Loading...
PCM19660705CITY PLAN COHflISSION CITY OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MEETIAJG HELD JULY 5, 1966 CITY HALL MAYOR GOTTFRIED CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 0:35 P. M. PRESEIVT: MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED, CHAIRMAN, KILLIAM CHASE, SEC Y, WILLARD BERTRAM, S. ROBERT LENTINI AND ED RAIMANN. RUSSELL KNETZGER, CONSULTANT. ABSENT: CHARLES BUEHLER AND CLARENCE DAHLEN JfLVUTES: PLANNER KNETZGER CORRECTED THE NINUTES OF JUNE^^^, 1966, ON PAGE 8 UNDER SECTION ENTITLED FORREST PERKINS TO ADD TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH: PLANNER KNETZGER RECOMMENDED ALSO PRESENT WERE GERALD LEE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND II 11 THAT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING TIE DENIED PEMDING OUTCOME OF A STUDY OF TWO FANILY ZONING. PLANNER KNETZGER CORRECTED THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, JUNE 213, 1966, ON PAGE 6 UNDER SECTION ENTITLED I1 FORREST PERKINS TO ADD: PLANNER KNETZGER DID NOT FEEL II THAT ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ZONINO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. I1 THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7 AND JUNE 21 , 1966, WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. CHECKERVAY CHAUER COACH BUS LINES - BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED ON THE BUS COMPANY'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS SET FORTH WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE WAS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: (SEE MINUTES OF JUNE 21,, 1966) - '4 * t. SAID GRANT SHALL BE FOR THE OPERATION OF A PARKING TERNINAL TO ACCOMMODATE SCHOOL BUSES ONLY, NOT TO EXCEED 30 IN NUMBER. GRANTED AN AREA APPROXIMATELY 190' X 100' FOR PARKING OF BUSES EXCEEDING 30 IN NUMBER. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE NOW BEEN 2. THE PARKING AREA SHALL NOT EXTEND FORWARD OF THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING, NOR CLOSER THAN 20 FEET TO ANY OTHER LOT LINE. BUZLDZNG INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT THIS CONDITION HAS NEVER BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THAT BUSES HAVE BEEN PARKED CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAN THE BUILDING AND CLOSER THAN 20' TO THE LOT LINE. 3. THE PARKING AREA SHALL BE SURFACED IN A MANNER TO ELIMINATE THE NUISANCE OF DUST. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT THE SURFACE OF THE AND RECENTLY STONE HAS BEEN ADDED. THERE IS NO PARKING EXISTING PARKING AREA HAS BEEN OILED WHICH CONTROLS DUST SURFACE IN THE NEW AREA. 4. A PLANTING SCREEN SHALL BE PROVIDED ACROSS THE STREET SIDE OF THE PARKING AREA EXTENDING BACK ON BOTH SIDES AND ACROSS THE REAR. SAID ~CREE~V SHALL BE OF PLANT MATERIALS WHICH WILL PROVIDE A REASONABLY EFFECTIVE SCREEN NO LESS THAN 6 FEET IN HEIGHT. PLANTING PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN COMMISSION. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT BUSHES HAVE REACHED 2' TO 4' IN HEIGHT AND ARE PLACED 6' ON CENTER, AND THAT IT WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY TWO MORE YEARS FOR THE BUSHES TO EFFECTIVELY SCREEN THE AREA. 5. ANY EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AS NOT CREATING A NUISANCE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY. BUILDING INSPECTOR LEE REPORTED THAT THE OUTSIDE LIGHTING VIDED ON POLES IN THE PARKING AREA. THESE WERE INSTALLED DOES NOT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS AND OUTLETS HAVE BEEN PRO- WITHOUT PERMIT. PLANNER KNETZGER SUGGESTED THAT WITH THE EXTRA PARKING AREA THE BUS COMPANY WOULD BE ABLE TO GROUP THE BUSES MORE CLOSER THAN 20' TO THE LOT LINE DID NOT ACTUALLY CREATE A PRO- BLEM. EFFECTIVELY AND IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT PARKING MR. CHASE MOVED THAT THE REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL 0 USE OF CHECKERWAY CHARTER COACH Bus LINES BE GRANTED CONTINGENT UPON THE PROVISIONS THAT THEY PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL PLANTING SCREEN AROUND THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA AND THAT THE LOT BE PROPERLY SURFACED so THAT NO DUST WILL WE CREATED. I~R. LENTINI SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED. EDWIN DUMKE - THE COMNISSION REVIEWED A PLOT PLAN WHICH HAD A FISH AND WILD GAME POND IN SECTION 24. THE COMMISSION NOTED WIDEST POINT AND 60' AT ITS NARROWEST POINT AND 200' IN LENGTH, BEEN SUBMITTED BIT EDWIN DUMKE, VI27 S9062 fl. CAPE ROAD, FOR THAT THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED POND IS TO BE 120' AT ITS APPROXIMATELY 20' DEEP IN THE MIDDLE AND WATER TO BE SUPPLIED BY WELL. PLANNER KNETZGER RECOMMENDED THAT THE POND BE APPROVED BUT THAT MR. DUMKE BE ADVISED NOT TO CONSIDER EXPANSION AS A MAJOR HIGHWAY IS PROPOSED IN MUSKEGO'S MASTER PLAN FOR THE AREA APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE POND IS LOCATED. MR. RAIMANN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF EDWIN DUMKE FOR A POND AS SUBMITTED, MR. LENTINI SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED. GLY-WIGU - THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION DIRECTED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION, DATED JUNE 20, 1966, FROM KOERNER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS FOR THE NEW BERLIN PIGGLY WIGGLY PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF HIWAY 24 AND EMERSON DRIVE WAS READ BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY: DEAR SIRS: ABOVE PROJECT. WHEN I DISCUSSED THE PLAN WITH RUSSELL KNETZGER OF NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., HE SEEMED TO AGREE WITH IT EXCEPT RECOMMENDED. I THEN ASKED OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INCLUDE OF PLANTING. HIS REASONS WERE THE DIFFICULTY IN KEEPING A GOOD ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND A PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN FOR THE FOR A PLANTING STRIP AT THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING WHICH HE THIS ON HIS DRAWING; BUT, HE SUGGESTED THE GRAVEL BED IN PLACE GROWTH UNDER THE DEEP OVERHANGS THAT OCCUR AT THE SIDES AND, ON THE SIDE FACING WEST THE HEAT REFLECTING OFF THE BUILDING WOULD TEND TO BURN OUT ALMOST ANYTHING WE WOULD PLANT. THE OBJECT OF THE STRIPS AT THE SIDES ARE TO PROVIDE A VISUAL BREAK BETWEEN BUILDING AND PARKING LOT ASPHALT. WE FEEL THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A WHITE GRAVEL BED. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS PLAN FOR APPROVAL AT YOUR NEXT COM- MISSION MEETING. RESPECTFULLY, /s/ WILLIAM J. STENAVICH THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLANS AND PLANNER KNETZGER MR. LENTINI MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PLANTING PLANS AS SUB- RECOMHENDED APPROVAL. MITTED BY KOERNER ASSOCIATES. MR. BERTRAM SECONDED THE MOTION MR. CHASE NOVED THAT APPROVAL OF AN ACCESS TO EMERSON DEIVE SE GRANTED TO THE DEVELOPERS OF THE PIGGLY WIGGLY SITE CONDITIONED UPON THE DOCUKENTS SUBMITTED. MR. RAIMANN SECONDED a AND THE MOTION CARRIED. THE KOTION AND THE FiOTION CARRIED. SEWffPC PLAIV - THE COMMISSION AND THE PLANNER REVIEWED THE THREE PLANS DEVISED BY THE SOUTHEASTERN VISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MI~WAUKEE JOURNAL. PLANNER KNETZGER THAT THE CONTROLLED TRENDS" PLAN WOULD BE MOST SUITABLE TO MUSKEGO, THE FOLLOWING LETTER WAS DRAFTED: SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COKMISSION OLD COURTHOUSE RE: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS GENTLEMEN: IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST, AS EXPRESSED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD HAY 26, 1966, AT THE WAUKESHA COVNTY COURTHOUSE, WE HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PLANS FOR THE REGION AS THEY AFFECT THE CITY OF MUSKEGO, AND OFFER THE FOLLOWING SATELLITE CITY PLAN - THIS PLAN PROPOSES CURTAILING USE. THE PLANS HAD APPEARED IN THE APRIL 17TH ISSUE OF THE AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF I1 VAUKESHA, VIS. e COMMENTS: URBANIZATION IN MUSKEGO AT ITS PRESENT EXTENT. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED OURSELVES TO A METROPOLITAN SEWER INTER- CEPTOR FROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE NORTH EDGE OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE PO A TEMPORARY PLANT ABOUT TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE LAKE, WE DOUBT THAT WE COULD SUSTAIN THE COST OF THAT INTERCEPTOR MITHOUT PERIZITTING URBANIZATION ALONG ITS ROUTE. ALSO, THE FREEWAY TYPE ROAD YOU PROPOSE AS THE BOUNDARY OF THE URBANIZATION WOULD ONLY INTENSIFY THE DESIRE TO DEVELOP LANDS LYING IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE ROAD. THESE TWO FACTORS MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DENY DEVELOPMENT IN WHAT LITTLE LAND WOULD REMAIN TO LITTLE MUSKEGO LAKE. CORRIDOR PLAN - THIS PLAN, WHICH PROPOSES TO FOCUS URBANI- ZATION ALONG MAJOR TRAFFIC CORRIDORS, HAS THE SAME FAULTS AS FAR AS MUSKEGO IS CONCERNED AS DOES THE ABOVE PLAN. THAT IS, NORTH SIDE OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE WHERE WE ARE COMMITTED TO A VERY EXPENSIVE INTERCEPTOR SEWER. CONVERSELY, IT WOULD PERMIT RATHER INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ALONG LOOMIS ROAD (STH 361, UP TO TWO MILES INTO MUSKEGO, WHERE WE HAD NOT BEEN PLANNING FOR SEWER SERVICE WHICH IS REQUIRED WITH SUCH INTENSIVE URBANIZATION. WHILE WE HAD CONTEKPLATED A VERY LIMITED EXTENSION OF SEWER FROM FRANKLIN INTO SECTION 36 OF MUSKEGO TO SERVE THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED FOR THAT AREA, THE DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE AREA ALONG STH 36 IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO SEWER SERVICE. IT PROPOSES OPEN SPACE IN A ONE TO TWO MILE BAND ALONG THE CONTROLLED TRENDS PLAN - THIS PLAN COKES CLOSEST TO INCORPORATING THE PLAN ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE MUSKEGO CITY PLAN COMMISSION. THE ONLY DIFFERENCES OCCUR IN (1 ) THE ABOUT 12.5 PERSONS PER GROSS RESIDENTIAL ACRE IN THE SEWERABLE PLAN) AND (2) ITS EXACT BOUNDARIES (THE REGIONAL PLAN DOES NOT EAST OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE, AROUND LAKE DENOON, AND IN THE NORTH- NEIPHER OF THE TWO DIFFERENCES WOULD APPEAR TO BE OF MAJOR @ INTENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (OUR ZONING WILL PRODUCE AREAS COMPARED TO THE 14.3 DENSITY PROPOSED IN THE REGIONAL SHOW SOME LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE ZONED WEST CORNER OF THE CITY. ) SIGNIFICANCE. WE ARE STUDYING TWO-FAMILY ZONING IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE CITY WHICH MAY INCREASE OUR OVERALL DENSITY TO YOUR AVER- AGE FIGURES. IF YOUR COMMISSION COULD AGREE TO THE ADDITIONAL LOW DENSITY AREAS, OUR THINKING WOULD BE VIRTUALLY UNANIKOUS. THE ONLY REKAINING LAND USE FACTOR WHICH IS LEFT UNRESOLVED IN YOUR PLANS IS THE QUESTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA. YOUR MAPS SHOW ONLY THOSE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF 640 ACRES IN SIZE OR LARGER. WHILE WE HAVE ZONED OVER 800 ACRES FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, OUR LARGEST INDIVIDUAL AREA IS ABOUT 350 ACRES. THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SPECIAL SECTION OF APRIL 17, 1966, STATES THAT THE CONTROLLED EXISTING TRENDS PLAN ANTICIPATES SIX INDUSTRIAL CENTERS OF AT LEAST 640 ACRES (P. 4) WHICH TOTALS 3,040 ACRES OR 80% OF. THE TOTAL 4,067 ACRES SHOWN IN YOUR LAND USE FORECAST TO 1990 (P. 6). You ALSO STATE THAT ABOUT 20% OF e NEW INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS WILL OCCUR ON VACANT PORTIONS OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THESE TWO FIGURES TAKEN TOGETHER IMPLY THAT NO INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL WHATSOEVER WOULD EXIST FOR flUSKEG0 TO 1990 SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED FOR A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT NOR DOES IT HAVE AN EXISTING AREA THAT COULD SHARE IN THE 20% POTENTIAL. AS A NATTER OF LAND USE POLICY, DO YOU PREFER FEWER, LARGE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, OR WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE SMALLER, MORE DISPERSED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS? YOUR CLARIFICATION OF THESE FIGURES AND POLICY WOULD BE APPRECIATED. TRANSPORTATION PLAN - IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FREEWAY-EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM FOR THE REGION DOES NOT VARY SIGNI- FICANTLY FOR THE THREE LAND USE PLANS. THUS, IN ANY CASE WE MUSKEGO CAN BE JUSTIFIED Br 1990. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY ARE PRESUMING THAT THE BYPASS ROUTE PLANNED TO PASS THROUGH ADOPTED A ROUTE FOR THIS FACILITY, WE OBVIOUSLY ENDORSE YOUR PLAN IN THIS RESPECT. HOWEVER,, WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN TWO OTHER POINTS ABOUT THIS ROUTE: (1 ) HOW SOON CAN CONSTRUCTION OF ONE PAIR OF LANES BE JUSTIFIED? (2) WILL THE REGIONAL COMMISSION AUTOMATICALLY ADOPT OUR CENTERLINE LOCATION? IF THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND LINE STUDY TO BE SURE OUR ROUTE IS GIVEN A FAIR REPRESENTATION? POINT IS NO , HOW CAN WE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE CENTER- It It klXI1;E NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN RELEASED ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, OTHER THAN FREEWAYS AND MASS TRANSIT, THE PUBLIC HEARING I) DID PRESENT A MAP OF MAJOR ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. IN MUSKEGO THIS INCLUDED FOUR AND SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS OF STH 24 AND TESS CORNERS ROAD, PLUS THE EXTENSION OF MOORLAND ROAD SOUTH FROM NEW BERLIN TO STH 24. How SOON WILL EACH OF THESE CAN ANY MAPS AND DATA BE RELEASED TO us FOR FURTHER STUDY OF IMPROVEMENTS BE JUSTIFIED ACCORDING TO YOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS? THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM BEFORE YOU ADOPT YOUR PLAN? WE NOTICED NO KENTION OF NEW RAILROAD FACILITIES IN THE REGION. CAN WE PRESUME THERE IS LITTLE LIKLIHOOD OF A RAILROAD LINE TO SERVE OUR INDUSTRIAL AREAS? TION OF R REGIONAL PLAN AS IT WOULD AFFECT MUSKEGO. YOUR REPLIES WE HOPE THE ABOVE COMMENTS WILL HELP YOU IN YOUR DELIBERA- TO OUR QUESTIONS WILL FURTHER AID US IN CO'ORDINATING OUR PLANNING EFFORTS WITH THOSE OF YOUR COMMISSION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /s/ WILLIAM CHASE, SEC'Y s * A CE - JUST PRIOR TO THIS PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, THE PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS AND ALDERMEN MET TO DISCUSS AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE. f;~ WAS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REVIEW AND STUDY THE FINAL REPORT ON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS" WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY NELSON & ASSOCIATES, RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMON COUNCIL TO BE MADE AT THE NEXT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING. ADJOURNMElYT - MR. LENTINI MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT, MR. BERTRAM SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9-45 p. M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - BARBARA J. SANDS RECORDING SECRETARY DATED THIS 11 TH DAY OF JULY, 1966. 1' July 8, 1966 Draft Re-type on City letterhead Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Old Courthouse Waukesha, Wisconsin Re: Regional Transportation and Land Use Plans Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, as expressed at the public hearing held May 26, 1966, at the Waukesha County Courthouse, we have reviewed your plans for the region as they affect the City of Muskego, and offer the following comments: Satellite City Plan This plan proposes curtai urbanization in Muskego at its present extent. Since we have already ourselves to a metropolitan sewer inter- ceptor from Milwaukee County, to be installed along the northage of Big Muskego Lake to mporary plant about to be constructed on the northwest side of we doubt that we could sustain the cost of that freeway type road you propose as the boundary of the urbanization would only intensify the desire to develop lands lying immediately west of the road. These two factors make it very difficult to deny development in what little land would remain to Little Muskego Lake. interceptor without permitting urbanization along its route. Also, the Corridor Plan This plan, which proposes to focus' urbanization along major traffic corridors, has the same faults as far as Muskego is concerned as does the above plan. That is, it proposes open space in a one to two mile band along the north side of Big Muskego Lake where we are committed to a very expensive inter- ceptor sewer. Conversely, it would permit rather intensive development along Loomis Road (STH 36 ), up to two miles into Muskegqwhere we had not been planning for sewer serviced which is required with such intensive urbanization. While we had contemplated a very limited extension of sewer from Franklin into Section 36 of Muskego to serve the industrial district proposed for that area, the drainage pattern of the area along STH 36 is not conducive to sewer service. I- Page I1 Controlled Trends Plan This plan comes closest to incorporating the plan already adopted by the Muskego City Plan Commission. The only differences occur in (1)the intensity of residential development (our zoning will produce about 12.5 persons per gross residential acre in the sewerable areas compared to the 14.3 density proposed in:the regional plan) and (2) its exact boun- daries (the regional plan does not show some low density residential development we have zoned east of ig Muskego Lake, around Lake Denoon and in the northwest corner of the ity.) Neither of the two differences would appear to be of major significance. We are studying two-family zoning in various areas of the City, which may increase our overall density to your average figures. If your com- mission could agree to the additional low density areas, our thinking would be virtually unanimous. PB The only remaining land use factor which is left unresolved in your plans is the question of industrial development in our area. Your maps show only those planned industrial districts of 640 acres in size or larger. While we have 350 acres. zoned over 800 acres5for industrial use, our largest individual area is about The Milwaukee Journal special section of April 17,1966, states that the Controlled Existing Trends Plan anticipates six industrial centers of at least 640 acres ( p.4) which totals 3,840 acres or 80% of the total 4,867 acres shown in your land use forecast to 19908 ( p. 6). You also state that about 20% of new industrial operations will occur on vacant portions of existing industrial areas. These two figures taken together imply that no industrial potential whatsoever would exist for Muskego to 1990 since it has not been designated for a major industrial district nor does it have an existing area that could share ,in the 20% potential. As a matter of land use policy, do you prefer fewer, large employment centers, or would you recognize smaller, more dispersed industrial districts? Your clarification of these figures and policy would be appreciated. Transportation Plan It is our understanding that the freeway-expressway system for the region does not vary significantly for the three land use plans. Thus,, in any case we are presuming that the bypass route planned to pass through Muskego can be justified by 1990. Since we have already adopted a route for this facility,we 1. obviously endorse your plan in this respect Paae I11 - July 8, 1966 0 However, we would be interested in two other pints about this route: (1) How soon can construction of one pair of lanes be justified? (2) will the Regional Commission automatically adopt our centerline loca- tion? If the answer to the second point is "no, " how can we actively participate in the centerline study to be sure our route is given a fair representation? While no information has been released on the transportation system, other than freeways and mass transit, the public hearing did present a map of major arterial improvements needed. In Muskego this included' four and six lane improvements of STH 24 and Tess Corners Road, plus the extension of Moorland Road south from New Berlin to STH 24. How soon will each of these improvements be justified according to your traffic projections? Can any maps and data be released to us for further study of the arterial system before you adopt your plan? We noticed no mention of new railroad facilities in the region. Can we presume there is little liklihood of a railroad line to serve our industrial areas ? We hope the above comments will help you in your deliberation of a regional plan as it would affect Muskego. Your replies to our questions further aid us in coordinating our planning efforts with those of your ommission. Respectfully submitted, City of Muskego Plan Commission William Chase, Secretary