036 - 7/1/1963. ." .~
Dear Mr. Peterea
The Plan Commission wishes to confirm their recent decision to grant the conditional usepas petitioned for a light
industrial operation with the condition that there be further
screening from Hiway 36, such plantings'to be such a heighth and fast grow~ing as to screen the back end of the property
on the northwest side of the building.
Yours very truly,
PLAN COMMISSION
Jerome J. Gottfried
Mayor
bj 6
-. .
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MUSKEGO
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MARCH 1, 1966
CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 P. M. by William Chase as
Mayor Gottfried was not present.
PRESENT: William Chase, Sec'y, Willard Bertram, Charles Buehler, Ed
Budish, Clarence Walrath and Ed Raimann. Gerald Lee, Building Inspec-
tor, and Russell Knetzger, Consultant, were also present,.
GLENN GREENWALD - As Mr. Greenwald, WZ24 S10397 S. 124th 'St., did not
appear relative to division of land (Walter Hofmann Property) near the
section line of Sections 25 and 36, it was the Commission's decision
to table this.
WALTER GEIBEL - As Mr. \*!alter Geibel did not appear relative to his
request for division of land in Section 8, it was the Commission's
decision to table this.
CARL POSERIG - Mr. Posbrir: appeared relative to his request to allow
a multiple-family dvelling (2cplex) 01 a 1 acre lot ir Section 20
(Irwin Posbrio, Property). area pr'essntly zoned A-I..
I Planner l<netzp.er navs the follo;,?in,~ recommendation 7
"At GUT nsetin!: of Tcbz.:J:.ry is, 1-365, 4'"" r!:fc.rrr;.c! the above
natter to us for study and recop.qEn?ation. 're Feel tt.2 i.nterpretatinn
by tkLe buildinz :nspector, that ?SF' 07 !?SA >istricts cannct be zoned
unless public sewer^ is desiwmted cltimately for- t!,e ?rea. is correct.
Since this area is cot desiE;natec! for public sewer, such zoninr should
not be considered.
missable in this area would be a two fanily unit under reEulations
that we have casually discussed at past meetin,Ts. Under such revula-
tions two family units, if they closely resemble sincle family units
in appearance, mizht be permitted as conditional uses. Another possi-
bility miEht be a two family basic zone or overlay which could be
applied on portions of major arteries. !?owever until such remlations
are drafted, studied and adopted, no multiple family unit could be
permitted in the above case.''
..
The only possible forn of nultipie awcllinp that nizht be per-
Respectfully submitted,
MELSON E ASSOCIATES, If,!C.
I k
There was some discussion as to whether or not the Planner
action was taken.
should be directed to study multiple family zoning in Muskego but no
JOHN PETERS - After discussion relative to rhe conditional use re-
quest of-John Peters for a light industrial operation in the SWk of
Section 25, Mr. Walrath moved to grant the conditional use as
petitioned by John Peters. Mr. Bertram seconded the motion.
height and fast Rrowing as to screen the back end of the property on
there be further screening from Hiway"36, such plantinEs to be such a
Mr. Bertram.
the northwest side~of the building, with the consent of his second
Mr. Walrath amended the mction *o include the condition that
The motion as amended was carried.
1.
(2)
outline all of the conditions as petitioned and have such in writinl!
by the next meeting. He stated further that it was his opinion that
there should be a document to cause conditional grants to be recorded
at Waukesha so that future purchasers or lessees would be aware of the
conditions which have been placed on the property. He stated that he
Planner Knetqer sucgested that the attorney be requested.to
/will submit such a form to the Commission soon.
COMMUNICATIONS: The following communications were read by the
kecording Secretary:
February 16, 1966 To :
City of Muskego Common Council
Gentlemen:
petitioned to be permitted the establishment of a parkinE lot on the
east side of Valley Drive. On those occasions he presented certain
proposals. At those sane times there was practically unanimous
opposition from the property owners adjacent to the lot in question.
Fr. Waurice's petition.
On the basis of the testimonies Riven, the PlanninF: Cornnission denied
On Feb. 15. 1966, znothe;~ hearin? GJZS held at which time the
hearin:: :JZS cpenc6 s~d .? statenoat made -that there was no net7 proposal
beinp: made by !.!I-. !.:curice, CI:~;. ?:-!a-t he hac! 1-adc arm.!.P~er petiticn.
Even the sketches si!own v7-x the sar:e -chat werc xsed in the previous
hearing. On the basis that xc ne proposzl G:ZS beinE made, I asked
then if the statements made against the petiticn before were still
being given the szme consideration as before. I vas assured thet these
statements were still part cf the record.
to EO ahead with his parkinE lot. Being a rational human being, I
find it inconceivable that with exactly thc same facts to EO on that
the answer can be exactly the opposite of what it was before. To
me one and one will always be two. I, therefore, respectfully ask that
whatever explanation them may be that it be given me in writinc within
one week. It is my plan to publicize whatever the answer is and let
the public decide. If I am in error as to the pantinp of permission
for haviny: bothered you.
(in other words if my information is wronr) I apoloEize in advance
On two occasions prior to Feb. 16, 1966, one Richard Maurice
I have now beer, told that permission nas been piven Yr. Yaurice
Very truly yours,
Is/ E. Merle Hampe
QQC;C.c:?
directed to Mr. Hampe indicating that by applyinc 9 conditions to the
use, the Commission was assuring that the property would conform to
that a copy of the minutes of the rneetinF: of February 15, 1866, 5e sent
the residential nature of the surroundinp area. It 57.3s also ap;reed
to Mr. Harnpe so that he would be made aware cf the thoufihtful considera
tion Riven to this request and that there were two prior motions made
before final adoption arrived.
It was the Commission's decision that an apprcpriate letter be
****ai4