Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - 2010

Transcription

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT THE
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2010
1.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Neitzke
ROLL CALL:
Mayor Michael Neitzke
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Dennis Marciniak
Mr. Douglas Dorszynski
Mr. Frederick Hess
Mrs. Christine Hallen
Mr. Bradley Sponholz
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
Chuck Erickson, Planning & Economic Development Director
2.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to approve the minutes of the December 8,
2009 Regular Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on December 15 th and January 5th. At the
December 15th meeting four Public Hearings were held: The request of the Simran Food & Gas
Station at 27th & Layton for beer sales was denied, the request of Goodwill Industries for a
“Community Opportunity Club” in the United Methodist Church at 5200 S. 48th Street was
approved, the request of Balkans restaurant at 76th & Forest Home to extend their closing time was
denied, and the request for an adult daycare at a residence at 3625 W. Edgerton was denied.
At the January 5th meeting the PUD amendment for the seventh building in Woodland Ridge was
approved.
4.
Paul Sidhu, Loomis Food & Beverage, 4415 W. Loomis Road, Greenfield, WI 53220, requests
a Special Use Amendment to change the text of the sign as specifically approved for this
location in 2005, Tax Key #620-9989-004.
1.
Background: Mr. Sidhu has owned the Loomis Food & Beverage on Loomis just south of
Layton since 2005, and the Forest Home Beer – Wine – Liquor store on 56th & Forest Home
since 2007. He is requesting to change the text of the Loomis Road store sign to be similar
to that of the store on Forest Home Ave. As such, the proposed sign would read: “Loomis
Beer – Wine – Liquor”. No changes are proposed to the actual size of the monument sign
structure, only the text panels on the sign would be changed. In the attached 12/28/09 letter,
Mr. Sidhu explains that his store on Loomis does not sell any prepared food and that
customers do not know that he sells alcohol because the sign does not identify those items.
This situation hurts his business and he wants to change to sign to reflect his merchandise
and to improve sales.
In the staff meeting, some members were hesitant to approve this given the historical issues
associated with the approval of this development in 2005, but acknowledged that there were
no grounds for denial based upon “content neutrality” requirements regarding signs and
other forms of speech. Plus, the four years of operational time at this Loomis site provides a
solid basis for Mr. Sidhu‟s request. Excerpt of the Special Use Agreement and 5/17/05 PC
and CC minutes are attached.
1
PC 1-12-10
2.
3.
Signage: Overall signage square footage will not change, only the text.
Miscellaneous: In 2007 Mr. Sidhu had requested a Special Use amendment related to the
percentage of product display/shelf space limitation established in 2005 – see attached CC
minutes.
Recommendation: Approve the request subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, consider
this a minor change not needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
January 19th Common Council meeting.
Mr. Sidhu was present to answer questions. Discussion occurred on the flashing “Open” sign that is
located within the store and how a flashing sign is against the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Weis spoke on
how this request reflects how business operations have changed over the last 5 years and he has no
problem with this request.
Mr. Marciniak said he is in favor of this request and considers it a minor change. Mr. Dorszynski
questioned that if we approve this request could it potentially bring forth other requests for sign
changes. Mayor Neitzke responded that since the use of the building was approved as a food, liquor
and convenience store and that is what the signage would be reflecting, he doesn‟t foresee others
pursing changes as this case is specific to this location and its type of use.
Ald. Kastner stated that at the original approval of this business, with its close proximity to the
school, it was decided that the sign should not have the word of “liquor” on it.
Mr. Erickson commented that this is the only location in the City that he is aware of, where the sign
“text” was controlled in this manner.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Special Use
Amendment to change the text of the sign as specifically approved in 2005 at Loomis Food &
Beverage, 4415 W. Loomis Road, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the January 19th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
#620-9989-004. Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Michael Bennett, District Manager, NAPA Auto Parts, 5001 W. State Street, Milwaukee, WI
53208, requests a Special Use Amendment to shift wall signage square footage to a comparably
sized monument sign for their facility at 4600 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #608-9990-002.
1.
Background: Mr. Bennett, the NAPA District Manager for Milwaukee, would like to
remove the existing wall signage on the north and south faces of the building and install a
monument sign along 108th St. The allotted square footage from the existing wall signs (40
s.f.) will then be re-allocated to the monument sign. This process allows for the total
approved site square footage of 95 s.f. to not be changed.
The sign will be 8‟ tall. The sign is placed towards the southern end of the parcel so as to
avoid causing sight-line problems for motorists exiting the McDonald‟s parking lot to the
north, and also to stay out of a 10‟ sanitary easement (see Engineering Comments below).
In 2007 when this building came in for approval, NAPA at the time make a conscious
decision on the type of signage they wanted given the limitations of the site and the amount
of overall signage available. The alternate thought was that since the building is fairly close
to the street, and given the height of where the north and south elevation signs would be
2
PC 1-12-10
2.
placed, these wall signs -- in effect -- were like „higher‟ monument-style signs and therefore,
potentially more visible. But that perspective has changed, which is why this amendment
request is being made.
Engineering Comments: The proposed sign location does not interfere with a 10 ft
sanitary sewer easement. It is important to not change the location of the sign so as to ensure
the easement is not encroached upon.
Recommendation: Approve the request subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, consider
this a minor change not needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
January 19th Common Council meeting.
Mike Bennett was present to answer questions. Discussion on the shade of blue that was being
presented, with Mr. Bennett stating that it is NAPA‟s trademark “Royal Blue” color.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to recommend approval of a
Special Use Amendment to shift wall signage square footage to a comparably sized monument
sign at NAPA at 4600 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and authorize this item to be expedited to the January 19th Common Council meeting.
Tax Key #608-9990-002. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
James Tarantino, Tarantino & Co., 20711 Watertown Road, Waukesha, WI 53186, and Greg
Zastrow, Eppstein Uhen, 333 E. Chicago Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202 representing the School
Sisters of St. Francis, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Clement Manor Inc., and Community
Care Inc., requests a PUD Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the proposed
construction of a new 44-unit, single-story memory care facility in the southwest corner of the
Clement Manor site (Phase One) at 3939 S. 92nd Street, Tax Key #568-9999-006.
1.
Background: This project went through the Conceptual Review process at the September
PC meeting. Since then, the idea of considering a second phase at a later date has also
firmed up.
Phase One: This aspect remains the same. The proposal is to construct a single story,
44-unit facility that would be used to house a “memory care” facility on the open southwest
corner of the parcel owned by Clement Manor. This building would be the first phase of
the development. The “development/operating team” or collaboration is a combination of
the Sisters of St. Francis, the Sisters of Notre Dame, Clement Manor Inc., and Community
Care, Inc. The attached narrative indicates that intention is for the “Our Lady of the
Angels” facility to be available for members of the religious communities with mild/severe
dementia and other memory loss symptoms, and then over an approx. 15 year period, the
transition to lay-persons being able to occupy this facility would potentially start.
Phase Two: The second phase would be two small additions to the south side of the existing
Health Center building that is located directly east of the proposed new building. The
second phase would add 8,550 s.f. for resident rooms and 3,780 s.f. for common areas or
administrative areas. Included also is a separate entrance into the facility‟s short-term
rehabilitative area. See attached narrative.
Sheet C100 – Overall Site Plan is a colored aerial photo which has overlaid markings for the
proposed building pads, parking areas, and retention basin. It provides a quick summary of
the overall proposal.
3
PC 1-12-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The narrative indicates a brick base and EIFS
walls with the intention of creating a residential appearance to the facility. The plans
show a substantial use of windows, which helps to break up the exterior. The overhang
features along the edge of the roof help create more definition along the edge of the roof.
The pitched roof also helps to create a residential appearance to the building. Also, the
building roof line was decreased from an „8/12‟ pitch to a „7/12‟ pitch which reduces the
height of the building by 2.5 feet. The turret feature at the entrance creates a defined
entrance way without creating an institutional feel to the appearance of the building. The
floor plan allows for enclosed courtyards that will add greenspace on the interior sections of
the building. Each individual unit would be 384 square feet, have a private bathroom and
the units will be organized into 4 “neighborhoods”. A color rendering will be presented at
the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The narrative indicates that none of
the residents would have an automobile or are able to drive. The requirement for a facility
of this nature is 0.5 spaces per unit plus one space per employee on the largest shift. That
means that 22 spaces would be needed. 19 stalls are indicated on the plans which
presumably are for employees and family. The narrative indicates that there would be total
of 37 employees on all shifts working in the proposed facility. If an assumption is made that
approx. 10 - 13 employees work per shift, that means that during the „shift overlap‟, there
would be at most 25 employees present at one concentrated time. With only 19 parking
spaces, there is at least a deficit of 6 spaces for employees, plus a deficit of spaces for the
resident‟s family. This aspect will need to be addressed because same scenario of „net
loss/gain‟ on parking stalls exists with both Phase One & Two. While overall Clement
Manor may have ample parking, but that aspect will need to be examined further of where
„spillover‟ parking may be available on-site. Based upon discussion at the previous PC
meeting, employee spill-over parking will be on the east side of the overall Clement Manor
parcel, closer to 92nd Street.
The parking lot is curbed in the plans. An existing roadway is immediately to the north, and
a proposed roadway is on the east, with a connection to the existing same roadway.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Based upon the nature of the proposal, a storm water
detention facility is needed. The site plan indicates that a storm water basin will be
constructed to the east of the new building and to the south of the existing building that will
be expanded in Phase II, but the basin is part of Phase I. The utility plan (C109) displays the
location of the catch basins in the parking lot and at the northwest and southwest corners of
Phase I. Staff has concerns about whether enough of the parking areas will actually drain
into the storm basin. See Engineering Comments for further details regarding Storm
Management Plan.
Lighting (building & site): The submitted Photometric Plan (E101) indicates only light
poles will be used in the parking lot areas. Specifications regarding the height of the poles
and the type of fixture at the top of the poles have been submitted.
Utilities: A water lateral and sanitary sewer lateral will be connected near the southeast
corner of the Phase I building. For Phase II, it appears the utilities will be connected to the
existing infrastructure in the rest of that building, but that still needs to be confirmed when
that project is ready for its own Site/Building/Landscaping process
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: There are no exterior units that need to be screened.
However, identification of where within the floor plan this is to be located is needed. The
presumption is that there will be some outside utility meter location(s) and air-conditioning
condensers.
Signage: While no building or site signage has been proposed yet, it is anticipated that some
limited “Our Lady of the Angels” signage will be submitted with the S/B/L come forward.
4
PC 1-12-10
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Proposed enclosure is near the northwest
corner of the building. Identification of the enclosure materials still needed.
Fencing: The storm retention pond is proposed to have a walking path around its perimeter.
Although the pond has the normal “safety shelf” design grading feature, staff had raised the
broad question of whether or not some type of „barrier‟ (i.e. either landscaping or split-rail
fence) is needed to be placed between the path and the water since there will always be some
water in this pond as a „wet pond‟. It is understood that potentially the people who will be
using this walk path where there may be a concern about „going into the water‟, are likely to
be accompanied by a staff person/chaperone/aide to help ensure these type of things should
not occur.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: With the existing PUD zoning, a minimum 25‟ building
setback is required for the buffer yard. In an effort to better accommodate the neighbors to
the south of the project, the buildings are setback 30‟. In regard to landscaping, a specific
plan is attached and represents an effort of the developer‟s landscape architect working with
the City Forester on the specifics of the type and mix of plantings along the south and west
side of the building. The elevations submitted indicate an intent to use trees around the
perimeter of the building. Additionally, it appears that shrubs will be used in the front of the
building on either side of the main entrance. The rest of the open space would be grass.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: Eventually, there will be 125% of
landscaping costs, with 30% retained for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an
on-going condition of subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to
annual review by the City to make sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and
any dead/dying landscaping is replaced as necessary.
City Forester Site Inspection: Already has occurred.
Park Fees: $1497/unit X 44 = $65,868.
Hours of Operation: As a CBRF facility, the hours are 24/7.
Sidewalks: To allow for better access to the perimeter of the building not served by
driveways, a sidewalk has been added to the south and west sides of the building. This
sidewalk is in addition to the sidewalk along the east side of the building. To accommodate
neighbor wishes, the buildings were moved north 5‟. This caused the sidewalk along the
north side of the building to be eliminated, but that area is still served by a driveway.
Fire Department: All four sides of the building area accessible by either driveway or
sidewalk. The building will be sprinklered.
Outside Agencies: A CSM will be needed to split off the parcel for Phase I into a
separate parcel for the new building and operation. The CSM would then be reviewed by
Milw. County Register of Deeds, and City Engineering staff. All corrections, if any, must be
completed before recording. The applicant needs to be informed of the following: provided
that a) the necessary approvals have been obtained; b) the original CSM map is in order; and
c) all applicable charges have been paid, applicant must submit a final signed and notarized
CSM to the Engineering Dept. for recording. The City requires a minimum of seven (7)
working days to perform its final processing and recording of the CSM. If the applicant
requires the CSM to be recorded on, or by a specific date, plan for appropriate lead-time to
be sure to submit the necessary materials to the City allowing for its processing time.
Failure to submit the necessary materials with the CSM for recording, may cause additional
recording delays.
An ingress/egress easement will be needed between the existing facilities and the new
building for the purpose of using the existing driveways.
5
PC 1-12-10
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Special Assessments/Deferred Charges: A review is underway by Engineering staff
regarding whether or not the connection to any of these existing underground utilities
(water, sanitary, storm) will trigger a deferred connection charge vs. whether or not Clement
Manor has already paid their appropriate/proportionate share when these main installations
were done years ago.
Erosion Control: Submitted plans indicate erosion control measures will be used. These
plans must be reviewed and approved by Engineering staff.
PUD Requirements: A shared use agreement between the existing facility and the new
building (Phase I) will be required for use and maintenance of the storm water basin. A
PUD amendment agreement will be needed between Our Lady of the Angels and the City
and Clement Manor; City will initiate that effort.
Miscellaneous: Based upon the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Tarantino has attempted to
accommodate neighbor concerns by moving the building 5‟ to the north and reducing the
roof pitch. Besides individual meetings, a second neighborhood meeting has occurred prior
to the last PC meeting.
Staff has discussed with Mr. Tarantino the „PILOT‟ ordinance (i.e. payment in lieu of taxes)
the City has for potentially entering into voluntary agreements when tax-exempt entities are
involved. This concept is still being considered by all parties involved. While most of
Clement Manor is tax-exempt, according to the City Assessor there was some taxable
portion (i.e. the vacant SW corner) because it never had a building on it. See attached
memo. The 1/1/09 land value is approx. $2 million. That value will be eliminated once the
Phase One building is constructed. Mr. Tarantino has recently met with the City Assessor
and National Appraisal (i.e. City‟s commercial assessor) to discuss this matter, and to review
the impact of a State law pertaining to these type of uses and exempt property acreage.
Engineering Comments:
1-12-10 Comments:
Revised engineering plans have not yet been submitted.
The Storm Water Management Plan has not yet been submitted.
Provide a calculation to quantify the increase in impervious coverage under the proposed
conditions.
Provide a detail for proposed lateral connection to the existing 18-inch reinforced
concrete sanitary sewer pipe.
Confirm probable need for steps at the northeast building entrance.
12-8-09 Comments:
Provide information for the required parking space count. Verify that the 19 parking
spaces that have been proposed will be sufficient for employee shift overlap(s).
Verify parking requirements for the 12,331 square feet of future (Phase 2) building
space. It appears that the building additions will eliminate 28 existing parking spaces,
while only 32 parking spaces have been proposed by the site plan.
A private cross-access easement will be necessary for existing drive connections to West
Howard Avenue and South 92nd Street (CTH „N‟).
Provide a 24‟ drive aisle width to accommodate two-way traffic for parking lot located
northeast of proposed building entrance.
Recommend curb and gutter along perimeter of all parking lots and landscape islands.
6
PC 1-12-10
An existing 20‟ water main easement (Document #5531194) encumbers the property
along the east side of the main access drive. Ensure that the future (Phase 2) building
footprint and foundation components remain outside this easement.
Ensure that adequate cover is maintained over the existing water main.
Provide a minimum 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral.
Confirm that domestic water and sanitary sewer service for the future (Phase 2) building
additions can be obtained by interior means.
Related to the proposed storm sewer system:
-- Utilize existing 12-inch connection to the 78-inch public storm sewer located
immediately east of the proposed building entrance.
-- Provide adequate horizontal separation between proposed storm sewer and
existing water main at southwest corner of the future (Phase 2) parking lot.
-- Connect all building downspouts to proposed storm sewer system.
-- Provide storm sewer stub to future (Phase 2) building additions.
A private agreement will be necessary between both property owners for share
responsibility in the continual operation and maintenance of the storm water basin, outlet
devices, and other appurtenances.
The Storm Water Management Plan is subject to Engineering staff review and
comments, including:
-- All on-site disturbed area shall be directed to detention pond or subtracted from
the allowable release rate.
-- Demonstrate adequate overland conveyance to the detention pond for all tributary
area during the course of a 100-year storm event.
-- Confirm pond outlet location and downstream pipe configuration. The outlet
location at southeast corner of detention pond is preferred to enhance removal of
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and avoid “short-circuit” issues.
Provide a defined low point for storm inlet within parking lot located northeast of the
proposed building entrance.
Provide grading and drainage information for all building courtyards.
9-10-09 PC Engineering Comments:
Proposed development shall comply with applicable storm water requirements of City of
Greenfield Chapter 30, MMSD Chapter 13, and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR
151.12.
Provide information for the required parking space count. Verify that sufficient parking,
both regular and handicap accessible, has been proposed.
An existing 20‟ sanitary easement (Document #5456836) encumbers the property,
immediately east of the proposed building. Ensure that the building footprint and
foundation components remain outside this easement.
An existing 40‟ storm drainage easement encumbers the property, immediately east of
the proposed building. Ensure that the building footprint and foundation components
remain outside this easement.
7
PC 1-12-10
Recommendation: Approved the PUD Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review request
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments. Consideration of this matter will be coordinated
with the Council meeting date when the PUD amendment public hearing is to be held, so both items
are on the same agenda.
The following were present on the project‟s behalf:
Sister Joanne Armatowski, School Sisters of Notre Dame
Dick Rau, Clement Manor
Jim Tarantino, Tarantino & Co.
Greg Zastrow, Eppstein Uhen Architects
Kevin Byrne, Kapur and Associates
Mr. Hess asked the representatives for clarification on stormwater management issues; to which they
and Mr. Erickson responded. Mayor Neitzke also indicated that the stormwater management plan
must meet City and MMSD requirements, as listed in the Engineering Comments. Duane Graf –
9410 W. Waterford Avenue - was present and also questioned the stormwater detention plans and
location.
Discussion on the parking layout and the areas designated for employees and visitors. There is still a
need to further work out parking dynamics between this proposed facility and the existing Clement
Manor facility. However, it was pointed out that employees of Clement Manor will often also be
working at the Our Lady of the Angels facility.
Mayor Neitzke asked for a clarification on the reference shown on the Landscaping Plan about
“parking lot and courtyard” planting. Mr. Byrne provided the response.
The timeline for Phase I is scheduled to begin this spring, with the first residents occupying the
facility by approximately Christmas-time. However, Phase II‟s start time is still unknown at this
time. Ald. Kastner questioned when it would be used for the general public (not just for members of
the religious community) to which it was stated that they foresee serving solely religious community
members for the next 50 or so years.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to recommend approval of a PUD
Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the proposed construction of a new
44-unit, single-story memory care facility in the southwest corner of the Clement Manor site
(Phase One) at 3939 S. 92nd Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, with the
understanding that there are still issues to be worked out regarding stormwater and PILOT
fees. Tax Key #568-9999-006. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Spiro Asimakopoulos, Fresh Mexican Grill and More (i.e. formerly Omega Custard), 4695 S.
108th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228, requests a Special Use Amendment and Site, Building,
Landscaping Review as it relates to some restaurant operational changes, and exterior and
interior building/site modifications at this site, Tax Key #609-0030-001.
1.
Background: Mr. Asimakopoulos is requesting a few revisions as it relates to some
restaurant operational changes, and exterior and interior building/site modifications. See
attached Plan of Operation which provides further background. The quick summary is as
follows:
8
PC 1-12-10
While still having hamburgers and custard, also have a name change to „Fresh Mexican
Grill & More‟ with the menu expanding accordingly.
Finally on a permanent basis enclose the sidewalk along the south side of the building to
create an „internal access walkway‟ to/from the restrooms.
„Freshen up‟ the exterior by removing the existing awning and replace with a new
mansard; in general, have more „earth-tones‟ is the intent.
While working within the existing outside patio space, make improvements to enable
more outside usage by: remove existing concrete floor and replace with new concrete &
colored stone; new wrought-iron fence and fence lighting; and add more tables with
umbrellas.
Also attached are the following:
Aerial site picture
12/14/09 letter from Mr. Rausch – City Health Officer/Director, to Mr. Asimakopoulus related
to conditions that department has placed on the Food & Drink license. Essentially all the
restroom enclosure and interior accessibility work must be completed in a reasonable time,
otherwise the conditional permit from them will expire 6/30/10.
Excerpt of 1/2/08 CC minutes regarding the Special Use amendment to expand the hours in the
morning to allow breakfast to be served. The applicant was John Xynos, who no longer is
affiliated with this restaurant.
Excerpt of 12/18/07 and 11/13/07 PC minutes on the S/B/L and the Special Use amendment,
respectively.
1991 Special Use Permit.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The new mansard „standing-seam‟ element
is proposed to be “Midwest Red” and the rest of the building will predominately be in the
„tan‟ or „beige‟ color range. A color rendition will be presented at the meeting.
Further review needed of the proposed outside door directly south of a bathroom door.
This outside door will need to be shifted or eliminated because there isn‟t adequate spacing
for ADA purposes from that closest bathroom door.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The existing lot has 49 stalls, plus
there are additional stalls on the strip center to the north.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): On the south building elevation this is a
gutter/downspout which appears to be discharging on a hard surface. This hard surface area
needs to be converted to landscaped area or re-align gutter accordingly. The balance of the
mansard roof sections look to be without a gutter and any run-off, therefore, will basically
fall to the surface.
Hours of Operation: It is staff‟s opinion that the Special Use hours which were allowed
to be expanded to 6:00 a.m. with the January, 2008 amendment, have become null and void
because the conditions of that approval were not met. Specifically, the construction of the
bathroom enclosure was never done. In the Plan of Operation, the hours of 10:30 a.m. –
11:00 p.m. have been identified.
Sidewalks: Clarification needed on the proposed slope of the ADA ramp by the south
entrance. Given the measurement listed (1/8” per foot slope), the concern is this is too
steep.
9
PC 1-12-10
7.
Miscellaneous: During a meeting with staff, Mr. Asimakopoulos mentioned that potentially
in the future, he may have an interest in seeking a Class “B” license to serve beer and wine.
Staff indicated that type of request would require a public hearing as a “major change”.
Recommendation:
Approve both requests as presented for both the Special Use amendment and Site/Building/
Landscaping with the following conditions:
Concur with the recommendation of the Health Dept. that if the permanent restroom
walkway enclosure is not completed by 6/30/10, that their Food & Drink license will
expire;
Similarly, if this permanent restroom walkway enclosure is not completed by 6/30/10,
the Special Use will be suspended and any restaurant operations will cease until
authorized by appropriate Common Council action;
Consider this request a minor change not needing a public hearing;
Authorize this item to be expedited to the January 19th Common Council meeting.
Spiros Asimakopoulos (owner) and Tony Antonopoulos (architect) were present to answer questions
and gave a presentation on the project. Ald. Kastner stated that he had a conversation with the
neighbor on their desire to make sure the kitchen exhaust “scrubbers” are working and regularly
cleaned, and that the garbage is regularly picked up and at a reasonable hour, as per ordinance
requirements, to avoid odors. Also, discussion followed on lighting along the north side of the
property and stressed that they need to ensure lights are “downlit” to eliminate/reduce light
“spillover” to the adjacent residential area.
As for removing the blue anodized color of the doors, Mr. Asimakopoulos said that that would need
to be done when the weather is warmer, with a layer being placed on top of what is currently there.
Discussion followed on the hours being reduced because of no breakfast service and the normal
operating hours then being 10:30 a.m. to midnight, which is identical to the initial 1991 Special Use.
Also, discussion occurred on the need to get the bathroom hallway enclosure project finished in a
timely fashion, as has been the wish of the Health Department for some time now, and also since
approval had been granted for that feature‟s construction to begin over a year ago. It was discussed
that the existing “blue” neon tube would be removed and replaced with a “red” neon tube. It was
suggested that any new on-building lighting should perhaps be recessed “can lights” under the soffit.
Finally, it was noted that in the future if beer were to be requested (i.e. assumes a successful Special
Use amendment/major change/public hearing process occurring), that there must be an enclosure
around the patio area to prevent people leaving the premises with alcohol, and that that area can only
be accessed from the inside of the building.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Special Use
Amendment and Site, Building, Landscaping Review as it relates to some restaurant
operational changes, and exterior and interior building/site modifications at Fresh Mexican
Grill and More (i.e. formerly Omega Custard), 4695 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, with the bathroom hallway enclosure project must be
finished by June 30, 2010 or else the Special Use is suspended, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the January 19th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #609-0030-001. Motion
carried unanimously.
10
PC 1-12-10
8.
Keith Schultz, AIA of SchultzWerk Architecture, 2515 N. 66 th Street, Wauwatosa, WI 53213
requests a Conceptual Review for the purpose of discussing a potential Buddhist Temple
(‘Phuoc Hau’) on a vacant parcel at 44th & Edgerton, Tax Key #620-9918.
1.
Background: In 2008 the “Phuoc Hau Buddhist Temple of Milwaukee, LTD” (PHBT)
purchased this 115‟ x 375‟ parcel (43,125 s.f.) as a potential location for a new building for
approx. 80 people. See attached narrative regarding their present location near 15th &
Oklahoma, the long-term desire for a new facility and “why” this site. This facility also
includes the ability of the clergy-person/family to reside at this location which is why there
is a garage shown in the rear of the parcel.
Staff has met a couple of times with the PHBT reps. to discuss their plans/ideas as it relates
to this particular site. They are aware of these elements and broadly what actions are going
to be needed to enable this proposal to actually come to fruition (i.e. no significance to
order):
Project is based upon the City „vacating‟ 44th Street in its entirety (60‟ wide) on the east
side of the parcel, and at least the southern 30‟ of Holmes on the north side. In reviewing
historical plat mapping aspects, in this instance all of the 60‟ – if vacated – would revert to
this specific parcel because this R-O-W all came from this tax key. Typically in a vacation
of R-O-W, the land is split and reverts back to both abutting property owners.
The City‟s “Creekwood Park” is adjacent to this parcel to the north and the northeast.
Naturally a critical factor in the vacation aspect is the reaction/support from the property
owners to the west/northwest along Holmes Ave. and Bartel Dr. to the idea of this street
never going in.
Project needs a Master Land Use Plan amendment
Project needs a rezoning to I-Institutional
Project will need a Site/Building/Landscaping Review
At some point, a neighborhood information meeting(s) will be needed. They will
contact the former Jehovah Witness church (now „Masjid Al-Huda‟ church) @ 43rd &
Edgerton as a potential location for this type of meeting.
The idea of a PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) agreement has been brought up. They
are open to the general premise of a PILOT but have discussed an alternative manner in
calculating the „value‟. Instead of taking the value of the new building and other site
improvements (i.e. methodology of the PILOT ordinance), PHBT has suggested looking
at the „value‟ of the site as if the parcel were split, a street was installed and two homes
were actually on the respective two lots as per the single-family zoning.
Certified Survey Map will be needed to combine vacated areas into this parcel, with
appropriate utility easement(s) being included.
2.
3.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The attached 3-D rendition is meant to
convey a sense of scale of the proposed building, its location on the north side of the parcel,
and the relationship with the adjacent single-family homes (east & west) along Edgerton. A
lay-out with the building on the south side of the parcel was also reviewed and is attached.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The site plan is laid out with a single
access point to Edgerton centered on the parcel. This layout is meant to convey a more
„welcoming‟ presence when people would drive into the site. The proposed angle parking
(60°) triggers the need for a 62‟ wide space for a double row/aisle requirement. The current
layout is at 51‟, but when an additional 30‟ is added to the preliminary site plan, this should
enable more width to be obtained.
11
PC 1-12-10
The parking requirement for a church is based upon one of three categories (whichever is
greater):
0.33 space per seat if seats are fixed
0.25 space per 20 lineal inches of seating
1 space per 30 sq. ft. of floor area or portion thereof used for seating in the main
sanctuary.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Site plan shows the intention of providing for a storm
retention basin.
Utilities: A 54” storm main is in 44th Street and a 60” storm main is in Holmes, and also a
water main is „stubbed‟ in Holmes Ave. near the northwest corner of this parcel. All three
utilities have laterals stubbed in to the parcel along Edgerton.
Fencing: Given the proposed angle parking alignment, the possible placement of fencing
along the respective east/west lot lines to “knock-down” vehicle head-lights going into and
thru the parking lot.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: This will be critical given the adjacent single-family homes to the
east and the west. At least a 20‟ – 25‟ landscape buffer will be needed on both sides. It is
possible that an existing clump of trees on the west front half of the parcel may be able to be
„used‟ if it is still in good shape.
Fire Department: Building will need to be sprinklered; plus there may be other life-safety
elements needed if the building plan comes forward.
151.12.
Verify potential 100-year floodplain infringement upon property by the Honey Creek.
A Chapter 30 “Stormwater Pond” permit will be required from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources for the construction of a detention facility located
within 500 feet from a navigable waterway.
Provide a public storm sewer easement for applicable utilities located within vacated
right-of-way areas.
conditions.
Provide information for the required parking space count. Verify that sufficient parking
has been proposed.
Provide curb and gutter for perimeter of parking lot.
Recommendation: No formal action needed at this time.
Item held over to the February 9, 2010 meeting.
9.
City staff is requesting that a Special Use Revocation process be started for All-Phase Auto &
Electric (formerly known as Signature Auto) at 3320 W. Howard Avenue, Tax Key #553-8999.
[[Agenda and staff notes were sent to the property owner: Greg Schaal, 5311 S. 9 th Street,
Milwaukee, WI 53221-3630; and the current occupant: Ken Calabrese, Jr., 3320 W. Howard
Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53221.]]
12
PC 1-12-10
1.
Background: Auto-related uses have been at this corner for a long time. Invariably one
tenant goes in and is there for “X” months, then its vacant, and then a new tenant comes in
before the 12 month special use „allowance period‟ runs out. In these instances, as with all
new tenants taking over a previously approved special use, we have them do a “Special Use
Review”. The problem which seems to be repeating itself is that the new tenants really are
really „shoe-string‟ operations with limited capital to really improve the property which is
part of the „handed-down‟ special use conditions, and are not really responsive to codeenforcement efforts.
My intent with starting the „revocation process‟ as per Zoning Code section 21.04.0701(J)
is to do two things: 1) get the existing eye-sore problem off of that site because any efforts
to correct the problem working with the owner and/or tenant via code enforcement efforts is
not working; and 2) „wipe the slate clean‟ so that the next user in there – assuming it is
something needing a Special Use -- is starting from a brand new Special Use basis, with a
public hearing, where our ability to be more stringent given historical problems, presents
itself better.
Attached are the following materials:
Excerpt of the ZC – Special Use section
Aerial photo of the site
PC application from one year ago from Kenneth Calabrese, Jr.
Excerpt of 2/10/09 PC minutes when the Special Use Review was recommended for
approval for Mr. Calabrese for the auto repair business; also the request for the rental of
U-Haul trailers was denied as this same time.
Pictures of the site – taken in December, 2009.
Excerpt of the Property Assessment Data sheet identifying Gregory Schaal, 5311 S. 9 th St.,
Milwaukee, 53221 as the property owner.
8/7/09 letter to both Mr. Schaal and Mr. Calabrese from the Code Enforcement Officer
regarding the parking of three dozen vehicles on the premises.
9/29/09 letter to Mr. Schaal, with a copy to Mr. Calabrese regarding signage and dumpster
problems.
Excerpt of the 8/14/07 PC minutes when the Special Use Review was recommended for
approval for a Mr. Musci. This particular request involved having some actual site
improvements being done by the applicant; these were the conditions transferred to Mr.
Calabrese.
Recommendation: Authorize the staff to proceed with the Special Use revocation process as it
applies to this parcel, per Zoning Code requirements; authorize the public hearing process to proceed
which will include the normal notification to all property owners within 400‟ of this parcel; and the
public hearing will be held at a future Common Council meeting in 4 – 6 weeks.
Greg Schaal and Ken Calabrese, Jr. were present to answer questions. Mr. Erickson reviewed a
letter dated January 12, 2010 on what had been observed at this site. Mr. Calabrese said he deals
primarily with providing car inspections and repairs for dealers who bring him several cars at a time
and often times he‟s waiting on parts which results in the volume of cars “waiting” for repair on the
lot. He also said that they occasionally have customers who can‟t pay for their repair, thus leaving
the car parked on the lot, and he is looking into a solution as to what he can do in these instances
where he wouldn‟t be keeping the car on the lot while waiting for payment/pickup.
13
PC 1-12-10
Ald. Kastner referenced that approval had been recently granted for a car repair business at
Hwy. 100 & Cold Spring and how they are able to not have a parking lot full of cars and that the
residents of this district deserve the same respect shown to them by this business. Mr. Marciniak
stated he would like time allowed for correcting any violations; also for them maintaining the
property and business operation in the manner approved; and that this special use revocation
request should be put on hold for 60-90 days to allow the owner and the tenant time to do so.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend holding over this item to the
April 13, 2010 Plan Commission meeting to allow time to correct Special Use-related violations
and at that meeting further evaluation will be done on whether or not to proceed with the
formal revocation process at All-Phase Auto & Electric, 3320 W. Howard Avenue, Tax Key
#553-8999. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
Planning and Economic Development Director Report.
Plan Commission photo
11.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mrs. Collins to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion
12.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be held at the Greenfield City Hall on
February 9, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed January 18, 2010
14
PC 1-12-10
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT THE
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Mrs. Christine Hallen
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Approval of the minutes of the January 12, 2010 Regular Meeting. Mayor Neitzke asked that this
item be placed on the next agenda.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on January 19 th and February 2nd.
At the January 19th meeting the Special Use/Site/Building/Landscaping for Omega Fresh Mexican
Grill (Hwy. 100 & Layton) was approved. At the February 2 nd meeting there were three public
hearings pertaining to alcohol-related licenses. The request of Walgreens at Hwy. 100 & Layton for
beer sales only was approved, while the requests of Walgreens at Loomis & Layton, and the BP
Station at 124th & Layton were denied the ability to sell beer.
4.
Spiro Asimakopoulos, Fresh Mexican Grill and More (i.e. formerly Omega Custard), 4695 S.
108th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228, requests a Site/Building Review as it relates exterior
building lighting, Tax Key #609-0030-001. [[Special Use amendment and other site/building/
landscaping changes already approved at the January 19th Common Council meeting.]]
1.
2.
Background: At the January 19th CC meeting, there was favorable action on the prior
recommendation from the January 12th PC regarding the proposal from Mr. Asimakopoulos
as it related to some restaurant operational changes, and exterior and interior building/site
modifications. However at the CC meeting the project architect had submitted a building
elevation which had a style of lighting not previously discussed by the PC, and so this
specific aspect was referred back to the PC.
Lighting (building & site): At the January PC the only specific building lighting as shown
on the building elevation plans was to exchange the existing “blue” neon stripe with a “red”
neon stripe which would then be more color-compatible with the new exterior motif. There
had been some brief discussion about alternative building lighting and one suggestion was to
have recessed lighting in the soffit under the new mansard-style roof.
As a follow-up to that discussion, what then had been proposed at the CC meeting was a
type of “Shepard Hook”, with 100 watt fixtures, which would have light „wash‟ onto the
mansard. The suggestion at the CC meeting was for either just the neon, or just the „hook‟ \
lights, but not both. The architect (Mr. Antonopoulous) who was at the meeting, said he
needed to check with the owner on that aspect. It was then that this matter was simply
referred back to the PC.
1
PC 2-16-10
The staff reviewed at least seven potential options (no significance to order):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Keep the neon but lose the „hook‟ style
Keep the „hook‟ style but lose the neon
Keep the neon, lose the „hook‟ style, and add recessed soffit lighting
Keep the „hook‟ style, lose the neon, and add recessed soffit lighting
Lose both the „hook‟ style and the neon, and add recessed soffit lighting
Keep both the „hook‟ style and the neon, and add recessed soffit lighting
Other than having lighting over the entrances – which is needed regardless of any
exterior lighting option – have no other exterior building lighting at all.
Recommendation: Approve request for exterior lighting which includes the option of keeping the
„hook‟ style lighting, lose the neon banding, and add recessed soffit lighting, subject to PC and staff
comments; and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common Council meeting.
Mayor Neitzke stated that the type of lighting makes no difference to him. Mr. Dorszynski said he
believed it was the consensus at the last Plan Commission to go with the red neon. Ald. Kastner said
his issue is that the two styles – the neon lighting and the hook style lighting – don‟t go together
architecturally. Further discussion followed on the lighting styles and the awnings, both here and at
other establishments in the City.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to recommend approval of a
Site/Building Review as it relates exterior building lighting at Fresh Mexican Grill and More
(i.e. formerly Omega Custard), 4695 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common Council
meeting. Tax Key #609-0030-001. Motion carried 5-0.
5.
Robert Cooper, PyraMax Bank, 7001 W. Edgerton Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53220, requests a
Site/Landscaping Review for closing a driveway near the northwest corner of their parking lot
from the Southridge Mall „outer road‟, Tax Key #650-9000-012.
1.
2.
3.
Background: PyraMax wants to eliminate a driveway near the northwest corner of their
parking lot to/from the Southridge Mall „outer road‟. See attached letter from Mr. Cooper
describing the safety issue which the bank wants to address with this type of closure.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The intent is to cut-off the use of their
parking lot as a short-cut from the Mall to Edgerton. Once this access is point is closed, then
3 – 4 additional parking stalls will be created.
The perimeter road is privately owned and maintained by Southridge Mall. If needed,
obtain prior permission from Southridge Mall for the driveway connection removal and
the installation of concrete curb/gutter.
Replacement curb and gutter at the perimeter road shall match-in-kind.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the February 17th Common Council meeting.
2
PC 2-16-10
Mr. Cooper was present to answer questions.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of a
Site/Landscaping Review for closing a driveway near the northwest corner of the PyraMax
Bank parking lot from the Southridge Mall “outer road” at 7001 W. Edgerton Avenue, subject
to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
February 17th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #650-9000-012. Motion carried
unanimously.
6.
Pamela Ohman and James Slezak, PJO Enterprises of Wisconsin, 275 Pembrook Lane,
Mundelein, IL 60060 request a Special Use for the purpose of opening a “Plato‟s Closet” within
the multi-tenant retail center at 7800 W. Layton Avenue; Plato‟s is a „second-hand‟ store in
that they buy and sell used clothing items, Tax Key #605-9956-005.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background: Plato‟s Closet buys and sells „gently used clothing, and they are interested in
opening a store in a vacant space at the multi-tenant retail building “Panera Plaza”. See
attached narrative. There are about 260 locations in the country, with two in Madison and
one in Appleton. The Winmark Corp., which franchises Plato‟s, also franchises Play It
Again Sports and Music Go Round.
Besides this location, initially they also had looked at the vacant Hollywood Video building
(i.e. pre-occupancy inspection was done), but have proposed this site instead.
Signage: Their „red‟ letter combination for the wall sign will be consistent with the master
sign plan for that location. The panel-insert for the free-standing sign will need to be „white‟
letters with the „red‟ background.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): This business operation is unlike what may
typically be thought of for „thrift store‟. Plato‟s doesn‟t use outside collection boxes (or
additional dumpster area in the rear of this parcel isn‟t needed) since items are not donated,
but rather purchased from the donator. Items not purchased are returned with the customer.
Hours of Operation:
School year:
Sunday:
Summer:
Sunday:
Holidays:
Monday – Saturday: 10 a.m. – 8 p.m.
11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
Monday – Saturday: 10 a.m. – 9 p.m.
11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
Store is closed on Easter, July 4th, Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and possibly Christmas Eve. Other
holidays may have reduced hours.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize the public hearing
process to proceed.
Ms. Ohman was present to answer questions and gave some background information on Plato‟s
Closet.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a Special Use
for the purpose of opening a “Plato‟s Closet” within the multi-tenant retail center at 7800 W.
Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize the public
hearing process to begin. Tax Key #605-9956-005. Motion carried unanimously.
3
PC 2-16-10
7.
Clear Wireless LLC, represented by Laura Smyth, CCSI, 120 W. 22 nd Street, Suite 300,
Oakbrook IL 60523, requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna
attachments and a installing a ground-based equipment cabinet on the Time-Warner
antenna/site, 5475 W. Abbott Avenue, Tax Key #648-0025-005.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Clear Wire is in the process of creating a nationwide 4G (4th generation)
wireless network which will offer high-speed internet services. At this location, the
proposal is to co-locate “4G panel antennas” and “backhaul dish antennas” at an approx.
140‟ – 160‟ height on this 200‟ self-supporting lattice-type tower. See attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within the existing fenced area, there also
is a ground mount for a 2‟ x 2‟ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7‟ x 7‟
ground lease space.
Miscellaneous: Prior to the release of any Inspection Dept. permits, a “property owner
access authorization” will be needed.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, consider this a minor change not
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common
Council meeting.
Ron Zechel was present to answer questions and gave some background information on this project.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned when 2.5/3.0 G wireless networks would become obsolete to which
Mr. Zechel replied that he estimates a timeframe of 3-4 years to get this buildout for upgrade
purposes done to then implement that next level of available service. Mayor Neitzke questioned the
average rent in a co-location situation to which Mr. Zechel replied that it could range anywhere from
$1,400/mo. to $2,200/mo.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to recommend approval of a
Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments and installing a
ground-based equipment cabinet on the Time-Warner antenna/site, 5475 W. Abbott Avenue,
and consider this a minor change, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
8.
Clear Wireless LLC, represented by Ronald Zechel, 544 E. Ogden Avenue, Suite 700, #305,
Milwaukee, WI 53202, requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna
attachments and installing a ground-based equipment cabinet on the cell tower/site at the rear
of the Braeger Mitsubishi Motors parcel, 6123 S. 27th Street, Tax Key #691-9841-009.
1.
2.
3.
wireless network which will offer high-speed internet services. At this site, the proposal is
to co-locate “4G panel antennas” and “backhaul dish antennas” at an approx. 85‟ height on
this 105‟ mono-pole type tower. See attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within the existing fenced area, there also
is a ground mount for a 2‟ x 2‟ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7‟ x 7‟
ground lease space.
access authorization” will be needed.
4
PC 2-16-10
4.
An existing 20‟ wide sanitary sewer easement (Document #4610043) encumbers the
subject parcel along the west property line.
An existing 20‟ wide water main easement (W.E. #351F) encumbers the subject parcel
near the west property line.
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common
Council meeting.
Ron Zechel was present to answer questions and gave some background information on this project.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of a Special Use
for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments and installing a ground-based
equipment cabinet on the cell tower/site at the rear of the Braeger Mitsubishi Motors parcel,
6123 S. 27th Street, and consider this a minor change, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common Council
meeting. Tax Key #691-9841-009. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
James Letizia, S56 W22730 Woodside Drive, Waukesha, WI 53159 requests a Special Use
Review for the purpose of re-opening „Las Palmas‟ restaurant, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue,
Tax Key #571-8957-002.
1.
Background: Mr. Letizia will be purchasing this vacant property and wants to continue its
use as a restaurant. This restaurant does have a bar area and in the basement, a banquet hall.
The prior owner – Young Yun – had opened “Mr. Miyagi Steakhouse” (i.e. name changed
later to „Las Palmas‟) in 2005 via a similar Special Use Review process, after acquiring the
property from the owners of the former “Virg‟ n Johns”. Although Mr. Yun had passed
away last Spring, his spouse had continued to run the business for a while but the liquor
license was not renewed after it expired 6/30/09. As a reminder, a Special Use has a
12-month „grace period‟ after it has stopped being used.
When Mr. Yun took over this property, he did extensive work on the interior and exterior of
the building, along with some site-related improvements. No other exterior changes are
proposed by Mr. Letizia.
2.
3.
Attached are the PC minutes from 3/05 when Mr. Yun‟s Special Use Review request was
discussed. Also attached is a copy of the 1990 Special Use Permit for “Virg‟ n Johns”.
Hours of Operation: Mr. Letizia has indicated an interest to retain the hours which.
Mr. Yun had from 11:00 a.m. to „close‟, seven days per week. Mr. Letizia is aware of the
issues which have evolved from the Boulder Junction → Mad Dog situation. His interest
here is to run a restaurant which has a bar, not create a sports bar. However, staff believes it
is important for Mr. Letizia to identify what will be the normal restaurant operating hours.
Staff also is aware that the hours of operation for a holder of a Class “B” license is governed
by State Statute (i.e. 2:30 a.m. normal closing time).
Miscellaneous: Separately Mr. Letizia has submitted a request for the appropriate Class
“B” Liquor License with the Clerk‟s Office. That license will be considered at a later
date by the CC. Also a „pre-occupancy inspection‟ this past December was paid for by
Mr. Letizia.
5
PC 2-16-10
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize this matter to be
expedited to the February 17th Common Council meeting.
Mr. Letizia was present to answer questions and outlined his intentions at this site, with him wanting
to initially start out being open from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the restaurant portion, and perhaps
earlier if they desire to one day serve lunch, and 4:00 p.m. to close for the bar portion as per
applicable State Statutes. He stated that he intends to operate this establishment similarly to the one
he operates in Hales Corners (Diamond Jim‟s Stonebridge Inn), but lean more toward catering to a
younger crowd (age range of 30-50) with a “sports lounge” type atmosphere, with casual fine
dining/banquets and perhaps occasional live music. Mr. Erickson questioned if he would desire an
outdoor patio in the future to which Mr. Letizia replied that he doesn‟t desire to pursue that at this
time, with the fact that due to the layout of the property he doesn‟t see how it would be conducive.
Mayor Neitzke asked if he would be desiring something along the lines of Mad Dog Saloon to which
Mr. Letizia said he‟s going for a “more subtle atmosphere”, similar to a Serb Hall or a neighborhood
bar.
Review for the purpose of re-opening „Las Palmas‟ restaurant, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and per the hours of operation identified by
Mr. Letizia, and authorize this item to be expedited to the February 17 th Common Council
10.
David Morgenson, Morgenson Realty Co., PO Box 180560, Delafield, WI 53018 requests a
Conceptual Review for the purpose of doing a multi-family apartment project on a 15 acre
parcel west of the Polish National Cemetery and south of House of Harley, Tax Key
#618-9983-011.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background: Mr. Morgenson is interested in doing a multi-family apartment project on a
15 acre parcel west of the Polish Cemetery and south of House of Harley. The preliminary
proposal is for 134 units in seven buildings (134 ÷ 15 = 9 units/ac). See attached narrative
and copy of the neighborhood information meeting letter. Further review of the “PUD Site
Intensity & Capacity” calculations is underway.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: A preliminary sample building elevation is
attached showing the use of brick veneer, siding (material to be identified), and presumably
regular shingles. Based on this example, the design has a predominate „horizontal line‟ to
it; additional brick will extended to the top of the second floor in strategic locations will be
needed to enhance that architectural „look‟. Another version has the use of stone veneer
instead of brick.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The main access to the site will come
from Layton Ave. (i.e. between Appliance World and Verlo). On the enclosed CSM for this
parcel, there is a „public safety easement‟ through the cemetery grounds back to 60th Street.
337 stalls (i.e. underground, in a garage, and/or surface) ÷ 134 = 2.5 stalls per unit, which is
a good number.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): As identified on the site plan, there is an intention
of using the required storm retention basin, to the extent possible, as a water feature. While
it is uncertain how prevalent this situation may be, but staff has been contacted by at least
one single-family neighboring property owner to the south who has concerns about existing
run-off problems. While the intent of „stormwater management‟ and grading was described
to this person, they were not entirely convinced that the potential of new development could
actually help relieve their long-term drainage problem.
6
PC 2-16-10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A critical element for site planning at this location is the
buffering of the single-family and two-family condo use(s) immediately to the south.
Park Fees: 134 units X $1497 = $200, 600.
Sidewalks: Pedestrian access to/from Layton will be needed, plus the Fire Dept. will desire,
where necessary, hard-surface paths which then provide 360° accessibility (i.e. when
coupled with the roadway system), around an apartment building.
Fire Department: These buildings will need to be sprinklered, plus there may be other
life-safety measures the Dept. will need.
Outside Agencies: MMSD, Milwaukee Water, DNR, etc.
Miscellaneous: A neighborhood information meeting was held on February 1st. About 10
people showed up, along with Ald. Pietrowski. The general perspective/reaction was more
favorable than unfavorable; Mr. Morgenson will be able to describe his perception at the
meeting.
Some of the discussion at the information meeting did include the fact that House of Harley
does have 5 – 6 outdoor events in their parking lot where a lot of motorcyclists will attend.
Separately they have indoor events also, but those are during the winter-time. The residents
of this potential apartment complex – particularly those on the north side -- will be „right
there‟.
151.12.
conditions.
Recommend a full access median cut within West Layton Avenue (CTH „U‟). Obtain
approval from Milwaukee County.
Milwaukee Water Works will likely require a meter pit for private water main system.
Provide a public sanitary sewer easement within the development parcel for proposed
sanitary main and structures.
Verify the ability to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to all buildings.
Recommendation: No formal action necessary. The nature of this use does adhere to the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of “Planned Mixed Use”.
David Morgenson was present to answer questions and gave a brief outline of his family‟s business
dealings, which include over 1,000 apartment units in various communities that they have run since
1979. They have strict rental requirements and require a credit report of 600+ for tenancy and have
an occupancy rate of about 99%. He spoke on how he held a neighborhood information meeting for
this project, which was attended by about 25 neighbors who had no complaints. He showed how the
alignment of units was such that no one would be able to look into each other‟s units. All access
would be via Layton Avenue only, with an access point available at the Polish Cemetery for
emergency vehicles when the need arises for them. He also explained the interior layouts of the
various styles, and the amenities included in these types of units. All interior units face the pond and
all consist of stone and vinyl siding, making them virtually maintenance-free.
Rents would be as follows: Studio style $595, one bedroom $755, loft $765, two bedroom ranch
$895 and $925 for the two bedroom/2 bath loft. In the 16 unit building the rents would be as
follows: One bedroom/one bath $925 and $945 for the two bedroom.
7
PC 2-16-10
Ald. Kastner said the events held throughout the year at House of Harley might be noisy for the
tenants (with Harley holding about 6 or 7 events a year). Mr. Dorszynski questioned recent
apartment building activity to which Mr. Erickson replied that in the last 10 or so years there haven‟t
been any “large scale” multi-family rental projects, (i.e. not counting senior housing-related
projects), but referenced the Falcon Glen development at 113th & Edgerton which started out as a
condo development and, with the failing economy, was granted permission by the City to change
their plans to building apartments.
Ald. Kastner questioned as a City what type of development we need, and is this what there is a
demand in the market for both presently and for the next 10-15 years? Mayor Neitzke said he feels
that every type of real estate sector is flooded in today‟s market. Mayor Neitzke said he would like
to see architectural shingles added to break up the design and add distinction, and that he would also
like to see a walkway to Layton Avenue added to, which Mr. Morgenson said they could certainly
look into that. Mayor Neitzke said perhaps the elevation would also provide a noise barrier to the
residents of the Cloisters condominiums next door. Mr. Morgenson suggested that by visiting his
website; www.morgenson.com, one could see the quality developments they construct.
Conceptual Review – No action needed, but the Plan Commission had a favorable consensus
regarding the nature of this project.
11.
Steve Anderson, 6500 Industrial Loop, Greendale, WI 53129 requests a Conceptual Review for
the purpose of discussing a potential combined project involving the possible relocation of
the Layton Avenue Baptist Church (9000 W. Layton Avenue) and the construction of four
22-unit apartment buildings into the 9500/9700 block of the north side of Layton Avenue,
Tax Key #607-0001-001, 607-0004-001, 607-9970-002, 607-9970-003, and 607-9965-002,
607-9967, and 607-9968.
1.
Background: In 2007 Mr. Anderson had submitted a Conceptual Review for a proposed
condo development involving 12 acres on several lots in this particular area. That project
did not proceed, in part due to the economic slowdown, plus there was a PC concern about
overall density and potential loss of a large specimen tree area. He has been working on
various options since then and about a month ago had proposed the idea of doing apartments.
See attached detailed narrative providing further background on this latest development idea
which is summarized as follows:
Moving/relocating the Layton Avenue Baptist Church, 9000 Layton to a 6.3 acre portion
of this general area. Mr. Anderson has met with the church Building Board and they are
„open‟ to this possible relocation idea.
Included in this concept plan is having four 22-unit apartment buildings, which are a
combination of 1/2/3 bedroom units on a 6.1 acre area. Also a community building is
part of the proposal. As indicated in the narrative, this aspect will be “…affordable
rental community which is financed in part by investor equity received by selling
Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits utilized by Section 42 of the IRS Code and
administered via Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority
(WHEDA)…”.
Although not directly related to the church potentially moving west five blocks, as
circumstances would have it, the 10 acre open Sura property immediately to the north of
the church parcel, is now for sale. Continental Properties is still interested in acquiring
the Chapman School property from the GF School District.
8
PC 2-16-10
This preliminary site layout tries to take into account a delineated wetland area, mature
woodlands, a shared storm retention basin, access from 94th Street, and the use of an
existing median cut @ about “96th Street”.
The proposed apartment area is approx. 6.1 with 88 units. 88 ÷ 6.1 = 14/units per acre.
Further review/analysis of the “PUD Site Intensity & Capacity” factors is still needed in
order to offer a “this is ok” or a “this is too high” perspective.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The preliminary elevations indicate a
combination of brick veneer, vinyl siding, and shingles. The narrative includes a further
description of the apartment amenities.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The combined parking stall count is
275 (166 for the apartments and 109 for the church). The apartment parking is a
combination of “inside” stalls (i.e. garages and in-building) and outside stalls, based upon an
average of 2 stalls per unit. Further analysis of the specific number of 1/2/3 bedrooms is
underway because the ZC has different parking stall multipliers for each of the 1/2/3
bedrooms categories, but generally they are in good shape.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): As indicated above, there will be a shared storm water
basin/management plan.
City Forester Site Inspection: In 2007 a detailed tree inventory survey was done of this
area. Further review of that material will be needed again.
Park Fees: $1497/unit X 88 = $131,735.
PUD Requirements: Ultimately via a rezoning, a PUD-Mixed Use designation would be
done given the „mixed use‟ element here, plus there is the „staging‟ or „phase‟ aspect which
likely would occur with the apartments. The other zoning-type alternative is for a “PUD”
with the apartment area and an “I-Institutional” for the church.
Miscellaneous: Although a neighborhood information meeting is something which Mr.
Anderson and his team would be doing sometime during this potential process, sooner would
be better than later.
Near the apartment area, „outside‟ decibel (dBA) readings will be needed to ensure that the
„noise-sensitive areas‟ (i.e. residential use near a freeway) are at an acceptable level. Some
of this analysis had been done previously as well.
9.
The question of how the PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) potentially may be applied here
will be „entering new territory‟. What is meant by that reference is that the PILOT is
intended to recover some loss of property assessed value if there is a property tax-exempt
use of the property. The current church location is tax-exempt and a new location will also
be tax exempt. However, if it should occur, the sale of the existing church parcel to a nontax exempt person/company would then enable the 9000 parcel to become assessable by the
City. Would this „exchange‟ of property make the land value a „wash‟ (or something close
to it) so overall there isn‟t any value lost, remains to be seen. Which in turn, would help
determine whether or not a PILOT is even needed.
Portions of the Chapman Ave. R-O-W going through the north part of this assembled
area, will need to be vacated.
Certified Survey Map will eventually be needed.
Recommendation: No formal action needed at this time. The nature of this combination of uses,
would adhere to the broad Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of “Planned Mixed Use”.
9
PC 2-16-10
Josh Neudorfer with Sigma and Steve Anderson were present to answer questions. Mr. Dorszynski
asked for explanation of the terms of qualification for low income tax credits and the clientele they
serve. As it was explained, the tax credits essentially allow for a higher quality project as part of its
funding is subsidized by the federal government.
Mayor Neitzke questioned whom the typical renter is for this type of development to which
Mr. Neudorfer replied that the renters themselves are not being subsidized; the construction/
development of the project is and that the proposed rental range of $525-$900/mo. is within the
norm for the amenities and the area.
Mr. Anderson said there are two components to building this, one is using the current church
site as a possible option, and two is whether or not the City would consider having an apartment
project behind it. One obstacle is the noise that would come from the nearby freeway, which
Mr. Neudorfer said that they did do a noise study and have also conducted a tree study.
Ald. Kastner questioned what would then become of the church property at 90 th & Layton to which
Mayor Neitzke responded that he foresees the stretch of Layton from 84 th to 92nd changing
dramatically in the future. Currently the “Sura” property to the north of the church is for sale and the
School District is in negotiations to sell their property. He feels it would be best to move the church
to this area, to which Mr. Marciniak agreed, as in the long run this property has more value as
commercial property rather than as institutional property. He would also like to ensure that this is a
quality-built development (as the nearby Layton Terrace development is starting to show its age and
signs of wear) and would like to see architectural shingles added, along with perhaps adding a
dedicated sidewalk from the apartments to Layton Avenue.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned if the neighbors had been contacted to which they replied that they had
not contacted them individually, but have had conversations with Ald. Pietrowski.
Mr. Dorszynski stated he was concerned about the “low-income” or Section 42 Affordable Housing
housing aspect, even though he feels that this project does “fit” the site. He also expressed his
concerns long-term concerning the clientele the low-income aspect would attract. Mr. Anderson
said the recent trend has been to develop this type of product as it makes the most sense
development-wise, as they cannot afford to build new product with the help of subsidies or TIFs.
Mr. Sponholz questioned the market for this type/size project, as he sees a lot of “For Rent” signs
and wonders what the demand would be in, say, five years. Mr. Marciniak mentioned the concern
that the next market to be affected with mortgage problems is the commercial market.
Mr. Anderson spoke on the current situation in the commercial real estate market where loans are
coming due for renewal, banks aren‟t willing to renew and are asking for severe “buy-downs”, where
the values are now less and thus investors are required to fund that shortfall in value. As most are
unable to swing this, they end up foreclosing or selling for 50 cents on the dollar, which then sways
the sales comps for the next project that comes due for renewal, creating a constant spiral effect.
Shelby Alcott and Dusty Little were present on behalf of Layton Avenue Baptist Church, and spoke
on how they are currently in the initial stages of discussing the possibility of relocating the church,
but are favorable of the idea, and also stated that they had been contacted by MLG regarding this.
10
PC 2-16-10
Mayor Neitzke said that he is favor of the project, that he desires to ensure that as many trees as
possible are preserved, that he supports moving the church, and that, even though this is still in the
conceptual review stage, he sees it as high quality construction.
Conceptual Review – No action needed, but the Plan Commission had a favorable consensus
regarding the nature of this project.
12.
a). Discuss a request from Tom LaLicata, Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76 th Street, Tax Key
#605-9979-002, to “count” toward his business parking requirement having 21 stalls made
formally available via an off-site parking access agreement with the property owner of the
“Rogan Shoe” parcel, 4350 S. 76th Street, Tax Key #604-9986.
1.
2.
Background: Tom LaLicata, owner of the Mad Dog Saloon business/property (4395 S.
76th Street) has approached the owner of the “Rogan Shoe” parcel (4350 S. 76 th) about the
possibility of leasing/renting 21 parking stalls for his employees. While the “Rogan” person
is amenable to doing a more formal „off-site parking agreement‟, he wants to know how
receptive the City may be regarding this idea. See attached letter.
Mr. LaLicata‟s letter makes a reference to wanting these additional stalls so that he can
“…extend my capacity…”. Staff needs to clarify that aspect because getting more parking
off-site has nothing to do with gaining more building capacity. Rather it deals with
addressing the historical short-fall of required on-site parking requirements at the Mad Dog
location.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The ZC requirements for “Bars or
Taverns” requires a minimum off-street parking space of 20 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area or 1 space per 2 seats or stools, plus 1 space per employee, whichever is greater.
-Building size: 5,520 sq. ft. ÷ 1,000 = 5.5 X 20 stalls
= 110 stalls
-153 seats ÷ 2 = 76.5 + 20 employees (as per a 10/28/09 letter) = 97 stalls
-The site has 89 stalls. Therefore, the 21 proposed additional stalls across the street for his
employees would enable the „parking formula‟ to actually be met for the first time. The
„parking calculation‟ for restaurants is also 20 stalls/1,000 s.f. floor area. Staff does not
recall any of the prior restaurant operators ever making a similar request to „count‟ or per
credit with having required „stalls available‟. I have spoken with the “Rogan Shoe”
property rep. and they have posed this availability question to their other tenants, and they
supposedly have no problem with ownership entering an agreement with Mr. LaLicata of
this nature. The retail center has different “peak times” which probably is the basis for the
„no problem‟ perspective.
The reason staff is bringing this type of interpretation matter to the PC is that the ZC is
„silent‟ on the aspect of allowing (or not allowing) off-site parking stalls to be counted as
part of a required parking stall number. It is true we try to encourage the use of crosseasements for access (and parking when applicable), but the best example which can be
provided is from several years ago in 2000. When Outback Steakhouse was constructed
11
PC 2-16-10
and at the same time on the adjacent property to the south was being converted to the
Commonweath medical office use, neither parcel fully provided its required on-site parking
count. In this instance though, because the “peak operational times” were staggered and the
respective owners were amenable to doing a cross-access parking agreement, that situation
continues to work out.
Recommendation: While there isn‟t a need for a formal motion/second type of recommendation
onto the Common Council, I‟m hopeful to obtain a consensus of “to count” or “not to count” off-site
parking areas. My inclination is “to count” them where we can where there are not any operational
issues created, and there is a cross-access/parking agreement into between the private parties here.
Tom LaLicata, owner of Mad Dog Saloon, was present. Mr. LaLicata stated they desired to use
these spaces from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., for their employees. Discussion followed on the number of
stalls that Mad Dog has and the allowed capacity at their location.
Mayor Neitzke stated that he cannot support this as there are no crosswalks in this area that could be
used, it is a dark corner in general, and also the properties are not contiguous.
Mr. Marciniak stated he thought that cross-easement parking agreements are great; however, he is
concerned about pedestrian crossing, as there is only a designated crosswalk along 76 th Street at
Cold Spring Road and at Layton Avenue. He has seen people trying to cross the street and feels that
is very dangerous, as there is no “safe” crossing spot. He feels that if the City accepts such an
arrangement it could set a precedent and also it could come back to us legally if something happens.
Mr. LaLicata responded to Mr. Marciniak‟s concerns by saying that he has monitored the traffic
flow at these times, and around 1:00 p.m. it isn‟t very busy, and come 2:00 a.m. or later there is very
little traffic. He also said they have a 12 passenger van that could be used perhaps to pick up
employees at Walgreens at 76th & Cold Spring, as he has spoken with Walgreens regarding using
their lot, and they didn‟t have a problem with that.
Mr. Dorszynski said he feels that the City agreeing to/being a part of such agreements could
potentially cause problems if anything were to happen. It is an unsafe condition, as it is not safe nor
legal to cross a State highway outside of a designated crosswalk.
Mayor Neitzke stressed again that he cannot endorse this as there isn‟t a designated crosswalk and he
doesn‟t see people walking to Cold Spring Road to cross. Also, as there have been complaints from
the neighbors about Mad Dog, he did some checking on capacity. Mad Dog has a capacity of 225,
which is based on square footage, and our police department has counted patrons and at times when
the count was 125-140 or so and the place felt extremely packed, so he is concerned about fitting in
even more bodies. He also stressed that the neighbors shouldn‟t be intruded upon. He is
recommending to the Board of Public Works that No Parking is enacted along Allerton Avenue to
alleviate the frustrations the neighbors are experiencing about Mad Dog patrons parking there.
However, he said that it is Mr. LaLicata‟s choice of where he desires his employees to park.
Mr. LaLicata then questioned if he could possibly have his capacity increased. Mr. Erickson gave
some background that Mr. LaLicata had recently hired an architect to evaluate the capacity and he
came up with a figure of 349. The City Building Inspector then reviewed those findings and, based
on his calculations using the International Building Code and taking into account the number of
12
PC 2-16-10
available parking stalls, came up with a maximum capacity figure of 225 patrons. Mayor Neitzke
said he doesn‟t see how 225 people could even fit, when it appears extremely crowded at 140 or so
people, so therefore how does Mr. LaLicata think even more than 225 could fit? Mr. LaLicata gave
a scenario on how by moving tables he could further expand the occupancy to easily accommodate
another 40 or so people.
On a different matter, Mr. Erickson stated that in November Mr. LaLicata received approval for
new fencing along the north lot line of Mad Dog. At that time discussion was deferred to Spring,
as to what type of fencing was okay along the Balkan‟s side, after which time the construction
along Forest Home Avenue would be complete. While there is no agenda item on this tonight,
Mr. Erickson wished to take advantage of discussing it at this time. Mr. LaLicata used this
opportunity to voice his concerns now that the Forest Home construction is done: garbage from
Balkan‟s along the fence, and people parking on the Mad Dog side and walking to Balkan‟s, which
cuts into his available parking, even though parking signs are posted. Also, Mr. LaLicata stated he
would be finishing up their fencing this Spring. He basically wants to extend the existing 5‟
chainlink fence with slats, southerly to the Forest Home frontage road right-of-way line. Staff is
supportive of this fencing project being completed as proposed. The only caveat may be that “slats”
possibly should not be used on the most southerly 10‟ section due to “sight-line‟ issues for vehicles
leaving Balkan‟s and dealing with westbound traffic. This likely will be an in-the-field
determination.
13.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
14.
March 9, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed February 24 , 2010
13
PC 2-16-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Ms. Christine Hallen
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to approve the minutes of the February 16,
2010 Special Meeting. Motion carried 4-0-3 with Ms. Hallen, Ms. Collins & Mr. Hess abstaining.
3.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Ms. Collins to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on February 17th & March 2nd. At the
February 17th meeting the public hearing for Phase I and Phase II of the Clement Manor project
occurred and was approved, along the site/building/landscaping plan for their Our Lady of the
Angels project. Also, at that meeting the appointment of Doug Dorszynski, Plan Commission
member, to the Business Improvement District Board #2 (BID) occurred. At the March 2nd meeting
the Council adopted the Aerotropolis Resolution encompassing 7 municipalities coming together to
work at implementing economic development utilizing the proximity of the Airport in a more
cohesive and cooperative fashion.
5.
Richard Rau, Clement Manor Retirement Community, 3939 S. 92nd Street, Greenfield, WI
53228, represented by Greg Zastrow, Eppstein Uhen, 333 E. Chicago Street, Milwaukee, WI
53202 requests a PUD Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the proposed
construction of an addition to the south end of its existing health center building area, some
administrative space addition, and a separate entrance into the facility’s short-term
rehabilitative area; this project was previously identified as “Phase Two” with the ‘Our Lady
of Angels’ “Phase One” project at this same site which was approved by the Common Council
on 2/17/10, Tax Key #568-9999-006.
1.
Background: The PUD Amendment for Phase I (i.e. 44 unit ‘Our Lady of the Angels’)
and Phase II were approved at the February 17th CC meeting. The purpose of this request is
to review proposed site/building construction aspects of “Phase II” which involve a future
addition to the south end of existing health center building, some administrative area
addition, and a separate entrance into the facility’s short-term rehabilitative area. See
attached narrative.
1
PC 3-9-10
More specifically, the second phase would be two small additions to the south side of the
existing Health Center building that is located east of the proposed new building. This
entails 8 private rooms, some administrative area and a separate entrance into the facility’s
short term rehabilitative area. This would add approximately 7,725 s.f. for resident rooms
and 3,335 s.f. for common areas or administrative areas. Both additions will be attached to
and provide connection between current wings of the existing building. Included also is a
separate entrance into the facility’s short-term rehabilitative area.
2.
3.
Sheet C100 – Overall Site Plan is a colored aerial photo which has overlaid markings for the
proposed building pads, parking areas, and retention basin. It provides a quick visual
summary of the overall proposal.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The additions are intended to match/compliment
the existing building materials to the extent possible. They will use utility brick on the
exterior with utility brick soldier courses. A prefinished metal coping and siding with 8”
exposure will be added to the exterior in placement above the windows. The windows will
use aluminum storefront window w/spandrel panel. An extensive use of windows will be
used to break up the exterior brick veneer. The elevation plans indicate an elevation
difference between the existing building and this addition. The floor plan allows for
enclosed courtyards that will add greenspace on the interior sections of the building. A
color rendering is included in the packet, and pictures/material samples will be presented at
the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The following comments are identical
to what had been prepared for the Phase I review because of the inter-connectivity of both
projects and shared parking elements which will be occurring. However it needs to be noted
that the narrative for Phase II indicates that “…the number of employees should remain
constant with current operations…”. The Phase I narrative indicated that none of the
residents would have an automobile or are able to drive. The requirement for a facility of
this nature is 0.5 spaces per unit plus one space per employee on the largest shift. That
means that 22 spaces would be needed. 19 stalls are indicated on the plans which
presumably are for employees and family. The narrative indicates that there would be total
of 37 employees on all shifts working in the proposed facility. If an assumption is made that
approx. 10 - 13 employees work per shift, that means that during the ‘shift overlap’, there
would be at most 25 employees present at one concentrated time. With only 19 parking
spaces, there is at least a deficit of 6 spaces for employees, plus a deficit of spaces for the
resident’s family. This aspect will need to be addressed because same scenario of ‘net
loss/gain’ on parking stalls exists with both Phase One & Two. While overall Clement
Manor may have ample parking, but that aspect will need to be examined further of where
‘spillover’ parking may be available on-site.
The parking lot is curbed in the plans. An existing roadway is immediately to the north, and
a proposed roadway is on the east, with a connection to the existing same roadway.
4.
The floor plan identifies how access to/from the two ‘courtyards’ are to be provided.
Clarification needed regarding how maintenance equipment comes/goes to these areas. It
seems pretty straight-forward with the southeast courtyard, but not so with the northwestern
one.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Storm drainage will be shared with the Phase I site. See
Engineering Comments for further detail. Site Grading Plan C104 indicates that a catch
basin and a manhole may need moved slightly (or the path is moved) because they are in the
proposed path layout.
2
PC 3-9-10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Two new inside “courtyards” are created with this plan. The northwest courtyard appears to
have storm catch-basins in there, but the southeast courtyard doesn’t appear to having any
drainage provided. Clarification needed on that particular item.
Lighting (building & site): The lighting plan for this phase are in-line with those
previously submitted. See attached photometric layout and fixture style – again identical as
shown for Phase I given the shared parking area layout.
Utilities: See Engineering Comments regarding ‘inside connections’ for water and sanitary
services. A storm lateral is extended to the building for drainage from the new roof-top area.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: The presumption is that the HVAC for the new areas are
included in the overall existing building system. If that isn’t correct and there are new rooftop HVAC units, the elevation plans need to be revised to show how these units are to be
screened.
Signage: Other than some new on-building entrance signs, no other signage is anticipated.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Existing dumpsters will continue to be
used.
Fencing: Some type of decorative fencing (i.e. split-rail) around the pond may be a
desirable feature. The intention is not to necessarily prevent someone from going into the
pond, but rather more of a visual/physical barrier between the pond and the walk-way around
the pond.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: In regard to landscaping, a specific plan is attached and
represents an effort of the developer’s landscape architect working with the City Forester –
as was done with Phase I -- on the specifics of the type and mix of plantings along the south
side of the building (i.e. foundation plantings), and around the pond and in the parking lot
area.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: Based upon 125% of landscaping costs, with
30% retained for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going condition of
subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual review by the
City to make sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any dead/dying
landscaping is replaced as necessary.
City Forester Site Inspection: Occurred already.
Hours of Operation: Will be the same 24/7 as that of the current facility.
Sidewalks: Provided for to enable an easy to/from the parking lot to the building, and also
there is the path layout around the building.
Fire Department: The expansion area will also be sprinklered, and there may be other
life-safety measures the Department may desire as building construction plans are presented.
Outside Agencies: An ingress/egress easement will be entered into between Our Lady
of the Angels and Clement Manor regarding shared access/parking/storm water
management.
Erosion Control: Erosion control plan shall identify locations for proposed silt fence, and
an erosion control permit will be required.
PUD Requirements: A PUD Amendment agreement will need to be entered into between
Clement Manor and the City.
• Provide a calculation to quantify the increase in impervious coverage under the proposed
conditions.
3
PC 3-9-10
•
•
•
•
•
•
Verify parking requirements for the proposed 10,181 square feet of building space. It
appears that the building additions will eliminate 28 existing parking spaces, while only
32 parking spaces have been proposed by the site plan.
Recommend curb and gutter along perimeter of all parking lots and landscape islands.
An existing 20’ water main easement (Document #5531194) encumbers the property
along the east side of the main access drive. Ensure that the westerly building footprint
and foundation components remain outside this easement.
Ensure that adequate cover is maintained over the existing water main.
Confirm that domestic water and sanitary sewer service for the building additions can be
obtained by interior means.
•
•
•
•
•
Provide a combined Storm Water Management Plan prepared for both proposed
developments.
The Storm Water Management Plan is subject to Engineering staff review and
•
•
•
•
•
Provide elevations for all pipe inverts.
Provide adequate horizontal separation between proposed storm sewer and
existing water main at southwest corner of the parking lot.
Provide storm sewer stub to the westerly building addition.
All on-site disturbed area shall be directed to detention pond or subtracted
from the allowable release rate.
Demonstrate adequate overland conveyance to the detention pond for all
tributary area during the course of a 100-year storm event.
Confirm pond outlet location and downstream pipe configuration. The outlet
location at southeast corner of detention pond is preferred to enhance removal
of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and avoid “short-circuit” issues.
A private agreement will be necessary between both property owners for shared
responsibility in the continual operation and maintenance of the storm water basin, outlet
devices, and other appurtenances.
Provide grading and drainage information for all building courtyards.
Recommendation: Approve subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item
to be expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting.
Richard Rau with Clement Manor Retirement Community and Greg Zastrow with Eppstein
Uhen were present to answer questions.
Mayor Neitzke pointed out that this project has been discussed several times at the Plan Commission
level and was presented at the Common Council meeting. Ald. Kastner said that the only element
that hasn’t been discussed are the building materials, but it appears that they are of a high quality and
match those of the other buildings.
4
PC 3-9-10
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a PUD
Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the proposed construction of an addition
to the south end of the Clement Manor Retirement Community, 3939 S. 92nd Street, along with
some administrative space addition, and a separate entrance into the facility’s short-term
rehabilitative area; this project was previously identified as “Phase Two” with the ‘Our Lady
of Angels’ “Phase One” project at this same site which was approved by the Common Council
on 2/17/10, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #568-9999-006. Motion
6.
Milwaukee, WI 53202 requests a Special Use for the purpose of removing an existing ‘guyed
wire support’ tower (110’ high) with a new ‘guyed wire support’ tower (120’ high) for the
purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments and installing a ground-based equipment
cabinet on the Clear Channel antenna/site, 12100 W. Howard Avenue, Tax Key #564-9982-001.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
proposal is to remove an existing ‘guyed wire support’ tower (110’ high) with a newer,
stronger ‘guyed wire support’ tower (120’ high). A ground-based equipment cabinet will
also be installed on the Clear Channel antenna/site. See attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within a new wood fenced area, there is a
ground mount for a 2’ x 2’ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7’ x 7’
ground lease space. Gravel will be installed inside the enclosure area.
Fencing: A wood fence is proposed to enclose a 30’-40’ area, replacing existing wood
fence which encloses a 15’ x 22’ area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: While it is believed that the existing landscaped berm along
the east side of the parking lot and building will screen this larger enclosed area, that aspect
will need to be re-evaluated to ensure that proper screening of the enclosure from the
residential area to the east, is actually provided.
Miscellaneous: The basis for the expanded enclosure area is anticipated to accommodate the
potential for future co-locates on this new tower. Prior to the release of any Inspection Dept.
permits, a “property owner access authorization” will be needed.
• Provide a calculation to quantify the increase in impervious coverage for the expanded
enclosure area. The City has annual reporting requirements to MMSD for grass areas
being converted to impervious areas, of which ‘gravel’ is considered impervious.
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the March 16th Common Council
meeting.
Ron Zechel was present to answer questions. He spoke on how the new tower needs to up and
operating before the old tower can come down, as they can never be offline. Mayor Neitzke
questioned how long the old tower would remain once the new tower is installed to which
Mr. Zechel replied that it normally takes 5 days or so. Mr. Zechel also stated that there wouldn’t be
a very noticeable physical difference in the new tower versus the old as it would be painted the same
and is also constructed of galvanized steel. It also enables future carriers to come on board, thus
giving them the ability to expand their services.
5
PC 3-9-10
for the purpose of removing an existing ‘guyed wire support’ tower (110’ high) with a new
‘guyed wire support’ tower (120’ high) for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna
attachments and installing a ground-based equipment cabinet on the Clear Channel
antenna/site, 12100 W. Howard Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
#564-9982-001.
7.
Milwaukee, WI 53202 requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna
of Bill’s Auto Tech, 4737 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #612-8997-006.
1.
2.
3.
proposal is to co-locate Clearwire antennas at the 90’ level of existing 100’ Global Tower
Partners tower, approved by Global. A ground-based equipment cabinet will also be
installed on the site. See attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within existing fenced area, there is a
ground mount for a 2’ x 2’ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7’ x 7’
ground lease space.
access authorization” will be needed. Unrelated to the ‘special use’ aspects of this Clear
Wireless request, there are some historical real estate transfers and ground leasing elements
which exist at this property going back to when the tower was installed and involving
different property owners since then. This will need to be resolved between Clear Wire and
appropriate parties.
meeting.
Item held over at the request of the property owner until the April 13th Plan Commission
meeting.
8.
of the former Valley USA parcel, 4267 W. Loomis Road, Tax Key #600-9955-004.
1.
2.
proposal is to co-locate Clearwire antennas on the existing 104’ monopole Crown Castle
tower, approved by Crown Castle. A ground-based equipment cabinet will also be installed
on the site. See attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within existing fenced area, there is a ground
mount for a 2’ x 2’ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7’ x 7’ ground lease
space.
6
PC 3-9-10
3.
access authorization" will be needed. WisDOT actually owns this parcel now because this is
where the new off-ramp will go. The tower is on ‘excess’ land which potentially could
become the City’s, depending upon how the GF Crossing Redevelopment project evolves.
meeting.
Ron Zechel was present to answer questions. Mayor Neitzke asked Mr. Erickson to expand on any
impact this may have on the Redevelopment District. Mr. Erickson said that the fact that there is an
existing tower is why this request is being made, but there may be a need to relocate this tower in the
future, as WisDOT plans to run the off-ramp thru this area. Dependent on what happens in the
City’s conversations with WisDOT in regard to the park and ride, this area may end up eventually
becoming City-owned property. Ald. Kastner questioned adding another potential leasee to a site
that at some point may come down or need to be relocated, and questioned if it is truly the best use
of this land. Mayor Neitzke said this should be referred on to the Community Development
Authority for their review.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of Special Use
equipment cabinet on the cell tower/site at the rear of the former Valley USA parcel,
4267 W. Loomis Road, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this
item to be referred on the March 22nd Community Development Authority meeting. Tax Key
9.
Clear Wireless LLC, represented by Rosemarie Barrette, CCSI, 5344 S. 48th Street, Greenfield,
WI 53320, requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments
and installing a ground-based equipment cabinet on the communication tower at the rear of
the Library/Law Enforcement Center building(s), 5300 W. Layton Avenue, Tax Key #6029975-002.
1.
2.
3.
4.
wireless network which will offer high-speed internet services. At this location, the proposal
is to co-locate Clearwire antennas at 200’ and at 150’ on this 250’ high AT&T tower. See
attached materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Within the existing fenced area, there also is a
ground mount for a 2’ x 2’ stainless steel equipment cabinet which is within a 7’ x 7’ ground
lease space.
Miscellaneous: Separately the financial aspects of this proposal have gone thru the Finance
Committee and are ‘on-hold’ at the Common Council level. The tower currently is owned
by ATT, but ATT naturally has a lease with the City for that ground space.
• An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer is located immediately south of the existing fenced
tower enclosure.
• An existing 20’ wide water main easement (W.E. #404A) is located immediately east of
the existing fenced tower enclosure.
7
PC 3-9-10
meeting.
Rosemarie Barrette was present to answer questions. Ald. Kastner questioned which antennas on
this tower are the City’s, to which Ms. Barrette identified them on the drawings.
equipment cabinet on the communication tower at the rear of the Library/Law Enforcement
Center building(s), 5300 W. Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and authorize this item to be expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
10.
Brian Pulda, Smokers Lounge LLC, 6229 S. 27th Street, Greenfield, WI 53221 requests a
Special Use amendment to do the following: 1) shift the business location from its current
single tenant space (6229) in this multi-tenant retail building, to two vacant tenant spaces (6239
& 6241) in the same building; and 2) seek approval to be able to serve/sell beer and wine for
on-premise consumption (i.e. he ultimately will need a Class “B” beer and Class “C” wine
license), Tax Key #691-9841-002.
1.
Background: Mr. Pulda, who received a Special Use Review approval in 10/08, wants to
expand his business as outlined in the attached February 16th letter, and this would involve
the following elements:
•
•
Shift the business location from its current single tenant space (6229 S. 27th) in this
multi-tenant retail building, to two vacant tenant spaces (6239 & 6241 S. 27th) in the
same building;
Part of the reason for the proposed expansion is the desire to be able to serve/sell beer
and wine for on-premise consumption (i.e. he ultimately will need a Class “B” beer and
Class “C” wine license).
This particular request creates a unique situation as follows:
1) As of 7/5/10, a new state-wide law will go into effect banning indoor smoking (see
attached excerpt of a May, 2009 “Legislative Brief” and an excerpt of Wis. Stats.
101.23 – Smoking Prohibited).
2) However, one of the exceptions granted where indoor smoking is allowed is for a retail
tobacco store or tobacco bar which was in existence as of 6/09.
3) Staff is unsure about the following element and as a result, is seeking City Attorney
guidance:
•
•
•
Mr. Pulda is/was running a tobacco store prior to 6/09 in the same building.
But he wants to expand into different section entirely with different address(es)
within that same multi-tenant retail building. Rhetorically, is his store in the same
location or not?
This maybe important because if anyone other than Mr. Pulda had requested to do
the exact same combination (i.e. tobacco & beer) in the exact same location, the
quick answer would have been “No” it could not be done.
8
PC 3-9-10
2.
3.
4.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Attached is a proposed floor plan for the approx.
40’ x 40’ new leased space. The PC application makes a reference to “outside café tables” at
this location, but none are shown on this particular layout. As it is, staff has real concerns
about the appropriateness of an outdoor café – which means beer/wine could be served there
as well. There needs to be a plan identifying a fenced-in area showing how this space could
be secured, given that alcohol could be served there.
Hours of Operation: The business hours are Sunday – Thursday 7 a.m. – 2 a.m.; and
Friday & Saturday 7 a.m. – 2:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous: This packet also includes a February 18th letter from the property owner –
Suburban Centers of Wisconsin – approving of Mr. Pulda’s request for the proposed two
new tenant spaces.
Recommendation: Since there are two issues, staff only has a partial recommendation:
1.
Approve subject to PC and Staff comments the shifting the business location from
6229 S. 27th St. to 6239 & 6241 S. 27th St., consider this a minor change not needing a public
hearing.
2.
Regarding the sale of beer/wine, until the City Attorney provides an opinion on this matter
as described above, staff has no recommendation at this specific time; it is anticipated that
will be available by the March 9th meeting. Nonetheless, since this type of request is
considered a ‘major change’ needed a public hearing, the PC will need to be prepared to
authorize the public hearing process to proceed, if it is determined that Mr. Pulda’s request
meets the requirements of Wis. Stats. 101. 23.
Brian Pulda was present to answer questions. Upon Mr. Pulda’s explanation of his intentions,
Mr. Marciniak said that it sounded like the intent was to create a relaxed atmosphere, and sees it as a
positive environment. Mayor Neitzke said he foresees the concept of having a bar in a retail center
as a problem with the Common Council. He said that while such establishments as Noodles & Co.
are selling beer and wine they also serve food so that combination is more favorably voted for by the
Council. This likely will be seen as a bar since the only food available are convenience-type items,
such as chips, danish, etc.
Mr. Hess said he had no problem with the coffee-type drinks but wasn’t comfortable with
beer and wine being available. Mr. Pulda said that being able to offer beer and wine increases their
marketability, and this request was made as a matter of being able to survive economically.
Mr. Marciniak said he feels the range of offerings Mr. Pulda is proposing are complimentary of each
other, to which Ms. Collins said that there are already similar type establishments on the east side of
Milwaukee.
Ms. Hallen stated that it is unfortunate that he couldn’t have had this classed as a tobacco bar prior to
the June, 2009 statutory timeline. Ald. Kastner stated that he feels if granted the license, then
wouldn’t it be a considered a bar? Then what if down the road the State imposes additional taxes on
tobacco products, then it’s no longer profitable to keep tobacco on the shelf, so why waste the
space when it could be turned into a bar/nightclub. Mayor Neitzke said the reality is that once he has
the license he could indeed start a bar in there. Based on instances in the past, the City Attorney has
warned the Council that once licensing is granted to one establishment then it sets the precedent, and
you are in a position where you can’t say no to future similar requests.
9
PC 3-9-10
Mayor Neitzke said he feels having an outside patio is a problem, as it is difficult to secure an area
for this in a strip center in order to control alcohol leaving the premises. The beer/wine sales would
need to be considered a major change requiring a public hearing, however, the business location
change could be considered a minor change not requiring a public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mayor Neitzke to recommend approval of a Special
Use amendment to do the following at Smokers Lounge LLC, 6229 S. 27th Street: 1) shift the
business location from its current single tenant space (6229) in this multi-tenant retail building,
to two vacant tenant spaces (6239 & 6241) in the same building; subject to Plan Commission
and staff comments, with this location change to be considered a minor change. Tax Key
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to forward on, without
recommendation, the request of Smokers Lounge LLC, 6229 S. 27th Street, to seek approval
to be able to serve/sell beer and wine for on-premise consumption, with this to be considered
a major change, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #691-9841-002.
11.
Carrie Lewis, City of Milwaukee Superintendent of Water Works, 841 North Broadway,
Room 409, Milwaukee, WI 53202, requests a “Building” Review for the purpose of re-painting
the water tower at 8775 W. Waterford Avenue, Tax Key #569-8994-002.
1.
2.
Background: Milwaukee Water Utility wants to repaint the water tower at this site.
Although originally scheduled for this year, the project is delayed until 2011 to allow time
for system modifications which need to occur before the painting, but bidding is still
anticipated for this summer. See attached 2/19/10 email description pertaining to this
‘system modification’, along with other application materials.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The bulb of the tank is proposed to be
‘white’ and the underside ‘gray’ starting at the balcony level. The dark color ‘gray’ is
proposed to minimize negative appearance from ‘mold and environment depositions’.
While ‘what looks good’ is a personal judgment call, Staff believes that a single color needs
to be used instead of the two-tone because it will look better for the residential area that
surrounds it; this isn’t an industrial park neighborhood. The actual preference is a ‘sky
blue’, or the ‘white’ as proposed.
The aspect of ‘Greenfield’ being painted on the tower (twice) and who pays for it, remains
an unresolved matter at this point. Due to the walkway/balcony, the logo needs to be
situated above and at an angle which enhances its visibility. Further background on this
aspect is in the attached 1/28/10 letter to Rick Sokol – Director of Neighborhood Services
from Carrie Lewis.
Included in this packet are some historical materials such as aerial photos (1963, 1967, and
1970), and minute excerpt/letters from 1989 regarding the re-painting at that time. For
some reason the lettering was removed at that time. At this point Milwaukee Water is
amenable to adding “Greenfield” to the tower but as a ‘contract alternate’ and at
Greenfield’s expense. Since this tower is and will always be in Greenfield, staff believes
that this cost simply needs to be absorbed in the overall contract bidding to restore the
original “Greenfield” lettering when the tower was first constructed in the later 1960’s.
10
PC 3-9-10
expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting.
Carrie Lewis was present to answer questions. She explained that their desire to go with a two-tone
color scheme is that the bottom of the tower tends to be damp because in the summer, as the water
temperature is colder than the air temperature, causing condensation and mildew, and this in turn
produces a darker/grayer hue along the bottom of the tank. When questioned if the Greenfield
name could be painted on the tower, Ms. Lewis stressed that the Water Works, as a regulated water
utility, makes its decisions to spend its money to benefit all their rate payers equally and therefore
wouldn’t consider such a cosmetic thing as painting a “name” using their dollars appropriately.
However, if the City of Greenfield were to pay for it, it could be presented to the Water Works for
consideration. Mayor Neitzke asked what the cost difference would be for a two-tone vs. a
solid-color tank to which Ms. Lewis stated she did not know and that figure would become available
when it goes out for bid. The timeframe is to go out for bid in 2010 and do the work in 2011. There
is an approximate 20 year life to a paint job and it is also warranteed.
Mayor Neitzke stated that in his 2010 Executive Budget submittal, there was $25,000 proposed to be
used from the “Hotel/Motel” fund which is to be dedicated to tourism and economic development,
and the desire was for those funds to be used to paint “Greenfield” on the water tower, which was
voted down by the Council. Ald. Kastner stated he doesn’t feel the visibility of the tower is that
great to warrant the painting of the Greenfield name/logo on it.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a “Building”
Review for the purpose of re-painting the water tower at 8775 W. Waterford Avenue,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, using the single color “white” only, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
#569-8994-002. Motion failed with a 3-5 vote against the single color, with Ms. Hallen,
Ms. Collins and Mayor Neitzke voting in favor of.
Motion by Mr. Sponholz, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a “Building”
Review for the purpose of re-painting the water tower at 8775 W. Waterford Avenue, subject
to Plan Commission and staff comments, but to use the two-tone color combination as
originally proposed by the Milwaukee Water Utility, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the March 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #569-8994-002. Motion
carried 6-1 with Mayor Neitzke voting no.
12.
Mr. Erickson had no report. Ms. Hallen requested that the Plan Commission be briefed on any
Community Development Authority meetings.
13.
Motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Ms. Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion
14.
April 13, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed March 15, 2010
11
PC 3-9-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
Ald. Thomas Pietrowski
2.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Ald. Kastner to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Mr. Weis abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on March 16th & April 7th. At the
March 16th meeting the public hearing for Plato‟s Closet (79th & Layton) was held and the Special
Use was approved. Also approved was Phase II of the Clement Manor addition along with the Clear
Wireless antenna request at 121st & Howard. At the April 7th meeting the recommendation from the
Plan Commission regarding the repainting of the water tower was approved as recommended.
4.
Milwaukee, WI 53202 requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna
of Bill‟s Auto Tech, 4737 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #612-8997-006. [[Item held over from the
March PC at the request of the property owner‟s counsel.]]
1.
2.
3.
Background: [[Action on this item held over from the March PC at the request of Mr. Wos‟
legal counsel.]] Clear Wire is in the process of creating a nationwide 4G (4th generation)
wireless network which will offer high-speed internet services. At this location, the proposal
is to co-locate Clearwire antennas at the 90‟ level of existing 100‟ Global Tower Partners
tower, approved by Global. A ground-based equipment cabinet will also be installed on the
site. See attached materials.
mount for a 2‟ x 2‟ stainless steel equipment cabinet, which is within a 7‟ x 7‟ ground lease
space.
access authorization” will be needed. Unrelated to the „special use‟ aspects of this Clear
Wireless request, there are some historical real estate transfers and ground leasing elements
which exist at this property going back to when the tower was installed and involving
different property owners since then. This will need to be resolved between Clear Wire and
appropriate parties.
1
PC 4-13-10
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20 th Common Council
meeting.
Ald. Kastner stated that he‟d like the dead landscaping items replaced by Clear Wireless in
conjunction with granting this approval.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Hess to recommend approval of a Special Use for the
purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments and installing a ground-based equipment
cabinet on the cell tower/site at the rear of Bill‟s Auto Tech, 4737 S. 108 th Street, subject to
Plan Commission and staff comments, and consider this to be a minor change not needing a
public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20 th Common Council
5.
of the former Valley USA parcel, 4267 W. Loomis Road, Tax Key #600-9955-004. [[Item
initially reviewed at the March PC and then referred to the CDA for review. CDA has
referred this matter back to the PC for action onto CC.]]
1.
2.
3.
Background: [[Item initially reviewed at the March PC and then referred to the CDA for
review. They met on March 22nd and the consensus was that this request “…would not be
inconsistent with what is being planned for the area. They recommended approval – see
attached excerpt of those minutes.]]
Clear Wire is in the process of creating a nationwide 4G (4th generation) wireless network
which will offer high-speed internet services. At this location, the proposal is to co-locate
Clearwire antennas on the existing 104‟ monopole Crown Castle tower, approved by Crown
Castle. A ground-based equipment cabinet will also be installed on the site. See attached
materials.
space.
access authorization" will be needed. WisDOT actually owns this parcel now because this is
where the new off-ramp will go. The tower is on „excess‟ land which potentially could
become the City‟s, depending upon how the GF Crossing Redevelopment project evolves.
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20 th Common Council
meeting.
As was addressed in Item #4, it was stressed that the dead landscaping be replaced by Clear Wireless
in conjunction with granting this request.
2
PC 4-13-10
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Special Use
equipment cabinet on the cell tower/site at the rear of Bill‟s Auto Tech, 4737 S. 108th Street,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and consider this to be a minor change not
needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20th Common
Council meeting. Tax Key #612-8997-006. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Clear Wireless LLC, represented by Rosemarie Barrette, CCSI, 5344 S. 48 th Street, Greenfield,
WI 53320, requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments
and installing a ground-based equipment cabinet on the communication tower on the
Memorial United Methodist Church, 3450 S. 52nd Street, Tax Key #530-1199-700.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Clear Wire is in the process of creating a nationwide 4G (4 th generation)
proposal is to install Clearwire antennas at approx. 50‟ above grade on the chimney (4 units)
and roof (1 dish unit) of the Memorial United Methodist Church. A ground-based
equipment cabinet will also be installed on the site. See attached materials.
space. Supporting data from a structural engineering person/firm will be needed to ensure
that the chimney can support this additional weight.
Miscellaneous: A suggestion to the Church is that in their site agreement with Clearwire, if
it is not state so already, that in the event Clearwire (or its successor) is not in business
anymore, that somebody is responsible for removal of the Clearwire antennas/equipment.
Other than the placement of antennas of the 4811 S. 76th St. office building, all of the other
cell communication antennas/equipment that has been/is being installed involves usually
antennas on an actual tower. In this instance, the Clearwire proposal is the first installation
on that building, which staff believes is an important feature given the recommendation
below. At 4811, the initial cellular equipment request had a public hearing as a Special
Use, and any subsequent requests were considered Special Uses as a minor change (no
public hearing).
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, consider this a major change as the
first cellular equipment installation on that building/property, and authorize the public hearing
process to proceed.
Don Ried with United Memorial Methodist Church was present to represent the Church.
Ald. Kastner questioned why there was no fencing around the unit, to which Mr. Ried replied that
the unit that will on the ground is in the back next to a staircase and there will be fencing installed
around it; also there is a garden area there so that would provide the landscaping element.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Special Use for
the purpose of co-locating wireless antenna attachments and installing a ground-based
equipment cabinet on the communication tower on the Memorial United Methodist Church,
3450 S. 52nd Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and with this to be
considered a major change, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key
3
PC 4-13-10
7.
Mike Becker, Kapur & Associates, 7711 N. Port Washington Road, Milwaukee, WI 53217,
representing the Greenfield School District, requests a Certified Survey Map which combines
the existing two parcels at the High School property (4800 S. 60th Street) into one lot as part of
the overall site/building improvement projects, Tax Key #619-9995-001 & 619-9996-001.
1.
2.
Background: As part of the various new construction projects at the High School property
over the past couple of years, there is a need to combine their existing two parcels into one
larger lot which is accomplished via this proposed CSM.
Outside Agencies: The CSM is being reviewed by Milw. County Register of Deeds, and
City Engineering staff. All corrections, if any, must be completed before recording. The
applicant needs to be informed of the following: provided that a) the necessary approvals
have been obtained; b) the original CSM map is in order; and c) all applicable charges have
been paid, applicant must submit a final signed and notarized CSM to the Engineering Dept.
for recording. The City requires a minimum of seven (7) working days to perform its final
processing and recording of the CSM. If the applicant requires the CSM to be recorded on,
or by a specific date, plan for appropriate lead-time to be sure to submit the necessary
materials to the City allowing for its processing time. Failure to submit the necessary
materials with the CSM for recording, may cause additional recording delays.
expedited to the April 20th Common Council meeting.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Certified
Survey Map which combines the existing two parcels at the Greenfield High School property,
4800 S. 60th Street, into one lot as part of the overall site/building improvement projects,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #619-9995-001 & 619-9996-001. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
John Talsky, Esq., Talsky & Talsky, 7001 W. Edgerton Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53220
representing William & Judith Jochem, 8130 W. Howard Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53220, and
the City of Greenfield requests a Certified Survey Map and a Quit Claim Deed which creates
four parcels on two existing lots at 8127/8141 W. Howard Avenue as a combined result of the
trading of a City-owned parcel south of the Jochem‟s land, in order to acquire land which
will become the missing piece of “Van Beck Avenue” Right-Of-Way in that area, Tax Key
#570-8999, 570-9000 and 570-8998-004.
1.
Background: A land-trade has been previously discussed at this site for which now
consists of the following elements:
The property owner (Mr. & Mrs. Jochem), owns two parcels at 8127 and 8141 Howard
(Key # 570-8999 & 570-9000).
The City owns a parcel south of these Jochem parcels (Tax Key #570-8998-004).
The land-trade consists of the City giving up its parcel in exchange for the “West Van Beck
Ave.” Right-Of-Way. The area then south of this “Van Beck” R-O-W would then be traded
to the Jochems and divided into two additional parcels or referred to as Lot 3 and Lot 4 on
the attached map. The Jochems – or their successors – will be able to sell/develop all parcels
for single-family use.
4
PC 4-13-10
The “Van Beck” R-O-W becomes a missing piece which has the potential of opening up that
area for future single-family development because there now is a roadway link possible to
both the south (83rd St. – GF) and to the east (Milwaukee).
Potentially in the future because Lots 1 & 2 are big enough, the Jochem‟s if they ever
chose too, could split off the southerly portion of those parcels to create two more
buildable lots (i.e. the garage on Lot 1 may need to be shifted northerly however, if that
time should ever come).
All parcels meet the R-3 minimums of square footage (9,000 s.f.) and frontage (75‟
width).
2.
3.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Proposed Lot 4 includes a 15‟ wide storm sewer
easement to potentially help with neighborhood area storm drainage via a possible future
installation of a yard drain and connection to the storm main at the west end of existing
Van Beck.
Outside Agencies: The CSM is being reviewed by Milw. County Register of Deeds,
and City Engineering staff. All corrections, if any, must be completed before recording.
The applicant needs to be informed of the following: provided that a) the necessary
approvals have been obtained; b) the original CSM map is in order; and c) all applicable
charges have been paid, applicant must submit a final signed and notarized CSM to the
Engineering Dept. for recording. The City requires a minimum of seven (7) working days to
perform its final processing and recording of the CSM. If the applicant requires the CSM to
be recorded on, or by a specific date, plan for appropriate lead-time to be sure to submit the
necessary materials to the City allowing for its processing time. Failure to submit the
necessary materials with the CSM for recording, may cause additional recording delays.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Certified Survey
Map and a Quit Claim Deed which creates four parcels on two existing lots at 8127/8141 W.
Howard Avenue as a combined result of the trading of a City-owned parcel south of the
Jochem‟s land, in order to acquire land which will become the missing piece of “Van Beck
Avenue” Right-Of-Way in that area, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20th Common Council meeting, Tax Key #5708999, 570-9000 and 570-8998-004. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Mohammed Siddiqui, Smokers Paradise, 4267 W. Layton Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53221
requests a Special Use Review as the new business owner of the existing Smoker‟s Club at this
same location, Tax Key #621-9957-001.
1.
2.
Background: Mr. Siddiqui is the proposed new owner of this existing business within the
“Boot Connection” building. No other business changes are proposed, other than to put a
couch inside the tenant space for customers to smoke inside. This type of business is not
impacted by the smoking ban going into effect state-wide this July.
In 2006 there had been an approved Special Use and public hearing for the relocation of this
business from 4396 Loomis to this current location at 4267 W. Layton.
Hours of Operation: Remain at 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily.
5
PC 4-13-10
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of a Special Use
Review for Mohammed Siddiqui as the new business owner of Smokers Paradise, 4267 W.
Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #621-9957-001. Motion carried
unanimously.
10.
Akil Ajmeri, Fahim LLC, 2714 4 ½ Mile Road, Racine, WI 53402, requests a Special Use
Review as the new business owner of the existing Greenfield 66 (Phillips 66 station), 4710 S.
108th Street, Tax Key # 613-8995.
1.
2.
3.
Background: A change in ownership has occurred. The nature of the operation will remain
the same. In 2006 was the last ownership change at this location and in 2007 there was an
amendment pertaining to an expanded hours of operation provided an employee is on-site.
Hours of Operation: This new owner states the hours-of-operation to be 5:00 AM-to10:30 PM.
Miscellaneous: There had been a business ownership issue as it relates to the cigarette
license and beer license, and potential sales of product without proper license(s). Based
upon City Clerk email from the Dept. of Revenue and their visit to the site, that issue has
been resolved. Once the Special Use Review process is completed, then the full transfer of
license(s) to Mr. Ajmeri can occur.
Mr. Ajmeri was present to address any questions.
Motion by Mr. Sponholz, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Special Use
Review for Akil Ajmeri as the new business owner of the existing Greenfield 66 (Phillips 66
station), 4710 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize
this item to be expedited to the April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #613-8995.
11.
Marsel Feto, 7491 S. Manitowoc Avenue, Oak Creek, WI 53154, requests a Special Use for the
purpose of opening a pizzeria and sandwich delivery/carry-out business in a vacant tenant
space at 6131 W. Cold Spring Road; in 2008 „Crunch-Time sub-sandwich/coffee shop‟
had been approved in this same location but has been closed for at least a year, Tax Key
#603-9999-001.
1.
2.
Background: Marsel Feto asks for a Special Use Permit to open an Italian pizzeria
restaurant in the vacant tenant space; business is mainly carry-out and delivery. See
attached narrative, floor plan, and preliminary menu.
In 2008 the Crunch-Time Sub-Sandwich Shop was approved at this location and has since
closed. See attached CC public hearing minutes and PC comments for that earlier request.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Modifications to the current interior include two
proposed walls:
6
PC 4-13-10
A new wall to separate a waiting room from the kitchen.
A new wall to separate the kitchen space from an area which will contain the dish room,
freezer, cooler and back fire exit.
3.
4.
Hours of Operation: Proposed hours are 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily.
Provide asphalt paved surface for existing gravel parking lot at rear of building.
Recommend curbing along perimeter of parking lot.
Provide detailed pavement spot grades and ensure positive drainage for all proposed
improvements. An existing 48-inch storm sewer is available along the west property
line for connection by any necessary storm catchments.
Recommendation: Approve the Special Use request subject to PC and staff comments, and
authorize the public hearing process to proceed.
Marsel Feto was present to answer questions. Mayor Neitzke stated that there needs to a review by
the Fire Dept. as to if there is a need for a fire suppression system for this type of business, as the last
tenant did not require it. Ald. Kastner questioned the likelihood of the asphalt work being completed
to which Mayor Neitzke stated it is the owner‟s responsibility to maintain it and on a timely basis,
proceed with the paving so that non-conforming element is eliminated.
the purpose of Marsel Feto opening a pizzeria and sandwich delivery/carry-out business in a
vacant tenant space at 6131 W. Cold Spring Road; subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize the public hearing process to begin, Tax Key #603-9999-001. Motion
12.
Stephanie Huff, The Exclusive Club, 5026 S. 74th Street, Greenfield, WI 53220 requests a
Special Use for the purpose of buying, selling, and trading used CDs, DVDs, games, and LPs at
this location in the „Greenfield Place‟ retail center, Tax Key #617-9975-024.
1.
Background: The Exclusive Company has been at the “Greenfield Center” since 1992
selling new CDs, DVDs, games, LPs, and other music accessories (see attached narrative).
In addition to continuing to sell these new products, another feature of their business is to
now buy/sell/trade used versions of these same products, which is creating the need for the
Special Use.
Also attached are excerpts of the SIC Code (Standard Industrial Classification). The nature
of their primary business is categorized as “5735 Record & Prerecorded Tape Stores” which
is a „P-Permitted Use‟ in the PUD District. This „secondhand‟ aspect typically would be
covered under “5932 Used Merchandise Stores”. A review of the SIC table in the Zoning
Code indicates a “blank” for 5932 under the PUD section; this means „not allowed‟.
However, staff believes that since the primary nature of the business is unchanged, the
ability to buy/sell/trade used products as an accessory component of the business is okay
given that a special use request has been made.
7
PC 4-13-10
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments with the understanding that all
applicable Municipal Code requirements pertaining to “secondhand article dealers” be complied with
by this applicant, consider this a minor change not needing a public hearing, and authorize this item
to be expedited to the April 20th Common Council meeting.
Mayor Neitzke questioned if the City Attorney had given his opinion as to if this is to be considered
a minor change to which Mr. Erickson said he did not ask him yet. Mr. Erickson spoke on the newly
created ordinance for secondhand dealers that was implemented due to the desire of the Police Dept.
to attempt to control the trafficking of CD‟s and DVD‟s that has been occurring. It was discussed
that there should be input from the Police Dept. on this before it forwards on to the April 20 th
Common Council meeting and if that is not feasible, or if the City Attorney deems it a major change,
then may need to be moved to the May 4th Common Council meeting.
for the purpose of buying, selling, and trading used CDs, DVDs, games, and LPs at The
Exclusive Company, 5026 S. 74th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
consider this to be a minor change not needing a public hearing, that being dependent upon the
City Attorney‟s review, with this item to be forwarded onto the Police Dept. for comment
before the April 20th Common Council meeting, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #617-9975-024. Motion carried unanimously.
13.
Mark Silber, Fin N Feather, 4060 W. Loomis Road, Greenfield, WI requests a Special Use
amendment/Site, Building & Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a 20‟ x 32‟
outdoor patio at this location, Tax Key #600-0122/0123.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Background: In preparation for the upcoming state-wide smoking ban in taverns, Mr.
Silber wants to construct a 20‟ x 32‟ covered outdoor concrete patio adjacent to the existing
entrance to FnF – see attached narrative and building plans. In Mr. Silber‟s letter, he makes
a reference to a “plan change”. Originally he had proposed the same sized area, but had
split it by having a „smoking room‟ and the covered patio combination.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The roof will match the existing shingles and
the patio roof is supported by vaulted trusses. The „open‟ area is the entire south and east
sides of the patio. Access to/from the patio is only from the inside where an existing
window will be replaced with a patio door. The perimeter of the patio includes a 3‟ high
railing/fence element. Although not shown on the plans, then intention is to provide ADA
handicap accessible entrance to existing building.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: It appears that the building addition
will eliminate 2 – 3 existing parking spaces. At the same time, adding floor space increases
the parking needed. Mr. Silber is working on an updated site plan to help verify that the
overall parking requirements for the facility, with the patio added, are met. He owns the ½
acre adjacent lot (600-0122) which is used for the existing parking area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Bushes are proposed along the outside of the railing/fence
area. Species needs to be identified.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: Landscaping security at 125% of
landscaping costs will be necessary, with 30% retained for two years after initial planting.
Furthermore, an on-going condition of subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will
be subject to annual review by the City to make sure all landscaping features are still be
maintained, and any dead/dying landscaping is replaced as necessary.
Fire Department: Fire Dept. has been asked to review potential sprinkler needs, and
whether or not a second „exit only‟ gate is needed from the patio area.
8
PC 4-13-10
7.
8.
Miscellaneous: As indicated below, the staff recommendation is to consider this a “minor
change” (i.e. not needing a public hearing). The reason being is that the proposed patio
location is over 400‟ from the closest residential structures on the east side of 43 rd Street.
Recommend combining the two (2) separate parcels.
Recommend removal for a significant amount of asphalt parking lot located within West
Loomis Road (STH „36‟) right-of-way. Reconfigure and expand the parking lot as
necessary.
conditions.
Recommendation: Approve both requests subject to PC and staff comments, consider this a minor
change not needing a public hearing, and expediting this item to the April 20 th Common Council
meeting.
Mr. & Mrs. Silber were present to answer questions. Mrs. Hallen questioned why the plans have
changed to not having a covered roof. Mrs. Silber said what they are presenting is compliant with
the upcoming regulations and they didn‟t want to spend any more money than they had to. The wall
will be concrete block in an oyster color which complements building and there will be lannon stone
pillars with lights on them. Mayor Neitzke stated that the City Attorney would need to determine if
this would be considered a minor change or a major change based on where at the property the point
for the 400‟radius would be determined.
amendment/Site, Building & Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a 20‟ x 32‟
outdoor patio at Fin N Feather, 4060 W. Loomis Road, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, with any future additional parking improvements being required to come before
the Plan Commission, with the City Attorney to review this item to determine if it should be
considered a minor change or a major change, authorize this item to be expedited to the
April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #600-0122/0123. Motion carried unanimously.
14.
Paul Bouraxis, El Beso LLC, 4635 S. 108th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228, represented by
Bob Williams, TDI Associates, N8 W22350 Johnson Road, Suite B-4, Waukesha, WI 53186
requests a PUD amendment/Special Use amendment/Site, Building, & Landscaping Review for
the purpose of converting the Champps Restaurant at 5030 S. 74 th Street into “El Beso
Restaurant”; the conversion includes both interior and exterior modifications, along with an
outdoor patio area with a six foot high stucco screen wall around it, Tax Key #617-9975-023.
1.
2.
Background: Champps Restaurant is going to be under new ownership and they want to
convert it to an “El Beso Restaurant” (i.e. similar to “El Fuego” at 9th & Layton because
these are the same owners). There will be exterior and interior building elevation changes,
and a larger outdoor patio than what had been approved last October for Champps. See
attached March 25th narrative along with pictures of El Fuego as a comparable, and the
site/building/floor layout plans. Also attached are pictures of the existing building from all
four corners.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The building exterior will be modified in
two ways. One will include a small addition near the northwest corner of the building for
storage of the patio furniture and the other addition is for a larger more functional vestibule
on the east side of the building. A total of four 2-story looking facades which replicate a
9
PC 4-13-10
French door with a balcony above with the Spanish tile roof and wrought iron railings are
proposed with two „units‟ on the east and two „units‟ on the west elevation. The screen wall
(6‟ high) around the patio will have openings in the wall with wrought iron railings to secure
the openings and some decorative lighting.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Staff believes that on the north elevation where a stucco wall is also proposed, but to
replace the existing wood fence screening, that the same architectural theme be continued
on its exterior as shown for the west elevation patio wall.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Essentially the same parking field
and traffic layout will be retained. But in conjunction with this project, the property owner
will be adding some signage at the entrance at 74th and Holmes to provide directional
information and enhance the overall appearance of the center. At all the stop signs with
pedestrian crossings, there will be painted cross walks and caution signs added to facilitate
easier and safer pedestrian traffic. Two directional signs will be installed to direct
customers to additional parking locations within the center.
Within the parking area immediately east of the entrance, handicapped stalls are provided.
One of the things missing is a painted cross walk from those stalls to the entrance ramp.
Utilities: See engineering comments.
Signage: Proposed wall signage will be distributed upon receipt.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Will continue to use the existing area on the
north side of the building.
Fencing: A side-profile, cut-sheet is being prepared for the 6‟ high stucco screen wall
which is built over concrete block.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: The exterior landscaping will be redone to include more of a
Mexican theme and will be enhanced along the patio screen wall. A landscaping plan will
be distributed upon receipt.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: Landscaping security is based upon a
125% of landscaping costs, with 30% retained for two years after initial planting.
Furthermore, an on-going condition of subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will
be subject to annual review by the City to make sure all landscaping features are still be
maintained, and any dead/dying landscaping is replaced as necessary.
City Forester Site Inspection: Since there are established trees along the east edge of the
sidewalk (i.e. immediately west of the patio screen wall), the construction of that wall needs
to be done in a manner which is “tree-friendly” (if possible). The City Forester will be able
to offer construction techniques which would be applicable in this instance to minimize the
potential damage to the „root-ball‟ when the footing for the patio wall is installed.
Hours of Operation: Needs to be identified.
Sidewalks: The patio area shows that a wood gate exit only feature is provided at the
northwest area of the patio. That exit will need a 5‟ x 5‟ concrete landing and some
verification about the grade of that area around the landing.
Fire Department: Clarification needed on whether the fireplace shown in the
southwest corner of the patio uses gas or wood.
PUD Requirements: Since this is a PUD area, this proposed site/building plan needs to
be included in a PUD amendment document, which the City will draft initially.
Miscellaneous: Attached is a March 19th letter from Mr. Etter (Champps) indicating that
they will be closing May 22nd.
10
PC 4-13-10
16.
Include an egress provision for the outdoor patio area.
Provide a drainage system for the enclosed outdoor patio area.
It appears that a private 18-inch storm sewer is located beneath the southwest corner of
the proposed outdoor patio area. A branch water main service is also located in the
vicinity. Verify that the stucco screen wall and related foundation will not conflict with
these existing utilities.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, but consider this proposal as a
major change, and authorize the public hearing process to proceed (i.e. the staff intention would be to
present all these elements at the same Common Council meeting for consideration).
Bob Williams with TDI was present to answer questions. Mr. Williams gave a brief presentation,
stating that there would be about $500,000 spent on the renovations, with construction being
completed in 5-6 months. Mr. Hess questioned the location of the water fountain feature to which
Mr. Williams replied that one or two fountains are planned to be installed on the outside and also
several smaller, more ornate ones on the inside.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a PUD
amendment/Special Use amendment/Site, Building, & Landscaping Review for the purpose of
converting the Champps Restaurant at 5030 S. 74th Street into “El Beso Restaurant”; the
conversion includes both interior and exterior modifications, along with an outdoor patio area
with a six foot high stucco screen wall around it, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize the public hearing process to begin but with the understanding that
the Mayor will talk with the City Attorney on the “major/minor” changes aspect regarding this
project to determine if a public hearing is actually needed. Tax Key #617-9975-023. Motion
15.
Tim Knepprath, MSI General, PO Box 7, Oconomowoc, WI 53066, representing Cornerstone
Tinley Park LLC (owner), requests a Site, Building, & Landscaping Review for the purpose of
demolishing the southern most 30‟ of the Outback Plaza building at 4820 – 4846 S. 76th Street
for the purpose of installing a one-way drive aisle to provide better access to the parking area
on the east side of the building and to construct a decorative tower feature at the northwest
and southwest corners of the building, Tax Key #617-9983-012.
1.
Background: The owner of Outback Plaza proposes to complete the following
improvements to the site (see attached March 19th letter and supporting materials):
Demo the Southern most portion of the building and install a one-way curbed driveway
(from west to east) to provide better access to the parking area on the East side of the
building.
Combine the two smaller tenant spaces on the south end of the existing building into one
approx. 4,000 s.f. tenant for a new retail user.
Construct a decorative tower feature at the southwest corner of the building. This tower
feature will be similar to other tower features and includes a new entrance door for the
proposed tenant.
Construct a decorative tower feature at the northwest corner of the building. This tower
feature will be similar to the existing towers on the west elevation. Although approval
of this element is being requested at this time, the actual construction may be done at a
later date.
11
PC 4-13-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The intention with the above description is to
match the existing exterior products as close as possible, and this includes the EIFS, brick,
decorative CMUs, and light fixtures. One of the aspects of removing this “south end” is that
it enables the contractor to gain access to what was the original south wall. The elevation
sheet indicates that the condition of the existing windows will be evaluated following the
demo of the portion of the building and removal of existing interior finishes.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The one-way aisle will enable customers
to gain access to the east side parking area, if the west is full, without having to leave the
parcel.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): The curbing and asphalting will be graded in a manner to
“split” the drainage of the new drive. Some will go to the existing catch-basin on the east
side of the building, and some will drain westerly to the catch-basin on 76th St.
Lighting (building & site): Decorative matching „hook-type‟ fixtures will be added.
Signage: Each of the „raised façade‟ elements includes a space for wall signage as needed
by any respective tenant.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Will continue to use the dumpster at the
southeast corner of the building.
Fencing: There are three trellis-like structures right on the edge of the lot line for the
adjacent property (4848 S. 76th) immediately to the south. There is an „Engineering
Comment‟ regarding this aspect, and so it is suggested that prior to any construction
proceeding that efforts be made to contact the building owner (or property manager) to
review this project with them so they are aware of it and any potential impact to the 4848
parcel.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: This site is and always has been „landscaped challenged‟. Staff
has not pursued adding more landscaping because of the tight site and need for all the
parking which can be made available. Maintaining what exists along the west lot line
remains as an on-going responsibility.
Sidewalks: Part of the building removal aspect also creates space for a 5‟ wide sidewalk
along the south side of the building.
Erosion Control: Will be needed from the Engineering Dept. prior to construction getting
started.
A portion of the proposed sidewalk and access drive are higher than the existing
building‟s finished floor elevation. Ensure that the adequate water-proofing measures
are provided for the building perimeter.
In the absence of prior authorization from adjacent property owner, grading activities
shall remain entirely upon the subject parcel.
Tim Knepprath with MSI General was present to answer questions and gave a brief summary of the
presented plans.
12
PC 4-13-10
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a Site,
Building, & Landscaping Review for the purpose of demolishing the southern most 30‟ of the
Outback Plaza building at 4820 – 4846 S. 76th Street for the purpose of installing a one-way
drive aisle to provide better access to the parking area on the east side of the building and to
construct a decorative tower feature at the northwest and southwest corners of the building,
April 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key # 617-9983-012.
16.
Follow-up review of a City staff request done initially at the January, 2010 PC regarding a
potential a Special Use Revocation process being started for All-Phase Auto & Electric
(formerly known as Signature Auto) at 3320 W. Howard Avenue, Tax Key #553-8999. Agenda
and staff notes were sent to the property owner: Greg Schaal, 5311 S. 9 th Street, Milwaukee,
WI 53221-3630; and the current occupant: Ken Calabrese, Jr., 3320 W. Howard Avenue,
Greenfield, WI 53221. [[Action taken then was to review this matter at the April PC.]]
1.
Background: At the January PC, there was a review of this existing use (see attached
meeting minutes excerpt). Also attached is a January 12th letter from Mr. Calabrese
(business owner) regarding this matter and some site pictures at the time.
Staff will report that positive efforts have been made by Mr. Calabrese concerning his
business operation at that site to address the issues brought up a few months ago. More
current pictures of the site will be presented at the meeting.
Recommendation: Withdraw Staff recommendation from January to start the revocation process.
However, the expectation is that the efforts made by Mr. Calabrese over the past few months to
modify his business operation plan to be more consistent with what had been originally approved for
this site, will continue into the future so that the possibility of this type of potential procedure does
not have to be re-examined.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend that this item be “placed
on-file” as per staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
17.
Ald. Tom Pietrowski is requesting that a review of the Special Use Permit for Mad Dog Saloon,
4395 S. 76th Street, Greenfield, WI 53220 be initiated, Tax Key #605-9979-002. Agenda and
staff notes were sent to the property owner, Tom La Licata, at this business address.
1.
Background: Ald. Pietrowski has submitted a request asking the PC to review the Special
Use which Mr. La Licata has at this location for Mad Dog Saloon under a provision of the
ZC pertaining to “adverse impact” within the context of a special use. See attached
extensive packet of materials from the alderperson which includes excerpts of the “Special
Use” section of the ZC, copies of Police Dept. “Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to
this property, copies of various emails he has received concerning Mad Dog, and a petition
signed by approx. 40 people requesting the City to “not renew the special use permit” for
Mad Dog.
Beyond the materials which Ald. Pietrowski has prepared, staff has done some further
review as well. The property files on this parcel provide some history on the nature of the
uses over the past +25 years:
13
PC 4-13-10
1983:
1991:
1993:
2001:
2006:
2009:
Al‟s Rib House (restaurant/bar)
Solid Gold (restaurant/bar)
Grand Champion Grille (restaurant/bar)
Milwaukee Grill (restaurant/bar)
Boulder Junction (restaurant/bar)
Mad Dog Saloon (bar/restaurant)
In 2006 Mr. La Licata received a “Special Use Review” approval as the new owner the
former Milwaukee Grill. In the PC minutes for that action a little over four years ago (see
attached), the hours of operation were identified for the restaurant (11 a.m. – 11 p.m.) and
the bar (use normal bar time hours as allowed by statute).
Prior to the conversion of Boulder Junction to Mad Dog, staff (Erickson) met with Mr.
La Licata to discuss his project. Included in that conversation was the aspect of “…what
processing would be needed…”. At that time, staff determined that other than a building
permit (interior changes) and a sign permit that no further PC/CC review was necessary for a
use which would now become more of a “bar which also serves food” versus “a restaurant
which also has a bar”. That determination was based upon the following:
Property/business ownership was not changing.
Exterior building changes were not occurring.
The ZC Parking requirements for a „bar/tavern‟ and a „restaurant‟ are identical with the
20 stalls per 1,000 s.f.
The proposed use was comparable to what the historical use pattern which existed at this
parcel. All these prior business had an alcohol license which enables them to stay open
until “normal bar times”. From an operational perspective, the fact that they generally
did not stay open that late, wasn‟t limited by any „special use‟ feature.
The manner in which the Special Use Review was originally approved for the owner of
the business (Boulder Junction) with the reference to the ability of a bar to be open as
per statutory allowed bar times, was important.
In retrospect, yes, there could have been a „special use amendment‟ process done. That would
have enabled more of an upfront „…this is happening…‟ type of advanced notice to occur. But
staff doesn‟t believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that if an amendment process had been done prior
to the change-over, would have enabled any greater or lesser special use requirements than
whatever already obligates a person/business with an existing “Class B” License.
Admittedly this isn‟t an exact „apples to apples‟ comparison, but there is a recent example of
where an ownership change of a restaurant/bar property occurred which did involve a
“Special Use Review” and that was at the February, 2010 PC meeting. This is when James
Letizia submitted a request to re-open the „Las Palmas‟ at 6869 Forest Home (see attached
meeting minutes excerpt). In this instance he has a restaurant which has a bar, that can be
open to statutory bar times.
Recommendation: Take no action at this meeting. Ald. Pietrowski, some neighbors, and Mr.
La Licata will be present to provide their opinions/perspectives on this matter which the PC needs to
hear/discuss/consider. Defer any action at least one month to allow further deliberation to take
place.
14
PC 4-13-10
Tom LaLicata, the owner, and John Fuchs‟, Mr. LaLicata‟s attorney, were present. Mr. Erickson
gave some background information on this item. Ald. Tom Pietrowski spoke on how the neighbors
really feel let down by the City in addressing their concerns. He spoke on the activities that have
been occurring and in turn creating an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Fuchs stressed
that since this is not a hearing, he is here because it was noticed, and thus he suggests the City seek
the assistance of the City Attorney for guidance. He stated he doesn‟t know if he is here tonight to
review conditions or if this is a revocation proceeding.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on some concerns that have come up at Mad Dog: the capacity issues, the
fencing issue, security issues and mediation/nuisance issues. Mayor Neitzke said the owner does
have security in place and has been receptive to some of the neighbor‟s concerns. He said all of the
issues of concern to both the neighbors and to Mr. LaLicata are still in the process of being reviewed
by staff, and any action will need to follow the legal process guidelines. He said that in order to not
jeopardize any legal rights the City and the owner have, he would prefer this matter be held over in
its same form and be placed on the next Plan Commission agenda (May 11), and between now and
then that the City Attorney provide counsel and also be present at that meeting.
Item held over.
18.
James Letizia, S56 W22730 Woodside Drive, Waukesha, WI 53159 requests a Site/Building
Review for his “Diamond Jim‟s” bar/restaurant, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue, Tax Key
#571-8957-002.
1.
2.
Background: Mr. Letizia received his Special Use Review approval this past February (see
attached PC minutes). He has been working with an architect to create some improved
exterior building design.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Essentially the project involves the
following:
Removal of the older „brown‟ canvas awning/canopy which had been on the entire front
façade.
Construct an entrance tower element which is approx. 12‟ x 15‟, and 19‟ high. This
tower element has a shingle roof component, along with a 4‟ x 6‟ sign feature built-in on
two sides of the tower. It will have a matching wood lap siding, windows, black awning,
and wall accent lighting.
Wall accent lighting will be strategically placed between the front façade window.
New awning will be only “over” its window so that more of the existing lannon stone
can be made visible.
Some wood painted window shutters are included.
A new top-of-wall metal coping is installed.
3.
4.
5.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: At a future meeting, Mr. Letizia will be
presenting a proposal for re-doing the parking lot, potentially including some of the
WE Energies land near the northeast corner of the building.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): A new catch-basin had been installed in the parking
lot when the Las Palmas use started.
Lighting (building & site): Accent lighting, as indicated above, will be added to the
facades visible from Forest Home and from the parking lot.
15
PC 4-13-10
6.
7.
8.
Signage: Included in the tower element, on the building, and with the monument sign. Mr.
Letizia has proposed having a 2‟ x 8‟ electronic reader added to the top of the existing
monument. The overall signage package will be handled via a separate Sign Permit
application. The total signable area for this parcel is approx. 150 s.f.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Will use existing dumpster enclosure.
Fencing: An existing wood fence is along the lot lines where residential is the abutting use.
Mike Peine was present to answer questions and gave a brief summary of the presented plans.
Mayor Neitzke said he believes this should be considered a minor change. After discussion it was
determined that this needs to be reviewed by the City Attorney to determined if this is to be
considered a minor change or a major change.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner, to recommend approval of a
Site/Building Review for “Diamond Jim‟s” bar/restaurant, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, with this request to be considered a minor
change subject to the determination of the City Attorney, and with understanding that the
parking reconfiguration and any portion associated with the We Energies parcel need to
return to the Plan Commission, and authorize this item to be expedited to the April 20 th
Common Council meeting. Tax Key #571-8957-002.
19.
Review draft ordinance to change the Zoning Code related to “Secondhand Jewelry Dealers”
in the C-1/2/3/4/5 Districts; this is being done in conjunction with separate Municipal Code
changes initiated by the Police Dept. for Chapter 13 (Licenses & Permits) and Chapter 3
(Finance).
1.
Background: The Police Dept. has proposed Municipal Code changes pertaining to
“pawnbrokers”, “secondhand article dealers”, and “ secondhand jewelry dealers” (see
attached excerpt of material submitted to the Legislative Committee. One of those desired
changes was that the above uses also be designated as „Special Uses‟.
Currently “pawnbrokers” and “secondhand article dealers” are already designated as Special
Uses. The attached proposed ordinance simply designates “secondhand jewelry dealers” in
the same category to be consistent with the proposed ordinance modifications from the
Police Dept.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, and forward this item to the
Legislative Committee with a favorable recommendation. Assuming the Leg. Com. will also have a
favorable recommendation to the CC, then a public hearing will be held at a future Common Council
meeting (i.e. all Zoning Code changes – text and/or mapping – need a public hearing).
Mr. Erickson gave some background information on this item.
16
PC 4-13-10
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to forward a favorable recommendation
to the Legislative Committee to change the Zoning Code related to “Secondhand Jewelry
Dealers” in the C-1/2/3/4/5 Districts; this is being done in conjunction with separate Municipal
Code changes initiated by the Police Dept. for Chapter 13 (Licenses & Permits) and Chapter 3
(Finance). Motion carried unanimously.
20.
Ald. Kastner and Mr. Erickson spoke briefly on a „senior housing research report‟ identified by
Ald. Kastner and discussion followed amongst the Plan Commissioners.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on the proposed housing project at 94th & Layton and how he was asked
to, and did, complete a “Letter of Support” for its funding. as it is tax subsidized. He expects
this item to return to the Plan Commission within a month or two.
Mayor Neitzke brought up the housing project that had come before the Plan Commission
previously in the area behind House of Harley at 60th & Layton and asked if there was any
update on this. Mr. Erickson said they were still trying to get a feel for some of the regular
activities that occur at Harley and then take it from there as to how desirable apartments may
or may not be in this area.
Mayor Neitzke brought up how the City has received a traffic study for Layton Avenue and
Hwy. 100 in conjunction with a potential Super Wal-Mart and it appears Wal-Mart will be
moving ahead with their plans. He also spoke on Ultimate Electronic‟s possible interest in the
former Circuit City store.
21.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Marciniak, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
22.
May 11, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed April 27, 2010
17
PC 4-13-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
1.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
Chuck Erickson, Community Development Manager
Atty. Roger Pyzyk
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Ms. Collins to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2010
Regular Meeting.
Mayor Neitzke asked that the April 13th meeting minutes be corrected to reflect the following: His
concerns at issues that have come up at Mad Dog, such as the capacity issues, the fencing issue,
security issues and mediation/nuisance issues. Mayor Neitzke said the owner does have security in
place and has been receptive to some of the neighbor‟s concerns. He said all of the issues of concern
to both the neighbors and to Mr. LaLicata are still in the process of being reviewed by staff, and any
action will need to follow the legal process guidelines. He said in order to not jeopardize any legal
rights the City and the owner have, he would prefer this matter to be held over in its same form and
be placed on the next Plan Commission agenda (May 11), and between now and then that the City
attorney provide counsel and also be present at that meeting. He also stated that there has been an
impact on the adjacent neighborhood and that he has recommended to the Board of Public Works
parking restrictions on Forest Home and Allerton Avenue to mitigate the impact that parking and
traffic patterns have on the adjacent neighborhood and that he encouraged all those in attendance
regarding this issue at the April meeting to attend the May meeting.
Mr. Erickson pointed out that the motion for Item #5 referenced “Bill‟s Auto Tech” when it should
have referenced “Valley USA” and this correction needs to be made to the minutes.
Motion for approval of the April 13th minutes with the above corrections carried 5-0-2 with
Mr. Marciniak and Mr. Dorszynski abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on April 20th & May 4th. At the April 20th
meeting all ten items referred on from the April 13th Plan Commission were adopted by the Common
Council. At the May 4th meeting the El Beso (former Chammps) conversion was acted on and
considered a minor change not needing a public hearing. Also, there was action for the Cigarette
Mart on their Special Use request with approval given to create one tenant space for the Cigarette
Mart business and one tenant space for the Smoker‟s Lounge at the College Green Center at 27th &
College. Both spaces will be kept separate so that one could not gain access between these two
spaces without going outside.
1
PC 5-11-10
4.
Public commentary regarding Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street, Greenfield, WI 53220.
Item held over from the April Plan Commission meeting. Tax Key #605-9979-002.
1.
Background: [[As a follow-up to the April PC, the purpose of this meeting is to formally
enable public commentary to be heard and discussed by the PC. Accordingly, these staff
notes and the various attachments are identical to what was distributed for the April PC,
however, there is one exception. That exception is that Atty. Fuchs, on behalf of Mad Dog
Saloon, had submitted since that earlier meeting “…petitions in support of maintaining the
special use permit…”. The heading on those petitions are categorized as “Greenfield
Resident” and “Non-Greenfield Resident”. Finally, the City Attorney will be present at this
meeting.]]
Ald. Pietrowski has submitted a request asking the PC to review the Special Use which
Mr. La Licata has at this location for Mad Dog Saloon under a provision of the ZC
pertaining to “adverse impact” within the context of a special use. See attached extensive
packet of materials from the alderperson which includes excerpts of the “Special Use”
section of the ZC, copies of Police Dept. “Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to this
property, copies of various emails he has received concerning Mad Dog, and a petition
Mad Dog.
conditions.
1983: Al‟s Rib House (restaurant/bar)
1991: Solid Gold (restaurant/bar)
1993: Grand Champion Grille (restaurant/bar)
2001: Milwaukee Grill (restaurant/bar)
2006: Boulder Junction (restaurant/bar)
2009: Mad Dog Saloon (bar/restaurant)
former Milwaukee Grill. In the PC minutes for that action a little over four years ago
(see attached), the hours of operation were identified for the restaurant (11 a.m. – 11 p.m.)
and the bar (use normal bar time hours as allowed by statute).
processing would be needed…” At that time, staff determined that other than a building
permit (interior changes) and a sign permit that no further PC/CC review was necessary for
a use which would now become more of a “bar which also serves food” versus “a
restaurant which also has a bar”. That determination was based upon the following:
2
PC 5-11-10
parcel. All these prior business had an alcohol license which enabled them to stay open
In retrospect, yes there could have been a „special use amendment‟ process done. That
would have enabled more of an upfront „…this is happening…‟ type of advanced notice to
occur. But staff doesn‟t believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that if an amendment process had
been done prior to the change-over, would have enabled any greater or lesser special
use requirements than whatever already obligates a person/business with an existing
“Class B” License.
Recommendation: Take no action at this meeting. Ald. Pietrowski, some neighbors, and Mr.
La Licata, Atty. Fuchs, and Atty. Pyzyk will be present to provide their opinions/perspectives on this
matter which the PC needs to hear/discuss/consider. Defer any action at least one month to allow
further deliberation to take place.
City Attorney Roger Pyzyk, Attorney John Fuchs representing the owner, and Dominic LaLicata the
owner‟s son, were present to answer questions. Ald. Pietrowski said that he wanted to make clear
that this is to be a responsive type environment and hoped tonight‟s meeting would follow those
lines.
The following were present and spoke:
Don Gaetz – 7906 W. Allerton. Spoke on the increased traffic, squealing tires, loud music, etc.
occurring from Mad Dog during the late hours.
Keith Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Cited a section of the Adverse Impact Law that states one can live
as they like and do as they like as long as it doesn‟t interfere with the safety and happiness of others.
He spoke of the 4 accidents that have occurred in the parking lot in the past year and how the
building was also hit. He also cited that one patron with an alcohol count of .242 left Mad Dog then
proceeded to drive on the property of eight neighboring homes, causing $6,000 in damage. He is
concerned that so many are leaving Mad Dog impaired by alcohol and are driving the city streets.
He spoke on fights with gun threats and knives, thefts, battery, hit & runs in the parking lots, people
passed out, bar fights, drug usage, etc. He questioned the “stripper pole” and the owners connection
to Crazy Horse and finds their treatment of women degrading. Also questioned their ads speaking of
the “fun beginning” and wonders what type of “fun” is drawing people from so far away as wouldn‟t
one sports bar be the same as another? Just what type of clientele are the owners desiring to attract?
3
PC 5-11-10
John Rygielski – 8231 W. Allerton. Concerned with the amount of traffic speeding through the
neighborhood late at night after Mad Dog‟s closing time
Elaine Colbo – 7704 W. Whitaker. Feels the City needs to help the neighbors with the issues that
Mad Dog is creating. Wants something done now rather than continuing to ignore things until
something serious happens. Also wonders that, with the smoking ban coming up, what additional
problems occur with people loitering outside to smoke.
Brad Fergot – 7916 W. Allerton. Stated that he is a deputy sherriff and spoke on the majority
(60-70%) of patrons leaving Mad Dog are probably headed for the freeway. The change from
past restaurants to a bar has had such an impact on the neighbors that one cannot imagine. He is
awakened at 2:10 a.m., people are speeding, and kids are going to end up getting killed. Also, is
concerned that with the implementation of the smoking ban, patrons will be congregating outside
adding to the disturbance the neighbors are experiencing. As this is in the heart of the community
he asks that the City respect the concerns of the residents and make some changes.
Robert Hogan – 4410 S. 83nd. Said that he lives a few blocks away and therefore doesn‟t hear as
much of the noise, but late at night hears the cars racing and knows that they are not stopping at the
stop sign at the intersection of 83rd & Allerton. Also, has beer bottles and trash on his lawn,
something he has not had a problem with before in the 25 years he has lived there
Ross Consiglio – 8224 W. Allerton. Has lived at this house since 1984 but now has a problem with
debris, beer cans, cars in ditch by his house, etc.
Laura Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Agrees with the other resident‟s comments this evening and also
stated that come closing time there is a lot of yelling and screaming and cars squealing. She
questioned why the bouncers aren‟t outside controlling things. Also talked about how the neighbor‟s
child has been awoken several times from the noise coming from Mad Dog. She referenced how
Mad Dog has had more police calls in one year than the other previous restaurants have had in four
years. Also noted an issue a resident who lives in the condos next to the post office on Forest Home
had, which was communicated to City staff via an email, on how loud it is coming from Mad Dog.
This shows the problem reaches beyond the immediate neighbors.
Kevin Burdick – 7737 W. Allerton. Agrees with the other resident‟s comments this evening and also
stated that even though a fence was erected, it merely blocks out light, not the noise. He is regularly
woken up at 2:00 a.m. from the noise.
Lillian Miller – 7717 W. Allerton. She stated that she has been at this address since 1964. It was
always a nice neighborhood until Mad Dog went in. The noise and pollution are unbearable and
she asks the City for assistance in getting their nice neighborhood back again.
Jeff Powers – 7637 W. Allerton. Agrees with the other resident‟s comments this evening and also
stated that he lives directly behind Mad Dog. He isn‟t here to ask if the City can help Mad Dog, he‟s
here to ask the City to help them the residents. He isn‟t happy that no decision on what to do has
been made yet, as this has been at City meetings 3-4 times. He wonders why the Police Dept. aren‟t
present at closing time since they are aware that there are problems at that time.
Maryanne Staniszewski – 7701 W. Allerton. Stated there is a lot of noise and traffic speeding. She
has lived there a long time and never had a problem until Mad Dog went in.
4
PC 5-11-10
Steve Organ – 7911 W. Bottsford. He is attending the meeting in support of his neighbors. He also
hears the noise on the weekends, has noticed increased traffic and finds it odd that there are no
police cars patrolling the area. If there are known problems at Mad Dog why aren‟t the police going
through the neighborhoods? He has lived here for 20 years and has never experienced anything like
this. He then mentioned the yard damage incident that affected several homes. He feels the adverse
affect Mad Dog is having on the neighborhood will drive down property values in the neighborhood.
Dave Galik – 7835 W. Bottsford. Agrees with the other resident‟s comments this evening and stated
the he gets woken up on the weekends from the noise. He is concerned for the safety of the kids who
lives along Allerton Avenue in regard to the speeding that is occurring.
Matt Seidl – 7847 W. Bottsford. Agrees with the other resident‟s comments this evening and also
has noticed drivers circling the subdivision trying to get out of the neighborhood. It‟s not that hard
to figure out how to get out of the neighborhood, but these are clearly alcohol impaired drivers.
Donna Galik – 7835 W. Bottsford. Commented on the signs in front of the former library with
Greenfield emphasizing “Unity”. She feels like the problems at Mad Dog have created a “unity”
amongst her neighbors in trying to reach the City and have them enact changes to remedy the
problems they are experiencing since Mad Dog went in.
Mayor Neitzke commented that he had stopped at John Rygielski‟s house after the incident with the
truck driving over the lawns and it took out a light pole on his lawn, and that light pole was about
3 feet from the house.
Don Gaetz – 7906 W. Allerton. Mentioned that there are a lot of neighborhood residents that like to
take an evening walk or walk their dog in the summer months. He is concerned that someone is
going to get hit and possibly even killed by one of the drunk drivers leaving Mad Dog.
Atty. John Fuchs, the property owner‟s attorney, spoke that he attended tonight to hear what the
concerns are and from there figure out how to address them. He stated he appreciates the
opportunity to hear the concerns and that he has taken notes on the comments made.
City Atty. Roger Pyzyk pointed out that this isn‟t a special review proceeding here tonight, as the
law would require a more stringent notification/format than what went on here tonight. He noted
that at the April Plan Commission meeting when this item came forward there wasn‟t a forum for
anyone to speak. He stated that Atty. Fuchs had contacted him after the April meeting and Atty.
Pyzyk told him that the way it was held tonight was the way it needed to be formatted on the
agenda so that the people could be heard. He feels that the appropriate way to go forward with this
issue is for Atty. Fuchs and his clients to address what they feel would be solutions to the concerns
being brought forth by the neighbors. After this then it should be determined if these
“recommendations” are agreeable to the Plan Commission before this goes any further. Atty. Pyzyk
said it is appropriate for this item to again return to the June 8 th Plan Commission meeting.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on how all alcohol license are going through the renewal process. The Mad
Dog license was held and the Common Council is looking for guidance on how to proceed. The
Council had agreed to hold this license renewal, however, it is not putting their renewal in jeopardy
of the July deadline. The hope is to arrive at some solution(s) between Mad Dog and the neighbors
by July 1st.
5
PC 5-11-10
Atty. Pyzyk stated that he has had meetings with the Police Dept. and Mad Dog and also
conversations with Atty. Fuchs. Mayor Neitzke sees the main concerns, as brought forth by the
neighbors, to be increased traffic in the neighborhood, late night noise, trash and safety concerns in
regard to the speeding that is occurring throughout the neighborhood.
Mrs. Hallen stated the petition from Mad Dog, that was included in tonight‟s packet, had signatures
from approximately 100 people in support of Mad Dog that were obtained by Mad Dog.
Atty. Fuchs said they want to meet to resolve any issues ASAP. They will try to be comprehensive.
Also, while a possible revocation proceeding would be considered a matter of litigation, Atty Fuchs
said he wanted to state publicly that they are not adverse to the City, staff, or committees releasing
anything they may have on file to the neighbors.
Ross Consiglio – 8224 W. Allerton. Said his understanding was that the owners may want to one
day turn Mad Dog into a strip club. Atty. Pyzyk said both he and the Police Dept. have addressed
that with the owners and they do not have any intention to do that.
Keith Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Also feels that Mad Dog needs to better instruct their bartenders
on cutting people off from alcohol. Atty. Pyzyk stated that both he and the Police Dept. have
addressed that with the owners.
Atty. Fuchs reiterated on behalf of the owners that they have no intention of becoming a strip club.
Laura Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Wonders why, if there are no intentions of this becoming a strip
club, there is a stripper pole inside. She also questioned why the Police Chief is not in attendance
tonight. She also asked if a special Plan Commission meeting could be called in two weeks to
continue addressing this item, rather than waiting for the regular monthly meeting. She‟d like a
timeline for resolving these issues.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on Ald. Pietrowski‟s and the Council‟s reaction to this item and that there is a
sense of urgency in this being resolved.
Ald. Pietrowski spoke on how Greenfield has three ordinances relating to noise: Chapter 8 pertains
to vehicles, Chapter 21 deals with the creation of excessive noise in adjacent areas, and Chapter 10
which states that no person shall make, or continue, or cause to make any loud, disturbing or
unnecessary sounds or noises, that may tend to annoy or disturb a person of ordinary sensibilities
about any public street, alley or private residence. He stressed that these issues have been going on
for nearly one year now. With these issues dragging out, these neighbors have now lost their
ordinary sensibilities and now their senses are heightened as to what is going on there day after day.
He feels part of the problem is the neighbors have had no voice up until now. He questioned if the
Mayor‟s powers are not that of the Chief Operating Officer of the City and couldn‟t he, in turn,
direct the police department to do certain things. At this point Atty. Pyzyk questioned what Ald.
Pietrowski is asking for and stated that it is unfair to accuse the Mayor of being inactive on this issue
by not instructing the Police to respond, as the Police Dept. has been out there, but they obviously
are not there 24/7.
6
PC 5-11-10
Atty. Pyzyk feels that the Mayor having “police power” is the wrong inference in this case. Again,
Ald. Pietrowski questioned does the Mayor not have direct authority over the Police Dept. to which
Atty. Pyzyk responded that yes, he is the Chief Executive Officer of the City, however the daily
operation of the Police Dept. is left to the Chief of the department.
Mrs. Hallen stated that the police logs show that they have made numerous building checks at this
location; more so than at other businesses.
Mayor Neitzke stated that on March 26th he sent an email to Board of Public Works members and
City staff in regard to traffic and safety in the adjacent neighborhood. He then proceeded to read that
email regarding the frontage road, and how it should be designated as “no parking” as it is narrow
and dangerous when fully parked, usually on the weekends. Mad Dog‟s patrons that park on the
north side of the street use the frontage road as a conduit to 79 th Street, to the west to Allerton, then
ultimately on to 94, traveling through the neighborhood and often times at high rates of speed. He‟d
like to expand “no parking” on Allerton further west with specific times associated with it so to not
affect residents. He‟d also like “no U-Turn” signs posted along intersections along 76th Street. He
asked that City staff provide input on these items and that it be placed on the next Board of Public
Works agenda, if possible.
Mayor Neitzke also noted that the Plan Commission was not supportive of a plan brought forth two
months ago by Mad Dog to use the Rogan‟s Shoes lot across the street. It was denied because it
wasn‟t adjacent to the business and there wasn‟t a marked cross-walk along 76th Street.
He spoke on the number of emails he has gotten from residents along with the phone calls and site
visits he has made in regard to issues at Mad Dog. He stressed that the City is actively trying to
address these concerns. He also pointed out that last fall the Plan Commission and Common Council
acted quickly to get the fence installed and also City staff has started the process to vacate the alley
in the area.
Laura Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Stated that the neighbors are not asking for a police car at Mad
Dog 24/7, but are asking for a squad there at closing time which, given the problems there, is
reasonable. Also, questioned what a “business check” is. Atty. Pyzyk responded as to what a
“business check‟ is by stating that these checks are not generated due to a complaint, but rather the
Police Dept. goes into establishments to ensure that they are in compliance with procedures.
Laura Barton – 7722 W. Allerton. Questioned underage patrons at Mad Dog. Atty. Pyzyk said that
the business check procedures are also checking into this. Atty. Pyzyk said that the Police Chief, or
his representative, could perhaps attend the next Plan Commission meeting (June 8 th) to address
concerns.
Maryanne Staniszewski – 7701 W. Allerton. Stated that the fence isn‟t benefiting her as she still has
stones in her bushes on her side and also grease was poured down the hill into her bushes, prompting
a police call. After the police call and Ald. Pietrowski‟s involvement the owners finally came and
cleaned up the grease.
Public commentary – No action taken.
7
PC 5-11-10
5.
Tamira Calk, 8950 S. 77th Street, Franklin, WI 53132 requests a Special Use Review as the
new business/property owner of Grainger‟s Pub & Grill, 3400 W. Loomis Road, Tax Key
#576-9998.
1.
Background: Ownership of Grainger‟s Pub & Grill was transferred to Tamira Calk. The
transfer of ownership requires a Special Use Review of a prior approval:
Grainger‟s Pub & Grill received a Special Use Permit at this location in 1995. The
hours of operation were approved were the statutory „bar-times‟ which are from 6:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. on Friday
and Saturday.
to be expedited to the May 18th Common Council meeting.
Tamira Calk was present to answer any questions.
Review for Tamira Calk as the new business/property owner of Grainger‟s Pub & Grill,
3400 W. Loomis Road, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this
item to be authorized to the May 18th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #576-9998. Motion
6.
Nathaniel Hoffman, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., 555 E. Wells Street, Suite 1900,
Milwaukee, WI 53202 requests a property title restriction “release” (from 1955) and
“amendment” (from 1957) as it pertains to the Layton Plaza retail center, 7477 W. Layton
Avenue, Tax Key #617-0082-004.
1.
Background: Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek (WHD) represents the current owner of Layton
Plaza Shopping Center. Layton Plaza wants to sell the shopping center but there are some
title exceptions dating back to 1955 and 1957 which for whatever reason(s), were not
previously addressed whenever real estate transactions took place here. WHD is working
with the City to address Town/City of Greenfield-related matters and with Milwaukee
County on their related matters.
Extensive documentation has been prepared and is attached regarding the historical „paper
trail‟ pertaining to this request, and a concise summary is attached as Exhibit A. Essentially
WHD is requesting consideration of the following:
When “Layton Heights” subdivision was created in 1955 by the Town and the County,
there was a designation of the parcel(s) at the northwest corner which is a part of Layton
Plaza as it consists today, for gas station use. If that site were to be discontinued for gas
station use, then the space would be used for off-street parking purposes only. WHD is
requesting a „release‟ of that earlier Agreement.
In 1957 the City passed an ordinance regarding the vacating and discontinued use of the
„public service street and off-street parking‟ areas with the understanding that if the
vacated lands were not used anymore for a gas station or a shopping center, all
8
PC 5-11-10
improvements in the portions of the off-street parking area and vacate the premises. Clearly
the parcel is not used as a gas station – if ever – but has been used as a shopping center for
many years. WHD is requesting an „amendment‟ to the 1957 ordinance releasing the
reservation and permitting the use as a shopping center.
2.
Miscellaneous: WHD will be preparing a resolution encompassing these respective requests,
for the CC to consider.
to expedited to the May 18th Common Council meeting.
Linda Sklenar with Whyte Hirschboeck was present to answer any questions.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to approve a Resolution regarding release
of restrictions as to specific real estate and revocation of Ordinance No. 8 as to specific real
estate for Layton Plaza retail center, 7477 W. Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and
staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the May 18th Common Council
7.
James Tarantino, Tarantino & Co., 20711 Watertown Road, Waukesha, WI 53186, and
Greg Zastrow, Eppstein Uhen, 333 E. Chicago Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202 representing the
School Sisters of St. Francis, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Clement Manor Inc., and
Community Care Inc., requests a amendment to the PUD Amendment/Site, Building,
Landscaping Review approved in February, 2010 for the proposed construction of a now
48-unit (was 44 unit), single-story memory care facility in the southwest corner of the Clement
Manor site (Phase One) at 3939 S. 92nd Street. The amendment request involves: 1) changing
one of the exterior building materials and lowering the roof pitch; and 2) increase the number
of units from 44 to 48 without increasing the building „foot-print‟. Tax Key #568-9999-006.
1.
Background: The PUD Amendment for the Phase I project at Clement Manor -- 44 unit
„Our Lady of the Angels‟ building -- was approved at the February 17th CC meeting. The
purpose of this request is to consider subsequent modifications to the exterior architectural
features and the interior layout plan. The requested revisions are as follows (also see
attached 4/26/10 narrative, building elevation, and floor plan materials):
Modify one of the exterior finish materials from Exterior Insulation Finish System
(EIFS) to a “Hardie fiber cement siding” material.
Lower the “7/12” roof pitch to a “5/12” pitch.
Increase the number of living units from 44 to 48, but doing so without increasing the
building foot-print.
2.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials:
Siding: The architects feel the change of material to a Hardie fiber cement siding in a
batten and board design, combined with a lower roof pitch will offer “a more interesting
presentation of the building.” Page A200 displays the elevation; note the vertical
alignment of the cement board design. In all deference to OLA and EUA, and maybe it
was because we were working from the smaller scale drawing, but staff is not supportive
of the vertical alignment but would think a horizontal alignment of the siding would look
better. Product samples and a color rendering will be presented at the PC meeting.
9
PC 5-11-10
3.
4.
5.
Roof pitch: The architects also believe that the lower roof pitch will present “a more
residential scale to the adjacent neighborhoods, enhance sunlight into the internal
courtyards versus the higher roof pitch.” The roof pitch difference is expected to lower
the „ridge line‟ of the building from approx. 26‟ to about 22‟.
Unit count increase: On Page A101 is the floor plan which shows where the additional
four units are proposed to come from (i.e. shaded area). Essentially some of the
common area/multi-purpose room is proposed to be utilized; it‟s not a situation where
every unit was now made smaller to „create‟ square footage.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The addition of 4 living units is not
expected to increase the need for parking as the increase in the number of residents is within
the required staffing ratios.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: The location of the cooling tower will need to be
identified to make sure it will be screened by the lower roof design. The client‟s memo
notes that the design and construction team was able to identify a cooling tower system that
is lower in height which would allow for this to take place, but the location is not highlighted
on the site plans.
Verify that sufficient parking has been provided for the additional units.
Revised engineering plans have not yet been submitted.
The Storm Water Management Plan has not yet been submitted.
Recommendation: Approve the PUD amendment request, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, consider this a minor change not needing a public hearing, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the May 18th Common Council meeting.
Jeff Bogard with Eppstein Uhen, Richard Rau with Clement Manor and Sister Joanne Armatowski
with the School Sisters of Notre Dame were present to answer any questions. Mayor Neitzke
commented that the lowering of the roof line will certainly be appreciated by the neighbors.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of an amendment to
the PUD Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review approved in February, 2010 for the
proposed construction of a now 48-unit (was 44 unit), single-story memory care facility in the
southwest corner of the Clement Manor site (Phase One) at 3939 S. 92nd Street, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, consider this a minor change not needing a public hearing,
and authorize this item to be authorized to the May 18th Common Council meeting. Tax Key
8.
Michael Williams, Stantec Consulting, 1137 North McDowell Blvd., Petaluma, CA 94954
representing Ultimate Electronics, 321 W. 84th Avenue, Suite A, Thornton, CO 80260, requests
a Site/Building/Landscaping Review and a PC Waiver (building signage) for the purpose of
occupying the entire vacant former Circuit City building at 4585 S. 76 th Street, Tax Key
#605-9944-013.
1.
2.
Background: Ultimate Electronics (UE) wants to occupy the entire vacant Circuit City
building. See attached 4/26/10 narrative and plan materials about the company and their
ideas for this property; this letter also includes an explanation for the building sign waiver
request.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The basic intent is to have their „blue/gold‟
entry design feature on the east and north side of the building. The upper half of the building
is proposed to be „blue‟ on all four sides, with a „cream‟ color on the lower half.
10
PC 5-11-10
3.
4.
6.
Staff would support having their two „blue/gold‟ design features as proposed, with a „blue‟
banding around the rest of the building that would be the same width as the „maroon‟ band
which CC had used.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: No changes proposed; staff believes that
since the use is similar to what CC did for years, that sufficient on-site parking is provided.
Lighting (building & site): Similar to what has occurred along the 76th Street corridor when
building/property improvements occur, staff would recommend that the “Shepard Hook”
parking lot lighting fixture be utilized where the existing „shoe-box‟ lights exist. If an
adaptation can occur with the existing poles, this would involve changing the „heads‟.
Signage: The narrative provides the UE perspective pertaining to wall signage and the need
for the PC Waiver. While it is true there are two free-standing pylon signs (each with 78 s.f.
of sign area), those are essentially „grandfathered‟ in, and so are not really part of the
„waiver‟ aspect. That comes into discussion with the building or wall sign.
The Sign Code uses a formula based on the frontage of the building which can allow upto a
maximum of 200 s.f. of total signage (building and free-standing combined); this is more
applicable when there is a single user on a single parcel that is not zoned PUD. The 200 s.f.
then is more commonly split (100 s.f. each) between free-standing and building.
The UE request is for three wall signs:
228 (7‟ high „Ultimate‟ & other signage makes the whole thing 10‟ high: east side)
+ 55 (4‟ high „Ultimate‟ south side)
+ 85 (5‟ high „Ultimate‟ north side)
368 s.f.
Business
CC
Best Buy
Target
Kmart
UE
UE
UE
Distance from street
Size of wall letter
340‟ (76th)
3‟
th
200‟ (76 )
4‟
630‟ (27th)
5‟
520‟ (27th)
7‟ („Big‟) 10‟ („K‟)
340‟ (east)
7‟
200‟ (north – 894)
5‟
340‟ (south – Layton)
4‟
The basis of the Sign Code is for a driver to be able to identify where a business is located
(i.e. identification), not advertising. Staff believes that a 7‟ high “Ultimate” sign is simply
too excessive on that east side and creates a disproportionate building elevation scale. The
idea of having multiple wall signs is no problem, but UE needs to down-size this request.
That may involve reducing the scale of these wall signs and/or eliminating a pylon.
7.
The City Sign Code requirements were given to UE representatives this past February.
They were fully aware of these limitations before proceeding with a entering into a lease.
Furthermore, there have been discussions with UE representatives on building exterior
features and signage.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Overall the existing landscaping in the parking islands is still in
good shape – particularly the trees – but some of the bushes/shrubs along the 76th could use
some refurbishing/replanting/trimming.
11
PC 5-11-10
8.
9.
Hours of Operation: Needs to be identified.
Engineering Comments: An existing 20‟ wide water main easement (W.E. #793)
encumbers the subject property along the north face of building and through the parking lot
to South 76th Street (CTH „U‟).
Recommendation: Hold any action; re-submittal is needed to address the staff review notes.
Michael Williams – Stantec Consulting, Bruce Boxer – Ultimate Electronics Director of Real
Estate, and James Dentici – the property owner, were present to answer questions. Mr. Williams
began by giving a brief history of Ultimate Electronics. Ald. Kastner questioned the architectural
styles of stores shown on their website in comparison to what is being presented tonight, to which
Mr. Williams responded by citing some recent stores that they have completed that reflected the type
of market they were going into.
Ald. Kastner stated he doesn‟t care for the design being presented and it is in essence a big blue
building which is a “sign” for their promotion in itself. Mayor Neitzke said initially he felt that there
was too much blue when the entirety of all four walls was proposed to be blue, but that has since
been modified. He spoke on how our sign code and how its standards are rigid, yet the expectations
must be adhered to. He also spoke on the current unemployment situation as a result of the economy
and how we are grateful for Ultimate Electronic‟s interest in bringing their first location in
Wisconsin to Greenfield.
Ald. Kastner said he was on the Plan Commission when Circuit City first came in, and there was alot
of negative neighborhood reaction to big-box design aspects and lighting concerns and large signage
concerns. We are doing the same thing here again with this project as proposed.
Mr. Williams stated that ultimately what Ultimate Electronics is trying to do at this location is
maintain their brand identity, compete in the market place, and bring job opportunities to Greenfield.
Mr. Boxer gave some background information on Ultimate Electronics‟ history and how they are one
of the top four electronics stores in the country, how they are adding more services to their offerings,
and how they intend to spend $1.2 million on building improvements this year. Creating and
maintaining their brand identity is part of achieving those efforts and is critical to their staying
competitive in this economy. One way they do that is to give “mass” to their stores with the blue
banding. In working with a real estate broker on statistics within 4 miles of this area, data showed
that there are 49 vacant commercial establishments with 10,000 square feet or more of space. In
Milwaukee, the same data showed 237 vacant properties with 10,000 square feet or more. They
foresee $18-$20 million in sales for this location, thus requiring a large sales force and providing
jobs for the community. He then gave a breakdown of the average salaries for the available
positions.
Mr. Weis said he is okay with the use of the space but is concerned about the amount of “blue” in the
design. Mr. Dorszynski spoke on how the subject of color just came before the Plan Commission
with the orange shade of Hooters‟ roof, or over the long-time blue M&I roof. Mayor Neitzke asked
if the Commission is opposed to a building “standing out” and is that the issue here? Mr. Dorszynski
then questioned standards in place and the City‟s desire to enforce them. Ald. Kastner said that
ideally all businesses should stand out on their merits, but not stand out in being the most “gaudy”
building on the street.
12
PC 5-11-10
Mr. Boxer stated that some communities encourage “different” and they want the varied sight lines.
He sees Circuit City‟s building as attractive with its warehouse-type look in the Ultimate Electronics
design theme. He feels the color they propose adds excitement and makes a presence, which is even
more beneficial as they are new to the Milwaukee market.
Mr. Marciniak said he feels that this is an eye-catching design and is well done. Mr. Dorszynski
questioned the color and size of the band. Mr. Dentici, as property owner, said that his family has
owned this piece of property since 1948. He spoke on how his family has brought businesses into
Greenfield for years, and how they‟ve paid approximately $100,000/year in property taxes for the
last 12 years. He spoke on how it was unfortunate that Circuit City couldn‟t make it; yet they feel
fortunate they have interest from a quality, up and coming retailer like Ultimate Electronics. Their
own research shows them as a good, stable corporate citizen and they would rather have a good
business at this location than continue to have it sit empty. As for the issue that their proposed
signage size might adversely impact neighbors, he said he would be curious as to what people would
really be able to see from their homes. Mr. Dentici said that while Ultimate Electronics is spending
$1.2 million on the store, he personally will be spending over $1 million on it in remodeling costs.
Mr. Kastner said that he agrees that they are a good company and welcomes them; however, he
wants them here in accordance with the City‟s architectural design standards. Mr. Boxer gave
examples of how a city being inflexible to a retailer‟s image/branding can lead them to go to another
municipal location.
Ms. Collins stressed that branding is important to a businesses identity. Mayor Neitzke said that
current economic times dictate more flexibility on the City‟s part to being open to a business‟s
branding. He spoke on how this adds excitement to our City and gave examples of how cities loose
business to other cities because they are too stringent. Mr. Sponholz added that there many
long-vacant businesses at Hwy. 100 & Bluemound and we don‟t want this to happen here. Mayor
Neitzke said we should be reaching out to those who want to invest in our city.
Mr. Williams said they have scaled back their original proposal as the building initially started out as
all on four sides blue with even larger signage but the are maintaining a minimum standard for their
branding while attempting to be compatible with the City‟s standards.
Ms. Hallen questioned how soon they think they could open. It was responded that they are at the
point that they could submit a building permit in two weeks and be open come September.
Mr. Marciniak commented that bringing Ultimate Electronics to Greenfield creates jobs.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned Mr. Erickson as to if he had any reservations to what was presented. He
said he favors less blue and would like the signage size scaled back, with a smaller sign on the east
(76th Street) side. Mr. Sponholz said that he feels the group that Ultimate is marketing too are
younger people and that may be the reason for the brighter, bolder colors. Mr. Weis said he feels
this is a good use, and Mr. Marciniak said he would favor reducing the band from 10‟ to 8‟.
Mr. Boxer said that they would be amenable to the reduced band width, and to have shepard hook
style lights only in the front parking lot.
13
PC 5-11-10
Site/Building/Landscaping Review and a PC Waiver (building signage) for the purpose of
Ultimate Electronics occupying the entire vacant former Circuit City building at 4585 S. 76th
Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and with an 8 foot blue band instead
of the 10‟ band presented, and also to allow the signage as presented, and with shepard hook
lighting to replace the current lighting in the front parking lot of the store, and authorize this
item to be expedited to the May 18th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #605-9944-013.
9.
Review draft ordinance to create Zoning Code text related to Special Uses and what is
considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to the need for a public hearing.
1.
Background: This item is meant to review a fairly common aspect which comes to PC
regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to Special Uses, and
then naturally the need for a public hearing. While the PUD section of the ZC
[[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially may be a “major” change,
the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those PUD elements to start the
discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use, instead of relying later on
the City Attorney to render a perspective using his judgment only.
Recommendation: When the attached ordinance DRAFT is deemed „ready‟, forward a favorable
recommendation to the Legislative Committee. Assuming the Legislative Committee will also have
a similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future Common Council meeting for this
Zoning Code text change.
Item held over.
10.
Review recommendation from the Board of Public Works pertaining to the alley vacation
request at 3636 S. 52nd Street (Tax Key # 556-0314-001) and 3637 S. 51st Street
(Tax Key #556-0301).
1.
Background: At their April meeting, the Board of Public Works reviewed a request to
vacate a portion of the alley vacation between 3636 S. 52 nd and 3637 S. 51st. See attached
minute excerpt. Essentially where the hard-surface ally ends now, plus 10‟ for a snow pile,
the rest of the alley (+/-50‟) can be vacated. The platting/layout of the properties to the
north effectively preclude any future ability/need for an alley extension northward.
Recommendation: Concur with the Board of Public Works and forward a favorable recommendation
to the Common Council regarding this request, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize the public hearing process to proceed when notified by the City Clerk‟s office to do so.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Hess to recommend approval of an alley vacation
request at 3636 S. 52nd Street and 3657 S. 51st Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the May 18 th Common Council meeting.
Tax Key # 556-0314-001 (3636 S. 52nd Street) and #556-0301 (3637 S. 51st Street). Motion
14
PC 5-11-10
11.
None.
12.
Motion by Mrs. Collins, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
13.
June 8, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed May 25, 2010
15
PC 5-11-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present (left at 9:00)
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
City Atty. Roger Pyzyk
Police Chief Francis Springob
2.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Hess to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2010 Regular
Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on May 18th. At the meeting the Special
Use Public Hearing for Marcel‟s Pizza (61st & Cold Spring) was held and it was approved. Also, the
Clement Manor modifications that had been recommended were approved along with the
recommendation for Ultimate Electronics (4585 S. 76th Street).
4.
Gary Splinter, Kapur & Associates, 6025 S. Pine Street, Burlington, WI 53105, on behalf of
James Tarantino, Clement Manor, Inc. requests a Certified Survey Map which creates two
parcels at Clement Manor, 3939 S. 92nd Street; the new 2.2 acre parcel which is created will be
used for the approved Our Lady of Angels memory care facility, Tax Key #568-9999-006.
1.
2.
Background: As a follow-up to the previous PC and CC approvals for the Our Lady of
Angels project (Phase 1 as amended) and the addition to the south end of the existing health
center building (Phase 2), the proposed CSM „splits‟ the parcel into the two lots which
conform with the site improvement plans.
materials with the CSM for recording may cause additional recording delays.
to be expedited to the June 15th Common Council meeting.
1
PC 6-8-10
Ald. Kastner questioned the status of the PILOT fees. Mr. Erickson responded that the PILOT fees
are going to be based on the activity going on at the Our Lady of the Angels portion. Mayor Neitzke
further stated that they merged the properties, with the existing properties being exempt, and only
the new property has the PILOT fee associated with it. Ald. Kastner then questioned the outcome of
the requirement of the detention pond offsite as a condition of the PILOT fees, as “Lot 2” is being
used as the basis for the PILOT fees and “Lot 2” also uses “Lot 1” for detention and he is wondering
if this has been calculated into the PILOT fees. Mr. Erickson responded that Our Lady of the Angels
and Clement Manor are entering into with the City a PUD Agreement for the construction and
maintenance of that facility. The design of the facility itself is an engineering matter.
Ald. Kastner then questioned why they don‟t flip the ownership of the detention pond to Lot 2 as
opposed to Lot 1, as doing so would give the City more PILOT fees if we were to include the square
footage of the detention pond into the PILOT fee calculation because more land would be available
to “value” for the Our Lady site. He stated that he has been proposing this all along.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Certified
Survey Map which creates two parcels at Clement Manor, 3939 S. 92 nd Street; subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the June 15 th
Common Council meeting. The new 2.2 acre parcel which is created will be used for the
approved Our Lady of Angels memory care facility. Tax Key #568-9999-006. Motion carried
unanimously.
5.
Chez Misko, Vice President of Operations, Wisconsin Athletic Club, 10840 W. Rogers Street,
West Allis, WI 53227 requests a PUD amendment as a Special Use for the purpose of serving
alcohol beverages to their members at various social events throughout the year in their facility
at 5020 S. 110th Street (i.e. separately after this process has been completed, if successful they
will need a “Class B” type of license also approved by the Common Council), Tax Key
#612-8972-005.
1.
Background: The WAC is interested in being able to provide alcohol beverages to their
members at their various social events throughout the year. See attached 5/24/10 letter.
The WAC had wanted to more simply get a “temporary license” for the limited events they
would considering holding where alcohol products were desired (i.e. similar to what the
House of Harley does annually). However, the nuance of the Wis. Stats. on this type of
application is that the WAC needed some type of non-profit/benevolent group to be the
actual applicant (i.e. the House of Harley has the Harley Owner‟s Group or HOG as the
entity applying) for the „temporary‟ type of license. WAC did not/does not have a similar
group to use for this limited purpose so that left the option of requesting to obtain a Special
Use in order to apply for an actual full license.
They have been asked to identify, based upon their experience in West Allis and Waukesha
were they already have this type of license, the number of annual events were alcohol is
available to the members, a floor plan for this WAC showing where this activity is
anticipated to occur, and whether or not alcohol is sold or served at these events.
2
PC 6-8-10
2.
3.
Hours of Operation: Monday – Thursday: 4:30 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.; Friday: 4:30 a.m. –
9:00 p.m.; Saturday & Sunday: 6:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Miscellaneous: All of the „normal‟ Class B licenses determined by Wis. Stats. quota system
(i.e. 1 license per 500 population) are used already in GF. This leaves using for the first
time, a „reserve license‟ allotment. We have 16 of those type of licenses, but they cost
$10,000 (one time fee) instead of $600. However, last year the City adopted an ordinance
(see attached) which enable the applicant to request an “economic development grant” -and there are conditions established for it -- which would enable, if approved by the CC, a
return of $9,400 so the actual cost for the license is “a wash”.
The 400‟ radius mailing list will be shared with the WAC in advance of the formal public
hearing so that they can do some contact with their immediate neighbors, which actually will
be a small number (5 – 10 parcels) given that physical location on the City/Village corporate
limit line. Finally, a Special Use Agreement will be entered into between the WAC and the
City regarding this proposal, if approved.
Recommendation: Approve the Special Use request subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and consider this a major change and therefore authorize the public hearing process to
proceed.
Mr. Misko was present to answer questions, gave some background information on this item, and
reviewed the “marked up” floor plan which shows the proposed/potential service areas. He
spoke on their clientele, the services they offer, and the various social events they host throughout
the year. He foresees approximately 6-12 events per year at which they‟d desire to serve alcohol,
stressing that it would only be served to their existing members. He said to add the ability to serve
alcohol would increase the social camaraderie aspect and also would carry the types of events they
are currently having at their West Allis and Waukesha locations over to the Greenfield facility.
Mr. Hess questioned a health club selling alcohol to which Mr. Misko replied that while it sounds
odd, they connect the ability to sell alcohol with the social camaraderie aspect. Mayor Neitzke
questioned if there were any restrictions on alcohol at their other locations to which Mr. Misko
replied they have dedicated bar areas at those locations, and that is not what they are proposing
here. He stated that the bar hours follow the club hours, with their West Allis club, while open
24 hours, closing at midnight and the Waukesha location closing at midnight as well.
Mr. Weis questioned the $10,000, one-time licensing fee and if the applicant could request an
“economic development grant”, which could return up to $9,400 of that fee so that the actual cost for
the license is “a wash”, as was outlined under “Miscellaneous” in the staff notes. Mr. Erickson
replied that given the nature of the ordinance that allows for this, WAC would need to identify how
they are meeting the criteria to be considered for this option. There is the possibility they could be
denied and, in effect, would end up paying the full $10,000 for this license. Mr. Misko said he is
aware of this possibility.
Mayor Neitzke questioned the number of special events per year to which Mr. Misko said about 12 a
year or so is what they‟d be looking at here, as this is what they‟re doing at their other locations.
Mayor Neitzke said the premises does need to be defined. He said his concern is that the City has
16 of these types of licenses reserved and he is thinking in terms of future businesses requesting
them of the City. He would prefer to see WAC set up as a non-profit and them request a temporary
license, rather than take from this pool of 16 reserved licenses.
3
PC 6-8-10
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a PUD amendment
for a Special Use for the purpose of serving alcoholic beverages at Wisconsin Athletic Club,
5020 S. 110th Street, to their members at various social events throughout the year in their
facility, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, with the number of events to be
specified by the WAC, and with this request to be considered a major change, and authorize
the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #612-8972-005. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Edna Hudson-Kinzey, HKI Associates, 4143 N. 40th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53216 and Monica
Bradley, MGM Bradley & Associates, 1623 N. 22nd Street, Milwaukee, WI 53205 request a
Special Use for the purpose of opening a child day-care facility called “Partners in Learning
Child Care Center” in a vacant 10,000 s.f. portion of the Towne Realty building, 6100–6196 W.
Layton Ave. Tax Key #603-0198-002.
1.
2.
Background: Partners in Learning Child Care Center (PLCCC), a State licensed group
child care center, wants to lease space in the Greenfield Towne Center at 6100-6196 W.
Layton Avenue to open a day care for children from 8 weeks old to 12 years old. See
attached Plan of Operation and Statement of Special Use. PLCCC is a brand new business
operation and has no current site. The narrative indicates the Center will utilize the vacant
portion of the Towne Center where there is approximately 10,000 square feet of interior
space. The plan is to build 9,000 square feet of useable space within this vicinity. To the
east of the building, the site plan identifies a plan for a 1,500 square foot playground
immediately adjacent to the building.
Based on the narrative, the proposal is to have two shifts of upto 78 children per shift, or
156 children total per day.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The site plan indicates a van pick-up/
drop-off area outside the southern-most exit of the building. The chief concern is any van
parked at this area could create a bottle-neck (i.e. drive aisle is 24‟ wide at this location) and
interrupt traffic flow using that portion of the lot as a “through-fare” from Layton and with
internal traffic flow to the businesses either side of this location. Staff discussed creating or
modifying an actual parking off-set lane or space for the Pick-up Vans to take care of this
issue (i.e. the sidewalk would have to be relocated as well), or not have the drop-off at that
location.
The Zoning Code requires that for a day care center, the 6 stalls be provide for “on-site
queuing” or in this case, drop-off/pick-up area where children being brought to/picked-up
by a family member (not a PLCCC van – 4 vans are proposed), can be accommodated.
Also, there is 1 space per employee, plus 1 space per 10 children.
Staff believes that there is sufficient parking overall on-site (194 stalls) to accommodate the
use, and in general proximity of the PLCCC space. Keep in mind that the Towne building
as a whole is considered a “retail building” and as such is required to have 5 stalls per 1,000
of building square footage. If PLCCC is using 10,000 s.f., then approx. 50 stalls of the
194 are “allocated” toward the PLCCC space. This covers the number of employees per
shift (12), even if all were there at one time and all came with their own vehicle; plus with
1 space per 10 children = 8 stalls.
4
PC 6-8-10
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Signage: Will need to adhere to the master sign plan which Towne has for the site.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Confirmation needed from Towne that the
existing dumpster/enclosure is adequate for the nature of the PLCCC use (i.e. proposed
cooking and meals being made available for the children).
Fencing: Plans still needed for the type of fence around the outdoor play area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: The play area will be in a grassy space east of the building.
Hours of Operation: Proposed hours are 5:30 a.m. – 11:30 p.m., daily.
Miscellaneous: Since a public hearing will be needed for this special use request, the
mailing list using the normal 400‟ radius line (i.e. measured from the boundary of the entire
Towne parcel), will be shared with PLCCC so that either a separate mailing or a
neighborhood info. meeting can be held in advance of the formal public hearing. As a point
of reference, it was in January, 2009 when the Special Use request from ITT to expand into
this 10,000 s.f. area was denied by the CC.
In an effort to limit vehicle congestion at the south building entrance, van parking will
not be allowed within drive aisle during the course of child drop-off/pick-up; or
alternatively, create an „off-set‟ lane where the van could be parked and east/west
vehicular flow is not impacted.
Clarify location of ingress/egress for actual outdoor play area.
Recommendation: Staff has a favorable recommendation for the nature of the proposed use, and as
such would recommend at least authorizing the public hearing process to proceed.
However, in the meantime while the public hearing scheduling aspect can proceed, there are some
site and operational related issues which need to be reviewed further at the next PC meeting so they
can be resolved before the formal public hearing:
Hours of operation: Monday thru Sunday upto 11:30 p.m. is too late every day of the week.
PLCCC needs to consider an earlier closing time in consideration of the single-family area
immediately north of the Towne Center.
Outdoor play area: Plans for its layout, access, and fencing need to be prepared and presented
to the PC.
Traffic flow for drop-off/pick-up: PLCCC needs to work with Towne on in establishing some
type of revised parking lot layout which better accommodates the nature of this use where
“…from 3:30 – 6:30 p.m. is the heavy time for pick-up/drop-off which requires both first shift
and second-shift employees to be on-hand…”, while at the same time balancing the needs of
the rest of the building which are more than likely parked in the stalls for longer period of
time.
Monica Bradley was present to answer questions and her partner, Edna Hudson-Kinzey, was on the
phone and available to answer questions. Ald. Kastner questioned why the 11:30 closing time and
the need for second shift availability. Mr. Sponholz & Mrs. Collins both said there is a need to
accommodate second shift workers in general and/or for those single parents who work second shift
and need child care. Mr. Marciniak cited hospitality workers as possible users of these time slots as
well. Ms. Hallen asked Ms. Bradley to review the number of employees, children and vans being
proposed and also their client base. Ms. Bradley replied that they estimate 12-15 staff members,
75 children per shift with four vans and that they would be growing a client base as they are not
currently in operation. Ms. Hudson-Kinzey said she had two family-type day cares in Milwaukee for
5 years, but is not currently licensed for a group daycare. The names of the daycares she ran were
Spirit and Energy of Life, #1 and #2. She also operated a transport company with the same name.
5
PC 6-8-10
Ms. Hudson-Kinzey said she was the both the owner and administrator of the daycares and transport
company.
Mayor Neitzke said that while there is a need for this type of daycare he is concerned about the
location as with that amount of children (75 per shift) there isn‟t much greenspace. Also he has
concerns about the amount of traffic at 60th & Layton, the ITT parking lot nearby, and possible
neighbor concerns.
Mr. Weis commented that the play area isn‟t large enough for that amount of children. Ms. Bradley
stated that the area would allow for 15 children to be out there at a time. Mr. Weis said the area even
seems small for 15 children. He feels there is a definite need for this type of daycare but that this is
just not the location for it. Mayor Neitzke agreed that the concept is great but this location isn‟t
suited for it as it lacks the greenspace and isn‟t conducive for vans and parent drop-off/pick-up
traffic patterns.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to forward a negative recommendation
on the request for a Special Use for the purpose of opening a child day-care facility called
“Partners in Learning Child Care Center” in a vacant 10,000 s.f. portion of the Towne Realty
building, 6100–6196 W. Layton Avenue, and authorize the public hearing process to begin.
Tax Key #603-0198-002. Motion carried 7-0.
7.
Discussion/decision as a follow-up to the public commentary regarding Mad Dog Saloon,
4395 S. 76th Street, Greenfield, WI 53220 held at the May 11th Plan Commission. Tax Key
#605-9979-002.
1.
Background: The PC minutes for the May 11th meeting include numerous comments
from neighbors, Atty. Fuchs on behalf of Mr. LaLicata, PC members, Ald. Pietrowksi, and
City Attorney Pyzyk. Mr. Pyzyk had suggested that Atty. Fuchs address what they feel
would be solutions to the concerns raised by the neighbors, and then meet with Mr. Erickson
to discuss further prior to the next PC meeting on June 8 th. The PC consensus was that the
broad categorization of the nature of comments/concerns from the May 11th meeting were as
follows:
Traffic in the neighborhood
Late night/bar-time noise
Trash in the neighborhood
Safety in the neighborhood
Staff did meet with Atty. Fuchs and Tom & Dominic LaLicata on May 25 th. Attached is a
May 24th memo from Mr. Fuchs which is divided into the following categories: Accidents,
Parking, Patrol Issues, Advertising, Traffic, Smoking, Litter, Noise Pollution, and Light
Pollution. During this meeting a number of other aspects were also discussed, and those
include the following (no significance to order):
Parking at “Rogans”: Regardless of the PC action not to be supportive of “counting”
those stalls as part of its business parking requirement (2/16/10 PC), has Mad Dog
followed up with that leasing arrangement simply to have more parking readily available
for its customers/employees? That needed to be followed-up on by Mr. LaLicata. The
other potential positive aspect is that someone leaving from that parking lot may be less
inclined to go thru the neighborhood.
6
PC 6-8-10
Balkans: This property is for sale, it is zoned C-4 Commercial like Mad Dog, and it has
a Special Use/Liquor License. What would the City position be on Mad Dog acquiring
that property, removing the building, and using the site for parking only? Further
discussion by the PC is needed for this type of a potential Special Use amendment.
Off-road incident where several properties were damaged by the same driver who
eventually crashed himself: This driver supposedly came from Mad Dog. But did he get
have too much to drink at Mad Dog or was this person in that condition from another
location(s) before getting there in the first place? If he was intoxicated, was he served
alcohol in Mad Dog or denied service? Mr. Fuchs was to follow-up on that with the
Police Dept.
Traffic analysis: Is there a value of having an independent traffic engineering consultant
review this situation to determine possible solutions/alternatives? The idea of that
occurring stemmed from a two-day “count” which Mad Dog had done on their own for a
couple of days in early May (see attached). Related to this aspect, the Bd. of Public
Works at their May 25th meeting, has recommended the following: 1) to approve „No
Right Turn‟ onto any of the Forest Home exits from the Mad Dog parking lot; and 2) to
approve „No Right Turn between 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.‟ from westbound Forest Home
frontage road onto S. 79th St.
Neighborhood awareness: What does Mad Dog do, particularly at bar-time, to
encourage their patrons to be aware of/considerate of the fact there is a residential
neighborhood immediately adjacent to this parcel? There are signs posted at the exit
doors with that message; just prior to closing the music will be stopped and an employee
will get on the microphone and convey that message; and security is in the parking lot
making sure people are not congregating there and are not loud/boisterous, etc.
The narrative below is similar to what was distributed for the May 11 th PC meeting.
PC members and others are asked to utilize their May and/or April meeting packet for the
½” thick attachments related to this item which included: materials from the Ald.
Pietrowski which had excerpts of the “Special Use” section of the ZC, copies of Police
Dept. “Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to this property, copies of various emails
he has received concerning Mad Dog, a petition signed by approx. 40 people requesting
the City to “not renew the special use permit” for Mad Dog, and “petitions in support of
maintaining the special use permit” which Atty. Fuchs had submitted.
As a follow-up to the April PC, the purpose of the May meeting was to formally enable
public commentary to be heard and discussed by the PC. Accordingly, the staff notes and
the various attachments are identical to what was distributed for the April PC, were the same
for the May PC, however, there was one exception. That exception is that Atty. Fuchs, on
behalf of Mad Dog Saloon, had submitted since that earlier meeting “…petitions in support
of maintaining the special use permit…”. The heading on those petitions are categorized as
“Greenfield Resident” and “Non-Greenfield Resident”. Finally, the City Attorney will be
present at this meeting.
Ald. Pietrowski has submitted a request asking the PC to review the Special Use which
7
PC 6-8-10
Mad Dog.
1983:
1991:
1993:
2001:
2006:
2009:
former Milwaukee Grill. In the PC minutes for that action a little over four years ago (see
attached), the hours of operation were identified for the restaurant (11 a.m. – 11 p.m.) and
the bar (use normal bar time hours as allowed by statute).
Prior to the conversion of Boulder Junction to Mad Dog, staff (Erickson) met with
Mr. La Licata to discuss his project. Included in that conversation was the aspect of
“…what processing would be needed…”. At that time, staff determined that other than a
building permit (interior changes) and a sign permit that no further PC/CC review was
necessary for a use which would now become more of a “bar which also serves food” versus
“a restaurant which also has a bar”. That determination was based upon the following:
parcel. All these prior business had an alcohol license which enables them to stay open
been done prior to the change-over, would have enabled any greater or lesser special use
requirements than whatever already obligates a person/business with an existing “Class B”
License.
8
PC 6-8-10
Recommendation: As had been discussed at the May PC meeting and suggested by City
Attorney Pyzyk, the “step” which the PC is at is to determine as per ZC 21.04.0701(J) as
attached, whether or not there are grounds to formally review the Special Use issued to
Mad Dog.
Of those particular provisions, from a staff perspective, the operative section to make a `
judgment on is Paragraph 21.04.0701(J)(1)(c) or more specifically “A change…in the
special use itself which has cause the special use to become incompatible with the
surrounding uses…”.
The fact that this is now a „bar which serves food‟ versus a „restaurant that has a bar‟, in of
itself is not enough of “a change to make it incompatible”. The fact that this business is
popular at this point or is being successfully marketed is not “a change to make it
incompatible”. Are there operational aspects which draw negative attention to Mad Dog
which will require constant oversight by ownership/management? Yes. Is ownership/
management serious and attentive to their responsibilities? Yes.
Finally, Staff has a viewpoint on the “adverse impact” portion of the ZC [[21.04.0701(2)]]
and its applicability here. This code language suggests that its use pertains more to a
“prospective” evaluation of a proposed use prior to it going in, not an after-the-fact
perspective.
Dominic LaLicata, the owner‟s son, and Atty. John Fuchs, the owner‟s lawyer were present
to answer questions. Mr. Erickson gave some background information on this item to date.
City Atty. Roger Pyzyk also gave his comments on what has occurred thus far stressing that
what has happened have been efforts to get issues resolved so that this business can co-exist
with the surrounding neighborhood. That is the goal that all are concerned are hoping to
achieve.
Police Chief Francis Springob spoke on how they started a “directed patrol mission” on
May 12th in order to monitor the traffic in the neighborhood. They had no prior studies in
the neighborhood to base conclusions on and for 10 days, which included 15 hours of
directed patrol in the neighborhood, there were officers assigned to monitor traffic from
12:30 a.m. to 3:00 am. The result of that monitoring showed 33 vehicles past the traffic
control point, 8 citations were issued, and 3 warnings issued. It was stressed that the officer
doing the monitoring was stationery in a squad the entire time range each day.
Atty. Fuchs stated that they may hire Traffic Engineering & Analysis to do a traffic
analysis for their own informational purposes. Other options they are investigating are
alternate parking at the Rogan‟s site across the street, and also at the former Balkan‟s
restaurant next door, which is for now for sale.
9
PC 6-8-10
Mr. Dorszynski questioned of Chief Springob if the stationery patrol car would have been
visible to the drivers. He replied that he did not know if was a marked or unmarked unit,
but it would be a Crown Victoria model, and it would have been positioned on the road.
Ms. Hallen stated she has concerns about the Police Dept‟s “daybook” and how a majority of
the instances were calls made from the employees or the owner himself. Other items shown
on the logs are building checks and garbage related issues. She feels the owner is going out
of his way to try to resolve any issues and she commends them in their efforts.
The Plan Commission is supportive of Mad Dog conducting a traffic analysis and Ald.
Kastner said he is supportive of perhaps closing Allerton to alleviate traffic coming off of
76th Street into the neighborhood. Mayor Neitzke said the Police Dept. has been patrolling
the area Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Marciniak questioned Mr. Erickson on the stated
capacity, to which it was responded 225. Currently, they are 20 stalls short of the number
needed when the parking stall ratio is applied. Mr. Marciniak also stated that this change
from a restaurant to a bar has had a severe impact to the neighborhood. Also, he believes
that maybe the Zoning Code methodology for evaluating parking requirements should have
a more direct relationship to building capacity, not only building square footage.
Ms. Hallen commented that she lives along Layton Avenue and traffic noise is something
that seems to get worse over time and is something that has to be lived with. Atty. Fuchs
said their goal is to try to mitigate the noise. Mr. Hess referenced that the Police Dept. has
increased their patrols and suggested perhaps requiring them to close at midnight on
weekends. Mr. Marciniak said that all this discussion is taking up time and resources and
asked is there some type of time constraint in dealing with this issue from an operating
licensing standpoint. Atty. Pyzyk responded that their license was passed at the last
Common Council meeting.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned the hours of operation of the previous establishments at this
location. Atty. Pyzyk stated that the Class B liquor license gives them the authority to be
open until 2:30 a.m. and municipalities cannot put a restriction upon this. The fact the prior
uses could have stayed open later, but chose not to is the difference noted here. Mayor
Neitzke said two points he‟d like to stress are that he feels the possible closure of Allerton
should be considered by the City, and also that if the Balkans property were a factor, that
would create the ability to have a landscaping buffer between the neighboring residences
where the fence is now.
Ald. Pietrowski spoke on how most of the bars in this City are adjacent to residential areas.
This particular business has created an awareness of this fact. He commended Mr. LaLicata
for his efforts in coming forth to work on resolving issues. Ald. Pietrowski said he feels part
of the problem is that the City has not come forth and made a proposal to the neighbors as to
how they are going to respond to their needs. The Police Dept. has been somewhat proactive
in gathering information that has been requested. He said that the fact that some neighbors
have had to change their sleeping arrangements in their own homes in response to the
activities occurring at Mad Dog indicate to him that this is not a “parking lot” problem that
can be fixed by bouncers, this is a result of their entertainment license. He questioned how
the Police Dept.‟s discretion is defined when it comes to enforcing the portion of Chapter 21
dealing with noise issues. He confirmed with Police Chief Springob that they do not have a
decibel meter, with the Chief stating that they do respond to noise complaints. Ald.
Pietrowski said there always seems to be a lot of “wiggle room” when it comes to enforcing
things, which he finds unfortunate.
10
PC 6-8-10
Atty. Pyzyk clarified that the noise complaints he referred to earlier were on the same nights,
two days after the last Plan Commission meeting. Police responded to a complaint about
loud music and Mad Dog complied. Another call came in shortly after that call, with the
Police log showing no noise was observed/identified.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on how bars and liquor licenses hours are covered by state law,
allowing them to be open until 2:00 a.m. on weeknights and 2:30 a.m. on weekends.
Recently the Common Council approved allowing another bar in the City. He said maybe
the way to keep problems from occurring is to not have more bars, because they do cause an
additional impact on police services. He feels the City has been proactive in trying to
address the concerns in many ways: holding these meetings, getting the Police to increase
their patrols/presence at this location, having Mad Dog install fencing, the Plan Commission
being supportive of vacating the alley-way, and having parking issues forwarded on the
Board of Public Works for their review.
Ms. Hallen stated that a comment had been made that the Plan Commission doesn‟t look at
landscaping and/or greenspace when projects are presented. She wanted to state that that is
one of the Plan Commission‟s priorities, with saving as many trees as possible and
maintaining the attractiveness of landscaping after it‟s installed being a prime focus. Ald.
Pietrowski clarified that this is a Special Use and with Special Use Reviews there is not a
requirement asking for landscaping, or meeting parking requirements, etc. When new
projects are presented, meaning those that are not applicable to Special Use Review
continuations, he does feel the Plan Commission performs its due diligence.
Item to held over to the July 13th Plan Commission meeting. It is anticipated that the traffic
analysis will be completed and presented at that time.
The meeting was recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
8.
Josh Neudorfer, The Sigma Group, 1300 W. Canal Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233 on behalf of
The Fortus Group, 12207 Illinois Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46814 requests a rezoning (fm. R-2
Single Family → PUD Residential) of 5.2 acres west of 94th Street and north of Layton Avenue
for the purpose of constructing three 22-unit multi-family apartment buildings, with garages
and a clubhouse; project name is “Preserve at Greenfield”. Tax Key #607-0001-001,
607-0004-001, 607-9965-002, and a portion of 607-9967.
1.
Background: A conceptual review for a multi-family affordable housing apartment project
was reviewed at the February PC (see attached minutes excerpt). At that time, this project
included constructing 88 units in four buildings (now it is 66 units in three buildings), along
with the idea of moving the Layton Baptist Church at 9000 Layton to 96th and Layton.
While discussions with the Church the property owner continue, this proposal deals with the
apartments only. However, this layout and some utility aspects are done in a manner which
could be advantageous to the church if/when that project moves forward.
Of the 22 units per building, the unit breakdown is as follows: three 1-bedroom units (715
s.f.); four 1-bedroom units (855 s.f.); twelve 2-bedroom units (990 s.f.); and three 3bedroom units (1,240 s.f.). 66 units ÷ 5.2 acres = 12.6 units/acres. This density is in the net
density range between a MFR-2 District (Multi-Family Residential) of 10 units/acre →
MFR-3 of 16 units/acre.
11
PC 6-8-10
2.
This project is one of dozens state-wide which were seeking federal low incoming housing
tax credits from WHEDA. Apparently Fortus is confident in this market in wanting to
proceed, regardless of the success with the WHEDA determination in the next few months.
Mr. Neudorfer will be able to offer further perspectives on this aspect.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The apartment buildings are three stories with a
height of approximately 40 feet. The building materials are predominately a larger brick
wainscoting element, with a red smaller brick façade extending to just below the third story
windows. At this point, a lighter tone hardi-plank siding façade is utilized. The roofing
includes a gable design features, and there are balconies provided as well. The garage and
clubhouse elevations are included as well, and those incorporate similar use of materials.
Attached is a color rendering. The three apartment buildings will be 9,850 s.f. per building.
A clubhouse is 1,720 s.f. The plan is for these buildings to „circle‟ a rectangular parking
area complete with five parking garages and other individual parking slots.
Given the proximity to the I-894, there are WisDOT setback requirements and restrictions
(Trans 233.08) with respect to highways and placement of buildings within the a certain
setback. Normally it would be 50‟ but there are some exceptions and those include:
1.
2.
3.
The distance allowed under ordinance (i.e. 25‟ setback has been used per PUD
guidelines).
42‟ from nearer R-O-W line (i.e. the three current single family lots at the northeast
corner, given when they were platted many years ago, has this restriction).
100‟ from centerline (of the freeway)
In discussions with the developer‟s representatives, apparently currently WisDOT has
“suspended” its enforcement of these more restrictive setback requirements. A letter from
WisDOT confirming this aspect has been requested of Sigma.
3.
4.
5.
The setback and close proximity to the highway raises additional concerns about noise levels
and the applicability of the ZC requirements pertaining to “noise sensitive uses”
(i.e. apartment building next to a freeway). For a multi-family use, there is an “inside”
decibel reading (52 dBA) and an “outside” decibel reading (67 dBA) which was being met
(dBA: decibel A-weighted sound level). An analysis has been prepared by the
appropriate/qualified testing firm and is attached. Admittedly its from 2007 and pertains to
the prior condo project in this area. An update of this analysis reflective the more specific
proposal will be needed.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: 122 total stalls are provided for the 66
units, or on average, 2 stalls per unit. Half of the stalls, as required, are “covered” or in a
garage in this case. Parking areas will be curbed and properly drained as part of an overall
stormwater management system.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): The site plan identifies three retention basins to capture
run-off from parking lots and roof-tops. Since the drainage is directed off-site onto
WisDOT land, a written concurrence from them has been requested by Sigma.
Lighting (building & site): A proposed „cut-sheet‟ for the parking lot/building lighting
fixtures is attached. There are some decorative fixtures shown, however, more of a “downlighting/cut-off” style will be needed. A photometric analysis will be needed with the next
submittal (S/B/L).
12
PC 6-8-10
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Utilities: Initially the sanitary sewer was proposed to be extended from the intersection of
94th & Layton and ripping up that road. That alignment didn‟t work because the sewer is too
shallow to deal with the distance the sanitary flow had to “run”. The attached plans show
the more acceptable (and workable) alternative of having the sanitary go south at approx.
96th and Layton via a sewer easement. It is possible that the church could connect to this
sanitary line as well.
The preliminary utility plan also includes the water main and a meter pit/building with
access to the main at the north end of 94th Street. Four hydrants are proposed strategically
through the site. An inquiry has been made of Milwaukee Water Utility about the
possibility of “looping” the main to the south (i.e. via where the sanitary sewer easement is
needed). Even though there is a water main at the north end of 94 th street, it essentially is a
long „dead-end‟. The greater pressure capability is coming from the line in Layton vs. at the
end of 94th St. This aspect is raised since all these buildings will be sprinklered, and at three
stories high, the water pressure on the third floor may be impacted. A preliminary „flow
test‟ of the main and hydrant has occurred and is awaiting further engineering review.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: This aspect for each building will need to be identified.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): There is concern that the one proposed
dumpster spot is not adequate to meet potential demand. It is likely the plans are to include
more than one dumpster within this spot. The type of screening needs to be identified.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Based on the development summary table, approx. 3 acres of the
overall 5.2 acre site is „open space‟, which is 58% (40% is PUD minimum). Given that
there is a wetland feature to be retained in the southeast portion of the site, the buildings and
parking area are „clustered‟ north of that area which „forces‟ the buildings to further away
from some of the single-family uses along the north side of Layton. As identified via the
grading plan, the balance of the site is essentially „clear-cut‟. A tree survey of this area has
been done previously and needs to be provided.
Further review of the proposed landscaping plan as attached, will be occurring as well, in
part as it relates to the Tree Preservation requirements. The landscaping plan at this stage
shows the planting of the larger evergreens/deciduous trees throughout the site. The next
submittal will need a planting schedule (common name, species name, planting sizes,
number of). Also, that plan will need the foundation planting information.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: Eventually, there will be 125% of landscaping
costs, with 30% retained for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going
condition of subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual
review by the City to make sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any
dead/dying landscaping is replaced as necessary.
City Forester Site Inspection: He has walked the site previously as part of the earlier tree
survey work, and will be doing further review of these landscaping plans.
Park Fees: 66 units x $1497 = $98,802
Sidewalks: The internal sidewalk system has been identified, and there is a crosswalk
feature to enable a “connection” to the public sidewalk on the west side of 94th Street.
Fire Department: The buildings will be sprinklered, and an asphalt path system is provided
around the rear of all buildings. Other life-safety measures potentially may be required as
well.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee Water Utility, MMSD, WisDOT
Erosion Control: Must be approved prior to any site work beginning.
PUD Requirements: Eventually a PUD Agreement will be entered into with Fortus.
13
PC 6-8-10
18.
Miscellaneous: A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held April 13th at the Layton
Baptist Church. Mr. Neudorfer will be able to summarize the generalized comments at the
PC meeting.
Other PC/CC elements which will be needed as part of this proposed project. Some may
occur concurrently, but others will occur sequentially because until the rezoning process is
successfully completed, those won‟t be needed otherwise:
PUD-Site/Building/Landscaping Review
Vacation of a portion of Chapman Ave.
De-mapping of a portion of future Chapman Ave. R-O-W
Certified Survey Map combining the various parcels, or portions thereof.
19.
As indicated above, the Future Land Use Plan designation is “Planned Mixed Use”. As the
name implies, a variety of things could occur but usually as part of a PUD request.
Specifically, the Land Use Plan excerpt reads, “…This land use designation includes a
carefully designed blend of planned business, mixed residential, planned office and/or
community facility land uses…”. “Mixed Residential” is defined to read “…This land use
designation is intended to permit a variety of residential housing types with a focus on multifamily house and generally developed at densities between eight and sixteen units per
acre…”.
Engineering Comments: Have been included in some of the above Utility and
Stormdrainage/Grading comments. As further detail plans come forward, additional review
comments will be occurring.
Recommendation: Approve the rezoning from R-2 Single Family to PUD – Residential.
Josh Neudorfer with The Sigma Group and Steve Anderson, one of the property owners, were
present to answer questions and provide background on the project. Mayor Neitzke spoke on how it
has become commonplace that any development with positive economic impact (apartments,
manufacturing, etc.) there seems to be some sort of public financial support associated with it.
Ald. Kastner commented that tax credits often times force development at a time when it isn‟t
economically feasible and he doesn‟t feel the City should be forcing development, especially at high
density levels. Mr. Weis agreed with Ald. Kastner‟s comments.
Ms. Hallen questioned if the neighbors are aware of the project and its scale. Mr. Neudorfer gave the
results of their neighborhood information meeting and said the issues in general were mainly
questioning the “type” of people the project would bring into the neighborhood and also the effect on
the local deer population.
Mr. Anderson spoke on the various owners and their marketing efforts for this project and also the
contract with the church to purchase their land. Mr. Dorszynski questioned the purchase dates for
the houses to which Mr. Anderson responded that this was over the last 5-7 years. They‟ve been
marketing this area for various uses for years. Mr. Dorszynski questioned if the one project can
proceed without the other project. Mr. Neudorfer said that the church and the housing project are
completely separate of one another, and that the church is not supportive of connectivity to the
14
PC 6-8-10
housing project via a shared drive or shared stormwater. Mr. Dorszynski commented that there are a
lot of units being proposed, as next to it there are 5 lots with 5 single-family homes on a comparably
sized area versus the 66 families that would be housed here. He questioned the number of children
to which Mr. Neudorfer said he‟d have to get back to him with an answer as that number is
calculated using a specific formula.
Mr. Sponholz questioned the location of Fortus‟ other developments to which it was responded that
they are out of Fort Wayne, IN and have projects there and elsewhere in the country, and are
currently working on a project is Madison. Mr. Neudorfer pointed out that the way the site is laid
out it meets the requirements for decibel levels and will also reduce noise for the neighbors to the
south.
Ald. Kastner questioned why not use this area for “good” development and have single-family
homes instead, like what was done for Winterpark? Ms. Hallen questioned the number of apartment
complexes in Greenfield to which Mr. Erickson replied that the Assessor‟s office would have that
information. Mayor Neitzke questioned the overall value of the project and its assessed value, with
Mr. Anderson replying that it would have about a $3.3 million for project valuation. Mr. Dorszynski
questioned if these units will attract the right element to our City as the maximum income for a
family of 4 caps at $42,000, with no minimum income requirement. He has an issue with its density
and foresees problems 3-4 years down the road, as he has seen how quickly affordable housing
developments seem to deteriorate in quality and appearance, and also worries about the stress it
will place on City services
Mr. Hess questioned if they are slab-on-grade or basement built, to which it was responded they‟d be
slab built and the water table was taken into consideration for this. It was also noted that there‟d be
two elevators per building.
Mr. Neudorfer said when Fortus looks at a project it has to be viable to fill the units. They feel this
project would be success with or without the WHEDA credits. Also, they found in their market
analysis there is not enough of this type of “product” to serve the demand for it.
Mr. Anderson said the rents don‟t change as income fluctuates. The goal is to get consistent rent
payers with the highest income possible. The average rents are $800-$1,200 but are lower with the
tax credit. Ald. Kastner said he feels they will have vacancies at those rent levels. Mr. Neudorfer
responded that the rents are fixed and the credits go for construction and enable a better product to
be built. Mr. Weis said that with these types of things the developer gets 110% financing and has his
profit up front. Mr. Neudorfer responded that the tax credit acts as the developer‟s equity and that
the developer must own it 15 years. Mr. Anderson said the balance of the financing is all personally
guaranteed. Ms. Hallen questioned if the WHEDA would also assist with rental assistance at this
location. Mr. Neudorfer replied that what is being looked at now by WHEDA is the application for
the development credit and that is all he has been in contact with them on.
Mr. Weis said he is not in favor of changing the zoning for this type of project. Mayor Neitzke said
he wrote a letter to WHEDA in support of this project showing its need, which is a common practice
for many projects seeking WHEDA credits. He then spoke on how this project would create park
fees, permitting fees and add to the tax base. He noted that the land to the west isn‟t developable, but
15
PC 6-8-10
would be able to remain as mature woodland, so then the intention turned to getting as much density
in this area as possible, with this project generating more tax base than if single-family homes were
built in this area. Also, this site accommodates the potential church relocation, which may help with
the redevelopment of the Chapman and “farmer field” areas, and the proposed architectural style fits
in with that of Layton Terrace on the corner.
Ald. Kastner questioned of Mayor Neitzke what the difference is between New Berlin‟s proposed
“workforce” apartments and this project. Mayor Neitzke responded that New Berlin has a TIF, the
New Berlin project was attempting to go in where a “City Center” atmosphere was planned, this
location is adjacent to a freeway on land that is not really developable for anything else, it will be
competitive with the developer taking the risk and, when viewed in the bigger perspective, it is a
good idea in theory. While he‟d prefer an 8-story office building there, this may be the best we can
ask for in this area.
Ald. Kastner said he doesn‟t want a “sort of okay” Greenfield, he wants the best for the City. He
feels that forcing development doesn‟t bring about the best use.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Weis to forward a negative recommendation on the
request for rezoning from R-2 Single Family to PUD Residential the 5.2 acres west of 94th
Street and north of Layton Avenue for the purpose of constructing three 22-unit multi-family
apartment buildings, with garages and a clubhouse for a project to be named is “Preserve at
Greenfield”, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #607-0001-001,
607-0004-001, 607-9965-002, and a portion of 607-9967. Motion carried 5-2 with Mr. Hess
and Mayor Neitzke voting against the denial.
8 – a: Hussein & Katherine Ali, 7536 S. 77th Street, Franklin, WI 53132 requests a Special Use for the
purpose of opening a liquor store at 3318 W. Loomis Road (i.e. separately after this process
has been completed, if successful, they will need a “Class A” type of license which is also
approved by the Common Council), Tax Key #553-0440.
1.
Background: The Ali‟s, former owners of Jen‟s Beverages at 4312 Howard, want to
purchase this property in order to open a liquor store. See attached Description of Proposal
and a preliminary floor plan. Eventually if this process is successful for the Ali‟s, they will
need a “Class A” type of license from the Common Council (CC). In May, 2009 a Special
Use had been approved for Open House Estate Sales at this location, but that business did
not last very long at that location.
On 2/2/10 the CC took action to put a moratorium on the issuance of Class A licenses as per
a recommendation from the Legislative Committee. As coincidence would have it, that
same meeting was when there were three public hearings concerning the issuing of Class A
licenses (i.e. for two Walgreens and the BP @ 124th & Layton). Subsequent to that the
Legislative Committee continues their review/discussion of this matter, and a formal
resolution (#3335) was passed by the CC on 4/20/10.
The Ali‟s had give Staff this PC application in early May. Given how that prior CC action
had been interpreted regarding the Class A moratorium, staff didn‟t act on this submittal
thinking that once the moratorium was „lifted‟, then it would be time to proceed. However,
the Ali‟s attended the May 17th Legislative Com. meeting and discussed their request. The
16
PC 6-8-10
direction they were given by the Committee and Atty. Pyzyk was that it was alright for their
request to proceed because the moratorium did not affect „liquor store‟ type of requests, as
a category of Class A licensing. Admittedly, when staff viewed those minutes, there wasn‟t
any clear direction that it was okay to proceed one way or another.
Attached are those various meeting minutes and resolution excerpts.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Ali called today (June 7th) wondering why her item wasn‟t on the June 8th
Plan Commission agenda. After speaking with Ald. Lubotsky and Pietrowski who were part
of that Legislative Com. meeting, they both confirmed what the discussion had been at that
meeting and the City Attorney‟s similar perspective as well, that the Class A moratorium
was not intended to affect „liquor store‟ type of requests. So, this is why the Addendum was
done.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The Description of Proposal makes a reference
that “…improvements will be made on the property itself inside and out…”. While the
narrative discusses the interior changes, it is „silent‟ on any proposed exterior changes. The
Ali‟s need to identify what those exterior changes may be.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: This site has limited parking in the
front of the building(s) with only direct access from Loomis.
The size of the 3318 building is 2,400 s.f. and the 3314 building is 1,260 s.f. 2,400 + 1,260
= 3,660 s.f. Parking requirements for a “retail use” are 5 stalls/1,000 s.f. of building
area: 3.6 X 5 = 18 stalls needed. Counting the handicap stall, there are eight stalls on this
combined parking area.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Building and parking lot drain to existing storm system in
Loomis.
Lighting (building & site): Limited lighting exists at the front and rear of the building.
Signage: Will need to be identified.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Assuming a dumpster will be needed, plans for
the appropriately design enclosure will be needed for the rear of the building.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Given the „tightness‟ of this site, there isn‟t much space for and
landscaping, but adding some „potted‟ bushes/shrubs/flowers along the front of the proposed
liquor store portion of the site, will help improve the aesthetics somewhat.
Hours of Operation: Monday – Saturday: 10 a.m. – 9 p.m.; and Sunday 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Miscellaneous: The public hearing notice mailing list, once it is prepared, based on the usual
400‟ radius line will be shared with the Ali‟s so that they could choose to do either a mailing
or a neighborhood information meeting in advance of the formal public hearing before the
CC in either July (20th) or August (17th).
Attached are pictures of the building/site, and a map of the City showing the various Class
A license locations, regardless of the specific type.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend authorizing the public hearing process to proceed,
however, in the meantime there are some site issues which need further follow-up by the Ali‟s and/or
property owner which need to be reviewed further at the next PC meeting so they can be resolved
before the formal public hearing:
17
PC 6-8-10
Parking: How is the shortage of parking going to be handled? A potential option is
seeing if the ownership group of the Pizza Hut would be open to a „cross-access
easement‟ for “X” number of stalls for at least a 2 - 3 year period of time. If it is shown
or proven that those additional stalls are not needed, then the Ali‟s can return to the PC
to seek authorization to remove or eliminate the cross-access parking requirement.
Landscaping: A preliminary plan needs to be prepared showing some foundation
planting (i.e. by the building) improvements.
Dumpster enclosure: Plans needed for the enclosure (i.e. assumes refuse will be stored
outside).
Building exterior: Identify plans – if any – for exterior improvements.
Signage: Identify signage plan.
Lighting: Identify any lighting modifications.
Admittedly Staff is „torn‟ at this point related to a “use” recommendation as follows:
The Ali‟s have shown given their past ownership of “Jen‟s” to make good improvements
to a property and to have a good business operation. Supporting their initiative, in these
economic times, to apply the same effort to what has been an historically difficult
business site (i.e. longevity), seems like an easy „yes‟.
Nonetheless, how many actual „liquor stores‟ in the eastern 1/3 rd of the City are really
needed? Existing liquor stores are at: 43rd & Howard; 55th & Forest Home; 61st & Cold
Spring; and 44th & Loomis.
Katherine Ali was present to answer questions. Mayor Neitzke stated that historically the Council is
not favorable to granting liquor sales unless substantial landscaping improvements are planned.
Mayor Neitzke requested a clarification in writing in regard to the moratorium on Class A licenses
from City Attorney Roger Pyzyk. [[Staff subsequently discussed this matter with him. He said his
comment to Mrs. Ali that it was okay was to proceed was based on the fact that the moratorium is to
expire June 30th. It was not that liquor stores were exempted from the moratorium.]]
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to forward this request without a
recommendation for the Special Use requested to open a liquor store at 3318 W. Loomis Road,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize the public hearing process to
begin. Tax Key #553-0440. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
1.
Background: [[Held over from May PC]]. This item is meant to review a fairly common
aspect which comes to PC regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor” change as it
relates to Special Uses, and then naturally the need for a public hearing. While the PUD
section of the ZC [[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially may be a
“major” change, the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those PUD
elements to start the discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use,
instead of relying later on the City Attorney to render a perspective using his judgment only.
18
PC 6-8-10
The PUD guidelines for the “major” change do not necessarily need to be considered the
absolute „benchmark‟ either when considering having some guidelines for a Special Use and
this type of situation. The ordinance, as drafted, does include the phrase “... The PC shall
find that any modification therein, may be considered (emphasis added) a major change if
such modification:…”. The consensus of the PC will still determine, within the context of
the request, whether the adopted guidelines as written will apply.
recommendation to the Legislative Committee. Assuming the Leg. Committee will also have a
similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future Common Council meeting for this
Item held over.
10.
Mayor Neitzke noted that on June 2nd the Business Improvement District (BID) #1 and #2
representatives met for the first time and things are now beginning to move forward.
Mr. Erickson indicated that the Plan Commission packet had also included a letter (May 18, 2010)
from Margaret Erhart, 4515 W. Edgerton Avenue, pertaining to her position regarding the potential
Buddhist Temple near 44th & Edgerton. [Project had been on the January 12, 2010 Plan Commission
agenda as a “Conceptual Project Review” but was withdrawn prior to that meeting by their architect.
The project remains on-hold.]
11.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ald. Kastner, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
12.
July 13, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed June 18, 2010
19
PC 6-8-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010
1.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Ald. Kastner
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Ms. Collins to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Sponholz abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on June 15th. At the meeting the Special
Use for Clearwire for a communications tower at United Memorial Methodist Church (3450 S. 52nd)
was approved.
4.
Discussion/decision/review of traffic analysis prepared for Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street;
and also discuss the fence installation along the „bank‟ side of the parcel. Tax Key
#605-9979-002.
1.
Background: The PC minutes for the June 8th meeting included a variety of matters that
were discussed including: information from Police Chief Springob about “directed patrol
mission”; statutory allowance for Class B liquor license closing times – regardless of
whether it‟s a bar or restaurant; and the idea of Mad Dog doing a traffic analysis which
would include reviewing the public commentary from the May PC, investigate the value of
additional parking which may be available across 76th Street at „Rogans‟ and from the
Balkans Restaurant next door that is now for sale.
Since the June 8th meeting, additional documents have been received by Staff regarding
Mad Dog and those include:
Traffic analysis prepared by Traffic Analysis & Design (dated 7/7/10) which will be
discussed in greater detail on July 13th.
June 9th email from Jeff Powers, 7637 Allerton to Mayor Neitzke and Ald. Pietrowski
regarding the June 8th PC meeting.
Excerpt of the June 15th CC meeting where ordinances were passed pertaining to: „No
Right Turn‟ from the Mad Dog parking lot onto Forest Home; and „No Right Turn‟
from Forest Home to 79th St. from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.
June 19th email from Mr. Powers to Mayor Neitzke regarding public urination.
1
PC 7-13-10
June 24th series of emails/pictures/minute excerpts from a fence contractor (John
Schleck) regarding the fencing put up on the „bank side‟ of the parking lot. Essentially
chain-link with slats, which matches the west side of the property, was installed. What
had been approved though was for „black vinyl fabric‟ to be installed.
The narrative below is similar to what was distributed for the June 8 th PC meeting. PC
members and others are asked to utilize their May and/or April meeting packet for the
½”thick attachments related to this item which include: materials from the Ald. Pietrowski
which had excerpts of the “Special Use” section of the ZC, copies of Police Dept.
“Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to this property, copies of various emails he has
received concerning Mad Dog, a petition signed by approx. 40 people requesting the City to
“not renew the special use permit” for Mad Dog, and “petitions in support of maintaining
the special use permit” which Atty. Fuchs had submitted.
The PC minutes for the May 11th meeting include numerous comments from neighbors,
Atty. Fuchs on behalf of Mr. LaLicata, PC members, Ald. Pietrowski, and City Attorney
Pyzyk. Mr. Pyzyk had suggested that Atty. Fuchs address what they feel would be
solutions to the concerns raised by the neighbors, and then meet with Mr. Erickson to
discuss further prior to the next PC meeting on June 8th. The PC consensus was that the
broad categorization of the nature of comments/concerns from the May 11th meeting were
as follows:
Traffic in the neighborhood
Late night/bar-time noise
Trash in the neighborhood
Safety in the neighborhood
Balkans: This property is for sale, it‟s zoned C-4 Commercial like Mad Dog, and it has
Police Dept.
2
PC 7-13-10
couple of days in early May (see attached). Related to this aspect, the Board of Public
frontage road onto S. 79th Street.
public commentary to heard and discussed by the PC. Accordingly, the staff notes and the
various attachments are identical to what was distributed for the April PC, were the same for
the May PC, however, there was one exception. That exception is that Atty. Fuchs, on
Ald. Pietrowski has submitted a request asking the PC to review the Special Use which.
Mad Dog.
1983:
1991:
1993:
2001:
2006:
2009:
(see attached), the hours of operation were identified for the restaurant (11 a.m.–11 p.m.)
and the bar (use normal bar time hours as allowed by statute).
3
PC 7-13-10
parcel. All these prior business had an alcohol license which enable them to stay open
been done prior to the change-over, would have enabled any greater or lesser special use
requirements than whatever already obligates a person/business with an existing “Class B”
License.
Recommendation: As had been discussed at the May & June PC meeting and suggested by City
Attorney Pyzyk, the “step” which the PC is at is to determine as per ZC 21.04.0701(J) as attached,
whether or not there are grounds to formally review the Special Use issued to Mad Dog.
Of those particular provisions, from a staff perspective, the operative section to make a judgment on
is Paragraph 21.04.0701(J)(1)(c) or more specifically “A change…in the special use itself which has
cause the special use to become incompatible with the surrounding uses…”.
The fact that this is now a „bar which serves food‟ versus a „restaurant that has a bar‟, in of itself is
not enough of “a change to make it incompatible”. The fact that this business is popular at this point
or is being successfully marketed is not “a change to make it incompatible”. Are there operational
aspects which draws negative attention to Mad Dog which will require constant oversight by
ownership/management? Yes. Is ownership/management serious and attentive to their
responsibilities? Yes.
4
PC 7-13-10
Finally, Staff has a viewpoint on the “adverse impact” portion of the ZC [[21.04.0701(2)]] and its
applicability here. This code language suggests that its use pertains more to a “prospective”
evaluation of a proposed use prior to it going in, not an after-the-fact perspective.
Dominic LaLicata, the owner‟s son, and Atty. John Fuchs, the owner‟s lawyer were present
to answer questions. Atty. Fuchs gave a review of the traffic analysis that they had done and
previously distributed to the Plan Commission members. Traffic Analysis & Design was hired due
to the Mad Dog‟s owner‟s concern about the claim of increased patron traffic and to see if that was
problematic for the neighborhood, and also to give any recommendations on the parking situation.
Traffic Analysis provided a report of their findings, showing the times they were there monitoring.
Mr. Fuchs cited the finding on page 4 of the report that stated “…based on observations there was no
measurable Mad Dog Saloon traffic on W. Allerton Avenue or S. 79th Street during the peak hours of
the establishment. However, on Forest Home the Mad Dog Saloon driveways are the only major
traffic generator between count locations 1 and 2.” He cited this information to draw attention to the
fact that the findings show no substantial additional traffic.
Next, Mr. Fuchs cited the parking portion of the analysis. He said that while the conclusion on the
parking was not finalized, the recommendation based on winter traffic assumptions was to provide
an additional 30-35 spaces to meet City parking ratios. Traffic Analysis notes that an occupancy
study should be conducted to verify the number of additional spaces needed.
Ald. Kastner said he feels that these issues are not over by any means. Mad Dog will need to
continue working with the neighbors, with the ability to co-exist with the neighbors being dependent
on their willingness to cooperate.
Mr. Marciniak pointed out that, as reflected in the traffic study, there is an incompatibility between
the capacity of the business and the available parking on-site. This issue has come up numerous
times before. His opinion is the capacity must match the available on-site parking. While
discussions on how to remedy this via utilizing possible off-site parking or via land purchases to then
be used for parking have occurred, nothing has been done. He feels that the business capacity should
be realigned to the available parking capacity. He clarified that his position is that the City should
enforce the code that is in effect today.
Discussion followed amongst Mr. Erickson and the Plan Commission on the parking formula,
Mad Dog‟s current availability, and how Mad Dog falls short of meeting their parking space
requirement applying Zoning Code standards that are based on the size of the building and the
nature of the use. Atty. Fuchs cited how the previous establishments at this location that haven‟t met
the same parking space requirement either. But to consider since it is Mad Dog that now it is an
issue, can be a problem.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Hess to deny the request to review the special use
under the provision of the Zoning Code pertaining to adverse impact, and to allow the special
use to continue at Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street; subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments. Tax Key #605-9979-002. Motion and second were withdrawn after it was pointed
out that the agenda did not indicate that this type of action was going to be considered.
5
PC 7-13-10
Mr. Hess commented that all that has been going on at Mad Dog is a result of change and change is
something that both sides need to adapt to. He feels that Mad Dog has gone above and beyond in
trying to accommodate the neighbors. Ms. Hallen also commented that it is difficult for homeowners
who have commercial neighbors, but that needs to be accepted into the equation by the homeowner
as a fact of their location. Mr. Marciniak said he tries to view these issues as if he is a resident and
someone “new” (i.e. Mad Dog) has moved in. He said the first thing one would do as a newcomer is
find out about the neighbors and neighborhood, and then take that information to be the best possible
neighbor. Mad Dog owes it to the neighbors to be respectful, and the neighbors in turn are owed
that expectation of respect.
Ald. Kastner clarified that there are two separate issues here tonight; Ald. Pietrowski‟s request
of reviewing the special use and the traffic analysis/fence issue that was on tonight‟s agenda.
Discussion followed on the fencing issue. It was decided to place this item on the next agenda.
5.
Abdallah Hussien, S & F VIP Inc., 3045 W. Kimberly Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53221 requests a
Special Use Review as the new operator/owner of the Villager Food Mart, 6845 W. Layton
Avenue. Tax Key #617-0118.
1.
2.
3.
Background: There is a new owner/operator of the Villager Food Mart business at this
location. The “applicant is continuing the existing operations”. The City Clerk‟s office had
received a letter from the property owner‟s attorney regarding the previous tenant, which
helps explain why this lease space is available.
Hours of Operation: 8 a.m. – 9 p.m. daily.
Fire Department: A problem with the last tenant which seemed to occur occasionally – in an
effort to curtail retail theft -- was that product shelving would be located over one of the
exits, and another exit would be „locked‟ which eventually led to a „panic bar alarm‟ system
being installed.
expedited to the July 20th CC meeting.
Mr. Hussein was present to answer questions.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Hess to recommend approval of a Special Use
Review for Abdallah Hussein as the new operator/owner of the Villager Food Mart, 6845 W.
Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the July 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #617-0118. Motion carried
unanimously.
6.
Rodney & Victoria Waters, Goldcoast Subs, 1831 S. 59th Street, West Allis, WI 53214 requests
a Special Use for the purpose of opening a Goldcoast Sub business in a vacant tenant space at
the “Boot Corral” building, 4263 W. Layton Avenue. Tax Key #621-9957-001.
1.
2.
Background: Gold Coast Subs has submitted a request to lease a vacant tenant space in
the Boot Connection building (NE corner) at 43rd and Layton. See attached narrative and
preliminary floor plan information. Part of this request includes the desire to have two
tables outside under the porch roof.
Signage: Will need to adhere to the Master Sign Plan for the site.
6
PC 7-13-10
Recommendation: Approve request subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize the public
hearing process to proceed.
Rodney & Victoria Waters were present to answer questions. They stated that there are three other
Goldcoast locations: 5901 W. Burnham, 3883 S. 27th Street, and 3425 W. Oklahoma Avenue.
Mr. Walters said their menu is cold subs only, there is no cooking involved.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to recommend approval of a Special
Use for Rodney & Victoria Waters for the purpose of opening a Goldcoast Sub business in a
vacant tenant space at the “Boot Corral” building, 4263 W. Layton Avenue, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key
7.
Ali El Hashash, 4816 S. 21st Street, Milwaukee, WI 53221 requests a Special Use for the
purpose of selling „hookah‟ tobacco products as part of the Holy Land Grocery Store operation
at 2765 W. Ramsey Avenue. Tax Key #691-9984-001.
Item held over.
8.
Hussein & Katherine Ali, 7536 S. 77th Street, Franklin, WI 53132 request a Site/Building/
Landscaping Review as a follow-up to a Special Use request heard at the June PC for the
purpose of opening a liquor store at 3318 W. Loomis Road. Tax Key #553-0440.
1.
2.
3.
Background: This item was reviewed at the June 8th Plan Commission meeting; see
attached description of proposal as a refresher. A recommendation was made for the public
hearing process to begin but without any recommendation; that public hearing will be held
July 20th. During the PC meeting several site issues were raised which desired to be resolved
before the public hearing. Several of these concerns are addressed in a letter and
attachments from Katherine Ali dated June 23, 2010 regarding: ability to use the Pizza Hut
parking lot for spill-over parking; parking lot improvements; lighting (wall paks);
landscaping; dumpster enclosure; front building awning which also would include a „wall‟
sign; and a flyer they distributed using the 400‟ radius map/addresses for a neighborhood
information meeting on July 1st.
There was discussion at the last PC meeting about the CC moratorium regarding Class A
type of licenses. Mrs. Ali attended the May 17th Legislative Com. meeting and discussed
their request. The direction they were given by the Committee and Atty. Pyzyk was that it
was alright for their request to proceed because the moratorium was ending June 30th, not
that the moratorium did not include „liquor store‟ type of requests, as had been suggested.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: They will replace two existing awnings that
have a gap in between with one seamless new canopy covering this entire space.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: In June the PC questioned how the
shortage of parking will be handled. A “cross-access easement” with the Pizza Hut was
recommended if additional stalls are needed. Katherine Ali spoke with Ron Steiner, owner
of this Pizza Hut, who assures that parking in his lot along the side of the building is of no
problem to him though as a part of a franchise, he is not able to put this in writing.
In addition, there is a June 13 letter from Allan McFadyen regarding parking. His letter
indicates that 16 stalls are available on-site; 8 in front and 8 in back.
7
PC 7-13-10
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.
10.
Parking lot improvement issues are another aspect. It is indicated in Ali‟s letter that the
“parking lot will be resurfaced, front and rear; joints will be milled; rear area will be
wedged; soil sterilizer to be sprayed for weed growth; a tack coat to be applied for new
pavement.”
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Building and parking lot drain to existing storm system
in Loomis.
Lighting (building & site): In June the PC requested identification of lighting
modifications. A proposal has been obtained for seven 70 watt wall pack units (1: north
side; 3: east side; and 3: south side).
Signage: The awning would include building signage.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): In June the PC requested plans for
enclosure of the dumpster. The proposal is to build a wood cedar enclosure on the north side
of the building.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: In June the PC requested a preliminary plan to show some
foundation planting improvements. The proposal indicates flowerbeds in front of the
luggage store and large pots of flowers along the main storefront will be planted. In
addition, decorative stone as well as crushed granite walkway will be used.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: 125% of landscaping costs, with 30%
retained for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going condition of
subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual review by the City
to make sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any dead/dying landscaping
is replaced as necessary.
Hours of Operation: Monday – Saturday: 10 a.m. – 9 p.m.; and Sunday 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Recommendation: The Ali‟s have diligently followed-up on the „open items‟ identified at the June
PC concerning the „site & building‟ matters, and staff has a favorable recommendation on what has
been proposed.
As it relates to the „use‟, below represents the Staff comments from the June PC meeting:
Admittedly Staff is/was „torn‟ at this point related to a “use” recommendation as follows:
The Ali‟s have shown given their past ownership of “Jen‟s” to make good improvements
to a property and to have a good business operation. Supporting their initiative, in these
economic times, to apply the same effort to what has been an historically difficult
business site (i.e. longevity), seems like an easy „yes‟.
Nonetheless, how many actual liquor stores in the eastern 1/3 rd of the City are really
needed? Existing liquor stores are at: 43rd & Howard; 55th & Forest Home; 61st & Cold
Spring; and 44th & Loomis.
Katherine Ali and Mr. McFadyen, the owner, were present to answer questions. Mayor Neitzke,
who was unable to attend the meeting, forwarded on his comments, which Ald. Kastner read as
follows: “I cannot support the liquor store on Loomis. There is no substantial improvement to the
property. There are other retailers selling their product nearby and the business is immediately
adjacent to a residential neighborhood which has been very unified in the past against special uses
deemed detrimental”.
8
PC 7-13-10
Mrs. Ali responded to the Mayor‟s comments by stating that their intention is to improve the site
and they‟ve been going thru plans and estimates. These are things they would do as owners of the
property, in the past those occupying the space were renters. She said that at the neighborhood
information meeting they held, about 15 people attended, with only one have an objection.
Ms. Hallen questioned if Ald. Lubotsky (the district alderperson) attended, to which Mrs. Ali replied
that she was invited and was also called, but she did not attend. It was also stated that the Alis were
the previous owners of the liquor store at 43rd & Howard. Mrs. Ali said they ran that store for
7 years and never had a problem, and also made a lot of improvements to that property.
Ald. Kastner said he‟d prefer this item be held over with the site and landscape issues, and not have
that occur at the same time as the special use review. This would keep the issues separate and the
public hearing forum would bring up any issues from the neighbors.
Mr. Marciniak commented that their former location they ran at 43 rd & Howard looked significantly
better with the improvements the Alis made. Mrs. Ali said they not only took on improving that
property but became a part of that neighborhood.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Ms. Hallen to hold over the Site/Building/Landscaping
Review, for the proposed liquor store at 3318 W. Loomis Road, until the August Plan
commission which would enable any pertinent information coming out of the July 20 th public
hearing to be considered as well. Tax Key #553-0440. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
James Letizia, represented by Michael Peine, Michael Peine Architects, 4617 N. Idlewild,
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 requests a Special Use amendment & Site/Landscaping Review for
the purpose of installing an outdoor patio area and reconfiguring the parking lot layout at
Diamond Jim‟s, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue. Tax Key #571-8957-002.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Background: This item is a follow-up from a previous approval this past April for Mr.
Letizia to make exterior modifications to his building. The idea of doing some further
patio/parking lot changes were preliminarily discussed then but now are ready to be
finalized.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The plan includes 42 parking spots, 2
handicapped spots, and 6 motorcycle spots. The April PC notes included that Mr. Letizia
potentially in the future may try to gain access capability to some of the WE Energies land
near the northeast corner of the building. The existing parking lot layout identifies 48 stalls.
The revised parking lot layout essentially creates a more defined one way „in‟/one way „out‟
vehicle flow.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): A new catch-basin was installed in the parking lot when
the previous owner may site modifications.
Lighting (building & site): Accent lighting will be added to the facades visible from Forest
Home and from the parking lot. No changes proposed for the parking lot lights.
Fencing: The new plans include a new wood and iron patio fence as indicated above to
surround the raised concrete patio. The fence is 48” high with a 40” gate. Access to the
patio appears to be only from the inside of the building, but then the gate is available only
for emergency exiting (i.e. this gate may be used for cleaning or general access in non-open
times).
Hours of Operation: Since there is a Class B liquor license at this location, that enables
the statutory hours of operation (2:00 a.m.) to be applicable to this patio.
9
PC 7-13-10
7.
8.
Miscellaneous: Separately Mr. Letizia will need to amend his “licensed premises” area as
designated on the current liquor license.
Recommend landscape provisions in proximity of renovated vestibule with a handicap
accessible sidewalk connection to the parking lot.
Ensure positive drainage for the outdoor concrete patio area.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, consider this a major change
needing a public hearing, and authorize that hearing process to proceed.
Mr. Peine was present to answer questions and gave a brief review of the proposed patio location in
comparison to the potential design when it was being considered by the owner of Mr. Miyagi‟s.
Mr. Marciniak commented that the proposed patio design is very nice in that it is “tucked away”
from the neighbors. He questioned whether or not any music would be piped into the patio area,
to which Mr. Peine said that has yet to be determined. Ald. Kastner stated he likes the patio
design and its location, however, he‟d like to see some landscaping added, such as plantings at the
entrance with trees to add a shade element for the patio and also serve as buffer for the patrons on the
patio from Forest Home. Mr. Peine responded that they have landscaping along the west side of the
building where they have a masonry enclosure and also have additional landscape elements along the
north side. Mr. Peine said he would discuss the possibility of additional landscape elements with
Mr. Letizia.
Motion by Mr. Sponholz, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to recommend approval of a Special Use
amendment & Site/Landscaping Review for the purpose of installing an outdoor patio area
and reconfiguring the parking lot layout at Diamond Jim‟s, 6869 W. Forest Home Avenue,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, with this to be considered a minor change not
needing a public hearing and to include additional landscaping as discussed, and authorize this
item to be expedited to the July 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #571-8957-002.
10.
Greg and Kathy Schneider, 4311 W. Grange Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53220, request a Special
Use Amendment & Site/Building/Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a patio
addition to the Corner Club tavern at 4309 W. Grange Avenue. Tax Key #666-8999.
1.
2.
Background: Last July the Corner Club had submitted a request to construct an addition to
the existing facility for a “Smoking Room” to allow patrons to smoke in preparation for the
law prohibiting indoor smoking. The Corner Club withdrew their plans at the time but
presently resubmit a site plan for review, but the difference is to have a patio only, not any
enclosed structure.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The 20‟ x 30‟ concrete patio will be an
uncovered with a 52” high split-face CMU enclosure wall. The site plans indicate it is
connected to the south wall of the existing two-story residence/bar. There is an entrance
doorway from the bar to the patio at this latter section. New 4” concrete granular fill will
form patio foundation. Due to the uncertainties of the new state law on the smoking-ban at
this time, the CC intention is potentially in the future to use this patio construction as the
basis for an actual building enclosure.
10
PC 7-13-10
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Sheet 1 indicates 40 new persons
as the “occupant load”. This raises the issue of whether existing parking will accommodate
this load increase as no changes to parking are indicated. The adding of square footage
increases the need for more parking, while at the same time the placement of the patio
addition will require the elimination of two parking spaces. The Schneiders have discussed
with staff ideas for replacing/adding parking, but those ideas need to be displayed on a site
plan for PC review.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Drainage holes 6‟ on-center are located along west
wall for drainage purposes.
Lighting (building & site): Four decorative light fixtures are placed at each corner of
the new wall.
Fire Department: Further review underway regarding the potential need for an exitonly door/gate in the wall.
Miscellaneous: The Schneiders do own the residential parcel immediately to the south (tax
key #666-8998) of the Corner Club
There is a significant amount of asphalt parking lot located within South 43 rd Street
right-of-way.
Verify parking requirements for the existing building (20 spaces per 1,000 square feet).
It appears that the enclosed patio addition will eliminate two (2) existing parking spaces,
while no parking spaces have been proposed by the site plan.
Recommendation: Approve the request subject to PC and staff comments, consider this a major
change and authorize the public hearing process to begin. The reason for recommending the need for
a public hearing is the closer proximity adjacent residences exist in relationship to the actual patio
location (i.e. as compared with other locations in the city where a patio was installed).
Greg and Kathy Schneider were present to answer questions. Mr. Schneider spoke briefly on
their current condition, how it has become increasingly harder to compete with other neighboring
bars in these times, how sponsorship of ball leagues is not as profitable to them as it had been, and
how they don‟t know how long they can survive without a smoking area. He mentioned that they
run a clean, quiet type of operation, cater to an older crowd and have 26 security cameras in place
for monitoring, which they take very seriously.
Ald. Kastner commented that the size of the patio is bigger than the bar itself. Mr. Sponholz
questioned the cost of the patio to which Mr. Schneider replied approximately $35,000. He said he‟d
prefer a central smoking location is it makes cleanup of cigarette butts easier. He spoke on how they
are losing approximately $700/day, to which Ald. Kastner responded that this law, while just
having come into effect July 5th, is something which was known a year ago. Mr. Schneider said they
didn‟t know where they‟d be financially when the law took effect, which determined the action
they‟d be able to take. He said he is at a point where he will do whatever it takes to stay open and
competitive, and if that means reducing the size of the patio to gain the favor of the Plan
Commission he would do so.
Motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Special Use
amendment & Site/Building/Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a patio
addition to the Corner Club tavern at 4309 W. Grange Avenue, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, with this to be considered a major change, and authorize the
public hearing process to begin with a favorable recommendation. Tax Key #666-8999.
11
PC 7-13-10
Discussion followed where the Plan Commission discussed the timing of a public hearing, because
it‟s not guaranteed this item would be on the August 17th Common Council agenda, where it would
take this request until fall to be approved/constructed. Mr. Schneider spoke on how they are
losing approximately $700/day and that‟d be a huge hit to take between now and fall when they
could first begin construction on the patio. Mr. Schneider said that with their current allotment of
barstools and tables inside they have seating for about 40, the patio would provide seating for about
20 additional people.
The motion to take this item to a public hearing as a major change in relation to the neighbor‟s
proximity to the business was withdrawn by the motioner and seconded.
Motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Special Use
amendment & Site/Building/Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a patio
addition to the Corner Club tavern at 4309 W. Grange Avenue, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, with this to be considered a minor change not needing a
public hearing, and authorize this item to be expedited to the July 20 th Common Council
meeting. Tax Key #666-8999. Motion carried unanimously.
11.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, represented by Diane Hellmann-Sainterme,
Design Unlimited, 303 West Upham Street, Suite 100, Marshfield, WI 54449 requests a
Conceptual Project Review for a proposed 16,100 s.f. building on a four acre parcel at the
southeast corner of 35th Street & Barnard Avenue. Tax Key #622-9988-018.
1.
Background: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) has proposed new
place of worship for a two local wards or branches on this 4 acre parcel. See attached very
detailed submittal which includes: Quick Facts narrative (i.e. Why GF?/How Chapel is
Used/RLUIPA/In lieu of tax perspective), Humanitarian Projects listing, and an extensive
and broad site/building/landscaping plan materials. LDS representatives indicate in this
narrative that locating a chapel in this neighborhood of Greenfield will make the Church
more accessible, decrease traffic, and foster a sense of community among their members.
The narrative details LDS studies which determined the area south and west of I-894 and
I-94, in the northeast part of Greenfield, to best serve this region of the Mormon community.
The proposal is to construct a 16,120 square foot Mormon Church on the southeast corner of
South 35th Street and West Barnard Avenue. The above narrative also states that an
extensive search concluded that no other vacant institutional property available in
Greenfield. Thus that aspect is the basis for their request to designate this Residential zoned
property into Institutional use. This will require a rezoning from the current Residential (R2A) to an Institutional use.
The LDS narrative makes a point to review/apply the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) to this setting as it “…obligates the
government to demonstrate that a land use regulation which substantially burdens the
exercise of religion to be „the least restrictive means‟ of furthering a „compelling‟
government interest.” The narrative cites overcrowded congregations in existing facilities as
preventing or limiting worship activities. In addition, the absence of available land is cited
preventing the construction of the church in other areas. LDS feel that for these reasons
preventing construction of the proposed new chapel would substantially burden the Church‟s
and its members‟ religious exercise.
12
PC 7-13-10
2.
Discussions with LDS representatives regarding this parcel go back several months, and in
early May there was a pre-submittal meeting with a number of LDS people and City
department representatives (i.e. Inspection, Fire, DPW, & Engineering; Police was invited
but unable to attend).
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The building uses a general brick and brick
wainscoting façade with intermediating windows, brick arch design door designs. The roof
includes a number of gable slopes, and uses metal fascia and soffit materials. The color
rendering is the cover page of site/building hand-out materials.
The west elevation is about 27‟ to the top of the “ridge of truss”, and the overall height of the
steeple is 63‟. EIFS is indicated as being used on this part of the exterior. The east elevation
is the same in height as the west, but has a slightly different „central‟ design; part of the
reason is answered in reviewing the floor plan where there is the chapel area on the west end
and office uses on the east end. The building foot-print includes variations – façade
articulations -- which also help with the overall design.
The north and south elevations are where the 27‟ ridge height provides the largest visual
element – roof --because of the lateral extension of the building. In the PC packet are
pictures of some other LDS locations in Wisconsin. In general, it is an attractive building
but more brick is needed, and some other design amenity – maybe even dormers – could
help create some additional architectural element to the most visible „face‟ of the building, at
least on the north and south side. Actually a dormer(s) may even enable more natural light
into the building.
3.
The building related materials also include a proposal for a pavilion on the east side of the
parcel, and at the southeast side of the parking lot, there is a separate storage building/trash
enclosure/satellite dish with enclosure. That building is all brick.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Traffic will enter only from Barnard
Avenue in one of two driveways which decreases slowing traffic on 35th Street. There are
three different methods of calculating parking requirements for a church in the ZC. The
method which is most applicable here is that there must be .33 stalls per seat if the seats are
fixed; the building plan indicates there are 280 chapel seats. 280 X .33 = 92 parking spaces
minimum are required. 138 stalls are provided with the capability of adding 29 stalls along
the east side of the parking lot if need be, in the future (138 + 29 = 167 stalls total available).
The packet includes two layout options (A & B). The submitted site plan materials are
based on “A” because that doesn‟t “split” the parcel like “B” does. The bulk of parking lot
is situated on the east end, so that it is not visible from 35th Street. Two double-loaded
parking areas are on the north and south sides of the building. Eight spaces are designated
for handicapped parking.
4.
Part of the Quick Facts materials looks at times-of-day usage. Although there is some
weekday evening use, clearly the peak church time is Sunday which then means there isn‟t
any conflict with peak morning drop-off/afternoon pick-up times at the Middle School.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): This site has a significant amount of “fall” from the SE
corner (779‟ elev.) to the NW corner (765‟ elev.). The proposed grading plan effectively
tries to “flatten out” the site (proposed finished floor elevation is 772‟). The result of the
proposed grading plan is that the site will be lower that everything to the south and
southeast. So any future concerns, or neighboring property owner(s) concerns about LDS
13
PC 7-13-10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
creating a storm run-off problem toward their property, should be alleviated. The storm
retention basin is at the NE corner of the site and captures the entire site and building except
for west 40‟ +/- of the site, but then discharges underground back into the 48”/54” storm
main along 35th Street. This connection appears to be east of the „new‟ road surface.
Lighting (building & site): A photo-metric plan has been prepared, and the proposed
wall-pack and shoe-box fixture information is attached.
Utilities: The utility plan shows the intent of extending the dead-end water main in 34th
Street with a “spur” in Barnard (but south of the „new‟ pavement). LDS will be able to
connect to this “34th St. extension loop” for their domestic and sprinkler needs from this line.
Milwaukee Water was contacted by Graef on this matter (see Engineering Comments) which
has several benefits. Besides helping with 34th Street service, this connection hopefully will
also assist the Middle School somewhat because they are on a 1250‟ dead-end water main
which is now shorten 440‟. The loop will improve water quality, water supply, and public
safety. This requires an easement through the parking lot, which is shown on the utility plan.
A „private‟ hydrant is proposed for the east side of the parking lot. However, that proposed
new fire hydrant will need to be shifted to the north side parking lot island because that
hydrant needs to be located within 100‟ of the fire department connection (FDC) which is at
that location. In addition to this private hydrant, it happens that there is a public hydrant
near each of the four corners of this parcel.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: These ground-mounted are placed on the south and
north side of buildings behind a 6‟ white solid vinyl fence.
Signage: A 3‟ X 5‟ stone meetinghouse sign is proposed for the west wall.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): A 6‟ high vinyl fence is proposed for the
screening, and there is a concrete apron in front of the dumpster location.
Fencing: A 6‟ high white vinyl fence will be placed along the entire south and east side of
the lot. It is recommended to add approximately 150‟ of the fence along the north side of the
parcel so that immediate accessibility to the storm basin from the school is at least
„discouraged‟ (i.e. someone will have to enter the LDS property first to gain access). The
height should be 3 - 4‟ high due to vehicle „sight-line‟ aspects.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A thorough and detailed landscaping plan has been submitted for
the foundation planting area, for the south buffer yard area, for within the parking lot islands,
and around the perimeter of the site. The buffer yard is 20‟ wide which will include a 6‟
high white vinyl fence to „knock-down‟ vehicle lights with ample plantings, and a „plan
note‟ to retain existing mature canopy-type trees where possible. A wide variety of
deciduous and evergreen trees and bushes/shrubs are proposed.
Street Trees: The City Forester is reviewing the proposed landscaping plan, and also will
likely have some suggestions for street trees along the 35th St. and Barnard R-O-W. Street
tree planting, however, may be limited due to the prevalence of existing underground public
utilities.
City Forester Site Inspection: Underway
Hours of Operation: Weekly service is held on Sundays in duration of three hours (one
hour for congregation- two hours devoted to classroom instruction). Two or three weekday
evenings are used for youth ministry, scouting, or women‟s meetings which usually end by
9:00 p.m.
14
PC 7-13-10
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Sidewalks: An internal sidewalk layout is provided. Staff has discussed the idea of
possible linkages for pedestrian activity but no sidewalk or pathway exists at this time on
35th Street or on Barnard, so there isn‟t any connection available to link up with or to be
directed to/from.
Fire Department: A sprinkler and monitoring system will be installed in the building, and
will need to be approved by the Fire Dept., along with other „life safety‟ aspects including
the need for a „knox box‟ by the main entrance. As mentioned in the Utilities section, the
private hydrant will need to be moved from the east side to the north side of building so its
+/- 100‟ from the FDC. The building connection needs to be a 5” Storz connection with a
30 degree downward bend.
Police Department: Preferred layout Option A.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee Water Utility and MMSD.
Erosion Control: Permit will be needed from the City Engineering Dept. prior to any site
work starting.
Miscellaneous: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 10th at the Middle
School. The normal 400‟ radius map/mailing list was provided to LDS for this purpose.
They will be able to convey at the PC meeting whatever commentary/discussion occurred.
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan modification: since these processes both require a public
hearing but the respective notice requirements are different in what is required and length of
notice time, but there still is a way to handle these aspects in a concurrent manner, if the PC
and LDS concurs, so that both public hearings are on the same Common Council meeting
date.
151.12.
The eventual Storm Water Management Plan is subject to Engineering staff review and
All on-site disturbed area shall be directed to detention pond or subtracted
from the allowable release rate.
Demonstrate adequate overland conveyance to the detention pond for all
Verify that the existing storm sewer system can accommodate the proposed
release rates from the detention basin with no “backwater” effect.
The proposed project will require an 80-percent total suspended solids (TSS)
removal rate.
Public sanitary sewer main and a related easement shall be extended into the subject
property from South 35th Street right-of-way.
The proposed sanitary sewer manhole shall be located within the parking lot for
maintenance purposes.
Public water main shall traverse the subject property, connecting existing stubs that have
been provided within the West Barnard Avenue and South 34th Street right-of-way.
Coordination will be required with Milwaukee Water Works.
Recommendation: No formal action is necessary at this time, however, staff has some general
comments to present.
15
PC 7-13-10
For a Conceptual Project Review, the LDS submittal is probably the most complete at this
stage than any other staff has dealt with in a very long time, if not ever. The materials which
the PC members have received can, in most cases, simply be retained and re-used for the
Rezoning/Comprehensive Land Use plan change, and for the Site/Building/Landscaping
Review.
It‟s fair to presume that LDS has had varying experiences throughout the country on the
receptiveness a municipality and community may have for a proposal to build a church. At the
same time, in reality our experiences have been limited. So based on those experiences, LDS
likely has found there is a methodology or procedure or process in making their
submittals/presentations which may tend to be more successful than others. That being said,
the Quick Facts narrative included what appears to have been a word processing “cut & paste”
excerpt of a legal brief(s) regarding RLUIPA and voluntary PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes)
which essentially sends the message of “…you can‟t say „no‟ to the proposal…” and “…keep
your PILOT ordinance on the shelf…”.
There is an assessed value to the land as it sits today ($250K) which is lost by a rezoning and
use by a church (see attached Property Data sheet). Furthermore, while admittedly the market
conditions today are poor, but there is a potential future value of this 9-lot subdivision some
day at build-out of having approx. a $2.5 million (see attached estimate from the City
Assessor). There is a value to acquiring the land and constructing the building (i.e. general
basis for the GF voluntary PILOT). At the same time, there certainly is a value to the examples
of regular Humanitarian projects which LDS does and potentially there can be some efforts
focused or directed toward GF instances. Nonetheless, my guess is that LDS members will
expect some level of public services such as but not limited to: ability to drive safely to/from
the site in winter time and having the streets plowed/salted, and knowing that an ambulance or
a police squad will respond if a 911 call is made, etc. A willingness to explore some $$
contribution toward some basic but yet direct public services, I think still needs to be
considered by LDS.
Diane Hellmann-Sainterme was present to answer questions, along with Ray Manning and
John Heller.
Ms. Hallen stated that she doesn‟t feel this proposal is the best use of this land as the Master Land
Use Plan has it designated for Single-Family use.
Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme commented that in their meeting with the neighbors, none of them had an
issue with a church being built, and were happy to see that the streets were not being extended to
Barnard. They were, however, concerned about stormwater issues. The neighbors were adamant
that they don‟t want a fence between the properties, however they plan to fence in the detention
pond for safety reasons.
Mr. Sponholz questioned if the idea of an underground retention pond has been looked into to which
Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme said yes it has, and with the amount of water and type of soil at the site
they are looking into multiple options. She then talked about the possible of use of bio-retention
areas (rain gardens) and how they could ultimately be as deep as a retention pond. Regardless, there
is still a need and a DNR requirement to filter the water prior to it going into the underground storage
system.
16
PC 7-13-10
Mr. Hess questioned why this particular site was chosen. Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme said it was
chosen primarily because it was available, however, they did look at a site at 40th & Layton, but that
already had plans for development. She cited how there is no vacant land zoned Institutional
available in the City where rezoning would not be required. Plus this site is convenient
geographically for the church members. John Heller noted that there is a LDS location at 96th &
Grange but this additional location is needed to serve the other portion of the County by “splitting”
the congregation and also referred to other information in their submittal packet.
Ald. Kastner read comments submitted by Mayor Neitzke. They were as follows: “With respect to
Item 11 my opinion is neutral. I do note that this property was previously zoned Institutional and
was rezoned to accommodate Residential in part to increase tax base. It‟s clear that churches are
generally low impact but there has typically been strong neighborhood input on that parcel and I
would like to hear those comments.”
Ald. Kastner said his concern is the stormwater, the change in elevation, and the dead end street that
would no longer be a cul-de-sac so now where would snow be deposited? He said placing a
storm inlet opposite the landscaping (end of 34th Street) would alleviate runoff.
Ms. Hallen questioned the elevation of the church in relation to the residences and what their view
will be like. Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme stated that the roofline of the church is approximately 30 feet
with the steeple being another approximately 30 feet. Mr. Marciniak noted the benefit to the
neighbors of the distance of 100‟ to the south that could be used to control run-off, but thinks that
overall this can be an attractive campus.
Mr. Hess questioned why they weren‟t planning on participating in the PILOT program.
Mr. Manning said that that type of question is a legal matter and LDS‟ position is that they would
not participate in PILOT as they see it as “tax like” and don‟t want to set a precedent for churches.
He did say that they aim to be a good neighbor and cited the humanitarian projects they participate in
as was noted in their submittal packet). They received a suggestion from the principal of Greenfield
Middle School that it would be beneficial for their students to have a sidewalk along Barnard. The
neighbors favored a sidewalk along 35th Street as well. So, rather than participate in tax programs
such as PILOTs, they prefer to help the community in other ways.
Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme also mentioned the Greenfield Middle School principal liking the idea of
the proximity of the church to the school, thinking they could use the church as safe location in
case of something like a bomb scare or as shelter in case of a disaster evacuation. Ms. Hallen
questioned if any of the Common Council members attended the informational meeting to which
Ms. Hellmann-Sainterme replied that no, they did not. Mr. Erickon said Ald. Saryan had a prior
commitment and therefore was unable to attend.
Conceptual Project Review – no action needed.
12.
Michael Losik, Losik Engineering Design Group, 19035 W. Capitol Drive, Brookfield, WI
53045 representing Maritime Savings Bank requests that the City consider designating that
Outlot 3 in Ramsey Meadows West subdivision near 39th Street & Kimberly Avenue, is now
“buildable” based upon a determination by both a wetland consulting firm and WisDNR. Tax
Key #692-1257.
17
PC 7-13-10
1.
2.
Background: When the Ramsey Meadows West subdivision was approved in early 2007,
it included an Outlot (#3 – 23,700 s.f.) which was deemed at the time, “unbuildable” due to
some limited „wetland‟ characteristics. Later in 2007 an „Affidavit of Correction‟ was done
which basically allowed a three year period for the then developer to try and “dry out” this
marginal wetland area because now run-off water would not be trapped in that area because
a yard drain was included, and there was a subdivision-wide system of curb/gutter/storm
main/retention basin system also in place a lot of run-off would be captured before it even
got to that small area. Plus, the wetland area was able to be mowed periodically. [[The
bank is now the „owner‟ of this development.]]
The Affidavit included a reference that the determination about Outlot #3 being buildable or
not had to occur prior to 7/31/10 otherwise the ownership of the Outlot is deeded to all the
lot owners of the Homeowner‟s Association. See attached 7/6/10 letter from Michael
Losik on this matter. In addition, also see the attached 7/2/10 letter from Dave Meyer –
Wetland and Waterway Consulting. His conclusion reads, in part, “…subject wetland,
flagged during the 2006 delineation, no longer meets the necessary hydric characteristics to
be classified as a wetland…”.
Utilities: Even after Outlot #3 is considered “buildable” because of these wetland aspects,
utility laterals (water/sanitary/storm) still will need to be extended into this area before any
building permit(s) are released.
Recommendation: Approve request to now consider Outlot #3 as “buildable”, subject to a
confirmation of this same determination by the appropriate representatives of the WisDNR and US
Army Corp. of Engineers as recommended by Wetland & Waterway Consulting; and authorize this
matter to be expedited to the July 20th CC meeting.
It is understood that subsequent review by the City of a future submittal of Preliminary Plat and
Final Plat to actually create two parcels from Outlot #3 will enable all parties to resolve as per the
existing Developer‟s Agreement (as amended for adding two parcels), any issues/concerns which
remain “open” as a result of Maritime Savings Bank becoming the owner of this project.
Tom Mesalk, representing Maritime Savings as the new owner of the remaining lots in Ramsey
Meadows, was present to answer questions. He stated they anticipate a sale of the project to another
builder to occur shortly. He said they are working on the City‟s “punchlist” of required items that
still need to be done, specifically fixing the lip on the detention pond and also adding a second lift of
asphalt, with that being desired by the City to be completed by the fall. As they don‟t want to have
to spend additional money on the asphalt at this time, Maritime would incorporate the cost into the
final purchase agreement with the builder.
Josh Pudelko with Losik Engineering was present to answer questions and also gave some
background information on the wetland aspect. Ald. Kastner questioned if we go forward as
requested, should we be requiring that an engineer certify the footings given the nature of the soils?
Mr. Pudelko said that would be something that would need to be discussed with the building
inspector, but making this type of change would not be possible unless the soils no longer exhibited
wetland-like characteristics. Mr. Hess expressed his concern for future development, as this was
once designated “wetland” and asked what assurance would a homeowner have that this is no longer
a problem. Mr. Pudelko replied that there is a storm sewer system that is in place to provide
drainage.
18
PC 7-13-10
Mr. Marciniak questioned of Mr. Mesalk the status of Maritime Savings Bank as a corporation, to
which he replied they are currently under a “cease and desist” order from the government and feels
that Maritime will likely be acquired/absorbed by another financial institution in some fashion and
then be “rebranded”.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of designating
that Outlot 3 in Ramsey Meadows West subdivision near 39th Street & Kimberly Avenue, is
now “buildable” based upon a determination by both a wetland consulting firm and WisDNR,
July 20th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #692-1257. Motion carried unanimously.
13.
1.
Background: [[Held over from May/June PC]]. This item is meant to review a fairly
common aspect which comes to PC regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor”
change as it relates to Special Uses, and then naturally the need for a public hearing. While
the PUD section of the ZC [[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially
may be a “major” change, the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those
PUD elements to start the discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use,
this type of situation. The ordinance as drafted, does include the phrase “... The PC shall
similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future CC meeting for this ZC text change.
Item held over until the August 10th Plan Commission meeting.
14.
Planning and Economic Development Director Report
Mr. Erickson gave an update on Morgensen Realty apartment project behind House of Harley.
He said that since this item initially came before the February Plan Commission meeting, it has
been determined that more of the site is encumbered with wetlands than originally thought.
This has therefore reduced the number of units that could be built from 134 to 107. Their next
step would be a rezoning request.
Mr. Marciniak stated that he has attended several neighborhood information meetings held by
developers and finds it very interesting to attend as a “silent observer”. He is requesting that
when a developer sets up an informational meeting that they be encouraged to include the Plan
Commission as there is a lot of useful information that can be obtained by simply observing
and listening.
Mr. Erickson referenced a recent article in the Journal Sentinel as to the desire of Pick n Save
to relocate to the former Sentry site across 76th Street. This would involve Sentry, Ponderosa
and Popeye‟s being demolished. A neighborhood information meeting is being held by the
developer on July 27th.
19
PC 7-13-10
Mr. Erickson also referenced the 10 firms whom submitted proposals for the Greenfield
Crossing project, which he had distributed to the Plan Commission members. He said once the
10 firms have been narrowed down to 2 or 3, those “short-listed” firms would then make a
final presentation to the joint group consisting of the members of the Common Council, the
CDA, and the Plan Commission.
15.
Motion by Mr. Marciniak, seconded by Mr. Hess to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
16.
August 10, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed July 28, 2010
20
PC 7-13-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010
1.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Ald. Kastner
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Excused
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Hess to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0-2 with Mr. Weis and Mr. Dorszynski abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on July 20th. At this meeting a special use
hearing was held and approval granted for Wisconsin Athletic Club to be able to periodically offer
alcohol at events during the year. A special use hearing for a proposed liquor store at 33rd &
Loomis was held, but the request was denied.
4.
Discussion/decision regarding a variety of matters at the Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76 th Street,
Greenfield, WI 53220:
A)
B)
C)
The request of Ald. Pietrowski to review the Special Use Permit for Mad Dog Saloon.
The fence installation along the „bank‟ side of the parcel.
The request for a Special Use amendment/Site, Building, & Landscaping Review for
the purposes of constructing a patio for smokers adjacent to the south side of the
building; this amendment will include the „expansion of premises‟ as it relates to the
designated alcohol serving area. Tax Key #605-9979-002.
NOTES FOR ITEMS 4-A & 4-B
1.
Background: The PC minutes for the July 13th meeting included a variety of matters that
were discussed but predominately it involved a review of the “Mad Dog parking assessment
and surrounding street system traffic patterns and volume analysis” prepared by Traffic
Analysis & Design, dated 7/7/10. In addition there was discussion about how there needs to
be a better correlation amongst the following: ZC parking calculation formula ↔ building
capacity ↔ available on-site parking.
Attached are the additional documents have been received by Staff regarding Mad Dog
since the June 8th PC meeting and those include:
1
PC 8-10-10
Traffic analysis prepared by Traffic Analysis & Design.
June 9th email from Jeff Powers, 7637 W. Allerton to Mayor Neitzke and Ald.
Pietrowski regarding the June 8th PC meeting.
Excerpt of the June 15th CC meeting where ordinances were passed pertaining to: „No
Right Turn‟ from the Mad Dog parking lot onto Forest Home; and „No Right Turn‟
from Forest Home to 79th St. from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.
June 19th email from Mr. Powers to Mayor Neitzke regarding public urination.
June 24th series of emails/pictures/minute excerpts from a fence contractor (John
Schleck) regarding the fencing put up on the „bank side‟ of the parking lot. Essentially
chain-link with slats, which matches the west side of the property, was installed. What
had been approved though was for „black vinyl fabric‟ to be installed.
The narrative below is similar to what was distributed for the July 13 th PC meeting/PC
members and others are asked to utilize their June, May and April meeting packet for the
½” thick attachments related to this item which included: materials from the Ald. Pietrowski
which had excerpts of the “Special Use” section of the ZC, copies of Police Dept.
“Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to this property, copies of various emails he has
received concerning Mad Dog, a petition signed by approx. 40 people requesting the City to
“not renew the special use permit” for Mad Dog, “petitions in support of maintaining the
special use permit” which Atty. Fuchs had submitted, and a 5/24/10 memo from Atty. Fuchs
addressing comments made at the May PC public comment session.
The PC minutes for the May 11th meeting include numerous comments from neighbors,
Atty. Fuchs on behalf of Mr. LaLicata, PC members, Ald. Pietrowksi, and City Attorney
Pyzyk. Mr. Pyzyk had suggested that Atty. Fuchs address what they feel would be
solutions to the concerns raised by the neighbors, and then meet with Mr. Erickson to
discuss further prior to the next PC meeting on June 8th. The PC consensus was that the
broad categorization of the nature of comments/concerns from the May 11th meeting were
as follows:
Traffic in the neighborhood.
Late night/bar-time noise.
Trash in the neighborhood.
Safety in the neighborhood.
2
PC 8-10-10
Balkans: This property is for sale, it‟s zoned C-4 Commercial like Mad Dog, and it has
Police Dept.
couple of days in early May (see attached). Related to this aspect, the Board of Public
frontage road onto S. 79th St.
public commentary to heard and discussed by the PC. Accordingly, the staff notes and the
various attachments are identical to what was distributed for the April PC, were the same for
the May PC, however, there was one exception. That exception is that Atty. Fuchs, on
Ald. Pietrowski has submitted a request asking the PC to review the Special Use which Mr.
La Licata has at this location for Mad Dog Saloon under a provision of the ZC pertaining to
“adverse impact” within the context of a special use. See attached extensive packet of
materials from the alderperson which includes excerpts of the “Special Use” section of the
ZC, copies of Police Dept. “Daybook” pertaining to calls for service to this property,
copies of various emails he has received concerning Mad Dog, and a petition signed by
approx. 40 people requesting the City to “not renew the special use permit” for Mad Dog.
3
PC 8-10-10
1983:
1991:
1993:
2001:
2006:
2009:
(see attached), the hours of operation were identified for the restaurant (11 a.m. – 11
p.m.) and the bar (use normal bar time hours as allowed by statute).
Prior to the conversion of Boulder Junction to Mad Dog, staff (Erickson) met with Mr. La
Licata to discuss his project. Included in that conversation was the aspect of “…what
parcel. All these prior business had an alcohol license which enabled them to stay open
In retrospect, yes there could have been a „special use amendment‟ process done. That would
have enabled more of an upfront „…this is happening…‟ type of advanced notice to occur.
But staff doesn‟t believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that if an amendment process had been done
prior to the change-over, would have enabled any greater or lesser special use requirements
than whatever already obligates a person/business with an existing “Class B” License.
where an ownership change of a restaurant/bar property occurred which did involve a “Special
Use Review” and that was at the February, 2010 PC meeting. This is when James Letizia
submitted a request to re-open the „Las Palmas‟ at 6869 Forest Home (see attached meeting
minutes excerpt). In this instance he has a restaurant which has a bar, that can be open to
statutory bar times.
Recommendation:
Review of Special Use: As had been discussed at the May & June PC meeting and suggested by
City Attorney Pyzyk, the “step” which the PC is at is to determine as per ZC 21.04.0701(J) as
attached, whether or not there are grounds to formally review the Special Use issued to Mad Dog.
4
PC 8-10-10
Of those particular provisions, from a staff perspective, the operative section to make a judgment on
is Paragraph 21.04.0701(J)(1)(c) or more specifically “A change…in the special use itself which has
cause the special use to become incompatible with the surrounding uses…”.
The fact that this is now a „bar which serves food‟ versus a „restaurant that has a bar‟, in of itself is
not enough of “a change to make it incompatible”. The fact that this business is popular at this point
or is being successfully marketed is not “a change to make it incompatible”. Are there operational
aspects which draw negative attention to Mad Dog which will require constant oversight by
ownership/management? Yes. Is ownership/management serious and attentive to their
responsibilities? Yes.
Finally, Staff has a viewpoint on the “adverse impact” portion of the ZC [[21.04.0701(2)]] and its
applicability here. This code language suggests that its use pertains more to a “prospective”
evaluation of a proposed use prior to it going in, not an after-the-fact perspective.
Dominic LaLicata, the property owner, and Atty. John Fuchs, his legal counsel, were present to
answer questions.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Weis to not proceed with a formal review of the
Special Use Permit under the Zoning Code relating to adverse impact and therefore allow the
existing Special Use to continue at Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments. Tax Key #605-9979-002. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr.
Marciniak voting no.
Fence on “Bank” side
Staff‟s main concern with the fence situation is that it was very clear based on the PC
recommendation and subsequent CC approval of what the various conditions were for the installation
of the wood fence and the chain-link at this site. Copies of the PC minutes were sent to the owner,
the owner was at the CC meeting when this was approved, and then this same information was
included in the fence permit sent to the contractor who did both the wood fence and the chain-link.
Now the wood fence was installed last November and the chain-link fence was done earlier this
summer; whether or not that time difference had some impact here is unknown.
[[Admittedly with chain-link type of fences this is hard to notice – until slats are put in – and this is
really is a minor technical aspect, but the „finish‟ or good side of the fence is facing the „inside‟ or
the Mad Dog side of the parking lot. The „finish‟ side should be facing „outside‟.]]
The chain-link fence with “tan” slats on the „bank side‟ of the parcel matches what is on the west
side of the parcel, and from the street, looks fine.
Based upon questions from the Plan Commission, it was noted that there was no negative “feedback”
from the neighbors on the fence.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to leave the fence installation along the
„bank‟ side of the parcel at Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street, as is, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments. Tax Key # 605-9979-002. Motion carried unanimously.
5
PC 8-10-10
NOTES FOR ITEMS 4-C
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Background: Mr. LaLicata has submitted preliminary plans to get a Special Use
Amendment for an outdoor smoking patio to provided a controlled smoking area, which
would also include an “expansion of premises” as currently identified on the Class “B”
license for this property; see attached letter and supporting materials. The intent is to create
a small fenced-in area with about three or four „standing only‟ tables (no chairs) for their
patrons who smoke. It is also requested that these patrons would be allowed to bring their
beverage to this area, but no food. Pictures submitted indicate the need to remove the
foundation planting between the sidewalk across the front of the building, and then replace it
with concrete.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: There is proposed “black” awning fabric
which would be the „roof‟ of this outside smoking area extending approx. 90” (7.5‟) out
from the building. A decorative-style fence would enclose this area, and access would only
be available from the existing vestibule. An exit-only gate would be placed on the east end
of this fenced area.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Given the proximity of the adjacent
parking stalls, some „curb-stops‟ will be needed protect the fence as proposed. The shifting
of those affected stalls to the south as a result, will not greatly impact the existing wide drive
aisle.
Lighting (building & site): Right now there are some decorative „hook‟ lights which
„wash‟ down on the building probably right where the awning is proposed. Clarification will
be needed on this aspect.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Since some small area of landscaping is „lost‟ at the building as
proposed, adding some street trees in the grass terrace area along the Forest Home frontage
would be a good replacement. The number/type of/spacing would need to be determined by
the City Forester.
Street Trees: See above.
City Forester Site Inspection: See above.
Miscellaneous: Clarification needed on how “smoking product” waste where patrons are to
place their cigarettes/refuse when leaving this fence-in area.
In 2007 the PC, Legislative Committee, and the CC passed operational guidelines for
patios/decks for restaurants and bars (see attached). These will have a big impact on the
proposal as presented, to do both smoking and alcohol consumption in this area.
Recommendation:
Staff has major concerns about this small patio area being used, as proposed, for both smoking and
outside alcohol consumption (i.e. “expansion of premises”). Staff can support the idea that a small
controlled smoking area can be functional/suitable at this location next to the building.
However, staff cannot support including alcohol consumption as well because that, in effect, is
expanding the actual premises where there already is a known parking shortage which only
exacerbates the problem. Plus the plan as presented, doesn‟t meet some of the key elements of the
„patio/deck‟ guidelines (i.e. parking, landscaping, time limit, etc.).
Authorize the public hearing process to proceed.
6
PC 8-10-10
Mr. Erickson gave some background information on this item and then opened up the item for
discussion. Discussion occurred to “recap” the recent “smoking” patios that were approved and how
there was adequate parking at those businesses, with there also being a controlled entrance point that
meant there were no restrictions needing to be in place on taking alcohol outside.
Atty. Fuchs clarified that the entry/exit point shown would only be for the smoking area. Mr.
Marciniak questioned if the City had a layout for this project to which it was responded that the
“revised” layout had not yet come in. Ald. Kastner said he feels that it is still possible to segregate the
inside of the building, thus making that area a “smoking” area if the windows could be opened.
Atty. Fuchs said the bar isn‟t having a problem with patrons going outside to smoke, it‟s when they
start to wander around the back of the property, which in turn leads to security needing to lead them
back to the front of the property. This could be disturbing to the neighbors. He said that they feel
this confined area would serve to accommodate those who walk outside with a drink to smoke in that
they would not have to “leave” their drink to do so, they would not be wandering around the premises
and the bar would have “control”. Ald. Kastner reacted to this comment by stating that these types of
things are not enforceable by the City; the not wanting to “serve” alcohol yet allowing it to be carried
outside, etc. Mr. Marciniak then questioned what could prevent the “passing on” of alcohol over the
fence. Atty. Fuchs responded that the high level of security they employ along with the proposed
construction plan would help prevent that. He feels that their security could keep this area
enforceable. Mr. Marciniak said before this item moves on further he would like to see a layout of
what is being proposed and also have the opinion of the City Attorney on beverages being allowed on
the patio.
Mr. Weis questioned if, while the patio item is going through the public hearing process, could this
portion of the item be tabled as we have not yet seen the plan for the Site/Landscaping portion of the
request. Mr. Dorszynski questioned the size/scale of the project and asked if there is a way to keep
the doors closed to not intrude on the neighbor‟s privacy. He questioned if there would be speakers in
this area to which it was responded that no, there would not.
. Mr. Marciniak said he feels the Fire Dept. needs to review the entrance/exit point proposed as now it
would be going from two entry/exit points to one for day to day traffic, while in an emergency the
secondary entry/exit point would be used.
Ald. Pietrowski stated that there are two neighbors to Mad Dog in attendance tonight who feel they
are not being heard by the Plan Commission, and therefore have asked Ald. Pietrowski to speak on
their behalf. They are concerned with security and questioned why there is a need for so much
security – what does that say about an establishment? Also, they question the times that the open
smoking will be allowed. It was replied that any questions on “restrictions” would need to be
answered by the City Attorney. Mr. Marciniak stated that he is a strong advocate in listening to the
neighbors, as they are the ones personally affected by the impact of a business nearby.
Elaine Colbo – 7704 W. Whitaker. Complained how just the other night several drunken, rowdy bar
patrons were going thru her neighborhood and feels that to allow the smoking area outside will take
this problem even more so out of the bar and further impact the neighbors.
7
PC 8-10-10
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ms. Hallen to “hold” at this time on any recommendation
pertaining to the request for a Special Use amendment for the purposes of constructing a patio
for smokers adjacent to the south side of the building at Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street;
but would authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #605-9979-002. Motion
5.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, represented by Diane Hellmann-Sainterme,
Design Unlimited, 303 West Upham Street, Suite 100, Marshfield, WI 54449 requests a
rezoning (R-2A Single Family → I-Institutional) and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
amendment (Single Family → Community Facilities) for a proposed 16,100 s.f. building on a
four acre parcel at the SE corner of 35th and Barnard. Tax Key #622-9988-018.
1.
Background: This submittal is a follow-up to the Conceptual Review which occurred at
the July PC. The staff notes are similar to what was distributed for that July 13 th meeting
except for some additional comments for Item #17 pertaining to „Sidewalks‟. PC members
and others are asked to continue using the 11” x 17” site/building-related plans distributed
at that time because it is not included with this packet. Newer information is attached
which includes:
7/14/10 request on behalf of LDS for the rezoning and comprehensive land use change.
7/26/10 email which includes predominately some of the comments/questions which
came from the June 10th neighborhood info. meeting. Also included is some questions
raised at the July 13th PC meeting, and the corresponding LDS response.
8/2/10 email from the City Forester regarding his favorable comments on the proposed
landscaping plan (i.e. its realized that landscaping is a „site‟ issue and not specifically
an element related to rezoning/land use change).
Furthermore, all other materials included in the July PC meeting packet are attached
and are referenced accordingly.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has proposed new place of worship for a
two local wards or branches on this 4 acre parcel. See attached very detailed submittal
which includes: Quick Facts narrative (i.e. Why GF?/How Chapel is Used/RLUIPA/In lieu
of tax perspective), Humanitarian Projects listing, and an extensive and broad
site/building/landscaping plan materials. LDS representatives indicate in this narrative that
locating a chapel in this neighborhood of Greenfield will make the Church more accessible,
decrease traffic, and foster a sense of community among their members. The narrative
details LDS studies which determined the area south and west of I-894 and I-94, in the
northeast part of Greenfield, to best serve this region of the Mormon community.
The proposal is to construct a 16,120 square foot Mormon Church on the southeast corner of
South 35th Street and West Barnard Avenue. The above narrative also states that an
extensive search concluded that no other vacant institutional property available in
Greenfield. Thus that aspect is the basis for their request to designate this Residential zoned
property into Institutional use. This will require a rezoning from the current Residential
(R2-A) to an Institutional use.
8
PC 8-10-10
The LDS narrative makes a point to review/apply the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) to this setting as it “…obligates the
government to demonstrate that a land use regulation which substantially burdens the
exercise of religion to be „the least restrictive means‟ of furthering a „compelling‟
government interest.” The narrative cites overcrowded congregations in existing facilities as
preventing or limiting worship activities. In addition, the absence of available land is cited
preventing the construction of the church in other areas. LDS feel that for these reasons
preventing construction of the proposed new chapel would substantially burden the Church‟s
and its members‟ religious exercise.
2.
Discussions with LDS representatives regarding this parcel go back several months, and in
early May there was a pre-submittal meeting with a number of LDS people and City
department representatives (i.e. Inspection, Fire, DPW, & Engineering; Police was invited
but unable to attend).
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The building uses a general brick and brick
wainscoting façade with intermediating windows, brick arch design door designs. The roof
includes a number of gable slopes, and uses metal fascia and soffit materials. The color
rendering is the cover page of site/building hand-out materials.
The west elevation is about 27‟ to the top of the “ridge of truss”, and the overall height of the
steeple is 63‟. EIFS is indicated as being used on this part of the exterior. The east elevation
is the same in height as the west, but has a slightly different „central‟ design; part of the
reason is answered in reviewing the floor plan where there is the chapel area on the west end
and office uses on the east end. The building foot-print includes variations – façade
articulations -- which also help with the overall design.
The north and south elevations are where the 27‟ ridge height provides the largest visual
element – roof – because of the lateral extension of the building. In the PC packet are
pictures of some other LDS locations in Wisconsin. In general, it is an attractive building
but more brick is needed, and some other design amenity – maybe even dormers – could
help create some additional architectural element to the most visible „face‟ of the building, at
least on the north and south side. Actually a dormer(s) may even enable more natural light
into the building.
3.
The building related materials also include a proposal for a pavilion on the east side of the
parcel, and at the southeast side of the parking lot, there is a separate storage building/trash
enclosure/satellite dish with enclosure. That building is all brick.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Traffic will enter only from Barnard
Avenue in one of two driveways which decreases slowing traffic on 35 th Street. There are
three different methods of calculating parking requirements for a church in the ZC. The
method which is most applicable here is that there must be .33 stalls per seat if the seats are
fixed; the building plan indicates there are 280 chapel seats. 280 X .33 = 92 parking spaces
minimum are required. 138 stalls are provided with the capability of adding 29 stalls along
the east side of the parking lot if need be, in the future (138 + 29 = 167 stalls total available).
The packet includes two layout options (A & B). The submitted site plan materials are
based on “A” because that doesn‟t “split” the parcel like “B” does. The bulk of parking lot
is situated on the east end, so that it is not visible from 35 th Street. Two double-loaded
parking areas are on the north and south sides of the building. Eight spaces are designated
for handicapped parking.
9
PC 8-10-10
4.
Part of the Quick Facts materials looks at times-of-day usage. Although there is some
weekday evening use, clearly the peak church time is Sunday which then means there isn‟t
any conflict with peak morning drop-off/afternoon pick-up times at the Middle School.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): This site has a significant amount of “fall” from the SE
corner (779‟ elev.) to the NW corner (765‟ elev.). The proposed grading plan effectively
tries to “flatten out” the site (proposed finished floor elevation is 772‟). The result of the
proposed grading plan is that the site will be lower that everything to the south and
southeast. So any future concerns, or neighboring property owner(s) concerns about LDS
creating a storm run-off problem toward their property, should be alleviated. The storm
retention basin is at the NE corner of the site and captures the entire site and building except
for west 40‟ +/- of the site, but then discharges underground back into the 48”/54” storm
main along 35th Street. This connection appears to be east of the „new‟ road surface.
See Engineering Comments (#25) related to storm basin location; this aspect will be
analyzed further when the Stormwater Mgt. Plan is submitted.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
As noted at the July PC, making sure that the landscape buffer/grading plan does not create
a storm surface drainage „block‟ for the run-off from the properties to the south will be
critical. This also may involve an extension of a storm inlet to the north end of 34th Street
and/or „breaks‟ in the landscaping/grading to accommodate any run-off from the south.
Lighting (building & site): A photo-metric plan has been prepared, and the proposed
wall-pack and shoe-box fixture information is attached.
Utilities: The utility plan shows the intent of extending the dead-end water main in 34th
Street with a “spur” in Barnard (but south of the „new‟ pavement). LDS will be able to
connect to this “34th St. extension loop” for their domestic and sprinkler needs from this line.
Milwaukee Water was contacted by Graef on this matter (see Engineering Comments) which
has several benefits. Besides helping with 34th Street service, this connection hopefully will
also assist the Middle School somewhat because they are on a 1250‟ dead-end water main
which is now shorten 440‟. The loop will improve water quality, water supply, and public
safety. This requires an easement through the parking lot, which is shown on the utility plan.
A „private‟ hydrant is proposed for the east side of the parking lot. However, that proposed
new fire hydrant will need to be shifted to the north side parking lot island because that
hydrant needs to be located within 100‟ of the fire department connection (FDC) which is at
that location. In addition to this private hydrant, it happens that there is a public hydrant
near each of the four corners of this parcel.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: These ground-mounted are placed on the south and north
side of buildings behind a 6‟ white solid vinyl fence.
Signage: A 3‟ X 5‟ stone meetinghouse sign is proposed for the west wall.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): A 6‟ high vinyl fence is proposed for the
screening, and there is a concrete apron in front of the dumpster location.
Fencing: A 6‟ high white vinyl fence will be placed along the entire south and east side of
the lot. It is recommended to add approximately 150‟ of the fence along the north side of the
parcel so that immediate accessibility to the storm basin from the school is at least
„discouraged‟ (i.e. someone will have to enter the LDS property first to gain access). The
height should be 3 - 4‟ high due to vehicle „sight-line‟ aspects.
10
PC 8-10-10
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
One of the elements coming from the neighborhood information meeting is that apparently
none of the immediately adjacent neighbors to the south want a fence, and don‟t have a
concern about vehicle headlight spillover. Further review of that aspect will be needed.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A thorough and detailed landscaping plan has been
submitted for the foundation planting area, for the south buffer yard area, for within the
parking lot islands, and around the perimeter of the site. The buffer yard is 20‟ wide which
will include a 6‟ high white vinyl fence to „knock-down‟ vehicle lights with ample plantings,
and a „plan note‟ to retain existing mature canopy-type trees where possible. A wide variety
of deciduous and evergreen trees and bushes/shrubs are proposed.
Street Trees: The City Forester is reviewing the proposed landscaping plan, and also will
likely have some suggestions for street trees along the 35 th St. and Barnard R-O-W. Street
tree planting, however, may be limited due to the prevalence of existing underground public
utilities.
City Forester Site Inspection: See attached favorable comments.
Hours of Operation: Weekly service is held on Sundays in duration of three hours (one
hour for congregation- two hours devoted to classroom instruction). Two or three weekday
evenings are used for youth ministry, scouting, or women‟s meetings which usually end by
9:00 p.m.
Sidewalks: An internal sidewalk layout is provided. Staff has discussed the idea of
possible linkages for pedestrian activity but no sidewalk or pathway exists at this time on
35th Street or on Barnard, so there isn‟t any connection available to link up with or to be
directed to/from.
The Staff has discussed linking the proposed internal sidewalk structure with a sidewalk in
the 35th Street R-O-W along the frontage of this parcel (i.e. 35th Street → quarter section
roadway). A crosswalk at the intersection could link this sidewalk to another new section of
walk on the north side of Barnard. This sidewalk could then connect to the existing pathway
leading to/from the nearby school site. This provides full pedestrian access from the school
to the residential area directly south of the church, in part because the “35 th Street frontage
road” serves as a unofficial walk-way now.
17.
18.
19.
The “Safe Routes to Schools” program has already identified this area as needing such
pathways. Constructing this sidewalk/pathway could then be done in conjunction with the
City‟s grant request program. Also discussed by Staff was asking the Church to consider
directing a potential „community contribution‟to the sidewalk cost on the north side of
Barnard.
Fire Department: A sprinkler and monitoring system will be installed in the building, and
will need to be approved by the Fire Dept., along with other „life safety‟ aspects including
the need for a „knox box‟ by the main entrance. As mentioned in the Utilities section, the
private hydrant will need to be moved from the east side to the north side of building so its
+/- 100‟ from the FDC. The building connection needs to be a 5” Storz connection with a
30 degree downward bend.
Police Department: Preferred layout Option A.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee Water Utility and MMSD.
11
PC 8-10-10
20.
21.
Erosion Control: Permit will be needed from the City Engineering Dept. prior to any site
work starting.
Miscellaneous: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 10th at the Middle
School. The normal 400‟ radius map/mailing list was provided to LDS for this purpose.
They will be able to convey at the PC meeting whatever commentary/discussion occurred.
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan modification: Since these processes both require a
public hearing but the respective notice requirements are different in what is required and
length of notice time, but there still is a way to handle these aspects in a concurrent manner,
if the PC and LDS concurs, so that both public hearings are on the same Common Council
meeting date.
For a Conceptual Project Review, the LDS submittal is probably the most complete at this
stage than any other staff has dealt with in a very long time, if not ever. The materials
which the PC members have received can, in most cases, simply be retained and re-used for
the Rezoning/Comprehensive Land Use plan change, and for the Site/Building/Landscaping
Review.
It‟s fair to presume that LDS has had varying experiences throughout the country on the
receptiveness a municipality and community may have for a proposal to build a church. At
the same time, in reality our experiences have been limited. So based on those experiences,
LDS likely has found there is a methodology or procedure or process in making their
submittals/presentations which may tend to be more successful than others. That being said,
the Quick Facts narrative included what appears to have been a word processing “cut &
paste” excerpt of a legal brief(s) regarding RLUIPA and voluntary PILOT (payment in lieu
of taxes) which essentially sends the message of “…you can‟t say „no‟ to the proposal…”
and “…keep your PILOT ordinance on the shelf…”.
22.
There is an assessed value to the land as it sits today ($250K) which is lost by a rezoning and
use by a church (see attached Property Data sheet). Furthermore, while admittedly the
market conditions today are poor, but there is a potential future value of this 9-lot
subdivision some day at build-out of having approx. a $2.5 million (see attached estimate
from the City Assessor). There is a value to acquiring the land and constructing the
building (i.e. general basis for the GF voluntary PILOT). At the same time, there certainly is
a value to the examples of regular Humanitarian projects which LDS does and potentially
there can be some efforts focused or directed toward GF instances. Nonetheless, it is
presumed that LDS members will expect some level of public services such as but not
limited to: ability to drive safely to/from the site in winter time and having the streets
plowed/salted, and knowing that an ambulance or a police squad will respond if a 911 call is
made, etc. A willingness to explore some $$ contribution toward some basic but yet direct
public services, staff still thinks needs to be considered by LDS, however, they have
indicated a desire not create a precedent-type of situation for themselves as it may apply to
future LDS projects throughout the country.
151.12.
12
PC 8-10-10
The Church favors a retention pond located on the northeast corner of the site as
opposed to on the northwest. The grading of this location means that the pipe
connecting the pond to the sewer will be routed in a way that it may back-up into the
pond‟s basin. Because this presents concerns with flooding of the parcel via an
overflow, it may be necessary to work with the Church‟s engineers on resolving the
issue before site plan approval is completed.
 All on-site disturbed area shall be directed to detention pond or
subtracted from the allowable release rate.
 Demonstrate adequate overland conveyance to the detention pond for all
 Verify that the existing storm sewer system can accommodate the
proposed release rates from the detention basin with no “backwater”
effect.
 The proposed project will require an 80-percent total suspended solids
(TSS) removal rate.
property from South 35th Street right-of-way.
The proposed sanitary sewer manhole shall be located within the parking lot for
maintenance purposes.
Public water main shall traverse the subject property, connecting existing stubs that have
been provided within the West Barnard Avenue and South 34th Street right-of-way.
Coordination will be required with Milwaukee Water Works.
Recommendation: Staff really prefers retaining the single-family designation for this site, but
realizes that the long-term viability of a residential subdivision at that location is uncertain at best.
Based upon the nature of the LDS proposal which is essentially one day per week of peak activity
which is at mid-day on a Sunday, this project is good „buffer‟ between the single-family use to the
south and the „public‟ uses to the north (County park and Middle School).
With that in mind, staff would recommend approval of the rezoning (R-2A Single Family →
I-Institutional) and the Comprehensive Land Use plan amendment (Single Family → Community
Facilities) subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize the respective public hearing processes to
proceed.
Ald. Kastner questioned what LDS‟s position is as far as if they would pay PILOT fees, and asked
for a project representative to provide that clarification. Atty. Mark Trieter, while not representing
the church, gave a review of State and Federal laws relating to RLUIPA, the IRS aspect, and
PILOTs. Ald. Kastner stated that LDS had stated that they would not do a PILOT and if forced to
participate in a PILOT than they would not come to Greenfield. He then went on to say how not
participating in a PILOT impacts the citizens of Greenfield in that there is less money available for
City services, and that is simply not being a good citizen. Atty. Trieter responded that the church is a
good citizen to the other members in the community in that it provides citizens a place for them to
worship.
13
PC 8-10-10
Ms. Hallen stated that she doesn‟t feel this is the best use of this land and doesn‟t agree with either a
zoning change or a change to the Land Use Plan to accommodate this request. Mr. Dorszynski said
it is his understanding that the PILOT fees others have paid were to cover the services they use: fire,
police, snow removal, etc. These are all services that would be used by the church and therefore they
should be paying something toward those services.
John Heller questioned of the Plan Commissioners how many of their churches paid taxes or
participated in PILOT programs? He said his understanding of the statutes states there needs to be
Institutional zoning somewhere in the community and there is none; otherwise they would pursuing
those locations. Ald. Kastner questioned of Mr. Erickson if there are other Institutional parcels in the
City to which he replied that yes, there are unused or open areas of other parcels zoned Institutional;
however, there currently are no vacant Institutional zoned parcels.
Ray Manning, the Church‟s real estate representative from Salt Lake asked for clarification if
PILOTs were required, as they were under the impression it is voluntary. It was responded that yes,
it is voluntary, but also mentioned was that the City has the ability to grant a rezoning based on if
that proposal would meet the City‟s determination about the best use of land.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to forward a negative recommendation
concerning the request of he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for a rezoning
(R-2A Single Family → I-Institutional) and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment
(Single Family → Community Facilities) for a proposed 16,100 s.f. building on a four acre
parcel at the SE corner of 35th and Barnard, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #622-9988-018. Motion carried
5-2 with Mr. Hess and Mr. Sponholz voting no.
6.
Richard Coury, Jonrich LLC, 6340 N. Green Bay Avenue, Glendale, WI 53209, requests a
rezoning (R-2 Single Family → PUD-Residential) and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
amendment (Single-Family → Mixed Residential) for the purpose of constructing in four
phases as follows: in both Phase #1 and in Phase #2 there is a proposed 30-unit single-story
CBRF (Community Based Residential Facilities) building; and in both Phase #3 and in
Phase #4 there is a proposed 45-unit three-story RCAC (Residential Congregate Assisted Care)
building, for a total number of units = 150; proposed project is on vacant land at 96 th/97th and
Cold Spring Road, currently owned by WE Energies. Tax Key #607-9981-004.
1.
Background: This submittal is a follow-up to the Conceptual Review which occurred at the
12/09 PC meeting. See attached minutes excerpt where land use alternatives were discussed.
Attached is a copy of the power-point presentation made at that earlier meeting regarding
Jonrich, Inc. background, examples of other projects, information about the site, etc.
Mr. Coury proposes to construct two single story 30 unit CBRF assisted care living buildings
and a three-story 90 unit RCAC independent living building for a total of 150 units at full
buildout (i.e. the 90-unit is proposed to be done in two 45-unit phases). These buildings
would be constructed on some of the vacant land currently owned by WE Energies. This
land is part of the 20.2 acre parcel that contains the old farmhouse and barn, a sizeable
portion encumbered by Butler Garter Snake habitat, WE Energies tower easements, and
„wraps-around‟ to approx. 100th & Cold Spring. The construction of these buildings, as
proposed, would „cluster‟ the development on the northerly and buildable portion of the site,
and would require the removal of the old structures.
14
PC 8-10-10
The two 30 unit buildings will be built on the northern section of the parcel so as to be near
Cold Spring Road with the main entrances on the south side of the buildings. The 90 unit
building will be built south of those buildings, with the retention basin also adjacent to the
south. Two site layout alternatives were proposed earlier where the variation was a single
access point to/from Cold Spring, versus a duo access points to/from Cold Spring. The 1
preferred version has no parking along the north side of the parcel), and assumes a shared
and paved driveway arrangement with WE Energies which leads to/from their substation,
with a second access point on the west side of the parcel.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
150 units ÷ 20.2 acres = 7.4 units/acre. Since eventually this type of project would need a
PUD designation, the comparable density calc. for „Housing for Older Persons/Elderly‟ is 20
units/acre.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The attached drawings show the single story 30unit buildings with a pitched roof with asphalt shingles (i.e. architectural version preferred)
and gables to break up the roof line. Additionally, cultured stone and fiber cement board is
used in the lower portion of the building, and a fiber cement shingle is used towards the roof
in the gables. A floor plan is included in the packet and a color rendition will be presented at
the meeting.
Patios are proposed for the north side of the building, and on the south side of the building
there is a porch and a covered shelter area. Since the site „drops-off‟ 10‟ – 15‟ from north
to south, it is anticipated that the combination of having the assisted single-story buildings in
front of it and the grade difference, will enable the three-story building to blend in well when
viewing the area from Cold Spring looking south.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Underground parking would be
constructed with the 90 unit building. Since the residents of the 30 unit buildings would not
be driving, fewer spaces are needed for those buildings. Calculations that take into account
the number of employees per shift will be needed to determine the required number of
parking spaces. The parking calc. for „assisted living‟ is 0.5 spaces per unit plus 1 space per
employee on the largest shift. 20 spaces are provided behind each of the 30 unit buildings.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): A storm drainage/collection system has been shown for
the buildings and parking lot, including the required storm water retention pond. Although
„finished floor‟ elevations are shown and existing grades are shown on the „grading plan
sheet‟, but no proposed new grades are shown yet to accommodate the development. See
Engineering comments.
Lighting (building & site): A photo-metric grid layout is shown, along with cut-sheets for
bollard and gull-wing type fixtures. The parking lot lighting will be screened by the
buildings which will minimize/eliminate any light spill-over to the north. Mounting height
of the gull-wings will need to be identified.
Utilities: A utility plan has been proposed, including a water main meter pit. See
Engineering comments for further review. There is a major underground electrical
line/easement running east-west through the middle of the parcel. The buildings are located
north and south of the easement.
For sanitary sewer, it is uncertain why three sanitary main connections are proposed. Given
the general layout, two main connections would seem to be sufficient. The „angling‟ of the
water and sanitary laterals as shown will need to be modified so it‟s a straight 90 degree
connection.
15
PC 8-10-10
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
A 30‟ sanitary easement is shown south of the 90 unit building and then going due west.
along the west lot line. The importance of this easement is that the sanitary sewer line for
the east 25 acres of the former WE Energies land (i.e. south of Fire Station #2) needs to go
thru this particular easement and eventually connect at 99th & Cold Spring. While this may
be someone else‟s future problem, the actual ability for a sanitary line to be constructed
further to the west is in question given the existing location of the ATC lattice-tower and its
existing easement in that area. Alternatively, whether or not that proposed easement needs
to “turn north” along the west side of the 90-unit building and enable a future connection to
the sanitary line proposed for this building. As presented, the connection from the 30‟
easement to the 90-unit sanitary main would need to be via a lift-station because the grades
don‟t work for a gravity flow at that location.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: Within the floor plan there are a couple of mechanical rooms.
It is uncertain yet if these are related to the building HVAC system. That aspect will need
to be identified with the potential next submittal.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): The plan indicates two locations for dumpsters
near the rear parking lots. Assuming that “wheeled” containers will not be in the enclosures,
the alignment for the second enclosure will need to be angled similarly as what is done for
the first enclosure simply for the ease of future pick-up. The enclosure(s) will need either a
„maze‟ entry-way design or a service door.
Fencing: The outdoor patio areas will be fenced to ensure that residents do not meander
from the premises.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A landscaping plan for the foundation plantings around both 30unit buildings is proposed. There is a reference on the Site Plan sheet that other site-relating
landscaping will be done; also the site plan seems to indicate the desire to retain whatever
trees have grown up along the south side of Cold Spring (i.e. officially in the City R-O-W).
Park Fees: 150 units X $1497 = $224,550.
Sidewalks: A “pedestrian” easement needs to be designated along the southern edge of the
parcel along the border of the snake habitat (i.e. within the same sanitary easement), and also
extend to approx. 100th and Cold Spring. In addition, a „north/south leg‟ is shown to enable
access to/from approx. 96th & Cold Spring. A sidewalk layout is also provided for throughout the site. The long-range intent is so that a walking path/trail can be installed and
potentially in the future, it is connected to the other trail „leg‟ in the potential residential
development to the east of this parcel off of 92nd Street, which would come out at roughly
92nd and Allerton.
Fire Department: All buildings will be sprinklered. It may be possible that other life-safety
design features will be needed by the Dept. To assist with the movement of emergency
personnel and vehicles, when the 90-unit building is being considered, a roadway along the
perimeter of the building is requested. If the roadway around the entire building is not
feasible, driveways along the eastern and western edges is requested with a sidewalk linking
the two along the southern side of the building. Similarly, a walk-way along the northern
portion of the assisted living buildings has been provided.
Outside Agencies: The DNR has been and will likely need to continue to be involved
regarding the snake habitat to the south; MMSD will need to be involved regarding storm
and sanitary sewer connections; and Milw. Water Utility regarding the meter pit.
16
PC 8-10-10
17.
18.
PUD Requirements: If this project receives the necessary City approvals, then a Developer‟s
Agreement and its requirements will be entered into with Jonrich, Inc.
Miscellaneous: Eventually as this project proceeds, there will be a public hearing process.
The mailing list of all property owners, based upon the normal 400‟ radius, was provided to
Jonrich and they held a neighborhood info. meeting on May 24 th. See attached email which
identifies the main concerns raised at that time by the people in attendance. The broad
topics raised were: traffic to/from Cold Spring; pedestrian path near south end of 99th;
assisted care residents wandering off-premise; height of the 90-unit building; exterior
lighting levels; and old barn/shed/house.
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan modification: Since these processes both require a
public hearing but the respective notice requirements are different in what is required and
length of notice time, there still is a way to handle these aspects in a concurrent manner. So
if the PC and Mr. Coury concurs, efforts will be made for both public hearings to be on the
same Common Council meeting date.
19.
When CSM #8081 was done in 2008, there was a portion of the Cold Spring frontage which
was put into a „road reservation‟ mainly because the ultimate R-O-W line would then go
thru the old house. Once this structure is removed, then the „road reservation‟ is eliminated
and the additional 15‟ of R-O-W is dedicated to the City. This becomes important for a
number of reasons, one of which pertains to the front yard building setback requirement.
Under the PUD, a minimum of a 25‟ building setback needs to be provided. The front yard
building setback will be approx. 35‟ from the „new‟ R-O-W line. Whether or not some
slight shifting southerly of the building pad/parking lot (i.e. which will then encroach into
the 20‟ electric easement), to create more front yard space will need to be evaluated further.
Engineering Comments (these represent what was prepared for the Conceptual Review;
further comments were being prepared based upon this most recent submittal however Mr.
Foster‟s wife just gave birth to twins and so those comments are delayed for the time being):
151.12.
Provide information for the required parking space count. Verify that sufficient parking
has been proposed.
Confirm intent for private water main system.
Related to the proposed sanitary sewer system:
 Utilize existing 6-inch sewer laterals provided to the property for
proposed CBRF buildings.
 Provide information relative to sanitary service for future independent
living structure.
 Sanitary sewer provision will be necessary for adjacent “Greenfield
Park II”, a planned condominium development to the southeast.
Required sewer alignment and depth shall be fully coordinated with WE
Energies and the “Greenfield Park II” developer.
Provide the required right-of-way dedication for West Cold Spring Road.
Recommendation: Approve both requests (rezoning and Land Use Plan amendment) subject to PC
and staff comments, and authorize both public hearing processes to proceed.
Richard Coury with Jonrich LLC, Steve Paglianti, architect, and Pat Adams with We Energies were
present to answer questions.
17
PC 8-10-10
Ald. Kastner questioned the bike paths, as to when they would be installed, the type of material, etc.
It was responded that they would provide an easement for the path‟s construction within Phase I, but
it hadn‟t yet been determined who would be paying for it. Mr. Weis asked what the timing would be
for Phase I to which it was responded they hoped to be complete by Spring 2011.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned the tax base to which Mr. Coury replied that he is not sure of
Greenfield‟s tax rate. They are paying approximately $45-50,000 a building for buildings they have
done in Cudahy and Franklin which are similar in size to these buildings. The appraisal value is
$1.2 million per building for the first two buildings and $4-5 million plus for the third building.
Mr. Dorszynski asked Mr. Erickson to verify the parcel size and the density. Mr. Coury said they
prefer to build smaller, more manageable buildings to provide the care level they desire to
offer.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to forward a favorable recommendation
concerning the request of Jonrich, LLC for a rezoning (R-2 Single Family → PUD-Residential)
and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment (Single-Family → Mixed Residential) for the
purpose of constructing in four phases as follows: Phase #1 and in Phase #2 there is a proposed
30-unit single-story CBRF (Community Based Residential Facilities) building; and in both
Phase #3 and in Phase #4 there is a proposed 45-unit three-story RCAC (Residential
Congregate Assisted Care) building, for a total number of units = 150; proposed project is on a
20 acre parcel at 96th/97th and Cold Spring Road, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key #607-9981-004. Motion
7.
Larry Frahm, Bauer Sign Co., W184 S8408 Challenger Drive, Muskego, WI 53150 on behalf of
Sid Le, Pacific Gateway Plaza (aka Viet Hoa), requests a PC sign waiver to have a monument
sign 20‟ high (10‟ high is current limit). Tax Key #645-9002.
1.
Background: Mr. Le is requesting a monument sign that is 20‟ high, while the Sign Code
limit is 10‟ high. The desire is to enable more readability/appearance of the sign to be
achieved, in part because this is a multi-tenant sign with an electronic reader feature. The
issue here is not total square footage. The proposed location is on the south side of the
entrance off of 27th Street, so there isn‟t any vehicular “sight-line” issue created. The sign
vendor has proposed a sign which is roughly 10‟ high meeting the code but the owner wants
to seek the higher sign.
Recommendation: Deny the request for a 20‟ high sign of this nature, subject to PC and staff
comments. However, allow a monument sign for a multi-tenant purposes to be 14‟ high which
would be consistent with what has been done in at least two other similar locations and similar
situations (i.e. free-standing sign with multi-tenants: Sendiks @ 7901 Layton, and Greenfield
Emporium Square @ 6201 S. 27th St.). Authorize this item to be expedited to the August 17th
Common Council meeting.
Bob Krause with Bauer Sign was present to answer questions. Ald. Kastner said he is okay with the
signage being higher provided there was a greater setback from 27 th Street. In essence, more setback
as the sign is higher than what is allowed.
18
PC 8-10-10
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of a PC sign waiver
to have a monument sign 16‟ 6” high (10‟ high is current limit) with a 15‟ setback at Pacific
Gateway Plaza (aka Viet Hoa, 27th & Grange), subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the August 17th Common Council
meeting. Tax Key #645-9002. Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Harold Ziebell, 11849 Parkview Lane, Hales Corners, WI 53130, requests a PC Waiver for a
second driveway for a duplex at 4015-21 W. Howard Avenue. Tax Key #575-8998-001.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background: Mr. Ziebell owns and leases a duplex on this parcel. He would like to create
a 2nd driveway to enhance his tenants‟ ability to enter and leave, as part of a project to
construct a second garage. See attached 7/22/10 letter.
The nature of this property use as a duplex with this type of zoning and this request falls into
a type of a “grey area” within the Municipal Code. Section 9.12(3) of the MC enables the
PC to consider more than one access point from the public street to a single-family dwelling.
Section 21.06.0101(B) enables the PC to consider more than one access point to an arterial
street if there is at least 400‟ of frontage in multiple-family zoning districts.
This use on this parcel isn‟t a single family dwelling, nor is its zoning multiple-family. The
need for the PC Waiver is to allow a second driveway and which has less than 105‟ spacing.
This proposed second driveway would be less that 105‟ from the other driveway on this
parcel since the lot is 86‟ wide; and also based upon the aerial photo of this area, the parcel
immediately to the west has its driveway on the east lot line, or right adjacent to the
proposed second driveway.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The ability to construct a second garage on the
parcel is not at issue here since it‟s proposed to be under 600 s.f. The first garage was
approved/constructed in 1976.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Staff believes that Howard Ave. in
this particular area, as a quarter-section road and a 4-lane street, is an „arterial‟ type of street,
and as such, would support the idea of vehicles driving out toward the street instead of
backing out onto the street.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): Any new paved driveway/parking area will need to be
drained in a manner in which it is not directed to a neighbors parcel.
Recommendation: Deny the request as presented, and expedite this item to the August 17 th Common
Council meeting. The need to create more parking space really seems to be at issue here, and
potentially the site is too small to accommodate a second accessory structure. Staff would suggest
either:
1.
2.
See if its possible to rotate the garage 90 degrees allowing for access from the east
and shifting the garage northerly but this will “squeeze” an already tight area. The
intent is to provide for a new garage but also possibly negating the need for the 2nd
driveway;
Simply pave the additional space needed to better accommodate parking demand,
but don‟t construct the garage and still use the existing driveway.
19
PC 8-10-10
Mr. Ziebell was present to answer questions. Mr. Weis questioned why he doesn‟t just expand upon
the existing garage to which he replied that as time has gone on, a two or more car family has
become the norm and an additional garage would provide “separation” for the individual
tenants, with them not all “sharing” a garage. Also, this being a “townhouse” style building having
two separate garages would be more desirable, especially if one day this were to become condos.
He is also concerned about the danger of backing all cars from one point out onto Howard Avenue
and feels two driveways would be safer.
Mr. Marciniak said he understands Mr. Ziebell‟s intentions in pursuing this, however, he also feels
that this is all too crowded. Mr. Erickson stated that a garage can be two feet from the lot line while
the driveway can be up to the lot line. When asked why not just leave one drive and expand the
garage Mr. Ziebell stated that that causes problems between the two tenants in their having to move
cars back and forth to let the other tenant in/out of the garage.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to approve the recommendation to deny the
request for a PC Waiver for a second driveway for a duplex at 4015-21 W. Howard Avenue,
August 17th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #575-8998-001. Motion to deny carried 6-1
with Mr. Dorszynski voting against the denial.
9.
Nicholas Migan, AIA, Schroeder & Holt Architects, 311 East Chicago Street, Suite 410,
Milwaukee, WI 53202 on behalf of Roundy‟s and Learsi-Wisconsin LLC, request a
Site/Building/Landscaping Review for a proposed 81,700 s.f. Pick & Save Grocery Store at
4279 S. 76th Street. Project area includes the former Sentry Store, Popeye‟s Chicken,
Ponderosa parcels, and a portion of the Blockbuster parking lot. Tax Key #570-8952-002/003,
570-8955-002, and 570-8956-001.
1.
2.
Background: Roundy‟s, in partnership with Learsi, has prepared plans for constructing a
new 81,700 s.f. Pick & Save. The existing Sentry Store, Popeye‟s Restaurant, and
Ponderosa Restaurant would all be torn down which the new store on this assembled land
which will include a portion of the Blockbuster parking lot. The existing Pick & Save in
Spring Mall naturally would then be closed when this new store would open next year.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Included in your packet is a color elevation
with a listing under “Elevation Key Notes” and “Elevation Material Notes/Finish/Color”
which provides the detail on the proposed materials. Product samples will be presented at
the meeting. The predominate materials are:
Wainscoting-layer: oversize split-face block – “premium cream”; and integrally colored
split-face block – “expresso”
Walls: integrally colored split-face block – “espresso”; oversized split face block –
“premium cream”; EIFS – “amarillo white”; and there is „scored‟ EIFS over the main
entrance
Accent band: ground face block – “premium cream”
Windows: combination of „vision‟ glass and „spandrel‟ glass
Metal coping: anodized aluminum finish
20
PC 8-10-10
The architect and staff are doing further review of the building design aspects and
material/color combination within the context of the applicable elements of the Site
Development Standards, or specifically “Architectural Design Guidelines” and the “Design
Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments”. Further report on those findings will be
presented at the PC meeting.
3.
The height of the build at its tallest point (i.e. over the main entrance) is 33‟, and is 26‟ high
along 76th Street. The C-4 height allowance is 40‟. For purposes of staff review, this parcel
is considered a „corner lot‟. So the „front yard‟, which is the „short‟ side of the parcel, is the
Cold Spring frontage. Under the C-4 requirements, the building setback for the „long‟ side
of the parcel is 35‟. The building as proposed encroaches on the 76th Street side because it
has a 14‟ setback. The PC has the ability to allow this type encroachment within the context
of the total site review [Table 21.04.0304(e)], which staff would support.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: One of the features which came out
of the neighborhood info. meeting on July 27th was a suggested to try and shift the proposed
driveway onto Cold Spring further east. Roundy‟s was supportive of that idea and had
prepared a revised site plan showing the “shift” of that drive approach easterly to align with
the next north/south parking aisle. The plan set that was submitted for the PC review
inadvertently does not show that shift. So keep in mind that all site plan materials still will
need to be adjusted to reflect that change.
One of the differences between the site plan layouts referenced above is the width of a
landscaping island along the east of the parcel versus a wider island thru the center part of
the site. Actually staff would prefer the original intent where the east island is 30‟ wide
instead of the 10‟ wide version. There simply is more space for a perimeter planting design
to be done.
The building is 81,700 square feet. The ZC ratio for a grocery store is 6 stalls/1,000 (81.7
X 6 = 490); for the Blockbuster building (4,350 s.f.), the ratio is 5 stalls/1,000 (4.4 X 5 =
22). 490 + 22 = 512. The site has 358 stalls. 512 – 358 = 154 „short‟.
Roundy‟s acknowledges they are below the ZC parking requirement but have indicated that
based upon their historical operational/functional needs that have been determined from
multiple store sites (i.e. both in a stand-alone situation or as part of an large multi-tenant
situation), they are fine with the available parking stall count – likely would not have entered
into a long-term lease arrangement if that were not the case. Attached is a parking ratio
comparison of their stores in Wauwatosa, Hales Corners, Glendale and then compared with
the GF site; all of which are in the +4.0/1,000 range.
New Pick & Save building = 81,700 s.f
Blockbuster =
+ 4,350
86,050 total s.f. on-site ÷ 1,000 = 86
358 stalls ÷ 86 = 4.16 stalls/1,000
For sake of comparison, a similar breakdown was done for the existing Spring Mall site and
the Sendiks site:
21
PC 8-10-10
--Sendiks = 90,800 s.f. ÷ 1,000 = 90.8
Available stalls = 390
390 ÷ 90.8 = 4.3/1,000
--Spring Mall (both buildings) = 183, 480 s.f. ÷ 1,000 = 183.5
Available stalls = 890 890 ÷ 183.5 = 4.85/1,000
10 ADA stalls are provided; and eight are required.
A Traffic Impact Study has been prepared and is attached. This same information has been
forwarded to Milwaukee County DPW/Transportation Division for their review because of
the changes proposed for 76th Street access. Amongst these three businesses there are five
existing drive approaches to/from 76th, and the proposed plan shows needing three
approaches overall which will be shifted somewhat depending upon the location on the site.
One of these approaches would take advantage of the existing median cut in 76 th Street north
of Cold Spring which would align with the Walgreens/Arby access point. A „truck turning‟
exhibit has been prepared to illustrate that the capability exists to support their plan for all
truck traffic to come in from 76th Street to access loading/dumpster/delivery area on the
north side of the building. There is a turn-around area at the northwest corner of the site that
has a 120‟ wide radius to handle the truck maneuvers. One of the positive aspects of having
the truck traffic along the north side is that it eliminates the former “long-run” for trucks
along the entire west side when Sentry was there. However, part of the loading dock will
face 76th Street as a result, but is partially screened by landscaping.
The parking layout plan shows that along the west side of the parcel, the “run of stalls” is in
excess of the requirement to have a „break‟ or landscape island every 15 stalls or so. Staff is
fine with that layout feature as proposed, in part because the balance of site has appropriately
placed parking lot “islands” with the desired “stall count spread”. Also, the cart-corral
locations are shown on the layout plan. The parking stalls are 9‟ x 20‟, and the aisles are 24‟
wide, and the parking lot will be curbed; all of which meet the ZC requirements.
4.
Another item coming out of the neighborhood info. meeting is the idea of having „turn
arrows‟ on Cold Spring at the 76th Street intersection to designate a north-bound turn lane
(i.e. west-bound on Cold Spring = left-turn lane; east-bound on Cold Spring = right-turn
lane). This aspect has also been shared with Milwaukee Country for their
review/consideration. Right now there are two drive approaches to Cold Spring, and this
layout will eliminate one of those.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): The building and parking lot will all be connected to the
underground storm sewer system as shown in the attached grading plan. The amount of
“new impervious surface” is less than a ½ acre so no storm basin is required. The City
consulting engineer has determined (see attached email) that the City‟s Chp. 30 (PostConstruction Stormwater) requirements as modified in the last year or so, are stricter than
the similarly applicable State requirements (NR 151), and this could have an impact as it
relates to “TSS” (Total Suspended Solids). The difference lies in the definition of what is
“redevelopment” vs. “new development”.
The Dept. of Neighbor Services staff will be working on the appropriate minor
modifications to Chp. 30 which would enable us to then still apply the NR 151 requirements
to this project. For instance, this would mean that bio-retention devices or designs would
not be needed within this development area.
22
PC 8-10-10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Lighting (building & site): Shepard Hook style lighting will be installed in the parking
lot and the building elevation sheet shows the intention of having that type of decorative
fixture on the building. The photo-metric analysis is still being prepared. It may be
possible, however, that the type of lighting along the west side of the parcel would be the
“shoe-box” style because those can be better controlled to “throw” light easterly and away
from the residential area to the west. Plus, if needed, some „back-lighting shields‟ can be
installed.
Utilities: A utility plan is attached showing the water, sanitary, and storm main layouts and
connection points.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: The building is designed with parapet walls which will help
screen any HVAC roof-top units. Depending upon where the measurement is made, these
parapets range from 2‟ – 12‟ high. The exact placement of any roof-top units has not been
finalized yet, however, the requirement for screening these units remains regardless of where
on the roof the units may be placed. It‟s important to keep in mind that for a person standing
on the street, the height of the wall and the placement of a roof-top unit, create a “sight-line
angle” which can be critical.
Signage: A specific signage plan is still being worked on and a subsequent PC waiver will
need to be considered. The building elevation shows the desire to have three P & S wall
signs (6‟ x 47‟ = 282 s.f. X 3 = 846 s.f.) and then a sign for “pharmacy” and a “bank”, and
then for a monument sign(s). When all of this is totaled, some scale reduction is likely
going to be needed.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): A dumpster enclosure is at the northwest
corner of the building and is completely screened behind an 8‟ high wall.
Fencing: There is an existing 6‟ high wood fence along much of the west property line
which will be retained. An additional 245‟ of 6‟ high wood fence is to be installed to extend
to the north lot line.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A very detailed/thorough landscaping plan is attached
showing plantings for the perimeter, foundation, landscape islands, and buffer yard.
Previous staff comments have been made regarding the width of the planting area along the
east side of the parking lot. Staff believes that the wider (30‟) is better than the narrow
version (10‟). Furthermore, the foundation plantings proposed for the west side of the
building can be removed, and instead the value to those plantings should be ear-marked for
some actual deciduous trees in the 30‟ wide planting area along the east side of the parking
lot. Similarly, some deciduous trees are needed in the perimeter planting area along the
south side of the project area (i.e. strategically placed in relationship to the street trees).
The landscape ratio is indicated to be 17%; the C-4 requirement is 25%. Overall while this
percentage gap still exists, the reality is that there is an ample increase in the visible/public
area which is enhanced by having an actual landscaping plan. The northwest corner of the
existing Sentry parcel was an approx. 33,000 s.f. wooded area but was never really “used”
for the benefit of enhancing this site. Plus the Popeye and Ponderosa sites were
predominately hard-surface as well.
Technically the landscape buffer area along the west side of the parcel is supposed to be at
least 25‟ wide (i.e. C-4 adjacent to an R-3 area). Other than a short strip of plantings just
north of Cold Spring (about 80‟ long), the next 480‟ has zero buffer. The proposed plan has
a 10‟ wide planted buffer proposed. Anecdotally, the tall trees which may be noticed west
of the Sentry site are in the rear yards of those adjacent properties.
23
PC 8-10-10
12.
13.
14.
15.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: There will be 125% of landscaping costs,
with 30% retained for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going condition
of subsequent approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual review by
the City to make sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any
dead/dying landscaping is replaced as necessary.
Street Trees: To be reviewed by the City Forester.
Park Fees: Redevelopment of commercial properties is exempt from park fees providing
that the ownership and use is maintained throughout the redevelopment of the property. In
this case, Learsi as the owner is not changing for the “Sentry” portion of the overall site and
naturally Sentry was a grocery store as is a Pick & Save. However, the new use and
ownership is on the Popeye and Ponderosa sites which are 250‟ x 290‟ = 72,500 s.f.
--Overall site = 327,758 s.f. or 7.52 acres
--Ponderosa and Popeye area = 72,700 s.f.
First 50,000 s.f. of land X $.05 = $2,500
Remaining 22,700 s.f. X $.025 = 563
$3,063
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Hours of Operation: 24/7
Sidewalks: Sidewalk connection is provided to the 76th Street walks, and the ADA stalls
access lane is provided.
Fire Department: The FDC connection will be near the NE corner of the building and a
Knox Box will be included in the entry-way. The building will be sprinklered. These
elements and potentially other life-safety aspects will be coordinated with the FD.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee County will be making a critical review of the Traffic
Impact Analysis. Milwaukee Water Utility may be involved with the water main tap.
Erosion Control: A plan is included. Any construction at the site will need prior
permitting approval from the Engineering Office.
Miscellaneous: Attached is the 400‟ radius map used for the neighborhood information
meeting, the notice used, and the attendance sheet (including two PC members).
At a later date, Roundy's will be returning with a Special Use request for the liquor
department which will be part of their normal store operation. Also at a later date, a CSM
will be needed to combine the three lots and “remove” all the “inside” lot lines.
Engineering Comments: Due to the fact that the City‟s engineering consultant who
normally would be providing review comments, just had twins born in his family those
comments will be coming later but still would be applicable as if there were provided now.
expedited to the August 17th Common Council meeting.
David Baum with Schroeder & Holt, David Israel, the property owner, Sandy Golden with
CBRE, Max Rickman with Roundy‟s, and Paul Phillips with DP Engineering were present to answer
questions.
24
PC 8-10-10
Mr. Baum spoke on the neighborhood information meeting they held. One of the recurring
comments from the neighbors was about the entrance drive. The neighbor‟s request the entrance be
moved next to Blockbuster. In keeping all groups involved in mind, they were able to move it
over one driveway.
Mr. Dickman spoke on the parking availability and said they generally have a 5 to 1 ratio for
parking, but when it‟s closer to 4 to 1, as it is here, the layout becomes more vital. He didn‟t feel
there was too much opposition by the neighbors as to where the building will be placed. It will be
dictated where employees park and the area they will use was determined so as to have the least
impact on the neighbors. Mr. Marciniak said he liked the planters/landscaping in this area as they
added additional buffering.
Mr. Baum then responded to Mr. Hess‟ question on perhaps using an absorbent asphalt for drainage
by stating they have looked into different types of pervious asphalt, but have not found one that
would stand up to Wisconsin winters. As for the fencing, they plan to match the existing 6 foot high
fencing that is already existing on the west end. He said the neighbors had no issue as to the height
of the fence and additional landscaping will also be added.
It was noted that there won‟t be too many modifications to the building itself, and they will be
complying with the City‟s requirement of shepard hook lighting. Discussion then followed on the
window type, sizes and layout, with it being noted that they will use a combination of clear and
spandrel glass, with an area for a café. As for the layout of the bank portion, they don‟t have the
plans for that yet. They apply the “LEED” standard (Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design) which promotes sustainability in design via energy conservation, material conservation and
ways to protect the environment. However, LEEDs standards can add significant cost to a project,
and Roundy‟s uses the program as their basis to do what is most sustainable.
Ald. Kastner questioned the rooftop mechanicals and how they‟d be screened. Mr. Baum said that
they do not have a floor plan layout for this building yet but they design all of their buildings so that
the rooftop units cannot be seen from the adjacent roadway.
Discussion followed on the shepard hook lighting and how they would be in the “center” section,
with a standard “shoebox” fixture throughout the remainder of the lot. This type of lighting is
brighter than the shepard hook and is what they desire to have better balanced light levels to
illuminate the parking lot. The proposed photometric plan was distributed as part of this discussion.
Mr. Baum then explained the architectural bumpouts shown on the plan. The vertical panels
protrude 12” from the wall and are two feet “taller” than the wall to add architectural detail. Further
discussion on the architectural elements being used, the type and color, etc. The goal is to break
ground by Fall, with final completion estimated by mid-2011.
Mr. Dickman spoke on the signage proposal submitted tonight. He said they would be happy with
two signs at 6‟ X 36‟ rather than the three they originally proposed. These two are sized
proportionate to the building. He mentioned that they are not exceeding the height restriction with
their monument sign proposal. As for the wall signage, it is an internally backlit design, where it
would be a “black” sign during the day and a “white” sign at night.
Mr. Israel then spoke on the ownership/tenant arrangement. It is underway to combine the Sentry,
Ponderosa, and Popeye‟s parcels into one parcel. They will be leasing the space to Roundy‟s. He
also owns the Block Buster parcel.
25
PC 8-10-10
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Site/Building/
Landscaping Review for a proposed 81,700 s.f. Pick & Save Grocery Store at 4279 S. 76th
Street. subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited
to the August 17th Common Council meeting. Project area includes the former Sentry Store,
Popeye‟s Chicken, Ponderosa parcels, and a portion of the Blockbuster parking lot. Tax Key
#570-8952-002/003, 570-8955-002, and 570-8956-001. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
1.
Background: [[Held over from May/June/July PC]]. This item is meant to review a
fairly common aspect which comes to PC regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor”
change as it relates to Special Uses, and then naturally the need for a public hearing. While
the PUD section of the ZC [[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially
may be a “major” change, the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those
PUD elements to start the discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use,
similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future CC meeting for this
Hold over.
11.
Amend Schlossmann Honda City project, 3450 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #524-8979-003.
Schlossmann‟s phasing plan has changed. Currently, they are only undertaking Phase I, which
they had thought they would have had completed in 2009, however, due to the economy it was
delayed. The earlier proposed Phase II is deferred indefinitely.
Amend El Beso Restaurant project, 5030 S. 74th Street, Tax Key #617-9975-023.
El Beso is adding on to their original plans by adding a second story element over the entryway
and also a second story feature is being added to provide storage in the northwest corner of
the building.
12.
Motion by Mr. Dorszynski, seconded by Mr. Weis to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
13.
September 14, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Distributed August 25, 2010
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
26
PC 8-10-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Excused
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2010
Regular Meeting. It was noted that page 5 of the minutes had been inadvertently left out during the
minute distribution earlier, however, it has been distributed to the Plan Commission members at this
meeting. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mayor Neitzke abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on August 17. At the meeting the Pick „N
Save proposal (76th & Cold Spring) was approved as recommended. Mayor Neitzke also commented
that at the Special Common Council meeting held August 19, where there was discussion on the
resolution containing the eminent domain language, pertaining to “Greenfield Crossing”, with it
being expected that there will be a decision at the next Common Council meeting as to whether or
not the Redevelopment Plan needs to remain in place.
4.
Follow-up from the August Plan Commission meeting regarding the request of Mad Dog
Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street, for a Special Use Amendment/Site, Building, & Landscaping
Review for the purposes of constructing a patio for smokers adjacent to the south side of the
building; this amendment also includes the „expansion of premises‟ as it relates to the
designated alcohol serving area, Tax Key #605-9979-002.
1.
Background: For the August PC Mr. LaLicata had submitted preliminary plans to get a
Special Use Amendment for an outdoor smoking patio to provided a controlled smoking
area, which would also include an “expansion of premises” as currently identified on the
Class “B” license for this property; see attached letter and supporting materials. The intent
is to create a small fenced-in area with about four „standing only‟ tables (no chairs) for their
patrons who smoke. He has also requested that these patrons would be allowed to bring their
beverage to this area, but no food. Pictures submitted indicated the need to remove the
foundation planting between the sidewalk across the front of the building, and then replace it
with concrete.
Mr. LaLicata was requested at that earlier meeting to then submit a more precise site
plan/layout which better identified his design for this particular area. He has now done
that, and it is attached. The PC did in August authorize the public hearing process to
proceed and so any recommendation on this aspect will be forwarded to the CC whenever
the public hearing for the special use amendment will be held.
1
PC 9-14-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: There is proposed “black” awning fabric which
would be the „roof‟ of this outside smoking area extending approx. 90” (7.5‟) out from the
building. A decorative-style fence would enclose this area, and access would only be
available from the existing vestibule. Clarification will be needed if the existing “window
awnings” will be removed or retained after the „roof‟ awning is installed.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Given the proximity of the adjacent
parking stalls, some „curb-stops‟ will be placed to protect the fence as proposed. The
shifting of those affected stalls to the south as a result, will not greatly impact the existing
wide drive aisle.
Lighting (building & site): Right now there are some decorative „hook‟ lights which
„wash‟ down on the building probably right where the „roof‟ awning is proposed. Those will
likely stay to provide light under the „roof‟ awning.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Since some small area of landscaping is „lost‟ at the building as
proposed, adding some street trees in the grass terrace area along the Forest Home frontage
would be a good replacement. The number/type of/spacing would need to be determined by
the City Forester.
Street Trees: See above.
City Forester Site Inspection: See above.
Miscellaneous: “Smoking product” waste receptacle(s) will be needed for the patrons to
place their cigarettes/refuse when leaving this fence-in area.
In 2007 the PC, Legislative Committee, and the CC passed operational guidelines for
patios/decks for restaurants and bars (see attached). These will have a big impact on the
proposal as presented, to do both smoking and alcohol consumption in this area.
Recommendation (same as presented in August):
Staff has major concerns about this small patio area being used, as proposed, for both smoking and
outside alcohol consumption (i.e. “expansion of premises”). Staff can support the idea that a small
controlled smoking area can be functional/suitable at this location next to the building instead of
patrons potentially congregating at the entrance or walking around the parking lot.
However, staff cannot support including alcohol consumption as well because that, in effect, is
expanding the actual premises where there already is a known parking shortage which only
exacerbates the problem. Plus the plan as presented, doesn‟t meet some of the key elements of the
„patio/deck‟ guidelines (i.e. parking, landscaping, time limit, etc.).
Dominic LaLicata, the property owner, and Atty. John Fuchs, his legal counsel, were present to
answer questions. Atty. Fuchs wanted to stress that this patio will not increase occupancy for them
nor will it cause any loss of parking spaces.
Ald. Kastner questioned the slope of the awning, and as currently shown would this slope support
snow, and also stated how he feels the awing detracts from the building aesthetically. Mr. LaLicata
replied that they‟d have to structure it to support snow. Ald. Kastner also questioned the awnings
above the windows and how there doesn‟t appear to be enough head room to have tables next to
those. Mr. LaLicata replied that they‟d have to remove these awnings. Ald. Kastner further noted
that the landscaping buffer would be lost in the front of the building and questioned in turn if that
could be relocated towards the parking lot. Mr. LaLicata commented that to relocate the landscaping
to the parking lot would result in them losing parking spots. Discussion followed on the dimensions
2
PC 9-14-10
of parking stalls and rows needed, with Mr. Weis then suggesting perhaps using urns and/or planters
as a way to keep the existing parking stalls and also add landscaping between the edge of the existing
sidewalk and then “shifting” the landscaping area south of the proposed patios; no parking is lost by
shifting those adjacent stalls southerly because enough of an aisle remains.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned if using angle parking would be an option, to which they responded they
might loose a parking space by using angle spacing. Mr. Hess questioned if the aluminum being
used can support the snow load, as he doesn‟t feel it looks like it would be very sturdy.
Mayor Neitzke commented that the recently approved smoking patios to El Beso, Corner Club and
Fin „n Feather were surrounded by masonry walls, which lessened the impact on the adjacent
residential areas and also would keep alcohol from being passed over a fence. He referenced that at
one time when it was the Milwaukee Grill there was a desire to put a patio on the west side of the
building, with it only being for serving food and with no music being piped out there; and all that
was not approved by the Common Council at the time. He then touched on all that has been going
on at the site and how seeking approval for this patio would probably be met with resistance. He
feels it would be better accepted if it were more “boxed in” or contained, even if that means the loss
of parking spaces.
Ms. Hallen questioned that shouldn‟t the Plan Commission demonstrate consistency in their
recommendations, as we have recommended (with approval then being granted) the allowance of
other businesses to have alcohol on their patios. Ald. Kastner said he doesn‟t feel there have been
inconsistencies, as things have been taken on a case by case basis.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to forward this item without a
recommendation for the purposes of constructing a patio for smokers adjacent to the south
side of the building at Mad Dog Saloon, 4395 S. 76th Street. Tax Key #605-9979-002. Motion
5.
David Terzis, 3501 W. Thorncrest Drive, Franklin, WI 53132, on behalf of George Terzis,
requests a Certified Survey Map which combines his two parcels into one lot at 4027 S. 88 th
Street, Tax Key #569-1262 & 569-1236-001.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Mr. Terzis is combining his two parcels (i.e. one has the house and one has the
garage) for personal financial reasons. The R-3 minimum lot requirements are 75‟ lot
frontage and 9,000 s.f. When combined, this „new‟ lot becomes „conforming‟ in that it is
now 125‟ wide and 12,000 s.f. (125‟ width x 96‟ deep).
Park Fees: None – since no „new‟ lot is being created.
3
PC 9-14-10
Recommendation: Approve subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and expedite this item
to the September 21st Common Council meeting.
David Terzis was present to answer questions.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Certified
Survey Map which combines two parcels into one lot at 4027 S. 88th Street, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the September 21 st
Common Council meeting. Tax Key #569-1262 & 569-1236-001. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Peter Schau, FMHC Corporation, 8A W. Davenport Street, Suite 201, Rhinelander, WI 54501,
on behalf of Verizon Wireless, requests a Special Use for the purpose of co-locating wireless
antennas and installing a ground-based equipment building on the cell tower/site at the Time
Warner Cable parcel, 5475 W. Abbott Avenue, Tax Key #648-0025-005.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Verizon Wireless requests a Special Use Permit to co-locate antennas and
transmitting equipment on the Time Warner Cable communications tower and property. As
noted in the cover letter and supporting materials from Mr. Schau, four other co-locates
already use the tower (Clearwire, T-Mobile, US Cellular, & Sprint).
For the Verizon proposal, three (3) panel type antennas will be mounted 135‟ high on the
existing 200‟ lattice tower; associated coaxial cable will run down the side of the tower; and
an 11‟6” x 26‟ prefabricated equipment shelter will be housed on a concrete pad/foundation
at base of the tower.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: An 11‟ x 26‟ equipment shelter is placed
within a 20‟ x 34‟ leased area adjacent to the building which is behind a chain-link fence.
The building exterior is exposed aggregate that is „tan‟ in color.
Miscellaneous: A co-location on an existing tower is considered a minor change. The
Building Inspector is following up on some clarification in the Structural Analysis Report
pertaining to structural usage/capacity.
Recommendation: Approve the request as presented subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, consider this a minor change, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
September 21st Common Council meeting.
Peter Schau was present to answer question.
the purpose of co-locating wireless antennas and installing a ground-based equipment building
on the cell tower/site at the Time Warner Cable parcel, 5475 W. Abbott Avenue, subject to
Plan Commission and staff comments, consider this a minor change, and authorize this item to
be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #648-0025-005.
4
PC 9-14-10
7.
David Schwartz, JTT Enterprises, N1887 Hwy. H, Lake Geneva, WI 53147 requests a Special
Use Review as the new owner/operator of the Layton Petro Mart, 12345 W. Layton Avenue,
Tax Key #611-8980-007.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Mr. Schwartz is proposing to purchase Layton Petro Mart and continue the
existing operations of a gas station/convenience store/car wash (see attached PC application
and August 26th letter). The initial approval to construct this building was in 2006; there was
an amendment in 2007 related to a small addition to the front of the car wash; and there was
an amendment in 2010 related to being able to sell beer only.
Hours of Operation: 24/7, except the car wash is limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily.
Miscellaneous: As part of a new Occupancy Permit needed for the new ownership, an
“open” building code matter related to the car wash (i.e. radiant heat unit and a back-flow
preventer) will need to be corrected/satisfied.
Recommendation: Approve request subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize
this item to be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting.
David Schwartz was present to answer questions.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend a Special Use Review for
David Schwartz as the new owner/operator of the Layton Petro Mart, 12345 W. Layton
Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #611-8980-007. Motion
8.
Tajinder Singh, Crown Petroleum, 3401 E. Debbie Drive, Oak Creek, WI 53154 requests a
Special Use Review as the new owner/operator of the former Simran Food & Gas Station,
4691 S. 27th Street, Tax Key #599-8888.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Mr. Singh has an accepted offer-to-purchase the former „Simran Food &
Gas Station” at this currently „closed‟ gas station, and wants to re-open a gas/convenience
store.
Hours of Operation: 6 a.m. – 11 p.m., daily.
Miscellaneous: Although the possibility of wanting to sell alcohol products at this location
is not part of this submittal, there is some pertinent „history‟ related to that topic. The then
operator (Mr. Kaur) had requested a Special Use amendment to sell beer. After the public
hearing before the CC in December, that request was denied.
Recommendation: Approve request subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize
this item to be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting.
Although these comments may be separate from the “Special Use Review” category, the fact remains
that this site/building is in need of some improvements to make it more presentable as a viable
business location. Staff will try via the Occupancy Permit process to encourage Mr. Singh to make
improvements to upgrade the site/building.
Tajinder Singh, as the lease holder, and John Klein, the property owner, were present to answer
questions.
5
PC 9-14-10
When questioned by Ms. Hallen as to what his plans were for improving the building, Mr. Singh
replied that he will be an owner rather than the previous operators who were merely leasing, and
intends to make it a more clean, presentable facility, and add some “enhancements”to the inside for
more of a “convenience” store type facility. Also, he plans to add landscaping and better lighting to
the exterior. At this time they are not looking to raze and rebuild, and will instead evaluate what the
response is from consumers to dictate their future plans. They are currently looking at perhaps
branding themselves with Mobil, Shell or BP.
Mr. Klein spoke on how he owns the neighboring parcel and if things go well expanding onto that
parcel is a possibility.
Review as for Tajinder Singh as the new owner/operator of the former Simran Food & Gas
Station, 4691 S. 27th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and also subject
to any/all Special Use conditions presently in place, and authorize this item to be expedited to
the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #599-8888. Motion carried
unanimously.
9.
53045, representing Maritime Savings Bank, requests a Preliminary Plat at it pertains to
creating two parcels in Outlot 3 of Ramsey Meadows West subdivision near 39 th and Kimberly,
which is now considered “buildable” based upon a determination by both a wetland consulting
firm, Army Corp. of Engineers, and WisDNR, Tax Key #692-1257.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background: This past July the PC/CC reviewed and then approved of a request by
Maritime Savings to consider Outlot #3 as “buildable” based upon determinations from a
wetland consulting firm, the Corp. of Engineers, and the DNR. This was needed because in
the Final Plat this outlot was considered marginally a „wetland‟ area. So now that this
parcel has “dried out”, the bank as owner of the lot has requested the land be split into two
lots. Because this outlot was part of the original Ramsey Meadows West subdivision, the
engineer had contacted the appropriate State platting review agency and they had determined
that a Preliminary & Final Plat process was necessary instead of creating the lots via
certified survey map process. Attached is the Preliminary Plat. R-3 zoned parcels must be
at least 9,000 s.f., with 75‟ lot frontage, and a corner lot must be at least 85‟ wide. Both of
the lots meet these minimum requirements.
As noted back in July and again with this request, at this time a financial institution is the
“owner” of the land, but not necessarily the “owner” of the development. Maritime is
working on selling the project and land to an actual developer. That developer in turn will
assume all the rights/obligations of the original Developer‟s Agreement for this subdivision
as a “successor” via an amendment to that document. As an FYI, there are project-related
issues which staff continues to work on with Maritime and Losik pertaining to such things
as: repairing the retention pond, extending two sets of laterals into the proposed two new lots
prior to the final lift of asphalt, and getting that final lift done yet this paving season.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): See Engineering Comments
Utilities: An extension of water, storm, and sanitary laterals are needed in order to make the
parcels actually buildable. Attached is the proposed utility plan.
Outside Agencies: State of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County will be doing their version of
a plat review.
6
PC 9-14-10
5.
Provide a 25‟ public drainage easement at rear property line of the proposed lots.
Related to proposed grading efforts:
 An approved grading plan is required prior to recording the Preliminary
Plat.
 A drainage swale shall be excavated at rear property line in an effort to
direct storm water runoff to existing inlets located at the West Kimberly
Avenue right-of-way line.
Add a note to the Preliminary Plat that states “The placement of fill, landscaping,
structures or other encumbrances within the Public Drainage Easement are prohibited
unless agreed to by Lot Owner and the City of Greenfield.”
An addendum to the Developers Agreement will be needed and will accompany the
Final Plat at the time of recording.
Any private subdivision restrictions/covenants and Home Owner‟s Assoc. documents
will need to be revised to acknowledge the addition of these two lots.
Recommendation: Approve Preliminary Plat request subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to expedited to the September 21 st Common Council meeting.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a Preliminary
Plat as it pertains to creating two parcels in Outlot 3 of Ramsey Meadows West subdivision
near 39th and Kimberly, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments; this outlot is now
considered “buildable” based upon a determination by a wetland consulting firm, the Army
Corp. of Engineers, and the WisDNR, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #692-1257. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
T.M. Commercial Group, 3208 Hwy. 31, Racine, WI 53405, on behalf of John Paul‟s Buick
GMC, 3615 S. 108th Street, requests a Site/Building Review for the purpose of re-facing the
existing building to meet corporate façade requirements, Tax Key #563-9986-007.
1.
2.
3.
Background: General Motors have asked Mr. Jones to modify his building exterior to
more closely adhere to corporate guidelines for GMC dealers to meet with new building
design standards to retain their franchise license.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Current elevations and predominate “white”
color will remain. However, instead of the current EIFS, the southeast and the northeast
elevations will be clad with a new fascia system called “Citadel Envelope 2000” and the
color will be “clear satin”. An “anodized black” cladding of this same “Citadel Envelope
2000” will also be used. A product sample will be presented at the meeting. The lower
brick has already been painted „white‟.
The other change which is readily noticed is that there will be a define entry-way canopy
which includes a new “gray” and “black” Citadel Envelope material.
Signage: Overall signage will remain consistent with what presently is on the building.
The „Pontiac‟ lettering has already been removed as per the attached pictures.
to be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting.
7
PC 9-14-10
Ald. Kastner questioned if the recommendation being voted on covered the entrance way “options”
shown, and if Mr. Jones decides to proceed with the additional “options” shown could he just
proceed rather than come back before the Plan Commission. It was decided that the approval being
granted tonight would cover all the options shown should it be desired to incorporate them all.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Site/Building
Review for the purpose of re-facing John Paul‟s Buick GMC, 3615 S. 108th Street to meet
corporate façade requirements, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key
11.
Christopher Kidd & Assoc., N48 W16550 Lisbon Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, on behalf
of Schlossmann Honda, 3450 S. 108th Street, request a Site Plan Amendment pertaining to
parking lot lighting, sign placement, and driveway widths, Tax Key #524-8979-003.
1.
2.
3.
Background: As part of the renovations underway now at Schlossmann Honda (SH), there
are some site-related modifications which the owner has asked Mr. Kidd to handle pertaining
to parking lot lighting, sign placement, and driveway widths. The PC/CC action on the
site/building improvements occurred in late 2008.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The driveway in the „center‟ of the
parcel and the driveway on the north end of the former Primer Quarter lot, were approved to
be 30‟ wide at the R-O-W line. SH has submitted and received approval from WisDOT for
driveway widths of 35‟, which technically then needs a waiver from ZC 21.06.0207(B)
pertaining to driveway widths (i.e. 30‟ width @ the R-O-W line.)
Lighting (building & site): The 2008 lighting plan was based upon 250‟ watt fixtures using
“shoe-box” down-lighting fixtures with a 20‟ mounting height. The use of “shoe-box”
fixtures and 20‟ mounting heights remains the same, but SH is requesting that 1000‟ watt
fixtures be used instead for the main display lots west of and north of the building, along
with more overall fixtures. A revised photometric layout is provided. Not surprisingly, the
„readings‟ under or near each fixture will be high particularly when the source is a doubleheaded 1000 watt combination (i.e. in the 90‟s vs. less than 10). But it is important to also
view the „readings‟ at the lot line which all tend to be 1.5 or less. The fixtures along Hwy.
100 will have “back-shields” to minimize the spill-over toward the street.
# of actual fixtures in “front vehicle display area” (i.e. counting both single and double
heads)
-- 2008 = 31
-- 2010 = 43
Most of these lights will be on a timer (i.e. still to be identified are those to be on a timer
and what the “turn-off” time will be) with the balance used for limited site lighting. In
addition, security cameras will be added to the top of four poles to help address vehicle
security issues.
At the risk of making a really odd suggestion, I will do so anyway. Staff‟s biggest concern
is that the amount of parking lot lighting does not replicate the extreme excessive lighting
at the Toyota dealership which is just to the northwest of this site in West Allis. Until the
building and all site improvements are done, the true ability to determine if the 1000 watt
fixtures as proposed are really „too bright‟ in a functional manner, is really limited. How
8
PC 9-14-10
4.
5.
6.
about re-visiting the issue three or four months from now? If it‟s determined to be too
bright as a result of the combination of additional fixtures and using predominately 1000
watt fixtures, then the 1000 watt fixtures will need to be removed and replaced with 400
watt fixtures, or some other alternative.
Signage: This aspect deals with shifting of existing or approved locations.
An existing “Used Car” sign is at the NE corner of Hwy. 100 and Morgan, right at the
edge of the R-O-W. The request is to relocate it to the used car sales area in front of the
former “Prime Quarter” lot. This sign will encroach within a 10‟ wide water main
easement; approval from BPW and/or Milwaukee Water will be needed.
A new monument sign had been approved for the parking lot driveway going onto
Morgan Ave. The request now is to shift that proposed sign from Morgan to the Hwy.
100 frontage, about 120‟ north of Morgan. It would be the same size (8‟ high), but
instead of being a „static‟ sign, it would include an LED feature.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Originally the new enclosure had been
behind of east of the building. Now it has been proposed to be near the NE corner of the
building. A maze entry-way or a service door is needed. A concrete pad and apron
recommended for this enclosure. The enclosure materials need to be identified.
Engineering Comments: A review is underway to confirm that extra wattage
conform to the State Electrical Code and for along a State Trunk Highway.
Christopher Kidd was present to answer questions and gave some information on his light meter
findings, stressing how this proposed lighting is no where near the brightness level of Wilde Toyota.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Site Plan
Amendment pertaining to parking lot lighting, sign placement, and driveway widths at
Schlossmann Honda, 3450 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key
12.
Scott Jaquish, Greenfield Park & Recreation Dept. Director, requests a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed shelter in the Konkel Park South area near 51 st &
Carpenter, Tax Key #620-9975-002.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Background: The Park & Recreation Dept. has proposed the construction of a 20‟ x 32‟ park
building (i.e. with toilets/storage/service) which is incorporated in with a covered picnic
shelter roof element design.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The predominate materials will be burnished
block of different sizes, and asphalt shingles. The colors are tan and brown.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Parking will be available in the main
Konkel Park lot and/or street parking at the end of 51st Street. The long-range intent is to
add a parking lot on the open park land to the south.
Lighting (building & site): Other than security lighting over the doors, no other lighting is
proposed. The paved path in this area does have decorative area lighting fixtures.
Utilities: See Engineering Comments.
Miscellaneous: The Park & Recreation Board met on August 26th to review final plans and
bid documents.
9
PC 9-14-10
The proposed location of the shelter is in a designated Floodplain area and so Municipal
Code Chp. 23 becomes applicable. Some of the key language reads, in part, “Structures
accessory to permanent open space uses (i.e. park use in this case)…may be allowed if the
structures comply with the following:
7.
The structure is not designed for human habitation and does not have a high flood
damage potential. [[No one will be living here, and anecdotally, with the major rainfall
on July 23rd, there was never any standing water or flooding of the proposed shelter
location.]]
It must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. [[Structure is
intended to be a slab-on-grade design with the building and support columns
appropriately anchored via a footing(s).]]
Mechanical and utility equipment must be elevated or flood proofed to or above the
flood protection elevation. [[Engineering firm assisting the contractor will need to
supply this type of design and information.]]
It must no obstruct flow of flood waters or cause any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of the regional flood (i.e. 100 year storm). [[Engineering firm assisting the
contractor will need to supply this type of information.]]
Ensure positive drainage for proposed site improvements.
An existing 15-inch sanitary sewer (reinforced concrete pipe) is located within South
51st Street. A 6-inch service connection is required to the main.
An existing 8-inch water main is located west of the South 51st Street centerline.
Coordination with Milwaukee Water Works is required for the proposed water service.
Obtain a permit from Wisconsin DNR for the temporary impact to wetlands at the south
end of this area of the park when utilities are extended/installed from South 51 st Street
thru the small wetland area.
Per City pavement restoration standards, sawcut South 51st Street pavement and provide
slurry backfill for any utility connections within the street. Concrete pavement
replacement will be required from joint-to-joint, matching the existing thickness.
Scott Jaquish was present to answer questions. He stated that this is part of the Konkel Park Master
Plan, more specifically the Konkel Park “South” Master Plan, and is funded via block grant dollars.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed shelter in the Konkel Park South area near 51st &
Carpenter, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the September 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #620-9975-002. Motion
13.
Robert McClure, Development Director, Irgens Development Partners, 10700 Research Drive,
Suite One, Milwaukee, WI 53226 requests a Conceptual Project Review for a proposed 20,000
s.f. medical office building on the northerly portion of the Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108 th
Street, Tax Key #609-9994-006.
10
PC 9-14-10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Background: Irgens would like to build a structure which would be used as a medical clinic
on the existing parking lot area (i.e. about 2 acres) north of the Budget Cinema building on
Hwy. 100 as described in their August 31st letter – see attached. The tenant in this building
will be Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin, and this location would be part of their
effort to develop a growing network of community-based ambulatory clinics.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The proposed building will be a single-story,
approximately 20,000 square feet structure. Preliminary architectural work is still inprogress but based upon the August 31st letter, the intention is for a building that will be
predominantly faced with brick veneer and slightly contrasting accent masonry elements.
Staff had met with Irgens prior to this actual submittal and the building „foot-print‟ then had
the building toward the west half of the parcel with the parking along the Hwy. 100
frontage. One of the suggestions was to shift the building easterly so it was more
prominently placed on the lot which more of the parking area behind the building. The
attached site-plan takes that suggestion into account.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Irgens has indicated in the August 31 st
letter the need for easement agreements and shared parking arrangements with Budget
Cinema. This arrangement can work here because the „peak‟ times do not coincide with one
another. The site plan indicates that the north parking area can accommodate 115
automobiles, of 5.3 stalls per 1,000 s.f.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): While it may seem odd, but the actual construction of a
building on a parking lot will create the opportunity to increase green space via landscape
islands, foundation plantings, etc.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Rear corner of the site.
PUD Requirements: This proposal will need a PUD Amendment process to be done for the
construction of the new building (i.e. major change/public hearing, etc.).
Miscellaneous: The nature of the land acquisition and leasing arrangement will keep this
property taxable even though F&MCW are likely tax-exempt entities.
Certified Survey Map will be required to create a separate parcel.
151.12.
An existing 10‟ sanitary easement (Document #5106217) encumbers the east edge of
property. Ensure that the proposed signage remains outside this easement.
Recommendation: No formal action necessary. Staff is supportive of this proposal since it fits
ideally within the “PUD-Mixed Use” designation for the parcel as part of the GF Highlands project.
Robert McClure, Irgens Development Partners, was present to answer questions and gave a brief
presentation on the project.
Mayor Neitzke said he has concerns about traffic and also noted the cross-easement/shared parking
agreements which are part of this submittal. He said that in general the Commission is supportive of
the project and asked that they strive to make it look as good as possible.
Conceptual Review – No Action Required.
11
PC 9-14-10
14.
Kerry Hardin, RA Smith National, 16745 W. Bluemound Road, Brookfield, WI 53005, on
behalf of Wal-Mart, requests a Conceptual Project Review for a proposed new 148,000 s.f.
Supercenter on the “Greenfields Golf Center” parcel at 10600 W. Layton Avenue; discussion
to include need to establish a “Floodway” zoning designation; and a future Special Use request
for the „liquor department‟ within a small portion of the Supercenter operation, Tax Key #
608-9995-008 & 608-9986.
1.
Background: Wal-Mart (WM) near 108th and Layton proposes to construct a new 148,000
square foot “Supercenter” building directly southeast of the current lot on the Greenfield‟s
Golf Center parcel. See attached Description of Proposal. They will regrade and fill the
driving range and install a retaining wall in order make construction of the new building
feasible in that location. The finished floor elevation is approx. 15‟ higher than the existing
grade. The department store and garden center operations will continue in the new building,
the grocery and pharmacy operations will be expended, and the desire is to sell alcohol
products within the grocery store will initiate its own special use process.
At this point in time after a new building is actually operating, the current intention is for
WM to retain the old building and then lease to a potential new occupant(s). Also a “new
outlot” is created immediately north of McDonalds based upon how the site plan is prepared.
2.
The underlying zoning and Future Land Use designation are identical for both the Golf
Center parcel and the existing WM parcel.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The front elevation of the building utilizes a
combination of materials, colors, and some design features (i.e. façade articulation,
horizontal roof plane variables, fenestrations, etc.). The predominate materials are
integrally colored split-face and smooth-face CMU, EIFS, Quik-Brik, Trespa Meteon
Metallic panel, and metal-slat awnings. There is a range of colors, depending upon the
materials, is in a broad range including: „cedar‟, „rookwood clay‟, „oak creek‟, „row house
tan‟, „dark brown‟, and „cream‟. Other objects of note are two bench areas, two bike racks,
blue poles to safeguard the entrance from automobiles, and three trees indicated to be
planted in a red-brick enclosure.
The rear (east) elevation uses similar materials: oldcastle “cedar” and “cream” CMU broken
up and with altered elevations. There are also a number of garage doors and doors to enter
and exit the building. This is the prime shipping/loading area of the site plan.
The right (south) elevation shows that the wrought iron fence for the garden center visible
from the front and rear elevations will extend almost midway along this wall. There are four
garage doors placed on this wall.
The left (north) elevation is different in that “promenade brick” materials break up a mixedmaterial fence area. This area is the fenced-in HVAC area.
3.
For comparison purposes, attached are WM renditions for Franklin and Muskego.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted
to determine new needs of this site as they pertain to traffic safety and precautions. The
Executive Summary is attached. The conclusion of the summary reads in part, “… the
implementation of the recommended intersection and roadway improvements is expected to
12
PC 9-14-10
result in safe and efficient operations for either alternative through Year 2020 with the
proposed WM supercenter and off-site developments. RA Smith National recommends
implementing Alternative 1 (no new traffic signal along Hwy. 100) to accommodate the near
term traffic needs, When the existing Walmart site redevelops in the future, a traffic signal
at the north driveway should be considered at that time…”.
Also attached is an update from RA Smith regarding the review from WisDOT and
Milwaukee County responses pertaining to further traffic-related needs. Based upon the
site plan, there will be some modifications to the existing median cuts on Layton. Further
review of those is part of the County oversight since that would impact properties to the
south. Similarly, modifications are proposed on Hwy. 100 which could impact properties to
the west. The existing main one-way entrance @ Hwy. 100 and Armour is proposed to be
the main Hwy. 100 access point but as a two-way vehicle flow arrangement.
714 total parking spaces are proposed or 4.82/1000 s.f. The ZC parking ratio for a shopping
center is 5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. With 148,000 s.f. the site would need 740 stalls to meet
requirements. The current plans show “runs” of more than 15 consecutive stalls without
intermediating green space. The cart corral locations have been identified on the site plan.
14 handicap stalls are provided. The parking lot „islands‟ are bigger so they should be able
to handle tree growth, and the “stripping” of „islands‟ should be replaced with actual curbed
islands for landscaping.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Franklin, Pewaukee, Muskego, and Kenosha were contacted recently to determine the
parking ratios of Wal-Mart Supercenters in both municipalities but no responses yet.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): There will be underground retention to be
used for stormwater management purposes. Storm run-off will collect into the drain
surrounding the parking lot and building, and then drain north of the building into the natural
area. Unrelated to this specific project, but related to the golf range parcel, WM will be
asked to assist with an existing storm water drainage concerns at the north end of the driving
range parcel where storm drainage from the existing WM and a City storm main discharge
have created some drainage issues over the years.
Utilities: The sanitary water line will cut into the south side of Layton meaning a full
panel replacement or repair will be needed. A utility plan is attached. See further
Engineering Comments below.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: Any rooftop HVAC units will need screening.
Signage: The front elevation “Walmart” (298 sq ft) logo/sign uses white color,
internal illumination, and is 5‟-6”. The “spark” on this logo uses yellow color, internal
illumination, and is 8‟-0”. The “Outdoor Living” (77 sq ft), “Market & Pharmacy” (102 sq
ft), and “Home & Living” (72 sq ft) signs use white color, are not illuminated, and are 2‟-6”.
The total building signage is 550 sq ft. 200 s.f. is the maximum for the site.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Refuse appears to be stored inside the rear
loading/storage area with the „packing unit‟ on the north side of that space.
Fencing: Various fences with different materials are indicated. The wrought iron
fence on the right (south) elevation is used where the garden center will be placed. There are
enclosures indicated placed on the east and south sides of the building.
The retention wall will surround the parking lot along Layton and extend along the back of
the building. The materials to be used on this wall will need to be identified. This is
important because the 15‟ high (+/-) wall will be seen by traffic along Layton and
landscaping may not be feasible on the little space left over.
13
PC 9-14-10
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Considering that a larger portion of the site north of the new
building will remain in a wetland/floodplain, it will be „open space‟ so a high percentage
(32%) of the site is landscape or green space (25% is the C-4 minimum requirement).
However, given the nature of these building and pavement layout, there appears to be
limited space for perimeter (south side in particular) and foundation planting areas. As
noted above, more curbed landscaped parking lot islands will be needed instead of stripping.
Hours of Operation: 6 a.m. to midnight – with reservation of the right to remain open 24
hours per day.
Sidewalks: Access or walk lane is provided near SW corner of the building to the
sidewalk on Layton.
Fire Department: The building will be sprinklered, and there may be other life-safety
aspects the FD will consider as this building design aspect proceeds. New fire hydrants are
located around the entire building. The FD indicated they may have use for the driving
range‟s office/service building for training purposes before it‟s torn down.
Outside Agencies: WisDOT, Milwaukee County, WisDNR, MMSD
Miscellaneous:
Floodway zoning: This development brings to issue the remapping of the Root River
100 year floodplain. See attached materials concerning this matter. WM is building on
lower area which is now apart of the floodplain. However, when the bridge on Layton
Ave. at “100th Street” over the Root River was reconstructed in 2000, the floodplain
lines were never analyzed to determine the effect to the floodplain. Essentially the
difference between having a 40‟ wide opening (pre-2000) versus a 110‟ wide opening
(post-2000) has enabled the floodplain north of Layton to be reduced. Work is being
done to get floodway easements from various property owners to acknowledge the
floodplain has changed. This includes five private property owners along 99 th Street,
WM, Golf Center, WE Energies, MMSD, WisDOT, and Milwaukee County. At some
point in time, the City will need to make a request to the DNR and FEMA for a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMAR). Starting late last year communications have occurred with
DNR and FEMA on this matter, and a neighborhood meeting was held this past April
for the five property owners.
WM should identify what will happen to the existing garage building on the small
separate lot used for the golf range operations on the southeast corner near Layton. The
thought is that it‟s likely to have limited use given the WM plans „next door‟.
Certified Survey Map will be required for proposed parcel configurations.
151.12.
 All on-site disturbed area shall be directed to detention facility or
 Demonstrate adequate overland conveyance to the detention facility for
all tributary area during the course of a 100-year storm event.
(TSS) removal rate.
14
PC 9-14-10
Recommend compensatory flood storage be provided for fill placed within the existing
100-year floodplain.
Obtain permit from the Wisconsin DNR for wetland fill in proximity to the northwest
corner of proposed building.
A minimum 12-inches of freeboard is required to protect structures from flooding during
the course of a 100-year storm event. The available freeboard shall be the elevation
difference between the lowest building opening and the high water level obtained within
the parking lot in a 100-year design storm.
property from West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟) right-of-way.
Related to the water main and fire protection system:
 An existing 8-inch public water main traverses the property directly in
front of the proposed building.
 Confirm intent for public or private water main system. Obtain the
necessary approval from Milwaukee Water Works.
 A fire hydrant shall be located within 100‟ of the fire department
connection (FDC).
Provide additional landscape islands within the proposed parking lot. The maximum
parking row length shall not exceed 15 to 17 stalls.
Median turn-lane improvements within South 108th Street (STH „100‟) will require
approval from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Median turn-lane improvements within West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟) will require
Recommendation: No action needed at this time. Staff is supportive of project. The main
concerns at this time are the need for more brick and glass in the front elevation, and when it is
presented, the quality/quantity of landscaping in the parking lot, and along the south perimeter and
front foundation planting area(s).
Deborah Tomczyk with Reinhart, Boerner, Kerry Hardin, Patrick Hawley, and Cindi DeBruine with
R.A. Smith National, and Jackolyn Cook-Haxby with the Benham Companies, LLC were present to
answer questions, and they provided a power-point presentation.
Ms. Tomczyk gave some information on the project. It will be a 148,000 square foot facility, open
6:00 a.m. to Midnight with future plans for a 24/7 operation and also to add liquor sales. They will
not offer a tire/lube express service at this location, and there will be room for a new outlot for a
future user located next to the existing McDonalds. One of the challenges with the site is the grade
issue where the golf range is currently, with these issues being addressed with the DNR, WisDOT,
FEMA, Army Corp. of Engineers and Milwaukee County.
Kerry Hardin and Cindi DeBruine spoke on the wetlands/flood plain issues and the mapping changes
that are needed/being made. Patrick Hawley then spoke on the traffic issues for the proposed site
and also the site where the existing Wal-Mart is now, for which they built upon the prior traffic
studies done for the Greenfield Highlands. Option 1 shown would have a traffic signal aligned with
the “north” driveway of the existing Wal-Mart. Option 2 shown would have no signal at Hwy. 100.
There would be two access points onto Layton Avenue.
15
PC 9-14-10
Jackolyn Cook-Haxby then spoke on the architectural aspects of the building. It was designed in
conjunction with Wal-Mart‟s latest branding specifications, with use of raised planters and
up-lighting. As for signage they are requesting approximately 550 sq. ft. of signage and, as they are
off of Hwy. 100, they are requesting a “rear sign” similar to the existing store, along with a
monument sign at the entrance. She noted that the overall square footage of signage they are
requesting exceeds the maximum 200 sq. ft. allowed so they are aware they will need to seek
approval for this.
They are incorporating a number of “green” items, following the most up to date initiatives that other
Wal-Marts have in place. Some of these items include a white reflective roof, skylights throughout
that “read” the amount of daylight outside & in turn regulate the light level inside, where it is
possible on a sunny day that the inside lights could be off. Also, there will be a heat reclamation
system to heat hot water, low flow fixtures in the restrooms, LED lighting in the signs and display
cases, etc. They have also been implementing a “no landfill” policy, where spoiled items from the
produce area get “composted”, and where their pallets and cardboard bales are picked up for
recycling by an outside source. While they are not striving for LEED certification standards,
Wal-Mart is doing everything they can to lower their carbon footprint, with their desire to put their
money back into their stores for the benefit of their customers.
The soon to open stores on Moorland Road in Muskego and also in Waukesha are examples of their
current branding.
Mr. Hess questioned the possibility of using a green roof to which Ms. Cook-Haxby responded it has
been concluded that the payback from using a green roof is not as significant as had been thought,
with it being about the same as a “white roof”, and that the use of skylights and heat reclamation
systems provide greater benefits. She said they have done one in Chicago as it was required in their
city ordinance.
Ms. Hallen questioned what will become of the “old” store to which Ms. Tomczyk responded that
Wal-Mart has a division that “re-tenants” the building. They don‟t know who the new user would
be, but based on it‟s proximity to Wal-Mart that alone has historically always made “old” stores
desirable to new users. She stated that they have reviewed the current site many ways and have
concluded that to build the “new” store as shown is the only way to expand.
Ald. Kastner asked if Wal-Mart would be willing to tear down the building if it were not leased
within one year to which Ms. Tomczyk responded that she doesn‟t foresee Wal-Mart agreeing to
such a thing. He noted that their website has multiple listings of available properties for lease/sale
and that he is concerned that it could sit vacant for a lengthy period of time. Mayor Neitzke
commented that as this is one of Wal-Mart‟s highest sales volumes stores he feels that, even in this
economy, they would be able to find a tenant for it within a reasonable timeframe. Mayor Neitzke
commented on creating a similar architectural theme to tie in the old and the new store to make a
more compatible use and design between the two. Mr. Dorszynski questioned if the store is divisible
internally to which it was replied that yes, it is. Ald. Kastner then questioned if at some point there
would be renderings available to show the proposed retaining walls and could there be elements
incorporated to the southeast corner, such as an arc and a tiered corner, so that it wouldn‟t be so
stark, to which Ms. Tomczyk replied that at this point they are not quite there yet with all those types
of details.
16
PC 9-14-10
Mr. Weis commented that the “old” store‟s landscaping has always been lacking and said he‟d like to
see even more landscaping than what is shown for the new store. Mayor Neitzke commented on the
inter-connectivity along Hwy. 100 and how that is important to make both sites accessible to all
concerned. He‟d brought up the remodel of the Franklin store on S. 27 th Street and how they used an
attractive concrete block. He also spoke on the importance of re-tenanting the building in a timely
manner, the floodway issues that we will need assistance with as there is currently no City engineer
position, and how he is okay with the signage exceeding the permitted size per the code, considering
the size of the site.
Mayor Neitzke and Ald. Kastner both stated that additional architectural elements along the east side
and the Layton Avenue side are needed. It was further clarified that the parcel with the “old garage”
on it is not part of the site that Wal-Mart is acquiring. Ald. Kastner questioned if there would be a
pedestrian path to the baseball diamond area of Kulwicki Park, to which Mayor Neitzke said this
area has some wetlands and it may be hard to do that.
Conceptual Review – No Action Required.
15.
1.
Background: [[Held over from May/June/July/August PC]]. This item is meant to review
a fairly common aspect which comes to PC regarding what is considered a “major” or
“minor” change as it relates to Special Uses, and then naturally the need for a public hearing.
While the PUD section of the ZC [[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what
potentially may be a “major” change, the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟.
Attached are those PUD elements to start the discussion of trying to create similar guidelines
for the PC to use, instead of relying later on the City Attorney to render a perspective using
his judgment only.
recommendation to the Legislative Committee. Assuming the Legislative Committee will also have
a similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future Common Council meeting for this
Ms. Hallen requested that as this item has been on several agendas with the request to hold over, that
it be placed on the October 12th agenda as one of the first items. The members concurred with this
suggestion.
Item to be forward to the October 12th Plan Commission.
17
PC 9-14-10
16.
No report.
17.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mrs. Hallen to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Motion
18.
October 12, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed October 4, 2010
18
PC 9-14-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present – left at 9:50 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Present – arrived at 7:30 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Hess to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0-2 with Ms. Collins and Mr. Marciniak abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on September 21 st and October 5th. At the
September 21st meeting the alley-way vacation behind Mad Dog Saloon (properties along W.
Allerton Avenue) was held over with action deferred to the October 5 th meeting, at which time it was
then approved. Also, at the September 21st meeting the Gold Coast Subs (43rd & Layton) Special
Use was approved along with all the other items that were forwarded on from the September 14th
Plan Commission, which were approved as presented.
At the October 5th meeting the public hearing for Mad Dog Saloon‟s (76th & Forest Home) Special
Use Amendment request for a smoking and alcohol product use patio was denied.
4.
considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to the need for a public hearing. Item
held-over from last month.
1.
Background: [[Held over from May/June/July/August/September PC. It was suggested at
the last meeting to move this item „up‟ on the agenda to ensure a greater likelihood of being
discussed.]]. This item is meant to review a fairly common aspect which comes to PC
regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to Special Uses, and
then naturally the need for a public hearing. While the PUD section of the ZC
[[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially may be a “major” change,
the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those PUD elements to start the
discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use, instead of relying later on
the City Attorney to render a perspective using his judgment only.
1
PC 10-12-10
similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future CC meeting for this ZC text change.
Mr. Erickson gave a brief outline of this item. He asked if what he distributed tonight could be a
starting point for discussion to clarify major and minor changes going forward. Mayor Neitzke
suggested the following “If in the opinion of the Planning Commission such change in special use
substantially changes the concept or intent of an approved special use, whether in existence or
anticipated, and/or approved plan that incorporated that special use into its approval, the Planning
Commission can consider it a major change.”
Discussion followed on the above statement, with examples of various types of projects, both actual
and hypothetical, being discussed as to how this statement would apply. It was requested of
Mr. Erickson to find some comparable language from other municipalities for further discussion at the
next meeting.
5.
Suite One, Milwaukee, WI 53226 requests a PUD Amendment for a proposed 20,000 s.f.
medical office building on the northerly portion of the Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108 th
Street, Tax Key #609-9994-006.
1.
2.
Background: This request is a follow-up to the Conceptual Review done at the September
PC. The narrative below is similar to what had been presented at that earlier meeting.
Irgens would like to build a structure which would be used as a medical clinic on the existing
parking lot area (i.e. about 2 acres) north of the Budget Cinema building on Hwy. 100 as
described in their August 31st letter – see attached. The tenant in this building will be
Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin, and this location would be part of their effort to
develop a growing network of community-based ambulatory clinics.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The proposed building will be a single-story,
approximately 20,000 square feet structure. Preliminary architectural work is still inprogress but based upon the August 31st letter, the intention is for a building that will be
predominantly faced with brick veneer and slightly contrasting accent masonry elements.
Staff had met with Irgens prior to their initial submittal and the building „foot-print‟ then had
the building toward the west half of the parcel with the parking along the Hwy. 100
frontage. One of the suggestions was to shift the building easterly so it was more
prominently placed on the lot which more of the parking area behind the building. The
attached site-plan takes that suggestion into account.
Attached is a preliminary building renditions/elevations which identify the building
materials, colors, design elements, etc. The SE (entry-way) perspective creates the most
architectural „interest‟ given the variations in the foot-print/building height/colors/sun
shades, etc. In fairness to the architect this is a preliminary submittal. However, the east
face – Hwy. 100 side – needs „something else‟ to give it some greater „presence‟. This could
include some changes to the “foot-print” (i.e. façade articulation), vertical departures, shade
coverage features, etc.
2
PC 10-12-10
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Irgens has indicated in the August 31 st
automobiles, of 5.3 stalls per 1,000 s.f.
Irgens has been given an excerpt of the proposed Walmart Supercenter site plan which
preliminarily shows that WisDOT wants Walmart to close the „median cut‟ which would be
used for vehicles leaving this parcel and the GF Highlands in order to go northbound on
Hwy. 100. However, this WisDOT position will have a very large negative impact on any
development to the west, and is not acceptable.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): While it may seem odd, but the actual construction of a
building on a parking lot will create the opportunity to increase green space via landscape
islands, foundation plantings, etc.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: Will need to be identified when the Site/Building/
Landscaping application is submitted.
Signage: The building elevation shows the proposed location(s) for wall signage, and the
site plan shows proposed location for two monument signs.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Rear corner of the site.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A preliminary landscaping plan is attached. A good combination
of perimeter plantings, foundation plantings, and parking lot plantings (with boulders) is
shown. Any plantings at the NW and SW corner of the site could be shifted to be along the
east side of the building.
Street Trees: The planting of street trees – or supplementing what has been planted already
– is shown.
PUD Requirements: This proposal will need a PUD Amendment process to be done for the
construction of the new building (i.e. major change/public hearing, etc.), as per this
particular request.
151.12.
Provide a calculation to quantify the decrease in impervious coverage under the
proposed conditions.
Per Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151.12(2)(c), the performance standards do not
apply to any redevelopment “with no increase in exposed parking lots or roads”.
Provide a calculation to quantify the ultimate parking lot reduction.
Recommendation: Approve subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize the public hearing
process to proceed.
Rob McClure with Irgens was present to answer questions and gave some background information
on the project. Also present to answer questions on the project was Pat Pendergast with Eppstein
Uhen.
3
PC 10-12-10
Ald. Kastner questioned adding additional metal “eyebrows” over the windows to enhance the
façade to which Mr. Pendergast said that idea could be investigated. Ald. Kastner then questioned
the drainage at the northeast corner to which it was replied that they are adding impervious surface to
aid with this. They said they will be adding landscaping to this area to which Ald. Kastner stressed
that this area is notorious for water pouring off, which then runs across the sidewalk and becomes a
mess in the winter with icing, and also washes gravel into the road which needs to be cleaned up
several times a year by the Public Works Dept. Discussion followed on how this parcel is under the
two acre threshold size that MMSD is requiring as part of their new ordinances for compliance.
Mayor Neitzke stressed that they are not trying to rush this project thru, but rather we want to
ensure that they are able to get their footings in before it freezes. He also noted that that City
is aware that this doesn‟t exceed the threshold that MMSD is requiring.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to recommend approval of a PUD
Amendment for a proposed 20,000 s.f. medical office building on the northerly portion of the
Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and to include the building modifications as discussed, along with addressing the issues along
the northern property line where the gravel driveway exists, and authorize the public hearing
process to begin. Tax Key #609-9994-006. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Michelle Sagert, Brew City Tattoo LLC, 818 Manor Drive, Waukesha, WI 53188 requests a
Special Use for the purposes of opening a tattoo and body piercing studio within the Omega
Shopping Center, 4637 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #609-0033-001.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Brew City Tattoo proposes to open a tattoo and body piercing studio in a
vacant tenant space at the Omega Shopping Center. The space was preciously occupied by
Results Nutrition. The C-4 zone requires a special use permit for tattoo and body piercing
parlors. See attached background letter and organizational material.
Signage: Will follow the „master sign plan‟ for the Center (i.e. „blue‟ wall letters).
Hours of Operation: Noon – 10 p.m., Monday – Saturday; Noon – 7 p.m., Sundays.
Recommendation: Approve subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize the
public hearing process to proceed.
Michelle Sagert was present to answer questions.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Special Use for
the purposes of opening a tattoo and body piercing studio within the Omega Shopping Center,
4637 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize the public
hearing process to begin. Tax Key #609-0033-001. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Marcia Sperber, Aldi Inc., PO Box 267, Oak Creek, WI 53154 requests a Conceptual Review
for a proposed demolition of the existing 15,000 s.f. Aldi Food Store and then construction of a
new 18,000 s.f. store at 4225 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #566-9962-002.
1.
Background: Since 1994 Aldi has been operating in a 14,860 s.f. building. Aldi proposes to
demolish the existing store and build a new 18,000 s.f. building. The footprint of the new
building will be in approximately the same location and orientation of the existing building.
See attached project narrative.
4
PC 10-12-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: A color rendition is attached. The existing
building is more of a rectangular shape, while the proposed building is more square and
placed a little further west on the parcel. There is an entry-way tower element with a
„hanging‟ covered-canopy feature. The main exterior materials are a “Rubigo Red” modular
brick and window glazing. Product samples will be presented at the meeting. Aldi has
indicated that while they are interested in improving this store location as evidenced by this
plan submittal, they are not in the position to replicate the store that was constructed @ 46th
and Layton.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The previous parking lot included a 116space parking lot. The new parking lot will consist of 87 spaces with an additional 22 spaces
of “land banked” parking to meet the Greenfield Parking Requirements. The access
driveways on Cold Spring Road and 108th Street will remain the same. The parking lot
layout is revised given the physical change to building footprint.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): The Wild Cat Creek borders the site on the south and in
recent years Aldi has experienced several flood events of its parking lot and building. A
preliminary grading plan is attached. As indicated in the narrative, part of the proposal is
raise the finished floor elevation and site 1‟ – 2‟ to help address flooding issues. The
material to „raise‟ the site is proposed to come from the west side of the property, and then
the resulting excavated area would then be converted into an 1.0 acre „dry‟ basin.
The narrative indicates that this basin could be designed to serve as some additional storage
for Wildcat overflows. Whether some type of swale is needed to enable „overflow‟ to go
into this basin will need to be reviewed because based on the landscaping plan, that
southwest corner of the site would remain as is. The excess capacity of the proposed basin
– after allowing for roof-top and loading dock area run-off, will need to be calculated. When
the Wild Cat Creek overtops its banks and flood the Aldi parking lot, the storm sewer
structures in the parking lot will convey water into the storm water storage area, and then
eventually underground back to Hwy. 100. A copy of the recently completed “Wildcat
Creek Floodplain & Alternative Analysis” report has been sent to the Aldi engineering firm.
Utilities: A preliminary utility plan is attached. Essentially they would continue to use the
existing sanitary/water laterals.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: Based upon the preliminary building elevation sheets, some
design amenity will be needed to better screen the roof-top HVAC units.
Signage: Traditional “Aldi” logo signs would be in the entry-way tower. No changes
proposed for the free-standing pylon type sign.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Dumpster is proposed to be within the rear
loading dock area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted covering
perimeter, parking lot, and storm basin planting areas (i.e. see Forester comments below).
City Forester Site Inspection: Creating the storm water basin will require the clearance of
approximately one acre of trees. Aldi notes they have talked with the City Forester who has
told them that this westerly area must be replanted with trees and wetland plantings (as per
the City‟s Tree Protection and Removal Policy).
Sidewalks: A stripped walking lane will need to be designated from the Hwy. 100
sidewalk to the building.
Fire Department: Building will be sprinklered. The Dept. may have other life-safety
design features as further building submittals may occur.
5
PC 10-12-10
13.
14.
Outside Agencies: MMSD, Milwaukee Water
Provide a review for wetlands within undeveloped west portion of the site.
151.12.
Related to the proposed parking lot configuration:
 Five (5) handicap parking stalls are required upon future construction of
the designated “land bank” parking.
 Recommend that a landscape island be provided at the end of parking
row located near southeast corner of property.
 Provide a landscape island in the south row of designated “land bank”
parking in an effort to limit the maximum parking row to 15 stalls.
 It appears that proposed pavement areas have been shown within the
existing permanent water drainage easement noted below.
Obtain Wisconsin Department of Transportation approval for driveway entrance and
storm drainage revisions within South 108th Street (STH „100‟) right-of-way.
Obtain approval from Milwaukee Water Works for any proposed modification to the
existing water main system.
property along South 108th Street (STH „100‟). An existing 30‟ sanitary easement
(Document #4959053) encumbers southern portion of the parcel. Ensure that any
proposed signage remains outside these easements.
An existing permanent water drainage easement (Document #6388267) encumbers
southwest corner of the property.
An existing 10‟ water main easement (Document #7046593) encumbers a portion of the
east edge of property along South 108th Street (STH „100‟). A separate 20‟ water main
easement has been provided within the parcel to accommodate the existing 6-inch
building service.
Recommendation: No formal action needed. Staff supports the proposed reinvestment and
renovation of this Aldi parcel.
Marcia Sperber was present to answer questions and gave a brief outline of the project. Also present
was Derek Johnson with Manhard Consulting who spoke about the grading plan.
Mr. Hess questioned if a green roof were being considered to which Ms. Sperber replied that no,
they would not be using one. Ald. Kastner asked about the repair/replacement of the fence along the
south lot line which had been damaged with the July 23rd storm. Ms. Sperber will follow-up on
that matter. Discussion followed on how they plan to begin construction in Spring.
Conceptual Review – No Action Needed.
8.
Stephen Jeske, AIA – haag muller, inc., 101 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1, Port Washington, WI
53074 requests a Conceptual Review for a proposed demolition of the existing 4,400 s.f. Solid
Gold McDonalds Restaurant and then construction of a new 5,000 s.f. McDonalds Restaurant
at 5040 S. 76th Street, Tax Key #617-9975-029.
6
PC 10-12-10
1.
Background: McDonalds proposes a project to remove and replace the existing building
with a new 5,000 s.f. structure and also modify some site features. See attached letter.
Other modifications include minor curb changes, a new patio on the east end of the property,
adding greenspace/landscaping, and updating the free-standing sign.
2.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The proposed structure is an all brick building
with stone arcade features and hearth capped with architectural metal roof elements. The
arcades are illuminated with an LED strip light. Awnings are metal with integral light
bands; and the trellis and accent band are galvanized aluminum.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The existing driveway will be kept with a
new drive-thru design to increase vehicle stacking capability. This is done to eliminate
vehicle back ups onto 76th street and increase safety for patrons and motorists on 76 th. The
proposed parking stall count is reduced from 74 to 50. The ZC requirement for restaurants
with a drive-thru is 20/1,000 of building area (5 x 20 = 100 stalls). Information from
McDonalds that this stall shortage and/or actual loss is „okay‟ with today‟s fast-food
restaurant operations will be needed.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Presently ingress from 76th Street is one-way in at the SW corner of the site. The proposed
site layout shows the desire to also have an egress from that location. Staff has major
concerns about that turn movement at that location. There is a combination of south-bound
traffic turning into the site there; it‟s the start of the stacking lane for south-bound then going
east onto Edgerton; and its not that far north from the controlled intersection @ Edgerton.
Lighting (building & site): With frontage along 76th Street, the need to include some
Shepard Hook style parking lot lights will be needed. It is possible that a combination of
some decorative fixtures and some „shoe-box‟ fixtures could occur to provide a better “light
level spread”.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: A parapet-type wall is shown on the building design which
would likely provide some HVAC screening. To what extent would need to be identified
with follow-up plans. If sufficient screening isn‟t provided, then that aspect will need to be
added.
Signage: The sign cabinet lighting is proposed to be replaced with an energy efficient LED
solid state lighting and replace the cabinet „face‟ so it only reads „McDonalds‟ (i.e. “Solid
Gold” is removed). The static reader board is proposed to be replaced by an electronic
reader board. In preliminary discussions with McDonald‟s reps., staff indicated that as part
of a Special Use Amendment process (i.e. „major‟ change → new construction), it‟s not
uncommon that efforts are made to address legal, non-conforming elements of a proposed
improved parcel. In this case, that would be the 28‟ high free-standing sign installed in
1995. Conversion to a taller monument would be a desirable modification.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): The dumpster location is shifted to the SE
corner of the parcel. Given that the proposed layout shows that stacking lane traffic goes
thru the dumpster enclosure pad area and given the 24/7 hours of operation for the drivethru, how is the refuse ever collected (i.e. short of for simply stopping drive-thru for a
limited time)?
Fencing: A decorative railing is along the east side of the stacking lanes adjacent to the
outside patio area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Mr. Jeske‟s memo states the new layout will provide a 5 foot
landscape buffer on the north and south and a 15 foot buffer along the west. Overall there is
an increase of landscaped area to approx 18% of the site.
7
PC 10-12-10
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Hours of Operation: No change – drive-thru currently has approval to be 24/7.
Sidewalks: A pedestrian access to the 76th St. sidewalk is provided.
Fire Department: Given the size and nature of the use, the building will need to be
sprinklered.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee County requirements are such that when there are any
proposed modifications to parcels which have direct access to a County Trunk Highway (76th
Street), then their DPW/Transportation Division will need to review any proposals.
151.12.
Verify the number of proposed parking spaces. It appears that the site plan has provided
51 parking spaces, which requires three (3) handicap parking stalls.
Recommend that landscape islands be provided at the end of each interior parking row.
An existing 10‟ sanitary easement (per CSM #1570) encumbers the west edge of
property along South 76th Street (CTH „U‟). Ensure that any proposed signage remains
outside this easement.
An existing 10‟ storm sewer easement (per CSM #1570 and #4168) encumbers parcel
#617-9975-029 along the east property line. An existing 20‟ drainage easement
(Document #5598095) encumbers parcel #617-9975-031 along the west property line.
Recommendation: No formal action needed. Staff supports the proposed reinvestment and
renovation of this McDonalds parcel.
Stephen Jeske, architect with haag muller, inc., and Ernie Masucci, president of McEssy Investment
Company (owner), were present to answer questions and Mr. Jeske also spoke briefly on the project.
There will be a larger overall patio with a 90 degree turn at the southwest corner for drive-thru
traffic.
Mr. Masucci spoke on the history of the restaurant, which his firm purchased a few years ago. As
this was built in the 1970‟s there really were no good options for remodeling so it became clear that a
rebuild was the best option. He cited his Burlington McDonald‟s as a comparable example of what
they want to do here as far as both the interior design and the drive-thru lanes go. He stated that
drive-thru customers make up 68-70% of their current sales, with a large percentage of their sales
being “impulse” purchases, and that most visits to McDonald‟s themselves are also impulsive. He
feels that 50 stalls can more than adequately serve their needs.
Mr. Hess asked if there was any consideration being given to going with a green roof to which
Mr. Masucci commented that McDonald‟s is doing a lot of experimentation with “green” buildings,
green roofs, and energy saving features, but that they don‟t quite yet have the right “formula” to be
cost effective and energy efficient at the same time so, no, they don‟t plan on a green roof at this
location.
Ald. Kastner questioned the contrast of the rooftop signage, which he is not in favor of, in
comparison to the new building design, which he is in favor of. He feels the McDonald‟s at
Hwy. 100 & National has a better “match” of building design and signage. Mr. Masucci said
keeping the large road sign is critical to them, as you want the maximum visibility, again drawing on
that “impulse” customer base that makes up a large percentage of their clientele. Also, it aids in out
8
PC 10-12-10
of towners finding them. Ald. Kastner spoke on how over the years the Plan Commission has
invested time in enforcing compliance with the sign code and what is needed along S. 76 th Street. He
stated he cannot support doing this project unless signage modifications are made. Mr. Masucci said
that if there were no improvements being made at this site then there would be no questioning of the
sign and, with it being legal, non-conforming, it could continue to be as it is today.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned if there were other signage styles available to which Mr. Masucci
replied that yes, there are several different styles and configurations. Mr. Jeske said that the “arches”
are always part of McDonald‟s signage. Mayor Neitzke stated that from the south one sees the
“arches” clearly. Mr. Masucci pointed out that the Elkhorn McDonald‟s has just the use of the
“arches” only and how that a road sign is extremely important for visibility. Mr. Hess stated that the
arches are iconic. Mayor Neitzke said that, as is with the Kopp‟s sign, the McDonald‟s sign is a part
of what is there and has always been there as part of the “landscape”. What we should be looking at
is the fact that McDonald‟s is willing to invest $2 million in this building to remain in our City. He
also expressed his disappointment that the “Solid Gold” theme is no going away, something he
enjoyed and also had other express their enjoyment to him about the theme.
Ald. Kastner questioned then, if not now, when would we ask for changes or compliance to be
made? Mayor Neitzke said that, yes, it obviously doesn‟t comply with building standards as there is
currently a pink plywood Cadillac with an Elvis cutout in it on the north side, an outdoor area in the
front with surfboard decorations, no required shepard hook lighting is installed, etc. It is more of a
“balancing” question in that there would be a new, conforming $2-3 million building that meets
compliance in every way with the exception of the sign. He feels working to keep the area
commercially vibrant is what is important here. He cited the Northridge area and how that is no
longer commercially vibrant, and that could happen here if we don‟t work together in the name of
compromise for the greater good.
At this point mayor Neitzke conducted an informal straw poll to get an idea as to where everyone
stood in regard to the sign remaining. The overall consensus was that the investment McDonald‟s is
making is appreciated, with some preferring that the sign‟s size be reduced.
Conceptual Review – No Action Needed.
9.
Dr. Antonio Cigno, Cigno Family Dental Care, represented by Brad Egan, Design 2 Construct,
N173 W21010 Northwest Passage Way, Jackson, WI 53037, requests re-approval of a Site,
Building, Landscaping Review for a 4,000 s.f. dental office, with the ability to add approx.
1,000 s.f. in the future at 7940 W. Layton Avenue; similar approval had been granted in June,
2008 but had expired, Tax Key #605-9961.
1.
Background: Dr. Cigno is proposing to construct a single-story 3,900 s.f. dental office at
this location. See attached May 27th letter providing additional background. The site is laid
out for the potential of a 1,060 s.f. addition to the north side, along with space available for
seven more parking stalls.
The potential for some type of office development has been “on/off” for the past couple of
years. Initially staff did look at a site layout which had the building closer to the R-O-W
with then the parking field behind it. However, in looking at the building placements of its
adjacent commercial neighbors, the idea of moving the building to its proposed location (80‟
back from the lot line), was to keep open the possibility that in the future these various
property owners potentially could work out a series of “cross-access easements” to enable a
9
PC 10-12-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
greater traffic flow between the properties without having to go back to/from Layton. In
2006 a letter from staff was mailed to the owners of Valvoline, Lychee Gardens, La-Z-Boy,
and adjacent strip center about this possibility. At the time there wasn‟t much interest in
those property owners wanting to pursue it. Maybe the idea can be revived once an actual
new business building is in operation at this site.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: An attractive design is proposed using a
combination of cast stone veneer in a wainscoting effect, hardi-plank siding, with a mansardlike roof design using asphalt shingles. In addition, stone is the only material on the multisided corner design elements going from ground level to soffit. Earth-tones are the basic
material colors, and product sample board will be presented at the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The required parking count of 16 is
based on the following: 10 stalls = 2 per each operatory or “chair” with 5 “chairs” proposed;
and 5 stalls for employees; presently there are three employees plus himself but he hopes to
hire another person at this new site. If the “office” parking calc. were used the site
requirement would be 13 stalls (3,900 ÷ 1,000 = 3.9 X 3.3 = 13). If the second phase of this
project should occur, the site can accommodate seven additional new stalls along the
northern tier of the parking lot area.
As noted above, the drive entrance has been shifted to the west to align with the soon to be
installed traffic signal at this „intersection‟. Over a 10 year period Sendiks is re-paying the
City for the cost of the traffic signal installation. There is no special assessment or charge
to the Cigno parcel since the only use would be as this dental office. However, if in the
future there is a desire by anyone to access this “80th Street” intersection, then that
entity(ies) will be required to pay/contribute their proportionate $$ share of this overall
installation expense.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): The May 27 th letter describes the proposed
grading plan which will involve a significant retaining wall feature and the possibility of
Cigno working out a grading easement with the neighbors to minimize the need for such
retaining walls (i.e. up to 10‟ high). If this should occur, then another review of a revised
grading plan will be necessary. Updated grading plan shows the intent to blend in with
adjacent grades to the west, so no retaining wall will be used.
The rear parking lot will need to be redesigned because it does not provide for any “freeboard” in relation to the building elevation (i.e. both elevations are at 993‟). Creating a
“valley” in that lot will correct the problem, or it‟s raising the building one foot. The utility
plan shows a proposed storm lateral running through the front portion of the business
to the east in order to connect to the back of the closest catch-basin (i.e. the storm
sewer in Layton is in the median). Some type of private easement will be needed, or that
storm lateral will need to go within the R-O-W which already has sanitary, telephone, gas,
and water.
Lighting (building & site): The photometric layout shows having two bollard-type light
fixtures at the entrance and four “cut-off” type free-standing light fixtures with 250 watt
metal halide lamps. A Sheppard-Hook style light fixture is needed for the four freestanding lights, which will be similar to the lights along Layton Ave./76 th Street and also
several redeveloped commercial properties within this business corridor. The fixture height
can be increased from 20‟ to 25‟ if that improves the light-spread readings.
Utilities: A utility plan is attached. See Engineering Comments - #21 for further review
details. Its likely the laterals will need to be redesigned to go “straight into” the building
instead on having a couple angles with each in trying to have the laterals go into the west
side of the building.
10
PC 10-12-10
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: The mansard-like roof design is creating a “roof well”
where the HVAC units will be placed.
Signage: A proposed monument sign location and elevation (6‟8” high) is provided. The
signage area is 3‟ x 6‟, which includes a space for an LED-type of sign. No wall signage is
proposed. The sign columns use the same stone veneer and sills as on the building. There
will be a need to include the “7940” address # on the sign. With the relocation of the drive
approach to the center of the property, shifting the monument sign location to the west side
of the driveway would eliminate any “sight-line” issues given the west-bound traffic flow
here.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): It‟s at the northeast corner of the site. The
exterior is the same hardi-plank as on the building. The appropriate entry-way design and
ample concrete base/apron is provided already.
Fencing: While a true “fence” isn‟t being installed, some retaining wall elements will
be needed even if the grading plan can be revised. Nevertheless, construction/installation
profile details are needed for those retaining wall elements.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: The front landscaping area is well done with a variety of
foundation plantings and perimeter (south of parking area). The “tree islands” appear to be
wide enough to allow for successful growth. The tree planting sizes of 2.5” – 3.0” caliper
are good. Additional perimeter plantings are going to be needed along the west and east
sides of the parking lot starting from the R-O-W back at least to the front face of the
building. The C-4 required landscaped area is 25%. According to the site plan information,
33% is with phase one and 24% is still remaining if a phase two occurs. Additional
landscaping has been provided as referenced above.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: 125% of landscaping costs, with 30% retained
for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going condition of subsequent
approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual review by the City to make
sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any dead/dying landscaping is
replaced as necessary.
Street Trees: Already planted.
City Forester Site Inspection: Underway. Since the rear of the property, particularly along
the west lot line is wooded, depending upon the species and condition of those trees, its
likely the Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements pertaining to “inches lost vs. inches replanted” will be part of his review/analysis.
Park Fees: The size of the parcel is 25,455 s.f. X $.05 = $1272.75
Hours of Operation: Mondays: 8 a.m. – 6 p.m.; and Tuesday – Friday: 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Sidewalks: The site plan shows having the sidewalk go thru the west turn-around. This
curb section will need to be “flattened-out” if the sidewalk is to stay in that location.
Fire Department: The combination (phase 1 & 2) building square footage is just under the
5,000 s.f. sprinkling requirement. Whether some type of smoke/heat detection, or other firesafety design features are needed, will be determined by the Fire Chief.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee County and Milwaukee Water Utility.
Erosion Control: Plan is included with submittal. Permitting needed from Engineering
Office prior to any site work beginning.
10-12-10 PC Engineering comments (New and previous 6-10-08 PC comments)
Provide a calculation to quantify the increase of impervious coverage under the
11
PC 10-12-10
Recommend that proposed building location shifts north to provide a greater degree of
separation from West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟) drive connection. Should the Sendik‟s
traffic signal be utilized sometime in the future, the increased building setback allows a
more viable storage lane for departing vehicles.
In accordance with the Greenfield Municipal Code, 12-inches of freeboard is required
to protect structures from flooding during the course of a 100-year storm event. It
appears that east side of the building may have as little as 10- to 11-inches of freeboard
from the overflow route of adjacent north parking lot areas. Assume a 50-percent
clogged condition for all storm sewer inlets and provide calculations to determine the
actual freeboard protection.
Grading has been proposed upon adjacent properties and West Forest Home Avenue
(STH „24‟) right-of-way. Obtain a temporary grading easement from adjacent property
owners and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
6-10-08 PC Engineering comments
Inspection Services Division shall approve all demolition of existing structures.
Properly abandon all unnecessary utility services.
conditions.
Ensure that the sidewalk connection to West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟) is ADA
accessible. Provide a ramp at both connections to the south parking lot drive aisle.
Obtain a temporary grading easement from adjacent property owners to eliminate a
majority of the proposed retaining wall. It appears that a retaining wall would still be
required at the northwest corner of the site, which is immediately adjacent to West
Forest Home Avenue (STH „24‟) right-of-way.
Provide an adequate overflow flood route for parking lot and access drive aisle at north
portion of the development. Per Chapter 30.02(3) of the Greenfield Municipal Code, 12inches of freeboard is required to protect structures from flooding during the course of a
100-year storm event. Revise the grading plan as necessary to provide adequate flood
protection.
Connect building downspouts to private storm sewer system located within the parking
lot.
A portion of the private storm sewer system has been proposed within the 10‟ sanitary
sewer easement along West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟). Shift the curb inlet at the
driveway entrance north to avoid the easement.
Related to the proposed private storm sewer system upon the adjacent “Lychee Garden
Restaurant” parcel:
 A private storm sewer easement will be required.
 Proposed storm sewer alignment will impact existing signage within
green space northwest of the connection to West Layton Avenue (CTH
„Y‟) curb inlet.
Obtain a permit from Milwaukee County for the private storm sewer connection within
West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟) right-of-way.
Related to the proposed sanitary lateral:
 Recommend that the existing sanitary lateral be utilized. This lateral is
located approximately 25‟ west of the sanitary manhole.
 Recommend the sanitary lateral to be installed straight into the proposed
building.
 Verify that sanitary service will be provided to the future addition.
12
PC 10-12-10
Obtain approval from Milwaukee Water Works for the proposed water service.
An erosion control permit will be required.
to be expedited to the October 19th Common Council meeting.
Tate Boho and Brad Egan with Design 2 Construct were present to answer questions. Discussion
followed on the traffic patterns, site lines, and the signalization.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Marciniak to recommend approval of a Site,
Building, Landscaping Review for a 4,000 s.f. dental office, with the ability to add approx.
1,000 s.f. in the future, at 7940 W. Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff
comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the October 19 th Common Council
meeting. Similar approval had been granted in June, 2008 but had expired. Tax Key #6059961. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
Scott Jaquish, Greenfield Park & Recreation Dept. Director, requests a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed improvement to the Community Center Building,
7325 W. Forest Home, Tax Key #604-9998.
1.
2.
3.
Background: As part of some potential building improvements to the Community Center,
both interior and exterior, a small addition (approx. 20‟ X 45‟) to the restrooms and the entry
vestibule at the NW corner of the building is the proposed project needing PC review.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Since this aspect is relatively small, the
intent is to simply match the existing brick and metal fascia design.
Miscellaneous: Park & Recreation Board has recommended approval.
expedited to the October 19th CC meeting.
Scott Jaquish, Director of the Greenfield Park & Recreation Department, was present to answer
questions and gave a review of the project.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed improvement to the Community Center Building, 7325 W.
Forest Home, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the October 19th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #604-9998. Motion carried
unanimously.
11.
Kerry Hardin, RA Smith National, 16745 W. Bluemound Road, Brookfield, WI 53005, on
behalf of Wal-Mart, requests the following items as part of a proposed new 148,000 s.f.
Supercenter on a 19 acre parcel at 10600 W. Layton Avenue (Tax Key # 608-9995-006 &
608-9995-008.):
Site/Building/Landscaping/Signage Review.
Special Use for the „liquor sales‟ area within a small portion of the Supercenter
operation.
Remove a 666 s.f. area from a “Shoreland Wetland” designation.
13
PC 10-12-10
1.
Re-map the “Floodway” and “Floodplain” overlay designation for Panel 0133E of the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (Firm) dated 9/26/08 as part of a „Letter of Map Revision‟
(LOMAR) which would be submitted to FEMA and the DNR; Panel 0133E covers an
area along the Root River from Cold Spring Rd. to Brookside Drive.
Certified Survey Map for the proposed Supercenter site and the existing Walmart store
area.
Background: Wal-Mart (WM) near 108th and Layton proposes to construct a new 148,000
square foot “Supercenter” building directly southeast of the current lot on the Greenfield‟s
Golf Center parcel. They will regrade and fill the driving range and install a retaining wall
in order make construction of the new building feasible in that location. The finished floor
elevation is approx. 15‟ higher than the existing grade. The department store and garden
center operations will continue in the new building, the grocery and pharmacy operations
will be expended, and the desire is to sell alcohol products within the grocery store will
initiate its own special use process.
With this particular submittal there is a wide range of materials which are attached. Some
are brand new, some are updates of what had been distributed for the September PC, and
some are a repeat of what was distributed for that earlier meeting (i.e. no significance to the
order):
Description of Proposal
Aerial photo of that general area
9/28/10 letter(s) from Kerry Hardin requesting to:
1. Rezone wetland area (666 s.f.) and remove it from the shoreland/wetland area.
2. Special Use for liquor sales
3. Site Plan and Architectural Review
4. Sign modification/waiver
5. Certified Survey Map approval
6. Rezone the floodplain area impacted by the Layton Ave. Bridge Reconstruction in
2000.
Proposed Certified Survey Map
Description of the WM Alcohol Sales Operation as proposed for this approx. 635 s.f.
area of the store.
Floor plan which identifies the liquor sales area and photos of gates used to restrict
access before/after sales hours.
Material entitled “Walmart‟s Energy Efficient Stores Save Resources, Positively Impact
the Environment”.
Comparison of how WM is complying with the ZC “Natural Resources Protection
Standards”
Exhibit provided to show the 666 s.f. area to be removed from a “Shoreland/Wetland”
designation
WM building elevations from Muskego and Franklin
14
PC 10-12-10
2.
Picture of the proposed retaining wall
Excerpt of the Traffic Impact Study
„Re-mapping the Root River 100-year Floodplain” document which was part of the
power-point presentation at the last meeting.
Cover of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Panel 0133E which is applicable to this area.
Root River Floodplain/Floodway Comparison Maps (covers the Panel 0133 area).
Updated architectural materials dated 9/24/10 ((i.e. earlier plan -- dated 8/23/10).
Updated site/grading/drainage/utility/landscaping/lighting plans.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Working from these updated architectural
of plans, the building design features are similar to what had been reviewed at Conceptual
Review last month. A positive revision noted in the front elevation is a „material change‟
(EIFS → glass) for both of the entry/exit locations which include the curved roof feature.
As had been noted previously, the front elevation of the building utilizes a combination of
materials, colors, and some design features (i.e. façade articulation, horizontal roof plane
variables, fenestrations, etc.). The predominate materials are integrally colored split-face
and smooth-face CMU, EIFS, Quik-Brik, Trespa Meteon Metallic panel, and metal-slat
awnings. There is a range of colors, depending upon the materials, is in a broad range
including: „cedar‟, „rookwood clay‟, „oak creek‟, „row house tan‟, „dark brown‟, and
„cream‟. Other objects of note are two bench areas, two bike racks, blue poles to safeguard
the entrance from automobiles, and three trees indicated to be planted in a red-brick
enclosure.
As it relates to the front elevation, a minor clarification is needed regarding „cart storage‟
and that the carts are not simply left somewhere in front of the building in a „long stack‟.
The „back side‟ of the entry areas shows what appear to be mini-garage doors. Is it a
correct presumption that carts are „loaded‟ via those doors into the entry areas?
and exit the building. This is the prime shipping/loading area of the site plan. A change
from the initial plan is to add a “WM” wall sign. As was discussed at the last meeting, WM
has been asked to provide the “…what will we see from I-43…” perspective.
3.
For comparison purposes, attached are WM renditions for Franklin and Muskego. A product
sample board will be presented at the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted
to determine new needs of this site as they pertain to traffic safety and precautions. The
Executive Summary is attached. The conclusion of the summary reads in part, “… the
implementation of the recommended intersection and roadway improvements is expected to
result in safe and efficient operations for either alternative through Year 2020 with the
15
PC 10-12-10
proposed WM supercenter and off-site developments. RA Smith National recommends
implementing Alternative 1 (no new traffic signal along Hwy. 100) to accommodate the near
term traffic needs. When the existing Walmart site redevelops in the future, a traffic signal
at the north driveway should be considered at that time…”.
south.
Similarly, modifications which WisDOT wants to see occur „using‟ the WM project are
proposed on Hwy. 100 which will impact properties significantly to the west:
The existing main one-way entrance at Hwy. 100 and Armour is proposed to be the main
Hwy. 100 access point but as a two-way vehicle flow arrangement, but vehicles going
east on Armour will not be able to turn north.
The median access to McDonalds/NAPA/Walgreens for south-bound traffic would be
closed, although the interior frontage road access would be retained.
A really major change is at the „north‟ driveway of WM. A south-bound stacking lane is
shown to enable left-turns into WM and the median is „closed‟ to eliminate a southbound exiting turn. But the major negative effect of that design is to eliminate the
ability of vehicles exiting from within the entirely of “GF Highlands” to cross the street
and go north-bound. This design aspect has to be changed.
The parking lot alignment has been revised from 90° angle stalls to 65° angle stalls; stall
depth is 18‟. The impact of that is to reduce the parking stall count from 686 (4.6/1,000 s.f.)
to 625 (4.2/1000 s.f.); these calcs. by staff do not „count‟ the 26 stalls used for the cart
corrals. The ZC parking ratio for a shopping center is 5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. With 148,000
s.f. the site would need 740 stalls to meet requirements. The current plans show „runs‟ of
more than 15 consecutive stalls on some of the aisle „runs‟ without intermediating green
space, and then two aisle „runs‟ with landscaping. 16 handicap stalls are provided. The
parking lot „islands‟ are bigger so they should be able to handle tree growth, and the
“stripping” of „islands‟ should be replaced with actual curbed islands for landscaping.
Another addition is a 12‟ landscaping island running on an east/west alignment thru the
parking lot.
Actually staff would suggest eliminating the two intermediate landscape islands and this
long 12‟ wide islands, and instead make sure every aisle „end-cap‟ is curbed and landscaped.
The exception to that would be the three areas where the ADA stalls are located.
A staff concern with the parking lot layout is that stalls will have direct access to/from the
main „north access‟ aisle. In fairness, this lane is 36‟ wide – compares with a 20‟ wide aisle
for the „inside‟ aisles. But the basic idea of having vehicles backing out into this drive lane
seems to invite problems.
Franklin, Pewaukee, Muskego, and Kenosha were contacted recently to determine the
parking ratios of Wal-Mart Supercenters in both municipalities but no responses yet.
16
PC 10-12-10
4.
Related to grading, staff has asked WM if its possible to eliminate or at least reduce the
scale of the west half of the retaining wall along the Layton Ave. frontage. The reason
being is that good amount of landscaping which is proposed for along the south edge of the
parking lot in that area will be „lost‟ because the grade difference between the top of wall
(i.e. street level) and bottom of wall (i.e. parking lot level) is 5‟ – 12‟. The landscaping will
look great from the parking lot, but in this instance, the purpose of the landscaping is to
screen the parking lot.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
On the east half of the Layton frontage, the grading is such where the landscaping is on the
„street-side‟ (i.e. then visible) of the retaining wall.
Lighting (building & site): A photometric plan is attached. The proposed fixture style
is a 90° full cut-off style which is good. The proposed lamp is 1,000 watts, with the
corresponding foot-candle average being listed at 4.74 which, in itself, seems okay. The
problem with this lighting submittal is having 39‟ high poles on 3‟ bases. Actually 20‟
mounting height is the max. allowed in the ZC, but the PC has allowed 25‟ mounting heights
where a better „light-spread‟ is achieved given the nature of the lighting design.
Furthermore, pole bases can only be 6” above grade (i.e. assumes the pole is in a landscape
island). For poles which are in the middle of a parking lot, then for practical purposes, the
idea of a 3‟ high base is more workable.
Signage: The front and rear elevation “Walmart” (298 sq ft) logo/signs use are white
and is 5‟-6” high. The “spark” on this logo is yellow and is 8‟ high. The “Outdoor Living”
(77 sq ft), “Market & Pharmacy” (102 sq ft), and “Home & Living” (72 sq ft) signs are white
are not illuminated, and are 2‟-6” high. A 7‟2” high monument sign (128 s.f.) is proposed,
but the precise location is yet to be determined. The total building signage is 885 sq ft.; 200
s.f. is the maximum for the site.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Refuse is to be stored inside the rear
Fencing: Various fences with different materials are indicated. The wrought iron fence
on the right (south) elevation is used where the garden center will be placed. There are
the building. A picture is attached and this would appear to be standard style used along
freeway bridges, etc. Given the massive use of a retaining wall feature here, like the variety
within ranges of CMU‟s designs/textures– albeit clearly on a smaller scale – staff is
17
PC 10-12-10
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
uncertain as to whether or not the same „treatment‟ options are possible with this type of
material. This is important because the 15‟ high (+/-) wall will be seen by traffic along
Layton and landscaping will „soften‟ its look, but it will not screen it in its entirety. Maybe
some vine-like material can be planted at the wall base as well.
However, given the nature of these building and pavement layout, there appears to be
limited space for perimeter (south side in particular) and foundation planting areas. As
noted above, more curbed landscaped parking lot islands will be needed instead of stripping.
Given the size of the site, an in-depth set of different plan sheets for the different areas have
been provided. This includes perimeter, parking lot islands, some foundation plantings,
wetland areas. A nice variety of deciduous and evergreen trees/bushes are proposed, and the
appropriate planting sizes for the trees (i.e. 2 ½” – 3” caliper - deciduous or 6‟ – 8‟
height – evergreen) have been proposed. The Forester will be reviewing, among other
things, the proposed on-center tree planting locations to make sure the “mature crown
spread” isn‟t too extensive.
City Forester Site & Landscaping Plan Inspection: Underway
Park Fees: The “Commercial” methodology for making this calculation is:
First 50,000 s.f. of land being developed = 5¢/s.f = $2,500
Each additional sq. ft. over 50K = 2.5¢/s.f.
--Impervious area: 12.81 ac. X 43,560 = 558,003 – 50,000 = 508,003 s.f.
--508,003 x .025 = $12,700 + $2,500 = $15,200 park fee
hours per day.
Sidewalks: Access or walk lane is provided near SW corner of the building –to the front
door – to/from the sidewalk on Layton.
Related earlier discussion occurred about gaining access to the City storm drainage
easement on the northeasterly portion of this parcel. A possible way talked about was to
have an asphalt path starting from the sidewalk near the SE corner of the retaining wall,
continuing north along side the wall, turning west along the north side of the wall, and then
headed north. The strategic placement of a path becomes important in this area because of
the designated „wetlands‟ in this area. Crossing the wetlands involves the DNR of course,
but the other value of having a path in this area is to potentially make a connection into
Kulwicki Park to the north.
located around the entire building. The FD indicated they may have use for the small
driving range‟s office/service building for training purposes before its torn down.
Outside Agencies: WisDOT, Milwaukee County (Register of Deeds, and the DPW –
Transportation Div.), WisDNR, MMSD, FEMA.
18
PC 10-12-10
20.
21.
The CSM is being reviewed by Milw. County Register of Deeds, and City Engineering staff.
All corrections, if any, must be completed before recording. The applicant needs to be
informed of the following: provided that a) the necessary approvals have been obtained; b)
the original CSM map is in order; and c) all applicable charges have been paid, applicant
must submit a final signed and notarized CSM to the Engineering Dept. for recording. The
City requires a minimum of seven (7) working days to perform its final processing and
recording of the CSM. If the applicant requires the CSM to be recorded on, or by a specific
date, plan for appropriate lead-time to be sure to submit the necessary materials to the City
allowing for its processing time. Failure to submit the necessary materials with the CSM for
recording, may cause additional recording delays.
Erosion Control: Permitting needed from City Engineering Dept. prior to any site work
beginning.
Miscellaneous:
Special Use – liquor sales area. The required enclosure of the sales area is provided in
the basic foot-print design, plus it is anticipated that the ability to program the electronic
cash registers is a standard operation to make sure certain products (i.e. alcohol) are not
sold before/after the statutorily allowed time-frame.
the lower area which is now apart of the floodplain. However, when the bridge on
Layton Ave. at “100th Street” over the Root River was reconstructed in 2000, the
floodplain lines were never analyzed to determine the effect to the floodplain.
Essentially the difference between having a 40‟ wide opening (pre-2000) versus a 110‟
wide opening (post-2000) has enabled the floodplain north of Layton to be reduced.
Work is being done to get floodway easements from various property owners to
acknowledge the floodplain has changed. This includes five private property owners
along 99th Street, WM, Golf Center, WE Energies, MMSD, WisDOT, and Milwaukee
County. At some point in time, the City will need to make a request to the DNR and
FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMAR). Starting late last year communications
have occurred with DNR and FEMA on this matter, and a neighborhood meeting was
held this past April for the five property owners.
With this Floodplain/Floodway aspect, the City isn‟t really doing a „rezoning‟ but rather
creating an „overlay‟ designation because a “floodplain” isn‟t a type of use, at least from
staff perspective anyway. Regardless of the terminology, the fact remains is that the City
must submit the Letter of Map Revision (LOMAR), which staff supports doing.
There was some limited discussion at the last meeting about the future of the existing
building. It was indicated that WM has a separate department whose only task is to find
new (and compatible) users for their former buildings. There is the obvious concern that
“…What happens if after a few years nothing has gone it, or whatever has gone in is so
small it‟s a very limited use of the large building, when does WM take the initiative to
remove the building and then try to sell the site?....”.
19
PC 10-12-10
22.
9-14-10 PC comments
151.12.
(TSS) removal rate.
connection (FDC).
10-12-10 comments
Inspection Services Division shall approve demolition of the existing structure. Properly
abandon any utility services that are no longer necessary.
Submit a Notice of Intent to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Provide an erosion control blanket for all proposed slopes 4:1 or greater.
Recommend that landscaped islands be provided at the end of all parking rows.
20
PC 10-12-10
Obtain Milwaukee County review and approval for the following:
 Driveway entrance modifications along West Layton Avenue (CTH
„Y‟).
 Sanitary sewer and water main system connections within West Layton
Avenue (CTH „Y‟) right-of-way.
 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by “R.A. Smith National”.
Related to existing storm sewer system components:
 The Division of Public Works will require the project to include certain
maintenance procedures for existing 60-inch storm sewer outfall at
northeast corner of the existing Wal-Mart parcel.
 Proposed storm sewer system shall accommodate conveyance for the
existing 18-inch pipe located within south portion of existing Wal-Mart
parking lot.
An erosion control permit will be required from the City of Greenfield.
Recommendation: There are a range of actions which is before the PC. From a staff perspective,
some are „ready‟ and some need for review time.
Site/Building/Landscaping/Signage Review: this proposal represents the biggest private
project in site acres and building square footage in many years, if not the biggest overall.
With that in mind, staff and PC need to take the appropriate amount of time to feel
„comfortable‟ that all the „moving parts‟ associated with this project are „ready‟ to move
onto the CC. I think we are getting there, but not yet. I prefer to not have a project go to
the CC which included the proverbial “laundry list” of unresolved issues. The main staff
concerns are the „off-site‟ traffic related aspects which WisDOT is „forcing‟.
Special Use: approved subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize the public
hearing scheduling process to proceed.
Remove a 666 s.f. area from a “Shoreland Wetland” designation: approve and forward
this action when the Site/Building elements are going to CC.
Re-map the “Floodway” and “Floodplain” overlay designations for Panel 0133E of the
FIRM dated 9/26/08: approve subject to PC and staff comments, and authorize this item
to be expedited to the October 19th CC meeting.
Certified Survey Map: hold any further action until the necessary corrections are
completed as discussed previously in these notes.
Deborah Tomczyk with Reinhart, Boerner, Kerry Hardin and Justin Schuller with R.A. Smith
National, and Jackolyn Cook-Haxby with the Benham Companies, LLC were present to answer
questions.
Ms. Cook-Haxby spoke on the architectural changes they have made in response to their last
presentation to the Plan Commission.
When questioned if there were any updates planned to the old building it was stated that that is not a
part of this plan. They are planning on keeping the existing store and marketing it for sale or lease.
They feel the Supercenter next door is advantageous to getting a new tenant into the old store
quickly. The current store has a value of $3 million and generates over $75,000 in tax revenue for
the City. Ald. Kastner questioned how the old store will be maintained until it is re-leased or sold.
Ms. Tomczyk responded that they will continue to maintain the building and there are no plans to
board it up in the interim.
21
PC 10-12-10
Ms. Tomczyk then spoke on the parking spaces. The different uses within the store are used to
calculate the parking requirements. Parking stalls will have a 60 degree versus a 90 degree angle
parking layout, which they‟ve found helps to better prevent accidents. Also, while their calculations
show that 525 stalls are required, they are instead providing 651 stalls and, after backing out cart
corrals (which are deemed “useable” spaces) they then will be providing 625 stalls.
Discussion followed on “blending” the store into the overall complex so it is more cohesive as
opposed to two separate buildings. Ms. Hardin then spoke on the required fencing they‟d be
installing and also on how they‟d have 3-sided screening in the area where the pallets and cardboard
are, with a gate in the front where the truck will drop the incoming trailer off and pick up the
outgoing trailer.
In response to the comment in the staff notes on reducing the light poles from 42‟ to 25‟ they would
have no problem with that. The revised site plan was then presented. The retaining wall along the
back of the store is being reduced from 15‟ to 6‟. Ald. Kastner questioned why the use of a chain
link fence versus a decorative fence. As this is visible he‟d rather it be a decorative fence. He also
expressed concern that there should be an access path thru this area and the wetland area in order to
be able to get in there to maintain the City stormwater easement location on site. Ms. Tomczyk said
they‟ve eliminated the underground detention pond in accordance with MMSD standards and this
area will be open. When questioned about the possibility of terracing the far west retaining walls it
was responded that to do so would loose too much parking.
Ms. Hallen said that it was stated that the Supercenter planned on adding approximately 100 new
jobs and questioned if this store would be built by Milwaukee based trades people. It was replied
that Walmart bids these jobs are bid out, and the last several Wisconsin stores they built employed
Wisconsin-based contractors.
As for liquor sales, Ms. Hardin gave a brief outline of their sales procedures. It was stated that there
is a safeguard program in the registers to regulate the times it can be sold. Also, training is provided
to staff on handling liquor sales, verifying identification, etc.
Discussion followed on the guardrail and also that it was desired that the wall itself be raised rather
then using the guardrail. After which, then decorative fencing could be added on top of that. It is
more attractive that way and still provides the buffer.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to recommend approval of a:
Special Use for the „liquor sales‟ area within a small portion of the Supercenter
operation.
Remove a 666 s.f. area from a “Shoreland Wetland” designation.
Re-map the “Floodway” and “Floodplain” overlay designation for Panel 0133E of the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (Firm) dated 9/26/08 as part of a „Letter of Map Revision‟
(LOMAR) which would be submitted to FEMA and the DNR; Panel 0133E covers an
area along the Root River from Cold Spring Rd. to Brookside Drive.
As part of a proposed new 148,000 s.f. Walmart Supercenter on a 19 acre parcel at 10600 W.
Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize the multiple
public hearing processes to begin. Tax Key # 608-9995-006 & 608-9995-008. Motion carried
unanimously.
22
PC 10-12-10
12.
Mr. Erickson spoke on how by coincidence using tonight‟s agenda as an example, currently the City
has three major corporations (Walmart, Aldi and McDonalds) and a major local player in
Froedtert/Medical College that are interested in redeveloping and/or developing in the City. This
shows that Greenfield, in contrast to what has been portrayed over the summer in other areas of the
city, is thought of as business friendly and willing to work with developers.
13.
Motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Mr. Dorszynski to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Motion
14.
November 9, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed November 2, 2010
23
PC 10-12-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
Present
Present – arrived at 7:20 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Ald. Kastner to approve the minutes of the October 12, 2010
Regular Meeting, subject to the correction of a type-o. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Sponholz
abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on October 19th and November 3rd. At the
October 19th meeting the Cigno Dental Office at 7940 W. Layton was approved along with
with the Greenfield Community Center project. There were no Plan Commission items that
forwarded on to the November 3rd meeting.
4.
considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to the need for a public hearing. Item
held-over from last month.
1.
Background: [[Initial discussion occurred on this item at the October PC; it had been
held over from May/June/July/August/September PC. Based upon what had been suggested
at the September meeting, this item is moved „up‟on the agenda to ensure a greater
likelihood of being discussed.]]. This item is meant to review a fairly common aspect
which comes to PC regarding what is considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to
Special Uses, and then naturally the need for a public hearing. While the PUD section of the
ZC [[21.08.0208(E)(18)]] has criteria for evaluating what potentially may be a “major”
change, the Special Use section of the ZC is „silent‟. Attached are those PUD elements to
start the discussion of trying to create similar guidelines for the PC to use, instead of relying
later on the City Attorney to render a perspective using his judgment only.
1
PC 11-9-10
At last month‟s meeting, there were two elements which evolved during the discussion:
Mayor Neitzke suggested the following language: “…If in the opinion of the PC such
change in the special use substantially changes the concept or intent of an approved
special use, whether in existence or anticipated, and/or approved plan that incorporated
that special use into its approval, the PC can consider it a major change…”.
Commissioner Collins requested that other municipalities be contacted to simply find
out how they handle this type of question/situation. Of the responses received thus far
(i.e. from Franklin, Wauwatosa, & West Allis), actually they are the same. Basically,
any and all Special Use requests require a public hearing. Effectively there isn‟t any
“major” or “minor” variable(s) taken into account.
Recommendation: When an acceptable Draft ordinance revision is deemed „ready‟, forward a
favorable recommendation to the Legislative Committee. Assuming the Leg. Committee will also
have a similar perspective, then a public hearing will be held at a future Common Council meeting
for this Zoning Code text change.
Motion by Ald. Kastner, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of the proposed
changes to the Zoning Code text as suggested by Mayor Neitzke related to Special Uses and
what is considered a “major” or “minor” change as it relates to the need for a public hearing,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and with input to be received from the City
Attorney as part of the Legislative Committee review. Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Hussen Ali, Jens Beverage Center, 4312 W. Howard Avenue, Greenfield, WI 53220, requests a
Special Use Review as the new owner/operator of this business, Tax Key #555-8979.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Mr. Ali seeks a SU Review to become the new owner of Jen‟s Beverage
Center. Mr. Ali, who was the former owner of this business, is buying it back and has no
proposed changes to the property or business operation.
Hours of Operation: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily.
Miscellaneous: The „ice storage‟ container which is outside now, needs to be inside the
building.
to be expedited to the November 16th Common Council meeting.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Special Use
Review for Hussen Ali as the new owner/operator of Jens Beverage Center, 4312 W. Howard
Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be
expedited to the November 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #555-8979. Motion
6.
Christina Bass, BSD Inc., PO Box 61, Union Grove, WI 53182 requests a Special Use for the
purpose of constructing a 10‟ x 33‟ addition to Scott E‟s Pub, 3800 S. 108th Street for the
purpose of locating Papa Saverio‟s pizza carry-out/pick-up in that new space, Tax Key
#562-9950.
1.
Background: Papa Saverio‟s Pizzeria proposes to acquire the existing food business
within Scott E‟s Pub, build a small (10‟ x 33‟) addition on the south side of the building,
and expand the business to include carryout and delivery from that new location for non-bar
customers. See attached project description and sample menu. The restaurant‟s pickup and
2
PC 11-9-10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
delivery service is proposed to be from 11:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. No customer seating would
be provided in the pizzeria space, and based upon the attached floor plan there isn‟t any
interior physical connection for a customer in the “food area” to access the “bar area”, and
vice-versa.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Proposed building modification shows
having a lannon stone wainscoting feature, with siding and sloped roof. A color rendition
will be presented at the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: No changes proposed, however, the
site plan identifies that there still is a gravel area on the south and east of the building. This
area needs to be paved, stripped, and properly drained – particularly if it‟s being used for
parking and vehicle „travel lane‟. [[A revised site plan layout showing the actual parking
stall alignment is being prepared, and was distributed at the meeting.]]
Storm Drainage (lot & building): As noted above, the gravel area will need to be paved.
As a result, the proposed drainage pattern needs to be identified.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): No changes proposed.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: No changes proposed.
Hours of Operation: 11 am to 10 pm for the new pickup and delivery service.
Miscellaneous: Will need to return to the next PC for the Site/Building/Landscaping
component of this request.
Recommend the installation of asphalt pavement for entire parking lot area. Provide
concrete curbing at perimeter of parking lot. Submit a grading and erosion control plan
for these improvements.
Parking lot shall meet all minimum setback requirements.
Per the Greenfield Municipal Code, a total of 3 handicap spaces are required.
public hearing process to proceed.
Christina Bass was present to answer questions. She presented a November 8, 2010 letter signed by
Natalie Placke, property owner, and Ms. Bass which promsises to pave the rear gravel parking lot
within two years of the date of final approval of the Papa Saverio‟s kitchen expansion.
the purpose of constructing a 10‟ x 33‟ addition to Scott E‟s Pub at 3800 S. 108th Street, for the
purpose of locating Papa Saverio‟s pizza carry-out/pick-up in that new space, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, and with the condition that the previously required plantings
be implemented in the “smoking” patio area, and including the proposed paving plan timeline
for the rear parking lot, and authorize the public hearing process to begin. Tax Key
#562-9950. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
53045 representing Maritime Savings Bank/North Shore Bank requests a Final Plat approval
at it pertains to creating two parcels in Outlot 3 of Ramsey Meadows West subdivision near
39th and Kimberly, which is now considered “buildable” based upon a determination by both a
wetland consulting firm, Army Corp of Engineers, and WisDNR, Tax Key #692-1257.
3
PC 11-9-10
1.
Background: This past July the PC/CC reviewed and then approved of a request by
Maritime Savings to consider Outlot #3 as “buildable” based upon determinations from a
wetland consulting firm, the Corp. of Engineers, and the DNR. This was needed because in
the Final Plat this outlot was considered marginally a „wetland‟ area. So now that this
parcel has “dried out”, the bank as owner of the lot has requested the land be split into two
lots. Because this outlot was part of the original Ramsey Meadows West subdivision, the
engineer had contacted the appropriate State platting review agency and they had determined
that a Preliminary & Final Plat process was necessary instead of creating the lots via
certified survey map process.
The Preliminary Plat aspect was approved at the 9/14/10 PC and the 9/21/10 CC. So
attached is the Final Plat. R-3 zoned parcels must be at least 9,000 s.f., with 75‟ lot
frontage, and a corner lot must be at least 85‟ wide. Both of the lots meet these minimum
requirements.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As noted back in July and again with this request, at this time a financial institution is the
“owner” of the land, but not necessarily the “owner” of the development. Maritime/North
Shore is working with the Colliers (i.e. as an agent for the FDIC) on selling the project and
land to an actual developer. That developer in turn will assume all the rights/obligations of
the original Developer‟s Agreement for this subdivision as a “successor” via an amendment
to that document. As an FYI, there are project-related issues which staff continues to work
on with Maritime/North Shore and Losik pertaining to such things as: extending two sets of
laterals into the proposed two new lots prior to the final lift of asphalt, and getting that final
lift done yet this paving season.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): See Engineering Comments
Utilities: An extension of water, storm, and sanitary laterals are needed in order to make the
parcels actually buildable. Attached is the proposed utility plan.
Outside Agencies: State of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County will be doing their version of
a plat review.
Provide a 25‟ public drainage easement at rear property line of the proposed lots.
Related to proposed grading efforts:
 An approved grading plan is required prior to recording the Preliminary
Plat.
 A drainage swale shall be excavated at rear property line in an effort to
direct storm water runoff to existing inlets located at the West Kimberly
Avenue right-of-way line.
Add a note to the Preliminary Plat that states “The placement of fill, landscaping,
structures or other encumbrances within the Public Drainage Easement are prohibited
unless agreed to by Lot Owner and the City of Greenfield.”
An addendum to the Developers Agreement will be needed and will accompany the
Final Plat at the time of recording.
Any private subdivision restrictions/covenants and Home Owner‟s Assoc. documents
will need to be revised to acknowledge the addition of these two lots.
Laterals need to be installed to the lots prior to the street being surfaced.
Revise City Finance Director name on plat document from “Milt” to “Milton”.
4
PC 11-9-10
Amend the „General Notes‟ to read “…Lot 29 is subject to Vision Corner Easement as
established by the Ramsey Meadows West subdivision plat and as shown on this Plat that
nothing may be grown, stored, or erected to a height over 2 feet above ground
surface….”.
Amend the „General Notes‟ to read “…The placement of fill, landscaping, structures or
other encumbrances with the Public Drainage Easement and Storm Sewer Easements are
prohibited unless agreed to by the Lot Owner and the City of Greenfield.
Engineering staff comments will be forwarded directly to the surveyor upon completion.
Recommendation: Approve Final Plat request subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to expedited to the November 16th Common Council meeting.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Final Plat
at it pertains to creating two parcels in Outlot 3 of Ramsey Meadows West subdivision near
39th and Kimberly, which is now considered “buildable” based upon a determination by both a
wetland consulting firm, Army Corp of Engineers, and WisDNR, subject to Plan Commission
and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the November 16th Common
Council meeting. Tax Key #692-1257. Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Suite One, Milwaukee, WI 53226 requests a PUD Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping
Review for a proposed 20,000 s.f. medical office building on the northerly portion of the
Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #609-9994-006.
1.
2.
Background: This request is a follow-up to the PUD Amendment review done at the
October PC. The narrative below is similar to what was presented at that earlier meeting.
Irgens would like to build a structure which would be used as a medical clinic on the existing
parking lot area (i.e. about 2 acres) north of the Budget Cinema building on Hwy. 100 as
described in their August 31st letter – see attached. The tenant in this building will be
Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin, and this location would be part of their effort to
develop a growing network of community-based ambulatory clinics.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The proposed building will be a singlestory, approximately 20,000 square feet structure. Exterior materials are primarily two
alternating types of brick masonry, a metal canopy above the entrance ways, and aluminum
window systems. Product sample board will be presented at the meeting.
Attached are proposed building renditions/elevations, along with a „higher‟ aerial
perspective of the SE corner, which identify the building materials, colors, design elements,
etc. The SE (entry-way) perspective creates the most architectural „interest‟ given the
variations in the foot-print/building height/colors/sun shades, etc. It was noted in the
October PC Notes that the east face – Hwy. 100 side – needs „something else‟ to give it
some greater „presence‟. This could include some changes to the “foot-print” (i.e. façade
articulation), vertical departures, shade coverage features, etc. The latest plans for the East
elevation include some modifications to the brick elements at the NE corner of the building
and by adding a metal canopy feature; and in the „center‟ area of this east elevation now has
brick masonry instead of the aluminum window system.
5
PC 11-9-10
3.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Irgens indicated in the August 31st
automobiles, of 5.3 stalls per 1,000 s.f. The “office” parking ratio is 3.3 stalls/1,000 s.f. of
building area.
The Plan Staff discussed a problem with the two northernmost parking slots on the west side
of the building. Assuming that two vehicles were in these particular stalls, the
trash/dumpster immediately to the north creates potential problems with backing out of these
slots. The dumpster could be shifted northerly a few feet to allow enough room to enable
proper exiting from these spots. The other option is to simply “X” these two stalls which
would identify them as “no parking”.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Irgens has been given an excerpt of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter site plan which
preliminarily shows that WisDOT wants Wal-Mart to close the „median cut‟ which would be
used for vehicles leaving this parcel and the GF Highlands in order to go northbound on
Hwy. 100. However, this WisDOT position will have a very large negative impact on any
development to the west, and is not acceptable. Prior to Thanksgiving there will be a
meeting with WisDOT, GF Highland reps., Wal-Mart reps., Irgens, and City to discuss a
traffic design solution.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): While it may seem odd, the actual
construction of a building on a parking lot will create the opportunity to increase green space
via landscape islands, foundation plantings, etc. At the last PC meeting there was discussion
about what historically has been a storm run-off →debris problem at the NE corner of this
site. The building is proposed to be 15‟ from that north lot line (i.e. which will match the
existing north edge of the asphalt parking lot), the severity of the grade change (i.e. +/-10‟
from the NE corner of the building (754 elev.) to the sidewalk at the NE corner of the site
(744 elev.). Potentially the combination of a „terrace‟ grading element and landscaping
other than grass may still be needed in this area.
Lighting (building & site): A photometric layout and fixture design material is attached.
Bollard-lighting will be used around the building, and free-standing lights for the parking lot
are provided. The parking lot fixtures are cut-off design, with a 20‟ mounting height, and a
250 watt size. Since there is a requirement that all light pole bases cannot exceed 6” above
grade, there may be a need to shift some pole locations into parking lot islands. If any
wall-accent lighting is anticipated, that will need to be identified.
Utilities: A utility plan is attached and shows that the water and sanitary connections are
under the sidewalk on the east side of the parcel, and that the storm drain system for the
parking lot and roof-top will connect to the storm catch-basin in the driveway.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: The screening element is shown, but the materials used on
the screening still need to be identified.
Signage: The building elevation shows the proposed location(s) for wall signage, and the
site plan shows proposed location for two monument signs. The Plan Staff discussed
shifting the monuments outside of easement area.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): A masonry dumpster enclosure is located
on the northwest corner of the site. A maze entryway or man-door should be placed on the
dumpster to enable easier access without opening the two main gates. Clarification needed,
but its assumed that medical waste disposal will be handled separately and internally.
6
PC 11-9-10
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A preliminary landscaping plan is attached. A good
combination of perimeter plantings, foundation plantings, and parking lot plantings (with
boulders) is shown. Any plantings at the NW and SW corner of the site could be shifted to
be along the east side of the building.
L101 (Landscape Plan) notes a tree on the southeastern-most parking island. E010
(Electrical) notes a light pole at this exact same location. One of these two aspects must be
changed to avoid an electric post being placed so closely to a tree.
Landscaping Cash Deposit/Letter of Credit: 125% of landscaping costs, with 30% retained
for two years after initial planting. Furthermore, an on-going condition of subsequent
approval will be that the landscaping will be subject to annual review by the City to make
sure all landscaping features are still be maintained, and any dead/dying landscaping is
replaced as necessary.
Street Trees: The planting of street trees – or supplementing what has been planted
already – is shown.
Park Fees: The “Commercial” methodology for making this calculation for a
„redevelopment‟ is:
--Impervious area: 65,336 – 50,000 = 15,336 s.f.
--15,336 x .025 = $383 + $2,500 = $2,883 park fee
Hours of Operation: Normal business hours.
Sidewalks: Sidewalk access to Highway 100 from the parking lot is still needed.
Fire Department: The Plan Staff discussed the site‟s difficulty to access every part of
the building from the current placement of hydrant(s) per NFPA regs. See below for further
review in the Engineering Comments.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee Water and WisDOT for a utility connection work
permit.
Erosion Control: An erosion control plan is attached. Approval from City Engineering
Dept. needed prior to any site work starting.
PUD Requirements: This proposal will need a PUD Amendment process to be done for
the construction of the new building (i.e. major change/public hearing, etc.), as per this
particular request.
The retention wall on the west end of the lot needs to be extended south. The problem
with this is that the site plans indicate this area as “snow storage”, which is also needed.
151.12.
Provide a calculation to quantify the decrease in impervious coverage under the
7
PC 11-9-10
Per Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151.12(2)(c), the performance standards do not
apply to any redevelopment “with no increase in exposed parking lots or roads”.
Provide a calculation to quantify the ultimate parking lot reduction.
11-9-10 PC Engineering comments (New and previous 10-12-10 & 9-14-10 PC comments
are above)
Submit a Notice of Intent to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for overall
land disturbance that exceeds 1-acre.
Related to proposed site plan:
 Provide an ADA accessible sidewalk connection to South 108th Street
(STH „100‟).
 Recommend shifting the proposed dumpster enclosure north in an effort
to provide additional room for vehicles within last parking stalls to back
up and exit the site.
 Provide a concrete landing for proposed door at north side of building.
 Provide the City of Greenfield with signed and sealed structural shop
drawings for proposed retaining wall prior to the start of construction.
Related to proposed grading plan:
 A maximum 3:1 slope shall be maintained through all landscape areas.
This slope has been exceeded at south terminus of proposed retaining
wall.
 Recommend a reduction in pavement slope (under 5-percent) at
southeast corner of the parking lot.
 Snow storage has been proposed at southwest corner of the parking lot.
In an effort to limit the potential for icing upon the pavement during
snow melt conditions, recommend installation of a storm catch basin in
this vicinity.
In accordance with the Greenfield Municipal Code, 12-inches of freeboard is required to
protect structures from flooding during the course of a 100-year storm event. It appears
that the overflow route from northwest parking lot area will enter the adjacent staff entry
doors. Assume a 50-percent clogged condition for the storm sewer inlet and provide
calculations to determine the actual freeboard protection.
Related to proposed utility plan:
 Provide storm sewer information south of existing Catch Basin #36.
Verify pipe size (minimum 15-inch diameter required) and ultimate
capacity.
 Per proposed storm sewer pipe configuration, verify structure size
requirements at Catch Basin #2.
 The maximum pipe slope for sanitary sewer laterals shall be 10-percent.
Relocate proposed monument signage from existing 10‟ sanitary easement.
Obtain Wisconsin Department of Transportation approval for utility connections within
South 108th Street (STH „100‟) right-of-way.
Review and approval is necessary from Milwaukee Water Works for connection to the
existing 16-inch water main located within South 108th Street (STH „100‟).
The proposed fire department connection (FDC) shall be located within 100-feet of a fire
hydrant.

8
PC 11-9-10
Recommendation: Approve subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and forward this
recommendation to the December 7th Common Council meeting when the PUD Amendment public
hearing will also be scheduled.
Rob McClure with Irgens and Pat Pendergast with Eppstein Uhen were present to answer questions.
Ald. Kastner once again stated his desire that improvements be made to, and then area maintained,
at the northeast corner of the property where there is currently a gravel area. He also is concerned
about the approximately 20 year old retaining wall along Hwy. 100 that, given its age, it‟s likely to
fail and therefore he‟d like to see some improvements made to it. As for the back retaining wall on
the western edge, it is in need of terracing on the north side. Mayor Neitzke stated that the median
cut issue with Wal-Mart, WisDOT and Irgens still needs to be resolved.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ald. Kastner to recommend approval of a PUD Amendment
Site, Building, Landscaping Review for a proposed 20,000 s.f. medical office building on the
northerly portion of the Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission
and staff comments. Tax Key #609-9994-006. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Kerry Hardin, RA Smith National, 16745 Bluemound Rd., Brookfield 53005, on behalf of
Wal-Mart, requests the following items as part of a proposed new 148,000 s.f. Supercenter on
a 19 acre parcel at 10600 W. Layton Avenue (Tax Key # 608-9995-006/008.):
- Site/Building/Landscaping/Signage Review
- Certified Survey Map for the proposed Supercenter site and the existing Wal-Mart
store area.
1.
Background: [[This review is a continuation of the review process which has occurred at
both the September and October PC meetings. The narrative below is similar to what was
distributed for the October PC, but any new text, material, and/or attachments are shown in
Italics.]]
Wal-Mart (WM) near 108th and Layton proposes to construct a new 148,000 square foot
“Supercenter” building directly southeast of the current lot on the Greenfield‟s Golf Center
parcel. They will regrade and fill the driving range and install a retaining wall in order
make construction of the new building feasible in that location. The finished floor elevation
is approx. 15‟ higher than the existing grade. The department store and garden center
operations will continue in the new building, the grocery and pharmacy operations will be
expended, and the desire is to sell alcohol products within the grocery store will initiate its
own special use process.
9
PC 11-9-10
With this particular submittal there is a wide range of materials which are attached. Some
are brand new, some are updates of what had been distributed for the September PC, and
some are a repeat of what was distributed for that earlier meeting (i.e. no significance to the
order):
[[This specific November meeting packet does not include all of these items again. Any new
attachments are listed below in italics.]]
Description of Proposal.
Aerial photo of that general area.
9/28/10 letter(s) from Kerry Hardin requesting to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rezone wetland area (666 s.f.) and remove it from the shoreland/wetland area.
Special Use for liquor sales.
Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Sign modification/waiver.
Certified Survey Map approval.
Rezone the floodplain area impacted by the Layton Ave. Bridge Reconstruction in
2000.
Proposed Certified Survey Map.
Description of the WM Alcohol Sales Operation as proposed for this approx. 635 s.f.
area of the store.
Floor plan which identifies the liquor sales area and photos of gates used to restrict
access before/after sales hours.
Material entitled “Wal-Mart‟s Energy Efficient Stores Save Resources, Positively
Impact the Environment”.
Comparison of how WM is complying with the ZC “Natural Resources Protection
Standards”.
Exhibit provided to show the 666 s.f. area to be removed from a “Shoreland/Wetland”
designation.
WM building elevations from Muskego and Franklin.
Picture of the proposed retaining wall.
Excerpt of the Traffic Impact Study.
„Re-mapping the Root River 100-year Floodplain” document which was part of the
power-point presentation at the last meeting.
Cover of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Panel 0133E which is applicable to this area.
Root River Floodplain/Floodway Comparison Maps (covers the Panel 0133 area).
Updated architectural materials dated 9/24/10 (i.e. earlier plan -- dated 8/23/10).
Updated site/grading/drainage/utility/landscaping/lighting plans.
New attachments with this packet:
Pictures of the completed Muskego Supercenter – the color versions will be shown, as
needed, at the meeting. Previously distributed was the architectural elevation for that
project.
Revised CSM as directed from the October PC meeting.
Summary of the Stormwater Management Report for the project since the revised plans
have a storm basin north of the building, instead of underground storage in the parking
lot as had been initially proposed.
10
PC 11-9-10
2.
Updated architectural materials dated 10/18/10.
Updated site/grading/drainage/utility/landscaping/lighting plans to reflect what was
preliminarily shown at the October meeting whereby the building is shifted to the west
approx. 40‟. This enables the front north/south drive aisle to align better with the
Layton Ave. median cut, and also enables the retaining walls to be lessened to approx.
6‟above grade at the SE corner (instead of 15‟high). The wall on the north side of the
building is approx. 12‟high.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: Working from these updated architectural
of plans (i.e. now dated10/18/10), the building design features are similar to what had been
reviewed last month. A positive revision noted in the front elevation is a „material change‟
(EIFS → glass) for both of the entry/exit locations which include the curved roof feature.
As had been noted previously, the front elevation of the building utilizes a combination of
materials, colors, and some design features (i.e. façade articulation, horizontal roof plane
variables, fenestrations, etc.). The predominate materials are integrally colored split-face
and smooth-face CMU, EIFS, Quik-Brik, Trespa Meteon Metallic panel, and metal-slat
awnings. There is a range of colors, depending upon the materials, is in a broad range
including: „cedar‟, „rookwood clay‟, „oak creek‟, „row house tan‟, „dark brown‟, and
„cream‟. Other objects of note are two bench areas, two bike racks, blue poles to safeguard
the entrance from automobiles, and three trees indicated to be planted in a red-brick
enclosure.
As it relates to the front elevation, a minor clarification is needed regarding „cart storage‟
and that the carts are not simply left somewhere in front of the building in a „long stack‟.
The „back side‟ of the entry areas shows what appear to be mini-garage doors. Is it a
correct presumption that carts are „loaded‟ via those doors into the entry areas?
and exit the building. This is the prime shipping/loading area of the site plan. A change
from the initial plan is to add a “WM” wall sign. As was discussed at the last meeting, WM
has been asked to provide the “…what will we see from I-43…” perspective. [[This feature
still is needed.]]
3.
For comparison purposes, attached are WM renditions for Franklin and Muskego. A product
sample board will be presented at the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: A Traffic Impact Analysis was
conducted to determine new needs of this site as they pertain to traffic safety and
precautions. The Executive Summary is attached. The conclusion of the summary reads in
part, “… the implementation of the recommended intersection and roadway improvements is
expected to result in safe and efficient operations for either alternative through Year 2020
11
PC 11-9-10
with the proposed WM supercenter and off-site developments. RA Smith National
recommends implementing Alternative 1 (no new traffic signal along Hwy. 100) to
accommodate the near term traffic needs. When the existing Wal-Mart site redevelops in the
future, a traffic signal at the north driveway should be considered at that time…”.
4.
south.
Similarly, modifications which WisDOT wants to see occur „using‟ the WM project are
proposed on Hwy. 100 which will impact properties significantly to the west:
The existing main one-way entrance at Hwy. 100 and Armour is proposed to be the main
Hwy. 100 access point but as a two-way vehicle flow arrangement, but vehicles going
east on Armour will not be able to turn north.
The median access to McDonalds/NAPA/Walgreens for south-bound traffic would be
closed, although the interior frontage road access would be retained.
A really major change is at the „north‟ driveway of WM. A south-bound stacking lane is
shown to enable left-turns into WM and the median is „closed‟ to eliminate a southbound exiting turn. But the major negative effect of that design is to eliminate the
ability of vehicles exiting from within the entirely of “GF Highlands” to cross the street
and go north-bound. This design aspect has to be changed.
The parking lot alignment has been revised from 90° angle stalls to 65° angle stalls; stall
depth is 18‟. The impact of that is to reduce the parking stall count from 686 (4.6/1,000 s.f.)
to 625 (4.2/1000 s.f.); these calcs. by staff do not „count‟ the 26 stalls used for the cart
corrals. The ZC parking ratio for a shopping center is 5 stalls per 1,000 s.f. With 148,000
s.f. the site would need 740 stalls to meet requirements. The current plans show „runs‟ of
more than 15 consecutive stalls on some of the aisle „runs‟ without intermediating green
space, and then two aisle „runs‟ with landscaping. 16 handicap stalls are provided. The
parking lot „islands‟ are bigger so they should be able to handle tree growth, and the
“stripping” of „islands‟ should be replaced with actual curbed islands for landscaping.
Another addition is a 12‟ landscaping island running on an east/west alignment thru the
parking lot.
Actually staff would suggest eliminating the two intermediate landscape islands and this
long 12‟ wide islands, and instead make sure every aisle „end-cap‟ is curbed and landscaped.
The exception to that would be the three areas where the ADA stalls are located. This 12‟
island has been eliminated but there still are four „end-caps‟which need to become curbed
landscaped islands on the east side of the parking lot (i.e. closest to the building).
A staff concern with the parking lot layout is that stalls will have direct access to/from the
main „north access‟ aisle. In fairness, this lane is 36‟ wide – compares with a 20‟ wide aisle
for the „inside‟ aisles. But the basic idea of having vehicles backing out into this drive lane
seems to invite problems. The intent is to have employees park in this area.
12
PC 11-9-10
The Plan Staff recommendation is to create a more defined entryway from Highway 100, and
thru the „old site‟by creating more of a “roadway edge”, by curbing off the three parking
lanes which connect to the entryway. These “three parking lanes” are more accurately
defined as the lanes which are “cut-off” by the diagonal entryway. Essentially, a wide strip
of landscaping can cut off thru-access from these lanes to the entryway. This fulfills the goal
to make the long entryway into the main Wal-Mart parking lot less hazardous. It‟s
understood that this suggestion will create the need to address a revised traffic flow for these
aisles on what will be the „old site‟. Similarly, a “road edge” needs to be created for the
west side of this entry-way where the new “Lot 3” is created. Assuming this area is intended
for a single, stand-along business, its access to this entry-way will need to be controlled as
well.
Between now and Thanksgiving a meeting involving representatives of WisDOT, GF
Highlands, Wal-Mart, Irgens, and City will occur to discuss ideally a more compatible
solution(s) to access or enable a left-turn, north-bound movement to occur from the Budget
Cinema site.
5.
Also, the PC should be aware that the McDonald‟s owner is very concerned about the
impact to his business with the proposed closure of the median cut in front of that site (see
attached email). According to RA Smith, the need for the „extended dual-stacking lanes for
south-bound traffic turning east onto Layton‟are needed basically to handle better handle
current traffic flows and expected increase, regardless of whether this Supercenter is/was
constructed. This is based upon a desired time-line of making improvements in Hwy. 100
from Layton Ave. north to ___ preliminarily scheduled for 2018.
Related to grading, staff has asked WM if it‟s possible to eliminate or at least reduce the
scale of the west half of the retaining wall along the Layton Ave. frontage. The reason
being is that good amount of landscaping which is proposed for along the south edge of the
parking lot in that area will be „lost‟ because the grade difference between the top of wall
(i.e. street level) and bottom of wall (i.e. parking lot level) is 5‟ – 12‟. The landscaping will
look great from the parking lot, but in this instance, the purpose of the landscaping is to
screen the parking lot. The overall change in the grading plan do to the shifting of the
building 40‟to the west as noted above, enables this retaining wall to be removed so
whatever landscaping is proposed will be more readily able to screen the parking lot from
Layton.
6.
On the east half of the Layton frontage, the grading is such where the landscaping is on the
„street-side‟ (i.e. then visible) of the retaining wall.
Lighting (building & site): A photometric plan is attached. The proposed fixture style
is a 90° full cut-off style which is good. The proposed lamp is 1,000 watts, with the
corresponding foot-candle average being listed at 4.74 which, in itself, seems okay. The
problem with this lighting submittal is having 39‟ high poles on 3‟ bases. Actually 20‟
mounting height is the max. allowed in the ZC, but the PC has allowed 25‟ mounting heights
13
PC 11-9-10
where a better „light-spread‟ is achieved given the nature of the lighting design.
Furthermore, pole bases can only be 6” above grade (i.e. assumes the pole is in a landscape
island). For poles which are in the middle of a parking lot, then for practical purposes, the
idea of a 3‟ high base is more workable.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
At the October meeting, WM indicated their ability to comply with the reduction in the
mounting heights. A revised photometric is being prepared.
The Plan Staff also discussed extending the catch basin at the southwest corner of old site
into the new Lot #3 to „capture‟that drainage given the prior staff suggestion to create a
more defined „road edge‟in that area..
Clarification on this aspect still needed on the potential placement of roof-top units and the
appropriate screening of them by the proposed parapet-type walls.
Signage: The front and rear elevation “Wal-Mart” (298 sq ft) logo/signs use are white
and is 5‟-6” high. The “spark” on this logo is yellow and is 8‟ high. The “Outdoor Living”
(77 sq ft), “Market & Pharmacy” (102 sq ft), and “Home & Living” (72 sq ft) signs are white
are not illuminated, and are 2‟-6” high. A 7‟2” high monument sign (128 s.f.) is proposed
for the west side of the Layton Ave. driveway. The total building signage is 885 sq ft.; 200
s.f. is the maximum for the site.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Refuse is to be stored inside the rear
Fencing: Various fences with different materials are indicated. The wrought iron
fence on the right (south) elevation is used where the garden center will be placed. There are
the building. A picture is attached and this would appear to be standard style used along
freeway bridges, etc. Given the massive use of a retaining wall feature here, like the variety
within ranges of CMU‟s designs/textures– albeit clearly on a smaller scale – staff is
uncertain as to whether or not the same „treatment‟ options are possible with this type of
material. This is important because the 6‟ high (+/-) wall will be seen by traffic along
Layton and landscaping will „soften‟ its look, but it will not screen it in its entirety. Maybe
some vine-like material can be planted at the wall base as well.
12.
The style of fence or guard-rail along the south and east side of the building was discussed
at the last PC meeting, and a suggestion was to have the retaining wall high enough so if the
„standard‟guard rail feature is used, it essentially is screened by the wall itself.
However, given the nature of these building and pavement layout, there appears to be limited
space for perimeter (south side in particular) and foundation planting areas. As noted
above, more curbed landscaped parking lot islands will be needed instead of stripping.
14
PC 11-9-10
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Given the size of the site, an in-depth set of different plan sheets for the different areas have
been provided. This includes perimeter, parking lot islands, some foundation plantings,
wetland areas. A nice variety of deciduous and evergreen trees/bushes are proposed, and the
appropriate planting sizes for the trees (i.e. 2 ½” – 3” caliper - deciduous or 6‟ – 8‟
height – evergreen) have been proposed. The Forester will be reviewing, among other
things, the proposed on-center tree planting locations to make sure the “mature crown
spread” isn‟t too extensive, particularly along the south side of the parcel.
City Forester Site & Landscaping Plan Inspection: Underway
Park Fees: The “Commercial” methodology for making this calculation is:
- Impervious area: 12.81 ac. X 43,560 = 558,003 – 50,000 = 508,003 s.f.
- 508,003 x .025 = $12,700 + $2,500 = $15,200 park fee
hours per day/daily.
Sidewalks: Access or walk lane is provided near SW corner of the building –to the front
door – to/from the sidewalk on Layton.
Related earlier discussion occurred about gaining access to the City storm drainage
easement on the northeasterly portion of this parcel. A possible way talked about was
to have an asphalt path starting from the sidewalk near the SE corner of the retaining wall,
continuing north along side the wall, turning west along the north side of the wall, and then
headed north. The strategic placement of a path becomes important in this area because of
the designated „wetlands‟ in this area. Crossing the wetlands involves the DNR of course,
but the other value of having a path in this area is to potentially make a connection into
Kulwicki Park to the north.
located around the entire building. The FD indicated they may have use for the small
driving range‟s office/service building for training purposes before it‟s torn down.
Outside Agencies: WisDOT, Milwaukee County (Register of Deeds, and the DPW –
Transportation Div.), WisDNR, MMSD, FEMA.
The CSM is being reviewed by Milw. County Register of Deeds, and City Engineering staff.
All corrections, if any, must be completed before recording. The applicant needs to be
informed of the following: provided that a) the necessary approvals have been obtained; b)
the original CSM map is in order; and c) all applicable charges have been paid, applicant
must submit a final signed and notarized CSM to the Engineering Dept. for recording. The
City requires a minimum of seven (7) working days to perform its final processing and
recording of the CSM. If the applicant requires the CSM to be recorded on, or by a specific
date, plan for appropriate lead-time to be sure to submit the necessary materials to the City
allowing for its processing time. Failure to submit the necessary materials with the CSM for
recording, may cause additional recording delays.
15
PC 11-9-10
21.
22.
23.
Erosion Control: Permitting needed from City Engineering Dept. prior to any site work
beginning.
Miscellaneous:
Special Use – liquor sales area. The required enclosure of the sales area is provided in
the basic foot-print design, plus it is anticipated that the ability to program the electronic
cash registers is a standard operation to make sure certain products (i.e. alcohol) are not
sold before/after the statutorily allowed time-frame.
the lower area which is now apart of the floodplain. However, when the bridge on
Layton Ave. at “100th Street” over the Root River was reconstructed in 2000, the
floodplain lines were never analyzed to determine the effect to the floodplain.
Essentially the difference between having a 40‟ wide opening (pre-2000) versus a 110‟
wide opening (post-2000) has enabled the floodplain north of Layton to be reduced.
Work is being done to get floodway easements from various property owners to
acknowledge the floodplain has changed. This includes five private property owners
along 99th Street, WM, Golf Center, WE Energies, MMSD, WisDOT, and Milwaukee
County. At some point in time, the City will need to make a request to the DNR and
FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMAR). Starting late last year communications
have occurred with DNR and FEMA on this matter, and a neighborhood meeting was
held this past April for the five property owners.
With this Floodplain/Floodway aspect, the City isn‟t really doing a „rezoning‟ but rather
creating an „overlay‟ designation because a “floodplain” isn‟t a type of use, at least from
staff perspective anyway. Regardless of the terminology, the fact remains is that the
City must submit the Letter of Map Revision (LOMAR), which staff supports doing.
There was some limited discussion at the last meeting about the future of the existing
building. It was indicated that WM has a separate department whose only task is to find
new (and compatible) users for their former buildings. There is the obvious concern that
“…What happens if after a few years nothing has gone it, or whatever has gone in is so
small it‟s a very limited use of the large building, when does WM take the initiative to
remove the building and then try to sell the site?....”.
The public hearings for the Special Use, the Floodway remapping, and the removal of
the 666 s.f. of wetland/shoreland area are all scheduled for the November 16th CC
meeting.
WM will be hosting a general neighborhood meeting – likely at Whitnall – on November
15th to enable people to get an idea of what the project on an overall basis is about,
including but not limited to the traffic aspect, floodway change, etc.
9-14-10 PC comments
151.12.
16
PC 11-9-10
The proposed project will require an 80-percent total suspended solids
(TSS) removal rate.
connection (FDC).

10-12-10 comments
Inspection Services Division shall approve demolition of the existing structure. Properly
Submit a Notice of Intent to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Recommend that landscaped islands be provided at the end of all parking rows.
Obtain Milwaukee County review and approval for the following:
 Driveway entrance modifications along West Layton Avenue (CTH
„Y‟).
 Sanitary sewer and water main system connections within West Layton
Avenue (CTH „Y‟) right-of-way.
 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by “R.A. Smith National”.
Related to existing storm sewer system components:
 The Division of Public Works will require the project to include certain
maintenance procedures for existing 60-inch storm sewer outfall at
northeast corner of the existing Wal-Mart parcel.
 Proposed storm sewer system shall accommodate conveyance for the
existing 18-inch pipe located within south portion of existing Wal-Mart
parking lot.
17
PC 11-9-10
11-9-10 comments
Recommend installation of curbing and landscape material on both sides of the access
drive between South 108th Street (STH „100‟) and the proposed parking lot.
Provide an ADA accessible sidewalk connection to West Layton Avenue (CTH „Y‟).
Confirm the intent to place fencing at perimeter of the proposed detention pond.
Provide the City of Greenfield with signed and sealed structural shop drawings for
proposed retaining wall prior to the start of construction.
A greater degree of separation shall be provided between the detention pond outlet
structure and the eastern storm sewer inlet. Revise this configuration to enhance
removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and avoid “short-circuit” issues.
Recommendation: Approve the Site/Building/Landscaping/Signage Review and the Certified
Survey Map subject to Plan Commission and staff comments; forward these matters to the December
7th Common Council which will enable another month for any remaining “open” items to be
addressed prior to final Common Council consideration.
Deborah Tomczyk with Reinhart, Boerner, Kerry Hardin and Pat Hawley with RA Smith, and
Jackolyn Cook-Haxby, with the Benham Companies, LLC were present to answer questions.
Mr. Erickson gave an update on the project. Ms. Hallen questioned the median access to Walgreens
and McDonalds from the southbound and WisDOT‟s proposed recommendation to close that access
point. Pat Hawley with RA Smith responded that they performed the traffic studies and this
recommendation for closing this access point was decided upon by the DOT, with Wal-Mart picking
up the cost. As a follow-up to that response, Mr. Hess asked for clarification on the traffic pattern
for entering McDonald‟s/NAPA on Hwy. 100 southbound, to which Mr. Hawley responded. Mayor
Neitzke and Ald. Kastner feel the access points along this stretch of roadway should be limited,
shifted, or even eliminated to improve upon what is currently in place. Mayor Neitzke again pointed
out the lighting at the Franklin Wal-Mart and how it really lights the parking lot well and provides
optimum security in that regard.
Mayor Neitzke spoke on how there is a strong desire to get the northern store redeveloped as quickly
as possible and one of the key considerations needs to be pedestrian access between the stores.
Currently it is proposed with parking right up against the wall on the southern edge of the building,
but it would be desirable to provide a sidewalk in this area to connect the two stores. He asked if
stamped concrete, rather than striping, could be used as a traffic calming device in front of the store,
but Ms. Tomczyk replied that Wal-Mart does not use it in the crosswalks for safety reasons.
Ald. Kastner questioned adding directional signage to clarify the entrance point to which Ms.
Tomczyk replied that McDonalds has an easement over the existing driveway so they would need to
be approached about making modifications. One of the things that Wal-Mart is looking at is
improving interconnectivity between the two sites.
Ms. Cook-Haxby spoke on the decorative fencing they are using and a canopy feature that will be
installed to add architectural interest. Also, the concrete retaining wall will be raised up from the
parking lot to offer some vehicle protection.
Mr. Weis questioned the status of the alcohol sales request to which it was replied that that item is
scheduled for public hearing on November 16. Ms. Hallen questioned the striping of the parking
stalls as shown near the north end of the parking lot to which Ms. Tomczyk replied that what is
shown, although not ideal when backing up, was what would be implemented to accommodate the
18
PC 11-9-10
restrictions of this site without loosing too many stalls, as would happen by using other layouts. The
Wal-Mart intent is that this northern area would be used by employees so the frequency of “vehicle
interactions” would be minimized.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval on the following:
- Site/Building/Landscaping/Signage Review.
- Certified Survey Map for the proposed Supercenter site and the existing Wal-Mart
store area.
for the proposed new 148,000 s.f. Wal-Mart Supercenter on a 19 acre parcel at 10600 W.
Layton Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments. Tax Key # 608-9995-006 &
608-9995-008. Motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Sponholz abstaining from voting as he
had missed the majority of the discussion due to his arrival at 7:20 p.m.
10.
Marcia Sperber, Aldi Inc., PO Box 267, Oak Creek. WI 53154 requests a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed demolition of the existing 15,000 s.f. Aldi Food Store and
then construction of a new 18,000 s.f. store at 4225 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #566-9962-002.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background: This request is the follow-up to the Conceptual Project Review which
occurred at the last PC meeting. Since 1994 Aldi has been operating in a 14,860 s.f.
building. Aldi proposes to demolish the existing store and build a new 18,000 s.f. building.
The footprint of the new building will be in approximately the same location and orientation
of the existing building. See attached project narrative.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: A color rendition is attached. The existing
building is more of a rectangular shape, while the proposed building is more square and
placed a little further west on the parcel. There is an entry-way tower element with a
„hanging‟ covered-canopy feature. The main exterior materials are a “Rubigo Red” modular
brick and window glazing. Product samples will be presented at the meeting. Aldi has
indicated that while they are interested in improving this store location as evidenced by this
plan submittal, they are not in the position to replicate the store that was constructed at 46th
and Layton.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The previous parking lot included a
116-space parking lot. The new parking lot will consist of 87 spaces with an additional 22
spaces of “land banked” parking to meet the Greenfield Parking Requirements. The access
driveways on Cold Spring Road and 108th Street will remain the same. The parking lot
layout is revised given the physical change to building footprint.
Storm Drainage (lot & building): The Wildcat Creek borders the site on the south and in
recent years Aldi has experienced several flood events of its parking lot and building. A
proposed grading plan is attached. As indicated in the narrative, part of the proposal is raise
the finished floor elevation and site 1‟ – 2‟ to help address flooding issues. The material to
„raise‟ the site is proposed to come from the west side of the property, and then the resulting
excavated area would then be converted into an 1.0 acre „dry‟ basin.
The narrative indicates that this basin could be designed to serve as some additional storage
for Wildcat overflows. Whether some type of swale is needed to enable „overflow‟ to go
into this basin will need to be reviewed because based on the landscaping plan, that
southwest corner of the site would remain as is. The excess capacity of the proposed basin
– after allowing for roof-top and loading dock area run-off, will need to be calculated. When
19
PC 11-9-10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
the Wildcat Creek overtops its banks and flood the Aldi parking lot, the storm sewer
structures in the parking lot will convey water into the storm water storage area, and then
eventually underground back to Hwy. 100. A copy of the recently completed “Wildcat
Creek Floodplain & Alternative Analysis” report has been sent to the Aldi engineering firm.
Lighting (building & site): The cut-sheets are attached for the proposed parking lot
light poles/fixtures, wall sconces, and wall-paks. The fixtures are cut-offs, with a 20‟
mounting height, and a 320 watt size. The lights that will be along the south property line
will have „back-shields‟ to minimize further light-spread toward that residential area. A
photometric layout is being prepared.
Utilities: A proposed utility plan is attached. Essentially they would continue to use
the existing sanitary/water laterals.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: Based upon the building elevation sheets, some design
amenity will be needed to better screen the roof-top HVAC units.
Signage: Two traditional “Aldi” logo signs are shown in the entry-way tower. No changes
proposed for the free-standing pylon type sign (23‟ high), although the conversion to a 14‟
high monument would be a desirable modification in the context of the overall site/building
changes. The existing pole support/electric source could remain the same and the size of
the sign (9‟ x 8‟ 72 s.f.) could remain the same, but if the overall sign were lowered and
then a base or shroud could be added to create a taller monument style.
The amount of available sign square footage is 180 s.f. [[120‟ (width of the building) X 1.5
(Sign Code multiplier) = 180]]. The two Aldi building signs are 5‟ x 6‟ = 30 s.f. x 2 = 60
s.f. + 72 s.f. = 130 s.f. total site signage.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Dumpster is proposed to be within the rear
loading dock area.
Fencing: It is proposed that the existing 6‟ high board-on-board fence would remain along
the south lot line and west of the driveway from Cold Spring.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: A proposed varied landscaping plan has been submitted
covering perimeter, foundation, parking lot island, and storm basin planting areas (i.e. see
Forester comments below). All planting sizes for deciduous trees (2 ½” – 3”) and evergreen
trees (6‟ – 8‟), and the overall „count‟ of the range of plantings meet City requirements.
Street Trees: Review is underway by Forester.
City Forester Site Inspection: Creating the storm water basin will require the clearance of
approximately one acre of trees. Aldi notes they have talked with the City Forester who has
told them that this westerly area must be replanted with trees and wetland plantings (as per
the City‟s Tree Protection and Removal Policy). Further review of the landscaping plan
underway.
Hours of Operation: Retain existing hours of operation.
Sidewalks: Provide an ADA accessible sidewalk connection to South 108th Street (STH
„100‟).
Fire Department: Building will be sprinklered. The Dept. may have other life-safety
design features as further building submittals may occur.
Outside Agencies: MMSD, Milwaukee Water
Erosion Control: Needed from City Engineering Office prior to any site work starting.
20
PC 11-9-10
20.
10-12-10 Comments
Provide a review for wetlands within undeveloped west portion of the site.
151.12.
Related to the proposed parking lot configuration:
 Five (5) handicap parking stalls are required upon future construction of
the designated “land bank” parking.
 Recommend that a landscape island be provided at the end of parking
row located near southeast corner of property.
 Provide a landscape island in the south row of designated “land bank”
parking in an effort to limit the maximum parking row to 15 stalls.
 It appears that proposed pavement areas have been shown within the
existing permanent water drainage easement noted below.
Obtain Wisconsin Department of Transportation approval for driveway entrance and
storm drainage revisions within South 108th Street (STH „100‟) right-of-way.
Obtain approval from Milwaukee Water Works for any proposed modification to the
existing water main system.
property along South 108th Street (STH „100‟). An existing 30‟ sanitary easement
(Document #4959053) encumbers southern portion of the parcel. Ensure that any
proposed signage remains outside these easements.
An existing permanent water drainage easement (Document #6388267) encumbers
southwest corner of the property.
An existing 10‟ water main easement (Document #7046593) encumbers a portion of the
east edge of property along South 108th Street (STH „100‟). A separate 20‟ water main
easement has been provided within the parcel to accommodate the existing 6-inch
building service.
11-9-10 Comments
Inspection Services Division shall approve demolition of existing structures. Properly
Submit a Notice of Intent to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for overall
land disturbance that exceeds 1-acre.
In accordance with the Greenfield Municipal Code, 12-inches of freeboard is required to
protect structures from flooding during the course of a 100-year storm event. Ensure
that overflow routes from loading dock and parking lot areas will provide adequate
freeboard protection.
Recommend the sanitary lateral to be installed straight into the proposed building. In the
event this is not practical, provide a cleanout in lieu of the proposed manhole structure.
Confirm the intent to provide public or private water main within the project site.
hydrant.
21
PC 11-9-10
Marcia Sperber was present to answer questions. Ald. Kastner questioned the hours that deliveries
can occur to which Ms. Sperber replied that they have no limitations at their existing store but they
could set a schedule if desired. Ald. Kastner requested that specific times of 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
for deliveries and garbage pickup by incorporated into their special use. Ald. Kastner questioned if
there would be improvements to the tattered portions of fencing to which Ms. Sperber replied that
they would make sure that any deteriorating area is repaired.
Mr. Erickson stated that a correction was needed to the staff notes that the light fixture mounting
height needs to change from 20‟ to 25‟. At this time Mayor Neitzke asked Ms. Sperber if that was
high enough. She said she thought these fixtures were 30‟ high. Ald. Kastner said that it‟s important
to remember that there are four single family parcels immediately to the south. Ms. Sperber
mentioned that the parking lot lights are turned off one hour after the store closes to the public.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Ms. Hallen to recommend approval of a Site, Building,
Landscaping Review for a proposed demolition of the existing 15,000 s.f. Aldi Food Store and
then construction of a new 18,000 s.f. store at 4225 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission
and staff comments, and with the fencing to be repaired as required, and with the change in
height of the light fixtures as proposed from 20‟ to not higher than the existing light fixtures
which are upto 30‟, and authorize this item to be expedited to the November 16th Common
Council meeting. Tax Key #566-9962-002. Motion carried unanimously.
11.
Stephen Jeske, AIA – haag muller, inc., 101 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1, Port Washington, WI
53074 requests a Special Use Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for a proposed
demolition of the existing 4,400 s.f. Solid Gold McDonalds Restaurant and then construction of
a new 5,000 s.f. McDonalds Restaurant at 5040 S. 76th Street, Tax Key #617-9975-029 &
617-9975-031.
1.
2.
3.
Background: As a follow-up to the Conceptual Project Review at the October PC,
McDonalds proposes a project to remove and replace the existing building with a new 5,000
s.f. structure and also modify some site features. See attached letter. Other modifications
include minor curb changes, a new patio on the east end of the property, adding
greenspace/landscaping, and updating the free-standing sign.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The proposed structure is an all brick
building with stone arcade features and hearth capped with architectural metal roof elements.
The arcades are illuminated with an LED strip light. Awnings are metal with integral light
bands; and the trellis and accent band are galvanized aluminum.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The existing driveway will be kept
with a new drive-thru design to increase vehicle stacking capability. This is done to
eliminate vehicle back ups onto 76th street and increase safety for patrons and motorists on
76th. The proposed parking stall count is reduced from 74 to 50. The ZC requirement for
restaurants with a drive-thru is 20/1,000 of building area (5 x 20 = 100 stalls). Information
from McDonalds that this stall shortage and/or actual loss is „okay‟ with today‟s fast-food
restaurant operations will be needed. The lot includes two (2) handicapped spaces. A 15‟
wide by-pass lane is provided along the north side of the lot.
Further site plan review has occurred by Milw. County and the initially proposed egress
from the southwest corner of the parking lot onto 76th, is not allowed due to multiple traffic
safety concerns this was rejected. Patrons will continue to ingress at the southwest corner
and egress at the northwest corner of the site only.
22
PC 11-9-10
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): As per basic requirements, the roof-top and
site are properly directed/drained to the underground storm main system as identified on the
submittal. Further Engineering review comments below are pertinent to this category.
Lighting (building & site): With frontage along 76th Street, the need to include some
Shepard Hook style parking lot lights will be needed. It is possible that a combination of
some decorative fixtures and some „shoe-box‟ fixtures could occur to provide a better “light
level spread”. A lighting layout plan is being prepared based upon the use of all Shepard
Hook style fixtures, and will be distributed upon receipt.
Utilities: A preliminary utility plan has been prepared and is attached. Further
Engineer-related comments are listed below.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: A parapet-type wall is shown on the building design which
would likely provide some HVAC screening. To what extent would need to be identified
with follow-up plans. If sufficient screening isn‟t provided, then that aspect will need to be
added.
Signage: The sign cabinet lighting is proposed to be replaced with an energy efficient
LED solid state lighting and replace the cabinet „face‟ so it only reads „McDonalds‟ (i.e.
“Solid Gold” is removed). The static reader board is proposed to be replaced by an
electronic reader board. In preliminary discussions with McDonald‟s reps., staff indicated
that as part of a Special Use Amendment process (i.e. „major‟ change → new construction),
it‟s not uncommon that efforts are made to address legal, non-conforming elements of a
proposed improved parcel. In this case, that would be the 28‟ high free-standing sign
installed in 1995. Conversion to potentially a taller monument would be a desirable
modification. This element was discussed extensively at the Conceptual Review.
A proposed signage related change is to retain the same structure, but add 14‟(high) x 6‟
(wide) x 4‟(deep) masonry “wrap” around the support pole. The materials are the same as
used on the building. The electronic reader board is on this element. Mr. Jeske has
indicated that the +14‟ clearance under the sign is sufficient for all truck traffic which may
need to be on-site.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): The dumpster location is shifted to the SE
corner of the parcel. Given that the proposed layout shows that stacking lane traffic goes
thru the dumpster enclosure pad area and given the 24/7 hours of operation for the drivethru, how is the refuse ever collected (i.e. short of for simply stopping drive-thru for a
limited time)? A „service door‟ will be provided on the east side of the enclosure after the
adjacent storage shed space is shifted and/or reduced in size.
Fencing: A decorative railing is along the east side of the stacking lanes adjacent to
the outside patio area.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: Mr. Jeske‟s memo states the new layout will provide a 5 foot
landscape buffer on the north and south and a 15 foot buffer along the west. Overall
there is an increase of landscaped area to approx 18% of the site. The existing landscaping –
including four trees – is retained along the west side of the parcel. Depending upon the
species, the proposed tree planting sizes may need to be increased: from 2” – 2.5” to 2.5” –
3”; and from 5‟- 6‟ to 6‟ – 8‟. Overall a varied plan is provided which includes foundation
and perimeter plantings.
During the staff review process a suggestion was made to potentially „shift‟ the building pad
easterly at least 10‟, mainly for the purpose of expanding the front foundation planting area
but at the same time without creating what would be believed to be a major
23
PC 11-9-10
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
“stacking/ordering/payment drive-thru” processing problem. The current plan has
landscaped areas west (10‟ wide) and east (30‟ wide) of the building. Further review of this
idea needs to be discussed.
Hours of Operation: No change – drive-thru currently has approval to be 24/7.
Sidewalks: A pedestrian access to the 76th St. sidewalk is provided.
Fire Department: Given the size and nature of the use, the building will need to be
sprinklered.
Outside Agencies: Milwaukee County requirements are such that when there are any
proposed modifications to parcels which have direct access to a County Trunk Highway (76th
Street), then their DPW/Transportation Division will need to review any proposals, and that
initial process has occurred.
Erosion Control: Approval required from the City Engineering Dept. prior to any site work
proceeding.
Miscellaneous: Clarification needed on the anticipated staging in relation to keeping the
site and existing building “open” during construction of the new building.
10-12-10 Comments
151.12.
An existing 10‟ sanitary easement (per CSM #1570) encumbers the west edge of
property along South 76th Street (CTH „U‟). Ensure that any proposed signage remains
outside this easement.
An existing 10‟ storm sewer easement (per CSM #1570 and #4168) encumbers parcel
#617-9975-029 along the east property line. An existing 20‟ drainage easement
(Document #5598095) encumbers parcel #617-9975-031 along the west property line.
11-9-10 Comments
Obtain Milwaukee County review and approval for driveway entrance modification and
utility connections within South 76th Street (CTH „U‟) right-of-way.
Review and approval is necessary from Milwaukee Water Works for connection to the
existing 16-inch water main located within South 76th Street (CTH „U‟).
hydrant. It appears necessary to situate a private fire hydrant upon the site. Contact the
Greenfield Fire Department for confirmation.
Related to the proposed sanitary sewer system:
 Utilize the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral connection.
 The sanitary sewer manhole frame shall not be located within the curb
line at south entrance drive.
 Private storm sewer structures shall not be located within the existing
storm sewer and drainage easements at rear of property.
24
PC 11-9-10


Direct connections to the existing 30-inch public storm sewer (CMP)
will not be allowed. Recommend that existing connections located
downstream of Catch Basins #1506 and #1513 be utilized for
conveyance of on-site drainage.
In the event that existing connections are undersized, recommend the
full replacement of 30-inch storm sewer between northeast and
southeast parking lot corners. Pipe replacement material shall be
reinforced concrete. Where necessary, provide direct “Kor-N-Tee”
water-tight connections to the 30-inch public storm sewer.
Recommendation: Approve request(s) subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize the public hearing process to proceed considering this request as a „major change‟.
Stephen Jeske, architect with haag muller, inc., and Ernie Masucci, president of McEssy Investment
Company (owner), were present to answer questions and gave a review of the site plan changes.
There will be an additional 17 feet added to the building to accommodate the increased business they
expect, and how they will be now have about 17-18% greenspace compared with the 7.37% of
greenspace they currently have.
Ald. Kastner questioned that since hag muller designed the Burlington McDonalds and it has
attractive signage, why not have that style of signage here. Mr. Jeske responded that they did make
modifications to the 76th Street sign by adding a masonry base with the same stone and brick as is
being used on the building. Mr. Masucci reiterated that there is not an inexpensive solution to a
“concession” in keeping the sign/bringing the sign in line with the architectural feel of the building.
Ald. Kastner said he feels the signage style used at the Burlington McDonalds is more suited to
visibility along 76th Street. Mayor Neitzke stated that he understands Ald. Kastner‟s position on the
signage issue.
Motion by Ms. Hallen, seconded by Mr. Sponholz to recommend approval of a Special Use
Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for a proposed demolition of the existing
4,400 s.f. Solid Gold McDonalds Restaurant and then construction of a new 5,000 s.f.
McDonalds Restaurant at 5040 S. 76th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and authorize the public hearing process to proceed. Tax Key #617-9975-029 & 617-9975-031.
Motion carried 6-1 with Ald. Kastner voting no.
12.
Michael Welman, Welman Architects, 21675 Long View Drive, Waukesha, WI 53186, on
behalf of Vishal Lal of Advanced Pain Management, requests a Site/Building/Landscaping
Review for the purpose of constructing a three-story addition to the High Point office building
at 4131 W. Loomis Road; total square footage of the addition is 17,170 s.f., Tax Key #600-1001.
1.
Background: Mr. Lal is proposing to construct a three-story 17,170 square foot addition
onto the east side of the its existing 50,000 square foot High Point building. See attached
Description of Proposal. The top-floor of the building addition will be occupied by the
Sleep Lab. The remaining two-floors of the building addition do not have tenants identified
at this time. The plan submittal includes sheets with a reference to “Alternate 1”, which
pertains to the possibility of additional parking on a second Maynard parcel to the north (see
Item #3 for further detail).
25
PC 11-9-10
2.
3.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The exterior of the building is proposed to
match the existing building by using the same masonry materials and exterior design. A
color rendition is included in the submittal, and product samples will be presented at the
meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: Part of the Description of Proposal
provides some background on the High Point Parking Count analysis which the property
owner had been doing over the past couple of months. The intention is to identify that the
combination of the building use times (i.e. 8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.),
along with what stall count is available now on-site and also added to the north, provides
sufficient parking for the businesses at this location.
According to this Description, there is a current easement agreement with Maynard‟s Auto
Service to allow 38 parking spaces on the immediately adjacent property to the north. This
proposal adds 26 parking spaces on this same Maynard property (i.e. aerial photo indicates
that these spaces are already in-place. Alternative #1 adds 13 parking spaces on the
next Maynard parcel to the north (i.e. which also serves at the location for the existing
driveway to/from a Loomis Road and a corresponding median cut. With Alternative #1
there will be 227 parking slots, without Alternative #1 there will be 214 parking slots.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Clarification needed as to what “triggers” proceeding with the actual Alternative #1
improvement, and that the easement agreement has or will be amended to add 26 stalls.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): The new layout „exchanges‟ parking lot
with building roof-top, and therefore does not increase the rate of runoff through impervious
cover. All drainage will continue to use the existing storm collection system and retention
basin. Some relatively minor changes shown to the storm main layout.
Lighting (building & site): A photometric layout and fixture schedule is included with the
submittal. The wattage and mounting heights are fine, but a copy of the fixture cut-sheets
still needed to ensure down-lighting „cut-off‟ fixtures are being used. With Alternative 1,
the light poles need to be shifted into the proposed landscape islands and then the light pole
bases are 6” above grade, not 3‟.
Utilities: A utility plan is included in the submittal, but there are no changes proposed for
water and sanitary service which will connect from the existing building.
HVAC/Utility Box Screening: A metal roof screen is provided on the new building.
Signage: No changes anticipated, but there may be some sign(s) relocated that presently are
on the east side of the building.
Dumpster/Screening/Gated (materials used): Will use existing enclosure.
Landscaping/Buffer Yard: The proposed landscaping plan identifies both „new
plantings‟ and „relocated plantings‟ to occur given the nature of the project.
Operation: The Sleep Lab is approximately 8 pm to 8 am Monday through Friday and
everything else is 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday.
Sidewalks: There needs to be clarification on the grading next to the rear handicapped
stalls. It‟s uncertain whether the curb is at-grade, or some type of ramp is needed.
A 50‟ long section of walkway is shown to provide „cleaner‟ access to/from the Maynard
parcel for presumably the employees who are parking in this area.
26
PC 11-9-10
15.
16.
Fire Department: The new building area will be sprinklered, and there may be other life
safety items the FD will consider.
11-9-10 Comments
Provide a calculation to quantify the increase or decrease in impervious coverage under
the proposed conditions.
Provide a 24‟ drive aisle width to accommodate two-way traffic at south end of
additional parking rows located upon the Maynard‟s Auto Service parcel (immediately
adjacent to the proposed sidewalk interconnection between both parking lots).
Related to handicap parking provisions:
 Per the Greenfield Municipal Code, a total of 7 handicap spaces are
required.
 The proposed handicap parking location along the east side of the
building addition does not provide a viable ADA accessible route to the
main vestibule entrance.
 In accordance with ADA requirements, provide a maximum pavement
slope of 2-percent for the handicap accessible parking area.
Related to the “Site Grading Plan”:
 Show the existing contours.
 Verify proposed grades along east face of the building addition. These
grades appear much lower than the entry door.
Prepare a site erosion control plan.
The “Alternate #1” parking lot area will trigger the need to prepare an addendum to the
previously approved “Storm Water Management Plan for High Point”. Additional
detention storage will be required for the disturbance limits.
The approved engineering plans for High Point indicate two private fire hydrants
situated near northwest and northeast corners of the building. Per a recent site, it was
determined that these hydrants were never installed. The hydrants were necessary to
meet requirements for spacing from the fire department connection (FDC) and full
perimeter building coverage. Recommend the following initiatives to address these
deficiencies:
 Install fire hydrant at existing 8-inch water main within West Loomis
Road (STH „36‟) right-of-way. Preferred hydrant location is
immediately adjacent and north of the public sidewalk connection,
which is within 150-feet of the existing fire department connection
(FDC).
 Install fire hydrant at existing 6-inch water main, within an easement
upon the adjacent Maynard‟s Auto Service parcel. Preferred hydrant
location is within landscape island north of the Community Bank
canopy, which will provide perimeter coverage for the building
addition.
 Obtain Wisconsin Department of Transportation approval for fire
hydrant connection within West Loomis Road (STH „36‟) right-of-way
 Review and approval is necessary from Milwaukee Water Works for
proposed fire hydrant connections.
Confirm that domestic water and sanitary sewer service for the building addition can be
obtained by interior means.
27
PC 11-9-10
Roof drains for existing structure discharge east to underground storm sewer located
within the building addition footprint area. Verify storm sewer demolition requirements
in this vicinity.
Vishal Lal and Michael Welman were present to answer questions. Discussion followed on how it is
desired to obtain a cross-easement with Maynard‟s for the additional parking stalls. Also, curbing
would be added to this “additional” area so it‟s comparable to what was done four years ago.
Ald. Kastner said he is not comfortable with using such a valuable parcel of land as a parking lot and
perhaps, as we are going the route of a three story building, we should be looking into using parking
garages instead. Mayor Neitzke said at this point in time this is probably the best that can be done
with this land in order to move forward with “improvements” like this third story addition.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Site/Building/
Landscaping Review for the purpose of constructing a three-story addition to the High Point
office building at 4131 W. Loomis Road; total square footage of the addition is 17,170 s.f.,
subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and to include the improvements to provide
for the additional parking lot on the Maynard parcel(s) to the north, and authorize this
item to be expedited to the November 16th Common Council meeting. Tax Key #600-1001,
600-9962-001, and 600-9960-003. Motion carried unanimously.
13.
David Lehman – AIA, 1166 Quail Court, Suite 400, Pewaukee, WI 53072, on behalf of Sahera
Abukhamireh, Kids N‟ Care, 7424 W. Forest Home Avenue requests a Special Use
Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the purpose of adding a second floor to
the Kids N‟ Care building to be used as a gym, Tax Key #604-9983.
1.
2.
3.
Background: Kids N Care, a child care center, is currently operating at this location. The
owner seeks a second floor addition to accompany the remodeling of the first floor.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The basic plan for the second floor is to
create a 600 sq foot gym, storage space, a convenience center, and two bathrooms. The
entire second floor will be 1,070 square feet. The second floor exterior is proposed to be
Hardi-plank siding with dimensional asphalt roof shingles with a hip roof design. Product
samples will be presented at the meeting.
Another revision is to reduce the west setback to approx. 9‟ in order to add an exit
staircase(s); 10‟ is the C-4 side yard setback.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: No change proposed. 8 spaces are
currently in place. The ZC parking requirement for day-care uses is 1 space per employee,
plus 1 space per 10 children. Clarification needed on the number of employees and children
involved now at the center, along with then the anticipated increase – if any – associated
with the building expansion. If over 30 persons are expected in the gym area at peak
periods, the building inspector might recommend another exit from this second story.
Furthermore, clarification also needed on whether or not the ability of employees to park at
the “Rogan Shoe” center is still in-place.
28
PC 11-9-10
4.
5.
Fire Department: Sprinkling of the building: the threshold for a Type 5 Commercial
building such as this is when it‟s over 3,000 square feet, it needs to be sprinklered. This
building is over that threshold with all three floors combined (1,530 + 2,255 + 1,070 = 4,855
s.f.). Assistant Chief Steve Bauer will be contacted about the sprinkler system.
The stairwell expansion on west side of the building will require the relocation of an
existing yard drain.
public hearing process to proceed; action on the Site/Building/Landscaping aspect would occur at the
same Common Council meeting when the public hearing is held.
David Lehman, the architect, and Sahera Abukhamireh owner Kids N‟ Care, were present to answer
questions. Mayor Neitzke complimented how the site has really come a long way and looks great, to
which Ald. Kastner replied that recognition should go to both the Plan Commission for their
recommendations and to the owner for following through on them.
It was discussed how the second floor area would accommodate about 10-15 people and staff would
utilize the Rogan‟s Shoes parking lot, although no formal agreement exists for this, only a verbal
agreement.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Hess to recommend approval a Special Use
Amendment/Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the purpose of adding a second floor to
the Kids N‟ Care building at 7424 W. Forest Home Avenue, subject to Plan Commission and
staff comments, and authorize the public hearing process to proceed. Tax Key #604-9983.
14.
Aquatics Unlimited, 3550 S. 108th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228, represented by Vince
Milewski, Milwaukee Architects & Planners, 10859 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 200,
Milwaukee, WI 53226 requests a Site, Building, Landscaping Review for the purpose of
installing a „green roof‟ and doing other site changes, Tax Key 562-9979-001.
Item held over.
15.
Mr. Erickson made note to the Zoning Code and how he‟d like a review conducted of the SIC Code
portion of the Zoning Code during 2011 to update the basis from which Special Uses and Permitted
Uses are categorized.
16.
Motion by Mr. Sponholz, seconded by Ms. Collins to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
17.
December 14, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed November 24, 2010
29
PC 11-9-10
GREENFIELD CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL:
Ald. Karl Kastner
Mr. Brian Weis
Ms. Denise Collins
Mr. Frederick Hess
Ms. Christine Hallen (alt.)
Mr. Bradley Sponholz (alt.)
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Excused
Excused
ALSO PRESENT:
2.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ms. Collins to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2010
Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Dorszynski abstaining.
3.
Discussion regarding the Common Council meeting held on November 16th & December 7th. At the
November 16th meeting approval was granted for the following pertaining to the Super Walmart
(Hwy. 100 & Layton): the Root River floodway proposal, to request the removal of wetland area,
and the allowance of a liquor department. Also approved was the site/building/landscaping for the
Aldi re-build (Hwy. 100 & Cold Spring) and the site/building/landscaping for the Highpoint Office
Building Addition (41st & Loomis).
At the December 7th meeting the rezoning and Comp Plan change requests for Elizabeth Place (97th
& Cold Spring) were approved, along with the PUD amendment and site/building/landscape plan for
the Froedtert medical office building (Hwy. 100/Budget Cinema Site), the special use for Brew City
tattoo (Hwy. 100 & Layton), and the site/building/landscaping plan for the Super Walmart.
4.
Suite One, Milwaukee, WI 53226 requests a Certified Survey Map approval for a two acre
parcel to be used for a 20,000 s.f. medical office building on the northerly portion of the Budget
Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #609-9994-006.
1.
Background: The Irgens/Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin professional office
building development was approved by the CC on December 7th (i.e. as previously
recommended by the PC). This request for a CSM to “split-out” the Irgens portion is a
natural step in the development process.
The size of Irgens parcel (Lot 1 at 89,500 s.f. with 318‟ of frontage) easily exceeds the C-4
Commercial minimum lot size requirements of 40,000 s.f. with 150‟ of frontage. The
Budget parcel (Lot 2 at 4.6 acres and +500‟ of frontage) exceeds those minimums as well.
1
PC 12-14-10
2.
Recommendation: Approve subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this
matter to be expedited to the December 21st Common Council meeting.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to recommend approval of a Certified
Survey Map for a two acre parcel to be used for a 20,000 s.f. medical office building on the
northerly portion of the Budget Cinema parcel, 4475 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan
Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the December 21st
Common Council meeting. Tax Key #609-9994-006. Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Vimal Kapila, 4710 LLC, 4710 S. 108th Street, Greenfield, WI 53228 requests a Special Use
Review as the new business/property owner of the existing Greenfield 66 gas/convenience store
at 4710 S. 108th Street, Tax Key #613-8995.
1.
2.
3.
Background: 4710 LLC has acquired the property and business at this “Greenfield 66”
gas station/convenience store. All aspects of previous ownership will remain the same
except hours-of-operation.
Hours of Operation: Proposed: Daily 5:00 a.m.–Midnight. Current: 5:00 a.m.–10:30 p.m.
Miscellaneous: An occupancy permit inspection scheduled for Dec. 9th.
Mr. Kapila was present to answer questions. He stated that he also operates the gas station at 68th &
Forest Home. Ald. Kastner spoke on how the last time a change of ownership was granted, there
was temporary signage up that stayed up a lot longer than the 30 day window. Mr. Erickson
responded that that issue ended up being addressed with the assistance of the code enforcement
officer. It was then requested of Mr. Kapila to remove existing election signs and maintain the
landscaping to which he agreed to do so.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Ms. Collins to recommend approval of a Special Use Review
for Vimal Kapila as the new business/property owner of the existing Greenfield 66
gas/convenience store at 4710 S. 108th Street, subject to Plan Commission and staff comments,
and authorize this item to be expedited to the December 21st Common Council meeting. Tax
Key #613-8995. Motion carried unanimously.
2
PC 12-14-10
6.
Dale Joswick, Lamar Advertising, 2809 S. Fifth Court, Milwaukee, WI 53207, requests a Sign
Waiver to convert the south face of the existing billboard located at 3200 S. 103rd Street
(Knights of Columbus) from a ‘static’ face to an ‘electronic changeable message’ face; the
north face conversion was approved in 2008, Tax Key #524-8986-009.
1.
Background: Lamar has had a two-sided billboard on the KC lot for many years. In 2008
they received approval from the City and KC‟s about converting the north side from a
„static‟ face to an „electronic changeable message‟ face. The request now is to make the
same conversion on the south 14‟ x 48‟ static face and replace it with the exact same size
electronic changeable message sign. Lamar proposes this sign rotate messages between six
(6) different “spots” at 8 second intervals. The advertisements are all static messages.
Attached is a 11/17/10 background letter from Lamar regarding this request, along with an
excerpt of the 11/11/08 PC minutes, pictures of the current south face, and a 9/25/07 letter
from the Federal Highway Administration regarding duration of messages, brightness,
billboard spacing, etc. The Lamar letter makes a reference to the City of Milwaukee
requirements which had adopted eight (8) seconds as their standard time between message
changes. The Federal Highway Administration declares they do not view the way to
messages change on Lamar‟s current LED bulletin signs in Milwaukee as “flashing”. The
Outdoor Advertising Association of American recommends that light produced by a digital
(LED) board should not exceed 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels. Other markets
across the country generally fall into the following ranges: No more than 5000 “nits
(candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and no more than 500 “nits” at night. The
City of Milwaukee has targeted this range.
2.
3.
Lamar‟s digital signs are controlled by cell light sensor whereby they can adjust brightness
levels to meet code requirements.
Signage: The expectation is that respective heights of the north and south „electronic‟ faces
will be an identical height above grade.
Miscellaneous: A copy of this PC agenda and staff comments was sent to the KC property
as a FYI. Apparently the 2008 agreement between the KC‟s and Lamar included a reference
to the future possibility of this south-face-conversion be done at some point.
Kurt Weis was representing Lamar as Mr. Joswick was handling a family funeral matter.
Mr. Dorszynski questioned why this wasn‟t done at the time they did the “north” side to which
Mr. Weis replied that at that time they were only allowed to do that one sign. Mr. Dorszynski also
questioned how many other Lamar billboards are in Greenfield to which Mr. Weis responded it has
two of the “face” type signs. Mayor Neitzke reviewed the south side visibility features and how the
“northern” face of this sign has no negative impact on residents. Mr. Dorszynski reviewed the City‟s
past history with Lamar in regard to the billboard that was at Hwy. 100 & Beloit and commented that
he finds it disheartening that the City had to ask numerous times for removal of that sign, and only
when that Lamar was seeking this type of sign earlier, then the Hwy. 100 & Beloit sign came down.
Mr. Erickson then gave some background information on the Hwy. 100 & Beloit sign as to the lease
agreements that were in place and how both sides were under obligation to comply. It was stated
that this lease agreement with Knights of Columbus is for 15 years.
3
PC 12-14-10
Ald. Kastner asked if any contact had been made by Lamar with the KC‟s. Mr. Weis said that
Mr. Joswick had at least one conversation with the KC‟s representative. Mayor Neitzke stated that
the most adjacent residential property owner (Kay Styza) which is east of I-894, is aware that the
sign will be going up and does not object.
Motion by Mr. Weis, seconded by Mr. Hess to recommend approval of a Sign Waiver to
convert the south face of the existing billboard located at 3200 S. 103rd Street (Knights of
Columbus) from a ‘static’ face to an ‘electronic changeable message’ face; (Note: the north
face conversion was approved in 2008), subject to Plan Commission and staff comments, and
authorize this item to be expedited to the December 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key
7.
Professional Consultants, 300 Cottonwood Avenue, #7, Hartland, WI 53029 on behalf of the
Boucher Group, 4141 S. 108th Street, requests a Site/Building/Landscaping Review as part of a
project to remodel the exterior of the former Saturn dealership to Nissan Automotive
requirements, Tax Key #566-9960-001.
1.
2.
3.
Background: The Nissan Automotive Dealership proposes to remodel exterior elements
and to update to corporate specifications from the former Saturn dealership motif. Exterior
modifications include the relocation of building signage and updates to free-standing
signage. The proposal also includes a new front building addition for its showroom. The
interior modifications include constructing new stud walls to accommodate the new office
set-up.
Although the range of work done on-site wasn‟t the same, Schlossmann‟s Honda and JohnPaul‟s Buick are two recent Greenfield businesses which were approved to undertake similar
modifications as also requested/required by auto companies of their dealership franchises.
Architectural Review/Exterior Materials: The existing front show room „foot-print‟ will
be modified on the site plan comparisons. The new showroom will be constructed onto the
east elevation. Silver metallic ACM cladding and Nissan Red ACM panel is used on the
showroom façade. New storefront windows will be clear glazing and silver trimming is used
to match with façade. Silver metallic steel ribbed panel is used on the service garage façade.
See sheet A2.1 for further details. The west, or rear, elevation uses the existing light gray
paint and the garage door will be painted the same color. Windows are interspersed along
the façade.
The showroom silver cladding is also visible from the north and south elevations. Two
garage doors on the north elevation are painted light gray. The materials on both elevations
remain consistent with the rest of the building. Ten doorways are counted with the main
customer entrances located on the east and north elevations. A color rendering and material
samples will be presented at the meeting.
Parking/Traffic Flow/Access/Curbed Parking Lot: The parking layout (C1.1) remains
fairly consistent with the existing site (C1.0). Although with the proposed showroom
„footprint‟ change, five new customer parking spaces and one handicapped accessible space
are adjacent to the new showroom (east) elevation. The customer service garage entrance
has new paving paint to indicate access points. A circular landscape and flag-pole island
will be removed to ease access for customers driving through the lot. The proposed parking
layout designates Vehicle Display, Customer Parking, Inventory Parking, and Service
Parking lanes.
4
PC 12-14-10
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Storm Drainage/Grading (lot & building): Earlier this summer Boucher graded some
drainage swales from their parking lot into the wooded area on the northerly portion of its
parcel. Two swales were also designed to run overflow water into the landscaped area.
See Engineering Comments for further review.
Signage: Three building signs are relocated along the east façade: “Service” (17 sq ft),
“Gordie Boucher” (52 sq ft), and “Nissan” (45 sq ft). The latter two signs are internally
illuminated while “Service” has individual illuminated letters. There is also an internally
illuminated 70” main Nissan brand symbol located above the front entranceway.
The main freestanding pylon sign (80 sq ft) will only include the Nissan brand symbol. The
other freestanding pylon sign (38 sq ft) will read “Nissan Pre-Owned Vehicles”. Both
pylons are located along 108th/Highway 100 at entrance driveways.
Erosion Control: Permit needed from City Engineering Office prior to any construction
work beginning.
Miscellaneous: Other site/building modifications include electric-car charging docks near
the front of the building, most likely in anticipation of the new Nissan LEAF electricpowered automobile.
Per the Greenfield Municipal Code, a total of 2 handicap spaces are required based upon
the customer and employee parking count provided upon the site.
Several drainage swales have recently been constructed adjacent to the existing wooded
area located at northern portion of the property. One of these swales appears to drain
directly north toward the adjacent VICI property, ultimately discharging into their
detention pond. This detention pond was not sized to accommodate runoff from the
swale. The north end of the swale should be filled in an effort to ensure that runoff is
conveyed to the wooded area and not to the VICI detention pond.
An existing 20‟ wide water main easement (W.E. #801) encumbers the subject property
along the north face of building and through the parking lot to South 108th Street (STH
„100‟).
An existing 20‟ wide water main easement (W.E. #907) encumbers the subject property
along the west edge of parking lot to the adjacent VICI property.
item to be expedited to the December 21st Common Council meeting.
Keane & Chad Kemnitz with Professional Consultants were present to answer. Keane Kemnitz said
they are okay with the drainage changes as recommended by staff. Lengthy discussion followed
about storm drainage problems in the area along Hwy. 100, where both VICI Beauty and Boucher
are experiencing water problems since the water comes from Hwy. 100, then up and over the
curbing. There have been several “one hundred year storms” in the past several years that have
shown the severity of this problem. At the Boucher site, the parking lot was designed to act as a sort
of “detention pond” in helping retain some of this water; however it is then being forced onto the
VICI site when major storms occur. Discussion occurred on how with the natural storm water flow
and the limitations of the storm system in Hwy. 100, there isn‟t an artificial change (i.e. retention
basin or more catch basins) that can fix things.
5
PC 12-14-10
Mayor Neitzke spoke on how there are simply not enough budget dollars available to help alleviate,
let alone solve Root River flooding issues and also spoke on how Boucher is not adding any
additional impervious surface, therefore they do not need to make provisions to comply with the new
stormwater management regulations. Ald. Kastner pointed out that even the stormwater
management regulations wouldn‟t solve the volume of water from the Root River overflow
happening on the Boucher and VICI sites.
Keane Kemnitz then spoke on the planned $900,000 of exterior & interior changes they will be
making. Mayor Neitzke stressed that he is happy Boucher has brought this dealership to Greenfield
rather than West Allis.
Site/Building/Landscaping Review as part of a project to remodel the exterior of the former
Saturn dealership located at 4141 S. 108th Street to Nissan Automotive requirements, subject
to Plan Commission and staff comments, and authorize this item to be expedited to the
December 21st Common Council meeting. Tax Key #566-9960-001. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
Community Development Director Report
Mr. Erickson spoke on how Aquatics Unlimited (Hwy. 100/Beloit area) has secured a grant from
MMSD for a green roof project. The grant covers 50% of the overall cost of the project, with the
balance being hoped to be recovered by Aquatics Unlimited via reduced utility costs. Materials were
distributed to Plan Commission members on the green roof being planned.
9.
Motion by Mayor Neitzke, seconded by Mr. Weis to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Motion
10.
January 11, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Alison J. Meyer
Recording Secretary
Distributed December 20, 2010
6
PC 12-14-10

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - 2010

Transcription

Similar documents

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

BRP Flyer - III_13-ENG.indd

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

Flämingstrasse

AA Map - Mother`s Day 5K

Schottenstein Center