THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007, 7:00 P.M.
CITY OF OAK CREEK
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance being said by all present.
Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. On roll call, the following aldermen were present: Ald. Kopplin, Ald. Foeckler, Ald. Lampe, Ald. Toman, Ald. Grabowski, and Ald. Michalski. Also present were: City Administrator Patrick DeGrave, City Attorney Lawrence Haskin, City Engineer Wayne St. John, City Planner Jeff Fortin, and Deputy City Clerk Pam Bauer.
City Attorney Lawrence Haskin explained this meeting was a continuation of the February 12, 2007, meeting for the purpose of conducting a public hearing to consider revocation of the conditional use permit granted to LePine Enterprises, Inc., for a contractor’s shop with outdoor storage for the properties at 9540-9578 S. Pennsylvania Ave. City Attorney Haskin acknowledged that the appearances were the same: Attorney John G. Shannon of Dye, Foley, Krohn, Shannon, S.C., representing City of Oak Creek staff, and Attorney Patricia Lauten of Jeffrey Hynes and Associates, representing LePine Enterprises, Inc. A court reporter was also present to record the hearing.
City Attorney Haskin explained that settlement negotiations and discussions had taken place after the hearing, scheduled for February 15, 2007, was canceled which resulted in a proposed agreement for consideration by the Common Council. Attorney Shannon provided copies of an itemized list of 12 amendments agreed to by City staff and LePine Enterprises, subject to Plan Commission and Common Council approval (attached) that would control an amended conditional use permit. Attorney Haskin further explained that at this meeting the Council would consider those proposed amendments, engage in debate, and then make a motion to either approve or deny the proposed amendments. If the proposed amendments were to be approved, either as listed or as modified, a more formal drafting of an amended conditional use permit would be prepared for consideration by the Council at a future meeting. If the Council were to deny the proposed amendments, the proceedings would then resume where they left off as of February 12, 2007, and that the documents and discussion at this meeting were to have no bearing on the proceedings.
Attorney Haskin stated that the Common Council was scheduled to convene into closed session. After researching whether or not this specific discussion could be held in closed session, his recommendation was that it should be held in open session. If the hearing had been completed and the Common Council was deliberating the evidence brought forward, those deliberations could be held in closed session. The discussion at this meeting was to consider a settlement proposal and, while there was a potential litigation or negotiation process involved, he restated his recommendation to conduct the discussion in open session.
The Common Council then began a review of each item on the list of proposed amendments. After a lengthy debate, Common Council members outlined their objections to specific items. The meeting was then recessed at 8:40 p.m. to further negotiate the proposed amendments in order to address issues raised by the Common Council. The meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m., and after further lengthy review and discussion, Ald. Michalski, seconded by Ald. Foeckler, moved to direct staff and their attorney to continue negotiations with LePine Enterprises, Inc., to negotiate an amended conditional use permit, and to return to the Monday, 4/2/07 Common Council meeting with the completed document. On roll call, the vote was as follows: Ald. Kopplin, aye; Ald. Foeckler, aye; Ald. Lampe, no; Ald. Toman, aye; Ald. Grabowski, aye; and Ald. Michalski, aye.
Ald. Kopplin, seconded by Ald. Grabowski, moved to adjourn this meeting at 9:38 p.m. All voted aye; motion carried.
ATTEST:
________________________________ ___________________________________
Beverly A. Buretta, CMC, City Clerk Richard R. Bolender, Mayor