Loading...
PCM19671219CITY PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF MUSXEGO MINUTES OF MEETING HELD DECEMBER CITY HALL a 19, 1967 MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 8:05 P. M. PRESENT: MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED, CHAIRMAN, CHARLES BUEHLER, WILLARD BERTRAM, PAUL DEANGELIS, ALDERMAN S. ROBERT LENTINI AND ED RAIMANN. WILLIAM F. CHASE ARRIVED AT 8:10 P. M. PLAN CONSULTANT RUSSELL KNETZGER AND BUILDING INSPECTOR GERALD LEE WERE ALSO PRESENT. MINUTES: THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 1967, WERE APPROVED AS MAILED. PERSONAL APPEARANCES: BILL GREINER - MR. GREINER, CHAIRMAN OF THE LITTLE MUSKEGO LAKE COMMITTEE, APPEARED TO REQUEST IF THE CITY HAD ANY PLANS INVOLVING ANY OF THE THREE MUSKEGO LAKES OR ANY WATER- WAYS WITH WHICH THE LITTLE MUSKEGO LAKE COMMIXTEE SHOULD COORDINATE THEIR PLANS. MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED THAT THE CITY HAD NO SPECIFIC a PROJECTS AT THE PRESENT TIME OTHER THAN FINISHING THE CLEANING OF THE MUSKEGO CREEK, REPAIRING THE LITTLE MUSKEGO LAKE DAM AND WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEES. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF CLEANING LITTLE MUSKEGO LAKE WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, DECEMBER 26~~. MR. GREINER ADVISED THAT THE COMPLETED REPORT OF THE FRANK PRESTON - MR. FRANK PFESTON, REPRESENTATIVE FOR MARY PRESTON, APPEARED SEEKING DETERMINATION OF STATUS FOR USE OF PROPERTY IN SEC. 5, LOCATED AT THE CORNERS OF LUECKOW DR. AND RACINE ATE. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS SUBMITTED. MR. PRESTON ADVISED THAT A COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE INSTALLATION OF AIRFIELD RUNWAYS, LIGHTING OF THE RUNWAYS AND A NEW METHOD OF TREADING ROADS IS INTERESTED IN LEASING AN EXISTING BUILDING AND ONE ACRE OF PROPERTY. HE POINTED CABINET MANUFACTURING FIRM. ACCORDING TO MR. PRESTON THE OUT THAT THIS BUILDING HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED BY A KITCHEN PROPOSED COMPANY WOULD USE THE BUILDING FOR THE STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, BUT THAT IN THE FUTURE IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE COMPANY WILL WISH TO EXPAND AT WHICH TIME THEY WOULD REQUEST A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED TO USE THE PREMISES FOR STORAGE, SERVICING AND REPAIRING. MR. BUEHLER QUESTIONED IF THEY WILL BE SERVICING THE EQUIPMENT STORED NOW AND MR. PRESTON ANSWERED THAT IF THEY DO IT WILL ONLY BE INSIDE THE BUILDING. PAGE 2 - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 PLANIVER KNETZGER SUGGESTED THAT THEY BE REQUESTED TO ABIDE BY SOME REASONABLE REGULATIONS SUCH AS SPACING THE TRUCKS IN THE PARKING AREA, ETC. IT WAS NOTED ZY THE COMMISSION THAT THEY MUST DETERMINE IF THIS USE WOULD~EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS USE, IF AFTER DISCUSSION, ALDERMAN LENTINI MOVED THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED. THE MOTION LOST FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MR. CHASE THEN MOVED TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS REQUEST FOR 30 DAYS IN ORDER THAT MR. PRESTON CAN SUBMIT A SITE AND NOT A PETITION FOR REZONING WOULD BE IN ORDER. OPERATIONAL PLAN, INDICATING HOURS OF OPERATION, TYPE OF EQUIPMENT, EGRESS AND INGRESS, AND BUILDING PLAN SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN DETERMINE HOW THE PROPERTY IS TO BE USED. MR. DEANGELIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VILLIAM KILPS SONS - SURVEYOR ROMAN BERANDT, JIM HELING, REPRESENTATIVE OF KILPS, AND DON KILPS APPEARED LOOMIS ESTATE PROPERTY IN SECTIONS 16 & 17, ADVISING THAT THEY HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH PLANNER KNETZGER AND CITY ENGINEER RUEKERT SINCE THE LAST MEETING. RELATIVE TO THEIR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLANNER KNETZGER REVIEWED THE PLAN STATING THAT THERE WERE SOME MINOR REVISIONS WHICH HE WOULD SUGGEST SUCH AS THE NORTH ROAD RUNNING STRAIGHT FOR APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET COULD INDUCE BIGH SPEED AND SUGGESTED SOME CURVING OF THE ROAD, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE IDEAL LOCATION FOR THE SEWER WOULD BE ALONG THE WATER BED WHICH KILPS DOES NOT OWN AND SUGGESTED THAT SOME LAND TRADZS MIGHT BE POSSIBLE WITH OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THIS CREEK. A QUESTION AROSE AS TO OPEN SPACE AREAS AND PLANNER KNETZGER POINTED OUT THE POTENTIAL OPEN SPACE AREAS WHICH COULD BE UTILIZED NEAR, BUT NOT IN, THE SUSDIVISION. A QUESTION ALSO AROSE - DOES THE SUBDIVIDER HAVE TO PROTIDE A PARKWAY BRIDGE ON LAND DEDICATED TO THE CITY?", SAME TO BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. II MR. KILPS ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD LSKE TO HAVE A HOME BUILT IN THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE SPRING FOR THE HOME SHOW, THAT THE HOME WOULD NOT BE USED, OTHER THAN FOR SHOW, UNTIL FALL. SURVEYOR BERANDT ADVISED THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. e STEVEN SCHULER - MR. SCHULER, W190 Slot357 RACINE AvE., APPEARED TO DISCUSS THE CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS WHICH HE HAD SUBMITTED FOR 3 PROPOSED LOTS AS WELL AS A TENTATIVE .- LOT LAYOUT OF HIS ENTIRE PROPERTY IN SEC. 32. PLAN CONSUL- TANT RUSSELL KNETZGER ADVISED THAT THE CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP PAGE 3 - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19,. 1967 FOR PARCELS A & B APPEARED To BE IN ORDER, HOWEVER, THE LAKE DENOON RAISED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS - WHERE IN RELATION CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP INDICATING AN ODD SHAPED PARCEL ABUTTING TO THE SCHULER PROPERTY Is THE DEMSHAR HOUSE (MR. SCHULER AN EASEMENT FOR AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE SCHULER PROPERTY TO THE DEMSHAR PROPERTY? ADVISED THAT IT WAS BUILT PARTLY ON HIS LAND) AND - IS THERE BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED THAT THE DEMSHARS HAD APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A LOT VARIANCE IN JUNE, 7964, AND THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE APPEAL FILE WHICH INCLUDED THE DEMSHAR PROPERTY SURVEY. As THIS SURVEY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SURVEY SUBMITTED BY MR. SCHULER, IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT THE SURVEY MAP FOR THIS DIVISIQN BE RETURNED TO SURVEYOR DEGAN FOR A MORE COMPLETE DESCRIPTION, THE LOCATION OF THE DEMSHAR HOUSE AS RELATED TO THE SCHULER PROPERTY AND TO INDICATE AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES IF ONE DOES EXIST. ALDERMAN LENTINI THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR PARCELS A. & B. MR. CHASE SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. E. J. SALENTINE - As REGARDS MR. SALENTINE'S PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP FACILITY IN SEC. 2, THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED DECEMBER 12, 1967, FROM CITY ENGINEER FRANK RUEXERT, WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: I1 GENTLEMEN: UPON INVESTIGATING THE CONTRIBUTING STORM DRAINAGE AREA THROUGH THE SALENTINE PARCT,L AT THE INTERSECTION OF TESS CORNERS RD. AND S.T.H. "24 , IT WAS FOUND THAT APPROXIMATELY 120 ACRES DRAINED THROUGH THE PARCEL. THIS AREA COULD BE SERVICED AS FOLLOWS: BY A 36"C.M.P. @ 1.40% SLOPE OR BY A 42" C.M.P. @ 0.60% SLOPE OR BY A 30" CONCRETE PIPE @ 1.30% SLOPE THE AREA CONTRIBUTING TO THE CROSSING CULVERT IN S.T.H. 24" ADJACENT TO THIS PARCEL WAS FOUND TO BE APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES. A 42'' C.M.P. AT A 0.85% SLOPE COULD SERVICE THIS DEQUARDO, ROBINSON, AND CROUCH & ASSOCIATES, INC., A 42" I1 AREA AND AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN OF THIS PARCEL MADE BY C.M.P. IS SHOWN TO BE EXISTING. THE PLAN SHOWS A 24" C.M.P. DRAINING INTO THE 42'' C.1.P. FROM THE NORTHEAST. THIS CULVERT SHOULD BE AT LEAST A 36" PARKING AREA AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. IT IS THOUGHT THAT A AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND SHOULD EXTEND PAST THE LIMITS OF THE DRAINAGE SWALE IN THIS AREA WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL BECAUSE OF WOULD HAVE TO BE 2.5 FEET TO 3.0 FEET DEEP AT A 0.70% SLOPE BECAUSE ITS DEPTH OF WATER WOULD BE ABOUT 2.0 FEET A MAXIMUM @ ITS SIZE - TO SERVICE THIS AREA A 2 FOOT FLAT BOTTOM DITCH PAGE - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 RUNOFF. (BURKLI-ZIEGLER FORMULA) IN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. CROUCH ON DECEMBER 12, 1967, CONCERNING THE STORM DRAINAGE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, HE SAID THAT THE 2 STORM,,LINES DRAINING THE BUILDING WERE SHOWN COMING OUT OF S. T.H. "24 TO BE HOOKED UP TO THE STORM SEWER LINE LOCATED IN S.T.H. "24". THIS WOULD INYOLVE ACQUIRING A PERMIT FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION TO MAKE THE CON- NECTION IN THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY FOR DRAINING THESE LINES WOULD BE TO HAVE THE WEST LINE, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, DRAIN EITHER TO THE DITCH BY THE ROAD - IF IT IS DEEP ENOUGH TO DRAIN THE STORM LINE AND THEN DRAIN TO THE@" C.M.P. CROSSING THE ROAD - OR TO HAVE THIS LINE TO S. T.H. "24" - AGAIN IF THIS CATCH BASIN WAS DEEP ENOUGH DRAIN INTO THE CATCH BASIN LOCATED BY THE EXISTING APPROACH TO DRAIN THE STORM LINE. ACTUALLY, SINCE THE STREAM DRAINING THROUGH THE PROPERTY WILL PROBABLY BE ENCLOSED IN PIPE, THIS DITCH ALONG THE ROAD WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT DRAINAGE ALONG THE ROAD HAS BEEN PICKED UP BY A STORM SEWER SYSTEM. THIS AREA COULD THEN BE GRADED FROM THE CURB LINE TO THE PARKING AREA. 36'' C.M.P. COMING FROM THE NORTHEAST DIRECTION. THESE ARE THE EAST DRAIN LINES COULD BE CONNECTED TO THE PROPOSED ONLY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DRAINING OF THESE BUILDING DRAIN LINES. ANY OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED METHODS IS ACCEPTABLE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS IN THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT us. YOURS VERY TRULY, /s/ FRANK J. RUEKERT, JR. IJ AFTER DISCUSSION OF THE DRAINAGE .PATTERNS, STORM SEWERS, ETC. IN THIS AREA, IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT MR. SALENTINE BE ADVISED THAT THEY ARE AWAITING THE CORRECTED SITE PLAN WITH THE REVISIONS AS SUGGESTED AT THEIR PREVIOUS MEETING. JACK GLOCKNER ENTERPRISES - PLANNER KNETZGER REPORTED THAT HE AND BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE HAD VISITED THE GLOCKNER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE ONLY ACTION THE COMMISSION CAN TAKE AS THE AREA FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN. HE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS LITTLE THE COMMISSION CAN DO TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JUNKED AUTOMOBILES AS THIS HAS BECOME A NATIONAL PROBLEM. HE RECOM- MENDED THAT MUSKEGO BE THE FIRST TO PETITION THE COUNTY JUNKED AUTOMOBILES. PLANNER KNETZGER ALSO INDICATED THAT THE GRAVEL AND JUNKING OPERATION HAS ENLARGED CONSIDERABLY BETWEEN 1950 AND 1967 AS EVIDENT ON THE AERIAL MAPS. SITE AND THAT BECAUSE THIS BUSINESS WAS IN OPERATION PRIOR TO IS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTED AS WELL REQUESTING THAT THEY ESTABLISH SOME METHOD OF ELIMINATING PAGE 5 - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 PLANNER KNETZGER ALSO REPORTED (REFERRING TO FIRE CHIEF IMME'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 24~~) THAT HE DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF GARBAGE DUMPING AND THAT THERE WERE THREE ACCESSES INTO THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT THERE WERE SPOTS ON THE ROADS WHICH WERE NOT GRAVELED IN WHICH A FIRE TRUCK COULD BECOME MIRED. MAYOR GOTTFRIED READ THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION WHICH HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FROM THE PLAN COM- MISSION IN OCTOBER, 1965: I/ THE PLAN COMMISSION WISHES TO ADVISE YOU THAT AT THEIR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1965, THEY VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE JUNKING PERMIT FOR JACK GLOCKNER BE RENEWED WITH THE CONDITION THAT NOT IN EXCESS OF 300 CARS BE PERMITTED AND THAT THE JUNKING OPERATION BE CONFINED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE PIT AS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED OCTOBER 5, 1965, AND THAT HE MAINTAIN THE PkOPERTY SO THAT THESE CARS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE TWO MAJOR ROADS. II THE COMMISSION ALSO REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN WHICH HAD AFTER DISCUSSION MR. BUEHLER MOVED THAT IT IS THE PLAN BEEN SUBMITTED BY MR. GLOCKNER IN OCTOBER, 1965. COMMISSION 's DETERMINATION THAT HIS EXTRACTIVE OPERATION HAS INCREASED TO SUCH A SIZE THAT IT WARRANTS A GRAVEL PERMIT AND THAT ALL NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE PERMIT MUST BE SUBMITTED, THAT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MR. GLOCKNER SHOULD CONTACT THE PLANNING STAFF. ALDERMAN LENTINI SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IT WAS ALSO THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT MR. GLOCKNER BE REQUESTED TO APPEAR AT THE NEXT MEETING. COMMUNICATIONS: COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING - THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED DECEMBER 6, 1967, DIRECTED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION FROM ATTORNEY REILLY WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: /I DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 4, 1967, RELATIVE TO TRUCK PARKING, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO MR. HIPPENMEYER'S COMMENTS IN HIS LETTER OF JULY 7, 1967, A COPY OF WHICH IS BEFORE WE CAN DRAFT AN AMENDMENT SETTING GUIDE LINES, ENCLOSED. WE MUST KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THINKING AS TO WHEN, WHY, WHERE, WHO AND HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION WISHES TO PERMIT PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL OR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS. THE COMMISSION SHOULD, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PAGE 6 - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 e I. WHEN? (A) As TO HOURS (B) AS TO DENSITY OF AREA 2. WHY? (A) FOR WHAT REASONS WILL THE PARKING BE PERMITTED (B) WILL THERE BE ANY LIMITATION AS TO NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED 3. WHERE? (A) WILL PARKING BE. PERMITTED ANYWHERE ON THE PARCEL IN QUESTION 4. WHO? (A) KILL CORPORATIONS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS BE PERMITTED TO PARK VEHICLES (E) WILL THERE BE ANY TYPES OF VEHICLES EXCLUDED THESE ARE JUST A FEW QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED SO THAT THE GUIDE LINES CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND AN AMENDMENT DRAWN. PRESENTLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO LOOK AT EACH REQUEST AND DETERMINE ITS OVERALL EFFECT KEEPING IN MIND ALL THE FACTORS SET FORTH ABOVE. IT IS, THEREFORE, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 1. ORDINANCE 74 BE REPEALED AND NO PARKING BE PERMITTED 2. THAT IF THAT NOT BE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL, THEN ADMINISTER THE PRESENT ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY POSSIBLE IN THE PRESENT ORDINANCE. 3. IF NEITHER OF THE ABOVE TWO SUGGESTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE, THEN FURNISH US WITH THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS POSSESSED ABOVE AND WE WILL ATTEMPT TO DRAFT AN AMEND- MENT. SINCERELY, /s/ IILLIAM F. REILLY" THEN THE FOLLOWING LETTER DATED DECEMBER 12, 1967, DIRECTED TO MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION FROM MAYOR GOTTFRIED WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: II GENTLEMEN: I HAVE GIVEN CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO YOUR ACTION IN REGARD TO THE PARKING OF TRUCKS ORDINANCE WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF MUSKEGO. THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS PROVIDED us WITH THE COMMISSION IN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS ON REQUESTS FOR THE ANSWERS RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA TO AID e PARKING OF TRUCKS. ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REVIEW IT ONCE AGAIN CAREFULLY YOU WILL NOTE THAT PARAGRAPH (C) PROVIDES THAT THE ONLY PARKING OF TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN PANEL OR PICK-UP TRUCKS ARE PERMITTED IN ANY DISTRICT OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE WHEN THE AREA PAGE 7 - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 0 IS PREDOMINATELY UNDEVELOPED. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN AREA WAS PREDOMINATELY UNDEVELOPED WOULD BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE. SECTION (B) RELATES ONLY TO AN AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS IS WHERE THE ~ ~ ~- CRITERIA WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED. IT IS MY FEELING THAT AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME GUIDELINES THAT ORDINANCE #74 MOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE ORDINANCE. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS IT AT OUR MEETING ON DECEMBER 19THa SINCERELY YOURS, /s/ J. GOTTFRIED~’ ALDERMAN BUDISH APPEARED TO DISCUSS THE ORDINANCE WITH THE COMMISSION AFTER WHICH MAYOR GOTTFRIED MOVED THAT THE CHAIRMAN APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF THREE TO RECOMMEND CRITERIA UNDER ORDINANCE #74. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. BUEHLER THEN MOVED THAT THE REQUESTS OF ERWIN ARNDT, THOMAS DAHLMAN AND STANLEY DOBRZYNSKI BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS. ALDERMAN LENTINI SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION e CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HI-Y RANCHES & HILLENDALE HEIGHTS - THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED DECEMBER 5, 1967, REGARDING EROSION PROBLEMS IN THESE SUBDIVISIONS, FROM ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER, WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY AND REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC VORKS COMMITTEE: DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: I! IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20, 1967, YOU HAVE ASKED us TO COMMENT ON WHAT REMEDIES THE CITY MIGHT HAVE TO COMBAT A SUB- THAT THE AREA WAS SUBDIVIDED AROUND 1960. REASON THAT MY COPY OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE IN- DICATES THAT IT WAS ADOPTED MAY 17, 1960. IF THE SUBDIVIDING DIVIDER WHO IS CAUSING EXTREME EROSION. YOU HAVE INDICATED JUST WHEN THE AREA WAS SUBDIVIDED IS VERY MATERIAL FOR THE TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THAT TIME, IT WOULD BE MY OPINION THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD CONTROL THE SITUATION. I CALL YOUR PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO SECTION VI B (6): 11 6. EROSION CONTROL: ALL OPEN CUTS OF GROUND SUBJECT TO EXCESSIVE EROSION SHALL BE RETURFED IN A MANNER SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER. I1 IF DEMAND IS MADE UPON THE SUBDIVIDER TO CORRECT THE SITUATION AND HE REFUSES, THEN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE SURETY BOND SECTION VI C. ASSUMING NO SURETY BOND IS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE CITY, THE CITY SHOULD THEN CONSIDER PROSECU- TION UNDER SECTION XIV. IF THE SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED PRIOR TO MAY 17, 1940, THEN, PAGE a - PLAN COMM. DECEMBER 1 9, 1967 .' OF COURSE, THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE IS NOT APPLICABLE. IF A NUISANCE IS IN FACT CREATED, IT IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE NUISANCE THCN A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AN ACTION, IF STARTED, SHOULD BE COMMENCED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS AFFEC:TED RATHER THAN BY THE MUNICIPALITY. SINCERELY, /s/ WM. F. REILLY" JOHN WESELJACK - As REGARDS MR. WESELJACK'S PETITION TO REZONEHIS PROPERTY IN SECTION 26 FROM I-1 TO A AND IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION, THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED DECEMBER 8TH FROM ATTORNEY REILLY WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: ON ITS OWN MOTION. HOWEVER, EVEN IN THAT EVENT, A PUBLIC IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE COUNCIL MAY REZONE AN AREA HEARING IS NECESSARY ON THE PROPOSED REZONING AND A REZONING WITHOUT A HEARING, I BELIEVE, IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL ATTACK. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND THAT ANOTHER HEARING BE HELD AND THAT THE PROPER NOTICES BE GIVEN. THIS PROBLEM CAN BE AVOIDED IN THE FUTURE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SET BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL AND THEIR e THE PETITION AND GIVE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO THE TIME RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE. /s/ IM. F. REILLY" SINCERELY, IT WAS NOTED BY THE COMMISSION THAT A HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE PLAN COMMIS- SION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR JANUARY 23, 1968, 7:?5 P. M. IDLE ISLE BEACH - IN TIEW OF THE LETTER ABOVE FROM ATTORNEY REILLY, IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS REQUEST TO REZONE IDLE ISLE BEACH FROM RS-3 TO RSM AND TO CHANGE THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MOBILE HOME PARKS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEAR INC. AFTER DISCUSSION, MR. CHASE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMON COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST TO REZONE IDLE ISLE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY BE DENIED AS IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTEREST TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING IN THIS AREA AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION AND HABITATION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS ALSO BE DENIED. MR. RAIMANN THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED DECEMBER a, 1967, SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REGARDING REZONING PETITIONS WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: PAGE 9 - PLAN GOMM. DECEMBER 19, 1967 8 II DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED: RELATIVE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1967, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT NEITHER THE COMMON COUNCIL NOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN REFUSE TO ACCEPT A PETITION FOR REZONING, so LONG AS THE PROPER STEPS ARE FOLLOWED. THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH EVERY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE SUGGESTED REZONING IS RIDICULOUS. THIS, IN FACT, IS THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING, TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS PRACTICAL AND NOT RIDICULOUS. SINCERELY, /s/ WM. F. REILLY" PLANNER KNETZGER POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE MUSKEGO ZONING ORDINANCE IS STRONGER THAN THE STATE STATUTES, THAT THE ORDINANCE COULD BE AMENDED TO PERMIT THE DENIAL OF PETITIONS WHICH THE COMMON COUNCIL OR PLAN COMMISSION FELT WERE RIDICULOUS# ADJOURNMENT - MR. DEANGELIS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT, ALD. LENTINI SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED BJS 12-26-67 SUBMITTED, ARBARA J. SANDS RECORDING SECRETARY