Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



                                 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.

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

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

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

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

Mayor Lombardi requested that Ald. Hoelkinger be involved with Staff and the architect on the

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-

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
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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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)

This item was placed on hold.

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

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


To top