PCM19660419CITY PLAN COMIfISSIOiV CITY OF MUSKEGO
0
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1966 CITY HALL
MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE NESTING TO ORDER
Pmz: MAYOR JERONE GOXTFRIED, CHAIRMAN, WILLIAM CEASE, szc'y,
WILLARD BERTRAK, CHARLES BUEHLER, s. ROBERT LENTINI, ED R~IMANN,
AND CLARENCE VALRATE. RUSSELL KNETZGER, CONSULTANT, WAS ALSO
PRESBNT AND GERALD LEE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, ARRIVED AX 8:55 p. M.
flINuTU: THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOU8 HEETING, APRIL 4, 1966,
wrm APPROVED AS KAILED.
JOHJ SCHAEFER - MR. SCHAEFER DID NOT APPEAR CONCERNING a18 nr-
QUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A POND .IN SECTIONS 13 6c 14.
THE WIS. CON~ERVATION DEPT. AND PUBLIC SERVICE GOPIKISSION
MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED THAT LETTERS HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO
REQUESTING THEIR OPINION CONCERNING THI8 RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE
CHANNEL. TO DATE A COMMUNICATIOU XAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM TXE PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION ADVISING THAT A FIELD INSPECTION OF
BE PROVIDED TO THE CONKISSION FOLLOWING TIE INSPECTION.
TEE SCXAEFER PROJECT XAD BEEN SCXEDULED AND TXEIR COMMENT8 WOULD
- MR. CXMIEL DID NOT APPEAR RELATIIE TO XI8 RrQUE8T
FOR LAMD DIIIOION IN SECTION 11.
OTTO - MR. KURTX DID NOT APPEAR RELATIIE TO XI8 REQUE8T
FOR LAND DITI8ION IN SECTION 11. - PETITION8 FOR ZONING CXANGP, SUBMITTED BY
HR. PERKIN8 AND REFERRED BY TIE CONPION COUNCIL TO TIE PLAN
COMMIZOION, WERE RECEITED. TXE ZONING CXANGE I8 RXQUE8TBD FOR
TWO PARCELS IN SECTION 4 AT TXE CORNER OF COLLEGE AND MARTIN DRIIE~: PARCEL #1 - FROM RS-2 TO B-1 NXIGXBORXOOD CONIEMIBMCE DI~TRICT
PARCEL #2 - FROM RS-2 TO RSM MULTIPLE FAMILY RE8IDENCE D1.T.
MAYon GOTTFRIED ADIIOED TXAT TIE COHMON COUNCIL WOULD O6T TIE
ZEARZNN4 -DAl'B FOR l'XE PUBLIC HEARING AT TXEIR NEXT REGULAR KEETING. IT WAS- TIE COKMISSION'S DECISION TEAT BECAUSE OF TIE SERIOUS
TRAFFIC XAZARD CREATED BY TXIS CORNER, A STUDY SXOULD BE HADE
TO DETERNINE XOW IT COULD BE REDESIGNED TO ALLEIIATE TIE
XAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. e MR. &ASS KO7ED TXAT PLANNER KNETZGER BE AUTXORIZEB TO
STUDY TIE TRAFFIC PROBLEM AT TIE CORNER OF COLLEGE AND MARTIN DRIVES AND RECOMMEND SUITABLE TREATNENT TO ALLEIIATE TIE
PROBLEN. MR. VALRATX SECONDED TXE KOTION AND TIE MOTION CARRIED.
- .MR. LEMASTER, S69 W17915 MUSKEGO DRIVE,
APPEARED SEEKING DETERHINATION OF STATUS OF LOT 4, BLOCK 6,
MUSKEGO SHORES SUBDIVISION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION X OF
THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE. THE FOLLOWING LETTER DIRECTED TO THE COMMON COUNCIL AND
REFERRED BY THEM TO THE COMMISSI,ON FOR RECOMMENDdTION WdS
READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED
COMMON COUNCIL
I HEREBY PETITION THE COHMON COUNCIL, CITY OF MUSKEGO, FOR
DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF LOT #4, BLOCK #6, MUSKEGO SHORES SUBDIVISION. I HAVE RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS LOT FROM THE
OWNER, EdRL KIER, (NOW DECEASED) WHO PREVIOUSLY OWNED THIS
LOT dND THE ADJOINING LOT. I HAVE OWNED THE LOT ADJOINING
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, TO THE NORTH, FOR ABOUT NINE YEARS.
INTEND TO SELL MY EXISTING HOME ON COMPLETION. I JUST DIS-
COVERED THAT THIS LOT WAS CONVEYED TO ME IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION X OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE. I HEREBY
REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL DETERMINE THdT SAID LOT BE A BUILD'
dBLE LOT SO TEAT A PERMIT .CAN BE ISSUED. ENCLOSED dRE TWO
COPIES OF SURVEY SHOWING THAT THE AREd IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR
I HAVE DESIGNED A SPECIFIC DWELLING TO PLACE ON ,LOT #4 AND
PRIVATE SEWER DISPOSAL SYSTEH dND OPEN dREA. ALL OTHER CODES
AND ORDINdNCES WILL BE FOLLOWED WITH MY NEW HOME DESIGN.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ BOB LEMASTER THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLAT OF SURVEY dND PERCOLATION TESTS SUBMITTED BY MR. LEMASTER. THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR
TEE PROPOSED DWELLING WERE ALSO REVIEWED. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED THAT THERE WdS NO PROBLEM WITH SEWdGE DISPOSdL IN
THIS AREA.
LETTER DATED JdNUdRY 32, 1966, (IN FEE. 1ST MINUTES IN ENTIRETY)
IT IS MY OPINION THdT IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION
MR. BUEHLER QUOTED ATTDRNEY, HIPPENNEYER'S OPINION FROM A
CONCERNING A SITUATION SIMILAR IN HI-X RANCHES SUBDIVISION:
X OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE, EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE
II
MADE TO DECIDE IN 7,AVOR OF THE LOT OWNER TO PERMIT TEE SdLE OF
THE EXISTING LOTS. IT WdS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE PENALIZING
TEE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CASES SUCH dS THIS IF THE LOT WERE NOT
DECLdRED A LEGAL LOT AND MR. BUEHLER MOVED THAT RECOMMENDdTION
BE MdDE TO THE COMMON COUNCIL THAT LOT 4, BLOCK 6, IN MUSKEGO
ALLOWED TO dPPLY FOR d BUILDING PERMIT. MR. LENTINI SECONDED
THE HOTION AND TEE MOTION CARRIED. e SHORES SUBDIVISION BE DECLARED A LEGAL LOT AND MR. LEMASTER BE
J'EXACO. INC. - THIS REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN
AUTOHOBILE SERVICE STATION AT THE CORNER OF TESS CORNERS DRIVE
AND HIWAY 24 HAD BEEN REFERRED TO PLANNER KNETZGER AT THE
PREVIOUS MEETING FOR RECONMENDATION. PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED
THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A REASONABLE LOCATION FOR A SERVICE
STATION AND THE BUILDING WAS OF A DESIRABLE TYPE, IT WAS HIS
OPINION THAT THE PLANS SUBMITTED WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND SUB-
MITTED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS AND RECOHHENDATIONS:
A3!uuuu (CODE: *DATA HISSING +CHANGE DESIRED)
+I. RED FACE BRICK ON ALL FOUR BUILDING FACADES.
+2. STORE FRONT WINDOWS TO BE HULLION TYPE PER COLONIAL THEME.
+3. ROOF OVERHANG ON REAR OF BUILDING TO EQUAL THAT SHOW$ ON FR?~T. 04. DETAIL OF FACADE HATERIAL AND HETAL FLASHING BEHIND TEXACO
SIGN ON UPPER FRONT FACADE HISSING.
LuiL
01. TOPOGRAPHY ESPECIALLY GRADE OF BUILDING AND TREATMENT OF
S URFA CE WA TER RUN OFF.
+2. ELIMINATION OF SECOND ACCESS POINT ON STH 24, HOVE ACCESS
03. RECOGNITION OF ESTABLISHED HIGHWAY WIDTH AND CORRESPONDING
+4. ESTABLISH 5 FOOT PLANTING STRIP ALONG WEST LINE OF PROPERTY. +5. CONSIDER FOUNDATION LANDSCAPING ON SOUTHEAST BUILDING CORNER.
96. USE AND CARE OF UNDEVELOPED AREA. +7. HEDGES TO DEFINE DRIVEWAY OPENINGS.
90. SPECIFY SURFACE KATERIALS.
POINT HAXIHUM DISTANCES FROH INTERSECTION.
FUTURE PROPERTY LINES.
S:-9. SHOW TREATXENT OF TRASH STORAGE.
SIOnrs 1. TEXACO" ON BUILDINQ OKAY AS SHOWN.
+2. 40' HIGH, 6' X 50' (300 SQ. FT. ) TO BE PROHIBITED.
+3. PERHIT ONE 50 SQ. FT. SIGN, MAXINUN 20 FT. HEIGHT, INTERIOR
OR EXTERIOR ILLUHINATED, BUT WATTAGE TO BE APPROVED. LOCATE
ON CORNER.
LIGHTING
+2. AIM OF LIGHTING ON DRIVES TO BE AWAY FROH DIRECTION OF
+1. BUILDING ILLUNINATION BY LIGHTING IN EAVES ONLY.
APPROACH ON STH 24.
PHONE BOOTIC
91. GIVE PROPER LANDSCAPE TREATNENT, LOCATE BEHIND SETBACK LINE a OR GIVE EASEHENT FOR FUTURE RELOCATION AT OWNER'S EXPENSE.
n
(4)
THE cONNISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN AS TO THE EVENTUdL
MdrOR GOTTFRIED NOVED THdT THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
FOR d TEXdCO AUTONOBILE SERVICE STATION BE DENIED ON THE BASIS
WIDENING OF HIWdY 24.
OF INCONPLETE PREPARdTION AND UNdCCEPTdBLE SITE PLdN; HOWEVER,
THE CONHISSION WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A NEW REQUEST WHICH
WOULD INCORPORATE THE RECONNENDATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
BY THE PLANNING CONSULTdNT. MR. CHASE SECONDED THE NOTION AND
THE NOTION CARRIED.
RECODG OF COIVDWAL USE - THE CONNISSION
DISCUSSED THE RECORDING OF CONDITIONAL USE GRANTS. PLdNNER KNETZGER RECOHHENDED THAT THE DOCUKENT BE PRINTffD SINILdR TO A
DEED AS THIS DOCUNENT WOULD BE AS IXPORTdNT TO THE PROPERTY
! OWNER AS HIS DEED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LIST OF CONDITIONS
SET FORTH WOULD BE SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONNISSION. IT
WAS THE CONNISSION'S OPINION THdT RECORDING FEES BE PdID BY THE
PETITIONER.
OF MdRCH 23, 1966, (IN HINUTES OF APRIL qTH IN ENTIRETY) AND
IT WAS TEEIR OPINION THAT THE THIRD CONSIDERATION NOTED IN THE
LETTER BE CLdRIFIED BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDING:
THE COHNISSION ALSO REVIEWED ATTORNEY HIPPENNEYER'S LETTER
(I 3. ANY CHANGE IN ZONING THdT NIGHT AFFECT THE GRANT SHOULD
MR. LENTINI XOVED THdT ATTORNEY HIPPENHEYEA FURTHER CLdRIFY
THEREFOR ALSO BE RECORDED. tI
THE THIRD OBJECTION IN HIS LETTER OF HARCH 23, 1966. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE NOTION CARRIED.
- THE FOLLOWING CONNUNICATION DATED APRIL 14,
1966, FRON ATTORNEY HIPPENNEYER REGdRDING THIS DIVISION OF LdND
IN SEC. 8 WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETdRY:
DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED:
UNDER DATE OF APRIL 12, 1966. YOU WRVTE ON BEHdLF OF THE
PLAN CONMISSION STdTING THE FOLLOWING PROBLEN.
DIVIDE INTO FOVR LOTS. THERE PRESENTLY IS A 30' STREET dLONG
THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PdRCEL dND THERE IS APPARENTLY A PRI-
VdTE 3Q8 ROdDWAY ALONG THE EdST SIDE OF THE PARCEL.
WOULD BE A 60' STREET ALONG TEE NORTH AND A 60' STREET ON THE
EAST. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SNALL PdRCEL LOCdTED IN THE NORTH-
EdSTERLY PART OF HIS LdND WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY HIM dND UPON
WHICH THERE IS dN OLD SHED AND GARAGE BUILDING. THIS LAND LIES
IN PdRT OF WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED STREET ON THE NORTH dND
MR. WALTEA GEIBEL OWNS A PARCEL OF LAND ~ICH HE WISHES TO
MR. GEIBEL IS WILLING TO DEDICATE ENOUGH LAND SO THdT THERE
THE PROPOSED STREET OR THE EAST. APPARENTLY MR. GEIBEL IS
UNABLE TO PURCHASE THIS LAND.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROBLEK COULD BE HANDLED BY A DEDI- @ CATION OF THAT LAND FOR STREETS WHICH MR. GEIBEL IS ABLE TO
GIVE. THE CITY WOULD THEN BE IN A POSITION TO CONDEUN THAT PART
OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE OTHER PERSON NECESSARY FOR STREET
PURPOSES. &. GEIBEL, OF COURSE, HAS NO RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION. HOWEVER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS STREET IS PRINARILY FOR MR.
GEIBEL'S ADVANTAGE, AND I BELIEVE THAT HE MIGHT WELL BE REQUIRED
TO DONATE SUCH SUH OF HONEY TO THE CITY AS IT NAY REASONABLY BE
REQUIRED TO EXPEND TO ACQUIRE THE LAND BY CONDEUNATION, PARTI-
CULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IF A STREET IS NOT ACQUIRED,
THERE WOULD BE A LAND-LOCKED LOT CREATED BY HIS PROPOSED DIVISION. IF THE CITY WISHES TO PURSUE THIS PROCEDURE, SOME IDEA OF
THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL WHICH WOULD BE CONDEMNED WOULD HAVE TO
BE OBTAINED FROM d COKPETENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISER. IF THE BUILDINGS ON THIS LdND ARE DILAPIDATED TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY ARE A HEALTH HAZARD AND NUISANCE, THAT SHOULD BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
YOURS VERY TRULY,
/s/ RICHARD S. HIPPENKEYER
THERE WAS; CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AS TO THE DRAINAGE
IN THIS AREA, OTHER ROAD ACCESS POSSIBILITIES AND ROAD AVAILA-
BILITI TO THE POCICE AND FXRE DEPTS. TEE COXHISSION STUDIED
THE HILLVIEW FARM PLAT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY NAP OF SECTION 0. IT WAS THE CONKISSION'S FINAL DECISION THAT THEY LOOK
AT THE AREA TO DETERXINE THE POSSIBILITIES SO THAT A DECISION
CAN BE KADE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
J-NT FOm - THE FOLLOWING FORK SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEY HIPPENHEYER FOR PRIVATE SEWER EASENENTS WAS REVIEWED BY THE
COKUISSION:
AGREEHENT, MADE THIS - DAY OF - is, BY AND BETWEEN
,, BEREINAFTER TERMED GRANTOR AND PEREINAFTER TERNED rr
&ANTEE": WHEREAS, GRANTEE OWNS CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF MUSKEGO, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS AND
DESIGNATED PARCEL A: Am VHEREAS, GRANTEE NEEDS ADDITIONAL AREA FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF A PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEK FOR A PROPOSED BUILDING
To BE PLACED UPON SAID REAL ESTATb', AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 6.07
(3)(A)(3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MUSKECO.
(6)
Ah!. WHEREAS, GRANTOR IS TEE OWNER OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
NOW, THEmFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF ONE DOLLAR
IS HEREBY ACKNOWLED~D, GRANTOR FOR HIPISELF, HIS HEIRS, LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS DOES HEREBY GRANT TO GRANTEE, HIS
HEIRS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS, AN EASEMENT ON PARCEL
REAL ESTATE DESIGNATED PdRCEL B:
AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT OF WHICH
B FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING dND MAINTAINING A PRIVATE SEW-
dGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICING THE BUILDINGS
ON PARCEL A.
GRANTOR DOES FURTHER COVENANT THAT HE WILL NOT PLACE ANY
BUILDINGS REQUIRING SEWAGE SERVICE ON PARCEL B DURING THE
EXISTENCE OF THIS EASEIlENT. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AGREED THAT THIS EASBVYENT ISHALL
TERMINATE 60 DAYS AFTER A MUNICIPAL SEWER IS AVAILABLE FOR THE
USE OF PARCEL A. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AGREED BY BOTE PARTIES HERETO
THdT THE CITY OF ?fUSKEGO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE PERPETUdTION OF
THIS EASEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AND THAT THE EASEMENT
CANNOT BE TERMINATED DURING ITS INTENDED TERM OF EXISTENCE WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SAID CITY.
e SIGNATURES OF GRANTOR, GRANTEE, WITNESSES AND SEAL
TEE UNDERSIGNED, BEING A MORTGAGE OR OTHER LIEN HOLDER ON
AND OTHER GOOD dND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION RECEIPT OF WHICH IS
HEREBY dCKNOWLEDGED, CONSENT TO THE EXECUTION OF TBE FOREGOING
EASEMENT dND DOES SUBROGATE ITS LIEN AND MAKE THE SAME SUBJECT
TO SAID EASEMENT.
PARCEL B DOES HEREBY, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE sun OF ONE DOLLAR
DATED THIS -JAY OF 1 93
SIGNATURE OF LIENHOLDER & SEAL
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN AS TO THE TERMINATION
OF THE EASEMENT 60 DAYS AFTER MUNICIPAL SEWER IS AVAILABLE, HOW-
EVER, AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION, IT WAS THE CONMISSION'S
DECISION THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE.
E. J. SALENTINE - A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS REQUEST FOR EXPANSION
OF CONDITIONAL USEPDR AN ADDITION TO THE SALENTINE AUTO BODY
SHOP, S66 k"rl.580 JANESVILLE ROAD, SEC. 2, WAS HELD PRIOR TO
THIS REGULAR MEETING. THE FOLLOWING LETTER DdTED APRIL 13, 1966, FROM ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY-:
DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: RE: CONDITIONAL USE AND APPEALS
THAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN WHEREBY AN OWNER REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL
USE FRON THE PLAN CONNISSION AND A VARIANCE FRON THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND WHICH PROCEDURE COMES FIRST.
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12TH. YOU STATE
I DONOT BELIEVE THAT YOU REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE BOTH PROBLENS SHOULD BE HANDLED
BY THE PLANNING CONFISSION.
SECTION 6.03(A) (1 ) PROVIDES: I1 EXCEPT AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY OTHERWISE PROVIDED, ANY
SUCH USESHALL CONFORM TO THE BUILDING LOCATION, HEIGHT, BUILDING SIZE, LOT SIZE, AND OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS
OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. 11
SECTION 6.03 (3) (c) PROVIDES: 11 MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS: REQUIRENENTS APPLICABLE
TO USES PERNITTED BY RIQHT OR AS ACCESSORY USES IN ANY
DISTRICT BY THE REGULATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE
NODIFIED OR WAIVED BY TEE PLAN COMMISSION IN THEIR AP-
PLICATION TO A CONDITIONAL USE IF IN THE COMMISSION'S
OPINION THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY TO THE
PROPER REGULATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND WHERE SUCH
MODIFICATION OR WAIVER WOULD NOT IN THE CONHISSION'S
PROPERTIES.
OPINION RESULT IN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE SURROUNDING I/
SECTION 6.03 (3J.D) PROVIDES: 11 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: USES AND STRUCTURES
ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL CONDITIONAL USE NAY BE PER-
NITTED SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS IN THE SANE
NANNER AS HEREIN BEFORE SET FORTH FOR THE PRINCIPAL
CONDITIONAL USE. II
IT APPEARS THAT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO USES" AS USED 11
IN SUBSECTION c RELATES TO SUCH THINGS AS OPEN SPACE, BUILDING
LOCATION, ETC., AND W?IEN INVOLVED IR THE GRANTING OF A CONDITIONAL
USE ARE PROPERLY A MATTER FOR DETERHINATION BY THE PLAN COMNISSION. CONDITIONAL USES MAY BE TERMINATED AND VARIANCES IN THEIR
USE DO NOT HAVE THE PERNANENCY OF VARIANCES REQUESTED IN RESPECT
TO USES PERHITTED BY RIGHT AND THUS IN MY OPINION DO NOT REQUIRE
THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS.
YOURS VERY TRULY,
/s/ RICHARD S. HIPPENNEYER
PLANNER KNETZCER RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS AND
RECOKNENDATIONS CBRCERNING THIS ADDITION:
1. OPPOSE THE BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL
UNLESS ENGINEER'S STUDIES SHOW LONG RANGE WATER FLOW
2. REQUIRE PROHIBITION OF PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDING.
3. QUESTION NEW CAR STORAGE WEST OF THE SALENTINE HOUSE. 4. LANDSCAPING, FRONT AND REAR
CAN BE HANDLED.
MR. CHASE READ THAT PORTION OF THE NINUTES OF AUGUST 3,
1964, INWHICR THE CONDITIONS WERE SET FORTH WHEN THIS CONDITIONAL
MR. MACHKOVICH NOVED, AS SECONDED BY MR. Gum, THAT TEE e USE WAS GRANTED: II
PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE STATUS Br E. J. SALENTINE
FOR PURPOSES OF OPERATING BODY REPAIR SHOP IN B-3 COHMERCIAL DISTRICT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: THERZ
SHALL BE NO STORAGE OF AUTONOBILE BODIES OR SCRAP PARTS TO
REAR OF BODY SHOP AND THERE SHALL Bg NO EXCESSIVE NOISE
AUDIBLE OUTSIDE AFTER 9 P. M., NOR BEFORE 7 A. M. HOTION II CARR IED.
MR. CHASE NOVED TO GRANT EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PETITIONED Br MR. SALENTINE CONTINGENT UPON THE CONDITIONS AS
SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL GRANT AND TO ALLOW THE 2' VARIANCE ON
THE EAST LOT LINE. MR. YALRATH SECONDED THE NOTION AMD THE
HOTION CARRIED. IT WAS THE CONKISSION'S OPINION THAT HR. SALENTINE BE NADE
AWARE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PLANNER.
ORD'S - BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE SUBHITTED ARCHITECTURAL
PLANS FOR CLIFFORD SCHILL FOR AN ADDITION TO THE WEST SIDE OF
CLIFFORD'S, S76 v17745 JANESVILLE h. (FORMERLY STUEDEHANN'S BEACH BOWL ). BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED THAT AFTER THE
OF THE BUILDING IN THE OFFING. THE PLANS WERE REVIEWED BY THE
CONKISSION RESULTING' IN THE FOLLOWING NOTION: MR. BUEHLER NOVED TO APPROVE TEE BUILDING PLANS SUBJECT
ADDITION WAS COHpLETED, TmRE WERE PLANS TO REHODEL Tm FRONT
TO ACCEPTABLE TREATNENT SUCH AS WOOD OR BRICK ON THE EXTERIOR
WALLS. MR. BERTRAN SECONDED THE NOTION AND IT CARRIED.
PAMLAND PLAZA - MR. CHASE HOPED TO RECONSIDER THE TENTATIVE
APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR PARKLAND PLAZA AT THE PLAN
APRIL 19, 1966. MR. BUEHLPR SECONDED TEE NOTION AND THE NOTION
MR. CHASE NOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE OF THE THREE NAJOR
COHNISSION NEETING APRIL 4TH IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENT RECEIVED
CARRIED
BUILDINGS ON THE SITE PLAN SUBNITTED APRIL 19, 1966, AND THE
NEXT DOCUNENT SUBHITTED TO BE THE TOPOGRAPHICAL SITE AND
OPERATIONAL LAYOUT OF THIS AREA TO SHOW HOW THEY INTEND TO
HANDLE THE GRADE, DRAINAGE, ETC. MR. RdINANN SECONDED THE
HOTION AND THE NOTION CARRIED.
pDJOu8Nm MR. WALRATH NOVED FOR ADJOURNNENT, MR. kINAMN
SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE HEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :25 PO M.
! .-
4-22-66
RECORDING SECRETARY