PCM19660201PLANNING COMMISSION e CrTY OF MUSKEG0
MINUTES OF HEETING HELD FEBRUARY 1. 1966 - CITY HALL
MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE HEETINO TO ORDER AT 8:18 P. M.
PRE:ENT: MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM CHASE, SEC Y; VILLARD BERTRAM, CHARLES BUEHLER, ED BUDISH AND
CLARENCE WALRATH. GERALD LEE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND
RUSSELL KNETZGER, CONSULTANT, WERE ALSO PRESENT.
ABSGNT: JOHN ~EINHARDT MAYOR GOTTFRIED ANNOUNCED THAT JOHN MEINHARDT HAD TEN-
DERED HIS RESIGNATION AND AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL THI8 VACANCY
WOULD BE KADE SOON.
m: PLANNER KHETZOER AMENDED THE IIINUTEB OF JANUARY 18,
1966, ON PAGE 3 UNDBR PORTION ENTITLED CAMPINO TRAILER", TO II
READ:
II 3. UNENCLOSED PARKING OF HOUSE TRAILERS OVER 17 FEET
0 IN LEIYGTH, WITHOUT HABITATION, SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED FOR
M#RE THAN 3 CONSECUTIVE OR 10 CUHULATIVE DAYS IN ANY 12
HONTH PERIOD. CAMP TRAILERS EXCEEDINQ FEET IN LBNQFH
SHALL BE CLASSED AS HOUSE TRAILERS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REQUO
LATION. I1
AND ON PAGE 4, SECOND PARAGRAPH, ~TH LINE, TO READ:
ll
0. .ROUTES VARY AND TEE LINES ARE PERHAPS Shoo' APART. I1 -
MR. CHASE NOVED THAT THE XINOTES BE APPROVED AS AHENDED AND
MR. BUDISH SECONDED TH5 MOTION AND IT CARRIED.
DONALD HABEmEW - MAYOR GOTTFRIED REPORTED THAT SURVEYOR
THE CXRTIFIED SURVEY FOR THIS LAND DIVISION IN SECTION 21
WA8 PREPARED AND IN THE HABERHEYER'S POSJESSION. A8 MR.
CLAUDE JOHNSON HAD BEEN CONTACTED AND HE HAD ADVISED THAT
AND MRS. HABERHEYER DID NOT APPEAR, ACTION WAS DEFERRED.
c As MR. .% MRS. MENGHE DID NOT APPEAR
ACTIOM WAS DEFERRED. PLANNER KNETZOER ADVISED THAT HE WILL CONTACT SURVEYOR
CLARENCE PIEPENBURG AS TO THE STATU6 OF THIS LAND DIVISION.
PAGE 2 - A KEETING UITH THE COKKON
~~~%s%, ATTORNEY REILLY AND REPRESENTA-
TIVES FROK TEE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER Go. RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED ROUTE OF ELECTRIC TRANSKISSION LINE FACILITIES IN THE
SOUTHWEST PART OF THE CITY WAS HELD JUST PRIOR TO THIS REOULAR
PLANNING COKHISSION KEETING. MAYOR GOTTFRIED EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THE ELECTRIC
COHPANY HAD OVERSTEPPED THEIR RIGHTS BY KOVING AHEAD BEFORE
CONSULTING THE PLANNING COKKISSION. HE ADVISED THAT ATTORNEY REILLY WILL STUDY THIS PROBLEK. PLANNER KNETZGER SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY ACQUIRE THE
SERVICES OF AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER TO GET A PROFESSIONAL
OPINION OF THE PROPOSED ROUTES. (PLANNER KNETZGBR HAD
SUGGESTED TKAT THE ELECTRIC CO. INVEdTIGATE RUNNINO THE
TRANSHISSION LINE ALONG THE RACINE - WAUKESHA COWTY LINE
TO THE SOUTH OF THE CITY AT THE EARLIER KEETIRG.)
MR. BUDISH KOVED TO RECOKKEND TO THE COKNON COUNCIL
THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY PURSUE UHATEVER LEGAL STEPS ARE
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE CITY OF HUSKEGO
AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED. MR. WALRATH SECONDED THE
PIR. BUEHLER COWKENTED THAT THE COUNTY LINE SUGGESTION
HOTION AND IT CARRIED.
WAS VERY GOOD AND THAT IT VAS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE ENTIRE w AREA THROUGH FHE SOUTHWEST PART OF THE CITY A8 PROPOSED BY
THE ELECTRIC COUPANY COULD EE ELIKINATED. - RANC~ES - THE FOLLOWING COKKUNICATIONS UERE READ By
THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
JANUARY 12, 1966
DEAR MA Y OR GO TTFR IED :
TXIS IS IN REPLY TO THE PROBLEK OF HI - Y RANCHES SUBDIVISION
WHICH HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO NE THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
As I UNDERSTAND TRE SITUA~ION, IT IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE SUPDIVIdION WAS PLATTED IN 1956 AND PRESUHAELY
QOKPLIED WITH THE TOWN 2ONING LAW TN EFFECT AT THAT
TIKE, AS ¶’HE SUBDIVISION UAS APPROVED.
2. UNDER THE PRESENT ZVNING “”_ ORDINANCE, ” TEIS AREA IS ZONED OED
R-2 WITH AN W%%ERLAY WHICH REQUIRES hO, 000 S-QUARE w,
FEET PER LOT. A- . , .-A
p.f-.I”’
3. THE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION ARE 20,000
SQUARE FEET.
PAQE 3
4. A NUNBER OF ABUTTING LOTS ARE PRESENTLY IN THE SAHE
OWNERSHIP.
5. BUILDING PERNITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR OTHER LOTS IN
THE SUBDIVISION AS LATE AS 1965 AND THE GENERAL PROBLEM
HAS RECENTLY BEEN CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BUIL-
DING INSPECTOR WHO DESIRES TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE
SHOULD REFUSE TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS ON THE REMAINDER
OF THE LOTS, WHICH ABUT EACH OTHER, AND HAVE THE SAME
OWNER AT THIS TIME.
I FEEL THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL
ORDINANCE PROVIDE THE. ANSWR AND THE PROCEDURE WHICH NUST BE
TAKEN. SECTION 4.06 (2) (C) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES:
I1 NON-CONFORMING LOTS -- 1. No SUCH. LOT SHALL BE CONVEYED
'TO A NEW OWNER EXCEPT IN CONFORHITY WITH THE APPLIC3,BLE
PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE. .
SECTION 5.08 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES:
II EXISTING SUB-STANDARD LOTS .I- WHERE A LOT HAS LESS LAND
.AREA OR WIDTH TRAN REQUIRED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT
IS LOCATED AND WAS OF RECORD AT THE TIXE OF PASSAGE OF THIS
ORDINANCE, SUCH LOT HdY BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE PERMITTED
BY SAID DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS QOVERNING SUB-
-:-STANDARD LOTS SET FORTH UNDER SECTION X OF ;HE SUBDIVISION
CONTROL ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF MUSKEGO....
SECTION X OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE PROVIDES IN
EFFECT THAT IN THE CASE OF A LOT OF RECORD AT THE TINE OF THE
PASSAGE OF THAT ORDINANCE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE ZONING
REGULATIONS AND WHICH ABUTS ANOTHER LOT HELD IN THE SAME OWNER'
SHIP, NO SUCH LOT SHALL BE CONVEYED UNTIL:
1. TEE OWNER EAS PETITIONED THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A DETER-
MINATION OF THE STATUS OF SUCH LOT.
2. THE PETITION IS REFERRED TO THE PLAN CONMISSION FOR
STUDY AND RECOHMENDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILED
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.
3. !&E CITY COUNCIL DETERHIRES THE STATUS.
IT IS NY OPINION THAT IN MAKING THE DETERHINATION UNDER SECTION x OF THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE, EVERY EFFORT SHOULD
BE MADE TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF THE LOT OWNER TO PERMIT THE SALE * OF THE EXISTING LOTS.
YOURS VERY TRULY,
/s/ RICHARD S. HIPPENMEYER
PAGE 4
a JANUARY 25, 1966
CITY OF MUSKEGO
COMKON COUNCIL
GXN TLEUEN:
k/s HAVE BEEN INFORKED THAT NO BUILDING PERHITS WILL BE ISSUED
IN OUR SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF A ZONING CHANNOE AFTER OUR SUBDI-
VISION WAS PLATTED, ACCEPTED AND RECORDED.
WE WERE ADVISED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR US TO PETITION THE COMKON COUNCIL so THAT THEY COULD REFER TO THE PLANNING
COKIYISSION THE PROBLEK OF LOT SIZE OR PossIBLr LOT AREA.
WE WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT THERE ARE NO FORHAL PETITION5 PEE-
PARED FOR THIS PURPOSE. I WISH roo WOULD ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS
AN INFORMAL PETITION, PETITIONING THE COKHON COUNCIL TO REFER
TO THE PLANNING COKMISSION OUR PARTICULAR PROBLEK. IT IS OUR
WISH THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO COKPLETE OUR SUBDIVISION, AS FAR
AS BUILDING IS CONCERNED, WITHOUT HAVING TO REPLOT OR REDIVIDE
ANY OF OUR LOTS.
I AK ACTING FOR TEE OWNERS OF ALL LOTS INVOLVED, WHO ARE * RESPECTIVELY, FLOYD 6. SWAYZE, RAY WALLNER, GEORGE HACHKOVICX, CARL LENTINI AND KYSBLF.
RESPECTFULLY SUBKITTED,
/s/ S.~ ROBERT LENTINI
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLOT HAP AND BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE INDICATED THE LOTS WHICH HAD DWELLINGS ON
IN BLOCK A - LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 IN BLOCK C - LOTS 1, 2, 3, 12 & 14
IN BLOCK D - LOT 2
THEK:
THE COHKISSION REVIEWED THE TOPOGRAPHIC HAP AND THE SEwRPC SOIL KAP. THE SEWUC INDICATED POOR 80IL FOR THIS
AREA REQUIRING AN ACRE OR HORE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM. IT WAS
NOTED BY THE COMKISSION THAT THE LOTS IN HI - Y RANCHES
ARE 1/2 ACRE LOTS, 200' DEEP WITH 120' FRONTAGE.
BEEN TAKEN IN THIS AREA PRIOR TO SUBDIVIDING, BUT TEE TESTS
THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF PERCOLATION TESTS WHICH HAD
WERE NOT AVAILABLE FORRFVIEW. MR. ROBERT LENTINI STATED
THAT THE PERCOLATION TESTS HAD BEEN VERY GOOD ACCORDING TO THE
PREVIOUS BUILDING INSPECTOR DICK SCHROEDER, THAT THEY HAD
RUN INTO SAND, THAT THERE WAS A GRAVEL PIT BEHIND THE AREA
AND THE SUBDIVISION HAD VERY GOOD DRAINAGE.
PAGE 5
TEE COMMISSION REVIEWED 4.06 (2) c, MON-CONFORMING LOTS, PAGE 34, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SECTION X, EXISTING SUBSTANDARD LOTS, PAGE 1.5, OF THE SUBDIVISION
SEWAGE DISPOSAL, PRACTICABILITY AND HARDSHIP. IT WAS NOTED
CONTROL hDINANCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION COMPATIBILITI,
THAT THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SEWAGE DISPOSAL
BEDS AND THAT IT MIGHT BE A HARDSHIP TO REQUIRE RE-DIVISIONS
BY THE DEVELOPERS. PLANNER KNETZGER SUGGESTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SEWRPC.db,,_k~ ,J P.4-
INDICATION OF POOR SOIL CONDITIONS.~D~IL--BOKI~~~- BE 'TAKEN AT
THE CITY'S EXPENSE NEAR THE CENTER OF LOT 3 AND ON THE LOT- n, Y'V
~INE BETWEEN LOTS Q & 9. ; I L.I
MR. BUDISH MOVED TO HAVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ORDER
THE CrTr ENGINEER TO TAKE TWO SOIL BORINGS ON THE LOT-LINE
BETWEEN LOTS 0 AND 9 AND NEAR TEE CENTER OF LOT 3. MR. WALRATII SECONDED THE XOTION AND IT CARRIED. MR. BUEHLER SUGGESTED THAT TEIIS WOULD BE SETTING A
PRECEDENT REQUIRING THE CITY TO PAr FOR SOIL BORINGS ON
OTHER SUBSTANDARD SVBDIVISIONS. IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE SOIL BORING IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD
DETERMINE THE ACCVRACY OF THE SEWRPC SOIL MAPS WHICH SHOULD &A<,
BE VERIFIED.&. & TY: - 4-f~ 4"s r n 6 i" 4' 9.1r - r A~,..: e. .,-'" 11
I
&- I .s. - MAYOR GOTTFRIED READ THE FOLLOWING LETTER 0 PROW CITY ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER:
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
DEAR HAYOR GOTTFRIED:
RE: GRAVEL. INC. (DAWSON)
I HAVE DRAWN A RESTORATION PLAN AS WELL AS A PERFORMANCE BOND
REGARDING THE ABOVE ENTITLED KATTER. I AN, HOWEVER, SOHEWHAT
DISSATISFIED WITH THE RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE REASON THAT
RESOLUTION #lo0 REFERS TO PAGE 3 OF TEE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ,YORE PARTICULARLY PARAGRAPH 5 WHICH READS AS
FOLLOWS:
5. RE-PHRASE RESTORATION REQVIREMENTS so THERE WILL BE
ACTION BY NEXT SPRING AblD HAVE THEM IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT
FOR APPROVAL A SYSTEM OF SPECIFIC WORK AND RESTORATION
AREAS SIMILAR TO THAT USED BY STATE SAND & GRAVEL.
I HAVE INCLUDED NOTHING IN THE RESTORATION PLAN RELATIVE TO
PARAGRAPH 5 BECAUSE IT IS SO INDEFINITE AND TO BE PUT IN TEE a PLAN FERBATIM WOULD BE SO UNCERTAIN AS TO MAKE THE REQUIREMENT
AMBIGUOUS. THEREFORE, BEFORE THIS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT RUEKERT dc HIELKE, OR THE PLANNING
PAGE 6
COMMISSION, ADVISE ME SPECIFICALLY A8 TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT
WERE NEANT BY TEE ABOVE LANGUAGE AND I WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE
RESTORATION PLAN.
IT IS NY UNDERSTANDING TEAT TEE RESTORATION NAP HAS BEEN
APPROVED BY RUEKERT & MIELICE.
IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT, AS THE PERNIT WILL EXPIRE ON
IN ANY EVENT, LOOK IT OVER AND IF POSSIBLE, HAVE THE PLANNING COHMISSION LOOK IT OVER. IF IT HEETS WITH WHAT THEY INTENDED
THE REQUIRENENTS TO BE, TEEN HAVE THE SAME EXECUTED. IF ON
JUNE 19, 1966, THAT THE RESTORATION PLAN AS DRAWN IS SUFFICIENT.
THE OTHER HAND WE SHOULD BE NORE SPECIFIC, PLEASE LET HE KNOW
AND I WILL RE-DRAW THE RESTORATION PLAN.
I AN SENDING A copy OF BOTH THE BOND AND RESTORATION PLAN, AS I HAVE DRAWN THEM, TO FRANK RUEKERT FOR HIS CONMENTS.
SINCERELY,
/s/ WILLIAM F. REILLY
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE WORK
PLANS SHOULD BE SUBKITTED TO THE PLANNING CONHISSION OR THE e COMNON COUNCIL. MR. BUEHLER MOVED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ATTORNEY'S
OPINION GRAVEL, INCOB ,SVBMIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANS AND DATA TO SHOW THE VARIOUS PHASES OF ACCOUPLISHINO THE
RESTORATION PLAN OR SEQUENCE OF OPERATION IN WHICH THESE PHASES
WILL occrm. MR. WALRATE SECONDED THE NOTION AND IT CARRIED.
DJO- - MR. CHASE NOVED FOR ADJOVRNNENT, MR. BUDISH
SECONDED TEE NOTION AND THE HEETINO ADJOURNED AT ?0:25 P. !f.
RESPECTFULLY SUBNITTED,
BARBARA J. SANDS RECORDING SECRETARY
2-5-66