VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 21 POSTED ON: 5/1/2010
MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 6:30 p.m. Waukesha City Hall, 201 Delafield Street, Common Council Chambers Members Present: Mayor Carol J. Lombardi, Ron Lambert, Mike Crowley, Carol LePien, Ald. Carrol Waldenberger, Ald. Joan Francoeur Members Absent: John Mindiola Staff Present: Mike Hoeft, David Kopp, Doug Koehler, Paul Feller, Paul Day, Brian Charlesworth, Lori Friedrich Others Present: Justin Pelej, Mark Herr, Steve Dasher, James Valentine, Tony Zulli, Geoffrey Slomann, Dennis Carlson, Jon A. Mielke, Russel Stewart, Ald. Fowle, Dina Fowle, Greg Walsh Mayor Lombardi opened the meeting at 6:33 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVE MINUTES: There were no minutes to be approved. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – OUTLOT DEVELOPMENT AT GRANDVIEW PLAZA (QDOBA)– A request from the Redmond Company and Mike Pranke to consider approving revisions to the final plans for a new 6,575 sq. ft. multi tenant retail building on an outlot in the Grandview Plaza development. Located south of Silvernail Rd. and west of N. Grandview Blvd. (2-E-6) Mr. Kopp started out by telling them that final plans for this project had been approved on May 26, 2004. The developer was back now, asking to be allowed to revise the appearance of the building. He told them that the original plan for the 6,575 sq. ft. building showed as many as 4 tenants, and the size or location of the building would not be changed here. Instead, they were looking to save money by turning to the use of a different architecture and materials. Mr. Kopp went on to state that the approved design of the Qdoba building had deliberately been very different from the rest of the Grandview Plaza complex, and that the Plan Commission had seemed to enjoy the fact that it was so different. The building had featured a very eclectic, almost “space age” look and the materials they had selected to go with that design had served to reinforce that perception. The Plan Commission’s Staff had analyzed the proposed changes and was being candid when it said that it had some strong doubts that this was the right direction to go here. The renderings of the original design had been pinned up next to the new version, and he referred to them while he spoke. There were a lot of features on the building including the roof lines, the glass, variable entries, and inverted roof lines across the backside of the building. There were a lot of features that made this a very attractive building. Even the rear of building was attractive, since everyone would be seeing the back of the building, when coming through the drive-through window. The inverted roof line was one of the key features of the site. The HVAC rooftop units were hidden behind the parapet wall, and the esthetics of the design were to be enhanced even further with some decorative sconce lighting on the front and sides of the building. Staff did like the design because it was a very different looking building. The materials were shown as 4 inch brick with decorative split faced concrete masonry units on the back of the building that were going to be painted to match. They were intending to carry the general color theme of the Grandview Plaza Shopping Center throughout this building even though it is going to look so different. They were going to have some shiny metal prefinished panels. The PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 2 storefront windows were going to be fairly standard and the decorative wall sconces added a nice touch. The new proposal shows some similarities to the building but a lot of big changes. The roofline in the area on the Qdoba has changed dramatically. The long broad plane that had covered about a third of the building is no longer there. They have tried to compensate for that by using a composite material that is kind of a dark red/brown color. The next portion of the building has also under gone a great change. There is still a lot of glass being used in the front. On the back (west) side of the building one of the conditions of approval asked for were the addition of some form of texture and variety across what had once been a very plain facade. The architects had been asked to add some nice brick piers across the length of this key facade, in order to ‘break up’ the west elevation and to match what was being used on the front (east) facade. They have now added them and they are shown on the back with a little bit of composite material coming down from the roof to meet the tops of the piers. The piers that were on the front, and that had caused Staff to ask that these piers should be requested to add variability, texture and everything else have now disappeared off of the front of the building. The front panel now has utility brick and concrete panels, with rolled steel panels being used for the signage across the front. However, they are not carrying that treatment throughout the other facades, which is not acceptable to Staff. If the Plan Commission was to approve the revision, Staff will ask that some changes be made to this plan. The louvers are not defined but Staff is assuming they are to be metal. The central entry area and the composite siding in red, does not have a description. The same material is also being used on the north face of the building. Instead of carrying the utility brick and concrete panels around to the rear of the building, they have left the rear to be very plain block. Staff’s recommendation is that if the Plan Commission gives them approval for the revised building, that the backside of the building should be treated with the same materials as the front. There is going to be full exposure of the building on all 4 sides. There is now a question of the rooftop mechanicals, as the parapet wall has been diminished. It covers some of the rooftop units but not all of them. The requirement for the screening policy is that all of the rooftop mechanicals are to be covered or screened from view completely. Instead of covering them with a parapet wall they have decided to go with individual screening across the top. Staff had thought that the parapet wall should be increased, but they have decided they would rather have it with the individual screening. They are proposing to use metal screens to match the metal on the building, which Mr. Kopp figures means prefinished coping across the top. The signage areas have changed but they will have to go before the Sign Review Board. There are some corrugated steel insert panels that are shown on the Qdoba site. There is one under the extended awning at Qdoba to the north, and the other is at the Caribou coffee shop at the south end. A lighting plan was given to Staff previously and one is still needed, because some of the key details aren’t shown now. There were proposals to have 4 small 50-75 watt high-pressure sodium security or safety lights across the back of the 4 exit doors, which are also delivery doors. It is not shown on this plan but should be included. It is not known if they intend to put any additional decorative lighting on the main façade or on the sides of the building. They had sconce lighting fixtures on the front and ends of the building on the earlier drawing, but those are missing now. Staff’s recommendation, among other things, was to drop the composite panels. Their reasoning was because they wanted to separate the Qdoba space from the other tenant spaces, which they will probably discuss later. Staff felt it cluttered up the façade too much. Mr. Kopp stated that those issues are on the table, including: the lighting plan, rooftop screening, the appearance and materials they want to use on the revised facades, the missing piers and other PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 3 texture on the back of the building, and the proposed alterations in the metal sign bands, etc. The Fire Department notes that the only concern over the review is that an automated sprinkler system must be installed as part of the building project. Staff would recommend in favor of the changes as staff has proposed, and does not support this plan but instead would favor the extension of the concrete base and utility brick all the way around the building. This is along with the other issues that have been raised. Ald. Francoeur also asked when final approval was given to this. Mr. Kopp indicated it was several months ago and thought it was May 26th, 2004. Ald. Francoeur asked when the changes were brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kopp indicated they were just brought in for this meeting. Ald. Francoeur stated that based on the presentation by Mr. Kopp she did not feel comfortable about the changes they were proposing. She then asked if it was ready to be approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. Kopp replied that as far as the detailed plan he did not think so, but as far as the concept itself was concerned, it was clear that the applicant wanted to know if the Commission was going to allow them to change it. Staff can work on the details and plug in all the conditions and issues and make sure there is proper screening and lighting. Mr. Justin Pelej, representing the Redmond Company, along with Chris Mueller, and Dan Miller were present to answer questions. Mr. Pelej was the speaker and stated that he wanted to give the Commission a little history on the project. He wanted to comment that they were in agreement that the original proposal was a better-looking building. The reason for the change was simple: when it was presented to their customer the previous building proposal was a challenge in affording the cost. The idea was then to throw out another concept that was closer to their budget. That is why they are seeing a departure from the different rooflines of the original proposal. He commented that they had a finished materials board along with them to look at and they would answer any questions the Commission might have. Mayor Lombardi asked Mr. Pelej if he was aware of the recommendations that Mr. Kopp previously mentioned, prior to the meeting? Mr. Pelej said that the majority of the comments he was aware of. He stated that the lighting was something that they missed and will certainly address that. He wanted to get the feelings of the Plan Commission regarding the departure of the original design. Mr. Crowley asked what the material was that is being used on the composite siding? Mr. Pelej said that it is a concrete hardy-plank product. The manufacturer makes a panel system that you can rip down into specific pieces. Qdoba did a project recently over on Prospect Avenue in Milwaukee. They used this project over there and it has somewhat become a signature product for them in terms of the color and the look. That is the only reason they did that on this project. Ald. Hoelkinger stated that the Plan Commission approved a very good plan and a very good design. The original building dared to be different. What was so unique about it is that it will be on the entrance off of Silvernail Road to the Grandview Plaza. This unique building would be an PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 4 attraction to get people into the Grandview Plaza Center. At the same time, if you walk out of the Gast Haus and turn to the west, that building is what you would see. The existing building looks like pieces of a puzzle that were left over and put together. He believes that the new building needs to have value, and definitely go back to the drawing board for reworking. He can understand that cost could be a factor in the original building but they should keep in mind that this is the entrance off of Silvernail Road, a main road to the Grandview Plaza. He agrees with what Mr. Kopp and Staff have said. He feels that it needs a little more value put into it. From the original approved building, this proposal is taking it to a very low level. Mr. Lambert stated that he would move on staff’s recommendation. Ald. Waldenberger seconded the motion. Mr. Pelej then stated that in talking with Mr. Dan Miller, who is the construction project manager on this project, that originally the departure from the plan is because of the cost. When they get the design of this back up to where Staff wants it to be, by bringing the brick on the 4 sides and altering and tweaking the design so it does not look like pieces of the puzzle, the costs will also rise. At that point they would probably be better off to try and alter the original design to get it back down in budget. What they would appreciate is instead of a motion to accept this building at this point is to leave it the way it was originally proposed. Because of the construction schedule they need to keep the process moving along. If there are any small adjustments that they could work with Staff on, they would certainly appreciate it. Ald. Francoeur was confused with what he had requested and asked for clarification. Mr. Pelej stated that, based on time constraints and the comments that they had just heard, they felt it would be more cost effective if they were to alter the originally approved building plan than it would to go further with the changes and conditions mentioned for the previously proposed revised plan. He then mentioned as an example that one of the big issues on the original proposal was the signage band in metal. They had specified steel, and the price of steel had recently soared out of sight If they could come with potentially a material change, or something would give them the exact same effect, but maybe cost a little less, they could maybe go to Staff for approval versus getting on the agenda and appearing before the Plan Commission again. Ald. Francoeur wanted to clarify that what Mr. Pelej was requesting is that he is asking that the Plan Commission take no action here. The approval of the earlier final plans would then stay in place unless the details of working the cost of the original building down to an acceptable level to the owner were to fail. And even if that were to occur, he is also saying that he would like them to leave that in the hands of the Planning Department and his firm. Mr. Pelej said that if the Planning Department needs to bring it back to the Plan Commission, that is understandable, but he is requesting that they get some latitude in this instance. Mayor Lombardi stated that she felt what Mr. Pelej was saying is that they can work the original plan into a cost savings for his customer but that the design of the building will still appeal to them in the same way the plan that was approved in April did. Ald. Hoelkinger was asked his opinion on these comments and he stated that this brings them back to the original approval and he is very happy about that. Mayor Lombardi then asked if the Plan Commission could pull back the motion of recommendation that they heard Staff give for the new revised plan, and just remove the item PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 5 from this agenda, which would then bring them right back to where they were before? She was told that was correct. Mayor Lombardi then asked Mr. Feller if he felt that sounded rational? Mr. Feller said that if they do not take any action on the item that is on the agenda, then the original approval is still in effect. Mr. Hoeft then noted that Mr. Pelej had asked if the Plan Commission would be comfortable with letting Staff work out the revisions to the approved plan. Obviously, if Staff would feel that the changes are too major, the item would go back on the agenda to be presented to the Commission. Mayor Lombardi stated that they have confidence in the Planning Staff but as an advising Commission they have to be made aware of something that is going to be so extremely different. As a result, Mayor Lombardi said that first of all, she was going to ask that they pull back the motion and state that what they heard previously was just dialogue that dealt with a proposed revision. After continued discussion it revealed a willingness that they go back to the original plan which was approved on May 26, 2004. The understanding came with professional staff working with that design, and that if there is any extreme material design changes it would have to go back to the Plan Commission for review and approval. Mr. Lambert then removed his motion and Ald. Waldenberger removed his second to the motion. Mayor Lombardi requested that Ald. Hoelkinger be involved with Staff and the architect on the changes. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – REGENCY RESERVE CONDOMINIUMS – A request from Regency Construction and Harmony Homes for approval of final development plans for 25 two family condominium buildings for a total of 50 units on approximately 18 acres at the southeast corner of Northview Road and Meadowbrook Road (2-F- 13) Mr. Koehler explained that this site is located at the southeast corner of Meadowbrook Road and Northview Road and is in the RM-3 Zoning district. The proposal is for a condominium development that would include 25 duplex buildings, which would be 50 units over a total of 18 acres of land. The duplex buildings would be 2 story, side-by-side units. The architecture would be hardi-plank siding with cedar trim boards on all of the corners and around all of the windows. On the front of the buildings would be brick veneer and along the sides of the garage doors as well as a knee wall, under the windows along the front façade. When they presented this for preliminary approval it was only the hardi-plank building. They will also be using dimensional shingles on the roof, with a mix of hipped and gabled peaks to create some interest. This will be the same building used throughout the project. In looking at the overall site plan staff would like to see a revised site plan showing the dimensions between the buildings and between the setbacks of the property line, as well as the road widths to make sure everything is clear. The units appear to be disbursed evenly throughout the site and are averaging about 30 feet apart. The entire drive is now shown at 24 feet wide, including the cul-de-sac, which was requested by the Fire Department. They have also added a sidewalk along the entire western side of the drive allowing pedestrian access in and out of Patrick Lane to Northview Road. They have added the sidewalk to the cul-de-sac as well. Mr. Koehler indicated that the sidewalks are shown as stopping for the driveway zone and staff would like to see the sidewalk continued through. The applicant has now PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 6 provided 40 feet of width for access onto Patrick Lane. This will then give them enough room to extend the sidewalk onto Patrick Lane. This will also leave some room for landscaping, which was required for preliminary but not shown on the plan. A revised landscaping plan will have to be submitted to show landscaping where the drive goes out on Patrick Lane. Since this is in the middle of a proposed single-family area staff would like to see some kind of buffering for the driveway in that area. At the time of preliminary review it was noticed that there was no space for visitor parking, with the exception of stack space in front of the driveways. They have now come in and added several parking pads spread throughout the development. Since there is still some space in some of the areas staff thought they could possibly add 2 more parking pads. One area to the south of the northerly cul-de-sac would provide a little better access to the buildings in that area and one on the north side where it bends to the east. Without these additional parking pads added the span would be a little too far in-between and the visitors would not use the spots and instead park on the side of the 24-foot wide road. This could cause congestion as well as be a hazard if emergency vehicles were needed. As far as the landscaping plan looks there is heavy landscaping all around the perimeter of the site, bordering Meadowbrook Road and Northview Road. Some of the natural vegetation will be left in the middle of the site plus the small existing tree line will be enhanced with some additional trees to thicken it up and provide a buffer to the single-family homes to the south. They were asked to add some larger trees along the drive and they have taken care of that. There are some conflicts with the landscape plan and the utility plan. They will just have to make sure there is no landscaping over the electric or gas lines. They have submitted a plan for the foundation plantings around the individual units and it seems to be a nice variety of species. There will also be a privacy fence in the rear between the two units by the patios. They do not show any mechanicals on the ground and they will have to be screened. To the south it looks rather desolate so staff feels there should be some trees added there. A landscape bond for twice the amount of all labor and materials will be required before any building permits can be issued. Impact fees will also be required for this project. The lighting plan was submitted and it shows posts at the front of the houses, next to the driveway near the road. There will also be lights on each side of each garage. A legal description will be needed for the private streets and cul-de-sacs. A CSM will be needed in the future also. Engineering Department Comments: 1. The Engineering Department requires a photo-graphic reproducible tracing on mylar of each sheet of the plat along with any bonds or agreements required by the Plan Commission and Common Council. 2. A CSM will be needed to establish easements over this lot and to designate and name private streets shown. 3. Sidewalks appear to end at driveways. Recommend pouring walk through drives to maintain uniform slope on walking areas. 4. Gas laterals to buildings are proposed over sanitary and water laterals in many locations. Utility plan conflicts with landscape plan. 5. Many trees are proposed over gas, sanitary and water laterals. 6. Northerly driveway to building #18 is proposed at a 16% grade. Too steep. 7. Cars parked in visitor lots near buildings 9 and 18 will block sidewalks. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 7 8. Access easement for storm water pond 3WW as proposed on plat of Rolling ridge South #7 should be shown. Four to 1 slope proposed between buildings 3 and 4 will be too steep for access. Easement should be kept clear of proposed plantings. 9. No landscaping is shown along driveway between lots 290 and 292. 10. Drainage is toward north side of Building #6. A swale is needed there. Waukesha Water Utility comments that the design and construction of the water main plans will need to be coordinated with the Waukesha Water Utility. All aspects of the water main plans will need to follow the Utility’s specifications as on file with the DNR. With those comments and a couple of minor changes staff would be in favor of final approval. Ald. Francoeur asked about the lights that were discussed at the intersection of Northview Road and Meadowbrook Road and wanted to know if that was being governed by Rolling Ridge South and not by Regency Reserve. Mr. Feller said that it is tied into Rolling Ridge South Addition #7 but this is one of the lots in that subdivision, so it is all part of that plat. Mr. Crowley made the motion to approve the final plat based on staff’s recommendation. Ms. LePien seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and passed unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT – SCENIC RIDGE – A request from Land Tech Engineering and Robert Rupnow to consider approval of a 6 lot and 1 outlot preliminary plat on 4.54 acres of land located on the south side of Summit Avenue west of Merrill Hills Road. (3-G-10) Mr. Hoeft explained that this is an area on the south side of Summit Avenue and west of the Fiddlers Creek Development, and just to the east of the Oakmont Development. This site was approved for RD-1, duplex zoning. The applicant has now come in with a preliminary plat to subdivide the land into duplex lots. At one point they had brought in a plat with seven duplex lots but they had shown a storm water retention pond back in the isolated natural area that goes quite a ways to the south. It is basically a wooded area and they had shown a retention pond in there. Staff informed them that the retention pond would take out the trees and defeat the purpose of having the isolated natural area. They removed one of the lots and moved the pond up onto an outlot adjacent to the new cul-de-sac they would be putting in. Koenig Street is not in yet. There is a little gravel drive that goes in there. The street coming off of Summit Ave. will be called Koenig Street and then there will be a little cul-de-sac that they will call Scenic Ridge Drive that would serve the 6 duplex lots. This is not a PUD but when the zoning code was changed a few years ago it was specifically designed that duplex lots like this would not have to be a Planned Unit Development, but would still have some of the restrictions that are normally on duplex developments. One of the sections of the zoning code requires architectural diversity. It used to be specified in the PUD agreements that you could not put the same building side-by side and you would have to vary the front elevations of the building. That is now in the zoning code. Mr. Hoeft wanted to inform the developer that they can not build the same duplex on adjoining lots. They will have to work on altering the architecture. There are also landscaping requirements in the zoning code now that used to be in the PUDs only. There is a specified number of trees that have to go on each lot. Mr. Hoeft indicated that there are a couple of technical problems with the plat as submitted. The RD-1 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and lot 3 on the plat is shown as 14,536 square feet. They will have to adjust the lot lines in order to pick up the additional square PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 8 feet needed to bring it up to 15,000 square feet. The zoning code also states that all lots have to be at least 100 feet wide, which they are, but it also says that corner lots have to be 110 feet wide. It was decided that corner lots should be wider because there is now a street set back off of the side street. Buildings used to be allowed to be closer to the side street, but now the requirement is 25 feet back. With this requirement Lot 1 will have to be widened by 10 feet, and Lot 3 needs the additional square footage. Mr. Hoeft felt that they could approve the preliminary plat with the conditions they adjust the sizes of the 2 lots to meet the zoning code requirements. There is a tree line that backs up to Summit Avenue and they show a 50 foot highway setback line. Hopefully some of those trees will remain along Summit Avenue to help screen the properties from the highway. The lots themselves are about 138 feet deep so they are not real deep. The isolated natural area on the south would be preserved also for the benefit of the people living there. Engineering Department Comments: 1. The Engineering Department requires a photo-graphic reproducible tracing on mylar of each sheet of the plat along with any bonds or agreements required by the Plan Commission and Common Council. 2. Plat must be recorded before construction can take place on this development. 3. Oakmont Addition #1 shown incorrectly to the west. 4. State approval is needed for any work within USH “18” right-of-way. 5. Major drainage swale from highway ditch enters this development at the northwest corner of Lot 4. How will this drainage be handled? City may need a storm sewer and drainage easement on this plat. 6. Sidewalk not shown along Summit Avenue. It should be put in with this development. 7. Notes confusing: A. Several spelling errors. B. City of Pewaukee approval wrong. C. Sidewalk easement at intersections note needed. D. Separate vision corner and walk easement notes for clarity. 8. Walk is proposed to be on the right-of-way line. Why is there a separate line for back of walk? 9. Storm outfall at the south end of Koenig requires a 3 foot cut on adjoining property. 10. Storm and sanitary sewer layout will have to be further reviewed by Engineering. 11. Pond shown should have a 10-15 foot wide level area adjacent to the city sidewalk. 12. Storm water management report will have to be revised. Contact Engineering. 13. Street grades will have to be reviewed by Engineering. Waukesha Water Utility comments that design and construction of the water main plans will need to be coordinated with the Waukesha Water Utility. All aspects of the water main plans will need to follow the Utility’s specifications as on file with the DNR. He then said that with those comments, in keeping with the RD-1 zoning, staff would recommend in favor of the preliminary plat with those conditions. Mr. Crowley asked if because of the recommendation of the sidewalk, and the location of the trees he felt it would greatly reduce the amount of lot space to build on. Mr. Hoeft responded that the sidewalk will be out on the right-of-way. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 9 Ald. Waldenberger then made the motion to approve based on staff’s comments and conditions. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – TRACKSIDE CARWASH – A request from Boyd Coleman from the Redmond Company and James Lynch to reconsider the dumpster enclosure requirement for the car wash building at 501 E. Main Street. (4-C-4) This item was placed on hold at the request of the owner. CONDITIONAL USE – SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - COUSINS SUBS – A request from J & D Shop Systems, Inc. and Plunkett Raysich Architects, LLP to consider granting a Conditional Use Permit and approving final plans for a new Cousins Subs building at the northeast corner of Les Paul Parkway (Hwy 164) and Pearl Street. (4-B-11) Mayor Lombardi stated that Mr. Lambert is employed by Plunkett Raysich Architects and will not be involved in any discussion and will abstain from voting on this item. Mr. Kopp explained that a conditional use is required for this site because of its M-1 industrial zoning. The location is the northeast corner of Les Paul Parkway (STH “59/164”) and Pearl Street. This is land that is being split off and sold from Griffin Ford. The building is a one-story building that is around 3300-3400 square feet. There is to be only one driveway access to and from Pearl Street. The roadway access itself is actually part of an outlot that is being established which will convey possible traffic and utilities to the parcel to the north, which is land that Griffin Ford controls. The Cousins site has drive-up lanes, an ordering location and a pick up window. One of the notable features of the site is a combination trash enclosure, and equipment and storage shed at the northwest corner. The outlot that is being created will provide access to the site. The parking plan for Cousins shows 37 spaces along with 2 handicapped stalls located just off of the entrance to the restaurant on the southwest corner of the building. A seating plan was not included for the preliminary review, but they have included it now. The zoning code indicates that they will need somewhere between 17-18 seats for customers at a minimum, up to about 32 for the seating capacity, plus the employees on the site. Therefore, 39 parking stalls seems to be close to what they will need. The queue line for the drive-through window requires a minimum of 4 spaces and the graphic they presented showed as many as 7 cars being located in the area from the pick-up window moving backward into the driveway area where you will enter to place your orders. One of the reasons Staff is against this plan is that there are a lot of traffic issues on the northerly end of the site. The issue that Staff had with this plan is that the drive-up queue is going to go one way (obviously to the left) where the driver’s side is. Then, at present there will be 2-way traffic on the west end of the building with a direct conflict between the drive-up traffic and the traffic coming in to find parking or to leave the site. One of the suggestions that was given to the developer is since there is a little extra room to the north, next to the land that they are buying, they could buy some more property from Griffin and then move the project back a little bit and then create a safer, viable one-way traffic pattern around the site. That could also leave the restaurant with a few extra spaces that could be created. There are other possibilities that can be worked out but Staff is definitely not in favor of this plan because of the traffic concerns. All of the parking areas that need to have concrete curbs, like driveways and the boulevard points, do show them. The utilities were shown on the preliminary plan and they all have been provided for now. They show storm water heading to the north. In overflow situations, storm water will move from the retention pond onto the Griffin site to the north and there is also some other storm water that need to be on easements or on the CSM. The other utilities shown include gas, electric PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 10 service line, water, and sanitary sewer; are all shown and provided. The electric service line does not appear to be complete. There is no transformer box shown and the location must be indicated, as well as a bond for $5,000.00 to guarantee its location and screening from view. A grading and erosion control plan was submitted. The site is not particularly steep but there are some issues that had to do with grading on the site. Silt fences are shown around the area on the north and west property lines, and again that all has to be approved by the Engineering Department before any ground disturbing activities take place. They have shown the grading in such a way as to bring the storm water to the north end of the site and convey it into a retention pond and then leave the site over an easement that will have to be created. There is also a soft berm that they are trying to create, which was shown on the grading plan, that breaks off near the vision corner at the southwest portion of their lot, so they have a berm along Pearl Street and another berm that extends along Highway 59, which is shown on the landscaping plan. It is not a particularly huge berm, and it is sinuous in its shape. It stops at the vision corner because again we don’t want the plantings to obscure the traffic going in and out of Pearl Street, where vehicles will be getting onto a very busy Highway 59 by-pass. The berm is required because otherwise the setback for the parking is to be much further than what they have shown. They would not be able to have their setbacks without that berm. Again, an erosion control plan and permit are required before any ground disturbing activities can take place. One of the other issues that was discussed with them, but that has not made it onto the changes of this plan, is for pedestrian access to be located immediately along the west property line. They did show an accommodation for the combination bike trail and pedestrian sidewalk on the west end of their property, and it might work right now. However, if Highway 59 is ever expanded, and if there is ever an acceleration lane put in, then that trail is going to disappear through construction therefore, it seems wise to move it over much closer to their property line and show that on the plans. Additionally, that path should also be extended to go over the Griffin property to the north, since Griffin is in large measure responsible for this entire development. The same issue applies to the sidewalks that were seen created on the south end of the Cousins parcel. There are other industrial users with employees in this location and those people will probably be walking to this site and following the sidewalk along the north side of Pearl Street. So the sidewalk which is only shown here to the east needs also to be required to be extended over the Griffin parcel in this location to provide safe pedestrian access to this site once this store opens up. Again they should make this consistent with the city’s plan. Staff believes that Engineering is working on this joint bike trail and sidewalk. They probably have all of the necessary Engineering details that they can furnish to them so that needs to be adjusted for this proposal. The architecture and materials, as noted previously, shows a very interesting building. It is a little out of the ordinary in terms of its shape and appearance. It is not just a square building but it has some very nice features to it. The building is one story tall. The drive through again is an expected feature. The combination trash enclosure is a very nice touch as well. As for the building itself, one of the big things is the attractive appearance of the main entry column, which you can see over here, has frosted glass and is intended as a screen wall with aluminum fascia. Another key feature is the sheltering overhang that is there. There are a lot of other interesting materials on the building. There is lots of glass on the westerly half. The basic functioning customer portion of the building is the west half. You can see on these elevations, plus what they have drawn, that the side facing toward the by-pass, on both ends, definitely on the west façade, has a lot of glass to it and the rest of the building is much more of a typical backside of a building. The main materials on the 4 facades are cast concrete and face brick. They do have soldier courses and you can see them on the elevations. You do have soldier courses and some aluminum canopies and there are 2 lead coated copper panels, which have the Cousins logo on PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 11 them. There is a patio on the site and they show some landscaping along it. They show a patio along the front of the store but they do not indicate whether there will be umbrella tables and other things again. Staff would like to know that. The Qdoba that they talked about in the first item had proposals from the developer to add a number of umbrella tables to the patio area that they were proposing, so customers could go to eat outside. And again that would seem to be a nice feature consistent with the patio that they are showing. They do not indicate that on the plan. The trash enclosure, referred to as an excellent design is not quite at the height. It will have to have one more layer of bricks or stone to meet the height requirement. All site wastes, all recyclables, the grease trap, the pallets, trays, barrels, etc, have to be kept in this enclosure unit the time of collection. All the gates have to be closed , the lids have to be down at all times as part of the operation of the site. There are no designs for either of the 2 main signs that are being put on the site that aren’t the Cousin’s logo. Again, those 2 sit on the 2 sides of the building. There is a menu board and a sign in this location and probably a ground-mounted pylon sign in this second location, at the southwest corner of the site. There is no information that can be presented on the design and appearance. That is not necessarily a problem because all signage has to go before the Sign Review Board for approval. The screening of the rooftop units must also be addressed. Staff had asked previously to see the actual sizes and locations of these HVAC units, in hoping to see the units dashed in on the architectural elevations because they know that this roof rises up quite a bit. It seems like there is a parapet wall here, and the RTUs will have to be located behind this wall to hide them, but we always ask that the units be dashed in in their actual dimensions so that we know that they are fully screened by the roof. A site lighting plan was submitted, along with a photometrics evaluation. There are 7 or 8 poles around the site. They do not show the height. High pressure sodium fixtures are required. They do show 4 different features from the Cobra Head parking lot light fixtures to wall-packs. All of the fixtures have to meet the City’s standards; for example, if they attempt to wash light horizontally, they would not be acceptable. They have to be cut and shielded so that all light is directed downward. They show bollards around the patio and on other low-lying areas, and they have some canopy lights around the entranceways. They do not show them as being recessed, but if they are high-pressure sodium that will probably not be an issue. The landscaping plan was not bad before and has now been improved. The biggest issue is the sinuous berm being developed, and again this required berm has to lie outside the vision corner, so that it doesn’t obstruct drivers’ visions. Otherwise, it would be coming to a point, but it breaks off at the vision corner and then resumes running north or east. One of the things that was suggested is that they should show more trees around the perimeter. There are really no trees on the north or at the corner near the retention pond, where a few more quality trees would be seen as finishing off of the west end of the site. There are some Purple Ash and Amur Maples on the entry boulevard area. Those areas should also have shrubs and other things along the boulevard to dress it up so it is not just 2 trees and a lot of grass. There are also two islands at the south end for the parking lot, but are not shown to City standards. They will need to have landscaping, shrubs and flowers added. They are doing a nice job with shrubs and flowers around the rest of the site. The islands have to be curbed in concrete and need to have plant materials added to them as well. A landscape bond for twice the amount of all labor and materials will be required before any building permits can be issued. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 12 A Certified Survey Map, which is needed and was submitted, unfortunately cannot be reviewed at this time. It was brought in with the rest of the plans, but no mention was made of it on the application. Neither was it paid for, and therefore the CSM was not listed for review here. It will be on the next agenda. There are some Staff comments that they will be given about that, too. Staff would otherwise recommend in favor of this plan, with all of the comments and conditions, except for the fact that there are the traffic issues that Staff feels will have to be resolved. That is the reason they feel they are really opposed to this plan, and that some accommodation has to be made for the traffic issue so they can be sure that the site plan will actually work. The rest of the plan would seem to be fine except for the traffic issue. Engineering Department Comments: 1. The Engineering Department requires a photo-graphic reproducible tracing on mylar of each sheet of the plat along with any bonds or agreements required by the Plan Commission and Common Council. 2. Handicap ramp detail will have to be changed to specify a detectable warning surface. 3. In lieu of sidewalk along Highway 164 and 59, the developer should install a 10 foot wide asphalt bike path along the highway. Details of the bike path will have to be worked out with the Engineering Department. The Waukesha Water Utility comments that there is an existing stub for this lot – the private water main shown on the plans is not required. Contact the Waukesha Water Utility for water service to this parcel; a water lateral application form must be completed to determine the water lateral and water meter size. Again, with those Engineering comments, which again we always insist are done to their complete satisfaction, and the erosion control permit being obtained, Staff would otherwise be in favor of these plans. Staff thinks that they are now back to the issue of revising the internal traffic pattern and it is probably time to see where this goes. Mayor Lombardi asked Mr. Kopp if, after having contact with the developer, he felt this could be resolved within the next two weeks instead of doing a denial? It appeared to her that all the other comments were quite normal and she wanted to know if they could put it on hold until the next meeting. Mr. Kopp stated that the team representing this was very willing to work with Staff and resolve the issue. The delay of two weeks is fine for Staff but the developer is trying to get the hole dug. Ald. Waldenberger was willing to approve the item and have Staff work out the details with the developer. Mr. Crowley noted that the developer is receptive to changing the traffic pattern but Staff’s recommendation was to also consider adding some more property to this parcel from the land that Griffin is holding to the north. Mr. Kopp explained that it was just one of the possibilities under consideration here. The applicant does have some room where they can move the development back another few feet and get the angle parking arranged a little differently. They do have room where they can shift the detention pond location a little, too. The other solution would to be to go and buy another couple thousand square feet of land from Griffin. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 13 Ald. Francoeur wanted to know at what point Staff realized there was a traffic issue and when was that communicated to the architect or the developer? Mr. Kopp said that it was discussed in depth at the last staff review meeting on Thursday. It had been talked about previously. Mr. Hoeft stated that the first plan that was approved on July 14th was not the same plan. There were some problems with it, too. They had to move the parking back a lot further than it is now, so Staff anticipated some major site changes. It did not occur to Staff at that time, since they were expecting a new plan. At the last staff meeting, it was reviewed and that’s when Staff thought that the revision still had significant issues to resolve. Mr. Kopp then contacted them and told them of the problem and they did not get back to Staff, so their opinion on the traffic pattern is not known. Ald. Waldenberger asked if this plan could be approved with some minor modifications? Mr. Hoeft said if that is what they would like to do it is workable, since there is room on the site to do something. Whether or not Staff and the developer can come to an agreement over what will be done, he did not know. If the Plan Commission would just like to approve it and let Staff try to work something out with the understanding that if they can not agree on something it would be brought back to the Plan Commission in two weeks. Ald. Francoeur asked Mr. Hoeft what he would prefer them to do? Would Staff like the authority or responsibility of the Commission to deny the plan so that Staff could work with the developer? Mr. Hoeft stated that he felt the developer would work with Staff on it. If they can not reach an agreement then they would come back with it in two weeks. He does not feel that it is a major concern. Ald. Waldenberger made the motion for approval with the provision that Staff works with the architect and the owner to work out the details on the traffic pattern and parking situation. There was no second to that motion. Mayor Lombardi made the motion to place the item on hold. Ms. LePien seconded the motion to place this on hold. Mr. Crowley stated that he would like to go on record by saying that he would like to see the applicant purchase a few more thousand square feet of land and expand the parcel to the north, instead of trying to squeeze everything into that current parcel. Mayor Lombardi stated that since the Plan Commission is an advisory board, putting the item on hold for 2 weeks is going to give all parties the opportunity to proceed. It will give the Plan Commission a comfort level to then proceed with an approval. The vote was taken to put the item on hold for 2 weeks and it passed with a majority of 4 votes. Ald. Waldenberger was opposed and Mr. Lambert had abstained from voting. Mr. James Valentine, the developer, stated for the record that he did not know about this until just before the meeting. He was not informed of it. As Mr. Kopp stated there was a Staff meeting on PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 14 Thursday, and obviously, with the Labor Day Holiday people have not communicated effectively. He is taken back because this is the same plan that was brought in on July 14th. He said that they did not alter the parking lot and he did not know why that was being stated. They did not shift the building, to the best of his knowledge. He is now being thrown a curve in that parking is an issue. He has no problem with making it a one-way parking pattern, he has just not been given the opportunity to voice that opinion. He thinks it does a disservice to the consumer and he is concerned it will cause them to race around the parking lot if they make the top side the entrance and the lower section the exit. He just thought that the Plan Commission, as Commissioners, might want to be concerned about what it is going to create by doing that. The other issue he was thinking about. To take Moreland Blvd. as an example, he said there is PDQ, the tire station, The Robert W. Meuer Shopping Center, Arby’s and McDonald’s and in everyone of those situations, which are all unique and different, you have to have people stopping and crossing the paths of somebody else. He can not think of to many places he goes to, being a fast food junky, where you are not going to have the traffic issue, where common courtesy has to be put into place, where you stop and wait for someone else to go. Unless you have an entrance and an exit only for any drive-through that doesn’t cross the path, he does not know where you are going to go, where there is any type of building where there is a circle pattern, where you are not going to have that problem. Mr. Mark Herr, who represents Plunkett Raysich Architects, stated for the record that they were notified on Friday that there was concern with the traffic flow at the drive-through. The indication seemed to be that it could be worked out. He did not feel it was a serious enough problem that it would reject the plan. Therefore, with Monday being the holiday, it did not give them much time to react. In talking with their client, and the brief conversation before the meeting, it looks like it can be worked out with one-way traffic, without a lot of difficulty. SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH & SCHOOL – A request from MSI General and Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church to consider approving final development plans for an 8,868 square foot addition at 1205 S. East Avenue (5-C-13) Mr. Kopp explained that these are final plans for Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church & School located north of East Sunset Drive and east of S. East Avenue. Whittier School is just to the north. The zoning for the church is I-1, Institutional Zoning. The preliminary approval was given on July 28th for this proposal. They would like to add an 8,868 square foot addition to the building and expansion of their parking lot to the south. The addition to the building is almost 30 feet tall, 70 feet wide, and 123 feet long and its proposed use is to be a gymnasium. As well as the gym, the proposal shows storage areas, men's and women's lockers, men's and women's showers, and a future kitchen. The materials and architecture were decent. The original church building was brick and the other additions that have taken place have been brick and decorative concrete block. The design idea was to be sympathetic or match the building’s materials that were out there. When the first plan came in it showed some plain block instead, and Staff felt it should be decorative block and that is the plan they have brought back. It is being used in creative ways by painting it different colors for contrast and giving it texture with some piers. Part of the building will be seen from the street, but not much of it because of the hill and grade differential. There are some new rooftop mechanicals being proposed. These are going to be used for the new gym and are properly screened. There were some existing ones that got up there that did not get screened and it had been noted that this must be fixed. The older RTU units they had put up without screens are now proposed to be screened with hardi-plank. A new dumpster enclosure is also being proposed since they have a couple dumpsters that are sitting out on the PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 15 pavement. They show a new enclosure that is located off of the southeast corner of the proposed gym. There are no architectural plans for it but they do say it will be masonry to match the building. The minimum standard is that it must be 7 feet tall and big enough to handle all of the site’s wastes and recycling materials, etc. The enclosure’s gates have to be cedar board on board with steel frames, moveable and lockable. A fully detailed architectural plan for this facility will have to be seen and approved by Staff before a building permit will be issued. The second part of this project is for the expansion of the existing parking lot. They ran into some trouble previously because there are some very steep grades at the new driveway. They are now intending to add a 2-tiered retaining wall to help take up the slopes there. It is a very narrow strip in terms of width, with dimensions of about 8 or 10 feet, but for height it goes up to 4-5 feet, according to the grading plan. There are 2 walls being put into this, and there is no indication on the grading plan of what the intermediate area that is between the 2 walls. There are no plantings shown and there should be at least some ground cover on it. In order to get the required minimum setback, which is very narrow and only 10 feet off of the street, they will also have to have a berm. There will be a retaining wall and a soft berm on top to accomplish the proper minimum setback. They want to do this so they can get as much parking on the site as they can. There is no information on what the retaining wall will be made of, either, and that information will also have to be supplied. The other parts of the parking lot plan that was a problem was that some of the setbacks were not quite what they needed to be. It was very tight around the site and some of the areas did not have aisles. The arrangement of traffic was not good. There were some safety concerns over the new children’s play area, which sits right in the middle of the new lot at the north end. They explained that they have just relocated it and they want to leave it in that area, but as it brought out at the last meeting, it is surrounded on 3 sides by all of the parked cars. Staff is hoping that among other things that the proposal that they have for improving safety here by adding concrete benches around the playground site for protection and stability will be good. Staff also felt that the play area would be used by children during the day, and during the work week, when parking needs would be the lightest. The busy times for cars and traffic would probably come from church services and activities that would likely take place at night and on the weekends. Staff did want them to do something to make the area safe just in case something would happen with a car and that is what they are going to do with the concrete benches. One of the other issues is the driveway with the new connection out onto S. East Avenue. On the south end they have an existing driveway and the driveway is over an easement from the WT Corporation. The traffic coming in or out will have to go past the trash enclosure. The traffic should be able to move safely past the enclosure’s gates if they are closed, so that will not be a problem, but if they are open it, will be very close. One of the Staff members thought that possibly they should push the trash enclosure back into the hill a little. They might have to change the grades a little in that location, but that might help. The islands that they are going to put in are kind of curved and they have a little concrete tail on them. Staff feels they will work. The code says they have to be a certain amount of square feet. Instead of elongating it, and making it secure on the entire parking aisle, and losing a parking space on the end, they have compromised and kept half of the two spaces there and just did the island around the other end of it. There are a couple of planters and one is on the east side of the gym. The materials they are going to be planting there are not listed. There is some refinement on the landscaping plan that can still be done. Trees were requested by Staff, around the perimeter and they have been added. They have some very tall parking lot light poles on the site and Staff felt there should be some shrubs at the bases of those poles. A landscape bond for twice the amount of all labor and materials will be required before any building permits will be issued. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 16 There are 2 existing light poles on the site and they are going to be adding 2 more. The poles are shown at 19 feet tall with a bronze tone and 400-watt high-pressure sodium fixtures that are perpendicular, fully cut and shielded. There is no indication if they are putting any lighting on the outsides of the gym addition. Since there are a couple of emergency exits doors on the southeast corner, perhaps some high pressure sodium safety light fixtures should be added in that location. Mr. Kopp ended by saying that with all of that, Staff would recommend in favor of the final plans with those changes. Engineering Department comments that the parking lot dimensions are not shown. Scaled dimensions show less than 24 foot aisles in some locations. Waukesha Fire Department comments per City of Waukesha Municipal Code 21.07, this addition will be required to be fully protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Waukesha Water Utility comments that they should be contacted to verify that the existing lateral and meter size are adequate for any modifications that would include the addition of water using fixtures. Staff would recommend in favor with all the comments, conditions, bonds, fees, agreements, etc. Ald. Francoeur asked about the safety issues for the playground, which were a concern at the preliminary approval. In Mr. Kopp’s presentation he mentioned there would be concrete benches around the play area. She asked if staff found that sufficient? Mr. Kopp replied that the concrete benches are going to be a substantial barrier to a car. He does not know if it will be fully sufficient. The benches are the suggestion of the applicant and not the recommendation of Staff. Staff would prefer to see it moved to a safer green space, but it was just put in place and the church doesn’t want to move it. Ms. LePien made the motion to approve the final development plans for the church with all of staff’s comments. Mr. Crowley seconded the motion. The vote on the motion to approve was unanimous. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – RWR MULTI-FAMILY – A request from RWR Rentals LLC and All One Storage LLC to approve a preliminary development plan for a 4 unit residential building to be built at the southeast corner of West Avenue and Darlene Drive. (6-D-10) This item was placed on hold FINAL PLAT – RIVER HILLS ESTATES ADDITION # 7 – A request from Greg Walsh to consider approval of a 13 lot and 2 outlot final plat on 11.11231 acres of land located south of Les Paul Pkwy. (STH 59) on the west side of Center Road. (7-E-8) Mr. Kopp explained that this is the final plat for River Hills Estates #7, which includes 13 single- family lots on a little over 11 acres of land. The location is south of the Les Paul Parkway (STH “59”). There are 2 Town of Waukesha subdivisions on either side of this plat. Chestnut Hill is on the north end and Oakdale is directly to the south. Right across the street from this is PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 17 Waukesha’s new Corporate Center. The zoning for the site is RS-3. The preliminary plat was approved by the Plan Commission on April 28th, 2004. This plat is somewhat awkward because it has to accommodate the legal requirement to keep the Waukesha Town Hall connected to the rest of the town’s lands, so in having the town land here and going north across STH “59” to the Town Hall, there has to be a corridor connecting it to the rest of the town. There is a 50’ wide corridor that the developer owns but is being left deliberately out of the city’s possession because the east side of the road is in the city’s possession. If the rest of the owner’s parcel was brought in to the City, it would create a town peninsula and that would not be legal. There is a 43 foot strip of land that is going to form the back of a number of the lots and 7 additional feet will be added to it for use as public right-of-way. In other words a total of 50’ is being given over for street right-of-way. The outlot that is being created to the east of most of these lots is part of it. It is this narrow corridor which has the 43-foot strip, plus the 7-foot strip for dedication purposes. There are 2 different dimensions on the plat, one is shown as the overall, and one is shown as the city portion and the balance is what will be left in the town. Outlot 1 shows 1.838 acres, almost 83,000 square feet of land shown to be dedicated to the city and to be used for a permanent drainage easement. The other outlot, Outlot 2 is over 130,000 square feet or almost 3 acres of land. This Outlot is also owned by the developer, with the same 7-foot strip being reserved for future land right-of-way dedication. There is also the same 43 feet being held out of the city’s jurisdiction and being saved for development by the same group of owners. The rear portions of Lots 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 will all have the 43-foot wide strip. A portion of this land will be in the town, for which they will be receiving a tax bill from the Town of Waukesha, and the balance of the site will be developed with the homes in the City of Waukesha, where the rest of the property’s taxes will be owed. That will be a rather unusual situation. The minimum size of the lots are 14,000 square feet and the biggest size is 20,000 square feet. Six of the 13 lots are in the 16,000-17,000 square foot range. There is one lot, Lot 13, that has a particular issue. Because of the new lot that is being created and the need to restrict vehicular access out onto Center Rd., coming out of this lot to the street will be ticklish. This lot’s public access will have to come from River Hill Dr. (extended), but it will also have to be kept as far back as possible from the Center Rd. ROW for traffic safety purposes. The recommendation made by Staff is that this is noted on the plat and require that the driveway to that lot, for access off of the road, be as far to the west as possible, given the location of the driveway, and the connection out to Center Road. There will not be any access to or from any of those lots out to Center Road. There is also a vision corner being required at River Hill Drive, the street that is being extended. The extension to the River Hills Estates development was required as part of Addition #6 but it is finally coming in as part of Addition #7. It will also have to have freedom from utilities because it is partly going over the town’s land. There are a couple of 20 foot wide storm easements on the north end of the outlot, connecting to the cul-de-sac as part of the drainage for this entire strip of land. The sanitary sewer easements that exist will effect Lot 1, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 which are all 20 feet wide and are over the property lines they share with the other lots. Engineering Department Comments: 1. The Engineering Department requires a photo-graphic reproducible tracing on mylar of each sheet of the plat along with any bonds or agreements required by the Plan Commission and Common Council. 2. Plat must be recorded before any construction can start in this subdivision. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 18 3. Limits of 69.06 dimensions at Center Road and River Hill Drive should be shown. 4. Additional 7 foot strip of Center Road should indicate it is dedicated for right-of-way. 5. Existing city limit is w/s Center road for entire length of plat. 6. Add note RE: “No, bushes, trees, etc. “ for easements granted to the City of Waukesha. 7. All streets to be dedicated to the City, except a portion of River Hill Drive. Portion of River Hill should be dedicated to the Town or public. 8. Why does the city want drainage easement over Lots 3 and 4? 9. Note states no existing or proposed easements are on Town lands, but several are shown. 10. Two notes prohibit direct vehicular access to Center Road. 11. The note is confusing regarding access to Center road at River Hill Drive. Shouldn’t access at this street be wider for a wider road? Why is note needed? 12. To whom is landscape easement granted? How many lots does it cover? 13. Limits line should be labeled “Town of Waukesha/City of Waukesha” limit line. 14. Sanitary sewer easement shown on Lots 10-13 should be dimensioned from the lot line. 15. Right-of-way of Center road shown incorrectly at Corporate Center. Right-of-way is 33 feet off and with an additional 7 feet sidewalk easement. 16. Distance on Center Road north and south of River Hill Drive is missing. 17. Oakdale subdivision right-of-way on Center Road is shown incorrectly. 18. A city storm sewer and drainage easement is needed on Lots 3 through 8. 19. What does note regarding city responsibility for construction/maintenance of Center Road mean. 20. City will need an additional review of this plat after corrections are made. The Waukesha Water Utility comments that the design and construction of the water main plans will need to be coordinated with the Waukesha Water Utility. All aspects of the water main plans will need to follow the Utility’s specifications as on file with the DNR. Staff would recommend in favor of the final plat with all the conditions, comments, bonds, fees, impact fees, assessments, and agreements. Staff feels that adding the statement about the restriction of the driveway location for that lot be very important to the proper development of this area. Mayor Lombardi had questions about the properties that are going to be located in the City of Waukesha and their rear portion will be located in the Town of Waukesha? Mr. Hoeft clarified this and explained that the houses will be in the City of Waukesha. The only thing that will be in the Town of Waukesha is the backyard. The majority of each lot’s property taxes will be paid to the City as well. He was asked about voting rights. He explained that voting is done where your principal residence is and for them it will be the City of Waukesha. Mr. Feller commented that Mr. Kopp mentioned that there were several Engineering comments, but according to the list he has most of them have been taken care of or corrected. Mr. Crowley made the motion to approve the final plat with staff’s comments and conditions. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion Mr. Greg Walsh, the applicant, stated that he had a question on the size of the lots. They are intending to put Kettle Creek homes on the 14-16,000 square foot lots and the zoning categories, R-1 and R-2 have 45-foot setbacks in the rear and R-3 zoning requires a 40-foot setback. What they typically do, even though they zone it to R-3, which is small lots, but they follow the R-2 for PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 19 the lot size. He wanted to know what the opinion of the Plan Commission was in regard to lot sizes with new developments coming before them. Mayor Lombardi stated that since this was not on the agenda they could not discuss that question because it would not be legal. He was asked to send a letter and they would get it on the agenda for discussion. Ald. Francoeur asked what the square footage was for the homes to be built on these lots? Mr. Walsh stated that they are going to be approximately 2,000 square feet. The vote on the motion was unanimous. REZONING – FOX LAKE VILLAGE – A request from Greg Walsh, BCW LLC, and Brian and Susan Tyndall to consider rezoning 18.35 acres of land on the south side of Lawnsdale Road east of River Road from T-1 (Temporary District) to RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential District) (8-F-2) This item was placed on hold. REZONING – FOX LAKE VILLAGE – A request from Greg Walsh, BCW LLC, and Brian and Susan Tyndall to consider rezoning 152.33 acres of land on the south side of Lawnsdale Road east of River Road from T-1 (Temporary District) to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential District) (8-F-2) This item was placed on hold. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – YANKE SALOON, 200 MADISON STREET – A request from Gary Schlei to consider approving exterior changes to the existing building at 200 Madison Street. (5-E-5) Mayor Lombardi stated that she had talked with Ald. Randy Radish that day and he wanted to express his approval of this item since he could not be present. Mr. Kopp explained that this is a building that is hopefully in its last stages of restoration.. Mr. Kopp then passed around a historic photo of the building from many years ago. That is what they are trying to get the building back to. The other photos show more recently the tuckpointing and the paint work that has taken place on the second story and the restoration of the missing cupola, which was on the corner turret many years ago and ripped off. The Landmark Commission has been working with the owner, Mr. Gary Schlei, for almost 2 years. The building had a lot of bad remodelings and one of the biggest ones was that the huge glass storefront on Madison Street had been filled in at one point. The windows had been taken out and replaced with a few tiny ones, and a very ugly and inappropriate vertical wood siding, called carboard, had been filled in. This did not leave a very nice looking building. Now that the top part of the building had been tuckpointed and painted the building looks pretty good. Now, the last pieces that are left to do are the restoration of the original glass storefronts on both main facades. That means get the window and doorway on the W. St. Paul side corrected, and then redo the main façade of the building facing Madison Street. The owner went to the Landmarks Commission with some proposals. R.G. Keller, who is the architect on the Landmarks Commission did some sketches for the owner, who eventually approved it. It was sent to the Wisconsin Historic Society, which would have input over the design if it would ever become a tax credit project. They apparently felt that it was PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 20 being done right, and it was accepted. This plan now shows the recreation of the storefront glass. There are some wood panels shown to move it up a little off of the street level. It would be incredibly expensive to have windows that reflected the original picture, because those windows literally ran from the ground all the way up to the top of the first floor (15-16 feet). This shows fairly significantly sized windows that will be on the lower end plus other glass that will be put in across the top. It is to be clear glass. The owner wanted tinted glass, which caused several issues for the historic building and also for the community in other directions. Mr. Kopp stated that their recommendation is that this all be clear glass, If there is a need for awnings or other devices to help screen the sun in the afternoon, they can be worked out. The proper application, from a historic point of view, as well as from the tax credits point of view, is that this must be clear glass. There is a structural metal beam piece that sat at the base of the main window stand, which had failed, and apparently there is just a veneer across it. The possibility exists that the owner is going to try to put some limestone back. The rest will be the glass that is being restored. What has been done recently, with the building inspector’s approval, is that the glass contractor has gone down and cut out the openings to examine the situation and see what is going to be needed to put the glass back. He then had to seal it back up again for 2 weeks. The glass will be ordered, the commercial storefronts and the aluminum frames will be created, and then they will come back and install it. That is the situation this is in at the present. Staff would recommend that the Plan Commission give this approval. Mr. Kopp wanted to comment that recently there was some paintwork done on the stone on the building. Painting of stone on historic buildings is not to be done. The owner has been notified of this and he wanted that to be added at the Plan Commission level. Ald. Waldenberger asked if that will complete the restoration of the exterior of the building? Mr. Kopp said it should be close to it. There may be signage issues but they are pretty close to the end of it. Ald. Waldenberger asked if the sign above the door is going to remain? Mr. Kopp said that he will continue to work with the owner. He may want to change the sign since the building is really going to look attractive, once it is done. Ms. LePien asked if the entire first floor of the building is going to be the “Full Moon”? Mr. Kopp stated that he had never been in the building but thought it was the entire first floor. Ms. LePien asked if there were going to be other storefronts to rent? Will there be rooms upstairs? Mr. Kopp said there were rooms upstairs. Ms. LePien then stated that the stairs now protrude out onto the sidewalk and she asked if that will remain that way? Mr. Kopp replied that whether that was approved originally or not they are out in the public right- of-way and they have been out there since 1892. Ald. Francoeur wanted to comment that between now and two years ago it is phenomenal what has happened to that building. She said it gives you a wonderful appreciation for the city’s PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, September 8, 2004 Page 21 history and its roots. She said that when the clear glass goes in people will be looking into the “Full Moon”. Mr. Kopp said that there are police issues and always possibilities that there can be some type of covering, like drapes or blinds, placed over the windows from the inside. It will have to be done in context with the other parts of the business that are taking place in the community. That is the way the building was originally. It was the Yanke Saloon originally. It probably played off of the hotels and other trades that were near by. Ald. Francoeur wanted to know if the upper level was a rooming house or apartments. Mr. Kopp said that originally they were rooms for rent as part of the Spring trade. Now it is just a rooming house as far as he knows. Ms. LePien wanted to comment that she thinks it is wonderful to finally see something done with such a highly visible building located downtown. Ald. Francoeur made the motion to approve Staff’s recommendation. Ms. LePien seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael J. Hoeft, P.E. Secretary to the Plan Commission M040908
"MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION Wednesda"