MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004
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, Commission Kopplin, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson. Also present were Director of Community Development Douglas Seymour, Planner Jeff Fortin and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2004 Plan Commission meeting with an amendment to the Ashbury Woods item to reflect that the erosion control fencing had not been installed at the time of the meeting on July 13, 2004. Commissioner Foeckler seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the July 20, and the August 2, 2004, Common Council meeting.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the moratorium on the properties adjacent to South 27th street was a straight six months or if it could be extended without another motion. Mr. Seymour explained that the Common Council could extend the date if they deemed it necessary otherwise it would expire on February 1, 2005.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Jack Collier was requesting Plan Commission approval of a phasing plan for the 148 unit condominium complex known as Ashbury Woods.
At the Mayor’s request from July 13, 2004 Plan Commission meeting, the City Attorney prepared an opinion regarding whether the vegetation removal activities taking place at the site constituted the commencement of construction, and whether the planned unit development had proceeded legally under the terms of its conditions and restrictions. According to the City Attorney’s written opinion, it is his opinion that the removal of vegetation constituted the commencement of construction, and that the commencement of construction had taken place within the 18-month time frame established by the conditions and restrictions.
Mayor Bolender questioned if the erosion control fencing had been installed at this time. Mr. Collier stated he has not done anything at the site since it was posted with a stop work order. It has been determined where it should be placed as soon as grading of the site starts.
Commissioner Peterson questioned passing the phasing plan and rewarding the developer for violating the ordinance. She questioned the message that was being sent to developers.
Mr. Collier explained that it was his opinion that when he appeared before the Commission in August 26, 2003 that the phasing plan was established at that time. Phasing was also discussed in front of the Common Council. If the entire site was cleared and done all in one phase a phasing plan would not be necessary and there would be no violation. The ad hoc committee had conveyed to him that they would prefer the phasing of the site rather than see the entire site cleared and left empty for what could be several years. Mayor Bolender questioned if Mr. Collier had discussed a phasing plan with Planning, Engineering or Inspection in regards to the phasing plan. Mr. Collier stated the plans had been turned into engineering last fall showing the location of the phasing line.
Mr. Seymour questioned if the Mayor was directing staff to proceed in the direction of enforcing the violation that had occurred by revoking the planned unit development. Mayor Bolender stated that was evidently what needed to be done.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned the practical ramifications of striking the existing PUD and reverting back to the underlying zoning. Would it be a possible that the neighborhood could get a worse product than what was negotiated? Mr. Seymour explained that everyone spent a considerable amount of time negotiating the compromise that was best for all parties involved. There may have been a violation in the commencement of the clearing of the property, how the remedy of removing the PUD would get a better product than what was previously agreed to by the ad hoc committee, Plan Commission and the Common Council. The results of the negotiations were the best plan that could have been put in place considering the circumstances.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if this development did not go through as planned could this end up apartments. Mr. Seymour explained that it was possible that this could revert back to the underlying zoning which would be Rm-1, multi-family zoning. With the history on this parcel there are multiple zonings and quite literally was a mess that was negotiated through with the neighborhood and the Plan Commission. Legally if it would revert back to the Rm-1 he could not say for sure.
Commissioner Marhal stated he would much rather see the condominium units built than take the chance that these could be additional rental units. Mayor Bolender replied that he agreed but there was a violation and the rules need to be enforced.
Commissioner Correll questioned if the only remedy was to revoke the PUD. Mr. Seymour questioned the goal of the Commission. Were they looking to enforce the erosion control standards or to set a precedent that developers or anybody would be held to the same standard. There are means for the building commissioner to enforce erosion control standards.
Commissioner Peterson stated this was not about erosion control but about Mr. Collier not coming before the Plan Commission in a sufficient amount of time for the phasing plan to be approved. Mr. Seymour questioned Commissioner Peterson’s end goal for this development.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the PUD were revoked would there be new conditions and restrictions that have been changed since the approval of the original ordinance that would apply to this situation. Mr. Seymour stated there have been no changes since the PUD was approved to this PUD. The City will be asked to adopt new setbacks to wetlands in the future that may affect a future reapproval of this PUD. Commissioner Kopplin pointed out that the conditions and restrictions would then be the same if he had to reapply.
Commissioner Dickmann stated that it would be drastic to dissolve the PUD after all the effort put into it. If the Commission has questions about penalties that may be applied he suggested they consult the City Attorney on those alternatives.
Commissioner Jackson suggested that the alternative may be to not do a phasing plan and then there would be no need for Mr. Collier to even be before the Commission. Mr. Collier explained that reason for the phasing plan was to accommodate the wishes of the neighbors who did not want to see the entire site cleared at one time if it did not need to be, so trees could be saved until the area was ready for development.
Mr. Seymour stated that he resented being put in the position that Mr. Collier put staff in by brushing at the back end to get something going. That is how mistakes are made and that is how this mistake was made. From that standpoint it was not the best effort by anyone in this case. He also stated that they need to look at what the end goal is and what the commission and the neighborhood want.
Mayor Bolender suggested that they go with Commissioner Dickmann’s suggestion to refer it back to the City Attorney for the penalty that would be applied to this situation. Mr. Seymour explained that the request was for a phasing plan and that the violations and enforcement of the penalties are typically not something that the Plan Commission would be involved with.
Commissioner Kopplin suggested that something be put in place to deal with this type of situation in the future and at this point the Commission should adopt the phasing plan and refer to the City Attorney for a penalty.
Commissioner Correll agreed that it would be short sited to scrap the whole deal at this time and they should approve the phasing and let it move forward and let the City Attorney decide punishment.
Mr. Collier stated he would have to wait to see what the City Attorney decided because it sounded arbitrary to him. The other option would be to clear the entire site if the penalty was out of line.
Commissioner Kopplin stated that if the entire site was cleared without a phasing plan the entire could sit for years without any buildings.
Commissioner Foeckler explained that if the Commission approved a phasing plan that Mr. Collier would be bound by that phasing plan. The ordinance is clear that a phase that is not being developed could not be cleared. Mr. Collier stated he understood that but if the City Attorney came back with an outrageous fine for violation he would have to take a hard look at whether he wanted to proceed with a phasing plan.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if the item could be held until they heard back from the City Attorney. She questioned if by approving a phasing plan if they were changing the ordinance and saying that the violation did not matter. Mr. Collier replied that a section of the ordinance was violated and it did not seem that the remedy for that would be to dissolve the entire ordinance.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that there was nothing in the ordinance that explained what the result of violating the ordinance would be. In essence they would not be changing the ordinance by approving a phasing plan but simply be prescribing that the penalty would not take away the PUD but referring the matter to the City Attorney to prescribe the penalty. Commissioner Peterson questioned again what message they would be sending to developers by approving this when there is a violation.
Mayor Bolender expressed that they would be sending a message by applying a monetary penalty on Mr. Collier for the violation. What was trying to be accomplished was to send a message to Mr. Collier that a rule was broken and he would have to pay for it but not to throw out all the work by a lot of people.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if the Commission passes the phasing plan and then the City Attorney says that the penalty would be to throw out the PUD and start over has the Commission taken away that option by taking action on the phasing plan. Mr. Collier explained that the remedy would be for him to clear the entire site and do one phase and then there would be no violation. If the phasing plan was approved he would only clear on the half requested. If the City Attorney comes back and says it was a violation he would clear the entire site and the development goes on with nothing lost.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission approve the phasing plan for the Ashbury Woods condominiums with the condition that the required Fire Department minimum access standards are maintained for each phase of the development and that it be remanded back to the City Attorney for an opinion to work for mediation for the violation that occurred in Section 3 of the conditions and restrictions.
Commissioner Dickmann seconds.
Mr. Seymour suggested that the terms remanding and mediation was probably not what the Commission was looking for. There has been a violation and there will be a remedy for the violation and the best the Plan Commission could do would be to advise the Mayor to direct the City Attorney to pursue whatever remedy was available in violation of that ordinance.
First and second concur.
Roll call, Dickmann, aye; Jackson, aye; Marhal, aye; Siira, aye; Foeckler, aye; Bolender, aye; Kopplin, aye; Correll, aye; Peterson, nay. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Thomas Jungck was requesting Plan Commission approval of the preliminary plat for the subdivision known as Emerald Meadows Addition No. 2 at 10625, 10590 S. Emerald Meadows Dr. and 3620 E. Elm Road. The subdivision would create 50 lots in the Rs-2, Single Family Residential zoning district. Lots within this zoning district must have a minimum area of 17,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Each of the lots within this subdivision meets or exceeds that minimum criterion.
Based on the direction of the Plan Commission the developer has prepared a natural resource protection plan for the portion of the property lying within the limited development area.
Martin Pietruszynski, 10630 S. Shangri La Court, developer of Shangri La. The road was originally put in for an ingress and egress to the land to the east which was landlocked. At this time the land is no longer land locked and the road is not necessary. There are fifteen property owners all in consensus to eliminate the road. The road will allow too much traffic to our exclusive subdivision and will jeopardize the life style of the Shangri La subdivision. The road is too narrow and can’t handle the heavy traffic and it puts the children in jeopardy. This is an established subdivision and we do not want the road to go through under any circumstances.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned which parcels Mr. Pietruszynski owned. Mr. Pietruszynski owned both of the parcels to the east of the Shangri La subdivision and sold them to Mr. Jungck. Commissioner Foeckler explained that he did not have a problem with his request but Mr. Pietruszynski had control over the property and sold it to Mr. Jungck with the understanding that there would be a road in that location. If it could be worked out he did not have a problem with clearing the road.
Mr. Pietruszynski stated that he was speaking for everyone when he stated they did not want the road. Mr. Seymour asked if Mr. Pietruszynski spoke with the residents of Emerald Meadows first phase on whom the traffic would be displaced upon and they are also okay with that. Mr. Pietruszynski stated he did not talk with any residents of the Emerald Meadows subdivision.
Mr. Seymour explained that by closing off the road the traffic would be forced past someone else’s house. Mr. Pietruszynski stated there would only be eleven homes in that cul de sac that would have to go through Emerald Meadows. It would only create a traffic situation for the Shangri La subdivision it would not be a traffic situation for the Emerald Meadows subdivision because it is part of their subdivision.
Mr. Seymour explained that by closing off the road it would not be eliminating the perceived traffic problem it would be putting off on somebody else. Mr. Pietruszynski was trying to preserve the integrity of the residents of Shangri La who have invested heavy money into their homes and their life style. Commissioner Foeckler stated the reason the lifestyle was being jeopardized was because Mr. Pietruszynski sold the land and lost control.
Commissioner Foeckler commented that the houses in Shangri La are large houses and large lots and the houses in Emerald Meadows are relatively smaller. Earlier Mr. Pietruszynski stated that there would only be eleven houses that would be routed back into the Emerald Meadows instead of going into Shangri La. Eleven homes would not be much of an inconvenience. Mr. Pietruszynski stated that it would not be an inconvenience for the eleven homes but if the road went through it would be 150 homes coming through the Shangri La subdivision.
Commissioner Siira requested to see the alternative plat and compare it to the original plan.
Mr. Sean Corrigan, 10570 Shangri La Court, directly north of the proposed street questioned the City’s objection to the alternative plat. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained that this was a City not made up of individual subdivisions and what one subdivision does effects all the other subdivisions. If you say 100 cars would be diverted that would be 100 cars that are going to be traveling past one of the neighbors now. If 200 cars move south throughout the day and none of them go past Shangri La that would mean that 200 cars have to go by Emerald Meadows. If both streets are open and through theoretically each person shares the burden equally. The road would give adequate access to everyone. In the worst case scenario when it comes to fire or police safety is a lot of dead end streets. If someone needs assistance at the end of a dead end street the department is limited because they cannot gain access from another direction. We will allow cul de sacs as long as somebody can pull the hose. It has been stated that sometimes portions of Elm Road flood just east of Shangri La and sometimes you can’t get through, if that is the case, this would be an alternative access for the fire trucks to go around the flooding and get access to people on the west end of Elm Road. The more access points the safer the community is, not just for fire, but it reduces the traffic throughout the City. You are worried about the children playing in the streets, what about the children in Emerald Meadows, they need to play in their neighborhood also. It is important that we all join together and be a little inconvenienced for the safety of all.
Mr. Corrigan questioned if those where the only two concerns. Mr. Seymour stated that this is not a City of subdivisions but a City of neighborhoods. The fact that a public school is being located in this neighborhood to isolate one part of the neighborhood from that public school and force any of the attendance from that portion of the neighborhood to go down to Elm Road is not what we are looking at in terms of neighborhood development within the City.
Commissioner Jackson reinforced the point of continuity and access, fire and safety, are the major components. When you do a city map there if very little times that you design for a cul de sac. Cul de sacs interrupt the flow of continuity. Every subdivision road including Shangri La is built to standard subdivision sections, standard widths and standard road strength so that would not be an issue.
Mr. Seymour asked Commissioner Jackson to compare the cross section for Shangri La versus the cross section for the original Emerald Meadows drive. Commissioner Jackson stated they are basically the same cross section with ditches.
Mayor Bolender questioned if the east side behind Shangri La was a limited development area. Mr. Seymour stated the Shangri La subdivision was developed before the idea of a limited development area was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Cindee Simmons, 10675 S. Shangri La Court, questioned if the new subdivision would have street lights. Commissioner Jackson stated that it would. Ms. Simmons expressed concern for the children being able to walk on the streets. They are not able to go onto Elm Road at this time and if the subdivision is allowed to go through they won’t be able to walk on their own street.
Commissioner Foeckler addressed the issue of safety in the Shangri La area coming up at this time because there was originally a street that was supposed to connect to the Shangri La subdivision. The long cul de sac was approved as a temporary thing until the connecting subdivision gave additional access. Ms. Simmons expressed concern for her children not being able to leave the yard because of the traffic which would be to the benefit of the new residents and not the existing residents. She was not told there would only be thirteen lots when she purchased her lot.
Commissioner Correll questioned why Mr. Pietruszynski did not get a commitment for only thirteen lots when he sold the land. Was it because it would not be worth as much? Mr. Simmons wanted to know why the existing residents should be penalized for Mr. Pietruszynski’s land sale. She stated there was too much land being developed in Oak Creek and it was pushing the existing residents out of Oak Creek.
Mr. Tom Quinn, 10535 S. Shangri La Court, understood that what they were told when they bought their land is not what is going to happen but if the developer is offering a compromise that Shangri La is happy with why can’t it be considered. Residents of Shangri La are happy with it and the developer is happy with it why not consider the option. Shangri La is a lot different than the addition in style. There are no lights on Shangri La which makes it a safety issue. Their road is not wide enough for the children to ride their bikes with additional traffic. Nothing has been done to increase the safety of the residents of Shangri La if the addition is put through.
Mr. David Borcherding, Landcraft Survey and Engineering, explained that the developer was not promoting the alternative only proposing it as an alternative.
Mr. Pietruszynski questioned the radius needed for the ladder truck. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained that the latter truck is very difficult and time consuming to turn. The addition of thirteen lots to Shangri La that is being referred to would not be allowed at this time within the design manual criteria. The proposed street has always been there and nothing has been said is because everyone assumes that the street plan that is in place will be followed. Now at the last minute when someone wants to develop it is being asked to change the design of the street plan. This is a safety issue that Assistant Fire Chief Krudop feels very strongly about. Time is critical in an emergency situation and access is a large part of the Departments ability to do its job well.
Mr. Pietruszynski stated that when the City allowed Bielinski to come in with the road changes he felt that he could not hold his land in exclusivity any more and then sold it to Mr. Jungck. Mr. Foeckler question if Mr. Pietruszynski owned the land when the road change came through. Mr. Pietruszynski stated that he did own the land at that time. Commissioner Foeckler asked Mr. Pietruszynski to be honest and state the real reasons he sold the land as being for profit. He then questioned if residents from Emerald Meadows original subdivision were in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Seymour stated that residents of the first phase of Emerald Meadows were not aware that they may be asked to take a larger share of the traffic based on a change to the official map and that may be why there are no residents from the first phase in attendance.
Ms. Simmons suggested that the subdivision and the school be put on hold. The subdivision and school should not put the residents of Shangri La and the existing residents of Emerald Meadows in jeopardy by funneling all that traffic through the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Marhal questioned the amount of traffic near the Carrollton School. Ms. Simmons stated there were very nice wide roads in the area and the roads in their neighborhoods did not have sidewalks and also have ditches and not curbs. Commissioner Jackson stated they were standard subdivision designs. They were not narrow and met the design standards. The ditch section in Shangri La was existing when Ms. Simmons bought the lot and if it was a concern it was something she was aware of when she bought the lot. Ms. Simmons explained that it was suitable for the amount of traffic that she perceived would be on the road from the number of houses that was to be allowed. Commissioner Jackson stated it was an adequate road to handle the traffic from the school and the addition of Emerald Meadows.
Lynn Miller, 10500 Shangri La Court, stated she was opposed to the road. She lived in the Carrollton subdivision because she wanted to live in a safer cul de sac area. She was told there were wetlands behind her and it could not be developed. The lot sizes in the proposed subdivision are not similar to the lot sizes in Shangri La. If the developer was to put in larger lots which would allow for fewer lots we would not be having this problem and it would be a nicer area.
Mr. Corrigan stated again that Shangri La residents and the developer were happy with the second proposal because it solves issues with traffic patterns and developing a limited development area. There is an opportunity to meet the intent of a limited development area and make both parties happy. The safety of his children on the street far out weighs any potential safety of a house at the end of the block. Commissioner Foeckler questioned if the children in Emerald Meadows one were less valuable then his children because now all the cars would be funneled only through their subdivision. Mr. Corrigan explained that the Emerald Meadows subdivision decisions belong to the Emerald Meadows subdivision and the Emerald Meadows subdivision should be encapsulated in its own plan. He does not feel that the Shangri La residents should have to live with that development plan.
Mr. Seymour explained that the residents of Emerald Meadows made their decisions on the basis of an adopted official map. Mr. Corrigan was asking them to live with decisions that were being made on changes that he was requesting. These are houses and families exactly the same as in Shangri La.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the entrances onto Elm in the alternate plan. Mr. Seymour showed her that it would all come through Emerald Meadows Drive.
Mr. Seymour questioned if there would be a difference in tree removal and impervious surface with the preliminary plat and the alternative plan. Mr. Borcharding stated that the cul de sac under the alternative plan does not encroach as far in the trees and the pond would be completely removed from the trees and there would be less impervious surface. Mr. Seymour questioned the road way leading into the cul de sac which relocated the road in the treed area. Mr. Borcharding stated that there would be more road way in the environmental area with the alternative plan.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the number of lots on the alternative plan cul de sac. Mr. Borcherding stated there would be fifteen lots. Commissioner Siira questioned if that would be the same number of lots as with the original plat. Mr. Borcherding stated there would only be eight on the original.
Mr. Seymour explained that this was a very sensitive issue and the Commission has the obligation to take a look at how an action impacts the entire neighborhood and the entire City. The Commission has the responsibility to speak for residents that are not in attendance.
Mr. David Mazurek, 10520 Shangri La Court, expressed opposition to the road going through to Shangri La. Shangri La is a separate type of subdivision and did not fit with Emerald Meadows. The additional road will not make his home any safer and he did not see a point in the road.
Alderwomen Dimity Grabowski, questioned if the Commission reviewed the alternative plan. Mr. Seymour explained that the alternative plan was presented by email just before the meeting. It was a courtesy by the developer in response to comments that they received knowing the situation.
Alderwomen Grabowski stated at the previous meeting for this proposal the discussion was regarding limited development areas. She stated that sensitivity to natural resources should be the guiding principal when reviewing the appropriateness of development proposals that fall within limited development areas. At this time the Commission is being presented with opposition to the ingress/egress to Shangri La. The concern she has was that the second plan, if adopted, would set a precedent. Another concern would be for the residents of Emerald Meadows and what they have to say regarding this issue. Residents have expressed that safety has not been a huge concern for them in the past. There would only be four busses for the school but whether they would all be going through Shangri La she could not say at this time but thought a traffic analysis may be in order.
Mayor Bolender stated he shared Alderwomen Grabowski’s concerns and he is against small lots and wishes to have half acre lots the minimum in the City to save open space and change the housing patterns. The problem with the proposal is the small lots and the traffic is also a problem.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the residents in Shangri La had the perception that Emerald Meadows would have an effect on their property values. Ms. Simmons stated the amount of traffic coming through would lower the property values. Commissioner Marhal stated it seemed that property values were the underlying issue and that safety and street lights were also a concern.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if the residents of Shangri La should take a preference over residents paying less in taxes. Commissioner Marhal stated everyone has an equal vote regardless of the amount of taxes being paid. Ms. Simmons stated it would not negatively affect anyone else if the road did not go through. Commissioner Marhal questioned if the road went through would it enhance the property values of Emerald Meadows.
Carol Grundy, 9160 S. Nicholson Road, stated a few months ago there was the same problem with a road that ended on 20th Street and Grays lane and the Commission at that time did not want to destroy the atmosphere of the residents in that area. She suggested that the amount of traffic allowed to go through Shangri La be limited to the original thirteen lots.
Mr. Seymour explained that you could not practically limit the traffic. He also explained that there was an officially mapped cul de sac at the end of Grays Lane that was petitioned by the property owner to remove and replace it with a hammer head turn around that was a compromise that was accepted but not endorsed by the Public Safety Departments.
Mr. Quinn explained that he understood that the residents of Emerald Meadows were not aware of the alternative plan being presented but they were aware of the school site that would be in their subdivision which should be a more sensitive issue for the residents of Emerald Meadows. Mr. Quinn requested the developer explain what was done in regards to taking care of the water and lot sizes that were addressed at a previous meeting. In regards to the safety issue the City should be able to work with the residents to get it resolved.
Commissioner Foeckler commented that his true concern with this issue is that all of the traffic would be pushed through Emerald Meadows one with the loss of that access through Shangri La. Mr. Quinn requested that they pass an ordinance that would require more access roads. Without the road through Shangri La the subdivision qualifies under the subdivision rules. He should not be able to force this road on the developer and the residents of Shangri La. Commissioner Foeckler explained that the official map shows the connection and the map would have to be changed before any changes could be made.
Mr. Seymour explained that Mr. Quinn would have to supply a compelling reason that would be in the best interest of the entire neighborhood for the Common Council to make changes to the official map. The other concern is that there is a question whether or not Mr. Quinn would have the right to request an official map change on another person’s property. Even if he had the right there has not been an official request for a map change. The physical characteristics of the parcel do not prohibit a road from going in at that location.
Mr. Seymour stated for the record the people who would be deciding this issue were the people on the Common Council. They are going to have to take into account all the considerations and the Plan Commissions recommendation on this issue. Mr. Seymour explained that he would not be voting on the issue but it is his duty to make the Council and Commission aware of all the pertinent information. He would be remiss if he did not bring out the fact that by changing the official map in the capacity that is being proposed would impact other properties in the neighborhood.
Mr. Quinn stated he knew what Mr. Seymour’s job entailed but he had not heard Mr. Seymour tell the Commission that the criteria for a subdivision would still be met if the road to Shangri La did not go through. Commissioner Foeckler explained that from a planning stand point taking the road off does not work. It may meet the criteria but it does not really work for all residents.
Ms. Simmons questioned Commissioner Foeckler and why he now had a problem with the road not going through and earlier he said he did not have a problem. Commissioner Foeckler explained that he did not have a problem with people making that argument. He understood the reasoning behind their argument but he does need to look out for the residents of Emerald Meadows.
Ms. Simmons questioned if a traffic study had been done and if the roads could handle all the new traffic from a school and subdivision. Commissioner Jackson stated a typical subdivision street could handle a lot of traffic. All subdivision streets are designed under the same standards regardless of the amount of traffic that may be on them.
Mr. Seymour explained the next step that needs to be looked at with the City Attorney is whether or not a different property owner can request an official map amendment on somebody else’s property. Commissioner Foeckler stated that there is no standing for someone to request a map amendment on somebody else’s property. Mayor Bolender explained that residents of Shangri La would like to have the road erased coming out of their subdivision.
Mr. Seymour went on to explain that assuming they did have the right to request the map amendment, then there would be a process that was established by the Municipal Code to follow for the review of an alternative for the official map. As part of that the property owners are notified and a public hearing is scheduled and ultimately the Common Council votes on whether or not to amend the official map.
Alderwoman Grabowski expressed her disappointment that the residents from Emerald Meadows did not have a chance to speak regarding this issue. She also requested that the elementary school be moved up on the agenda because it relates to the subdivision issue. Her concern is that the residents from Shangri La have expressed their concerns and she has spoken with the City Attorney regarding the vacation of the road and a precedent being set. She felt that the second plan that was being presented was absolutely absurd and was going in the wrong direction. Again, the issue that held this item at the last meeting was the natural resources protection area and was not even being discussed at this time.
Mr. Borcherding stated the natural resources plan was submitted the day before the meeting and the Commission may not have had a chance to look at the entire plan. Addressing the issue of traffic, with Genevies Garden a traffic study was done and the road was only at 5%. Alderwomen Grabowski again questioned how the resource protection area was going to be handled and has the issue been resolved. Mr. Borcherding explained that the City has never had a natural resources protection plan prepared on a subdivision before.
Mr. Seymour reiterated that the natural resources plan was the reason the proposal was held over at the last meeting and should be addressed at this point. Discussions should deal with how the development deals with the issue of the limited development area and to the extent that the alternative road pattern is being offered to address those concerns. At this point the Alderman for the area and the Commissioners should have a pretty good idea of what the issues are with respect to the extension of the road. The additional direction should be how the area within the resource protection area is treated.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if Mr. Seymour was suggesting the item be tabled. Mr. Seymour stated he was not suggesting that.
Mr. Seymour stated from looking at the natural resources plan there were some advantages to removing the road but at the same time it does not gain that much because it would move the road further west and taking up more of the wooded area. The lots are oversized and have been from the beginning. Wetlands and Waterlands Consulting has done a nice job of pointing out what factors that are in play with respect to this site. They have also mentioned that this is an isolated natural resources area and that there are really no statutory requirements that apply to that in terms of building. Oak Creek has taken upon itself through the Comprehensive Plan to take a special look at those areas to see what can be done. The alternative proposal was being presented as a means to mitigate the impact upon that environmentally sensitive area was to remove that road. Mr. Seymour questioned if that was the only proposal.
Mr. Borcherding stated he could not see any other alternative. The only other alternative would be to not develop the area. Mr. Seymour questioned if reconfiguring the intersection with the road going through was ever really an option. There was a plan which showed a reconfiguration of the intersection to take it out of the natural resource area. Well it may not have been a drastic reduction in impervious area it did achieve a limited impact on getting some of those impervious out of the area.
Mr. Pietruszynski questioned what the options or solutions would be for the residents of Shangri La. Mr. Seymour again stated the options available to the residents.
Commissioner Foeckler asked Mr. Pietruszynski if he opposed the road pattern when he sold the land and if not why. Mr. Pietruszynski explained he did not realize how important it was for the residents of Shangri La not to have the road go through.
Tommy Sukkert, Oak Creek resident, stated there needs to be trees and green space in Oak Creek or people might just as well live in Chicago.
Mike Simmons, 10675 S. Shangri La Court, questioned if a natural resource study was received and reviewed. He asked that the item be put on hold until the Commission had time to review the study.
Commissioner Foeckler stated he did not have a problem putting it on hold.
Mr. Simmons also addressed the safety issue of no street lighting and sidewalks for Shangri La.
Commissioner Jackson informed the Commission that in rural subdivision the lighting is always assigned to yard lights in open ditch subdivisions. The subdivisions with curb and gutter are a different zoning and street lights are a requirement in them. There never has been a plan for city street lighting in a ditch section subdivision.
Alderwoman Lampe requested that residents on Elm Road be notified of any future meetings because they would also be affected by the subdivision.
Mr. Seymour asked the Commission if it was their intention to hold the item, for the authority as part of the notice, to inform the residents of the cessation of the road.
Mayor Bolender directed the item held until the natural resources protection plan could be looked at further and all residents were notified of the potential changes.
Mr. Seymour questioned the Commission on their preference to the language that would be in the notice. Commissioner Foeckler suggested the Alderwoman for the area have a meeting with all the residents before the next plan commission meeting.
Alderwoman Grabowski asked the Commission to consider the plan review of the elementary school at this time and not to hold them up until the subdivision could get approval.
Mr. Seymour stated it could be problematic if a site plan was approved that takes access off of a road that has not been approved. Whether or not it was a real problem with that area of the subdivision being changed before approval would be something the Commission would have to make a judgment call on and could be taking a risk.
Mayor Bolender did not believe that looking at the subdivision later would make the school that different. Mr. Seymour did not think so but things do change dramatically and he would hate to send the school district down a road that may cost the school time and money in the future.
Mayor Bolender polled the Commission members on their feelings at looking at the school site plan at this time. The Commission decided to move forward with the review of the plan review for the elementary school.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that the Oak Creek-Franklin School District was requesting Plan Commission approval of site and building plans for a two-story elementary school at 10511 S. Chicago Road.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned the park area that was supposed to be located on the school site. Commissioner Foeckler pointed out there was additional playground equipment to be located on the opposite side of the building from the baseball diamond.
Mr. Arden Degner, 8540 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, questioned if the school would have sidewalks or pedestrian access. Mr. Seymour explained that the sidewalks within the Willowbrook subdivision would tie into the elementary school site with hopefully an additional trail system around the entire school park site.
Mr. Seymour mentioned that it was the initial hope that the school be sited to maximize the amount of park space that would have been available by locating the building further east and making the open space on site part of the open space provided by the Willowbrook subdivision. For safety reasons the school district was not able make that arrangement.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if the school would need to come back before the Commission for colors or if the model would be satisfactory. Mr. Seymour stated that the model and other items presented may be satisfactory for the Commission to base their decision on at this time.
Mr. Eric DuVack, Eppstein, Uhen Architects, representing the School District, the model was a representative of the building form and mass. Material sample were presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if the optional drive was connected to the existing subdivision. Mr. Seymour confirmed that it was to the Willowbrook subdivision and was for the access of parents dropping off and for staff.
Mayor Bolender questioned Dr. Larsen if safety and accessibility issues had been worked out with the Police Department. She explained that they had been worked out and that they have also had discussions with the George Krudop and other members of the Fire Department. The pavement around the school would be available for police and fire protection. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained to Mayor Bolender that he attended the meeting and represented the concerns of both the fire and police departments.
Mr. DuVack explained the materials that would be on the building and the placement of each type of material. The building would have a high tech appearance and would meet the goals of the district for energy consumption.
Commissioner Siira requested Mr. DuVack to explain the routes around the building for both busses and vehicle traffic. Mr. DuVack explained that busses and vehicle traffic would have separate entrances and that the bus drop off would also be a play ground area during the day and would not be accessible for traffic during the day. For special activities busses would use the visitor parking lot.
Commissioner Peterson questioned what accommodations were being made for a park like appearance of the green space. Mr. DuVack stated the hard surface playground area would have thy typical playground equipment as other elementary schools.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the dumpster would be screened. Mr. DuVack explained it would be fenced and completely screened on three sides. Mr. Seymour suggested it be screened with the same material that was being used for the building instead of a wood fence. Mr. DuVack stated they could do that.
Commissioner Siira also questioned if the roof top mechanicals would be screened. Mr. DuVack explained that it would be screened with the same metal panel material that would be on the skin of the building.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the Commission would be able to take action at this time on the building as well as the site plan. Mr. Seymour stated the Commission could take action on the building as they saw fit.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the site and building plans for an elementary school for a portion of the property at 10511 S. Chicago Road be approved subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Correll seconds.
Mr. Seymour suggested language be included regarding the dumpster screening.
Commissioner Siira added:
Second concurs. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Country Creek Homes was requesting that the official map for the Southwest ¼ of Section 27 be amended. The proposed amendment is the initial step in the ultimate development of the Mallard Creek subdivision at this location.
The ultimate development of this subdivision, in the configuration proposed will be dependent upon the City’s adoption of the new floodplain boundaries. Under the current floodplain zoning, significant portions of the subdivision would be impacted by general floodplain. The revised floodplain boundaries make more of this property developable. However, until adopted, the City will need to enforce the existing floodplain zoning, and likely would not approve the preliminary plat as proposed.
Commissioner Jackson questioned the results of the neighborhood meetings. Alderwoman Grabowski stated the meetings were very successful and the residents concerns were trying to be met. The Rehfeldt’s had some concerns that Country Creek Homes has been working with them with also. The developer is conscious of the fact that larger lots would like to be seen and also has incorporated the wetlands and natural features into the subdivision. This will be a very nice subdivision for the fifth district and the City of Oak Creek.
Mr. Ray Sagan, 10120 S. Nicholson Road, expressed concern for the drainage ditch to the north of his property and when it may be cleaned. Mayor Bolender suggested he speak with his Alderman or the Street Department.
Ms. Lorraine Rehfeldt, 10141 S. Nicholson, expressed concern for being able to get out of her driveway because of all of the additional traffic in addition to the lights. Mayor Bolender suggested she add a turn around area in her yard so she would not have to back in or out of traffic.
Mr. Seymour questioned if the property owners affected by the map change had any interest in developing in the future. Alderwomen Grabowski explained that because of changes within the City there would be insufficient frontage.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the official map for the southwest ¼ of Section 27 be amended as illustrated after a public hearing.
Commissioner Peterson seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Atout, LLC was requesting approval of a certified survey map that would subdivide the property at 2320 W. Ryan Road into parcels of 9.63, 1.51 and 1.12 acres. The property is zoned B-4, Highway Business PUD and is regulated by the conditions and restriction in Ordinance NO. 637 adopted in 1976. Newly created parcels within the B-4 zoning district must be a minimum of 30,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 200 feet. Each of these parcels meets the minimum area requirement; Parcel 3 does not meet the minimum requirement for lot width. If parcel 3 were to be combined with the outlot containing the stormwater detention, this concern would be addressed, as the necessary lot width would be added.
Alderman Steve Jonas, sixth district, expressed serious concerns with the D.O.T. suggestion of closing the medians even before a traffic analysis was done. The D.O.T. is open for options and looking to see how the Plan Commission and Common Council act on these issues. Five business owners on the south side of Ryan Road will be adversely affected if the median is closed.
Mr. Randy Kluth, owner Mobil Oasis, 9510 Ryan Road expressed concern not for the development of the property as it stands but for the future access to his business. When he worked with the Plan Commission and the D.O.T. it was brought up what would his option be if he lost his current cross access and it was decided that a frontage road would be added for a controlled ingress and at the same time pull out and head west bound. It was an ideal situation. He expressed concern for the closing of the median for the four of the five businesses and hoped that the Plan Commission would ask the developers of the Pick n’ Save to go back to the D.O.T. and request an alternate plan that would work for all businesses.
Mr. Seymour stated it was an unusual situation for the D.O.T. to make such a predetermination. It would be in the best interest of everyone involved to sit down and be a part of the process with the D.O.T. rather than just reacting to something that has been put out. Typically in the formation of the T.I.A.(traffic impact analysis) there would be the opportunity to do that. If this is the configuration that is being insisted upon there are things that can be done to the western most driveway of Pick n’ Save to make sure that it would be a right in and right out and still maintain the median opening for the businesses on the south side of Ryan Road.
Mr. Steve Royer, Redmond Company, stated in conversations with the D.O.T. everyone prefers that the accesses remain open but the D.O.T. has it as part of its master plan. The concern with the T.I.A. is that if this deal does not start construction within the next four to six weeks it will not happen. Mr. Seymour expressed his understanding for them but was surprised to learn that a neighborhood retail center at the intersection of two state highways would not be required to do a T.I.A. Mr. Royer stated that the D.O.T. was in the process of doing the T.I.A. as part of their master plan.
Mr. Seymour found it hard to believe that the D.O.T. would allow this business to jump in line in front of items that have been sitting out there for over a year.
Mr. Eihab Atout, property owner, stated he has owned the property since 1997. The D.O.T. has always asked for the same access points since 1999. He also expressed that they are also not in favor of closing any median closings. The D.O.T. has told them it would not be necessary for them to conduct a T.I.A. because they were in the process of doing one for the area already.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the access for Mr. Kluth’s business. Mr. Kluth explained to her the options available to him and that the D.O.T. does not have anything set in stone at this point as Mr. Atout is saying.
Mr. Atout explained the D.O.T. has control of the access points and the certified survey map has nothing to do with the decision of the D.O.T. He also explained that the access points to the bank have nothing to do with the development of his property but the D.O.T. is going to change the whole intersection. The development of the Pick n’ Save has no bearing on the decisions of the D.O.T. at all.
Mr. Seymour replied that Mr. Atout was not directly asking for the closing of the medians but there are plans for the intersections that impose real impacts on existing businesses in the communities and Pick n’ Save is the mechanism they are using for imposing the plans. The City needs to work with everybody involved to get the best access for everybody involved. If that means potentially relocating Pick n’ Save’s second access to placate the concerns of the D.O.T. that is shooting opposite a median opening maybe it can be done. There may be other things that can be done and the D.O.T.’s predetermination should not be accepted at face value that this is exactly what is going to be done.
Commissioner Jackson questioned Mr. Royer on the timing. Mr. Royer stated that if the project did not get under construction within the next six weeks they would not be able to get under construction until spring and then it may not happen at all. Commissioner Jackson explained that there would be the development of sanitary sewer required and there would also need to be a storm water management plan required and it would be impossible to do all of those things within the next six weeks.
Mayor Bolender stated that he had a meeting scheduled with two gentlemen that have contact with the D.O.T. and it will be looked at further and see what can be done with the D.O.T.
Mr. Royer questioned if the CSM could be approved before the conversation with the D.O.T. Mr. Seymour explained that it would take a minimum of one to three weeks especially if a development agreement needed to be worked on. He also questioned if the timing on the outlot was as critical as the timeline for the Pick n’ Save building.
Mr. Atout explained the two accesses were part of the agreement with Roundy’s. The Commission does not have a problem with the CSM but with the closing of the median and that is something that has to do with the D.O.T. Mr. Seymour expressed concern for the businesses on the south side of the road and approving something in haste at the detriment of others.
Mr. Atout explained that he needed two access points to make the deal with Roundy’s. Mr. Seymour questioned if the placement of those two access points was agreed upon and Mr. Atout stated that they were stipulated to in an agreement with Roundy’s. Mr. Seymour explained it was a matter of making modifications as to the location of the second drive which is not the main entrance for the Pick n’ Save it may make it better for everybody involved maybe that should be explored. Mr. Atout wanted to know where it could be relocated. He needed to make the best use of the lots. Mr. Seymour explained that from what was stated this evening it was the location of the second drive that made it necessary for the D.O.T. to close the median. Mr. Seymour questioned if the D.O.T. would be willing to leave the median open if the drive was relocated further to the east. Mr. Atout felt there was no other reason for the D.O.T. not to close the median because it was part of their master plan.
Mr. Royer explained that the D.O.T. has minimums with the drives and it cannot be moved any further to the east with out encroaching on the minimums.
Mayor Bolender stated that problem was that one business would benefit to the detriment of five businesses and he would not allow that to happen for the Pick n’ Save.
Mr. Seymour explained that it was not the fault of Pick n’ Save that the D.O.T. was closing the intersection but the master plan of the D.O.T. He would like to give everybody an opportunity to discuss the issue with the D.O.T. before any action was taken.
Commissioner Marhal stated either Pick n’ Save or another business would go on this site and the median would eventually be closed and questioned if the issue should be looked at at this time. Mayor Bolender stated the Commission needed to be concerned with how this was addressed because the D.O.T. would look at any action the Commission took.
Mr. Kluth stated the D.O.T. told him that if something else went on this site in the future they may not have those median cuts. The D.O.T. was not telling them to put the median cuts in except the one to the east. The next business to come forward may not need two inlets.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if it was possible for this to be done in six weeks based on the process. Commissioner Jackson confirmed that it may be possible to get all reviews and permits issued within six weeks but it would be questionable.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned how quickly Mr. Royer could get a meeting with the D.O.T. and Mr. Kluth and the other business involved. Mr. Atout stated they would need to work with Andy Maxwell at the D.O.T.
Mr. Seymour questioned if Mr. Atout had it in writing that a T.I.A. would not be required. Mr. Atout stated he did have one and provided Mr. Seymour with a copy of that letter. He explained that the D.O.T. was in the process of redoing the whole intersection and the D.O.T. is doing all the work for the area.
Commissioner Foeckler stated there needs to be a meeting and the City needs to go out of its way to go through the process as quickly as possible to try to accommodate the applicant.
Mayor Bolender directed this item and the site and building plan for the Pick n’ Save building to be tabled.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Gregg Schmidt was requesting approval of a certified survey map that would subdivide the property at 1120 W. Drexel Avenue into three parcels of ±.57 acres, as well as a fourth parcel of 1.25 acres. The property is zoned Rs-3, Single Family Residential, properties within the Rs-3 zoning must be a minimum of 12,000 square feet in area with a minimum lot width of 80 feet. Each of these parcels meets that minimum requirement.
Drexel Avenue, in this area, is an arterial street with a boulevard section under the control of the City. It is not appropriate for individual residential driveways to take direct access to this street. Staff is requiring that the developer provide access to these lots and any redivision of Parcel 4 via a private road within an easement on these lots.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the placement of the easement on the lots because the Water Utility did not want to accept the easement at that location. Mr. Seymour explained that could be corrected with technical corrections on the CSM.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the sewer availability on these lots. Commissioner Kopplin explained the problem was being taken care of by an easement on Mr. Nick Schmidt’s property.
Commissioner Foeckler wanted to know if the driveway situation was the same as the one previously turned down on the 13th Street. Commissioner Kopplin explained because it was so close to the right turn intersection it would work and the residents are happy that it will be a residential property.
Commissioner Jackson added the frontage road would be the access for the easement on lot 4 and the CSM should reflect that there is an easement on the frontage road that would allow access to the easement. Mr. Schmidt was agreeable to that situation.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop stated overall the situation was acceptable to the Fire Department but a new issue was being opened up with the private frontage road. He requested Mr. Schmidt explain his plan to prevent parking on the frontage road and how it would be enforced for safety reasons.
Mr. Gregg Schmidt, W151 S7916 Mystic Drive, Muskego. Being a private drive he understands there may be an access issue and has thought about putting up a no parking fire lane sign but was open to any options from the City.
Commissioner Kopplin suggested it may be enforceable through a deed restriction on the lots. Mr. Seymour explained the problem with that would be that you would have to take them to court to get them to move the vehicle.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned if there would be a homeowners association to maintain the frontage road. Mr. Schmidt thought it would be done through a cross access easement and would be maintained by the all of the owners. Commissioner Jackson suggested that deed restrictions be added and a homeowners association be setup to take care of maintenance of the frontage road.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned where the snow would be stored in the winter. Mr. Schmidt stated there was room to the south for storage of snow.
Commissioner Marhal questioned who owned the road. Mr. Schmidt thought that the frontage road would be owned by all of the lot owners. Mr. Seymour explained the ownership rules for the frontage road.
Mr. Seymour questioned if Mr. Schmidt had intentions of further subdividing parcel 4. Mr. Schmidt thought it would be subdivided in the future and the driveway extends to the west to accommodate the division of parcel 4 in the future.
Commissioner Siira questioned the location of mailboxes and garbage pickup. Mr. Seymour stated it would be off of the public street Drexel.
Alderwoman Lampe wanted to know why he was not dividing off the fifth lot at this time. Mr. Seymour explained that if he was to do another lot at this time it would require a subdivision plat. Alderwoman Lampe suggested he do it the honest way and do a subdivision plat and do all the lots at one time.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the property at 1120 W. Drexel Avenue be subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, Dickmann, nay; Jackson, aye; Marhal, aye; Siira, aye; Foeckler, aye; Bolender, aye; Kopplin, aye; Correll, aye; Peterson, aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that at the July 20th, 2004, Common Council meeting the Council rezoned this parcel from B-2, Community Business to B-4, Highway Business. At that meeting the Conditional Use permit for a gasoline station and car wash was also approved. The proposed site plan substantially conforms to the conditions and restrictions that were adopted to regulate this conditional use.
Commissioner Siira brought up the fact that the building roof pitch that was being presented was not the one originally presented and questioned which one was accurate. Mr. Al Sweet stated the plan that the Commissioners had would be the one used with the pitched roof.
Mayor Bolender questioned the type of shingles. Mr. Sweet stated they would be architectural shingles of a light tan color. He also explained that the cultured stone would be on the bottom about three feet high to the sill and showed samples of the type and color of the rock.
Commissioner Siira wanted to know if the split face block would be painted. Mr. Sweet replied it had to painted white. They have checked with Mobil and their colors are blue and white. Mr. Sweet explained to the Commission the color scheme for the building.
Mr. Seymour questioned if Mobil required all of their buildings to be white. Mr. Sweet explained that the split face block could be painted any color that you would like. However, there are color percentage requirements from Mobil. If there is a tan roof rather than a blue roof they would need to have a blue border and a white building. Mr. Sweet explained they did not want the blue roof because it would not blend in with the neighborhood as well as the tan roof.
Commissioner Foeckler recommended the brick that was used on the Mobil Oasis on Ryan and 27th Street be used at this location. Mr. Seymour recommended that painted split face block not be used. Mr. Sweet suggested that they use the stock tan split face block instead of the painted block. They wanted to keep the building bright. A color sample will be brought in for approval.
Commissioner Kopplin asked if more of the blue color would have to be used if the white block was replaced with the tan. Mr. Sweet said the percentages would change but they could make the building border white. The canopy would have to be blue and white. The building would then have the tan block and white border with a tan roof.
Commissioner Siira questioned the aluminum window framing on the entry and if was going to be bronze that the clear anodized would be a better fit with the building color scheme. Mr. Sweet stated it would be the clear aluminum.
Commissioner Siira questioned the intentions for the signage on the building. Mr. Sweet explained they had an easement agreement with the Utility Department to locate a sign in the easement which would change the landscaping plan some and they would work with Mr. Seymour on the landscaping issue.
Mr. Sweet wanted to supply a cross access easement letter to the City not an actual easement because it is owned by the same people as the property next door and he felt and easement was the wrong word to use. Mr. Seymour corrected that an easement was the right word to use. There are two different pieces of property and they would be giving the owners and users of one piece property the ability to cross over and access the owners of the adjacent property. This is the time to acquire the easement because there is no other mechanism to acquire the easement in the event of a sale. The letter is not enforceable and the easement needs to be done at this time.
Commissioner Jackson suggested the gas station be called Chicago Road Mobil instead of Ryan Road Mobil. Mr. Sweet explained it went well with the Ryan Road Automotive which is also the same owner. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop warned the owner that they were creating the opportunity for confusion by emergency responders.
Commissioner Siira requested the dumpster enclosure be compatible with the building and be split faced block. Mr. Sweet stated it would be the split face block in a tan color.
Commissioner Siira requested signage for the drive to the car wash so customers would know it was a one way drive. Mr. Sweet agreed to handle that situation.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission approve the site and building plans for the property at 9444 S. Chicago Road subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Dickmann seconds.
Commissioner Kopplin suggested the rest of the color scheme be added to the motion.
Commissioner Marhal directed additions to condition 4. That the canopy will be blue and white and the store front framing will be clear anodized color.
Second concurs. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches was requesting Commission approval of a certified survey map that would subdivide the property at 8473 S. Howell Avenue into parcels of 3.337 and 2.03 acres. The property is zoned B-3, Office and Professional Business. Each of the remaining parcels exceeds the criterion for the zoning district.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned the purpose of the sale of the parcel. Mr. Seymour explained the applicant did not feel comfortable releasing that information at this time.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned who would provide the onsite delineation. Mr. Seymour stated the owner could provide that through a consultant or the Regional Planning Commission does provide the service at no charge on their own time table.
Ms. Jackie Taylor, 8375 S. Howell Avenue, questioned what was trying to be accomplished with the CSM. Mr. Seymour explained they were dividing the property so it could be sold to another party. The property would be divided into two parcels from the road all the way to the back of the property.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the property at 8473 S. Howell Avenue be approved with the condition that any technical corrections be completed prior to recording of the map.
Commissioner Siira seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that Charles Edleback was requesting the Plan Commission to review the two concept plans for a 62-lot subdivision and provide guidance or comments.
Commissioner Siira commented he preferred concept plan B from the standpoint that it preserved more open space. The corner of 13th and Drexel on concept plan A was an odd layout to have the backs of the houses on 13th Street.
Mr. Seymour commented that the approach of maximizing the lots of the property is most likely not going to provide a product that would in be in the long term interest of the neighborhood and the City. If the area was developed residentially the lots should be larger to provide a little more buffer from the freeway. This is not a good example of a cluster subdivision to preserve open space.
Commissioner Kopplin stated the Rs-3 zoning required 80’ frontage and there were lots within the subdivision that did not meet even the minimum requirements for the zoning.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the average size of the lot in concept plan B. Ms. Bonnie Schaeffer, Neumann Enterprises, explained this would be a suburban conservation development and would be preserving about 26% of the open space in concept plan B and two acres would be for detention and the rest open space. The 15,000 square foot lot was a compromise with what the City was looking for with the 20,000 square foot lots.
Mayor Bolender stated he would like to see larger lots with larger houses to showcase the City from the expressway. Ms. Schaeffer stated they have not come up with a minimum house size at this point.
Commissioner Marhal questioned what would be done to protect the owners from freeway noise. Ms. Schaeffer explained that the lots are deep and up high.
Commissioner Jackson wanted to know if Ms. Schaeffer had received the comments regarding the lining up of the roads with the entrance to the subdivision to the south. Ms. Schaeffer questioned if they did not supply a second access point onto Drexel would they be able to get approval. Mr. Seymour stated they would definitely need two points of access.
Mr. Dan Oelschlaeger, 7764 S. 13th Street, stated if this was developed they would like to see it be residential.
Mr. Reggie Witzel, 7751 S. 13th Street, stated he would also like to see it as a residential development but would like to see larger lots and homes and would not like to see a walking path behind people’s homes.
Mr. Schmidt, 7842 S. 13th Street, stated there were a lot of woods on this property and would like to see the woods saved as much as possible.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the possibility of making these larger lots. Ms. Schaeffer stated it may be difficult if the City was requesting them to go all the way up to 20,000 square feet.
Commissioner Foeckler requested a rendering showing the location of the woods on the property. Ms. Schaeffer stated the only woods she was aware of on the property were on the corner by the private drive and again along Drexel Avenue.
Mayor Bolender stated he would like to see custom built homes on this area and also throughout the City.
No action was taken on this item. This was a concept plan only.
Mr. Seymour explained to the Commission that BAX Global was requesting Plan Commission approval of site, building and landscaping plans for a 50,000 square foot building to house a distribution center and two tenants. The distribution center will include a 37,500 square foot warehouse area and a 7,500 square foot office area. There will be 12,500 square feet available for additional tenants.
Commissioner Dickmann clarified that he had no relationship or connection to Dickmann & Co.
Commissioner Marhal expressed concern for a large amount of truck traffic coming onto Howell Avenue and questioned if there were plans for street lights. Mr. Seymour stated there were no plans at this point for intersection control.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the amount of dock doors. Commissioner Correll stated there would be twenty.
Mr. Seymour explained the trucks were not semi trucks but slightly larger straight trucks.
Mr. David Gehrt, Briohn Building Corporation, stated the elevations were modified slightly based on the comments received from Mr. Seymour earlier in the week. Relief areas were added to the front façade of the building to break it up. They would be using split face masonry in a tanish/taupish color. It would be field painted after installation. The bands would be a masonry smooth face block to break up the masonry element and would not be painted as an accent strip but the same color to provide relief. There would be a darker tanish color masonry surface painted an accent color. The window framing would be a clear anodized aluminum framing and the glass would be semi reflective gray colored glass. There would be screening provide to screen the roof top mechanicals.
Mr. Seymour questioned if parts of the building were bumped out. Mr. Gehrt replied that the entrance areas were recessed four feet back from the building and the elements between the entrances were recessed two feet back from the face of the building.
Mr. Paul Sippy, 7505 S. Manitowoc, expressed concern for the noise from the trucks and the times they would be coming and going. Ms. Joann Kowalski, 660 E. Mackinac, Bax Global, explained that the bulk of the trucks leave between 9:00a.m. and noon and return about 5:30 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. There are about 25-30 trucks a day. The trucks are a mixture of vans, straight trucks and a few tractor trailers. Mainly there are two tractor trailers that arrive approximately 5:30 a.m. and two more that arrive around 9:30 a.m. and load the straight trucks for delivery and pick-up. The tractor trailers leave at various times and start leaving around 8:30 p.m. There are about three tractor trailers that leave between midnight and 2:00 a.m. The bulk of the trucks come and go during the day.
Mr. Sippy expressed concern for the growth of the company in the future and more trucks coming and going. He did not see the reasoning for allowing a distribution center in this park.
Mr. Sam Dickmann, Developer, explained that this would be more of a warehousing operation than a distribution standpoint compared to other freight haulers in the area. This is a high end construction with a lot of glass and the only way to make it more high end would be to have an office.
Commissioner Kopplin stated this was a trucking business and was not any different than a distribution center. Mr. Dickmann explained that volume dictated whether it was considered distribution or warehousing.
Ms. Pat White, Quincy Avenue, stated the residents were promised there would not be a business of this type in this park and this would push the residents out of their homes.
Commissioner Kopplin explained that promises were made when the park went in that it would be a mixed use with some office buildings with warehousing facilities in the back.
Mr. Sippy added that the Mayor requested higher end homes and should be more consistent with requesting higher end businesses. Mr. Seymour explained that Oak Creek’s location to rail lines, interstates and airports made a place that distribution centers would want to be located. That does not mean that all of Oak Creek needs to be open to distribution centers. He questioned the impacts that Mr. Sippy wanted to address and then they could try to mitigate that.
Mr. Dickmann stated this was considered a high end building and it was placed specifically so the houses to the south would have the front face and the east face with the glass and character would help mitigate that it was an industrial building.
Mr. Gehrt explained that a large office building would impact the traffic with about 400 vehicles per day. The proposed development would only be lower impact on the traffic on Howell Avenue.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission approve the site plans for only the property located at part of 7420 S. Howell Avenue subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal seconds. Roll call, Dickmann, aye; Jackson, aye; Marhal, aye; Siira, aye; Foeckler, nay; Bolender, aye; Kopplin, nay; Correll, aye; Peterson, aye. Motion carries.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop reminded the developer that the City of Oak Creek has fire codes in addition to the state standards provided the developer with a copy of those codes.
Commissioner Marhal motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Peterson seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 1:08 a.m.