|
<br />~INUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
<br />Page six
<br />
<br />~larch 10, 1975
<br />
<br />Feyereisen said he supports the motion because it recognizes the serious-
<br />ness of the traffic problem and the hazard to life and 11mb. It also
<br />indicates to McDonald's that the Counci I is :'lot against the plan per se -
<br />If they could .find a more suitable location, he would not hesitate to
<br />favorably approve the permit.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mr. Sexton saId, in response to the motion, that he feels McDonald's
<br />has done the very best they can with the design of the site, and to
<br />set up a requirement such as this, he couldn't say whether they would
<br />or can wait until the C6unty decides the semdphore is necessary. He
<br />said that the County, he presumes, will acce~e to their responsibility
<br />to regulate that Intersection with the paramount view of the safety of
<br />the citizens that are using that roadway system. He further noted
<br />that Mr. Wegleltner stated, as did the Council and PlannIng Commission,
<br />that the Intersection and roadway configuration was badly designed from
<br />the outset; so he thinks it is a little bit harsh to ~ay that McDonald's
<br />should wait with a development, that all things considered, Is deemed
<br />to be a reasonable proposal & generally conforms wIth what might be
<br />anticipated for this site.
<br />
<br />Sexton said he doesn't know whether the motion is "good" or flbad",
<br />but pointed out that McDonald's would join with any petitions the City
<br />would make to the County.
<br />
<br />Lynden asked Mr. Sexton what"his Instructions to his client would be
<br />wi~h respect to the trial which is scheduled for March 25, 1975, If
<br />this motion is adopted.
<br />
<br />Sexton said, "Just the way the motion was read, namely that whenever,
<br />wl~hout any drop-dead thing, or that the Building Permit could be
<br />pulled at a certain date, if the County Engineer were to review the plans
<br />and look at our data, examine the site and make an affirmative finding
<br />that.the semaphore is not required as an exp<3rt, and therefore he says,
<br />'I'm not going to put one in, and I don't think It's needed, and I'm
<br />an expert', there's a drop-dead date on that kind of decls10n, my ad-
<br />vIce to my client would change. For example if the petition were made
<br />tomorrow, and he came back In 90 days with the kind of a statement that
<br />we're not going to do it, we don't think it's necessary, and I know and
<br />you don't, I would thluk it only Justifj~tl~, at that point in time,
<br />the "lQ.Ootersll have been answered by what everyilody here wou Id accept as
<br />the doctor, and a bui Iding permit could be Issued. The conditions on
<br />use, screening and directional lighting are 110 problem whatever."
<br />
<br />CrIchton said that if there were another plan that would adequately con-
<br />trol the intersection that M~. Wingert or Dr. Woodburn or the County
<br />Engineer could come up with, he'd be Just as amenable if It appeared to
<br />work.
<br />
<br />Wingert said that he feels it's the responsibi lity of the applicant to
<br />present a plan that works, and if a Highway EngineerIng Consultant
<br />needs to be hired to do some engineering work, he thinks they ought to
<br />do It.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Crepeau said he'd vote against any expenditures by the City for any
<br />semaphore, stop signs, etc.; these are State and County roads which
<br />the CIty has to police, and he didn't see why Village should have any
<br />of the expense, other than what Vi I lage already has.
<br />
<br />Woodburn said he would like to test whether or not the McDonald
<br />Corporation's establishment is a "drive-in" or a "restaurant", be-
<br />cause the ordInance was drafted-to control situations of this type.
<br />"If It adequately does it or not, I don't kn.:)w, but this was the intent,
<br />as least. I think we ought to see if It does."
<br />
<br />Crichton noted that if we were debating a Special Use Permit, he believes
<br />his motion would have been the same, except to approve a Speci~1 Use
<br />PermIt, instea,d of a Building Permit.
<br />
<br />Motion carrlsd (Crichton, Feyerelsen, Crepeau voting In favor of the
<br />motion; Wingert, Woodburn voting in opposition).
<br />
<br />-6-
<br />
<br />,
<br />
|