Loading...
PCM19680702CITY PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF MUSKEG0 MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 2, 1968 CITY HALL Mayor Wieselmann called the meeting to order at 8:08 P. M. PRESENT: Mayor Donald Wieselmann, Chairman, Alderman Frank Narlock, Secretary, Willard Bertram, Mrs. Jean Sanders and Ed Raimann. Alvin Basse arrived at 10:20 P. M. Building Inspector Gerald Lee and Plan Consultant Russell Knetzger were also present. 1 ABSENT: Charles Buehler MINUTES: Mrs. Sanders moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, June 18, 1968, as mailed. Ald. Narlock seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. , / .i. . /.,. ! J 'I PERSONAL APPURANCES l I "_"""_ I 1 -. I STANLEY DOBRZYNSKI - Mr. Dobrzynski, W152 S10431 Thode Dri&,'\ appeared at the Plan Commission's request to discuss his permit to had been granted by the Commission at their meeting February 6, June 18th meeting as to whether or not the Plan Commission had acted 1968, for a period of three years and an objection was raised at the in violation of the -ordinance when the permit was granted. It was noted by the Commission that the neighbors had been notified that this permit was to be reconsidered at this meeting. In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr. Dobrzynski advised that he uses the truck for transportation rather than an automobile, that the truck is a semi-trailer and tractor, that the truck is usually empty when he parks it at his residence, that when it is loaded it can weigh from 23,000 lbs. to 73,200 lbs, that when the roads are posted in the spring he parks the truck at a gasoline service station, that he cannot park the truck at the station all of the time because of vandalism, and that he transports chemicals. indicates on.his tax return that the truck is parked in Muskego, to which Mr. Dobrzynski answered that he did not know. Mr. Arthur Wieselmann, S104 W15169 Loomis Drive, spoke in opposition to the parking of the truck pointing out that the truck Friday through Monday, that he makes several trips daily back and is destructive to the roads, that the truck is parked there from forth, and that Mr. Dobrzynski also has two automobiles and a pick- up truck parked at his residence. A communication dated June 25, 1968, from Mr. & Mrs. A. V. objections to the parking of this truck was reviewed by the Banaszynski, S104 W15370 Loomis Drive, advising that they have no Recording Secretary. In accordance with the Planner's suggestion, Mr. Raimann moved to postpone action on this permit for two weeks pending the Planner's investigation. Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. I park a commercial truck at his residence. Mr. Dobrzynski's permit , 1, I ~ Alderman Narlock questioned if Mr. Dobrzynski's employer Page 4 - Plan Commission July 2, 1968 a participate in the next Plan Commission discussion of this matter, indicating their Dreferences in each alternate. Respectfully submitted, Nelson & Associates, Inc." Realtor Zileg presented maps indicating a possible rezoning of the entire Milford Foth, Bernard Lindner, Joseph Kelly and Edward Zablocki properties, advising that he had discussed the rezoning with these property owners and that they were interested in the proposal. He advised that there would be approximately 8.5 units per acre. Mrs. Arnold Baseler, W181 S7770 Valley Drive, advised that she would want single family homes between Valley.Drive and the multiple family zone as a buffer. Realtor Zileg suggested con- diminiums for this area. because he felt he was protected by residential zoning when he invested in his home. Mrs. Lois Sapp, S77 W18447 Janesville Road, advised that she would not be in favor to rezone and expressed concern as to the number of school children per family in a multiple family pointed out that according to certain studies it was apparent area and the cost for schools to the taxpayers. Planner Knetzger that there are seldom school age children in one bedroom apartments, would average out at two bedroom apartments, it should be a good rarely in two bedroom apartments, and that if the development tax base for the City. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Zileg advised that rent levels would be approximately from $135 to $190. In answer to Planner Knetzger, Mr. Zileg advised that it is his firm's intention to purchase the Edward Zablocki property.to be included in the rezoning. Mrs. Richard Leighton, 577 W18325 Janesville Road, advised that she would be interested in rezoning and selling her property. the sewers pointing out that this area is not intended for sewers Commissioner Sanders expressed concern as to the capacity of at this time. After considerable discussion, it was the Commission's decision to recommend that the petition be held to the boundaries as shown on Plan #2. accordance with his recommendation as shown on sheet #2. Mr. to do the necessary preliminary work and prepare a petition in Bertram seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Robert Gariepy, S77 W18344 Ann Drive, expressed concern e Alderman Narlock moved that the City Planner be authorized " """ OTHER BUS1 NES S of a 16' x 32', Doughboy, vinyl-lined swimming pool, to be installed permanently above the ground on the rear of the Howard Hartel that Mr. Hartel proposed to screen the area with a 5' high redwood, basketweave fence. Mrs. Sanders moved to approve this request as submitted. Ald. Narlock seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. HOWARD HARTEL - The Commission reviewed a request for approval e property, W124 S6462 Hawthorne Road. It was noted by the Commission Page 3 - Plan Commission Juiy 2, 1968 dwelling represents only about 8.5 units per acre. With land clearance costs of about $20,000 per acre in the redevelopment areas, zoning which would permit 15, possible 20 units per acre would be necessary before private development interests could afford to buy and clear the land. The 15 per acre density is shown on sheet 1 as 550 units for the 37 acres of redevelopment. The present 8.5 per acre density of the ordinance is shown as the 330 unit figure. the available market potential for rnultipde development if the land is so rezoned, and if private developers are able to assemble the land. The second "if" is a major one, and our recommendation is that the City of Muskego use its powers of eminent domain to buy and clear the land, selling it at cost in useable sized parcels to qualified developers. potential of these redevelopment areas for multiple family use is very indefinite. If the city refuses to participate as a land assembly agent, that action would make the availability of the redevelopment areas all the more doubtful. If the city would make a definite commit ment to re-zone and participate in the redevelop- ment of the substandard areas, we would recommend that multiple family re-zoning for the Foth, Kelly, Lindner and related properties be held to a minimum. If the city does not make such an effort at within the study area. redevelopment, then proportionally larger areas could be re-zoned It does not show a complete re-zoning of all of the undeveloped lands since we already have some registered opposition which must be accom- modated. What is proposed is to terminate both Ann Drive and Kelly Drive as cul-de-sacs so that the traffic from the higher density multiple development will not pass through these areas to STH 24. The multiple family development would be developed from Valley Drive, and from STH 24 via the Foth property. If the market does not sus- tain this amount of re-zoning, the lands south of Valley Drive to sheet 1. the electric right-of-way could be developed with lots as shown on acquisition of some of the buildings facing 24 near Kelly Drive, sheet 2 also shows possible multiple development of those properties. This extension of multiple use along STH 24 would create a certain "islanding" of the single family area around the Zablocki property find objectionable. If the Zablocki property were purchased for over to Valley Drive (along Ann Drive) which we do not necessarily inclusion in a possible multiple zoning district, this islanding could be avoided. The multiple area could be drawn to begin west and south of the proposed Ann Drive cul-de-sac, or possibly at the rear of the Valley Drive property lines, in whichase Kelly Drive would become a through street providing access, and Ann Drive would market is stronger than anticipated, the multiple zoning would in be vacated except to the one residence now using it. Unless the such a case be held north of Valley Drive extended westerly parallel to the electric right-of-way. we feel would be satisfactory, we are taking the liberty of sending copies to the interested property owners so that they may fully Present multiple zoning of 5000 square feet of land area per These redevelopment areas will be absorbing large quantities of Until the city determines to do this, the large development Sheet 2 shows a possible "additional multiple family use plan." Since the eventual widening of STH 24 will involve the possible e Since this report has proposed several alternate solutions which Page 2 - Plan Commission July 2, 1968 e JOSEPH KELLY - Petitioner Kelly, Realtors Robert Stack and Chris Zileg and several property owners in the vicinity appeared to discuss a proposed rezoning of the Kelly property in Sections 9 and 16 from RS-3 to RSM. June 28, 1968, as well as Sheet #1 and Sheet #2 as referred to in the report: "Gentlemen: to us for study. The zoning questions involved began with a pe- tition by Mr. Kelly for RSM Multiple Family Residence district zoning for his property. Our office pointed out that Mr. Kelly's property alone would not be suitable for such zoning since it con- from STH 24 to the electric transmission right-of-way in the sists of a narrow triangular shaped parcel extending southerly middle of other undeveloped properties, particularly those of Foth and Lindner. We also pointed out that sewer is necessary for RSM type of development, and the Kelly property cannot be fully developed without sewer extensions from the east and southeast. The Commission agreed to an informal meeting of the involved property owners to ascertain their interest in being included in any possible RSM zoning. of the Kelly property, expressed interest in being included in any multiple zoning classification. Owners of non-developable properties, however, expressed some concern about such a re-zoning. The Zablocki property, for example, which is a lot divided from the origi- nal Kelly ownership, would be completely surrounded by RSM zoning if all of the Kelly and Lindner properties were re-zoned. Owners abutting Valley Drive expressed concern about an overly large amount of vacant land being included in the RSM district. Some members of the Commission itself, at previous meetings, also raised the q uestion of marketability for the total amount of land being considered for such development. Planner Knetzger reviewed the following recommendation dated. At your meeting of June 18, 1968, the above matter was referred At the June 18th meeting, the owners of developable land, east In order to evaluate the many factors above, we have prepared Sheet 1 portrays the existing general city plan's recommendations s. two study maps, attached. for the area. Modi6ications have been introduced since the general plan is somewhat out of date in that (1) the civic center is not likely to go north of STH 24 on Little Muskego Lake in the redevelop- ment area, (2) CTH "Y" is to be built farther west than anticipated in the 1962 general plan, and (3) the land use pattern around the intersection of old and new 'rY'' with STH 24 will have to be re- considered as a result of the "Y" relocation. sive redevelopment which is contemplated in the immediate vicinity lands involved in this study. However, this is predicated on exten- of the subject study area. About 37 acres would be involved. If government subsidy, rather high density multiple familyckvelopment private enterprise is to achieve the redevelopment without any would have to be permitted in those areas. Single family redevelop- ment would not likely be able to absorb the high land costs involved. Generally, the plan calls for single family development of the e Page 5 - Plan Commission July 2, 1968 COUNTRY SQUIRE - The Commission reviewed a request to light approved by the Commission at their meeting June 4, 1968. the 4' x 8' sign advertising the Country Squire which had been Proposed lighting was to be by two spotlights on each side of the existing sign. lighting indicated that a traffic hazard could be created when Planner Knetzger pointed out that studies of signs and there were too many signs, etc., for drivers to observe.and recommended denial. of its location near Highway 24. Mr. Bertram seconded the motion Mrs. Sanders moved to deny the lighting of this sign because and the motion carried unanimously. the gas company to install mains to serve Mr. Hudziak & Mr. Differt, WISCONSIN GAS CO. - The Commission reviewed a request from S70 W18739 & S70 W18778 Gold Drive. seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bertram moved to approve this request. Ald. Narlock be reviewed by the city engineer and passed through the commission - Planner Knetzger indicated that these small hook-ups could automatically. He advised that the major concern of the Commission is the proposed route of the 30" natural gas pipeline. Planner Knetzger advised that he had received more detailed maps from appeared to divert from the route of existing lines in Section 18. the construction corp. Ford, Bacon & Davis and that the line that the Recording Secretary direct a communication to Ford, Bacon & Davis advising them that the Plan Commission feels that the proposed line should be placed as close and parallel to the existing lines as possible and to question why the proposed main is planned to divert from the parallel route of existing lines in Section 18. gas company that they would move the mains at their expense if they would become an obstacle during road construction, etc. It was the Planner's suggestion and the Commission concurred There was also discussion of obtaining an agreement from the EDWIN DUMKE - Mr. Raimann moved to recommend to the Common Council approval of Edwin Dumke's request to rezone his property in Section 24 from B-4 to R-3 and that the rezoning be expanded to include all of the Dumke property up to the wetland-floodplain Sanders seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. area which would be a total of approximately 18 acres. Mrs. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - The Plan Commission reviewed the communication from Building Inspector Lee requesting revisal of the third paragraph, Page 9, Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. (This letter included in its entirety in the minutes of Junel8, 1968) Mrs. Sanders moved to recommend to the Common Council to accept recommendation #4 and insert "City Attorney". Mr. Bertram seconded the motion. typographically in outline and Mrs. Sanders withdrew her motion with the consent of Mr. Bertram. Mr. Bertram seconded the motion and' the motion carried unanimously. to the City Attorney for review after corrections are made. It was then determined that the entire Section 3 was in error Mrs. Sanders then moved that all of Section 3 be researched. It was the Commission's decision that Section 3 be referred Page 6 - Plan Commission July 2, 1968 a PLANNER'S REPORTS """-" MARTIN MAYER - Planner Knetzger advised that after review S76 W17822 Janesville Road, from RS-3 with OLR overlay to a of the proposal to request rezoning by Mr. Mayer of his property, business zoning, it was his recommendation that the Mayers be advised to petition for an 00s overlay. He pointed out that this would permit various businesses and would not disturb the zoning in this area. advise the Mayers of this recommendation. It was the Commission's decision that the Recording Secretary COMMUNI CATIONS """" BEIERLE-MILLARD - The following communication dated July 2, Millard regarding the proposed division of her property on Racine 1968, directed to the Recording Secretary from Mrs. Lorrete Ave. was read by the Recording Secretary: "Dear Mrs. Sands: to Mr. Beierle of Southwest Suburban Realty. You advise that our land division petition has been referred to the Committee on Sewer Financing and Procedure for a decision on possible relief of sewer frontage and lateral assessment on and across Parcels "B" and "C" of our proposed division. coming as soon as possible. August 6th will be six months since we have petitioned for this division. Beierle by Mr.. Russell Knetzger on June 20, 1968, a copy of which I am, also, in receipt of a copy of a letter sent to Mr. is enclosed. In this letter, Mr. Knetzger states that my decision not to permit a road reservation across my land for parkway purposes for In reply to Mr. Knetzger's above statement let me say that it's safety reasons is "an unusual position for a landowner to take." extremely difficult for me to feel that to be concerned about highway safety is unusual. I have resided at this address for the past fifteen years. During that time, I have been awakened many nights to witness hideous, b.hody traffic accidents, some of which, sorry to say, involved deaths. Maybe the proximity to this needless carnage has made me citizen of Muskego and especially members of the City Plan Commission over concerned. On the other hand, it would seem to me that every would not want to be a party to creating a potential traffic hazard this close to our high school (with many school busses constantly in the area) or anywhere else for that matter. I cannot agree with this statement. A single access which has Mr. Knetzger also states that my position is not consistent. existed since 1953 which will serve a maximum of two properties, conceivably become a major traffic artery (see enclosed article Milw. Journal 6/27/68). request that each of them inspect this situation personally on the site of my property. I am in receipt of a copy of your letter of June 21, 1968, a I sincerely hope that a decision on this matter will be forth- 0 in my opinion, is far different than a proposed parkway which would If the members of the Plan Commission have the time, I would Page 7 - Plan Commission July 2, 1968 If this parkway is permitted, it could be a potential death trap that the City of Muskego would have to live with for many years. /s/ Mrs. Lorrete Millard" Yours very truly, CITY ENTRANCE SIGNS - The Recording Secretary reported that Alderman Burgermeister had advised that the entrance sign on the east boundary of the City will be placed on the Small farm near the corner of College Ave. and Highway 24; that the exact location will be between the existing Gumieny beer sign and the Big Bend Lumber sign. Highway 24. He advised that it will be placed on the left of placed on the State Sand & Gravel property on the north side of ' Highway 24 because it is better seen due to the short curve, that and Highway 24 would detract from the sign, and that it could not if placed on the right, the tavern on the corner of Crowbar Road be installed on the Salentine property unless the City would dedicate land, etc. review the locations proposed as well as the sign itself. The entrance sign on the west boundary of the City will be The Commission referred this matter to Planner Knetzger to e ADJOURNMENT - Ald. Narlock moved for adjournment, Mr. Raimann seconded the motion and the meeting adjourned at 10:57 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara J. Sands Recording Secretary b js 7-9-68