MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007
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 Doug Seymour, Director of Community Development, Jeff Fortin, Planner and Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop.
Commissioner Grabowski moved to approve the minutes of December 12, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The minutes were approved as submitted.
Report on Significant Common Council Actions
Mr. Fortin updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the January 3, 2007, Common Council meetings. There were no comments or concerns from the Commissioners.
Rezoning – Oak Creek Franklin School District New Middle School Site
3521 E. Oakwood Road
Tax Key No.: 960-9999-001
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the Oak Creek-Franklin School District was requesting that the property at 3521 E. Oakwood Road be rezoned from Rs-2, Single Family Residential to I-1, Institutional to allow for the future construction of a new middle school on the northern portion of the property.
Mr. Bob Vajgrt, Eppstein Uhen Architects, gave a slide presentation on the scope of the project. Mr. Vajgrt explained the process for picking a suitable site. Mr. Eric Dufeck, Eppstein Uhen Architects, explained in further detail on how they came down to one site from a beginning number of 127 possible sites. The number was shortened to 75 that were of appropriate size for a school. Each of the 75 sites was evaluated based on a 12 point criteria. One of the important factors was where the sites were located in relation to the residential homes. The school should be near the students. Of the 75 sites it was again whittled down to a 40 parcels. Of the 40 parcels only 20 were available by the time we got to that point in the process. From the 20 available they made a 12 finalist list for further scrutinizing. The district did make other offers before finally deciding on this particular site.
Mr. Vajgrt explained the site layout. The school itself would be approximately 15 feet in height and the gymnasium would be 32 feet in height. He explained the project traffic counts and how they arrived at those counts. They would have two access points one to the west of the residential sites would be an in/out and the one to the east of the residential parcels would be an exit only. It would be a one story building with a ring road that would loop the building for access around the entire facility. They are proposing a play area or soccer type of field to the south that is a buildable area. At some point they are proposing to bridge the area to gain access the approximately 5 acres. With the current layout there would be staff and visitor parking of to the west side. The east side of the building by the outdoor P.E. is where the gym and cafeteria are located. They are also showing some preliminary locations for retention ponds. One would be in the lower right hand corner of the site and the other up along Oakwood Road near the parking areas. The site naturally drains to the northwest.
One of the issues brought up at the informational meeting was Oakwood Road and the school being in a residential area. Mr. Vajgrt showed examples of other schools on a two lane road with excel and deceleration lanes and be surrounded by homes.
Mr. Tom Perez, Capour Engineering, addressed the stormwater management issues brought up at the informational meeting. The topography drains from north to south from Oakwood Road and meanders its way down to the wetland south of the site. Preliminary stormwater calculations were done and they believe they can accommodate the 100 and 200 year flood. The site would meet the City of Oak Creek’s stormwater ordinance.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if this site was not approved what were the other options for school sites. Commissioner St. John clarified that the decision on whether it was rezoned was not going to be made at this time. A recommendation would be made to the Council who would have the final decision. Mr. Vajgrt stated to his knowledge the district was not pursuing any other sites.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the two story scheme would cut the foot print in half. Mr. Vajgrt believed the two story scheme would reduce the foot print by about 1/3 in foot print only. Commissioner Siira also questioned if the single story scheme was the preferred scheme. Mr. Vajgrt stated that was the case. There was an option they were looking at for a two story scheme but that is not workable from a financial standpoint and was taken off of the table.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned if there were other middle school sites that had an elementary school within such close proximity. Mr. Vajgrt pointed out that Brookfield Academy had another Brookfield school within a mile or a mile and a half south of it on the same side of the road. Brookfield Academy also is a three school campus.
Mayor Bolender objected to the statement by Mr. Vajgrt that the parcel would hold fifty houses. He also stated three houses per acre on that parcel would not work because of the wetland area. Mayor Bolender also stated there are no other roads like Oakwood Road because of the water and the deep ditches. He believes that 80% of kids are bused and the other 20% either walk or are driven. He did not want to see any children walking down Oakwood Road. He believes in the school system and he also believes in a new school for the community but not at this site.
Commissioner Sokol requested a copy of the chart that was shown during the presentation that showed the criteria that was used to evaluate various sites. Mr. Vajgrt stated he would provide Commissioner Sokol with a copy but he did not have one with him at this time. Commissioner Sokol questioned if he had a copy of the power point presentation. Mr. Fortin stated he could email a copy to Commissioner Sokol.
Commissioner Peterson questioned where the additional kids were coming from that would account for the 1,000 student estimate. Mr. Vajgrt explained once the school was built it would replace East Middle School and that population would move to the new school and it was being sized for 1,000 students based on the growth projection that has been done for the district. West Middle School would remain the way it is currently. In the future once both schools were to capacity the West Middle School has been designed where it can add additional students to bring it up to 1,000 as well.
Commissioner Correll questioned how many students were currently at East Middle School. Mr. Vajgrt stated there were currently 620 students at East Middle School.
Mayor Bolender stated the school was not being put in the middle of the population but was being moved from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. The area where they would like to move to will not be developed like the rest of the community because of the water problems along Oakwood Road and Elm Road. Mr. Vajgrt explained the master plan that was done for the district used the East Middle School site for the second high school site. There was enough property at that location and the district was looking to obtain additional property in that area so that there is the amount of property needed for a high school. In looking at the original 127 properties it was easier to find a property suitable for a middle school than it was for a high school.
Commissioner Kopplin commented Oakwood Road has had terrible accidents where people could have drowned in the ditches. She questioned what would happen if they started building and found they needed pylons to build the building.
Mr. Tim Fowler, General Counsel for Bielinski Homes, President of the Willow Brook Homeowner’s Association, stated both Bielinski and the Homeowners Association have concerns about the proposed school including property value, safety and the general welfare of the surrounding areas. They request that the proposed rezoning recommendation be denied. He reminded the Commission the site is currently zoned for residential uses and persons including Bielinski Homes purchased land and the homeowners in Willow Brook purchased their land based on the fact that this parcel was going to be a residential area. If the rezoning does take place it will be the second time in a couple of years that land once designated and represented for other uses by the City, one for a park and this one for residential uses will be changed. The proposed change according to some appraisers who have visited some of the lots near the proposed site have said the proposed school will have a negative effect on property values. Bielinski actually looked at this site a few years back and could not get anywhere near three homes per acre. The safety of the school children and the surrounding land owners will also be in jeopardy if the site moves forward. As part of the development of the Willow Brook subdivision Bielinski will be installing some trails in the outlot in the conservation area. There are many floodplain and wetland areas on the outlot as well as the proposed site and surrounding areas. Children are drawn to water and depending on how deep the ponds have to be you may have some serious issues. He reminded the City about the tax impact and the possible cost associated with the proposed project. This site has many engineering hurdles to overcome due to the flood plain and wetland issues. Issues that a private developer like Bielinski was not able to swallow, but it appears that the school district is ready, willing and able to just pour more and more money into the site until it works. If the project moves forward he wants to make sure that the City makes sure that the school district pays for any and all improvements just like any private developer would. If there are going to be excel and deceleration lanes, additional stormwater facilities even after the project is developed should be on their nickel not the tax payers and not the adjacent property owners. Again, Bielinski and the homeowners association request the Plan Commission vote against recommending the rezone and also request the City Common Council deny the rezone.
Brian Belli, 10473 S. Rosemont Lane, recently moved to Oak Creek from Greendale. Requested the Commission deny this zoning change. There are so many issues that were not addressed by the engineering firm. He requested some of the paper work regarding the site planning two months ago and was told it was not available. When he spoke with the City and the Alderperson he was received with open arms. He expressed concern for traffic and safety, in regards to Oakwood Road he understood it was just repaved about two years ago. Does the City want to pay the money to have the road redone? The taxpayers are the ones who will have to foot the bill for this project. He would hate to see the City or the School District spend money that they don’t need to spend. Oakwood Road is very dangerous and who would pay for and maintain sidewalks along Oakwood Road. He also expressed concern for the athletic field on the other side of the proposed bridge and how it would be accessed by emergency personnel. This building would be 30,000 square feet bigger than the Opus building on Oakwood. He is not opposed to a school but this is not the location for a building of that size. He spoke with several appraisers who told him a school in a subdivision is not a bad idea it actually adds to the value. When he told him a 179,000 square foot school he was told it would affect his property values. He can’t believe as a community they would tell the four residents on Oakwood Road there is going to be this huge building in their backyard.
Mr. Dave Duewel, 10461 S. Rosemont Lane, expressed disappointment with how the school board was going to spend his tax dollars. The school board seems to be dancing around the issues and is in a big hurry to spend the money by a deadline date. He also expressed concern with parking for concerts and such and the overflow parking. Mr. Duell felt the land would be good for a lower density higher cost home development such as Shangri La. He questioned the water run off and the rates being dumped into the wetland behind the school. He requested the Plan Commission vote no and that the school board look for a more suitable location.
Mr. Henry Kohler, 10657 S. Chicago Road, brought up the issue of standing water on the parcel after the most recent snow storm and rain storm. There is currently standing water where the building pad is supposed to be located. He believes there are springs under ground and the water will be pushed some place else and affect neighboring property owners. If the school board was honest in their treatment of the referendum they would not even be at this point. He believes the voters were misrepresented on the location of the school.
Ms. Louise Kasper, 3511 E. Oakwood Road, prior to building her home Mr. Miller had a swale directly down the middle of his property; several years ago he filled it in and was forced to reopen it. It was done incorrectly and now we have a pond at the north end of it. Children are being dropped off with buses ever since Deerfield has been built. People are not paying attention to the bus signs. People are doing low level flying down the street with the incremental increase in the traffic with the school that has already been built. If the one hundred year ponds are allowed to be built there will be safety issues with the children. The humongous playing field will not be accessible by emergency vehicles and is opening the City up for a lawsuit. The noise and the lights that four homeowners will have to put up with on a daily basis are going to ruin their lives. They moved to this area for the American dream and now it is a nightmare.
Ms. Cheryl Belli, 10473 S. Rosemont Lane, stated she was alright with the elementary school in the subdivision but was opposed to a middle school in her backyard. She would like the Plan Commission to consider not approving this proposal.
Ms. Lynn Miller, 10500 S. Shangri La Court, expressed concern for the proposed playing field which is under water ¾ of the year if not more. She moved to Oak Creek in 1994 and built in the current location in 2003. They spent a great deal of money adding a huge ditch in the back that they filled with rock to solve all the water problems that they had. It currently works and if the land gets built up and the water starts coming her way it will not work anymore and she does not know where the water will go. She has three kids who will be in middle school and it would be convenient to have the school at that location but it is just not the right site.
Alderman Ann Lampe, 8436 S. Howell Avenue, commented she first learned about this issue by accident by being at a school board meeting. She was surprised this was the site. The engineer mentioned that both schools now are on two lane roads. She questioned if there was a plan for the school district to pay for stop lights on Oakwood and 32. Commissioner St. John stated there was a plan right now to put them in this summer. They are called temporary with the WE Energy construction. Alderman Lampe explained both of the other middle schools, although they are on two lane roads, have stop lights at one of the ends of the school and they have traffic problems at the other end. There is always a problem with traffic on 13th and Puetz; it is something that we have been trying to address. There is such a traffic problem on Shepard and Puetz that the City has to spring for stop lights at that location. This is not without additional cost down the road to handle the traffic concerns.
Mr. Tim Jackalone – 3541 E. Oakwood Road, commented there were four things legally that had to be considered before you build a building. Safety, which has been covered, decrease in property value; has been covered, affected traffic; has been covered and is part of the plan for the City, the construction of the building and the property…if it intends to have a basement…he had two feet of water in his basement before he had the concrete in because there was a spring. If they build retaining ponds, he questioned where the water would back into. The ditches along the road are a safety item. He hoped the Commission would vote no.
Mr. Mike Cristoforo, 10446 S. George, commented what was being lost in the not in my backyard stuff is that there has been a lot of talk about property values. In the Cudahy Now flyer online the Oak Creek High School system was ranked 41st in ACT scores out of the 50 southeastern Wisconsin high schools. If you are a perspective homeowner that is something to take into consideration. He feels something has to be done because nobody would want their kid to go to school in a trailer. He has seen first hand at Deerfield the new technology and the professional teachers that have come in. He commends the school board for trying to do something.
Mr. Mark VerHalen, 1200 E. Ryan Road, does not live in the area but is a lifetime resident of the City. He was on the citizens committee that looked into the school needs for the 2020 plan. His committee did not pick the sites nor where they involved in looking at any of the properties. He would like the benefit of the doubt from the audience on the school site. They spent about a year in committee looking at the different scenarios that the school is facing and to be honest he was opposed when the high school was proposed the last time. However; once you get into the inner works of some of the things that the school system is really facing you tend to take a different look at the big picture. Everyone on Plan Commission and Common Council has to look at the people’s concerns but you have to look at what the other side was looking at also and keep an open mind and make a decision based on what is best for the whole community. Everyone knows no matter what site is proposed for anything these days the first thing that comes up in Oak Creek is water issues and flooding. He served on the Stormwater management committee and Oak Creek has some of the most stringent stormwater rules in all of southeastern Wisconsin if not the strictest. The City is even stricter than MMSD. As far as flooding, it is a non issue. The consultants gave a rough overshot of how it is going to work. The issue with traffic, he watched the traffic at the East Middle School from 3:00 – 3:45p.m. There are approximately 14 large buses and 4 or 5 mini buses and on the day he was there it was 9 degrees and there was about 65 cars that came to pick-up students. Cars and buses started arriving about 3:15 and by 3:40 just about the last vehicle was gone out of the parking lot. They leave both to the north and to the south. There is going to be traffic but he believes in the big picture the traffic is only going to be there for a certain amount of time in the morning and the afternoon and when the school has extra curricular activities. He has attended different functions at the schools for at least the last 12 years and most of the time those types of activities are done and over with by 8:30p.m. Shepard Avenue currently has five schools that empty out onto it. He thought it would be a plus if the City would put a bike path along Oakwood Road so the kids would not have to walk along Oakwood Road. He questioned who the residents would want to come in and develop the site…a developer who would build his development and then leave or the City who would be there to be held accountable to the residents if there were any problems.
Ms. Debbie Krajnak, 3501 E. Oakwood Road, explained when she purchased the land from Mr. Miller she was told he was going to be doing something with horses with the land because it was agriculture.
Mr. Chris Chomicki, 3674 E. County Line Road, explained that the information was on the school website since September and in the Pictorial. People are complaining about the proposed site but not giving any suggestions for any possible sites as alternatives. What is the anticipated growth the of the City in the next five years and when is the anticipation of building a new high school going to happen.
Dr. Sara Larsen, Franklin Oak Creek School District, stated the posting for the public meeting for purchasing the land on Oakwood occurred in September. Based on enrollment projections if you look at the projects that were done by UW Madison they are already running ahead of what was projected. If you look at that the district would be looking in approximately in another five years having to plan for the second high school. Planning would mean to begin working with a referendum and then two years of…five years implementing the plan, the plan has already been put in place. Mr. Shamicki questioned the anticipated growth of the City. Mr. Seymour explained the City’s population has been growing anywhere from 400-700 people per year. Mr. Schamicki questioned how many acres of land that was taking up per year roughly. Mr. Seymour explained it was tough to say given the fact that the population lags behind the development growth. A typical cycle would have the subdivisions developed anywhere from two to three years before the actual population kicks in there. You could just three houses per acre which is typical at 2.75 persons per household you are talking about 10 or 11 persons per acre. Mr. Shamicki explained where he was getting with this questioning was as the City is developing you are running out of less and less land to develop schools on. It doesn’t matter where you put the school you are going to get flack from the residents in the area. He felt the wetlands were an excellent learning opportunity for the students at the school.
Commissioner Grabowski commented she received several emails and phone calls that are in support of the project but she has received an overwhelming amount of emails from residents that do not support it. She could not support the rezoning of this site from residential to institutional.
Commissioner Sokol motioned that the Plan Commission recommends to the Common Council that the property at 3521 E. Oakwood Road be rezoned from Rs-2, Single Family Residential to I-1, Institutional after a public hearing.
There was no second. The motion failed.
Commissioner Sokol motioned that the Plan Commission not recommend to the Common Council that the property at 3521 E. Oakwood Road be rezoned from Rs-2, Single Family Residential to I-1, Institutional after a public hearing.
Grabowski seconds. Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; nay, Sokol; aye, Siira; aye, Kopplin; aye, Bolender; aye, Grabowski; aye, Correll; nay, Peterson; aye. Motion to not recommend carries.
Sign Appeal – Aldi
6810 S. 27th Street
Tax Key No.: 737-9031
The applicant was requesting a variance from the City of Oak Creek Municipal code Section 17.0706(i)(3), which states that for free standing businesses and industries, the total number of signs shall be limited to two signs per street frontage. If granted, the variance would allow Aldi to have two wall signs, one existing sign on the north elevation and one new one on the west elevation.
Mr. Doug Young, Delafield, was sworn and spoke in favor of the sign.
Commissioner Dickmann commented he has seen other Aldi stores and this is the only one with only one wall sign. He also believes the sign will add to the appearance of the building.
Commissioner Grabowski felt as 27th Street grows it should have the highest standards as possible to mirror the Franklin side of 27th Street and she would not be in support of the sign.
Commissioner Kopplin did not have a problem with the sign because the existing sign faces north on a parking lot that comes out of Menards.
Commissioner Siira questioned what amount of signage a business of this size would be allowed. Mr. Fortin explained given the length of that façade of the building they would be allowed a one hundred square foot sign. They also would be allowed a one hundred square foot pole sign. Commissioner Siira stated given the size of the existing sign he would be supportive of an additional sign.
Mayor Bolender opened up the floor for comments. He called three times and there was no response.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Grabowski seconds. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Peterson moved that the Plan Commission approve a variance from the City of Oak Creek Municipal Code Section 17.0706(i)(3), to allow two wall signs, one existing wall sign on the north elevation and one new one of the west elevation for the property at 6810 S. 27th Street.
Commissioner Kopplin seconds. Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; nay, Sokol; aye; Siira; aye; Kopplin; aye; Bolender; aye, Grabowski; nay; Correll; aye, Peterson; aye. Motion carries.
Sign Appeal – Continental Properties (Kohl’s Center)
9001 & 9035 S. Howell Avenue
Tax Key No.: 859-9034 & 859-9035
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting a variance to allow additional retail panels onto the existing Kohl’s sign. Staff does have a concern with the growing size of the sign but the concern should be weighed with the desire of the City to prevent sign clutter.
Ms Debbie Tomczyk, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, was sworn in and stated she was the attorney representing Continental Properties. The question is not whether or not the variance is approved and the signage left as is but whether or not you approve the variance so Continental can make it just one sign with additional panels or end up having two signs with additional square footage of signage on the property. The approval would result in less signage then allowed.
Commissioner Sokol questioned the total square footage of the sign. Mr. Fortin explained staff had calculated at 273 square feet. Commissioner Sokol questioned if that was per side. Mr. Fortin stated it was a per side calculation. Commissioner Sokol questioned if that was considered one sign even though it is facing two different ways. Mr. Fortin explained the way the code reads it allows for one hundred square feet of signage per side. Commissioner Sokol questioned if this one had 283 feet per side. Mr. Fortin explained the variance request was for 273 square feet and right now they have 190 square feet from a previous variance granted by the board of appeals in 1998. Atty. Tomczyk clarified with the two signs they would have they would end up with 290 and they are requesting a variance for only 273 per side. There would be the existing 190 per side of the existing sign and then a second sign with 100 square feet per side for a total of 290.
Mr. Fortin clarified if the variance request was not approved there would be an additional 100 square foot per side monument sign near the Lotus sign.
Commissioner Correll questioned if the non-anticipated tenants will they go for the second sign then because of the loop hole that is available. Mr. Fortin explained if the variance is granted staff is recommending that Continental Properties comes to the City with an overall sign plan for the property that addresses any possible future sign issues. Commissioner Correll expressed concern with that taking place after the fact. He would like to limit in the approval that there is no more signage after this variance.
Emilou Barnes was sworn in and explained the history of the anticipated signage for the property. Had they anticipated that they would have needed more than two panels they would have requested that at the beginning. They would never request another sign if this was granted at this time.
Commissioner St. John stated the proposed monument sign for Sherwin Williams could not be placed where it is shown because it is in an easement. He did not know legally where he stood on this issue but when this went to the zoning board of appeals it was an appeal for the entire site. As far as he is concerned they don’t have a variance anymore because they have changed the assumptions and divided the properties. The variance can’t continue. Atty. Tomczyk explained she spoke with City Attorney Haskin, and the land division already existed and the variance runs with the land. If there was a misperception or some other understanding that the variance that was granted in 1998 did not have any of those conditions included in it. Commissioner St. John argued that the variance was for the whole square of land that is now four parcels; therefore he contends they traded away their rights for the other signs as a trade off for the variance. Now that they are threatening to do that he believes the variance is in jeopardy. Atty. Tomczyk felt the variance that was granted was granted for a property address. Commissioner St. John stated it was granted for two addresses; one of which does not exist today. Atty. Tomczyk stated then they would have a factual dispute. Commissioner St. John stated the point was that Continental Properties said give us a sign with two entities on it and that is all we are going to ask for the whole development. Now we have the two outlots which have their own signs and the sign that was to be for the whole property and the threat that they are going to put down another one. Atty. Tomczyk explained this sign would be a way to avoid a second sign forever and they would be willing to make that a condition if necessary.
Mr. Fortin explained to Commissioner St. John that he had a conversation with City Attorney Haskin and it was his opinion since there were no conditions on the original variance request that the land split would have nothing to do with it. Attorney Tomczyk confirmed that was the same conversation she had with Atty. Haskin.
Mayor Bolender directed the item held until Atty. Tomczyk could sit down with City Attorney Haskin and work out the details of the sign. Commissioner St. John stated he would sit down with Attorney Haskin.
Attorney Tomczyk stated she would be happy to talk with Attorney Haskin but questioned if the Commission was looking for an opinion from Attorney Haskin and also questioned if he was authorized to give that. Mayor Bolender stated he was looking for some legal direction so there was no misunderstand on anyone’s part.
Commissioner Grabowski requested that Commissioner St. John be allowed to take the questions to Attorney Haskin on behalf of the City.
Commissioner Correll would also like to see where the second sign could legally be placed and how any future tenants could be accommodated.
Sign Appeal – Oak Creek Pediatrics
8419 S. Howell Avenue
Tax Key No.: 828-9009
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission Oak Creek Pediatrics, a tenant in the Oak Creek Centre was requesting a variance from Section 17.0706(i)(1) which states that shopping centers and multi-tenant builds may provide one ground or pole sign and each business in the building as also permitted one wall sign. They are requesting an additional 12 square foot logo sign on the east elevation. There is currently a 70 square foot wall sign that reads “Oak Creek Pediatric.”
Mr. Larry Frahm, Bauer Sign Company, was sworn in and spoke in favor of the sign. He explained the applicant would like to have the logo sign positioned over the main entrance to the building.
No one spoke in opposition to the sign.
Commissioner St. John questioned if this was a franchise. Mr. Frahm confirmed that was the case.
Commissioner Dickmann commented there was another sign just to the north of this proposed sign in the peak and this would balance out the look of the mall.
Mayor Bolender called three times for public comment.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Grabowski seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Siira moved that the Plan Commission grant a sign appeal variance for Oak Creek Pediatrics at 8419 S. Howell Avenue to allow for an additional wall sign logo above their tenant space.
Commissioner Grabowski seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion to approve carries.
Plan Review – Peterbilt Wisconsin
1800 W. Ridgeview Drive
Tax Key No.: 903-0007-000
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting site and building plan approval for a new entrance vestibule onto their exiting facility at 1800 W. Ridgeview Drive. The vestibule will extend 10 feet above the existing roofline which is 24 feet high. It will be constructed of metal panels, similar to those found on the existing building and will match the new colors found on the building. There will also be windows to break up the height of the vestibule tower. A ¾ majority vote of the Commissioners present will be needed for this proposal to pass.
Mr. Rick Smith, 8820 S. 15th Avenue, explained most of the buildings have high rise signs and where that is not an option they are going with this concept.
Commissioner Dickmann complemented Mr. Smith on the way the building is starting to look. He questioned if a window on the plans was actually in existence or would it be added. Mr. Smith explained it must have been added by mistake on the plans and would not be added to the actual building.
Commissioner St. John asked if they could add more brick and paint it to match the existing building. Mr. Smith stated they were trying to match the existing building materials and the color was the standard Peterbilt color.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the vestibule addition was entirely visible meaning were the windows real. Mr. Smith stated they were real windows in a real tall vestibule. Commissioner Siira questioned if the signage was internally lit. Mr. Smith stated they were trying to decide at this point whether it was going to be LED or if it would be neon. It would most likely be neon.
Commissioner Dickmann moved that the Plan Commission approves the site, building, and signage plans for Peterbilt Wisconsin, subject to all building and fire codes being met.
Commissioner Kopplin seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion to approve carries with a ¾ majority vote.
Temporary Use – DIC Imaging
7300 S. 10th Street
Tax Key No.: 764-9027
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting temporary approval to allow two temporary trailers on the property at 7300 S. 10th Street. The applicant was requesting the trailers be allowed on site until March 30, 2007 for use as a temporary office and break room while the existing offices were remodeled.
Commissioner St. John questioned if they built 30 days extra into the schedule. Mr. Lee Rundell, Franklin, stated they would probably need less than 30 days.
Commissioner Kopplin moved that the Plan Commission approve the temporary use for the temporary trailers at DIC Imaging, subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Grabowski seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. Motion to approve carries.
Sign Plan Review – Ryan Road Self Storage
840 W. Ryan Road
Tax Key No.: 876-9003
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant has submitted a revised sign that is smaller and a better fit for this development than his earlier requested that was denied by the Commission at the April 12, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Jim O’Malley, 840 W. Ryan Road, explained the original request was to look at what could be done with signage at the property and originally proposed an electronic sign on the monument. The request at this time is only for the wall sign not for any changes to the monument sign.
Mayor Bolender questioned what he was proposing to change on the monument sign. Mr. O’Malley stated he was not proposing any changes at this time but had only submitted the drawings for staff discussion.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned if there was going to that much of a visible difference with the white backing or would it have the same face backing as with Cummins. Mr. O’Malley explained the existing sign looks very much like the Cummins above it with a plastic face and internally lit. He is not proposing any changes at this time because it is financially prohibitive. He was requesting to add signage to the building to help direct customers to the building which has a residential look to it and can be confusing.
Mr. Chuck Koehler, 901 W. Ryan Road, commented he was a proponent of this project from the beginning and he also felt they did a good job with the site. However; he is not in favor of the wall sign and feels it will deter from the looks of the facility and suggested adding large lettering to the front door or a small ground sign near the front door as a directional sign. He also suggested Mr. O’Malley add some lights to his flag pole. Mr. Koehler would also oppose any changes to the monument sign. He also brought up that conditions from the development agreement were not being met.
Commissioner St. John questioned if there was a conditional use for truck rental. Mr. Fortin stated the conditional use on the property was for the Cummins use not the storage use. He would have to look at the conditional use permit and see if there was anything allowing the truck rental. Commissioner Kopplin did not believe there was ever a truck rental permitted on the property.
Commissioner St. John questioned the numerous banners on the site seen from the pictures provided. Mr. Fortin stated the banners have been removed from the site.
Mayor Bolender suggested somebody take a look at the conditional use and get that straighten out first.
Alderman Michalski commented he has seen the proposed signs from the past and feels the currently proposed sign was acceptable to him as the alderman for the district. The applicant as a right to a sign and needs it to help his customers. If there are other problems with truck rental that would be a different issue to be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner Siira questioned what it was about the proposed sign that Mr. Koehler did not approve of. Mr. Koehler stated he did not like the 12 foot sign that would be over 2 foot high. It would deter from that side of the building which has a nice clean look at this time. When the project was being developed there was push to have it match the Aldi property to the north.
Mr. O’Malley commented he understood there were residential homes on Ryan Road but it was a changing street just like 27th Street. Eventually there will not be homes on Ryan Road and this is a large main road within the City and it is logical that a business on Ryan Road would want signage. They do have Penske truck rental on site but it was not an intentional violation. The truck rental does service the community. The trucks are parked behind the gate and everything he was told was a violation with banners and parking has been taken care of as soon as he was made aware of the violation.
Commissioner Sokol questioned what they would be voting on if the monument sign was not an issue and the wall sign is below the minimum. Mr. Fortin explained the applicant had requested sign approval in the past that had red lettering. The Plan Commission has been very concerned in the past in regards to the look of the building and it not looking like a self storage business.
Commissioner Sokol questioned if there was some type of super ordinance that gives the City the right to make people present a sign that meets all of the codes. If he is within code why would he need to come before the Plan Commission? Mr. Fortin again explained the Plan Commission has been very concerned with the overall look of this site. The sign that was proposed two years ago was detracting so much from the architecture that the Plan Commission should have a say in any future proposals.
Mayor Bolender commented if he has a business in B-4 he does not have to have anybodies permission. If this is his legal right to do this why is he here?
Alderman Lampe commented she was present at the meetings when this whole plan was approved. There was so much controversy over the plan that everything needed to be double checked. The sign plan was the one thing that never got resolved, and in defense of staff if they had not brought it forward you would have received a call saying the sign was never approved or part of the approved sign and landscaping plan. It has a long and unique history.
Commissioner Correll motioned that the Commission approve the wall sign subject to the following condition:
Commissioner Peterson seconds.
Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; aye, Sokol; aye; Siira; nay; Kopplin; aye; Bolender; aye, Grabowski; aye; Correll; aye, Peterson; aye. Motion to approve carries.
Plan Review – T-Mobile (Oak Creek City Hall Complex)
8640 S. Howell Avenue
Tax Key No.: 764-9027
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission T-Mobile would be leasing space on the City-owned telecommunications tower located at the City Hall/Fire Station #1 site. The existing fenced in area behind the Fire Station #1 will be expanded by 600 square feet to the west. Within this where there will be a small brick building for their equipment. The fence will match the existing 8 foot high PVC fencing.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if this tower was going to be obsolete in a few years should we be adding additional users to the current tower.
Ms. Lisa Bera, T-Mobile, explained the current structure was Verison Wireless structure with a thirty year lease. Commissioner Grabowski questioned when the lease would expire. Ms. Bera explained the best she could remember it was one initial five year term with four five year renewable terms for 25 years. She is currently working with Caesar Geiger on a lease agreement and that is what is being proposed.
Mayor Bolender questioned what would be done with the building if the area was redeveloped. Ms. Bera stated she thought there was language within the lease agreement that if the structure would need to be moved that they would have to move. Mayor Bolender questioned what the building would house. Ms. Bera explained it would have cabinet equipment.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned if this location would serve the entire communication within the City. Ms. Bera stated that was not the case. Depending on the community and the topography of the area that all determines how many sites are needed per mile. This site and another water tower site are going to be used by T-Mobile.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the lease was with Verison right now. Ms. Bera explained the pole structure is owned by the City, and that is very unique to other contracts, the City owns the structure and the reason why they need to boot out the fence area is because they are able to go within the Verison lease parcel and then pay rent to Verison and rent to the City of Oak Creek. If they move out the fence and put their structure in the expanded area then the rent goes strictly to the City of Oak Creek.
Alderman Lampe questioned if the fence would interfere with people making the turn at that location. Commission St. John explained it was discussed and there are work around strategies if it becomes a problem.
Commissioner Peterson motioned that the Plan Commission approve the site and building plans for the T-Mobile lease area, subject to all building and fire codes being met.
Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The motion to approve carries.
Temporary Use – Colonial Woods Trailer and Sign
8100 S. 27th Street
Tax Key No.: 810-9012
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting approval of a temporary sales trailer and development sign for the Colonial Woods Condominiums project. The applicant has resubmitted a reduced sign that meets the square footage requirements. The trailer will be used until a model condominium is constructed at which time the trailer will be removed from the site.
Commissioner St. John questioned if we had any idea of what the trailer looked like. Mr. Fortin explained a picture was provided with the staff report.
Commissioner St. John questioned where the sewer and water would be taken from. Mr. Fettig explained it would come from the future street. Commissioner St. John stated the sales trailer was not going in until the sewer, the water, and the road is in. Mr. Fettig stated that was correct because they would have to connect to the sewer and water.
Mr. Fortin questioned if the timing in the staff report would match with their timing. Mr. Fettig stated they were actually grading and doing the site work at this time.
Commissioner St. John was confused and questioned if they would be waiting until the street was in and sewer and water. Mr. Fettig stated they would wait until the sewer and water were in but not the street. Commissioner St. John stated the plans did not show laterals for the trailer off the new sewer and water. Mr. Fettig explained they would be coming right from…Commissioner St. John stated the plans submitted did not show the laterals. Mr. Fortin explained condition No. 1 would require that the utility plans are approved by the Water and Sewer Utility.
Commissioner St. John felt they would not be able to put the trailer in until June or July. Mr. Fettig explained the sewer and water should be going in within the next 30 to 60 days. Commissioner St. John commented then they would need to pave and they would not be able to pave in the winter. Mr. Fettig stated the intention was to put the trailer out and use the gravel tracking pad and the gravel road to bring people in. Commissioner St. John questioned where the gravel tracking pad was located. Mr. Fettig stated it was currently in place and basically would be located where the road was going to be located. Commissioner St. John commented the gravel tracking pad would be gone when construction of the road began. Mr. Fettig stated it would all be gravel when you come in. Commissioner St. John questioned how they would get around it during construction of the curb and road. Mr. Fettig stated the sewer and water would already be installed before the trailer came. Commissioner St. John questioned how cars would get to the trailer. The street is going to go through various stages of construction before the asphalt goes down and how was he planning on doing that and running cars down it at the same time. Mr. Fettig explained it would all be gravel and when the curb and gutter went in they would have to shut things down temporarily.
Commissioner Sokol questioned if they couldn’t just pour more gravel over the curb after it was solid. Commissioner St. John stated it would go in sequence and they would have to stay off of the road while it was being constructed.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned if all building and fire codes needed to be met for the trailer. Assistant Fire Chief George Krudop explained that building codes were occupancy loads, exit signs, fire extinguishers, as if it were any other building. Mr. Fortin explained if it were to be over 90 days they needed to connect to sanitary facility.
Commissioner St. John suggested the applicant check with the DOT regarding the sign and the vision triangle.
Mr. Fettig questioned if it was fair to say that they could drive cars in off of 27th Street on gravel and get access to the trailer and still put the curbs in and still do the road? Commissioner St. John thought they would have a problem. Mr. Fortin explained when they were laying pavement and pouring concrete for the curbs they would have to shut it down because there would not be access to the trailer.
Commissioner Peterson motioned that the Plan Commission approves the temporary sales trailer and development sign for the Colonial Woods Condominiums subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Grabowski seconds. Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; aye, Sokol; aye; Siira; aye; Kopplin; nay; Bolender; aye, Grabowski; aye; Correll; aye, Peterson; aye. Motion carries.
Commissioner Correll moves to adjourn. Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 9:55p.m.