MINUTES OF THE

OAK CREEK PLAN COMMISSION MEETING

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006

Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner St. John, Commissioner Sokol, Commissioner Siira, Commissioner Kopplin, Mayor Bolender, Commissioner Grabowski, and Commissioner Peterson.  Commissioner Correll was excused.  Also present were Doug Seymour, Director of Community Development, Jeff Fortin, Planner, and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.

Commissioner Siira moved to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2006 Plan Commission meeting.  Commissioner Grabowski seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  The minutes were approved as submitted.

Report on Significant Common Council Actions

Mr. Jeff Fortin, Planner updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the November 8, 2006 Common Council meeting.  There were no comments or concerns from the Commissioners.

Certified Survey Map – Opus North
10101 S. Howell Avenue
Tax Key No.:  924-9006

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting approval of a certified survey map that would split the property at 10101 S. Howell Avenue into two parcels.  Each of these lots meets or exceeds the zoning requirements for the M-1, Manufacturing District.

Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the property at 10101 S. Howell Avenue be approved, subject to any technical corrections being made prior to recording.

Commissioner Grabowski seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Affidavit of Correction – CSM 7769 (Colonial Woods Condominiums)
8351, 8380, 8400 & 8432 S. 27th Street
Tax Key Nos.:  831-9027, 831-9025, 831-9026, 831-9029

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the Common Council approved the certified survey map for the Colonial Woods Condominium development on April 3, 2006.  During the review of the CSM, Planning Staffed asked the applicant to change the language on Lot 4 from “To be dedicated to the City of Oak Creek for Forest Preservation Purposes to “To be dedicated to the City of Oak Creek.”  The applicant changed the language on every page of the CSM that showed Lot 4 except for Sheet 7 where the change was overlooked.  Staff also discovered that the description of land on the CSM referenced CSM 1551.  The actual CSM was number 5115.  No additional lots will be created: this is just being done to change language on Sheet 7 and in the land description. 

Commissioner Dickmann moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the Affidavit of Correction for CSM 7769 be approved, subject to any technical corrections being made prior to recording.

Commissioner Grabowski seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Final Plat – Mallard Creek Phase I
10026 S. Nicholson Road
Tax Key No.:  921-9993-002

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the final plat substantially conforms to the preliminary plat and will create fifteen lots in the Rs-3, Single Family residential zoning district.  The public improvements have been certified as complete by the Engineering Department, the Streets Department, and the Water and Sewer Utility. 

Commissioner Grabowski commended the developer, Country Creek Homes, for the larger lots.

Commissioner Peterson moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the final plat for Phase 1 of the Mallard Creek subdivision be approved, subject to any technical corrections being made prior to recording.

Commissioner Grabowski seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Minor Land Division – Atout Real Estate & TCF Bank
2340 & 2320 W. Ryan Road
Tax Key No.:  878-9035 & 878-9036

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting a minor land division that would slightly alter the eastern property line between the TCF parcel and the Pick n’ Save parcel.  This being done so the entire stormwater pond will be on the Pick n’ Save parcel.  Each of the lots meets the width and area requirements of the B-4, Highway Business District. 

Commissioner Siira moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the minor land division for the properties at 2340 and 2320 W. Ryan Road be approved, subject to any technical corrections being made prior to recording. 

Commissioner Kopplin seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Certified Survey Map – Thomas Kinnard Homes
9143, 9147, 9151, and 9155 S. 5th Avenue
Tax Key Nos.:  Multiple

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting approval of a certified survey map that would join three existing non-conforming parcels to create one single-family parcel and expand the area of an existing single-family parcel located to the south by selling them a 20-foot wide strip of land.  Staff’s concern with this proposal is that the new residential parcel does not meet the dimensional requirements of the Rs-4, Single Family Residential zoning district. 

Commissioner Grabowski questioned if the applicant had the opportunity to meet with Planning Staff.  Mr. Tom Kinnard, 3665 Briandean Court, commented he spoke with Jeff prior to ordering the CSM.  Before the last meeting I was informed there was a problem that the City Attorney was reviewing.  Mr. Fortin explained the ordinance requirements for the Commission and Mr. Kinnard.  The City Attorney’s opinion was that the lot should be at least 75 feet wide and 10,000 square feet since they do have the land to meet the Rs-4 zoning requirements.

Mr. Shane Windsor, 9155 S. 5th Avenue, explained he has two homes on one lot and because there is no parking on the road during the winter and the avenue was taken away he needs a driveway for the rear house for the tenant. 

Mayor Bolender directed the item held.

Plan Review – Microtel
9611 S. 13th Street
Tax Key No.:  904-9009

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting approval of site, building, and landscaping plans for a Microtel Hotel and Suites.  The hotel will be three stories tall and will have 59 units in the first phase.  With the proposed future addition the total number of units will be 83 units.  The building will be constructed of brick and cement board siding.  The building will be 40 feet, 4 inches high.  The B-4 zoning district allows for building heights of up to 55 feet.  The building also meets the setback and lot coverage requirements for the B-4 zoning district.

Mr. Jim Piwowarczyk, Microtel, explained the color scheme and showed the Commission samples of the materials being used. 

Mayor Bolender questioned the total number of parking spaces for the site.  Mr. Fortin stated there would be 63 with additional room for 24 more spaces. 

Commissioner Grabowski questioned the colors of the sign.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated the back board would be blue and the letters would be yellow.  Commissioner Grabowski felt the sign was placed in an odd location.  Mr. Piwowarczyk explained the architect felt it was the best location for the sign to be secured.

Commissioner Siira also felt the sign was randomly placed and questioned the size of the sign.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated they are approximately 1000 feet away from I-94 and in order to be successful they really want visibility from the hotel and want people from I-94 to see the hotel.  The size was determined by the distance away from I-94 and the sign is approximately 150 square feet in size and the ordinance does allow for up to 300 square feet.  The sign will not be visible from 13th Street or the north and south sides of the property except for the profile.

Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the building colors were standard for Microtel or where they selected for this particular building.  Mr. Piwowarczyk explained originally Microtel preferred the light blue vinyl siding and the City of Oak Creek does not allow vinyl siding so we chose to go with a brick masonry with a complimentary siding color. 

Commissioner Siira questioned the proximity of this property line to the fast food restaurant to the north.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated between the two properties there was a tributary to the Oak Creek and some woods that they would not be touching.

Commissioner Grabowski questioned where the next Microtel was located.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated there was one in Racine, Janesville and Madison.  Commissioner Dickmann questioned what types of materials where on those buildings.  Mr. Piwowarczyk thought they had vinyl siding on those buildings.

Commissioner Siira questioned if there would be a demand for this type of business in this location.  Mr. Piwowarczyk commented they have done a feasibility study with the project and with Northwestern Mutual expanding they are expecting to tap into them and also from Franklin and Oak Creek’s business parks including the business from I-94.

Commissioner Grabowski questioned if the hotel catered more to families or to corporations because she had a concern with drugs in the area associated with the hotel.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated it would be generally corporate business, transient travelers.  There is no swimming pool and there will be approximately twelve suites and thirty-five double rooms.  They are looking to attract the business traveler.

Mr. Piwowarczyk stated he is currently a police officer and he shares the concerns of the Commission regarding the crime situation.  He has worked hotels and drugs and he guarantees he will not allow something like that in his building.

Commissioner Siira questioned if they were expecting to rent rooms to semi-truck drivers.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated they would not allow semi trucks in the parking lot but if it was quiet he did not feel they would allow semis on a regular basis.

Commissioner St. John questioned if the proposed sign met the sign ordinance.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated it did meet the ordinance.  Commissioner St. John questioned how they could exclude the sign from the approval if it meets the ordinance.  Mr. Fortin explained they were looking at the entire site, and building plan and as with other projects we have brought signs into the fold as part of the discussion.  Commissioner St. John questioned if he builds the building and goes to inspection for a sign permit for the sign.  Mr. Fortin explained technically inspection could issue the permit but they have been routing them through the Planning Department and Mr. Fortin would not feel comfortable approving the sign and would send it back to the Plan Commission for review.  Mr. Doug Seymour, Director explained what the Commission was approving was an architectural plan and the Plan Commission has discretion when it comes to elements of the architectural plan which they feel are inconsistent with the character of the building or the surrounding area.  If the Commission felt the roof sign was so out of place with the similar businesses in Oak Creek or with the architecture of the building the Plan Commission has the ability to, as part of the architecture plan review and approval, to specify whether or not they want the roof sign up there. 

Mr. Fortin questioned the applicant if there was something they could do to make the sign more attractive and still provide visibility. 

Commissioner Peterson questioned if the sign was drawn to scale and if that was the best location for the sign.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated it was drawn to scale and they wanted to get it up as high as they could to clear the tree lines.  Mr. Fortin questioned if it would not look better if it was center more on the peek of the building.  Mr. Piwowarczyk would try to work on the concerns with the sign.

Mr. Seymour questioned if the applicant could adjust the roof pitch and make it a gable end so that it could be made and attractive wall sign.  It would give them the same height and visibility.  Mr. Piwowarczyk stated he would review that suggestion.

Mr. Arden Degner, 8540 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, questioned if there would be a cross access easement between the hotel and the fast food restaurant.  Mayor Bolender did not believe it was necessary.  Commissioner St. John explained you would need a bridge over the creek to gain a cross access.

Commissioner Peterson moved that the Plan Commission approve the sit, building and landscaping plans for Microtel, located at 9611 S. 13th Street, subject to the following conditions:

  1. That all building and fire codes are met.
  2. That the final site drainage, grading, and stormwater management plans are approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
  3. That the final utility plans are approved by the Water and Sewer Utility prior to the issuance of building permits.
  4. That the final landscaping plan is approved by the City Forester and Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 
  5. That the final lighting plan is approved by the electrical inspector prior to the issuance of building permits.
  6. That the proposed roof sign is not approved and the applicant shall return with alternatives.
  7. That the monument sign incorporates a base constructed of brick to match the brick on the building and that the street number is displayed on both sides of the sign. 

Commissioner Kopplin seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Plan Commission Consultation – Apple Tower Development
8400, 8432, & 8380 S. 27th Street & 8351 S. 20th Street
Tax Key No.:  831-9026, 831-9025, 831-9027 & 831-9029

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting Plan Commission comment and input on two conceptual land use and development plans on property they own along S. 27th Street.  Plan one is a proposal with a two-phased medical clinic at the northeast corner of S. 27th Street and & Honadel Boulevard.  To the northeast of this would be a 148 unit senior housing complex.  Plan two is the alternate scenario to plan one, should the medical clinic not be constructed.  This plan would move the proposed senior housing complex closer to S. 27th Street and would have a mix of different condominium buildings to the east.  This plan calls for 348 units.

Commissioner St. John commented this was not a rezone as some of the neighbors think from reading over the emails.

Mr. Mark Nicholson, 6183 S. Packard, Cudahy, representing Apple Tower, Norb Theine, explained to the Commission the current plan.  He presented the Commission with a new proposal that would include senior condos.  The medical center was interested in the ten acres that were properly zoned with utilities.  After discussions with staff and the clinic they have expressed interest in keeping more senior condos close by to the complex because of their business.  Genesis is willing to look at the fact if the clinic comes on 27th Street shifting behind the clinic in the western portion. 

Commissioner Grabowski questioned the height of the buildings.  Mr. Steve Holzhauer stated there were no buildings higher than three stories in height for both plans.  The senior housing would have one level of parking below grade.

Commissioner Grabowski questioned if the doctor offices would be normal daytime hours.  Mr. Steve. Holzhauer could not speak to the time of the medical clinic but as he understood it was an outpatient clinic with mostly daytime hours.  Commissioner Grabowski explained the residents were opposed to the plan before the Commission.  Mr. Nicholson believed it was daytime hours only for the clinic but would verify that information for the Commission.

Commissioner St. John commented that Orchard Way sags to the west and he would like to see it smoother and he would like to see it run straighter to the connection point.

Mr. Seymour explained this was not an endorsement of the elements of the site plan that will be evaluated on there individual merits at the time that the detailed site and building plans are proposed for this.  This is an opportunity for the applicant to bring the concept and idea forward to the Plan Commission but he does not want to the give the impression, nor would he want the applicant to leave with the impression that in taking a look and having no specific comments on some of the elements in the site plan is a passive endorsement.  It will have to stand up on its own merits to the site plan approval process. 

Alderman Al Foeckler, District 2, received several emails and phone messages opposed to the plan before the Commission.  The residents do not welcome a commercial type of development.  The plan for 27th Street shows this area as mixed residential.  There was a conscious decision when the plan was done for 27th Street that the City believed that commercial development should be kept to the north and the south.  This area would act as a buffer to ease the high, intense commercial development.  Is one medical clinic going to lead to high traffic, high intense use? It just doesn’t fit when you look at what is going to go to the north and to the south. 

Mr. Robert Patch, Heartland Development, developer of the land to the north, questioned who the developer of the site was going to be for the medical office and the condominiums.  Mr. Nicholson stated at this point and time he was not sure he could disclose that.  Mr. Patch asked for clarification if the developer had experience and if there were other projects that the developer had done that could be looked at.  Mr. Nicholson stated there were other projects to be looked at.  Mr. Patch questioned if the median openings shown had been granted from the DOT and if a TIA had been done for the area.  Mr. Nicholson believed they were allowed one extra opening.  The current opening would not be left and the medical clinic would have to have a right in and right out.  Mr. Patch met with the DOT and showed the Commission the access points that would be allowed and commented the plan being shown to the Commission was not accurate.  Mr. Nicholson stated supposedly the DOT was going to take away an access point.  Mr. Patch questioned if the TIA indicated a traffic light would be necessary and if so who would be paying for the traffic light.  Mr. Nicholson stated he was under the understanding that a traffic light might be at Forest Hill and at Puetz.  Mr. Patch questioned if the traffic study indicated that a traffic light was necessary because of the collector road going to Drexel would Mr. Nicholson as the developer be paying for the light?  Mr. Nicholson stated he did not have an answer for that question.  Mr. Patch questioned justifying 14 to 15 units per acre when the adjoining areas are at 25 % of that? Mr. Nicholson stated those were the numbers according to the 27th Street Corridor Plan.  Mr. Patch questioned if the plans would be looked at prior to any type of rezoning? He did an overlay and the zoning lines do not match up and would need some clean up rezoning.  He also questioned if the woodland preservation was going to be giving that land to the City free of charge and free and clear.  Mr. Patch recommended that nothing happen with the site until the woodland preservation was nailed down and questioned if that was what Mr. Nicholson was intending.  Mr. Nicholson stated it has not been discussed at this point.  Mr. Patch again recommended that nothing happen with this until the woodland is brought to the City and given to them without any strings. 

Mr. Patch questioned the flex plan and what exactly it was.  He would like to see exactly what was going to be going on the site.  He questioned if the developer on the subsoil problems on the site and how they were planning on dealing with the problem.  The site is not buildable in its current condition and he stated he has some soils reports for staff. 

Mr. Patch expressed concern for the City quickly approving something for the site without addressing the problems.  The most important thing would be the woodland preservation. 

Mayor Bolender commented this was not a zoning change and was not something that was trying to be sneaked through by the City. 

Mr. Joseph Heller, 8527 Breaburn Drive, questioned if the north/south road was a connector street.  Mr. Steve Holzhauer stated the road would go through to Heartland Development and eventually to Drexel Road.  Mr. Heller questioned what the purpose of that road would be.  Mr. Steve Holzhauer explained it would be for fire and rescue services and connects that are off of 27th Street to allow connects to Drexel Road without going to 27th Street.  Mr. Heller expressed concern for the possible traffic on the proposed street from drivers trying to avoid 27th Street. 

Mr. Cliff Nelson, 8527 S. Cortland Drive, questioned where they got the right to fill in all of the property in the back that he perceived as wetlands.  Commissioner St. John explained the DNR enforces the filling in of wetlands and not the City of Oak Creek and he did not believe there were substantial wetlands in that area as classified by the DNR.  Most of the fill came from State projects which the City has very little say about as well.  There are permits for the landfill and they are not changing the way the water flows.  An owner is allowed under permit to fill as long as he does not cause problem for his adjoining neighbors. 

Alderman Foeckler questioned what they were proposing they would need TIF money for.  Mr. Nicholson commented he was under the impression that Alderman Foeckler would have been notified regarding the project just by notifying the City.  The TIF was mainly for the street coming in and the sanitary sewers and the underground.  Alderman Foeckler questioned the compelling reason they would not collect taxes on this for the duration of a TIF.  The likelihood of a TIF here in Alderman Foeckler’s mind was very minimal.  He also agreed with Mr. Patch that the woods would need to be on the table immediately.  This is not a situation where we can figure out what is going to happen to those later.  The woods are being used to push for a denser development to the west and that is double dipping if you are saying we want more development towards the west because we want to preserve the woods but we also want to get paid for the woods.  If at any point those woods were to get sold to a preservation group the argument that you need more density because you are not developing on those woods goes away because you have been paid for them.  If you want to talk about more density to the west because you are willing to preserve those woods and dedicate them over to the City that is a conversation that he would like to have. 

Ms. Theresa Kasperczak, 8743 Cortland Drive, questioned if in plan 1 the high density came as part of not having the medical clinic.  Mr. Fortin explained that was the case.  She also commented plan two held more units in one ten acre parcel than in the entire existing subdivision. 

Mr. Steve Holzhauer, commented the senior housing looks large in plan but that is a building that would very from two stories to three stories, more likely three in the middle and two on the ends.  The occupants are generally less than two people per unit so there would be an average of 1.2 people for each unit and do not average even one car per unit.  There would be very little traffic and very little parking required.  144 units would generate about 160 people on 10 acres as opposed to 144 families.

Vicki Heller, 8527 S. Braeburn Drive, questioned with all of the density that is being intended to be added to the area if anyone has looked at the roads in the Apple Creek subdivision and how they would handle the additional traffic.

Ms. Rosemary Robinson, 8446 S. Melrose Drive, expressed concern for the high density and also questioned how they could guarantee it would only be seniors living in the complex.  Mr. Fortin explained that you could discriminate for seniors which are done as part of the restrictions for the project. 

Mr. Bob Lane, 8584 Bedford Way, questioned if the emails could be read to the audience. 

The following emails were read into the record by Mr. Fortin:

To:  Allan M. Foeckler

RE:  Rezoning Honadel

I am expressing my objection to the rezoning of Honadel Blvd. in Oak Creek.  I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight, so I am letting you know how I feel.  I do not want commercial developments in my backyard; as do many others in this area.

At one of our condo association meetings, you stated that you had our best interests at heart; please follow through with that.

I am just wondering how far along these developments are because you told our association that you would let us know updates as to that development, and I have not received anything.  Is anything in progress or is it just talk?

Thank you for your attention to my concerns.

Thanks.
Susan

Susan L. Clark

To:  A. Foeckler
From: Morey Worthington

I wish to have you completely turn down the development of a medical clinic and housing complex on the corner of S. 27th Street and Honadale Drive.

I live at the end of Honadale and am a blind person.  The traffic would be a hazard to and my neighbors.

Please, Please, Please, stop it.

Morey Worthington

To: A. Foeckler

ALAN!!! Mrs. Bonin here-

Good Morning

We in Chateau II do not want a medical center off of Honadel Drive.  Condos yes, but no big complex.

Please vote “NO” to this rezoning

Elaine Bonin

To A Foeckler

Mr. Foeckler

                As I understand, there is a rezoning meeting on 11/14 regarding the NE corner of S. 27th St. and Honadel Blvd.  As I travel and will be out of state, I will not be able to attend.  I reside in a single family home in the Oak Creek subdivision.  As I understand, the plans are for business’ and yet more multi unit dwellings as part of this rezoning.  I would like to take this time to strongly voice my OPPOSITION to this.

                Since moving into this subdivision approx. 6 yrs ago, I have watched multi-unit housing be built all around this subdivision.  One of the things that attracted us to this development was the woods, peacefulness, and lack of traffic on the streets as there are no sidewalks for our kids to utilize.  We have watched as traffic has steadily increased, condos, turn into rental units w/no regard to maintaining the property, more police presence, so many for sale signs that it looks like a transient community…you get the picture.  I also understand that the proposal includes extending a road from Drexel to Honadel Blvd.  As aforementioned, the influx of mult-unit dwellings ahs already increased the auto traffic dramatically.  After repeated requests for stop signs, none have been fulfilled.  Cars speeding thru 4-way intersections are a common occurrence and it is only a matter of time until there is an accident w/loss of property and/or injury.  Will the city listen then? Now the city wants to put in more multi-unit housing and business’? I understand growth and progress, but at the expense of the current homeowners/ taxpayers quality of life is more than I can understand or stomach. 

Please leave our subdivision alone.  I am STRONGLY AGAINST this latest development proposal.

Respectfully,
Bob Philos
8544 S. Breaburn Dr.

To:  A. Foeckler

Dear Alderman Foeckler;

As an Oak Creek resident like yourself, we want our community to stay as it is, a safe, pleasant community

My family and friends say NO to any REZONING any property located at the Northeast corner of Honadel Blvd and South 27th Street.  We want NO Multi Family Buildings, NO B-4 Highway Business with any access to Honadel Blvd.  This is our community and neighborhood and we want no public roads built from Drexel to Honadel Blvd.

Your Must let the Planning Commission know that we DO NOT WANT any of the following development in our neighborhood:

**B-4 Highway Business on 27th & Honadel Blvd.
**Safety problems on Honadel Blvd.
**A public road from Drexel to Honadel Blvd.
**More burdens on our Police and Fire Departments which will eventually raise my taxes and yours.
**Expansion of Gangs and Drugs into our schools and community.
**Years of noise and construction traffic on Honadel Blvd.
**Excessive traffic around a residential neighborhood.
**An unsightly entrance to our neighborhood.
**The development of buildings in environmentally sensitive areas.

Would you want any of the above across from 8145 White Oak Drive? NO, neither do we.  IF the property is to be developed, we can accept single family residential housing.

You have asked us for your support, now we ask for yours in return.

Thank You
Marc Yablong and Family
8621 S Stratford Road
Oak Creek, WI  53154

To:  A Foeckler

Hi Al

Please be advised that I strongly oppose any plans to build large high density multi-family condominiums in the area of south 27th St and Honadel Blvd.

This type of project would over burden our city services, create serious traffic and safety problems, and compromise a environmentally sensitive area.

Thanks
Stephen Rapozo

To:  A. Foeckler

Dear Al, I will try to get to the meeting tonight but might not make it.

I wouldn’t mind the clinics on 27th St if the buildings aren’t going to be right on top of our condos on Cortland Dr. and the lighting will be subdued at night.  Is there a exit onto 27th St?

I just can’t see so many condos on the rest of the property.  Duplex condos like we have on Cortland Dr. would be better.  That’s too may cars for that area.

Thanks, Lora Pecor

Mayor Bolender thanked Mr. Nicholson for his presentation.

Site Plan Review – Seville Flexpack
9940, 9900, and 9920 S. Ridgeview Drive
Tax Key No.:  831-9027, 831-9025, 831-9026, 831-9029

Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting approval of a 63,000 square foot new printing facility building for Seville Flexpack.  The building will be constructed on the property to the south of their existing facility.  The building will be a printing facility to expand the current operations at Seville Flexpack.  The operations will be similar to the existing facility and there is a possibility for three shifts, six days a week.  The building will be constructed of precast concrete panels and will be white with accent bands.  There will be a curved window feature at the northwest corner of the building. 

Alderman Grabowski questioned how the Fire Department and the Alderman from the area felt about the proposal.  Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained he met with the developer and the building itself and access would not be an issue except this a quit long dead end street.  It is there feeling that the secondary access should required because they have land and the ability to connect to 20th Street.  Mr. Seymour commented that having multiply permanent points of access to any lot or subdivision regardless of residential or commercial is a good thing.

Commissioner St. John commented he was opposed to the docks facing the street and could not accept not moving them.  The bigger problem is with the infrastructure being built before they are allowed to pull a permit. 

Mr. Michael Byrne, Briohn Building, explained to the Commission what they were trying to do with the project at this location and that Mr. Yakich was not willing to pay for extending the road but they were looking to get an approval process that would allow Walter to build his building and with this process Mr. Yakich will allow Ridgeview to be extended and give that piece of land and also the land for S. 20th Street to be extended. 

Commissioner St. John commented he understood that Mr. Yakich was giving the land but Mr. Yakich under the rules would have to give the land.  He also asked for clarification that Mr. Yakich did not want to extend the sewer or water and he doesn’t want to extend the road.  Mr. Byrne confirmed that was the case.  Commissioner St. John questioned who was going to decide whether or not this building is allowed to go forward with no sewer, water and no road across its frontage.  Mr. Byrne stated it did have sewer and water to the cul-de-sac and could be extended into the property.  Commissioner St. John questioned if it came through the property.  Mr. Byrne explained it could be extended into the property from the points that it is at right now.  Commissioner St. John explained the Water and Sewer Utility needed for the water and sewer to be extended in the road across the frontage of the property.  Mr. Byrne explained if you were to have the road you would be 100% correct.  Commissioner St. John questioned who and where that decision was was going to be made that the standard procedure will not be followed.  Mayor Bolender commented that decision could not be made at Plan Commission. 

Mr. Fortin stated staffed believed the road was going to go in via the TIF or the developer was going to put the road in.  Mr. Byrne confirmed that was the case.  Commissioner St. John commented the applicant has stated he would not put the road in.  Mr. Byrne explained according to the permit it was either going to happen or it was not.  That discussion may occur prior to permit being issued that would have to be resolved.  Mr. Seymour explained the resolution would be that the road goes in and that we may talk about a TIF but there has to be some agreement in place signed by Mr. Yakich that says if for some reason the TIF doesn’t go through there he is committing himself to fully improve that road through his property.  We can talk about a TIF and we are talking about a TIF but at the end of the day he is responsible for extending that road through his property.  Mr. Byrne stated they were also making that a condition of occupancy. 

Mr. Seymour explained the major problem with this was not insurmountable but the time table with this has been thrust upon Briohn and the City.  The City staff is doing their best to try and balance the very legitimate and codified needs of this community and its site plan requirements and development requirements versus the needs and the ability of a good local business to expand.  We are exploring opportunities here.  It would have been easy for staff to sit down and say it is not going to happen but, he would like to sit down and see if there is some way we can accommodate everybody’s interests here.  Mr. Byrne stated they have been working with staff from all departments for the last eight weeks to try and resolve as many of these issues before coming to Plan Commission to make sure that we could fulfill the promises. 

Commissioner St. John questioned if Mr. Yakich was willing to put in and pay for the road, the sewer and the water across Mr. Yakich’s frontage. Mr. Byrne stated that he was.  Commissioner St. John explained now they need to deal with the fact that they might possible be finished with construction before that work was done and who would be the authority to grant that to happen.  Mr. Byrne believed it could be done via a letter of credit back to the City. 

Mr. Seymour explained the normal course of events would not allow a building permit to be pulled until the road was dedicated and approved and the Council will have to approve that chain of events. 

Commissioner Grabowski was in agreement with what was going on but would like to talk about the CSM first before the site plan. 

Commissioner St. John questioned when they would need to get the building permit.  Mr. Byrne stated they would like to get the grading permit as soon as possible and the building permit sometime in the month of December. 

Commissioner Grabowski questioned if it was true that they have been working with staff for about eight weeks.  Mr. Byrne stated it was pretty close to that.  Commissioner Grabowski stated that a lot of this should have been hammered out before coming to Plan Commission.  Mr. Seymour explained the way to hammer it out would have been to say no.  Mr. Byrne agreed and stated that staff has worked with them and has been wonderful to work with. 

Certified Survey Map – Seville Flexpack
9940, 9900,, & 9920 S. Ridgeview Drive
Tax Key No.:  831-9027, 831-9025, 831-9026, 831-9029

Mr. Fortin explained to the Plan Commission that the applicant was requesting approval of a proposed certified survey map that would combine three existing lots owned by Seville Flexpack into tow larger lots.  Lots in the M-1, Manufacturing District require a minimum lot area of 1 acre and a minimum lot width of 200 feet.  Each of these lots exceeds these requirements.

Commissioner Dickmann moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the properties at 9940, 9900, and 9920 S. Ridgeview Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions:

  1. That any technical corrections are made prior to recording.
  2. That a development agreement is entered into between the owner and the City to specify the responsibility for and timing of any required public improvements and that the CSM is not recorded until the improvements are in and certified as complete by the City of Oak Creek.
  3. That the CSM is amended to include the dedication of the S. 20th Street right-of-way at the western end of the property.
  4. That the applicant submits and application for a vacation of the portion of S. Ridgeview Drive right-of-way that will be abandoned.

Commissioner Sokol seconds.

Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; aye, Sokol; aye, Siira; aye, Kopplin; nay, Bolender; aye, Grabowski; aye, Peterson; aye.  Motion carries.

Commissioner St. John explained the Commission understood the applicant could not live with the conditions set forth by the CSM but they would have to take that up at Council.  Mr. Bryne stated he understood.  Mayor Bolender stated he needed Mr. Yakich to work with the City on this project.  They were going to put something together at this time and that is how it is going to be.  If Mr. Yakich feels it is not quite right, so be it. 

Commissioner St. John commented this would go forward as one alternative and the other alternative would be the road needs to be priced out along with the sewer, the water and that Mr. Yakich gives the City a secured financial security that does not expire that says he will enter into a development agreement and he will get that done prior to occupancy.  If the Council buys that in lieu of this than that is something you have stated you can live with.  Mr. Bryne stated that was correct.  He also asked the Commission to understand that it could be the landowner to the south that could pay for the road and not Walter.  Commissioner St. John stated Walter would pay for the road, if Walter gets the money from the guy from the south he does not care.

Commissioner Dickmann commented in this case he did not think relocated the docks was necessary.  Mayor Bolender agreed.

Commissioner Siira questioned if they would be willing to soften the look of the wall by the docks by putting in a more substantial planting.  Mr. Paul Grzeszczak, Briohn, stated Walter has indicated he is appreciative of landscaping and he would like to beef that up a bit himself.  He would also like to buffer the mechanicals coming off of the building with a landscape screening to soften the look. 

Commissioner Siira questioned the color palette on the building.  Mr. Grzeszczak explained it would be a variation of aggregate and a sandblasted smooth panel in the tan tones to more a white.

Commissioner Peterson questioned if the additional set of large windows requested were already added.  Mr. Byrne stated they have added the windows requested except on the north end as well because of production in the area of the building. 

Commission Peterson moved that the Plan Commission approve the site, building and landscaping plans subject to the following conditions

  1. That all building and fire codes are met.
  2. That a detailed screening plan for the rooftop and ground equipment, as well as any truck maneuvering areas (if so approved by the Commission) be approved by the Plan Commission prior to the occupancy of the building. 
  3. That the landscaping plan be amended to include the addition of a minimum of two (2) landscaped islands in the front parking lot.
  4. That plans for grading, drainage and stormwater management are approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits
  5. That the plans for exterior lighting are approved by the Electrical Inspector prior to the issuance of the building permits.
  6. That the final utility plans are approved by the Water and Sewer Utility.

Commissioner Dickmann seconds.

Mr. Seymour suggested a change to condition #3 to “That the landscaping plan be amended to include the addition of a minimum of 5% of the parking area be internally landscaped.”

First and second concur.

Roll call, all voted aye.  Motion carries.

Commissioner Dickmann moves to adjourn.  Commissioner Grabowski seconds.  Roll call, all voted aye.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.