Loading...
PCM19661115CITY PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WSKEGO MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE KEETINGTO ORDER AT 8:OO P. If. PRESENT: MAYOR JEROKE GOTTFRIED, CHAIRHAN, WILLIAM F. CHASE, SECRETARY, WILLARD BERTRAK, CHARLES BUEHLER, ALD. S. ROBERT LENTINI AND ED RAIKANN. PLAN CONSULTANT WILLIAH NELSON AND BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE WERE ALSO PRESENT. ABSENT: ROBERT GUNIENY MINUTES: THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS KEETINO, NOVEHBER I, 1966, WERE APPROVED AS KAILED. CARL POSU - MR. POSBRIG DID NOT APPEAR IN REGARD TO HIS REQUEST FOR 2.5 ACRE LAND DIVISION IN THE NE+, SECTION 29. HATTIE STEFANIAK PROPERTY - MR. dc MRS. LEONARD STEFANIAK 21. APPEARED FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THEIR LAND DIVISION IN SEC. THE CONHISSION REVIEWED THE CERTIFIED SURVEY HAP WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY SURVEYOR CLAUDE JOHNSON. IT WAS NOTED BY THE COHHISSION THAT A PROPERLY COMPLETED PRIVATE SEWAGE THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE ACCESS FROH RACINE AVENUE EASENENT HAD ALSO BEEN SUBNITTED. TO THIS PROPOSED PARCEL AND THE FOLLOWING COHKUNICATION DATED NOVEHBER 8, 1966, DIRECTED TO MAYOR GOTTFRIED FROH THE STATE HIGHWAY COHNISSION WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: II DEAR MA TOR GOTTFR IED : THIS IS IN ANSWER TO rouR LETTER OF IOVENBER 4, 1966, IN WHICH YOU ASK ABOUT THE HATTIE STEFANIAK PROPERTY. ATTACHED IS A PRINT OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT BEFORE MRS. STEFANIAK SOLD A PIECE OF HER PROPERTY TO MR. D. C. HABERHEYER, SHE HAD THREE (3) ACCESS POINTS ALLOTTED PREPARED FOR TEE SUBJECT PROJECT. YOU WILL NOTE THAT AND APPROVED FOR HER PROPERTY. THE DISPOS ITION OF THESE THREE ACCESS POINTS ARE HER RESPONSIBILITY. IF, IN HER SALE TO MR. HABEANEYER, SEE INCLUDED ONE OF THE THREE ACCESS POINTS, THEN SHE NOW HAS ONLY TWO REKAINING. YE ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS PERMITTED BETWEEN STATIONS 193+10 AND 194+92. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO CALL US. YOURS VERY TRULY, /s/ L. G. SCHNEIDER/V. DENSHAR" PAGE 2 - PLAN CONN. NOVEKBER 15, 1966 a IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT EITHER THIS PARCEL BE GIVEN ONE OF THE AVAILABLE ACCESSES OR THAT THE STEFANZAXS SUBNIT AN EASENENT FROM MRS. HATTIE STEFANIAK GUARANTEEING THE SHARED DRIVEWAY WHICH IS PRESENTLY USED BY THIS PARCEL AND THE HONESTEAD. MR. CEASE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR THE STEFANIAK LAND DIVISION IN THE NE+, SEC. 29, CONTINGENT UPON A SATISFACTORY REPORT FROM THE CI.TY ENGINEER AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT EITHER SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE BE SUBUITTED SHOWING THAT ONE OF TRE THREE AVAILABLE ACCESSES IS INTENDED FOR THIS PARCEL OR THAT A SATISFACTORY EASEKENT FROM MRS. STEFANIAK BE SUBNITTED GUARANTEEING SHARED USE OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. MR. RAIKANN SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE WAS DIRECTED TO SEE TEAT THIS IS PROPERLY ARRANGED. PAYID BEIEBLE - HR. BEIERLE APPEARED AND PRESENTED TO THE COHMISSION SITE AND OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE RECENTLY REZONED FROM RS-3 WITH AN OED OVERLAY TO RS-3 WITH AN 00s OVERLAY. THE CONKISSION NOTED TEAT A THREE CAR PARKING TO BE LOCATED AT s77 k18300 JANESVILLE RD., THIS PROPERTY AREA WAS PROVIDED. IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS FROX THE COMMISSION, fl~. BEIERLE ADVISED THAT NOBODY WILL RESIDE ON THE PREKISES, THAT IT WILL BE USED STRICTLY AS AN OFFICE, THAT THERE IS 900 TO 1000 SQ. FT. PRIME FLOOR AREA, AND THAT THE BUILDING HAS TWO LEVELS. PLANNER HELSON EXPRESSED CONCERN AS TO HOW FUTVRE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE POINTED A D.WELLING UNDER THE ORDINANCE; HOWEVER, MR. BUEHLER POINTED OUT TEAT ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE OVERLY DEVELOPED HAD BEEN INDICATED IN h. BEIERLE'S LETTER TO THE COMMISSION 18, 1966) FROH THE FOLLOWING CONMUNICATION DATED OCTOBER 25, 1966: OUT THAT THERE ARE NO NORE RESTRICTIONS THAN IF IT WERE JUST DATED OCTOBER 5, 1966. (RECORDED IN THE WINUTES OF OCTOBER MAYOR GOTTFRIED QUOTED ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER 'S OPINION If DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 19, 1966, ASKING OUR CONMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE BEIERLE PROPERTY. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT SECTION 9.01 A (2) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS A SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARD TO THE CITY. 0 APPROVAL oF THE PLANNING ~oKnIssIoN RELATIVE TO THE BUILDING, SITE AND OPERATIONAL PLANS. SHOULD THE PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATE THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE PLANNING COWMISSIOIV, THE AS YOU WILL NOTICE, ANY OF THE USES ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO VIOLATE HIS AGREEMENT, HE WOULD CITY COULD SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, PAGE 3 - PLAN COMM. NOVEMBER 15, 1966 HAVE TO SECURE A BUILDING PERMIT. IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WILL NOT ISSUE A PERMIT UNLESS THE CON- THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER STRUCTION IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THIS PARCEL AFTER THE REZONING. YOUR LETTER FURTHER SEEMS TO ASK OVR OPINION WHETHER A PROPERTY OWNER, IN RETURN FOR REZONING, CAN BE MADE TO AGREE THAT HE WILL NOT CONTEST URBAN RENEWAL OR WILL NOT CONTEST THE PRICE OFFERED TO HIM AT A LARD TAKING? REFERRED TO AS CONTRACT ZONING", AND HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUSLY NO. THIS IS WHAT IS COMMONLY II HELD TO BE INVALID. I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. SINCERELY, /s/ RICHARD S. HIPPENMEYER" MR. BVEHLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE AND OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR DAVID BEIERLE FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE AT S77 K103oo JANESVILLE ROAD AS SUBNITTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT MR. BEIERLE'S LETTER DIRECTED TO THE PLAN CONNISSION, DATED OCTOBER 5, 1966, BECOMES A PART OF THIS RECORD. MR. LENTINI SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE NOTION CARRIED. As MR. BEIERLE HAD SUBMITTED ONLY ONE COPY OF THE SITE AND OPERATIONAL PLAN, THE COMNISSION DIRECTED THAT HE SUBMIT THE PLAN IN TRIPLICATE AT HIS EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. JAMES HERNKE - MR. HERNKE WAS NOT PRESENT IN REGARD TO HIS TYPE SHED AT JIM'S AUTO SERVICE, S73 K16600 JANESVILLE RD. MR. HERNKE'S CONDITIONAL USE GRANT AND THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER MR. HERNKE'S FAILURE TO CONPLY WITH REQVEST FOR EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE TO ERECT A POLE THE COMMISSION REVIEWED PAST CITY RECORDS CONCERNING CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE GRANT. MR. CHASE NOVED THAT A LETTER BE DIRECTED TO MR. HERNKE REQUESTING THAT HE APPEAR AT THE NEXT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 6TH, AND SUBNIT A PLANNED PROGRAM INDICATING HIS PLANS TO COMPLY TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON HIS CONDITIONAL USE GRANT, THAT IF HE DOES NOT APPEAR HIS CONDITIONAL USE WILL BE IN JEOPARDY AND SUBJECT TO REVOCATION. MR. BERTRAM SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED. JEROME DRUGS - MAYOR GOTTFRIED RELINQUISHED THE CHAIR TO MR. CHASE IN ORDER TO PRESENT REVISED BUILDING AND SITE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED NEW DRUG STORE TO BE LOCATED ON HIWAY 24. THE RECORDING SECRETARY READ THE FOLLOWING LETTER 0 DIRECTED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION AND DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1966: PAGE 4 - PLAN COHN. NOVEHBER 15, 1966 /I GENTLENEN: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT AS PART OF THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING ALONG HIGHWAY 24 IN THE NW) SECTION 10, THAT IT IS OUR INTENT TO PLACE WITHIN THE PROPOSED STATE RIoHT-OF- WAY FOR HIGHWAY 24, A SIGN AS WELL AS A LEACH BED INSTALLATION. PLANS FOR THE SIGN WILL BE SUBNITTED TO YOUR BODY FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ITS INSTALLATION. IN REGARD TO THE LEACH BED, SINCE THE PERCOLATION TESTS WERE SATISFACTORY IN THE AREA SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING, IT IS OUR INTENT TO PLACE THE LEACH BED IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY CONNISSION AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY. BOTH THE THE CITY PLAN COHHISSION CONTINUES ITS POLICY OF REQUIRING A LEACH BED AND THE SIGN CAN BE PLACED IN THIS AREA AS LONG AS STATENENT THAT IN THE EVENT OF HIGHWAY IHPROVENENT THESE TWO FACILITIES WILL BE NOVED AT THE OWNER’S EXPENSES. THE APPROVAL OF THE DRIVEWAYS WILL BE GIVEN BY THE COKHISSION UPON PRESENTATION OF SPECIFIC PLANS. THIS LETTER WILL SERVE AS A NOTIFICATION THAT IN THE EVENT HIGHWAY 24 IS WIDENED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD EFFECT THE OPERATION OF A PROPOSED LEACH BED OR NECESSITATE THE REKOVAL OR RELOCATION OF THE SIGN, THIS WILL BE HANDLED BY OR CITY. THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING AT NO EXPENSE TO THE STATE, COUNTY SINCERELY YOURS, /s/ JERONE J. GOTTFRIED” MAYOR GOTTFRIED THEN REVIEUED THE REVISED BUILDING AND SITE PLANS. HE ADVISED THAT THE EAST WALL WILL BE BRICK VENEER, BUT THAT THE WEST AND REAR WALLS WILL RENAIN PAINTED CEMENT BLOCK. HE INDICATED HIS INTENTION TO RAZE THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AT A FUTURE TINE AND PUT AN ADDITION ON THE NEW BUILDING. HE INDICATED 50 PARKING SPACES, POINTING OUT THAT THERE WOULD BE mo PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING OR THE EXISTING BUILDING; AND ALSO INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE 30’ SET BACK AND 10’ OFFSET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. PLANNER NELSON POINTED OUT THAT THE REAR WALL WOULD FACE THE PROPOSED PARKLAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AND SUGGESTED THAT THIS WALL BE BRICK VENEERED ALSO, THAT IT WOULD BE SHORT SIGHTED NOT TO TREAT ALL SIDES AS AN ATTRACTIVE FACADE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE A FLOW OF PEOPLE FRON THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE DRUG STORE, ASSUNING THAT THE SHOPPING CENTER IS BUILT. IT WAS THE CONHISSION’S OPINION THAT THIS WALL .COULD BE VENEERED AT A LATER DATE, WREN THE SHOPPING CENTER WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. MR. CHASE QUESTIONED A WINDOW DISPLAY AREA AND MAYOR GOTTFRIED POINTED OUT,,THAT WINDOW ;SE WOULD BE DISCOURAGED AS THERE WOULD BE NO FOOT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. PAGE 5 - PLAN COHK. NOVEKBER 15, 1966 ALDERHAN LENTINI QUESTIONED HOW THIS PLAN COHPLIES WITH BACKS ARE CONCERNED. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED TEAT IT RAISED IN THE JAHNICE dc JAHNKE REPORT OF NOVEKBER ST THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS FAR AS LOT SIZE, OFFSETS AND SET HAD THE PROPER OFFSETS AND SET BACKS AND TEAT OBJECTIONS APPEARED TO BE COHPLIED WITH. MR. DAVE COUTURE, PARKLAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPER, APPEARED AND SUBHITTED THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DRUG STORE; SAKE READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: "APPLICATION OF THE MUSKEG0 ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE REQUEST BY THE MAYOR RND CHAIRMAN OF THE HUSLEGO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD A 7000 SQ. FT. STRUCTURE ON A LOT. BUILDING ON THE LOT FORKERLY OWNED BY FRANK RAKHEL SHOULD BE DENIED BY THE CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN CONMISSION AND ALL OTHER IN SAID HATTER. THE BASIS FOR THIS POSITION IS SET FORT^ BELOW. (ALL REFERENCES PERTAIN TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE , CITY OF MUSKEGO. ) MR. JEROME GOTTFRIED'S REQUEST TO BUILD A DRUG STORE GOVERNHENTAL AUTHORITIES Wh'ICH DO OR HAY HAVE JURISDICTION II TEE GOTTFRIED LOT HAS 262.5 FEET OF FRONTAGE, ALL ON STATE HY 24, AND IS 173 FEET IN DEPTH. SAID D~HENSIONS ARE KEASURED ALONG OR FROH THE BASE SET BACK LINE (2.02(2) AND 5.02 (218. GOTTFRIED 's LOT AREA (2.02(28) IS 45, 41 2.5 SQUARE FEET& GOTTFRIED'S LOT IS ZONED: B-4 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. IT LIES IN A DISTRICT DESIGNATED FOR POTENTIAL MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE. 5.01 (1 ) STATES, IN EFFECT, THAT NO STRUCTURE OR LAND SHALL BE USED, OR STRUCTURE ERECTED, EXCEPT FOR A USE AS PERMITTED AND IN COHPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS HEREINAFTER ESTABLISHED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. THE 8-4 HIGHWAY BUSINES5 DISTRICT, WHICH GOTTFRIED 'S LOT IS PRESENTLY ZONED, REQUIREB A LOT SIZE OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET (WHICH mr BE REDUCED BY 1/2 g SERVED BY HUNICIPAL izuLEE --- WHICH IT IS NOT). IT ALSO REQUIRES AN AVERAGE KINIHUH WIDTH OF 150 FEET. SECTION 6.01 (3) 1-1-2-3 MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A STRUCTURE TO BE ERECTED ON A LOT, IN DISTRICTS DESIGNATED FOR POTENTIAL KUNICIPAL SEWERAGE, PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION 0 EXCEPT UNDER 3 CONDI- 3oM OF THESE CONDITIONS!: FURTHER EVEN IF IT DID, THERE ALREADY EXISTS A SINGLE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON HIS LOT WHICH WOULD, THEREBY, STILL PREVENT THE ERECTION OF A 2ND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON SAID LOT. ADDITIONALLY, 2 LOTS CANNOT BE CREATED BY LAND DIVISION IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN BECAUSE NEITHER WOULD KEET THE LAND AREA REQUIREHENTS OF TEE DISTRICT OR THE AVERAGE HINIKUH WIDTH PAGE 6 - PLAN COHH. NOVEHBER 15, 1966 REQUIREHENTS (5.05 (1 ) (4). AND EVEN IF THE PRESENT SINGLE LOT COULD BE SOMEHOW SO DIVIDED, BY AN APPROPRIATE LAND DIVISION, SO THAT ONE LOT, AT LEAST, COULD HEET THE HINIHUK W{DTH RE- LOT OF 11 2.5 FRONTAGE FEET (WHICH YOULD, HOWEVER, BE PROHIBITED BY 5.05 (4), SAID NEWLY CREATED LOT STILL COULD NOT HEET THE BASIC AREA REQUIRENENT OF 30,000 SQ. FT. .. . TO SAY NOTHING OF DOUBLE THAT AREA REQUIRED BY REASON OF THE PRESENT LACK OF QUIREHENT OF 150 FEET (LEAVING INTACT THE ORIGINAL RAHXEL I1 HUNICIPAL SEWERAGE FACILITIES! THERE IS NO LAND AVAILABLE TO GOTTFRIED ON ANY ADJOINING LOTS OR LANDS ON WHICH AN EXCLUSIVE EASENENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A PRIVATE SEWERAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEH CAN BE BUILT--AS SUCH ALTERNATIVE IS SET FORTH IN 6.01 (2)E-3; AND, EVEN IF THERE WAS, THE PROBLEN OF 2 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES STILL EXISTS. AND, FURTHERHORE, EVEN IF SUFFICIENT EASEMENT AREA WAS HADE AVAILABLE FOR 1 OR EVEN 2 LOTS, AND DIVISION INTO 2 LOTS ATTEHPTED, SAID LOTS STILL COULD NOT BOTH HEET THE AVERAGE HINIHUM WIDTH REQUIREHENT OF THE B-4 DISTRICT...EVEN IF THE PROBLEH OF LOT WAS SONEHOW COHPLETELY RESOLVED. IF REZONING GOTTFRIED'S LOT WERE ATTEWPTED, TO SOXEHOW RESOLVE SAID PROBLEHS, 100% (INSTEAD OF Th!E REQUIRED HINIHUH OF 20%) OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IHHEDIATELY ADJACENT AND EXTENDING 100 FEET THEREFROH AS WELL AS DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THERETO, WOULD PROTEST SUCH CHANGE OF ZONING (3.06(2)G). CONSEQUENTLY, IT WOULD THEN REQUIRE 6 VOTES OF THE CrTr COUNCIL'S 7 HEHBERS TO FAVORABLY ACT ON SAID REZONING REQUEST. BUT EVEN IF TEE COUNCIL DID OR WERE WILLING TO so ACT, THERE EXISTS NO ZONING DISTRICT TO WHICH GOTTFRIED'S LOT COULD BE REZONED AND STILL CONPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS PER- TAINING TO SAID nISTRICT, AND THEREBY RESOLVE THE PROBLEHS HEREINBEFORE POINTED OUT. B-1 REQUIRES THE SAKE AREA AND WIDTH AS 8-4. ..AND ALLOWS GOTTFRIED'S APPROXIHATE 7000). 8-2 REQUIRES A DISTRICT OF AT SEWERAGE, 50,000 SQ. FT. (WHICH GOTTFRIED'S LOT DOES NOT HAVE). 8-3 REQUIRES LESS LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE. ..BUT A B-3 DISTRICT, (AND 150,000 WITH SEWERAGE). AND/OR FRONTAGE THAN IS AVAILABLE (WITH OR WOTHOUT PUBLIC SEWERAGE); OR WOULD, IN ANY EVENT, REPOSE THE PROBLEM OF 2 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES. COHMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ONLY 1500 SQUARE FEET OF PRIHARF FLOOR AREA (CONTRASTED TO LEAST 100,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA; AND EVEN WITH HUNICIPAL WITHOUT HUNICIPAL SEWERAGE, REQUIRES 300,000 SQ. FT. OF AREA THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS EITHER REQUIRE GREATER LAND AREA I1 PROJECTS ARE LINITED TO LAND PARCELS OF NOT LESS THAN 200,000 SQ. FT. EVEN THE IHHEDIATE TEARING DOWN AND T~TAL REHOVAL OF THE PRESENT EXISTING STRUCTURE ON GOTTFRIED 's LOT WOULD NOT SOLVE SEWERAGE FACILITIES TO SERVE THE SANE.. .AND THUS 60,000 SQ. FT. THE PROBLEH AT THE PRESENT TIHE SINCE THERE EXISTS NO HUNICIPAL PAGE 7 - PLAN CONN. NOTEKBER 15, 1966 OF LOT AREA IS STILL REQUIRED.. . (WHICH GOTTFRIED'S LOT DOES NOT HAVE!! 1. IF, AND WHEN, AND ONLY AFTER MUSKEGO PUBLIC SEWERAGE ~NLY AFTER TEARING DOWN THE PRESENT STRUCTURE COULD GOTTFRIED ACTUALLY SERVICES GOTTFRIED'S LOT. ..THEN, AND ONLY THEIP, AND LEGALLY ERECT A SINGLE, NEW, PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON SAID SINGLE LOT.. .THERE STILL NOT BEING SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO PROVIDE FOR 2 LOTS OF 150 FEET FRONTAGE EACH (EVEN THOUGH, THERE WOULD THEN BE ADBQUATE AREA FOR 3, 15, ooa SQ. FT. LOTS). GOTTFRIED'S LOT IS A NOH-CONFORNING LOT (4.02(1)&(2~) SINCE IT DOES NOT KEET THE 60,000 SQ. FT. AREA REQUIRED OF LOTS ZONED B-4 IN AREAS DESIGNATED FOR POTENTIAL SERVICE BY PUBLIC SEWERAGE. THEREFORE, SECTION 4.06 (C)1 , 2 & 3 IS APPLICABLE, IN TURN REQUIRING COKPLIANCE WITH ALL OF SECTION 5.05. AND SAID LOT CANNOT CONPLY WITH SAID SECTION IF A 2ND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS TO BE ERECTED THEREON. SECTION 4.07 PLACED ON A LOT, AS SUCH IS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE. OBVIOUSLY (1 ) STATES THAT EVERY BUILDING HEREAFTER ERECTED SHALL BE IF ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS ALREADY ON A LOT, ANOTHER SEPARATE PRINCIPAL BUILDING CANNOT OCCUPY THE SANE LOT...OR THE ENTIRE PURPOSE FOR CREATING AND CONTROLLING INDIVIDUAL LOTS WOULD BE 0 DESTROYED! SECTION 5.02 (2)B & B(1) FURTHER PROHIBITS ANY ADDITIONS FRON BEING NdDE TO THE EXISTIRQ STRUCTURE BECdUSE SdID STRUCTURE IS A NOR-CONFORNING STRUCTURE BY REASON OF FAILURE TO CONPLY PROPERLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIRENENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE DISTRICT BY AT LEAST la FEET. THUS, GOTTFRIED CANNOT ATTACH HIS NEW STRUCTURE TO THE OLD ONE. I/ A SUPPLENENT WAS ALSO SUBNITTED INDICATING EACH OF THE SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCES CITED, THIS ALSO READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY. TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, NELSON & Assoc. OR YAHNKE & YAHNKE FOR MAYOR GOTTFRIED- SUGG~STED THAT THE OBJECTION BE REFERRED CLARIFICATION. PLANNER NELSON ADVISED THAT IT WOULD TAKE TINE TO ANSWER THE CHARGES EVEN THOUGH HE QUICKLY DETECTED TWO ERRORS. HE INDICATED ALSO THAT NELSON & Assoc. WOULD PREFER NOT TO WITH PARKLAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. MR. BUEHLER NOVED TO REFER THE OBJECTION FRON PARKLAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER TO THE PLANNING FIRN, YAHNKE 6~ YAHUKE FOR INTERPRETATION AND RECONNENDATION TO THIS CONHISSION. ALD.LENTINI SECONDED THE HOTION AND THE NOTION CARRIED. BUILDING AND SITE PLANS FOR JERONE DRUGS UNTIL AFTER RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THE RECONNENDATION ON THE PARKLAND PLAZA CHARGES FROH YAHNKE & YAHNKE. ALD. LENTINI SECONDED THE NOTION RECONKEND ON THE OBJECTION BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST RELATIONSHIP MR. BUEHLER THEN NOVED TO DEFER ACTION ON THE REVISED AND THE NOTION CARRIED. PAGE 0 - PLAN COMM. NOVEMBER 15, 1966 BIG MUSKEGO LAKE STUDY COMMITTEE - MR. JOHN MEINHARDT, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE APPEARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLAN COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE COMHITTEE'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO HIRE THE FIRM OF MAX ANDERSON ASSOCIATES TO UNDERTAKE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR REDEVELOPMENT-RECLAMATION OF THE NORTH END OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE. THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF THIS STUDY WOULD DETERMINE IF OF THE BIG HUSKEGO LAKE STUDY COMMITTEE, AND MEKBERS OF THE THE PROJECT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS AND INCLUDE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY, ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AREA AND COST APPROXIMATELY $1200. PLANNER NELSON SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE STUDY POINTING OUT THAT THIS WOULD GIVE THE CITY THE POSSIBILITY OF MARKETING DEPLETED IN SEVERAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND URGED THE COMMISSION AN OTHERWISE UNMARKETABLE AREA, BUT THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN TO ACT QUICKLY. MR. MEINHARDT ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE CONCEIVABLE THAT NEARLY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SPENT ON THIS PHASE WOULD BE REIMBURSED TO THE CITY. ALDERMAN DON WIESELMANN SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE EXPENDITURE POINTING OUT THAT QUALIFICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS WOULD BE BASED ON A GOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MR. ROBERT UNGER POINTED OUT THAT FUNDS COULD BE RAISED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE AND THAT SOME MONEY WAS AVAILABLE, ,,THAT THE COMNITTEE WAS WAITING FOR A PLAN ON WHICH MR. CHASE MOVED TO RETAIN THE FIRM OF MAX ANDERSON Assoc. TO DO THE PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE BIG MUSKEGO LAKE, MOUNT FOR STUDY NOT TO EXCEED $7200. MR. RAIMANN SECONDED THE It TO SPEND IT .,,, i,., MOTION AND THE KOTION CARRIED. PUSREGO NURSING HOM6 - TEE PLAN COMMISSION RECEIVED A PETITION FROM MR. HAROLD SWANTO FOR EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE 'PURPOSE OF AN ADDITION TO THE MUSKEGO NURSING HOME. MR. CHASE MOVED TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR D5CEMBER 6, 1966, 7:45 P. M. IN LIEU OF PETITION FOR EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE FOR MUSKEGO NURSIRG HOME. MR. BERTRAM SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTIOR CARRIED. RICHARD MAURICE - A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REQUEST OF RICHARD MAURICE FOR EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE PVRPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A GARAGE AT LAKESIDE TOOL dc MACHINE Go: WAS HELD JUBT PRIOR TO THIS REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEET . MOVED PO REFER RICHARD MAURICE'S PLANS FOR A GARAGE TO THE CITY PLANNER TO DETERHINE IF THEY COMPLIED WITH THE UPON THE RECONMENDATION OF PLANNER NELSON, MR. E"" HASE FOR THE 8-3 DISTRICT. MR. ~IMANN SECONDED THE MOTION AND MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA RATIO AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT THE MOTION CARRIED. PAGE 9 - PLAN COMM. NOVENBER 15, 1966 OPMENT - AT THE PREVIOUS NEETING, THE ~%~~~~~~Y?~~~E~OR A LAND DIVISION INVOLVING SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS ON HILLENDALE DRIVE IN THE NE) OF SECTION 10 WHO DESIRE TO EXCHANGE LAND AND CREATE NEW LOTS WAS REFERRED TO PLANNER KNETZGER FOR RECOMMENDATION. KNETZGER ADVISED THAT BECAUSE OF THE INDICATION OF POOR SOIL IN HIS RECOMMENDATION DATED NOVEMBER 11 TH, 1966, PLANNER CONDITIONS FOR SUITABLE SEPTIC SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO SOIL MAPS, IT IS HIS RECONKENDATION THAT SOIL BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TESTS BE TAKEN BEFORE ANY FURTHER SUBMITTALS ARE MADE TO THE COMNISSIOM. MR. CHASE MOVED THAT BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE PLAN CONNISSION THAT THE PETITIONERS BE CONTACTED AND REQUESTED TO SUBMIT RESULTS OF PERCOLATION AND SOIL BORING TESTS ON THE PROPOSED LOTS. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED. COMUNICATIONS - THE FOLLOWING CONMUNICATION FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE DIRECTED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION WAS REFERRED TO PLANNER NELSON FOR RECOMNENDATION: It THIS LETTER IS BEING WRITTEN IN REGARD TO POSSIBLE ZONING CHANGES IN SECTION 8.01 (7) B (PAGE 65) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE: 2. QUARTERS FOR HOUSEHOLD OR FARM EPIPLOYEES, PROVIDED THAT SUCH QUARTERS SHALL BE OCCUPIED ONLY BY INDIVIDUALS EN- PLOYED FULL TIME ON THE PRENISES AND THEIR FANILIES. 3. GUEST HOUSES ON LOTS OF AT LEAST 120,000 SQUARE FEET, PROVIDED SUCH STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE RENTED, LEASED, OR USED FOR CONTINUOUS OR PERMANENT HABITATION. I SUGGEST EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING CHANGES SO THAT PROPER ENFORCEKENT IN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CAN BEST BE SERVED: (A) THAT THESE ACCESSORY USES BE PERMITTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF THE PLAN COKMISSION FOLLOWING THE CRITERIA OF LOCATION, SIZE, ZONING DISTRICT, ETC. OR (E) THAT THESE ACCESSORY USES BE PLACED AS A CONDITIONAL THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS A USE. PROBLEM IN THE LOCATION AND THE SIZE OF SUCH STRUCTURE WHICH COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR COULD BRING EACH APPLICATION TO THE PLAN COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL BUT AGAIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT INDICAT; THAT THIS BE DONE, ONLY IN TEE CASE OF UNDESIRABLE STRUCTURES. ADJOui?NMENf - MR. BUEHLER MOVED FOR ADJOURNNENT, h. BERTRAM SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE PIEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1o:So P. M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 11 -22-66 BARBARA J. SANDS RECORDING SECRETARY