MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 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, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson. Also present were Jeff Fortin, Planner, and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.
Commissioner Grabowski moved to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Peterson 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 21, 2006 Common Council meeting.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned the need for the significant Common Council actions. The original purpose was for the Commission to see how the Council was voting on the recommendations from the Commission. The current Council seems to be on the same page as the Commission and Commissioner Dickmann felt the need was not there anymore. Commission Peterson requested that the Commission continue to receive the updates from the Common Council meetings because she felt they were still of value to the Commission.
Certified Survey Map – Thomas Kinnard Homes
9143, 9147, 9151 & 9155 S. 5th Avenue
Tax Key No.: Multiple
This item was not discussed because it was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
Conditional Use – US Cellular Monopole Tower
301 W. Ryan Road (Oak Creek Police Station)
Tax Key No.: 958-9002-001
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of a 150 foot high monopole cellular tower on the Oak Creek Police Department property.
Alderman Grabowski commented she was not contacted by the applicant regarding the proposal. She also questioned if the residents within close proximity were notified. Mr. Fortin confirmed that they were notified. She questioned how close the base would be to the rear of the parking lot. Mr. Fortin showed the audience and the Commission where the tower would be in relation to the building and the subdivision and informed the Commission the tower would be 150 feet as opposed to the current tower which is 120 feet.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the City was leasing the space to them or did the City have control of what other carriers go on the tower. Mr. Fortin stated US Cellular would have control over who would go on the tower but the City does have the right to go on the tower. Mayor Bolender commented the tower next to the City Hall would be removed when the new tower went up.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned how the City would benefit from having the tower besides being able to use the tower. Mayor Bolender stated the City would receive a rental fee for the ability to put up the tower and the City also gets to use the tower for communication within the City.
Mr. Mark Draegger, 320 W. Trillium, commented he was not against cell tower and understood that they were needed for today’s lifestyle and felt getting rental for it was beneficial for the City. He did express concern for the unsightliness of the towers. He suggested using antenna farms. He also felt putting the antenna near the park land was not a good idea. Mayor Bolender stated the City could not put its communications that they need for police, fire and other communications for the City on the other cell towers. It needs to be either off of the police station or at the current site. The current site is having trouble getting full communication throughout the City.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned if the brick cornice and the wrought iron fence was adequate to hide the equipment. Commissioner St. John commented the site was as far away from the tree line as they could possible get. There is enough room to put another structure between the cell tower and the County land if they chose to do so. Commissioner Grabowski commented the brick and wrought iron were a good choice for the residents that were near the police station. Mayor Bolender commented he could not hide the cell tower but they could hide the building. If people would prefer to see trees they could have the applicant install trees. Commissioner St. John commented they were going to be putting in trees around the site.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the agreement to use space on the tower also spelled out what kind of money the City would be receiving for the leasing the space. Mayor Bolender stated that was an agreement between the City and the applicant and was not an open ended agreement. The City Administrator would be taking care of those details. Commissioner Kopplin also asked who would get the additional revenue from allowing more people to lease space on the tower. Commissioner St. John commented they would need to get the conditional use saying they could have a tower and then have the Council approve the contract but he was not sure that Caesar Geiger had finalized the contract at this point.
Mr. Jim Weinman, US Cellular, clarified there would be additional revenue provided to the City if additional tenants were added to the tower. The amounts are under negotiation at this time.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if US Cellular equipment building was large enough to accommodate future tenants. Mr. Weinmann explained each carrier would add their own equipment and equipment cabinets or shelters.
Mr. Richard Gburzynski, 193 Fairfield Court, stated he was representing the Fairfield Subdivision and they would like to go on record as being opposed to the cell tower in their backyard. If the tower was to go in they would like the amount of spaghetti hanging from the tower to be limited. He commented Oak Creek was becoming a city of towers.
Ms. Kathy Belshaw, 230 W. Trillium Terrace, commented the City has asked the taxpayers at considerable expense to support the building of the police department. It is a gorgeous facility, but it is not consistent with adding towers. There are clearly other industrial areas within the City that could support the tower. The City should be consistent in what they are asking the taxpayers to pay for.
Commissioner Sokol questioned if this would be a permanent zoning change and a permanent structure and what was the length of the lease. Mr. Weinmann stated standard leases are for 25 to 30 years.
Mayor Bolender commented he understood that nobody wanted the tower but the problem was that the situation with where the police station was located that was the likely place for the communications and City security. He could not discuss what was being carried and how it was being carried. The tower was needed and was not just a whim. He assured the residents they would try to limit the amount of “spaghetti” on the tower. Mayor Bolender also commented it would not be too ugly of a tower and he has not ever received any complaints about the current tower. Ms. Belshaw commented the current tower was not in a residential area. She did recognize the need for security but felt the City was very short sited that they did not plan for a tower when the police department was built. It would be hard to believe based on Mayor Bolender’s word that they only place a tower could go in all of Oak Creek would be at the police department to enhance the security. She again stated the current tower was not in a residential area and has been there for years. She questioned what kind of planning went into the police department that was built without planning for the communication needs. Commissioner St. John explained the technology the City was on at the time the police station was built was hard line and they weren’t going over the air. Conduit was run back to the approximate location if they would ever need it at this location. The time has come and the technology is better and the communication equipment needs to be changed. Ms. Belshaw questioned why that was never anticipated when building the police state. Commissioner St. John stated it was anticipated with a tower of some sort. Ms. Belshaw questioned why it was never part of the plans that were shown as part of the police station project. Commissioner St. John stated the conduit was on the plans for a potential tower.
Ms. Belshaw questioned what other local communities have a tower located next to the building. Commissioner St. John suggested speaking with Chief Bauer on that issue. Ms. Belshaw stated the people responsible for making the decision were sitting in the room. She questioned what information was there that would make the police department the only location that was suitable for the cell tower. Mayor Bolender explained they were giving as much information as possible because of security reasons within the City of Oak Creek. Mayor Bolender questioned if she was just asking him to move the tower away from Fairfield. Ms. Belshaw was asking what the options were for the tower. Mayor Bolender explained she would have a chance for in put when the issue came before the Common Council.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained if this was just a cell tower and the City was putting it up to make some money it could be in some other location but this is also a public safety tower. It is going to have information for the Police and Fire and EMS to communicate. We could tell you why it needs to be next to the police department but he was not sure that he would feel comfortable post 9/11 telling her why it needed to be moved. America is under a different situation now and we can’t tell you every reason that it needs to be moved but it is a public safety issue that it needs to be next to the Police Department.
Mr. Gburzynski stated he would like to see the City agree to US Cellular and the City being the only ones allowed under the permit to use the tower. Mayor Bolender stated the Commission does not have the power to determine what is going to happen at the Common Council. They are not issuing a permit at this time. They are going to pass it down to the Common Council and let them issue the permit.
Commissioner Grabowski expressed concern as to why the tower needed to be at this location and questioned why it needed to be at this location only. Mr. Fortin explained when the police station was built they did put in the conduit to accommodate a tower. As far as the location the code spells out the preferred location of towers and this would be the first place preferred over commercial or residential. Commissioner Grabowski questioned what the City would do if US Cellular did not approach them for a tower, would the City put up the tower. Mayor Bolender stated the City would have to put their own in but they would have to pay for it themselves. He also commented he would not discuss the security issue any further at this point.
Commissioner Sokol questioned the cost of the tower. Mr. Weinmann explained it was some where between $90,000 - $250,000. This tower should run about $150,000 excluding electronics and consulting.
Commissioner Dickmann clarified that there would only be for one tower and the City was not paying for the tower but would be allowed to use it for their equipment.
Commissioner Dickmann moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the conditional use permit for a 150 foot high monopole structure be granted after a public hearing and subject to conditions and restrictions which will be prepared for the Plan Commission at their next meeting.
Commissioner Peterson seconds.
Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; aye, Sokol; aye; Siira; aye, Kopplin; aye, Bolender; aye, Grabowski; nay, Correll; aye, Peterson; aye. Motion carries.
Plan Commission Consultation – CenterPoint Properties
9875 S. Stern Street
Tax Key No.: 904-9017
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting Plan Commission comments on a conceptual plan for a proposed addition to the Capstone Business Center at Creekside Corporate Park. The addition would be onto the south side of the existing building and will feature similar architectural treatment using precast concrete.
Commissioner St. John questioned if they would just be extending the existing architecture. Mr. Jay Knetter, Zimmerman Architectural Studios, confirmed that was the case. Commissioner St. John commented since the building was much shorter than what was originally proposed the real question would be whether the neighbors would rather see a reworked berm or would they rather have what is out there. Mr. Michael Murphy, CenterPoint Properties, stated the existing berms would remain in place and the plan has been revised and the building has been pulled in about an additional 70 feet from the property line to enhance the berm further.
Ms. Kathy Remiszewski 1510 W. Lois Lane, commented the berm at the west end of her lot starts to slope down and assumes it was done for drainage purposes. The concern she has is for the truck traffic coming from the loading dock and going out. Because the berm is sloped it will not hide the truck traffic. Mayor Bolender requested they hide the truck traffic.
Mr. Fortin explained the original general development plan had envisioned two separate buildings that would be separated so all the trucks would be far away from the residential. The concern from the neighbors are the buildings are being extended down and trucks would be coming south of the building which is something that was never envisioned as part of the general development plan.
Mr. Ed Siira, 1500 W. Lois Lane, explained the history of the site and that he was on the Plan Commission when the PUD and general development plan were created. There were things that were important to the neighbors and the most important of which is how trucks enter into and within the property. The “U” shaped driveway was the main thoroughfare and then trucks would be nestled between the buildings tastefully which was very important to the Rs-2 neighborhood. It is important to note the zoning to the north is B-4 Highway Business and the freeway to the west and 13th Street to the east. When the existing building went through the approval process it was longer and slightly narrower than the building that is depicted on the general development plan. More significantly is the fact that the neighboring property owners were willing to accept the notion of putting the truck courts on the side of the building with the first phase. When the buildings were delineated as two separate buildings it was viewed that the separation between the two separate phase as an opportunity to take the truck traffic back out in between the two buildings which is what the residents were expecting. When the idea of an addition came to be basically the second phase was pushed up against the first phase and the truck pattern was continued around the south end of the building. The plan that the Commissioners received was not acceptable to Mr. Siira or his neighbors. The plan takes the phase two and butts it up against the existing building but then also building up to the 100 foot building set back line and the truck traffic would be routed just on the other side of the berm. The neighbors had problems with that road way but it is necessary for fire access.
Mr. Siira would like to see this develop as two separate buildings. The idea of adding on to the existing building creates the problem in exiting the truck traffic around the south of the building. The gap between the two buildings no longer exists and it forces the need for the new truck route. He has given the developer a couple of workable options…build up to the property line with the understanding that the truck route along the south end of the building absolutely had to go away and be delineated for emergency vehicles only. Another possibility would be to take phase two and butt it up against the existing building but significantly reduce the length of the addition getting the truck route a significant distance away from the property line. A minimum of 100 feet would have to be taken out of the length of the addition to basically except the notion of having any truck traffic on the side of the building.
The berm is an important consideration but he is not a fan of trying to hide things as much as what belongs there in the first place. There is no way he would be able to accept a truck route just on the other side of the berm. It is not just a visual issue it is a noise issue, an emissions issue and there is more to it than just being able to see it. With a development of this size with what seems to be a minor revision has a significant impact on how the rest of the property develops and that is a big concern. The truck traffic and the density are concerns.
Mayor Bolender directed that a neighborhood meeting be set up with the developer and the alderman for the district.
Mr. Knetter, explained the existing setback requirement was 100 feet from the property line to a building face as required by the building covenants. They are proposing a setback of 170 feet from the property line which allows for 65,000 square feet. The concern for the loop around the building is being addressed with perhaps an angle drive that would pull it away from the berm and the south property line. The berm does drop off to the west but they have full intention to do whatever screening is necessary for that to work for all of the residents.
Again Mayor Bolender requested the developer to meet with the alderman for the district and the neighbors before returning to the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Kopplin commented the berm was done the way it was because of the drainage in the area.
Commissioner Siira commented on the elevation drawing there was a series of future openings for dock doors. If all of the doors were to come to be it would be more of a distribution type of area and would be getting away from the warehousing. He was told they were being delineated for the flexibility of popping an opening in as needed. Commissioner Siira requested language that would assure that there would not be 15 dock doors next to each other. Mr. Knetter agreed and would have a maximum level of dock locations made up.
Commissioner Siira felt that Ms. Remisheski would be most affected by the roadway and explained the three options available to the developer to satisfy the neighbors and questioned if Ms. Remisheski would be satisfied with those options. Commissioner St. John stated the Engineering Department looked at the plan and it appears the gap in the berm was for storm water but the topos show it doesn’t flow and it has no tributary area under storm water plan. Commissioner Siira stated it flows right into a creek that goes into the County property area. Commissioner St. John commented the Engineering Department saw the gap as fillable. Commissioner Siira explained that at this time there is another berm and the water runs along the northern edge of one berm and goes into the County property.
Alderman Michalski questioned how the trucks currently come in to service the buildings and also questioned how they left the site. Mr. Murphy showed on the drawing how the trucks moved on the site. Alderman Michalski suggested the trucks enter and exit the same way. Mr. Murphy explained the difficulty behind that suggestion.
Commissioner Dickmann commented one of the selling points on original plan was the use of interior roads for the truck traffic. If the plan had shown truck traffic on the south side of the building he did not feel it would have passed at that time. He explained the current plan is a complete opposite of the original presentation and felt it needed to be reworked.
Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop commented when the development was first approved it had two access points to 13th Street. There is a curb cut and some monument at 13th Street. He requested the additional of the future access point.
Commissioner Grabowski moved to adjourn. Commissioner Correll seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.