Loading...
PCM19660301PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MUSKEG0 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, WI24 S10397 S. 124th St., did not appear relative to division of land (Walter Hofmann Property) near the to table this. section line of Sections 25 and 36, it was the Commission's decision WALTER GEIBEL - As Mr. Walter 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 POSBRIG - Mr. Posbrig appeared relative to his request to allow a multiple-family dwelling (duplex) on a 1 acre lot in Section 20 (Irwin Posbrig Property), area presently zoned A-1. Planner Knetzger gave the following recommendation: "At your meeting of February 15, 1966, you referred the above matter to us for study and recommendation. We feel the interpretation by the building inspector, that RSM or RSA Districts cannot be zoned unless public sewer is designated ultimately for the area, is correct. Since this area is not designated for public sewer, such zoning should not be considered. The onlv Dossible form of multiple dwelling that might be per- missable in this area would be a two family unit under regulations that we have casually discussed at past meetings. Under such regula- tions two family units, if they closely resemble single family units bility might be a two family basic zone or overlay which could be in appearance, might be permitted as conditional uses. Another possi- applied on portions of major arteries. However until such regulations are drafted, studied and adopted, no multiple family unit could be permitted in the above case." Respectfully submitted, NELSON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. should be directed to study multiple family zoning in Muskego but no action was taken. JOHN PETERS - After discussion relative to the conditional use re- quest of John Peters for a light industrial operation in the SWk of petitioned by John Peters. Mr. Bertram seconded the motion. Section 25, Mr. Walrath moved to grant the conditional use as Mr. Walrath amended the motion to include the condition that there be further screening from Hiway 36, such plantings to be such a height and fast growing as to screen the back end of the property on , the northwest side of the building, with the consent of his second Mr. Bertram. There was some discussion as to whether or not the Planner \ .i The motion as amended was carried. /u ' , I." /' ' , -. ., (2) outline all of the conditions as petitioned and have such in writing 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 will submit such a form to the Commission soon. Planner Knetzger suggested that the attorney be requested to COMMUNICATIONS: The following communications were read by the Recording Secretary: February 16, 1966 To : City of Muskego Common Council Gentlemen: petitioned to be permitted the establishment of a parking lot on the east side of Valley Drive. On those occasions he presented certain proposals. At those same times there was practically unanimous opposition from the property owners adjacent to the lot in question. On the basis of the testimonies given, the Planning Commission denied Mr. Maurice's petition. On Feb. 15, 1966, another hearing was held at which time the hearing was opened and a statement made that there was no new proposal being made by Mr. Maurice, only that he had made another petition. Even the sketches shown were the same that were used in the previous hearing. On the basis that no new proposal was being made, I asked 0 being given the same consideration as before. I was assured that these then if the statements made against the petition before were still statements were still part of the record. to go ahead with his parking lot. Being a rational human being, I find it inconceivable that with exactly the same facts to go 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 there may be that it be given me in writing 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 granting of permission for having bothered you. (in other words if my information is wrong) I apologize in advance On two occasions prior to Feb. 16, 1966, one Richard Maurice I have now been told that permission has been given Mr. Maurice Very truly yours, /s/ E. Merle Hampe f; k * * si 9: directed to Mr. Hampe indicating that by applying 9 conditions to the Lse, the Commission was assuring that the property would conform to that a copy of the minutes of the meeting of February 15, 1966, be sent the residential nature of the surrounding area. It was also agreed to Mr. Hampe so that he would be made aware of the thoughtful considera- tion given to this request and that there were two prior motions made before final adoption arrived. It was the Commission's decision that an appropriate letter be ***::e:: rn-. February 22, 1966 -0 Mayor Jerome J. Gottfried .I": - Dear Mayor Gottfried: interpretation of Sec. 8.10 B (1) of your Zoning Ordinance. On February 18, 1966, you requested an opinion relative The Building Inspector and the Planning Commission have to the inter- preted that section to- mean that a paved parking area for an adjacent commercial property may be permitted as a conditional use. confusing and open to more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, the interpretation given by the Building Inspector and Planning Commission is one of a number of reasonable interpretations. Evidently this matter was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council pursuant to Sec. 6.03 (2). It has been determined pursuant to Sec. therefore, my opinion in this instance that the City Council cannot 6.04 of your Ordinance that off-street parking is desirable. It is, having made its decision, now reverse itself. (See our opinion dated change the Plannlng Commission ruling, nor can the Planning Commission, December 29, 19.65.) (Recorded in minutes of January 4, 1966) Commission has given to Sec. 8.10 B (1) is not one which the Council feels is good planning, that an amendment be then adopted removing any possible ambiguity. when faced with a legal problem of interpretation, ask for our opinion We would agree that the wording of Sec. 8.10 B (1) is somewhat It is further our opinion that if the interpretation the Planning It is further our recommendation that the Planning Commission, e prior to making their decision. Yours verv trulv. /s/ RichaGd S. Hippenmeyer ~~ ****fin February 28, 1966 To : Mayor Jerome Gottfried Dear Mayor: Re: Conditional Use in a Multiple Family District had properly interpreted Section 8.10B(1) of the zoning ordinance in deciding that it had the power to grant a conditional use permitting a paved parking area as an accessory use. of the administrative officer or of the plan commission may appeal such decision to the Board of Appeals, provided such appeal falls within the classification of the powers of the Board of Appeals. The original problem here was whether the Planning Commission Section 3.08(1) provides that any person aggrieved by a decision Section 3.08 (2)D(1) urovides that the Board of ADDealS has the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged thkre is error in any decision or determination made by an administrative officer. conditional uses. It is not "an administrative officer". The Plan Commission, by Section 6.03 (1) has the power to grant a permitting a review by the Board of Appeals of this type of determina- tion made by the Plan Commission. necessarily be to the Circuit Court. The procedure is a matter to be determined by the parties and their own legal counsel. Yours very truly, /s/ Richard S. Hippenmeyer I find no provision in the ordinance, or the state statutes, Thus it is my opinion that any appeal by an aggrieved party would ***A** there was discussion as to procedures in granting conditional uses. Planner Knetzger reviewed Attorney Hippenmeyer's letters and PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATIONS Planner Knetzger suggested that the attorney be requested to draw up a standard form to be used when easements are required on adjacent properties. Planner Knetzger stated that in accordance with the ordinance, conditional uses as well as any rezoning must be shown on the Zoning District Map, this to be refrred to Mayor Gottfried. to the soil maps as their evaluation of soil does not appear to be acceptable to the actual situation. pertaining to same be kept in each petitioner's file for reference. Planner Knetzger requested permission to contact SEWRPC relative Planner Knetzger suggested that minutes of the procedure VALLEY DRIVE REZONING - Planner Knetzger advised that he would have a recommendation as to the rezoning of Vallev Drive from RSM to RS3 at the next meeting. Building Inspector Lee reported that he had received an appli- cation for a permit for an 0 family unit on Valley Drive. According to Planner Knetzger the area in question would not be large enough for an eight family unit and would have to be reduced to a four family unit and this should be referred to the attorney to determine whether or not this application could be accepted prior to a zoning change. ADJOURNMENT - Mr. Budish moved for adjournment, Mr. Walrath seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:49 P. M. I Respectfully submitted, Barbara J. Sands Recording Secretary 3-4-66 ,, i er. Carl Posbrig W192 S9574 Racinc Ave. b U Huakago 9, Wie. Dear Mr. Porbrig: .! r I- - haroh 7, 1966 Attached io a copy oi-%he minutes of the meeting of March 1st-confirming tl@ Planning Commission's &termination that a multiple family dwclling could not be parmittad'in an agriaulturc zoned area. Yours vevy truly, PWI COMMISSION Jerome J. Gottfried Chairman 1 . "_ ' -. -3 Harch 7, 1966 Mr. John Peter8 1b65 S. 9bth St ., West Allie, Wis:, Dear Mr. Peters: The Plan Commission wishes to confirm their becent decioion to grant th'. conditional use &5 petitioned for a light industrial operation with the cwftion that there be further screening from Hiway 36, such plzhtfngs to be such a heighth and fast growing as to soreen the back end of the p%bpertY on the northwart ride of the building. Yours veFy truly, PLAN CO"ISSI0A x Jerome J. 6ottfried Mayor A w181 57802 Valley Dr. Muskego, Wis. Feb. 16, 1966 City of Muskego Common Council City Hall Muskego, Wis. Gentlemen: On two occasions prior to Feb. 16, 1966, one Richard Maurice petioned to be permitted the esWblishment of a parking lot on the east side of Valley Drive. On those occasions he presented certain proposals. At those same times there was practically unanamous opposition from the property owners adjacent to the lot in question. On the basis of the testimonies given, the planning Qommission denied Mr. Ymurice' s petition. On Feb. 15, 1966 another hewing was held at which time the hearing was opened and a statement made that there had made another petition. Even the s ketches shown were the was no new proposal being made by 1.k. Maurice, only that he same that were used in the previous hearing. On the basis that no new proposal was being made, I asked then if the given the same consideration as before. I was asssured that statements made against the petition before were still being these statements were sttll part of the record. Mr. Maurice to go ahead with his parking lot. Being a rational hman being, I find it inconceivable that with exactly the of what it was before. To me one and one will always be two. same facts to go on that the answer can be exactly the opposite I, therefore, respectfully ask that whatever explanation there may be that it be given me in writing 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 granting of permission (in other words if my information is wrong) I apologize in advance for having bothere& you. I have now been told that permission has been given