Loading...
PCM19770607CI TY OF MUSKEG0 PLAN COMMl SS ION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD JUNE 7, 1977 CITY HALL Mayor Gottfried called the meeting to order at 8:lO P. M. PRESENT: Chai man Jerome Gottfried, Secretary Edward Raimann, Richard Arrowood, Alderman Constantineau, Laura Kilb and Wayne Salentine, Planning Consultant Joseph Mangiamele and Zoning Officer Gerald Lee were also present. ABSENT: Fred Lavey MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting of May 17, 1977, were approved as mailed. NEW BUSINESS: #P. Div for ca 1 #P. Mr. ROGER KASTELLO - The Recording Secretary read Resolution C. 65-77, Referral to Planning Consultant, Sketch for Land ,ision, Roger Kastello (Schwefel Property). Mr. Raimann moved adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion -and upon a roll 1 vote, the motion carried unanimously. ARTHUR CARTER - The Recording Secretary read Resolution C. 66 Salentine moved for adoption. Mrs. Kilb seconded the motion -77, Approval of Sketch for Land Division, Arthur Carter. and upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. MICHAEL BRANDT - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 67-77, Architectural Approval of Second Garage Structure, Michael Brandt. Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. P.aimann seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimous1 y. I DOROTHY REA - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 68-77, Recommendation to Deny Legal Status, Dorothy Rea. Mrs. upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. Kilb moved .for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion and PAUL J. BEARDSLEY - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 69-77, Approval of Certified Survey Map, Paul J. Bea.rdsley. - Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mrs. Kilb seconded the motion - and upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. ST. FRANCIS SAVINGS G LOAN - The Recording Secretary read Savings & Loan. Mr. Raimann moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine Resolution #P. C. 70-77, Approval of Landscape Plans, St. Francis unanimously. seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote, the motion carried m LAKE BRITTANY ESTATES - The Recording Secretary read Resolu- tion #P. C. 71-77. Referral to Plannino Consultant. Landscaoe - Ald. Constantineau seconded the motion. Plans - Lake Brittany Estates. Hr. Sarentine moved for adoption. 71-77 carried unanimously, Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. June 7, 1977 Page'2 - Plan Commission LAKE BRITTANY ESTATES - The Recording Secretary read Resolu- tion #P. C. 72-77, Approval of Final Plat, Lake Brittany Estates. Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion. 72-77 carried unanimously, Upon a ,roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. DICK'S FARM MARKET - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 73-77, (Approval/Disapproval) of Sign, Dick's Farm Market. Mr. Salentine moved for adoption with the word "Approval". Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion. portable sign, illegally placed on the property would now be re- It was noted by the commission that the free-standing, moved, It was also noted that if the owner desired to light the duced -to the Plan Commissionrfor appcoval. Approva-l--by the new sign at a later date, a new resolution would have to be intro- Building Inspector will be required as to the proper placement of the sign on the property. 73-77 carried unanimously. Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. AMERICAN COLLEGE - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 74-77, Referral to Planning Consultant, American College Site Plan (Revised!. Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion. In answer to a question by Mrs. Ki Ib regarding the number of apartments in comparison with the small education buildings provided, Zoning Officer Lee stated that there was a ratio estab- must be students at the college. Chairman Gottfried stated that lished to determine the number of residents of the apartments that on many occasions it has been told to the American College Group that these buildings must be used for students and not as general rental units. garding the procedure to be .followed npw. He stated he would review originally submitted and will present a recommendation to the Plan the site plan now submitted because it is different from the one Commission at their next meeting. 74-77 carried unanimously. Dr. Mangiamele responded to Ald. Constantineau's question re- Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. LAKE LORE - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 75-77, Approval of Final Plat, Lake Lore. Mr. Arrowood moved for - adoption. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion, - 75-77 carried unanimously. Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. HOLIDAY PARK - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 76-77. Denial of Proposed Development, Holiday Park (John Couture). Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion. Chairman Gottfried stated that at the last Plan Commission Meeting, Mr. Gunnerman had asked for the commission's feelings about this development. We also have before us a land division which at this the will be left unanswered. As indicated on the -_ . June 7, 1?77 Page 3 - Plan Commission time we have received a check and statement from Hoffmann, Polzin Resolution, the Development. Study has been denied. Since that with the proposed Planned Unit Development, and although that 5 Assoc. which would indicate that they would like to proceed statement in no way meets our ordinance, the clerk will read it and we will give Mr. Gunnerman an opportunity to speak on the proposal. Chairman Gottfried also stated that the action taken toniqht is a reaction to the Development Study and not to the sub- mi ttal of a Planned Unit Development. developer could still properly submit a1 ready have. very same study and completed informat The clerk read the proposal "Holi men t" . Mr. Gunnerman-stated-t.hat at-the what we were trying to achieve was to Plan Commission would be to the study If it is adopted, the to the Plan Commission the ion with the fee, which we day Park, Planned Develop- see what the reaction of the last Plan Commission meeting, so that a Planned Uni-t Development could be submitted. Because we thought that the proper fees and procedures had to be followed, we put together the letter of intent to clear up that problem. What we are still looking for in coming before the Plan Commission is to take a plan, present it to the Plan Commission, listen to what you like and what you don't like about it so we can make a formal presentation. We still need to know what the specific objections are, what is wrong with the submittal given so it can be changed. We would 1 ike a review on the new submittal. We are dealing with 53 lots as shown on the drawing which are 10,000 sq. ft., and we tried to present a plan compatible to the area. this time, but to only use single family. He wants to take the three different zonings in this area and change it to Planned Unit Development. We do not want multi-family, but if the City wants it to create more open space, we would consider it. The open possibility that at some future date the open space could be com- space as shown was included for recreati,onal facilities, with the bined with Parkland. The amenities are not included at this time, but will be later after a feeling from the Plan Commission is received as to what they requi re. for denial will be given at the next meeting. He also gave his is simply on the development study. After discussion, the reasons personal view that density of 10,ODO sq. ft. lots is totally un- - the size of Parkland's lots for a long time. The wetland flood - acceptable. We haven't approved a Planned Unit Development with - plain could not be built on any way and should not be considered as open space. Planned Unit Development for strictly single family is not really what it was intended for. On that basis I can't personally imagine that the Plan Commission, or Public Works, or could come in with a more conventional development for review. the Sewer Committee would possibly approve this. However, you the wetland flood plain, Mr. Gunnerman said that the wetland flood The developer has it in mind not to include multi-family at Chairman Gottfried stated the reaction we are giving tonight 0 In response to a question from Ald. Constantineau regarding June 7, 1977 Page 4 - Plan Commission plain is actually a misnomer and that only where the lagoon would be placed is wet and the rest of the area around is dry as shown by soil borings. single family development of this type, the developer gets the advantage of density by reducing the size of the lots and by including the wetland in the density calculations. In order to meet the zoning requi rements with a conventional subdivision, 20,000 sq. ft. lots would be required. The City gets no advantage disadvantage of increased density, from the type of Planned Unit Development proposed, and has the get in a standard subdivision is the amenities. The developer takes the wetland flood plain and is reclaiming that area and is doing what is necessary for water control, and opens up the area to the general public of that community for use. of things could come out of subdivision requirements based on Planning Consultant Mangiamele stated that the same kinds what the City requires. He also stated that the purpose of Planned Unit Development is to obtain open space, and you can cluster houses to create the open space. If you have regular single family lots, you don't gain open space, so you .defeat the purpose of Planned Unit Development. Planning Consultant Mangiamele stated that in developing a Mr. Gunnerman stated an advantage to the City that you don't the Commission is in favor of a standard subdivision rather than the Development Study before us now. 76-77 carried unanimously. Mr. Raimann stated that Mr. Gunnerman must now be aware tha .. Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. 77-77, (Approval/Disapproval) of Sign, True Value - Parkland Mal TRUE VALUE - the Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. includes a Ben Franklin sisn which will be removed and be re- Zoning Officer Lee reported the current Parkland Mall sign It 1 placed with the True Value sign with the national franchise colors of red, white and blue. time with the True Value logo on which is illegally parked and in the Parkland Mall parking lot for a considerable period of before we approve this sign we should see that this truck is removed. would be no need for the truck and it would be removed. ~ Chairman Gottfried stated that there has been a truck parked Ald. Constantineau felt that if we approved this sign, there - Gordon Meggison, Parkland Mall Manager stated that the Parkland T Mall sign is being repaired now and the Jerome Drugs sign and the Ben Franklin sign which have been cracked are being replaced. That is the reason for the request at this time to have the Ben Franklin sign replaced with the True Value logo. He felt that if the Plan Commission objected to the truck parked for True Value that the City should cite him. In response to a question from Mr. Arrowood concerning the style of print and the colors, Mr. Meggison stated that by using the red, white and blue colors it would increase the low profile colors would be more noticeable. and from an advertising perspective, the different printing and the Page 5 - Plan Commission June 7, 1977 a m Discussion continued regarding the parking of the truck and Alderman Constantineau moved for adoption of Resolution #P. the other paraphernalia in front of the building. C. 77-77 with the word "Approve". Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion. adding, "Be it further resolved that this approval is subject to: (1) The removal of the existing Ben Franklin sign on the building, (2) The removal of the truck that is presently parked adjacent of all illegal signs and paraphernalia that are presently placed to Highway 24 with the True Value logo on it, and (3) The removal on the building. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt the amendment to Resolution #P. C. 77-77 carried with Alderman Constantineau casting the only dissenting vote. 77-77 As Amended carried unanimously. ZONING OFFICER'S REPORTS Mr. Arrowood then moved to amend Resolution #P. C. 77-77 by Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt Resolution #P. C. G & W PATTERNS - Mr. Beatka stated that at the time the a large parking lot. However, only a small portion of the lot conditional use was put into effect, he anticipated the need for scape the large part of the lot he would need only to asphal~t the is used. It was the Commission's opinion that if he would land- drive and actual parking area. Zoning Officer Lee will discuss this further with Mr. Beatka to see if he is agreeable. ditional use provided that no parking would be allowed on the west side of the building. Mr. Arrowood stated that there is a traffic hazard area there with the parking restricted to the circular drive and possibly angle parking on one side of the building could be allowed. Mr. Lee will discuss this with Mr. Javanovich so that he can come before the Plan Commission with a revised site plan. SAM JAVANOVICH - One of the amendments to the original con- MUSKEG0 BEER DEPOT - At the time of the addition to the Beer Depot, it was conditioned upon the removal of the residence on the lot to the rear by June 1, 1977. Mr. Fischer reported the tenants would be out by June 15th and that the building will then - be taken down. - JOHNNY'S PETROLEUM - Mr. Strasser has contracted a mason to construct the wall as he is also anxious to have this work - completed. COMMUNI CAT IONS & MISCELLANEOUS BUS I NESS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS - Zoning e Officer Lee asked for a review of Resolution #P. C. 15-77 which was amended to include the words "subiect to the approval by the . Page 6 - Plan Commission June 7, 1977 a Plan Commission for accessory buildings on 3-10 acre parcels. Mr. Salentine felt the reason the words were added was because it would be possible to build a very, very large building on a parcel, even though it could be adjacent to a subdivision, and it was the commission's feeling that these buildings could become too large. However, it was also the opinion of the commis- sion that a small shed could be permitted without Plan Commission approval. Discussion followed in an attempt to change the words to incorporate both these thoughts. Ald. Constantineau felt it was a matter of legal language and the City Attorney should be asked for a clarification. Chairman Gottfried stated he would work on this matter with Zoning Officer Lee and will bring it back to the Plan Commission after. the Public Hearing on June 14, 1977. DUPLEX ZONING - Discussion was held regarding Planning Con- sultant Mangiamele's report of May 17, 1977, and the commission understood the concept. A proposal will be submitted at the next meeting in the form of a resolution. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Raimann moved for adjournment at 11:OO P. M. Alderman Constantineau seconded the motion and the motion carried. Respectful ly submitted, %wd ean Ma renda " Secretary