PCM19640928TOWN OF MUSKEGO
Wl80 57731 RAClNE AVENUE
MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN
OS. 9-1780
MARGARET WILLIAMS, Clerk
JUANITA C. WEAVER. Tmssurrr
ARTHUR WIESELMANN. AsSrsaor OCTOBER 1, 1964
JEROME J. COTTFRIED. Chairman
DELBERT E. CUHR. Supervisor
EDMUND A. BUDISH. Supervisor
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28,
1964, 8 P.M., WITH MEMBERS GOTTFRIED, GUHR, MACHKOVICH, CHASE,
AND BUEHLER PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT, KNETZGER, BUDISH, LEE AND
ATTORNEY REILLY.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING WERE ACCEPTED AS SUBMITTED.
"_
I_
WIDENING OF LOCHCREST BLVD.. WAS DISCUSSED. PLANNER REVIEWED
THEIR FINDINGS AND IT WAS THE GENERAL OPINION THAT W. GEIBEL
PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE LOWER PORTION OF LOT 14 AND
IF so CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE WITH MR. ZREMSKI AND MR. BERINGER.
FRANK AGENTEN APPEARED WITH HIS SURVEYOR TO DISCUSS PROPOSED
ROAD ACCESS FOR THESE LOTS WILL BE THE EXTENSION OF SKYLARK LANE. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN AS TO BUILDING LOCATIONS TO * EAST OF PROPOSED AGENTEN PLAT, EXTENSION OF RAWSON AvE., TO
EAST AND DIRECTION OF 124~~. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY PLANNER THAT
MR. MACHKOVICH MOVED, AS SECONDED BY MR. GUHR, THAT THE PRE-
LIMINARY SKETCH OF F. AGENTEN, AS PRESENTED, BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
RE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS STILL INTERESTED IN
PRELIMINARY SKETCH OF 3 LOTS - 190' X 234.87' IN SEC. 1.
SURVEYOR PROCEED WITH PRELIMINARY SKETCH FOR REMAINDER LAND.
MR. D. MURRAY APPEARED SEEKING APPROVAL OF DIVISION OF LAND IN NE+ - SEC. 12. QUESTION AROSE AS TO PROBLEM OF NATUHAL DRAIN-
AGE DITCH LOCATED ON EAST PORTION OF LAND. MR. MURRAY SAID
THAT IF NEEDED HE WOULD BUILD A BRIDGE OVER THE DITCH, WOULD NOT
ALTER IT IN ANY WAY AND WOULD BUILD HOME ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF
PARCEL. MR. EUEHLER MOVED, AS SECONDED BY MR. MACHKOVICH,
THAT D. MURRAY'S PLAT OF SURVEY FOR DIVISION OF LAND IN NE; -
MOTION CARRIED.
SEC. 12 BE APPROVED PROVIDING SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE IS NOTARIZED.
4 TAIN SOME RIGHT OF WAY TO THE LAKE FOR THOSE OWNING LOTS TO
REAR. MR. RICHDORF STATED THAT NO ONE HAS EVER APPROACHED HIM
VOICING THEIR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PRESENT PUBLIC RESERVATION AND
EVEN THOUGH HE HAS BUILT AND MAINTAINED A PIER ON THE RESERVATION
RICHDORF'S ASSESSOR^ PLAT WAS DISCUSSED AFTER WHICH TIME THE
CHAIRMAN OUTLINED THE PROBLEM AS FOLLOWS - THE PLAT AS SUBMITTED
COULD BE ACCEPTED EVEN THOUGH THE LOTS ARE NON-CONFORMING WHILE
THE PUBLIC RESERVATION MUST BE INCREASED TO 60' WIDTH FOR ROAD
DEDICATION. HE ALSO STRESSED UPON A PZORAL OBLIGATION TO MAIN-
a VERY FEW UTILIZED IT. HE ALSO STATED THAT THERE WERE TWO PUB-
LIC RESERVATIONS TO SERVE THOSE OWNING LOTS TO THE REAR, BUT
IT WAS CHANGED AND THE RESERVATION WAS SO PLACED UPON A
RECOMMENDATION OF A WEVIOUS TOWN BOARD. HE FURTHER SUGGESTED
IO' STRIP FROM EACH OF THE OWNERS OF LOTS 25, 26 AND 27 AND
THAT THE PROBLEM OF 60' ROADBED BE RESOLVED BY OBTAINING A
THEN TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM USE MAINTAIN A 20' STRIP BACK
FROM THE LAKESHORE FOR REPARIAN RIGHTS TO THOSE LOCATED ON
BACK LOTS. ACCORDING TO RICHDORF MR. FILTER WOULD BE WILLING
TO HELP CONTROL THIS 20' STRIP. MR. KEHLENBRINK, OWNER OF
LOT. ATTORNEY REILLY STATED THAT IF, IN FACT, THROUGH THE SALE
LOT 10, VOICED HIS CONCERN OVER BEING UNABLE TO BUILD ON HIS
OF THIS LAND, THE PEOPLE WHO PURCHASED LOTS WERE DEFRAUDED
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THEIR MONEY BACK. HE FURTHER
SUMED UP THE PROBLEM AT HAND AS FOLLOWS - THE TOWN BOARD WOULD
HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE, BUT TO ACCEPT THE PLAT AS SUCH AS THE
LOTS MEET THE REQUIRED AREA EVEN THOUGH THE LAND COULD NOT BE
DEVELOPED UNTIL SEWERS ARE MADE AVAILABLE AND THEN REVIEWED
POSSIBLE AVENUES OF PROSECUTION.
MR. J. COUTURE APPEARED IN BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, R. DANIELSON,
WITH A PRELIMINARY SKETCH FOR DIVISION OF A 6 ACRE PARCEL, IN SEC. 32. MR. DANIELSON WILL PURCHASE THE 6 ACRE TRACT, BUILD
INTO 6 LOTS - 130' x 440'. AREA HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR ROAD
A HOME ON PARCEL AND AT A LATER DATE WILL DIVIDE THE REMAINING
@'DEDICATION, BUT MR. DANIELSON HAD INTENDED TO APPROACH MR. KELSEY FOR POSSIBLE 1/2 ROAD WIDTH DEDICATION. MR. GUHR MOVED,
AS SECONDED BY MR. BUEHLER, THE PRELIMINARY SKETCH OF 8. DANIEL-
SON AS PRESENTED BE ACCEPTED. MOTION CARRIED.
MR. STRASSER AND MR. SORENSON APPEARED TO INFORMALLY DISCUSS
EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE STATUS GRANT IN SEC. 9. ALSO
PRESENT WAS MR. RADTKE, ATTORNEY AND MR. DON POLZIN, SURVEYOR,
TO DISCUSS PETITION OF BODUS BROS., FOR EXTRACTIVE PURPOSES IN SEC. 7. MR. RADTKE STATED THAT AFTER CONFERRING WITH TOWN ENGINEER
IN ESTABLISHING ULTIMATE GRADE IN THE TOWN'S RECONSTRUCTION OF CROWBAR, HIS CLIENT WOULD REDUCE ROAD GRADE TO ROUGH GRADE AT
CREST OF HILL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. IN CLOSING MR. RADTKE RE-
BROS., FOR EXTRACTIVE OPERATION AND M. HLATKY, REZONING OF LAND.
THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. MACHKOVICH, AS SECONDED
M. HLATKY, 7: 15 P.M., AND BODUS BROS., 7:30 P.M., OCTOBER 26~~,
AND Nov. ~TH, 7 P.M., HALES CORNERS SAND & GRAVEL, COVERING
EACH RESPECTIVE PETITION. IYOTION CARRIED.
QUESTED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SET FOR HIS CLIENTS - BODUS
BY MR. CHASE, THAT HEARINGS SHALL BE SET FOR J. STRASSER, 7 P.M.,
e MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
RESPECaLd SUBMITTED,
BJB
Town Baed
Town of Muskego
Box 34
Muskogo, Wlsconsln
Re: Amendmento to the Zoning Ordinance
Gentlamon:
At tho pramnt time you haw0 pandlng &&ore you several amendmonts
to the Zoning Ordinance racomonded by the Flan Commlsslon. The follow-
ing amendments have ban pregerod under dtrsctdon glven at the last Plar
Commlsslon meoting, and can be po~t~d foe public hearing along with the
present pending group, though before the Bard takes actxon the Plan Com-
mission must make ics recommendation.
a
1. Th0 present zoning ordlnance permlts, under sectlm 4.05 (2) C1
-
only one garage pzr lot In a residence diotrlct. However other accessory
structures such as boat Rouses may be permitted In addition to garages.
Cases are aslsing where such other structures are designed ar.d built just
as a garage might be constructed thereby creatlng an enforcement problem.
The questlon has therefore been posed as to whether the Town mlght not
want to re-consldar prohlbdtlng a second garago structure per se. We would
recommend the follszrlng language for Section 0.05 (2) C1:
"1. No mora then one prlvate garage structure shall be permitted on
a lot except that mother such garage structure may be permitted where
the Architectural Control Board finds such structure would meet the
criterla set forth in 4.05 (1) 6 and 6.11 (2). The Eoard in making lts
deterrninatlon shall flrst glve notice to the adjolntng property owners
that such a request has hen submitted for consideration.
2. In Sxtions 6.04 (4) G and 6.08, house trailers are regulated a8
to parklng and habitatlon, but camp rrallers are omltted from the parklng
regulations. %lo definition Is provlded tn the Ordlnance as to the dlfference
between house and camp trallers, hence some confusion 1s developlng a6 to
what to permlt End what to prohiblt. Some camp trailers are now so large
that they rlval the smaller house trallers common a few years ago. Some
camp trallers am in fnzt older srnlll hcuna tri-.llsrz purchtcxi solely for
camping. We tnve studled the matte? 32 ~FOV?.6~i~.~ i: definition for camp
trailers to dlstlngulsh tham from housb PrElkrs for the purpose of zonlng
snforcement, but flnd tt fuelle bcsusn of the USQ of former houso
trailers a9 camp trallers. The only dlsrlncelon which v:e could recommend
would 03 one baaed on size. Whatever is ovar B centaln dimension would
be classed as a house teallor and be prohibttod from paeking in a reslden-
tial area and whatevee Is under would b B~~OVJQ~.
On thls basls w0 would rccornmond ehee 6.00 (4) G3 be amended to
read: I1
"3. Unenclosed parking of house trollers oaroiA4 feet in length,
without habltstlon, shall not be perrnteted for more ths? 3 consecutlve or
10 cumulative days In any 12 month peelod. Camp traliers exceeding 15
feet in lengeh shall ba classed as hOUSQ~trailQri3 for purposes of thls
raqulation. "
3. Section 5.00 (1) B provides regulations whereby the flrst floor
area requlrernenes of Q restdenrial StructurO may ba reducod 1f the total
floor area of the building 1s Increased ES D compensatlon for the allowed
decrease in the flrrt floor area. Thc flnal prlnled ordinenco formula pro-
vldes for a 1 square foot reductlon in firfit floor area €or each 1.5 square
feet added to the total. Our draft WOrkQhQetS indicate the formula has
been reversed somewhere in the process of submletal and aduptlon. The
formula in 5.04 (1) B should be correctsd to mad: "may be reduced 1.5
squar0 feet for every square foot added to thG mlnlmum rsquircd total
floor area. "
4. The new ordlnance requires that mailed notlcs for e public hear-
lng under Section 3.07 (?.) A2 must bs made to all owners wlthin 300 feet
of property fo: which a 2onlng change has beon rcquested. Subsequent
experience hes Indicated that the SW~CP interpretation oi thls langusgo
.would require unreesonabla yivlng of valeten nOtiCQ In the case of compre-
hensive changes. To llmlt the roqulrement to cases of 1ocall:ed change
the followlng is recommended as an addition to 3.07 (2) 82:
"Such malled notice shall not bs requlred where the Tow.1 Board
determines that tha change is of ouch comprehensive nature that
such notlcs would Anvolve excassive administrative effor. and
expense and is not necaooary for rmsonable notification c,:
affected propar:y owners. "
5. Further review of the slqn regulations under Sectton 6.10 in-
dlcates that he wouid be desirable to perrnlt, with proper regulation
certain types of neighborhood ldentlflcation and lnstltutional signs
presently prohibited. The following amendments are recommended:
2
.
"
e