.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you.

Alderwomen Grabowski:    We have had two neighborhood meetings with the developer and myself with the residents.  Ah, the first one as the residents stated was on September the 29^th, we had approximately thirty to thirty-two people that did sign-in.  Last night, January the 26 we had approximately twenty to twenty-five people.  Ah, and given the, you know, snow and the conditions like that I think we would have anticipated having more people.  It is difficult when you have a room of people that clearly, and I have to talked to this, with the developer, the bottom line that the Planning Commission really needs to be aware of is how does this affect the existing owners.  Many of the residents have stated very valid concerns.  The Stouts have made very valid concerns, as have the Stanowskis.  Ah, the Struhaus and it seems to me that many of the residents here stating that they would be happier with the existing plan.  There may need to be some areas that need to be tweaked.  Possibly the inner pretzel part could be removed, ah, and I think those are the things that really need to be looked at.  I have really searched my conscience and I have listened to all of the residents and I have only had possibly one person that would be favorable to the proposed plan.  Ah, so at this point, ah, I would have to support given the residents position of looking at the existing plan and asking Planning to go back with the developer and make the necessary changes.  Because it boils down to just how does this affect the existing homeowners?  Thank you.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Ann.

Alderwomen Lampe:    One other point that needs to be stressed under the new plan, that property to the north, given what Dimity just expressed regarding um, road between those two properties that you would be putting the developer to the property to the north in the same position.  As far as whether or not having an access since a cul de sac of that length the City would not develop that without a second access.  So, by not looping the road back to the proposed development you are telling those people that they need that access to Fitzsimmons.  If they don’t get it they are stuck with the land.  So, so that wouldn’t be a good idea.  I know you were all faced with a similar situation regarding a road running past someone’s house in another development in my district and I know how much everyone struggled with that.  Um, given that that person’s quality of life was severely effect and the Council voted to not run that road past that house.  So, just so you can keep that in mind.

Commissioner Siira:      Ann, I guess I was under the impression when Dimity spoke is that she was suggesting to eliminate ah, just this internal area but that, you know we would still have the access on this side.  Sorry.

Alderwomen Lampe:    Yes.  But Dimity mentioned that the people along Fitzsimmons do not want that small road going out that way.

Commissioner Siira:      Okay.

Alderwomen Lampe:    And if that ends up being eliminated or they do not support that development then if its in a cul de sac as he is proposing then that’s land locked.  Because you cannot develop a cul de sac that long or it limits how many lots they can put on it.  So that, that would be an adverse affect.  So, that’s pretty much what I have to say.  I think it’s a shame that you, that its taken this long to get to this point and um, and I think there is other things that you’d be able to do with this without having those negative effects.  It is always a balancing thing for people on Plan Commission and the Council to try to get a good development without adversely affecting the people around it.  And while it might have seemed like an attractive development internally, I think more attention needed to be paid to the neighboring community in the development of that plan. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Thank you Ann.  Now, I guess does the developer have something he’d like to say.

Raffi Shirikian:              Good evening.  My name is Raffi Shirikian, and I represent Micjensar Development.  The culprit.  Um, let me take one step at a time here.  I am going to start with the ah, with the way we have the plans laid out.  We have gone through several proposals internally as far as ah, basically working out with our engineers.  Going through the ah, legal documents of the Municipal requirements for subdividing a piece of property.  This property we have owned since 1984, and the most recent acquisition for one of the bigger parcels was in 2000.  And more recently as within the past weeks we have acquired the additional seven acres to the quarter south, which would be south of the creek.  As having a chunk of property we have to come up with a concept that would appeal to a market that we are trying to attract.  The market that we are trying to attract as far as a dollar value is concerned is any where between the mid 200's up to 400 if possible.  In order to attract a client like that you would have to develop a project that appeals to a certain sense.  We have a limit access to this property.  The roads, ah, this property as it lays out was changed two years ago.  It was changed because it was to old of a road plan, it was twenty-six years old.  It had an Rs-3 zoning that went to an Rs-2 zoning.  It went from in the past a 12,000 square foot lots to 15,000 square foot lots and in May of 2003 it went to 17,000 square foot lots.  Also, part of the Municipal requirements, there are substantial amount of water issues within the City of Oak Creek that require substantial amount of stormwater, stormwater management.  Manipulating that fact, the stormwater issue, we have come up with a plan that would incorporate a central pond location with a substantial amount of open space, totally approximately three acres.  You can’t, we could not in any way possible fit a plan like that within this existing road for several reasons.  The road plan intersects with multiple property owners and in the past since I had held a meeting here ah, late September and we also had another meeting last night.  Throughout that meeting in earlier September I have had several homeowners that have contacted me with certain issues that I have tried to work out with.  One of them I bought a piece of property from another one I tried to buy another piece of property from however we could not come to terms.  A third one I needed a road to come across so we went back, with languages back and forth to convey properties to the north, to the east, to the south of whatever have you.  However we that has not been accomplished yet.  If you note, the first meeting I had was late September and a gentlemen stepped up here and said we were told we were going to have thing in front of Planning Commission in October.  We spent three to four months pushing around lots and this plan as you see is what I showed last night.  There was a question that was brought up coming through East Oak Lane that the official map shows a jog to the north.  However, the certified survey map and the deed recording of that particular parcel shows a reservation straight through.  I am in no position to make a change here without the approval of the Common Council.  That has always been my position.  Having said that we had to come up with a concept of allowing this development to move forward with an alternative route of access.  We own the property at ah, directly to the south of our Oakwood entry.  Doug, if you don’t mind pointing that.  That’s ah, 1074, 10074.  Correct right down below that.  We own that property so if you see that road going up against that road we have that we want to put a lot behind that.  The reason we did not take any consideration for across the street on the western side of Shepard Avenue being that the fact that that is a stormwater detention and a park and we did not envision any road nor did I have any issues that there would be an additional road going through there.  Therefore, we felt we could put that road anywhere we wanted.  And we put it as close as we can to our adjacent property.  Now, it is true that part of the ordinance says that you need to match the ah, eastern and the western road ingresses and egresses to match in line.  That jog to the north whether it is existing or it is a straight through on to East Oak Lane could easily be matched to the western entry on Shepard Avenue.  So, we don’t see a problem there.  I am gonna take you guys do to now to the southeast corner where the cul de sac is sitting.  There is a potential that those property owner as I read the road amendment that was drafted back in 2001.  There was substantial amount of discussions of having all of those lots developed up there.  Yet not one of those client, not one of those ah, residents that live there have contacted me, nor I have contacted them with any concerns if that cul de sac should go there or not.  However, if should those residents require or want to have a cul de sac there and willing to share in the expenses of that cul de sac as far as their portion is concerned we have no objections of providing that.  Having to go further north on the northeast corner of the parcel where it loops through.  Last night at the end of my meeting Frank gave me a letter that was addressed in mid October, which for the first time I became aware of.  A letter that he was addressing the City development that they would like to see that road injunctioning through there.  That particular road parcel through there that cuts through our corner our property there is an existing wetland that is sitting there up in the north point of that.  In our previous plans we felt that road going through would create problem for our own internal development through that wetland.  And where the official map, where the official certified survey maps were showing that.  However, I did understand that in last two meetings or in least my first meeting back in early September that the residents on that northeast lot area wanted to have their lots developed.  No question about that that is clear to me as it is today.  So the alternative that from the previous plan to my current plan is that to create a circular cul de sac with a center island highlighting substantial amount of landscaping feature.  So I came up with a road plan that shows a central divider and also having the road going through on the western portion of the lot, of the development and then exiting to the northeast.  Now there has been a lot of questions and concerns tonight from numerous residents about the road layout.  And also there has been a lot concern about these road reservations and dedications and whatever.  Here is the question that I ask, when and individual buys a piece of property regardless where it is you get a description of the property, you get a deed of recording and you also get a certified survey map.  In all those documents there is a declaration of what is proposed to be, whether it’s a reservation, whether it’s a declaration, whether there is a issue of non-compliance it is all recorded.  When that individual buys that property it is accepting what is there.  Having to come and object to a development that in anyway posses a potential that there might be a road go through there is an issue.  But, it is an issue of that particular homeowner.  Now, what is it that I can do to help that homeowner? What is it that you can do to help that homeowner? There is a parcel of property where the street, with a public street reservation on it, how do you accomplish that? How do you get away with that? Now should that homeowner at the time he bought the property had come in front of Planning or Common Council and retracted the reservation which they have the absolute right to do so, then I guess they would not be having this argument today.  But even witnessing that two or three years ago where numerous amount of public hearings was held about these road changes and these reservations and these road layouts where in existence.  Yet not one individual made a comment or objected that someday they are going to have a street going through their backyard.  Yet today we have an objection.  As a developer, we would like to bring the product to the market place that one is feasible, that’s acceptable, it works within the environment, it encompasses the neighborhood that it is in and there is plenty of language in that reference too.  Neighborhood.  Our potential lots right now were, the maximum lots that we can allow within our development, within our boundaries of our lots or property is sixty-two lots.  That includes approximately the thirty acres plus the additional seven acres.  As I point that out to you that is the maximum I can get away with.  Now some of those lots, perhaps about sixty percent of them are within that 17,000 square foot range.  As a person who wants to appeal to certain landscaping features, is there a question that today or sometime down the road when we get to the planning phases that those lots are gonna decrease in number.  I can assure they will be.  But, could they increase in the value, absolutely not, because we are limited.  The southern portion of the creek that goes through is right now zoned as Rs-3.  Now had we been concerned about issues of economics and it is a substantial amount of cost to put that road through there by the way.  That small cul de sac.  We are limiting ourselves to five or six lots.  I can easily put two or three more in there with the Rs-3 requirements.  But at the end of the day I am trying to incorporate our southern portion of development to the northern portion of our development.  And there has been also another question that has come up that there is a potential, we have made provisions that I want to tie the southern portion of our development to our northern portion of our development.  There is only one or two ways I can accomplish this.  I can tell those residents you belong to the subdivision, you have access to that beautiful park that I have created but, you gotta get in your car go down Shepard Avenue drive up, make a right hand turn, park somewhere.  So with the DNR approval, upon getting the approvals, I wanted to propose to put a pathway across.  There is an issue of having the fire protection whether we have an easement through Oak Lane or we have double entry onto Shepard Avenue I have to put myself in a position that should there be an issue of emergencies and the Fire Department or the City requires that we would build an easement or an access which would be paved through that development I have to be prepared for that.  So if I put it on my plan because the potential is it is going to be there we’d like to have it there.  But, as we all know the DNR is going to have a few words to say about that and they are going to put some restrictions on that and they are going to put some restrictions on that and its going to be certain costs to us.  Now if we are going to overcome the obstacles and we get it approved we will build it.  But if we can’t overcome the obstacles, we can’t afford to build it we can’t build it.  There has been a lot of talk about how I have taken this big box type of layout.  I have looked at the old road plan and I have seen all this intersections and there has been a lot of comments in regards to kids running around.  This is a great neighborhood, we don’t want kids.... major, major...I have kids of my own and I live on a big parcel and I live in a corner subdivision, and I have created a pathway so that my kids are safe.  So I’ve looked at this old road plan and I said lets see here if someone was coming speeding through this lane here, going across, lets just assume going through our orchard heading eastbound.  Intersection one, two, three and four down below, within our own development.  I am not even counting the one up to the top.  To me, that was hazard.  Number one to many intersections with such a confined area.  Two, to put in 17,000 square foot lots within this road layout would not match.  Would not even pay.  Wouldn’t even make sense.  This is a road plan that entitles 12,000 square foot lots not 17 and more.  So I’ve went to a different plan where I have created a circular, where it is easy, you can see on coming traffic whether you have your riding.  Your kids on a bike.  You can see them coming.  You can turn around; you have an exit whether it be on the east or whether it be on the west and whether it be on the north sometime in the future.  And with that, I think in my best interest I will stop, so I can have some questions.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Ann.

Alderwomen Lampe:    Can I respond to some of the things that....

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Yes, you can if you’d like.

Alderwomen Lampe:    I tried to write these in order as he stated them so you are gonna have to click back and start from the beginning.

Mr. Shirikian:                Ah, can I take a moment.  Can I have some questions from them?  From the Planning Commission before Ann goes through.  Is that all right?

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Go ahead if...

Mr. Shirikian:                No.  Can I have some questions from you guys? 

Commissioner Marhal:    Oh.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Anybody up here want have questions, you want to speak to now or...

Mr. Shirikian:                I can bring up the stormwater. 

Commissioner Peterson:  I will ask a question.

Mr. Shirikian:                Go ahead.

Commissioner Peterson:  You do not own the far, lets see, the farthest north area.

Mr. Shirikian:                The further north, no we do not own that lot.  No.  We were not able to acquire that piece of property.

Commissioner Peterson:  Okay.  So when you talk about on your property you’re talking about...

Mr. Shirikian:                (Inaudible) from southbound.  Yes.  All the way to the ah, lots down below up along Oakwood Avenue. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    You have purchased the Wobick property.

Mr. Shirikian:                We have an accepted offer yes. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    That’s where the cul de sac is on...

Mr. Shirikian:                Yes.  And we have also, you know, bear in mind that the Ziesse’s own that five acres.  Which is, which I am still working on. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Will you show us what....

Mr. Shirikian:                That’s right there. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I want to see where that is, Doug.  That piece right here.

Mr. Shirikian:                That is correct.  Now that particular parcel can’t even be built on because it is in a flood plain.  However, our interest is again, to get involved.  Now that would be a piece of property that we’re picking up, should the deal come through, for what reason?  We’ve got a homeowner; we’ve got a property owner there that has no use for that land.  You can’t build on it.  I can buy that and turn it into a park if I can.  And that is the concept.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Okay.  I just wanted, just point out one thing.  The have an accepted offer from the Wobick’s but, that cul de sac that was put in there, Mr. Wobick was going to take that street off of there and we convinced him the last time it would be in his interest when he was selling off lots that it would be in his interest to at least put the cul de sac on.  That if he ever did future development he would be able to do something.  Then if you look down on Oakwood Road you see the one that that ties into this property.  At the time we were also just suggested that he carve that out as a lot.

Mr. Seymour:               And that actually is, that’s in effect....

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Okay.  But that would be a lot because at the time if he didn’t we knew the lot sizes were going up and he would be hamstring.  Having a piece of land he couldn’t do...So those are things that were pointed out to Mr. Wobick when these things happened.

Mr. Shirikian:                And recognizing that, with those concerns we were able to work out a deal where we can buy that property. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Any questions.  Go ahead Henry.

Commissioner Jackson:   The southeast corner Raffi, you mentioned that you haven’t talked to anybody there.

Mr. Shirikian:                Nope.  Nobody.  I have been in contacted from no one.  Um.

Commissioner Jackson:   Has there been any, have they been at any of the meetings?

Mr. Shirikian:                I am not even sure if they have been at the meetings because I.. I am going to say they were for sure the full residences going from south to north were attend, have attended the first meeting.  Because I have them shaded within the lot layouts.  But they attended that meeting.  However, I haven’t had any feedback.  I know one of those residents, but I can’t know which one wanted to buy additional acre.  However, the value of land that he was looking for was substantial money.  And we could not, I could not accommodate him.  I’ve got other property owners up along Shepard Avenue that wanting to sell their back lots.  Some small, some big.  You know, you have to take into consideration that I can’t just go on a buying binge here.  Ah, as much as I am willing to help but you know, eventually we are at this point where we want to get a road in here.  We want to get it approved.  We want to move on with our planning phases.  We want to bring in, we want to manage our stormwater issues and get that resolved.  Now, there was a comment made that, you know, that my culvert is going to take it.  Yes.  I did make that comment.  The comment is that there is a flood plain corridor I have to meet with my stormwater and to simplify explanations, is that if you would envision your culvert and your front driveway and if the stormwater management tells me that you have to meet so many cubic feet of water going through that out of that entire parcel that is exactly what I gotta work with.  So, if my detention pond is in excess of an acre right now I might be forced to put a two-acre pond there if it doesn’t work.  I gotta make it work.  This isn’t up to me.  Mathematics are involved here. 

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I’m well aware of that.  Because I will tell you, I was the Chairman of the Stormwater Master Plan for seven to eight years and we had somebody else in the audience that was on.  So we are well aware of that.

Mr. Shirikian:                Well, I am on board on that to.  I mean I, were gonna make our map work.  Whether we make the ponds deeper, bigger, shallower, move them around, whether configure them to a different point of directions, we are gonna make this thing work.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Doug, I wanna, when I’m looking at the map that I have in front of me.

Mr. Seymour:               Existing or proposed.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    Where, where’s the a.yeah, the proposed one.  Where is the southeast corner that we are talking about?

Mr. Seymour:               It is on screen right now.

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I can’t see it from here. 

Commissioner Jackson:   Is there is anybody in the audience from those lots.

Mr. Shirikian:                Is anybody here that owns any one of those four parcels with the exception of Mr. Shapiro because I know he sent written record.

Audience Member:       My mother-in-law owns 10122.

Mr. Shirikian:                Okay.  But is that one of them.  I don’t know which ones they are.  Okay.

Mr. Seymour                10161, 10141, 10181

Commissioner Jackson:   Okay.  Well then, I would be curious to know what the feelings are there because if I understand what you said, Raffi, is the existing layout now they have at least access to a cul de sac.  The new proposal eliminates that and Raffi indicated that he could, if they were willing to participate he would be willing to extend the road back and get you access.  Which is quite a difference from the original proposal.

Ms. Adair:                    Personally my only concerns are the water, because we do have a lot of water on our property.  And ah, we have no desire to develop our woods.

Mr. Seymour:               If you just want to give your name and address for the record.

Ms. Adair:                    10161 S. McGraw Drive, Sharon Adair.  I am curious can you build a park on a flood plain?

Acting Mayor Kopplin:    I, I was, when he said that I was gonna ask him the question.  If that is the detention pond they could probably, they will landscape it and d