PCM19660517CITY PLAN COMMISSION
*_ -
CITY OF MUSKEGO
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD PlAY 17, 1966 CITY HALL
MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 0:lO P. M.
PREfENT: MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED, CHAIRMAN, WILLIAM CHASE,
SEC Y, CHARLES BUEHLER, CI,ARBNCE DAHLEN, S. ROBERT LENTINI,
AND ED RAIMANN. ALSO PRESENT WERE GERALD LEE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, AMD RUSSELL KNETZGER, CONSULTANT.
ABSENT: VILLARD BERTRAM
PINUTES: THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, MAY 3, 1966,
WERE APPROVED AS HAILED.
BERYARD C. LIND : MR. LINDNER, W136 S6468 SHERWOOD COURT,
FROM 23.01 ACRES IN THE NWt OF SECTION 3 (FORMERLY H. c. MCCALLUM PROPERTY). MAYOR GOTTFRIED REVIEWED THAT PORTION OF THE MINUTES
PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT HE HAD LOOKED AT THE
OF THE PREVIOUS HEETING PERTINENT TO THIS LAND DIVISION.
PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT THE ROAD
RESERVATION WOULD BE THE MOST DESIRABLE ON THE EAST SIDE
OF THE PROPOSED PARCEL, HOWEVER HE WOULD STILL BE IN FAVOR
OF AN EASEMENT ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF SECTION
3 AND MR. LINDNER INDICATED THE AREA OWNED BY HIM. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED POSSIBILITIES OF A CUL DE SAC OR
FROH KARTIN DRIVE. MR. LINDNER INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A
BRANCHING STREET SYSTEM, ALSO POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF A ROAD
HONE IN THE AREA WHICH WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH A ROAD
ON THE EAST.
AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, MR. CHASE MOVED TO ACCEPT MR. LINDNER'S PRELIMINARY SKETCH
ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. MR. LENTINI WITH THE CONDITION THAT A 60 FT. ROAD RESERVATION BE PROVIDED
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
HIVAY Y REL CATI 0 ON - MAYOR GOTTFRIED REPORTED ON A MEETING
BETWEEN THE COMMON COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY HIWAY DEPT. CONCERNING
THE RELOCATION OF HIWAY "Y", ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION 1969,
AND TXE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PROPOSED ROUTE.
11 II
i
COLLEGE AVE. & MARTIN DR. INTERSECTION - MAYOR GOTTFRIED
ADVISED THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE COUNTY HIWAY DEPT.
BY PLANNER KNETZGER TO ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM AT THIS
CORNER. THE COUNTY SUGGESTED THAT THIS BE DISCUSSED WITH
THE STATE HIWAY DEPT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT IF A
REZONING WERE GRANTED FOR THIS CORNER (FORREST PERKINS HEARING,
THE CHANNELIZED y DESIGN SUBMITTED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING It II
JUNE 7TH) AND A PERMIT ALLOWED FOR A SERVICE STATION THAT A
SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF LAND BE RESERVED TO ALLOW FOR AN INTER-
SECTION CHANGE.
GRAVEL. INC, - MAYOR GOTTFRIED ADVISED THAT GRAVEL. INCeS HAD
FROH $40,000 TO $30,000 AND ALSO THAT THEY BE PERMITTED TO
EXCAVATE BELOW RESTORATION GRADE LEVEL. HE ADVISED THAT THE PUBLIC VELFARE COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THE REQUESTS
BE GRANTED. MAYOR GOTTFRIED ALSO REPORTED THAT GRAVEL, INC.,
DESIRES: 'TO PUT A THIRD TRAFFIC LANE ON TANS DRIVE FOR TRUCK
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE RESTORATION PLAN AND DIS-
REQUESTED THAT THEIR BOND FOR RESTORATION PURPOSES BE REDUCED
USE.
CUSSED THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH WHEN THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED
LAST YEAR. PLANNER KNETZGER POINTED OUT THAT THE AREA IS DESIGNATED
FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER WHEN THE PIT IS COMPLETED AND
THE FILL SHOULD BE SUCH AS TO SUPPORT BUILDINGS.
MR. BUEHLER REVIEWED PORTIONS OF A COMMUNICATION FROM NELSON & ASSOCIATES DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1965, OFFERING
MAYOR GOTTFRIED REVIEWED A CONMUNICATION FROK RUEKERT & MIELKES
RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE GRAVEL OPERATIONS AND ASPHALT PLANT.
CITY ENGINEERS, REGARDING RESTORATION COSTS, DATED JAN. 24, 1962,
AND A COMMUNICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER DATED FEB. 1, 1966, REGARDING THE RESTORATION PLAN. PLANNER KNETZGER ADVISED THAT COMPACTION RATINGS WERE
FOLLOWING CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION MR. BUEHLER MOVED THAT
MISSING ON THE RESTORATION PLAN.
UPON GRAVEL, INC'S. REQUEST THAT THE RESTORATION BOND BE
REDUCED FROM $40,000 TO $30, 000 AND THAT THEY BE PERMITTED TO
MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ENGINEER TO TAKE THIS UNDER CON-
EXCAVATE TO GREATER DEPTH THAN RESTORATION CONTOURSs THIS
SIDERATION TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE NECESSARY OF
THE BOND IN RELATIONSHIP TO INCREASING THE DEPTH OF EXCAVATION,
THE ENGINEER TO ATTEMPT TO SET A MAXIMUN DEPTH TO WHICH THE PIT
CAN BE WORKED. MR. DAHLEN SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION
CARRIED IT WAS ALSO THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT A LETTER BE
DIRECTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER PERTAINING TO COMPACTION RATINGS.
& 2Ll - THE FOLLOWING COMNU-
@AD BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED:
RE: PROPOSED DEVELDPNENT CORNER OF EMERSON DR. & HIWAY 24
THIS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 4, 1966. WE KNOW
OF NO WAY IN WHICH YOU CAN LEGALLY PROHIBIT PIGGLY VIGGLY
FRON BUILDING IN THE CITY OF NEW BERLIN.
/s/ ATTORNEY HIPPENNEYER
)ECORDING CONDITIONAL USE GRANT&' - THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION
DATED MAY 5, 1966, WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
DEAR MAYOR GOTTFRIED:
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR AN OPINION DATED MAY 4,
1966.
IN OUR LETTER OF MARCH 23RD WHICH YOU REFERRED TO, IT WAS
MERELY A SUGGESTION THAT THE TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THAT BE DONE.
GRANTS BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS.
VE SIMPLY FELT THAT THIS WOULD WITHOUT QUESTION GIVE NOTICE
TO POTENTIAL PURCHASERS OF THE REQUIRENENTS AND THAT THEY WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO PLEAD IGNORANCE BECAUSE THEY HAD FAILED TO CHECK
WITH THE CITY RECORDS. OF COURSE, THE PLEAS OF IGNORANCE BECAUSE
THEY FAIL TO CHECK THE CITY RECORDS IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE AND
THE COMMISSION COULD WELL IGNORE SUCH PLEAS.
/s/ ATTORNEY HIPPENMEYER
IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT MAYOR GOTTFRIED
DIRECT A LETTER TO MENOMONEE FALLS TO QUESTION THE SUCCESS
OF THEIR PROCEDURE TO RECORD THE GRANTS AND ALSO THE COST
INVOLVED.
#QHN SCHAEFU - THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DATED MAY 6, 1966,
DIRECTED TO THE WIS. CONSERVATION DEPT., WIS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMN. AND BIG MUSKEGO LAKE STUDY COMM. RE JOHN SCHAEFER DITCHES AND LAGOONS WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
GENTLEMEN: OPERATION CONEBACK MEMBERS AND OFFICERS WILL NOT AT THIS
TIME ACCEPT THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE ~0MNrssIoN AND
THE CONSERVATION DEPT. GRANTING DON AND/OR JOHN SCHAEFER PER-
MISSION TO DIVERT WATER FRON BIG MUSKEGO LAKE TO IRRIGATE A
SOD FARNI.
WE DOUBT WHET?iER THE LAGOON IS 500’ AWAY FRON THE LAKE, AS
REQUIRED IN SECTION 30.19, 1 (A). IF MR. SCHAEFER, (DON OR JOHN) PLANNED TO HOLD RUNOFF
ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DURHAM DRIVE, IT WOULD BE NORE PRACTICAL
WATER IN A LAGOON FOR SUBSEQUENT SPRAY IRRIGATION OF A SOD FARN
MORE CONVENIENT AND CERTAINLY MORE ECONONICAL TO DIG SUCH
RESERVOIR IN THE CENTER OF HIS FARN. BUT, A POND IN THE CENTER OF HIS FARN WOULD NOT PROVIDE
WATER IN SUMNER UNLESS THTl WATER WAS SUPPLIED BY A WELL, SO,
WATER BY SEEPAGE INTO THEIR LAGOON AND DITCHES.
THE SCHAEFERS DUG A WELL IN A LOCATION WHICH WOULD SUPPLY I,
IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE USE OF HIGH STRENGTH CHEMICALS
FOR SHORELINE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES MAY ADD UNDESIRABLE
NUTRIENTS TO THE LAKE DURING RUNOFFS.
A CHECK DURING THE SUMHER WILL PROVE THAT THE LEVELS OF
THE LAGOON AND BIG MUSKEGO LAKE WILL BE THE SAME, REGARDLESS
CULVERTS. THE SCHAEFERS WILL THEN BE RELYING ALNOST ENTIRELY
OF THE ELEVATION AT THE DAN OR THE ANOUNT OF WATER IN ANY
ON PERCOLATION AND SEEPAGE FOR WATER. THE HUGE ANOUNTS OF WATER THEY INTEND TO PUNP INTO THE
SOD FARM WILL COME FROM THE LAGOON REPLENISHED BY THE LAKE.
AS POINTED OUT IN A PREVIOUS LETTER, THIS TYPE OF WATER DIVER-
SION HAS BEEN IN PRACTICE IN THIS AREA FOR SONE TIME, AND OB-
VIOUSLY, SHOULD THE SCHAEFER DIVERSION BE DECLARED LEGITINATE,
THOSE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING BIG MUSKEGO LAKE WILL BE
FORCED TO ABANDON THIS WORTHWHSLE PROJECT, AND BECOHE EMBROILED
IN A LEGAL ACTION. THAT THE PEOPLE OF TRE STATE MUST CONSTANTLY BECONE INVOLYBD
IN HEARINGS AND SUITS CONCERNING WATEL IS FRUSTRATING. ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD BE VIRTUALLY IPIPOSSIBLE FOR EXPLOITERS
TO GAIN SUCH EASY ACCESS TO A NATURAL RESOURCE. WE ARE TOLD THAT THE SCHAEFERS DID NOT REQUEST PERMISSION
TO DIG DITCHES AND A LAGOON FROM THE CITY OF MUSKEGO, OR THE
PRACTICES ESCAPE PENALTY? How CAN ANY RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC AGENCY
OR AUTHORITY CONDONE IT?
PUBLIC SERVICE CONNISSION, PER SECTION 30.79,2. HOW CAN SUCH
ON THE OTHER HAND, .CONSERVATIONISTS ARE EXPECTED TO DEVOTE
AND DONATE HUNDREDS OF HOURS TO UNDO THE APPALLING DANAGE TO BIG MUSKEGO LAKE THROUGH THE RUTHLESS AND SELFISH ACTIONS OF
CERTAIN SEGNENTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED TO KILL THE LAKE a SINCE 1870. THERE ARE SUCH PEOPLE AROUND THIS VERY DAY.
STATEMENTS BY VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES INDICATE THAT WATER
SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED FOR THE GREdTEST GOOD FOR THE
GREATEST NUMBER OF CITIZENS. IN THE CASE OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE,,
MUST BE PROTECTED AND IMPROVED. IF NOT, YOU CAN BE SURE THAT
LYING IN THE PATH OF A MASSIVE POPULATION EXPANSION, THIS WATER
IN A FEW YEARS, THE SOD FARMERS WILL HAVE COME AND GONE, AND
WITH THEM WILL GO A DEPLETED WATER SHED, HUNDREDS OF TONS OF
SOIL, AND ENVIABLE BANK ACCOUNTS. WILL THE NEXT GENERATION THEN APPLY TO A FEDERAL BUREAU
FOR FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT ARTIFICIAL FACILITIES TO PROVIDE WATER
FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES?
WE ASK YOU TO AGAIN SURVEY THIS AREd, REVIEW THE CONSEQUENCES
IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, AND WE'RE CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL RESCIND
YOUR PREVIOUS DECISION.
SINCERELY YOURS,
/S/ JOHN I. MORAVEC, JR., PRES.
As TXERE..'BAB NOT BEEN A REPLY AS YET FROM THE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT AS 'TO RESULTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, NO ACTION WAS
TAKEN.
G U 0 THE FOLLOWING LETTER DATED MAY 13, 1966,
:Z!ZATti $02; :::TERN MUSKEGO CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC., WAS
READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
GENTLEMEN: THE NORTH EASTERN MUSKEGO CIVIC ASSOCIATION (NEMA) HEREBY
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE PERMISSION OF YOUR HONORABLE BODY
TO ERECT A LIGHTED MARKER SIGN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR THE
INTERSECTION OF WOODS ROAD AND JAEGER PLACE. THE PROPOSED SIGN IS HEREIN AGREED TO FOLLOW THE SIZE,
COLOR AND FORMAT OF SIMILAR NEMCA ERECTED SIGNS ON STATE HIGHWAY 24 AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF POE PLACE, KIPLING DRIVE
AND EMERSON DRIVE.
YOUR EXPEDITIOUS RESPONSE WILL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED
AND HOPEFULLY, WILL ENABLE US TO PROCEED DIRECTLY.
YOURS TRULY,
/s/ ROBERT E. LARSON, PRES.
MR. DAHLEN MOVED THAT NEHCA BE PERMITTED TO ERECT A
SIGN AS REQUESTED AT WOODS AND JAEGER BUT THAT ILLUMINATION
IS TO REFLECT FROM THE SIGN AND NOT TO SHINE INTO ONCOMING - TRAFFIC. MR. BUEHLER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION 0 CARRIED.
URBAN RENEWAL - THE FOLLOWING LETTER DATED MAY 13, 1966, FRON MAX ANDERSON ASSOCIATES WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY:
DEAR MA Y OR GOT TFR IED :
APPEAR BEFORE A JOINT NEETINO OF THE CONNON COUNCIL AND
PLAN CONNISSION TO DISCUSS THE CITY'S INTEREST IN URBAN
THANK you FOR YOUR LETTER OF MAY 1OTH INVITING ME TO
RENEWAL. I HAVE RESERVED THE DATE YOU HAVE TENTATIVELY SET
OF MAY 31 AT 7:30 P. M. AND LOOK -FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AGAIN
AT THAT TIME.
SINCERELY,
/s/ MAX ANDERSON MAYOR GOTTFRIED ANNOUNCED THAT THE CONNISSION WOULD
NEET JOINTLY WITH THE COMNON COUNCIL AT 7:30 P. If. TUESDAY,
HAY 31ST.
BEGIONAL LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION PLANS - THE FOLLOWING
SECRETARY: CONNUNICATION DATED MAY 13, 1966, WAS READ BY THE RECORDING
TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND GOYERIVING BODY IN CARE OF THE CLERK: RE: PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE REGIONAL LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION P. DATE-MAY 26, 1966 TIME-1 :3O P.M. PLACE-WAUK. CNTY CT. HSE.
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING CONNISSION HAS BEEN
ENGAGED IN A REGIONAL LAND USE-TRANSFORATION STUDY, DESIGNED
FOR THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION: A LAND USE PLAN
AND A TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE STUDY HAS NOW PROGRESSED TO
AS YOU KNOW, FOR THE PAST THREE AND ONE-KALF YEARS, THE
TO PROVIDE TWO OF THE KEY ELENENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
THE POINT WHERE THREE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE-TRANSPORATION PLANS
ARE READY FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CONSTITUENT COUNTIES AND LOCAL
UNITS OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE REGION FOR REVIEW AND COMHENT. ONE OF THESE THREE ALTERNATIVE PLANS MUST EVENTUALLY BE ADOPTED
BY THE CONMISSION AFTER WHICH IT BECOMES ADVISORY TO THE
FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL UNITS AND AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT
CONCERNED AS WELL AS TO PRIVATE INVESTORS.
IN ORDER THAT THE REACTION OF LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO
THE THREE PLANS HAY BE SOUNDED OUT PRIOR TO THE FINAL ADOPTION
OF THE ADVISORY PLAN, MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED AT THE COUNTY
LEVEL TO WHICH ALL LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY ARE
HELD ON MAY 26 AT 1 :3O P. M. IN THE COUNTY BOARD ROON, WAUKESHA
HEREBY BEING INVITED. THE MEETING FOR WAUKESHA COUNTY WILL BE
COUNTY COURT HOUSE.
THE INPORTANCE OF AS CONPLETE A REPRESENTATION AS POSSIBLE e AT THIS MEETING CANNOT BE OVERSTATED FOR THE NEETING PROVIDES
i (7)
AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRENGTHEN THE GRASS ROOTSll KNOWLEDGE AND II
CONTROL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTY AND THE REGION. THREE SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS WILL BE PRESENTED AND
FULLY EXPLAINED, AND AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED TO ASK
QUESTIONS AND GIVE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS IN ORDER THAT THESE
MAY BE FULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE A FINAL PLAN IS PREPARED AND
ADOPTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY URGED THAT YOUR UNIT OF
GOFERNMENT BE REPRESENTED AT THE SCHEDULED NEETING Br APPROPRIATE
OFFICIALS IN ORDER THAT BOTH THE REGION AND rouR MUNICIPALITY
NAY BENEFIT FULLY FROM THE REGIONdL PLANNING EFFORT.
SINCERELY,
/s/ LLOYD G. OWENS, CHAIRMAN VAUKESHA COUNTY BOARD
MAYOR GOTTFRIED ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO ATTEND
PLANNER KNETZGER EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT PLANS HAD NOT BEEN
THIS MEETING.
MADE AVAILABLE FOR STUDY BEFORE THIS HEARING.
FISCHU'S TAP - BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE ADVISED THE COMMISSION
THAT LARRY FISCHER HAD REQUESTED PERMISSION TO MOVE AN
FISCHER'S TAP, Wl94 S7060 RACINE APE. INTERIOR PARTITION TO UTILIZE SPACE MORE EFFICIENTLY AT
MR. LENTINI HOVED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 6.03, P. 2,
AS AMENDED BY hD. 16, OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGO THAT THE REQUEST
OF LARRY FISCHER FOR FISCHER'S TAP FOR EXPANSION OF HIS
HEARING. MR. RAIMANN SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE NOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMEU - MR. CHASE MOPED FOR ADJOURNMENT, MR. BUEHLER
CONDITIONAL USE IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO NOT EEQUIRE A PUBLIC
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :oo P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
BARBARA J. SANDS
RECORDING SECRETARY
-
1-20-66
. .. , > ,:.... 7
.k, 24, 1966 .. F si
V
May 5, 1966
Hon. Jerome J. Gottfried
Mayor - Clty of Yuskeqo
P. 0. BOX 34
Muskego, Wi;icons;n
Dear Mayor Cottfrled:
Re: "" Reco- fl? $:ondlt;cra' i'.t~ Gr.~nts
Th16 1s ln reply to vour 12 ~'.,e:t fcr an ~VI-,:,:? d 1tc.b
May 4, 1966.
- -" - - -
*
Yours very tru;]! ,
HIPPENMEYER, REILLY, FFtlTZ 6 AN'UZ
Richard S. Hipprnmeyer
RSH/be
REC'D
May 13, 1966
Hon. Jerome J. Gottfried, Mayor
W. 180 S. 7732 Racine Avenue
Muskego, Wisconsin
Dear Mayor Gottfried:
Thank you for your letter of May 10th inviting me to appear
before a.joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Com-
mission to discuss the City's interest in Urban renewal. I
have reserved the date you have tentatively set of May 31 at
7:30p. m. and look forward to seeing you again at that time.
m
Sincerely, /-I
MAX ANDERSON
blt
CITY OF MUSKEGO pm COMMISSION
REC'D I,
i9 -7,. DATE 5- /,7 - 6
CITY OF MUSKEG0
PUN COMMISSION
May 13, 1966
TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND GOVERNING BODY IN CARE OF THE CLERK:
RE: Presentation of Alternative Regional Land Use-Transportation Plans
(DATE) (TIME 1 (PLACE)
May 26, 1966 1:30 P.M. Waukesha County Court House
As you know, for the past three annd'one-half years, the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional PlazLinp, Commission has been engaged in a Regional
Land Use-Transportation Study, desiped to provide two of the key
elements of a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the
Region: a land use plan and a transportation plan. The study has now
progressed to the point where three alternative land use-transportation
plans are ready for presentation to the constituent counties and local'
units of government within the Reeion for review and comment. One of
these three alternative plans must eventually be adopted by the
Commission after which it becomes advisory to the federal, state,
county and local units and agencies of government concerned as well as
to private investors.
e
In order that the reaction of local puirlic officials to the three
plans may be sounded out prior to the final.adoption of the advisory
plan, meetinzs have been scheduled at the county level to which all
local municipalities within the county are hereby being invited. The
meetinfl for Waukesha County will be held on May 26 at
lLP.J4. in the County Board Room, Waukesha County Court House.
The importance of as complete a representation as possible at this
meeting cannot be overstated for the meeting provides an Opportunity to
strengthen the "pass roots" hnowledce and control of future development
of the county and the Region. Three separate development concepts will
be presentyed and fully explained, 2nd an opportunity will hc provided
to ask quc:stions and give comments and su5,bostions in order that these
may be fully considered before a final plan is prepared and adopted.
It is, therefore, respectfully urged that your unit of Government
be represented at the scheduled meeting by appropriate officials in
order that both the Region and your municipality may benefit fully
from the regional plannirg effort.
Sincerely,
Lldyd G. Owens, Chalrrnan
Waukesha County Board