MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004
Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner Jackson, 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 Marhal arrived at 7:05
Mr. Fortin informed the Commissioners that there were no significant actions taken at the August 17, Common Council meeting.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that Mr. Jungck was returning to the Plan Commission from the August 10, 2004 meeting where the item was held so a neighborhood meeting could be held with the residents of Emerald Meadows Addition #1 and the Shangri-La subdivision regarding access to Emerald Meadows Addition #2. The neighborhood meeting was held and the results will be presented to the Plan Commission at this time.
Alderwoman Grabowski stated a meeting was held and no consensus was reached between the two subdivisions. She pointed out that there is a dedication that has already been accepted by the City.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the street pattern in the north portion of the subdivision. Mr. Mike Doble, Landcraft Survey and Engineering, explained the master plan lays out multiple entrances onto E. Oakwood, one entrance planned out of the Emerald Meadows Drive with Oakwood and one into the Shangri La Subdivision. Revisions were made in all of the adjacent subdivisions to provide for the access points into the property now called Emerald Meadows Addition #2. The developer has provided for each of the access points and has matched the master plan as much as possible. There was an issue with wetland crossing, there were two wetland crossings required. One of the crossings was eliminated because of potential problems with the DNR. The most current configuration was presented to the Commission at this meeting and it addressed the concerns from the neighborhood meeting such as environmental protection. The developer will develop the site the way the Commission chooses as far as the road going through to Shangri La.
Mr. Sean Corrigan, 10570 Shangri La Court, thanked the Commission for their time and questioned if the Commission has had time to review the natural resources plan. He questioned if the Commission was aware that the proposed road in question would go through a wetlands area and create more impervious material that would increase the water run off in the area. Mr. Corrigan had taken some pictures of the area and presented them to the Commission.
Mr. Steven Surma, 10660 Emerald Meadows Drive, stated the residents of Shangri La had pointed out as one of their concerns that they do not have street lights or sidewalks in their subdivision and he pointed out that the Emerald Meadows Addition No. 1 does not have street lights or sidewalks either. There are more homes and children in their subdivision. The access road through Shangri La is necessary for the safety of the residents in the Emerald Meadows subdivision and the school.
Mr. Brandon Grochowski, 10601 E. Emerald Meadows Drive, reiterated the concerns of Mr. Surma and believes it would be a safety issue if the road through Shangri La was not put in.
Mr. Tom Wilke, 3900 Greenway Drive, expressed concern for the wetlands crossing and the water problems associated with the crossings. Mr. Doble explained that the road in question does not go through a wetland. It comes very close and their may be some disturbance but does not go through.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the Barton Oaks area drains into this area. Mr. Doble was not exactly sure what area was draining through the drainage way. The reason that most of the lots on the south side of the drainage ditch were eliminated was to improve the drainage ditch so it does not flood out.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the roads in the new phase would be the same as the first phase. Mr. Doble stated the roads would follow the new standards which include curb and gutter with storm sewer and street lights.
Mr. Norman Risley, 10585 S. Chicago Road, expressed concern for the water in the area and the ditch that was recently upgraded by the state. Commissioner Jackson explained that access to do the maintenance in the area in question has always been a problem. The best time to make improvements to the ditch and make it operable would be during the construction of the Emerald Meadows Addition #2. Mr. Risley stated the water problem is getting better and would like to see the City keep trying to improve the water flow in the area.
Mr. David Mazurek, 10520 S. Shangri La Court, expressed concern for the configuration of the lots in the subdivision layout presented at this meeting. There once was an outlot shown on the preliminary plat and now it shows private ownership of the area and he is concerned that he will lose the trees as a buffer.
Commissioner Correll questioned why the outlot was eliminated. Mr. Doble explained that in the original plan it was thought there might be a need for a retention pond and after review it was found it was not necessary. The developer is willing to do a buffer yard easement or restrict tree cutting within 20’ of the property line. It can be worked out with the guidance of the Commission. The plan was adjusted because of the natural resource protection plan. As much of the road as possible was taken out of the trees and the retention pond was completely taken out of the trees. The problem with the outlot owned by the association would be that there is no access to the outlot by the association.
Mayor Bolender would like to the solitude of Shangri La protected as well as the woods protected. Mr. Doble would be happy to comply with that request. Mr. Seymour stated he would prefer to see it as an outlot because it is easier to maintain control of a lot that is owned by the association than and individual property owner. The goal would be to restrict cutting to the building pad only in a limited development area.
Commissioner Siira questioned the single lane drive that links Emerald Meadows Drive to Greenway Drive and if it was being eliminated. Mr. Doble stated it would be eliminated.
Commissioner Jackson clarified that the plan presented to the Commission in their packets was different than the one being presented this evening by Mr. Doble. Mr. Doble would like the Commission to consider the plan being presented to the Commission this evening not the one in the packet.
Commissioner Peterson questioned how the new plan changed the lots. Mr. Doble explained they were able to maintain the same lot sizes on one side of the road. The lots in the woods were made smaller to keep them out of the woods. It is a much better plan for the natural resources protection plan.
Mr. Corrigan stated in his opinion the new plan was preferred to the old because it slowed down traffic.
Mayor Bolender commented that the average lot size was increased only because of a few larger lots and the rest are only 17,000 square feet.
Ms. Lynne Mueller, 10500 Shangri La, expressed concern for the Shangri La pond having to take on more water because it could not take the water that it had this year. Commissioner Jackson stated he was not aware of a problem with the pond but would check on the adequacy of the existing pond. Perhaps the inlet and outlets need to be maintained. Mr. Doble stated water from Emerald Meadows will not go to the ponds to the south and will not increase the rates for the Shangri La subdivision.
Commissioner Siira questioned the road plan compared to the new plan being presented and if the road to Shangri La was going to be going through. Mr. Doble explained that the plan being presented at this time showed the road as dashed lines and it would go in or not go in at the Commissions request. The road was made with more 90 degree angles to make it more inconvenient as a cut through for traffic.
Mr. Tom Robe, Board of Education, expressed concern for the busses and the flow of traffic. Access for the school is a big concern and the school is in favor of keeping the access to Shangri La.
Mr. Corrigan responded to Mr. Robe’s comments and requested an east/west corridor without heavy traffic flow for the children to walk to the school. Sidewalks would provide the students with an east/west path without heavy traffic flow.
Mr. Steven Surmal, questioned why the residents of Shangri La felt it was okay to keep their children safe when there are 26 school age children in the Emerald Meadows No. 1 subdivision.
Mr. Corrigan commented that he sympathized with the residents of Emerald Meadows because he wouldn’t want all the traffic going past his house either. The school bus traffic and the cars are going to be going north/south through Emerald Meadows no matter what. He clarified that he was talking about the students of the school and that they be given the opportunity to have an east/west walkway with less traffic.
Mr. Robe, stated the safety of the children was the prime concern. He suggested walkways and more direct access for the children to keep them off of Elm Road.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned what the possibility of having sidewalks in the subdivision would be. Mr. Doble believed the developer would consider putting sidewalks in the subdivision. There was an access walkway to the school from the subdivision. The bigger problem would be where the sidewalks would go to. There are no sidewalks in Shangri La and there are not sidewalks in Emerald Meadows No. 1.
Commissioner Kopplin commented that she would not have a problem if the sidewalks just went to the school and ended. There are sidewalks all over the City that go nowhere. Mr. Doble agreed with the safety issue.
Commissioner Marhal commented that he drove through both of the existing subdivisions and they are both very nice subdivisions. The master plan really makes sense and the underlying issue is the road and the master plan should be followed.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop stated that it was not staffs fault that a new plan was being presented at this time. The original plan is what was submitted with the application and at this time he has not had a chance to review the plan being presented. He questioned the length of the cul de sac if the road to Shangri La was deleted. Mr. Doble stated it would be to long. He was not trying to delete the road only to give the Commission the final option if the road was to go in or not. If he had a choice he would like to see the road go through. It makes good planning sense to put the road through.
Mayor Bolender stated he wanted the sidewalks to go to the school and did not care where they stopped. All the children of the City were of the same value to the Commission. Mr. Doble stated he would work with the Engineering Department to come up with a plan to provide pedestrian access to where the Engineering Department deemed them appropriate. The developer has considered putting in sidewalks.
Commissioner Correll questioned if leaving the sidewalks could be an issue left to work with staff. Mr. Seymour explained the sidewalk issue would be determined by the Common Council as part of their approval of the development agreement. He stated if they could provide the Planning Department and the Engineering Department with as much direction as possible it would be helpful in the preparation of the development agreement.
Ms. Kim Peplinski, 10600 Emerald Meadows Court, questioned if there was a way to extend the sidewalks from where the new subdivision connects with the first phase for the children.
Commissioner Jackson explained the ditch section subdivision has no sidewalks and is designed for the that purpose. The ditch section is the drainage way for the subdivision and with a ditch section the sidewalk does not fit. Ditch subdivisions are not compatible for sidewalks.
Mr. Tom Quinn, 10535 Shangri La, pointed out that he liked the new configuration with the road pattern. He also like that some of the woods would be preserved. He also commented that Shangri La does not feet their children are more important than the children of Emerald Meadows.
Mr. Fortin read the following emails into the record:
Amy Wooda
3899 E. Greenway
My husband and I with our two small children reside at 3899 E. Greenway Drive. There has been some concern regarding the planned street access for the new subdivision. I have concerns about the increased amount of traffic that will be coming through this area. There are many small children that live in this area and there are no street lights as well as no sidewalks. These two factors already put the children at risk. I strongly ask that you reconsider allowing this street access for the new subdivision unless other provisions are going to be made to the current subdivision to ensure safety for the residents especially the children. As a side note currently there are no signs indicating children present or even a speed limit sign.
Jay Suminski
10620 S. Greenway Drive
I am in favor of the original proposal. The more ways I can get out of the neighborhood the better. I believe this is because our neighborhood exit was blocked after the tornado hit Oak Creek. Power lines and poles blocked the only way in and out. If we need fire/police response they could not get in. I could not get out to get a generator or to go to work.
Commissioner Correll motioned that the Commission approve 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 subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal seconds.
Commissioner Peterson requests that the motion read that the preliminary plat presented at the August 24, 2004 meeting.
First and second concur.
Commissioner Jackson questioned if the motion with the sidewalk could be done. Mr. Seymour stated he felt that is was more important that direction be made known by the Plan Commission to Engineer as they prepared the development agreement. The Plan Commission themselves may not necessarily be able to dictate that but the expression of intent is well taken on all parts.
Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that BAX Global was requesting Plan Commission approval of building plans for a 50,000 square foot building to house a distribution center and two tenants. The Commission approved the site plan for this project at an earlier meeting.
Mr. Seymour stated that the issues that staff had were that the roof line and foot print of the building did not provide enough articulation. The new submittal has been changed accordingly and the changes will create a building that will be an asset to the park and the TIF district. Staff is comfortable with the plans and the owner of the park has also signed off on the building plans.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned the color scheme for the building. Mr. David Gehrt, Briohn Building Inc., explained the proposed colors would be a two tone paint scheme using a lighter taupe color for the majority of the building and the higher accents of the building would be the darker olive color. There would be silver clear anodized window framing with dark grey reflective glass. There would also be other accents of an off white cream color.
Commissioner Siira questioned why in the landscaping plan there was no landscaping by the third entry element. Mr. Gehrt explained the main entrance for BAX Global would be on the side of the building and the third entry was for employees and they were trying to down play that entrance.
Commissioner Siira questioned if there was a grade change on the plan. Mr. Gehrt explained there was a moderate grade change and the water drains across in that direction and the water would be diverted to a swale and detention pond on the northeast corner of the property. All roof water and parking lot water would drain into the existing detention area within the business park.
Commissioner Siira questioned the sporadic landscaping and suggested it would be beneficial to have it be more continuous to screen the truck dock area. Mr. Gehrt stated that the previous submittal did not show any trees and they have added some but there is nothing to the north and did not see a reason to have that area heavily screened.
Mr. Henry Randow, 401 E. Marquette, questioned if the buildings in the park were restricted to one story. Mr. Seymour explained there were no restrictions against multi-floor buildings.
Alderwoman Dimity Grabowski, questioned if the Commission addressed the traffic concern of the amount of traffic coming from the area. Mr. Seymour explained this was a review of the building plans only and traffic concerns were taken into account when the plan for the park was originally approved.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Commission approve the building plans for BAX Global as submitted.
Commissioner Siira seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that Menards was requesting that portions of the property at 6840 and 6868 S. 27th Street be rezoned form B-2, Community Business, Rs-4, Single Family Residential and Rd-1, Two Family Residential to B-4, Highway Business, with a Conditional Use permit to be granted to allow for the construction of a new warehouse and garden center and storage yard addition at this location.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the trucks would be going in at the existing Judy’s entrance. Mr. Mark Lee, Menards, explained that a land swap was done and a larger amount of stacking distance was added for the stacking of the trucks.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that he liked that Mr. Lee took direction from the Plan Commission with keeping things to the south and away from the residential area. He also questioned if this would change anything on the north end. Mr. Lee stated it would not change anything on the north end of the property.
Commissioner Foeckler questioned the stormwater. Mr. Lee explained that they would be putting in a rather large stormwater detention pond. There would be a couple hundred square feet detention pond with gradual slopes in the same area as the existing pond.
Commissioner Dickmann wanted to know where Judy’s would now be parking. Mr. Lee explained that Judy’s lot would become a square lot and the existing parking would be relocated within the new square parcel. Judy’s will have a right in right out and the extra benefit of an easement on the Menard’s parcel.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the detention for the whole area including the theater went to this detention pond. Commissioner Jackson stated this was a self contained site and the theater had its own detention further south.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the seasonal sales area in the front parking lot area would be eliminated when the garden center went in. Mr. Lee stated they would like to reserve the seasonal sales area approval.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the pedestrian traffic had to go through the construction yard area to get to the garden center. Mr. Lee explained that the existing truck entrance would be relocated and the pedestrian entrance would be where the overhang was located and there would be a checker at that location. The trucks will be moved as far south as possible to get the trucks away from the garden center. There will be no driving through the garden center.
Mr. Tony Walker, 2423 W. Sycamore, questioned if the section south of Sycamore was still going to be built on or was it still up in the air. Commissioner Foeckler stated that Menard’s was interested in developing the area but there has been no approval at this time.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Commission recommend to the Common Council that portions of the properties at 6840 and 6868 S. 27th Street be rezoned from B-2, Community Business, Rs-4, Single Family Residential and Rd-1, Two Family Residential to B-4, Highway Business, with a Conditional Use permit for a new warehouse and garden center and storage yard addition, after a public hearing, and subject to conditions and restrictions.
Commissioner Siira seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that Raymund and Debra Alfaro were requesting approval of a certified survey map that would divide the two properties at 9211 and 9179 S. Nicholson Road into 3 lots and 1 outlot. The proposed outlot has an officially mapped future City street running along the western edge of the property.
Mr. Seymour explained the situation with the accessory structure in regards to the City’s Code. Accessory structures cannot be placed on a lot without a principal structure. By subdividing in this way the outlot would have two accessory structures without a principal structure.
Commissioner Peterson asked for clarification on the ownership of the lots and the accessory structures. As she understood it if outlot 1 was owned by the same owner as lot 2 the existing accessory structure must be removed. Mr. Seymour stated technically that was correct.
Ms. Deb Alfaro, 9211 S. Nicholson Road, explained the accessory structures where on the lot for a long time and the owner of lot 1 is different than lot 2. They would own Lot 2 and the outlot and sell lot 3.
Mr. Seymour asked for clarification on the use of the accessory structures. Ms. Alfaro stated there were three small structures on lot 3 and there would be two on the outlot and none on lot 2.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if lot 2 was combined with the outlot into one lot if the accessory buildings need to be removed. Mr. Seymour explained in staff review of the CSM it is the contention that if you own two properties even though they are separated by a lot line that in essence it is one property and you would have to have a principal structure before you could have accessory structures. This is a case where the accessory structures exist and there may be a variation that is available through the Plan Commission and Common Council. It may be something that the applicants may want to explore.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if outlot 1 would be landlocked if they wanted to divide it in the future. Mr. Seymour explained that it would be landlocked as it stands right now but a future street runs along the west side which would provide access in the future.
Ms. Carol Grundy, 9160 S. Nicholson Road, requested to see the street layout so the outlot would not be lost. Mr. Fortin showed the future street and the road that would provide access to the outlot
Ms. Grundy questioned if there were intentions to delete the road. Mr. Seymour stated there were not any requests to change the official map.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the Commission had the authority to land lock a piece of property with the intent of a future street. Mr. Seymour replied that the Commission does have the authority.
Commissioner Jackson asked for clarification on the outlot and lot 2. Ms. Alfaro stated that she and her husband would own both lot 2 and outlot 1. Commissioner Jackson questioned if she was aware of the conditions the Commission was requesting for approval and if she was requesting a variance on the approval. Ms. Alfaro stated she was aware of the conditions but just became aware this evening. Mr. Seymour stated if they wanted to maintain the buildings on the outlot they could receive a dimensional variance as part of the approval by the Common Council. He was not sure if that could be done with something that doesn’t have to do with the dimensions of the property. If they were not able to have the accessory structures the worst case would be to either move them or tear them down or possibly combining them with lot 1 or lot 3.
Commissioner Correll questioned if she would be okay with removing the accessory structures. Ms. Alfaro replied they would be but, they preferred to not have to deal with that at all.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned why the applicants did not just move the lot lines and not have to deal with this situation at all. Ms. Alfaro stated that was on option that was being discussed between her and her husband at this time. She also wanted to know if that was something they would do, would they have to come back before the Commission with new drawings.
Mr. Seymour explained that would be up to the Commission if they felt it was something of substance that would alter their recommendation to the Common Council. Commissioner Foeckler commented that it could be taken care of as a technical correction.
Mr. Seymour stated they could make that final decision before they went before the Common Council.
Commissioner Correll motioned that the Commission recommend that the Common Council approve the Certified Survey Map for the properties at 9211 and 9179 S. Nicholson Road subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion approved.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that Oak Creek Commerce, LLC is proposing to divide the parcel at 7420 S. Howell Avenue into three separate lots. Lot 1 will be the site of the BAX Global Distribution Center. Lots 2 and 3 will be available for future development.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned where the road reservation was on the CSM. Mr. Seymour replied it was on the southeast corner of lot 1. Commissioner Kopplin questioned if there was a specific reason the easement was put in. Mr. Seymour stated the official map does not show an extension of any official streets to the north and the east.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if there was an agreement when this was developed with Mr. Rosen with the road to go through the farm property to Rawson. Mr. Seymour stated that he only vaguely remembered something on that but that it is possible it was to provide emergency access between the two developments.
Commissioner Kopplin motioned that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that they approve the Certified Survey Map for the property at 7420 S. Howell Avenue subject to any technical corrections being made prior to recording of the CSM.
Commissioner Siira seconds.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if the technical corrections should include the removal of the 70’ road reservation.
First and second concur. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Commissioner Kopplin requested that someone check to see if somehow the City could get in there and have the grass cut at the back half of this property. Mr. Seymour stated it would be an issue with the Weed Commissioner.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that the applicant was requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow for individual businesses in the Creekside Corporate Park and the Capstone Business Center to increase the maximum allowable wall sign area.
Mr. Mike Faber, representing DeMattia and the park, explained the reasoning for the request for the amendment and presented a PowerPoint presentation of existing freeway signage in other area business parks. The presentation showed examples of signs that were to small to see from the freeway and signs that were appropriately sized for the freeway.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the requirements could be limited to the portion of Creekside Corporate Park that was directly south of Mr. Faber’s parcel. Mr. Faber stated there was a way to do that with the text restricting the freeway side to a certain distance back so it would be up to the limit of the north/south road. He was trying to consider the fact that the north end of Mr. Faxes building might be able to participate because it was visible from the freeway. Some of the other restrictions should apply to the rest of the park.
Commissioner Siira expressed concern for the future businesses on the east side of Stern Street trying to say that there front façade is orientated towards the freeway and try to abide by these requirements.
Commissioner Siira suggested adding language to item 2 that would indicate in the case of multiple tenants the 250 square foot area would apply but in the event that there is a single tenant the 450 square foot single sign would apply.
Commissioner Jackson requested clarification on item 4. Mr. Fortin explained that the length of the building would give you the total square footage for the sign.
Mr. Seymour explained that signage regulations react to situations that occur within a community. There have been situations where the signage package allowed for 300 square feet per sign which did not correspond with the façade of the building and then the regulations were changed so the allowable amount was 100 square feet which for some buildings is too small.
Commissioner Peterson stated that signage depends on the content of the signage.
Commissioner Siira motioned that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the PUD agreement be amended subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal seconds.
Mr. Seymour noted that there was a conflict between item 5 and item 10.
First and second concur that item 5 will be removed. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that the applicant was requesting that the official map for the Northeast ¼ of Section 22 be amended as proposed to accommodate the future development of a subdivision by Kettle Creek Homes.
Alderwoman Lampe explained that the residents along Puetz Road circulated a petition stating they are in agreement with the map change and they do not want the road directly behind their lots.
Mr. Mark Hakes, 2707 E. Puetz Road, expressed concern for the current zoning and when it was changed from estate zoning of five acre lots. Mr. Seymour stated that was being researched at this time. With respect to the Rs-1 zoning, prior to 1995 it was probably ER or Estate Residential and in 1995 the City overhauled the zoning code and the Rs-1 had the same zoning requirements as the ER and the minimum lot size would not have been changed at that point.
Mr. Al Gassenhuber 9210 S. Chicago Road, explained the zoning changes and what was proposed about 12 years ago. The minimums went from 10,000 to half acre lots.
Mr. Michael Richetta, 2439 E. Puetz Road, expressed concern for the wooded and wet areas on the parcel. Mr. Seymour explained the applicant has taken great strides to develop a subdivision which coexists and draws upon the natural areas of the subdivision rather that defeat them.
Ms. Rita Sebiech, 8815 S. 15th Avenue, expressed concern for the easement and the woods in the easement. Mr. Seymour explained they were only talking about the street pattern but the concept plan does show a wetland area with potentially one lot located north of Bonnie and 15th Avenue.
Mayor Bolender questioned the location of wetlands on the end of this property. Mr. Seymour stated there are many wetlands on this property and the street pattern has been developed to minimize the wetlands crossings involved in the development.
Mayor Bolender stated the whole area was wet. Mr. Seymour explained the wetlands inventory that was done shows a substantial wetlands area across from Bonnie Drive and a possible lot south of Ms. Sebiech and the wetland.
Commissioner Siira questioned why the two streets were not connected. Mr. Seymour explained it was related to the wetlands. One of the original proposals did show a connection but it was a suggestion by the Engineering Department that they consider moving the wetland crossing to a narrower point that provided cul de sacs.
Mayor Bolender stated there were quite a bit of wetlands on the property.
Commissioner Marhal inquired if the petition that was signed implied that the residents did not want the existing road pattern but preferred the proposed. Alderwoman Lampe stated they did not want the road adjacent to their property.
Ms. Melissa Hakes, 2707 E. Puetz Road, clarified that according to the Assessor they are being charged for over 18 acres of wetland and 33 acres as undeveloped land. She also stated that she had requested a copy of the wetlands delineation and had not received one from the owner.
Alderwoman Lampe noted this changes the access onto Puetz and gives the Basteraches full use of their property and makes them very happy. Mayor Bolender stated that he would be even happier.
Ms. Pat Uphill, 8750 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, wanted to know the setbacks from her lot line. Mr. Seymour stated the minimum setback from a public street was 30 feet and that would be something that the Plan Commission and Common Council would have to consider when they take into account the wetlands and the potential for creating a nonconforming setback. That was addressed when some changes were made to the Code recently which gives the Common Council the ability to regulate plats which may create a nonconforming situation for a property owner.
Mr. Hakes stated there is too much development which creates more water problems within the City.
Mr. Michael Richetta questioned if the developer has tried to drive down Pennsylvania Avenue after a rain because the road is under water.
Mayor Bolender stated there is a lot wetlands in this area and the problem needs to be rectified.
Mr. George Hughes, 3013 E. Puetz Road, commented the back of his property is a big swamp and the property around him drains to his property and then to the Uphill property.
Mayor Bolender questioned if there was a study done on the drainage effect as was done in the fifth district. Mr. Seymour explained the development of a subdivision and the first step was to request the amendment of the official map. There is no requirement for a stormwater management study as part of an official map amendment.
Commissioner Correll stated the existing plan has the same issues and the proposed plan addresses the lot issues and is acceptable to the residents and the outlying issues will come up at a later date.
Alderwoman Lampe pointed out that even if the moratorium on development had passed this would have been exempted because it is half acre lots.
Mayor Bolender stated that it was still a water problem an he agreed that it was half acre lots but there was some land in the City of Oak Creek that just can’t be developed.
Alderwoman Lampe explained that the developer had proposed a PUD which was not acceptable to the Planning Department because they saw the impact of it.
Commissioner Marhal questioned if the existing road pattern was left the way it was could the developer proceed with development. Mr. Seymour stated theoretically the developer could develop in accordance with that. The zoning really does not reflect what could be developed and the street pattern was not reflective of half acre lots. Realistically they could probably not develop with the existing road pattern.
Commissioner Marhal stated it appears as though the developer and the residents that border the property have come up with an agreement. The developer actually did them a favor by proposing the new road pattern because it does not abut their property and there will be larger lots and fewer homes. Water is always an issue and will be taken up at a later date.
Mr. Gassenhuber pointed out that the existing road pattern would conflict with the existing wetlands. The plat did go through preliminary review by Planning and Engineering and was not just thrown out.
Mr. Seymour stated there was a road pattern that did result with half acre lots and met the zoning code that would have provided the property owners to the north the opportunity to develop the rear of their properties. The property owners were not interested in developing their properties and that is one of the reasons the road was moved further south and the responsibility of assessments would be removed.
Mr. Greg Walsh, Kings Way/Kettle Creek Homes, explained they have done about 20 subdivisions and the first step is to get the official map changed. The subdivision has been laid out according to the official map with the road being against the properties along Puetz giving them the ability to subdivide their properties. The residents came to the neighborhood meeting and said they did not want the road so it was changed and Planning and Engineering’s suggestions were also taken into account and the wetlands were delineated. At this point he was looking for the approval on the road pattern and would look for more direction on the lots after the road pattern was approved.
Mayor Bolender stated he appreciated the half acre lots and felt they were beneficial to keep the character of Oak Creek. Half acre lots do not fit in all areas and the problem with subdivisions is the water problem and who would get flooded out. This property is on the edge of the Oak Creek swamp and there is a drainage problem. If the drainage problem can be worked out he would not have a problem with this subdivision.
Mr. Walsh stated they would all be Kings Way/Kettle Creek homes and they would not leave a customer with a problem. They do not develop a subdivision that is going to create a water problem for the customer or the current residents. The stormwater plan has been looked at with the site.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned if the way the map was proposed would it make the house on Pennsylvania nonconforming. Mr. Seymour stated he would have to get a measurement but if it was less than 30 feet it would be a nonconforming front setback.
Alderwoman Lampe questioned if the road could be moved further south to accommodate the current resident. Mr. Seymour suggested the developer work with the DNR and demonstrate that it would be a requirement of the City in order to get their wetland crossing.
Alderwoman Lampe informed Mr. Walsh that she had a real problem with the creation of nonconforming existing residences.
Mr. Greg Ziorek, 2601 E. Puetz Road, explained that his property is very wet in the spring.
Commissioner Foeckler stated that there is a difficult reality that everyone has to shift into. This land is zoned Rs-1 and the property owner has the right to develop the land. Ideally it would be nice to see every piece of green space in the City not developed. However, that is not reality and it is important and to everyone’s advantage to shift into the mode of how to make the best out of a situation that you don’t want. Something is going to go on this property and the next proposal might not be as desirable. He feels that in the end the residents would be happier with this situation then being faced in the future with condos or smaller clustered lots.
Ms. Uphill questioned if there could be any guarantee that they would not end up as a nonconforming property.
Commissioner Correll questioned if the Commission could make a motion that would put a property into a nonconforming status. Mr. Seymour explained that the Commission could make that recommendation but it would be up to the Common Council as to whether or not it was an appropriate recommendation.
Mr. Gassenhuber stated that they owned property and in order for them to ever be able to develop the rear of their property some development would have to go in on this property. In regards to the plan that was brought in at this time whether or not it is wet or not has no bearing on the street pattern. The street next to the Uphill property is not much different on either map and both would make her nonconforming. You can hope the DNR will come through but it is nonconforming on both maps.
Mr. Walsh commented today was not the right meeting but they would do everything possible to buffer the road and landscape and whatever needed to be done to not have a negative impact from the road coming in at that point.
Alderwoman Lampe commented it was not a matter of screening but on nonconformance and future updates.
Ms. Uphill state the concern was there was not enough room between their property and the WEPCO easement. If the road could go further south that would be fine.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Plan Commission recommend that the Common Council amend the official map as proposed after a public hearing and that the developer work with the property owner at 8750 S. Pennsylvania with regards to buffering the road.
Commissioner Kopplin stated when it came to Council for the nonconforming portion she would sympathize with the owner and hoped there would not only be buffering but it be taken into consideration to make it a legal conforming lot.
Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, Dickmann, aye; Jackson, aye; Marhal, aye; Siira, aye; Foeckler, aye; Bolender, nay; Kopplin, aye; Correll, aye; Peterson, aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that Milo Thomas was requesting that the property at 150 W. Rawson Avenue be granted a Conditional Use permit for a car wash. The car wash would have two drive-through bays as well as two vacuum islands. The car wash would be open 24 hours a day.
Mayor Bolender questioned if it would just be car washes and no stores. Milo Thomas, applicant stated that was correct and they would have a service person on site 6 to 8 hours a day.
Commissioner Correll questioned the type of car wash that was being proposed. Mr. Thomas explained it would be two fully automated car washes with laser wash that moves around the car. There is very little need for personnel at the site. It is monitored over the internet and if there is a problem it goes to a pager and lets you reset the equipment over the internet.
Commissioner Siira questioned the traffic flow into the development. Could there be signage for exit only on the escape type route of the traffic flow. Mr. Thomas explained there would be signage to try and prevent that situation but the traffic flow worked best for the size of the site.
Mayor Bolender questioned the security at the site. Mr. Thomas explained there were not onsite cameras proposed but they could be added if necessary.
Commissioner Kopplin requested the entrance on Rawson be closed off and the landscaping plan be adhered to. Mr. Seymour stated there would be no new driveways onto Rawson or Howell Avenues as part of this proposal.
Mr. Ervin Nowak, 225 W. Rawson Avenue, stated this was a bad use that would discourage good development to the area.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the corner did not get the car wash what could potentially go on this site. Mr. Seymour stated it would be difficult to say because it was a difficult site to develop. There would not be anything with a substantial building area given the restrictions that are in place with the easement. It could be used for parking but building wise it is questionable.
Alderwoman Lampe commented that it was time that we think beyond how much taxes a business will bring in and consider what kind of service they provide to the community as well. If it makes it so the people of the City can stay in the City to do these things rather than travel further it needs to be given equal weight on how much taxes they bring in.
Commissioner Marhal motioned that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the Conditional Use for a car wash for the property at 150 W. Rawson Avenue be approved after a public hearing, and subject to conditions and restrictions that will be prepared for the Commission’s review at their next meeting.
Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, Dickmann, aye; Jackson, aye; Marhal, aye; Siira, nay; Foeckler, aye; Bolender, nay; Kopplin, aye; Correll, aye; Peterson, aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that McDonald’s was requesting Plan Commission approval of a dining room, storage room, and cooler addition to their existing restaurant at 8800 S. Howell Avenue. The dining room addition will use materials to match those existing on the building and will add 440 square feet of dining area. The cooler and storage additions will also use materials and colors to match the existing.
Commissioner Foeckler commented the addition was needed for the extra seating and would make the parking lot safer by the doors.
Commissioner Siira questioned the alternate parking lot layout. Mr. Steve Jeske, architect, explained that the plan matches the staff parking lot request.
Commissioner Kopplin stated the alternate plan looked great.
Mr. Fortin read the following letter into the record:
Daniel Lee for Susan B. Lee:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am one of the owners of the real property at 8750 S. Howell Avenue. A few years ago my representatives discussed with representatives of the City of Oak Creek, the City of Oak Creeks desires for the development and use of my property. The representatives of the City of Oak Creek informed me that they desired a restaurant use for my property in the event that I were to sell it. Recently I had a firm offer to sell my property to Taco Bell to open up a Taco Bell/Long John Silvers restaurant on my property. The City of Oak Creek changed its mind and would not approve this restaurant use. Apparently the City of Oak Creek’s decision was the wrong kind of restaurant, in other words a fast food restaurant. In particular the City of Oak Creek’s decision was couched as concerns that a fast food restaurant would not improve the character of the area or may increase traffic congestion. I am not opposed to the proposed McDonald’s addition but if such an addition to this fast food restaurant is approved the City of Oak Creek should reconsider and approve my proposed sale to Taco Bell. The City of Oak Creek’s failure to do so in my opinion would be arbitrary and unfair.
Commissioner Jackson commented the public sidewalk did not need a development agreement at this time. The sidewalk could be permitted under the building permit. Understand it would be a private property permit and the sidewalk would be a public improvement. This could be done under a permit system.
Alderwoman Lampe suggested it be added to the concrete contract and be done with it. She also commented that her vote against Taco Bell was not because of the kind of restaurant but the traffic pattern that existed and the increased danger at that parking lot.
Mayor Bolender commented that Taco Bell would be going someplace else.
Commissioner Kopplin motioned that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the site and building plans for a building expansion and parking lot reconfiguration for the property at 8800 S. Howell Avenue subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Peterson seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission that the applicant was seeking approval of building, site and landscaping plans for a third story addition and an entryway addition with a canopy and atrium to the existing building at 140 E. Ryan Road. The building would be used for medical offices. As part of the project the building to the east would be razed.
Mr. Dan Walsh, Seagal Gallagher, commented the façade was not a decorative block but a renaissance stone. It will not look like the existing castle rock block on the building. He gave some history on the building and their plans for the future of the building. There will be approximately 3 million dollars of improvements to the building in the next 24-36 months. The building would be marketed to the medical field because the City of Oak Creek was very underserved in the medical field.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the HVAC equipment would be updated to one central unit screened on the roof. Mr. Walsh stated the HVAC equipment would be updated and shielded.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the entrance from Ryan Road would be cleaned up. Mr. Walsh explained that the DOT would unlikely allow for two entrances from Ryan Road but they are trying to get something to line up with the median cut.
Commissioner Jackson questioned the front row of parking and if it was on the neighboring properties right of way. Mr. Walsh explained the surveyor made a mistake and the other parcel is owned by the developer and there would be no encroachment.
Commissioner Siira commented that the design was an improvement to the building and questioned how the third floor may impact the residents to the north in terms of visibility and questioned the need for handicapped parking near the entrance to the building. Mr. Walsh explained the State requires the closest stalls be handicapped accessible and there would be eight handicapped stalls near the building. The visibility for the residents should not be affected because they are twenty feet below the finished level of the entry level. It may impact them a couple of inches.
Mr. John Radtke, 9444 S. Howell Avenue, expressed concern for the parking lot coming so close to his back yard. He requested that the future 29 parking spaces be rejected by the Commission. He also expressed concern for the current condition of the property.
Commissioner Marhal questioned how close the fence was currently to his property. Mr. Radtke stated the fence was about 24 feet off of the property line at this time but the future parking would move the fence closer to his property.
Ms. Karen David, 310 E. Ryan Road, expressed concern for the parking lot and building moving east towards her property. Mr. Walsh explained the plan does not contemplate taking any of the houses that the DOT currently owns. There have been conversations with the DOT because of the proposed median cut is just at the lot line.
Commissioner Dickmann motioned that the Plan Commission approve the site and building plans for the renovation of the building at 140 E. Ryan Road subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Marhal seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion carries.
Commissioner Kopplin motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Foeckler seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 11:21 p.m.