Loading...
PCM19651207PLANNING COMMISSION 'b CITY OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MEETING HELD DECEMBER 7, 1965 CITY HALL a MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE NEETING TO ORDER AT 0: 10 P. M. PRESENT: MAYOR JERONE GOTTFRIED, CHAIRNAN; WILLIAN CHASE, SEC'Y; CHARLES BUEHLER, EDEUND BUDISH, AND CLARENCE WALRATH. RUSSELL KNETZGER, CONSULTANT, AND GERALD LEE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, WERE ALSO PRESENT. ABSENT: WILLARD BERTRAK AND JOHN MEINHARDT MINUTES: THE WINUTES OF TEE PREVIOUS KEETING, NOVEKBER 16, 1965, AND THE KINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CALVARY EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH HELD NOVEMBER 16, 1965, WERE APPROVED AS KAILED. &E&'QNL.L-A&PgA&A&C&Y 8. F. TELLKAMP - As MR. TELLKANP, S63 W1 6767 COLLEGE APE., DID FOR LAND DIVISION IN SECTION 3, ACTION WAS DEFERRED. NOT APPEAR NOR SUBNIT A PRELIKINARY PLAT RELATIVETO HIS REQUEST OUIS OLATION TEST DATA RELATIVE TO HIS RELATIVE TO HIS REQUEST FOR LAND DIVISION IN SECTION 12 (SCHMIDT PROPERTY), ACTION WAS DEFERRED. THOMAS KING - MR. KING, S92 b'20540 HENNEBERRY DR., DID NOT APPEAR RELATIVE TO HIS REQUEST FOR LAND DIVISION IN SECTION CONXISSIOM REVIEWED THE SURVEY AND NOTED THAT DEDICATION OF 19, HOWEVER A CERTIFIED SURVEY HAD BEEN SUBNITTED. THE 40' FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES WAS INCLUDED. MR. CHASE NOVED TO APPROVE THE CERTIFIED SURVEY FOR LAND DIVISION IN SECTION 19 FOR THONAS KING. MR. BUDISH SECONDED THE NOTION AND IT CARRIED. BAROLD DEBACK - As MR. DEBACK, W190 Si0056 RACINE AvE., DID NOT APPEAR RELATIVE TO HIS REQUEST FOR LAND DIVISION IN SECTION 32, ACTION WAS DEFERRED. COUNTY ACQUISITION OF LAND ALONG RACINE AVE. e MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED TEAT THIS DIVISION IS PENDING ON PETERS - As MR. PETERS DID NOT APPEAR NOR PRESENT PETITION PLANT ON HIWAY 36 IN SEC. 26, ACTION WAS DEFERRED. -@ ARTHUR ZANGEM - MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED THAT MR. ZANGERLE HAD CONTACTED HIM AND WAS UNABLE TO APPEAR AS REQUESTED Br BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE RELATIVE TO CONDITIONAL USE FOR HIS SAWKILL IN SECTION la ON HIWAY 24. FROK BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REQUESTING HIM TO APPEAR. BUILDING CLEAN UP TEE AREA AS REQUESTED AT THE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MAYOR GO~TFRIED READ A COPY OF A LETTER PO MR. ZANGERLE INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT MR. zANGERLE HAD MADE NO EFFORT To OF MAY 4, 1965. MAYOR GOTTFRIED DIRECTED THAT MR. ZANGERLE BE REQUESTED PLANNER KNETZGER SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBERS TO APPEAR AT THE NEXT MEETING, DECEMBER 21, 1965. VIEW THE SITE BEFORE THE NEXT NEETING. JJIGGLY. WIGGLY SUPEMARKa - MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED FOR RECESS AT 8,:20 IN ORDER TO LOCATE COMMUNICATION FROM Cnr EMERSON DRIVE. ATTORNEY HIPPENMErER RELATIVE TO LEGALLY DENYINQ ACCESS ON THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT a:25 P. M. AS THE FOLLOWING CONHUNICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY HIPPEN- NEYER DATED 11-19-65 WAS NOT AVAILABLE, MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED THAT IN THE FINAL CONFIRKATION, MUSKEGO CANNOT IKPOSE UNREALI- STIC RESTRICTIONS NOR PREVENT A MAN ACCESS FRON THE STREET WXICH HIS PROPERTY ABUTS: DEAR MAYOR, RE: LANDS IN NEW BERLIN ADJACENT TO EMERSON DRIVE ON NOVENBER 17, 1965, rou REQUESTED AN OPINION FRO~ THIS OFFICE WHETHER THE CITY OF MUSKEGO COULD DENY ACCESS TO EMERSON DRIVE TO TWO PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LANDS LIE ADJACENT TO EKERSON DRIVE BUT ARE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BERLIN. IT IS FURTHER ASSUMED, TOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS OPINION, THAT THIS PORTION OF EMERSON DRIVE IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF MUSKEGO, THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 687 OF DEEDS, ON PAGE 100, WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR WAUKESHA COUNTY. HAVING ACTUALLY BEEN CONVEYED BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN FOLUKE IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE CITY OF MUSKEGO CANNOT DENY ACCESS TO THE ABUTTING OWNERS OF EMERSON DRIVE. THE AUTHORITY FOR OUR OPINION IS WISCONSIN STATUTE 80.47, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 80.47 RIGHTS OF ABUTTING OWNERS. (QUOTED FROM STATE STATUTES) il) .LETTER FRON ATT'Y HIPPENMEYER (CONT. ) - THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE WAS INTERPRETED Br OUR SUPRENE COURT IN OPINION OUR COURT DETERNINED THAT THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO AND FROM THE OCCUPANCY, OF LAND ABUTTING THEREON. THIS CASE FURTHER HELD ABLE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT OF ACCESS NUNICIPALITY mr NOT Br VIRTUE OF SUCH POWER ERECT A~Y BARRIER ROYAL TRANSIT. INC. V. WEST MILWAUKEE, 266 VIS. 271. IN THAT e A PUBLIC HIGHWAY IS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP, OR OF THAT A MUNICIPALITY NIGHT UNDER ITS POLICE POWERS ADOPT REASON- TO AND FROM THE STREET ON WHICH ITS PREMISES ABUTS, BUT THE WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF ALL RIGHT OF ACCESS. WE ARE RETURNING HEREWITH THE ABOVE DESCRIBED DEED FOR YOUR FILES. YOURS VERY TRULY, /s/ RICHARD S. HIPPENMEYER PLANNER KNETZGER READ THE FOLLOWING LETTER FRON NELSON & ASSOC. DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1965, TO THE ARCHITECTS OF THE a PIGGLY WIGGLY SUPERNARKET, KOER'NER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS: 0 DEAR BILL: RE: NEW BERLIN PIGGLY wIGGLY SUPERNARKET SITE PLAN, ACCESS TO ENERSON DR. ENCLOSED ARE TWO SKETCHES OF rouR SITE PLAN FOR THE ABOVE STORE, ENERSON DRIVE, AS THE MUSKEGO PLAN CONMISSION HAD REQUESTED AT SHOWING TWO ALTERNATIVE KETHODS OF ACHIEVING ONE ACCESS TO ITS LAST MEETING. PLAN A HAS THE LARGEST RADIUS FOR SENI-TRUCK WOVEWENT, BUT SITE PLAN. PLAN B KEEPS THE SANE NUHBER OF SPACES, BUT HAS It If IT HAS ABOUT 10 OR 12 FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN YOUR ORIGINAL I1 II SOKEWHAT SHARPER TURNING RADII FOR THE TRUCKS, THOUGH IT STILL WOULD PROVE FVMCTIONAL IF THE TRUCKS WENT EAST FIRST AND EXITED BY SWINGING NORTH AROUND THE BUILDING. ACTUALLY, THEY COULD PROBABLY ENTER WITHOUT UNDUE DIFFICULTY EITHER WAY. YOU WILL NOTE THAT I SHOW A FUTURE WIDENING OF STH 24, WHICH WILL CAUSE THE LOSS OF SONE 26 SPACES. AT ONE TIME IT WAS MEN- TIONED THAT WHEN STH 24 IS WIDENED, THAT THE CENTERLINE WOULD PROBABLY BE NOVED NORTHWAZZD. HOWEVER, AN INFORNAL CONTACT WITH h. THOMAS CLARK OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COKNISSION'S DISTRICT TAKE PLACE ON THE PRESENT CENTERLINE. I AM SURE row WOULD a OFFICE AT WAUKESHA REVEALS THAT WIDENING COULD QUITE &IKELr WANT TO NOTIFY THE SCHULTZ SAV-0 STORES HOME OFFICE OF THAT FACTOR. THE PLANTING SCREEN ALONG THE SOUTH LINE REPRESENTS THE RE- QUIRENENT OF THE MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION. THE OTHER GRASS AREAS ALONG THE EAST LINE, THE19UILDING, AND THE WEST LINE, ARE SUGGESTIONS OF OUR OFFICE TO ENHANCE THE APPEARANCE OF THE DEVELOPNENT. SINCERELY, /s/ RUSSELL KNETZGER THE COMMISSION REVIEWED TEE TWO PLANS AS OUTLINED IN THE ABOVE LETTER, AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED BE- CAUSE OF THE LINITED ACCESS RESTRICTION ON HIWAYS 24 & 36. A CONMUNICATION TO THE NEW BERLIN PLAN COMMISSION AND LISTED IN THE MINUTES OF NOVENEER 16, 1965, HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THdT THE OBJECTIONS AS LISTED IN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEN AND PLANTING SCREEN. PLANNER KNETZGER FURTHER ADVISED THAT MR. BECKER OF THE NEW a e BERLIN PLAN CONMISSION HAD STATED THAT THE SITE PLAN WHICH WdS SUBNITTED TO OUR CONHISSION WAS NOT THE ONE WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THEN. IT WAS NOTED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE THAT TO HIS KNOW- LEDGE THESE PLANS HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE STATE AS YET AND IN HIS OPINION HE DID NOT THINK THE STATE WOULD APPROVE TEE SEWdGE SYSTEN. MR. DAVID COUTURE ADVISED THE CONNISSION THAT IF THE SUPER- HARKET WAS NOT ALLOWED AT THIS LOCATION, THERE WAS AN ALTERN-4- TIVE - A LOT ON HIWAY 24 IN FRONT OF THE DRIVE-IN THEATRE, ALSO IN NEW BERLIN. THERE WAS DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SITE PLAN COULD BE APPROVED dS TWO OBJECTIONS HAD NOT BEEN CLARIFIED THE SEPTIC SYSTEN AND SCREENING. PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THE COHNISSION THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE SITE PLAN. THERE WAS ALSO CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT THE PIGGLY WIGGLY TENANTS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS AND HAZARDS WHICH MR. BUDISH MOVED THAT THE SITE PLAN DATED DECEMBER 1, 1965, WOULD BE CREdTED BY A SUPERMARKET AT THIS LOCATION. FOR THE PIGGLY WIGGLY SUPERMARKET BE APPROVED AS SUBNITTED. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED T~E M~~TION AND UPON ROLL CALL MR. BUDISH IT WAS THE CONMISSION'S DECISION TO NOTIFY THE NEW BERLIN e AND MR. BUEELER VOTED ,pY% AND MR. CHASE, MR. WALRATH AND MAYOR GOTTFRIED VOTED -10 . THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED. PLAN COMM~SSION THAT THE COHMISSION WOULD APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED WITH ACCESS IN THIS LOCATION; AND WITH ADE- QUATE SCREENING, THE BUILDING IS ACCEPTABLT; HOWEVER, APPROVAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES. WILL BE WITHHELD BECAUSE OF THE CO~HISSION s CONCERN WITH THE 'e FOUR FBcLyy APARTHENT - PLANNER KNETZGER REVIEWED A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE PLAN CONMISSION MEMBERS FROM NELSON 6: Assoc. DATED NOVEMBER 10, 196.5, OUTLINING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS FOUR-FANILY UNIT PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF EMERSON DR. ?G HIWAY. 2b: e 7. LOCATE THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO ENERSON DRIVE so THAT THERE IS A 3 FOOT AREA BETWEEN THE DRIVE AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR LANDSCAPING AND SNOW HOLDING CAPACITY. 2. THE DRIVE SHOULD BE AT LEAST 16 FEET WIDE TO PERMIT TWO WAY NOVENENT. WHERE THE DRIVE APPROACHES THE BUILDING IT SHOULD 3E FLARED DOWN SO THAT IN ADDITION TO THE 3 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA TO TEE SOUTH, THERE IS A 2 FOOT LANDSCAPED AREA ALONG THE BUILDING. - 3. THE DRIVE AND ALL PARKING AREA SHOULD BE TREATED WITH SOME FORM OF DUST PROOFING, PREFERABLY AN ASPHALT SURFACE. 4. THE WEST AND NORTH BOUYDARIES OF THE PARRINO AREA SHOULD PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST A 3 FOOT PLANTING SCREEN AREA. THE PLAN- TINGS ALONG STH 24 AND THE WEST LINE SHOULD CONSIST OF A DOUBLE ROW OF MATERIAL, AT LEAST ONE ROW OF WHICH HAS YEAR AROVND e SCREENING EFFECT SUCH AS AN EVERGREEN. THE INITIAL PLAN'TING SHOULD BE OF SUCH A TYPE AND NATURITY THAT A CONTINUOUS SCREENING OF AT LEAST 4 FEET IN HEIGHT WOULD BE ACHIEVED AFTER TWO GROWING SEASONS. THE COMMISSION AGAIN EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE AREA INVOLVED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR AN ADEQUATE SEPTIC SYSTEM. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE BROUGHT TO THE COMNISSION'S FOR SEWAGE SYSTEM FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNED BY ELWYN RICHARDS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ORDINANCE MAKING THE ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS IN EFFECT AN EASENENT ON THIS PARCEL EASEMENT NECESSARY HAD NOT AS YET BEEN CHANGED. MR. CHASE MOVED THAT THIS REQUEST NOT BE APPROVED AND THAT THE CITY OF NEW BERLIN BE NOTIFIED THAT AN EASEMENT ON THIS ATTACHED. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED THE MOTION AN IT CARRIED. ZONING MAP - PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THE CONNISSION THAT THE ZONING MAP SHOULD BE MARKED TO SHOW CONDITIONAL USES WHICH BE SET FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USES. PROPERTY EXISTS FOR SEPTIC PURPOSES, COPY OF EASENENT TO BE e HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AND ADVISED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING DATE SHOULD MAYOR GOTTFRIED EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT EACH CONDITIONAL USE HAD REQUIRED A PUBLIC HEARING AND DID NOT THINK IT NECESSARY USES. THAT ANOTHER HEARING BE HELD TO CONSIDER ALL THE CONDITIONAL e ZONING MAP (cos PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT AN OPINION SHOULD BE RE- QUESTED FROM CITY ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER INDICATING THAT IT BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED THAT AGRICULTURE IN COULD BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. INDUSTRIAL ZONED AREAS DO NOT ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HONE ON THE PROPERTY. HE NOTED THAT THIS IS PERMITTED IN AGRICULTURE OVERLAY ZONED AREAS AND SUGGESTED THAT AN AGRICULTURE OVERLAY BE PROVIDED IN THESE INDUSTRIAL AREAS PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT BY APPLYING THE OVERLAY SO A RESIDENCE COULD BE CONSTRUCTED. IT WOULD SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT ARISE AT ONE SITTING. IT WAS THE COMHISSION'S DECISION THAT EACH REQUEST BE TREATED INDIVIDUALLY. RICHARD MAURICE - THE HOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REOPEN FOR DISCUSSION THE PETITION OF MR. MAURICE FOR A PARKING LOT ON MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 196.5. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED AN ARTIST'S SKETCH OF THE LAND- SCAPING WHICH MR. MAURICE HAD SUBMITTED AT THE INFORMAL HEARING TALLEY DRIVE WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY FROM THE @ e EARLIER IN THE EVENING. MR. WALRATH QUESTIONED MR. MAURICE IF THff P?;RKING LOT WAS REALLY NECESSARY. MR. MAURICE ANSWERED YES , THAT EVEN DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE LANDSCAPING, PARKING, SHRUBBERY, MR. MAURICE ADVISED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAFE OVER 10 CARS SNOWPLOWING WAS A PROBLEM WITH CARS PARKED AtONG THE STREET. ETC. PARKED IN THE AREA, THAT A GARAGE WAS NOT IMPERATIVE, AND THAT BY THE FIRST OF JUNE IT COULD APPEAR AS SHOWN IN THE ARTIST'S PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST AN OPINION FROM CITY ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER REGARDING THE LEGALITY SKETCH. OF RECONSIDERING THIS PETITION. THE CONMISSION NOTED THAT A PLOT PLAN HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS FILE AND REQUESTED MR. MAURICE TO SUBMIT SAME TO MAKE THE FILE COMPLETE AND PRECISE. - MR. CHASE REPORTED THAT HE HAD VIEWED THIS FENCE AT V186 S7683 LINCOLN DR. AND THAT THE HOUSES WERE ALSO SITUATED CLOSE TO THE ROAD. e MR. BUEHLER MOVED THAT THIS MATTER BE TABLED. MR. WALRATH SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED. e wrsc"& - THE COMMISSION REVIEWED A MAP SUBHITTED BY THE ELECTRIC Go. SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE OF TEE CITY. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES IN THE 8OUTHWEST PART OF J -2 - IT WAS PLANNER KNETZGER 'S OPINION THAT LETTERS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE BOARD OF REGULATIONS ADVISING THAT LAND DIVISIONS BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE PLAN COMMISSION RATHER THAN TO INDIVIDUAL SURVEYORS. HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS PROCEDURE - LETTERS TO SvRvEYORS - HAD PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. HE SUGGESTED THdT SURVEYOR'S PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES COULD ALSO BE CONTACTED. :x UB - PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE TELEPHONE COHPANY AND PERHAPS THE GAS CONPANY RELATIVE TO UNDERGROUND WIRING IN NEWLY CREATED SUBDIVISIONS. AS CONCERNS THE STREET TREE PROGRAM, HE SUGGESTED A SIMPLE REQUIREHENT THAT TREES BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME SET FORTH BY THE PARK 6c RECREATION BOARD. PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT DEDICATION CLAIHS RELATIVE TO PARK AND SCHOOL SITES IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS WERE TO BE APPEALED IN A HIGHER COURT AND SUGGESTED THAT CITY ATTORNEY HIPPENITEYER BE REQUESTED TO GIVE AN OPINION IF CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RE-ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME. PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THE CONMISSION THAT IN HIS OPINION e GERTH HEATING SHOULD HAVE BEEN A USE-BY-RIGHT RATHER THAN USE vs. USE-BY-RIGHT. THE CWMISSION WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY EVENT OF EXPANSION, ETC. PLANNER KNETZGER POINTED OUT THE CONTROLS WHICH THE COMKISSION HAD REGULATING THE A&P GROCERY CONDITIONAL VSE AND DISCUSSION ENSUED RELATIVE TO CONDITIONAL WOULD NOT HAVE TIGHT ENOVGH CONTROLS ON USE-BY-RIGHT; IN THE STORE WHICH IS A USE-BY-RIGHT. MAYOR GOTTFRIED REHINDED THE COXKISSION OF TEE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE OFFICIAL MAP TO BE HELD DECEHBER 1 b, 1 965, 7: 00 P. M. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT MAYOR GOTTFRIED QVESTIONED TEE PROGRESS OF REVALUATING BEFORE AN OPINION HE WAS AWAITING AN :URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM. MR. CHASE PRESENTED A CATALOG SHOWING PLAN HOLDERS IN WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST, CATALOG IN THE POSSES- SION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE. ADJOURNMENT - MR. BUDISH MOVED FOR ADJOURNNENT, MR. BUEHLER a SECONDED THE NOTION AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT lo:% P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 12-1 0-65 BARBARA J. SANDS RECORVING SECRETARY WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 231 WEeT MICHIDAN eTREET MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN 51201 Decanber 7, 1965 Jerome J. Oottfried, Mayor Nl80 Si'732 Racine Avenue City of Muskego Huskego, Wisconsin Dear Mayor Oottfried: krsuant to your letter of November 26, 1965, and your recent herewith a copy of a map from your Oeneral Plan for Community Develop- conversation with our Mr. Hamilton of this company, we are transmitting ment shoving the general route of this company's proposed electric transmission line facilities superimposed on it within the limits of your city. As you will note, the transmission line passes through the wea of least population density in the southwestern part of the City of Huskego which is primarily agricultural in character with the exception of a relatively small portion of these lands which are aoned R-1. In lam out a line such as this, many factors are taken into consideration before proceeding with the right of nay acquisition, such as studies of the population denoity, load requirements, general growth patterns of the vicinity, as well as the type of land which we cmss. In keeping with these studies, aerial photographs are taken, of theanilable information as is possible. Our om engineering studies plat maps are studied and the route is then established usine as much support the density factors referred to in your 14aster Plan whereby the maJority of the area that this line traverses has a recommended density from 0.00 to 0.19 families per acre which would provide for 5 acre, or largeq parcels of land in this general vicinity. A recent stucty by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service for the Southeastern Nisconsin Regional Planning Colmoission relating to the type of soil in this area also indicates that it is somewhat lees suitable for residential and commercial developent than other areas in the city. this area would have a dimMshed effect on larger parcels of land in accordance with the recamendations of your Master Plan, permitting more freedom to develop these larger parcels of land cornpatable with the transmission line. 'Ihe foregoing muld indicate that a transmission line acros8 a 'A Jem J. Oottfried, Mayor - 2 December 7, 1965 prior to our contacting the property owners for the necessary right of As we have stated, these and many other factors are considered way. It becomes obvious through these studies that we cannot completely avoid passing through some of the better areas in any one community and we have made every effort to minimize the effect of the constmction of this line in your city. In our contacts with the property owners, we have also made every effort to frankly tell our story and we will continue to deal openly and frankly with all the people that it is neceseary to contact. You are, we know, fully aware of our com~anyls utillty obligation to pmvide adequate electric service at reasonable rates in our service area and we are confident that the entire community will benefit in many ways through the completion of this project. to the plan Q&ssion and another which you nay wish to send to the We are enclosing two copies of this letter; one to be forwarded ine questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Common Council. If we can be of further assistance or answer any remain- c Very truly yours, Redl Estate Agent 0. F. Koske TRH/sff FaC . 01 i n 0 n 0 0: - 2 I-’ - , HIPPENMEYER. REILLY. FRITZ h ARENZ LAW OFFICE5 OF 720 CLlNTON STREET WAUKESHA.WISCONSIN 89187 December 14, 1965 Mr. Russell Knetzger Nelson & Associates 1733 North Farwel I Avenue Milwaukee 2, Wisconsln Mayor Jerome J. Gottfried City of Muskego Box 34 Muskego, Wisconsin Gent 1 emen, On December II, 1965, we received a letter dated September 7, 1965, relative to certaln changes In your subdivision regulations and were reauested to aive an ooinlon relative to certain rwoblems 1. Does Chapter 236.13(1)(d) bind the Clty solely to the State Board of Health rules for conducting and classifying the results of percolation tests, or whether the City may adopt more stringent standards as a basis for reviewino land divisions and subdivisions? It is our opinion that when the statute is read in its entirety and consideration is given to Section 236.13(1)(b), takin9 into consideration further the trend in recent decislons to permit municipalities to impose more stringent requirements where the health, safety or we1 fare of the community is restrlctions just so long as the requirements will meet the involved, that the municipality may impose more stringent test of reasonableness and will apply equally to all like subdivisions. I 2. The next question is, what Iiabllity if any does the City assume In conducting percolation tests? If the ordinance Is properly drafted, which in effect spells out the municipality powers relative to percolation tests, ,I see no serlous question of liability on the part of the and then o request Is made to subdivide under that ordlnance, munlcipality. 3. The third question appears to assume that a subdivision is platted but that certain lots within the subdivlslon will be unsuitable for septic systems. J Messrs. Knetzger and Gottfried -2- December 14, 1965 It is our opinion that the municipality at that time could accept from the subdivider a restrictive covenant as to those refuse to approve the whole plat, or in the alternative, parcels which are unsuitable for septic systems. Even assuming the plat was approved and no restrictive covenant was obtained, the Building Inspector would stlll be within his rights to refuse a building permit, If in fact the lot was unsuitable for septic systems, providing of course that your building code provides for percolation tests prior to the issuance of a building permit. of September 7th. I believe that this answers the questions set forth in the letter Yours very truly, HIPPENMEYER, REILLY. FRITZ & ARENZ ,(~L,J s.jG+ Richard S. Hippenmeyer December 15, 1965 Honorable Jerome Gottfried, Mayor City Hall City of Muskego, Wis. Dear Sir: Relative to your letter of 12/10/65 I would ask that your Plan Commission work with the developers of the Piggly Wiggle Store, as I understand you have been, and when you have agreed with them as to the location of the driveways and as to the precise screening treatment, you advise me as to what has been agreed upon. Also I had not been aware of any sewer easement being on either the north or south properties on the west side of Emerson Lane. Would you please let me know pertinent facts relative to this. Insofar as the sewer trealnent facilities for both developments are concerned. careful before issuing any permits. I am contacting ow Plumbing Inspector and ask him to be especially Thank you. Sincerely yours,