PCM19681217CITY PLAN COMMISSION
CITY OF MUSKEG0
MINVTES OF MEETING HELD DECEMBER 17, 1968
CITY HALL
Mayor Wieselmann called the meeting to order at 8:05 P. M.
Alvin Basse, Willard Bertram, Charles Buehler, Ed Raimann and Mrs.
PRESENT: Mayor Donald Wieselmann, Chairman, Ald. Frank Narlock, Sec'y,
Jean Sanders. Plan Consultant Russell Knetzger and Building Inspector
Lee were also present.
MINUTES: Mrs. Sanders moved to approve the minutes of the previous
meeting of December 3, 1968. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion. Planner
Sons to read "Roman Berendt" instead of as shown on Page 1. The motion
Knetzger corrected the spelling of the surveyor representing Wm. Kilps
carried to approve the minutes as corrected.
""""" PERSONAL APPEARANCES
None
OTHER BUSINESS """_
ROBERT FALKOWSKI - At the previous meeting, Mr. Falkowskils
preliminary plat and certified survey map for the division of two
lots on Schubring Drive near Lannon Dr. in Sec. 9 had been referred
to the Public Works Committee to ascertain location and type of storm
property.
sewer necessary to handle the drai~zge xhich exists across this
directed to Surveyor R. C. Hardie from City Engineer Ruekert was read
by the Recording Secretary:
"Dear Mr. Hardie:
The City of Muskego has referred subject survey to us for the
purpose of acquiring a 20' drainage easement to which the owners have
agreed. We are enclosing the copy given us, and noted the changes
which should be made. It will be necessary to close in Lot 2 2nd show
all courses and distances. Mr. Brozynski and wife will have to sign
the owner's certificate as they own lands to the south - they have
agreed to this. Also label 50' street dedication to the east adjoining
Lannon Drive. The statutes require lake irons to be 30" long and
can be described by metes and bounds and refer to the certified survey
length and bearing for easement. In the description the easements
map. Please contact the writer if you h.ave any questions regarding
this matter.
The following copy of a communication dated December 6, 1968,
/s/ Frank J. Ruekert"
Yours very truly,
engineer had not received a reply from Surveyor Hardie. Planner
dlvlslon subject to the proper easement in accordance with the Public
Works Committee's recommendation.
easement for drainage and such changes on the certified survey map as
indicated by the city engineer. Mr. Buehler seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Yighway Superintendent Bertram advised that to date the city
0 Knefzger suggested that the Commission could approve this Land
Mr. Bertram moved to grant this division contingent upon a proper
December 17, 1968
Page 2 - Plan Commission
a CIVIC CENTER SITE - The Commission discussed the rezoning of the site recently chosen for the future civic center complex, in the yoke
of the new and old Y's south of Highway 24. (Hohensee property). It
was noted by the Commission that in accordance with Resolution #207-68,
an option is being exercised to purchase this property for $45,000.00. Planner Knetzger pointed out that the land east of the old "Y"
would lend itself to residential development and should not be included
in the OIP rezoning, that the city would probably sell this to a de-
veloper once the civic center location has been established. It was
a conditional use for the municipal garage unless it is located on
also noted by the Commission that it will be necessary to petition for
property zoned industrial.
initiate on its own motion a petition to rezone to OIP that portion
of the Hohensee property which lies west of the existing "Y" to
facilitate the development of the civic center site. Mr. Bertram
second,ed the motion and the motion carried.
Alderman Narlock moved to recommend to the Common Council to
HAROLD DE BACK - The Commission reviewed the certified survey map
for a 4.367 acre division of the Harold DeRack property on Parker Dr.
been revised to bear the words "poor percolation" in accordance with
in Sec. 29 which, because of unsatisfactory percolation results, had
Sec. VI1 A. 4 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Building Inspector Lee pointed out that because of the size
of this parcel, a building permit would be issued, however, this
Inscription will alert the owner that he must make an adequate leach
bed.
of land. Mr. Basse seconded the motion and the motion carried.
e.
Mr. Raimann moved to approve the final plat for this division
COMMUNICATIONS """_
PARKLAND SUBDIVISION - The following communication dated December
9, 1968, from Donald Kilps making corrections as requested by the Plan
Commission at their meeting December 3rd was reviewed by the Commission:
"Gentlemen:
Parkland Project, I am to submit to you correct figure.s regarding the
paragraph entitled, "Multiple Family Development". The correct de-
scription of units should be as follows:
As stated in the report of your Planning Commission regarding the
24 - 2 bedroom townhouses
18 - 3 bedroom townhouses
64 - 2 bedroom apartments
Total valuation of townhouse buildings is estimated at $774,000.00.
26 - 1 bedroom apartments
Total valuation of apartment buildings is estimated at $1,478,000.00 Sincerely yours,
/s/ Donald W. Kilps"
Page 3 - Plan Commission
December 17, 1968
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION - The Commission reviewed the following
communication dated December 4. 1968. directed to Mavor Wieselmann
from Supt. of Schools Robert J: Kreuker:
"Dear Mayor Wieselmann:
to you in your capacity as Chairman of the City Planning Commission.
The Board has asked that I request an opportunity for its members to
meet in a body with the entire membership of the Planning Commission
as feasible but prior to any scheduled public hearing on the revision
at a Special Meeting, at a time convenient to the Commission as early
in the Master Plan as submitted by Nelson and Associates.
The purpose of this request is so that the two groups can have
some face-to-face communication with respect to items of serious mutual
concern. It is hoped that such meeting will facilitate better under-
which might arise in the future because of lack of opportunity for the
standing between the two groups and prevent any unnecessary difficulties
exchange of viewpoint.
then will allow me some latitude in establishing an evening agreeable
to at least a majority of the school board.
This letter is being sent at the direction of our School Board
Can you poll your group and suggest two alternative dates which
Cordially,
/s/ Robert J. Kreuser"
Tentative dates for a joint meeting between the Commission and
9th, or Monday, January 13th; these dates to be submitted to the School
the school board chosen were Monday, January 6th, Thursday, January
Board for consideration.
PLAN CONFERENCE SERIES - A communication dated December 4th, directed to the Commissioners from Professor Kirk R. oetshek regarding the January 11th Planning Conference was reviewed by the Commisiion.
It was noted that reservations have been made for Mayor Wieselmann,
Bldg. Insp. Lee, Mr. Basse, Mr. Buehler and Ald. Narlock. Mr. Buehler
advised that he will be unable to attend and requested that his
reservation be canceled.
-
FRANK SCHAEFER - The Commission reviewed a certified survey map
for a land division of the Frank & Fred Schaefer property in Section
13 which had been prepared by Surv. R. C. Hardie in March, 1964.
Knetzger from City Engineer Ruekert was read by the Recording Secretary:
The following communication dated December 10th directed to Planner
"Dear Russ:
mann, we are enclosing our copy of survey for your study. Ne under-
is a new street which will be subsequently extended and which should
stand that the road is constructed and in use, however, we feel this
meet your requirements in planning. There are deficiencies in the
description, and 1/2 of North Cape Road should be dedicated.
Pursuant to our conversation on subject survey with Mayor Wiesel-
Yours very truly,
/s/ Frank J. Ruekert"
December 17. 1968
Page 4 - Plan Commission
Plan Consultant Knetzger, dated December 13, 1968, was read by the
The following communication directed to the Commission from
Recording Secretary:
"Gentlemen:
referred to our office by Mr. Frank Ruekert of Kuekert & Mielke, Inc.
contains some errors, and that the dedication for North Cape Road is
missing, as well as the dedication or reservation for the new east-west
west road is already built, and that a home has been constructed on
road. From our aerial photograph taken 1967, we note that the east-
parcel 2, the westernmost lot.
is probably little point in raising certain basic issues, but if this
matter still requires city action, we would question these items:
dedicated to its established width of 120 feet (60 feet to the center-
line)?
2. Why is the proposed east-west road not excepted from the
description, and rese rved or dedicated as a roadway?
3. Why are the two parcels not described separately, rather than
as one large lot?
4. What provision is going to be made for future access to the
land north of lot 2, which is becoming landlocked?
Perhaps the city Plan Commission and Town Board minutes can be
searched, and this matter resolved at the meeting.
This old pieliminary certified survey map, from 1964, has been
In his comments about the map, he notes that the legal description
If this has all been properly approve& several years ago, there
1. Why is the Cape Road not excepted from the description, and
Respectfully,
/s/ Russell Knetzger"
It was noted by the Commission that this certified survey map had
been approved by the Plan Conmission at their meeting March 23, 1964,
and recorded in May, 1964.
direct a letter to Surveyor Hardie requesting that he prepare a
corrected certified survey map in accordance with City Engineer
Ruekert's recommendation and which will include the road dedication.
It was the Commission's decision that the Recording Secretary
communication which he had directed to Citv Attornev Bucklev concerning
ALLEN RICKERT APPEAL - Planner Knetzger reviewed the following
the conflict between Secs. 4.07 (4) and Section 3.08 of the.Muskego
Zoning Ordinance to which he has not as yet had a reply:
"Dear Mr. Buckley:
that I review your opinion of October 4, 1968, relative to the above
matter. Mr. Kickert is seeking ttwo things: (1) permission to plat a
lot on a private street.
lot of smaller width than required, and (2) permission to place this
of the zoning ordinance (permitting the Plan Commission to grant building
State Statutes 62.23 (6) (dl--the official map section, and with 3.08
of the zoning ordinance--the general section establishing the Board
of Appeals.
I
The Plan Commission at its meeting of December 2, 1968, asked
In the opinion you indicate that it appears that Section 4.07 (4) a permits where parcels do not abut a public street) is in conflict with
I would offer a different interpretation for your consideration:
Its highwav location and width maD is
1. Muskego is not utilizing 62.23
December 17, 1968
Page 5 - Plan Commission
(61, the official map law.
arterials and relies for authority upon Wis. Statutes 62.23 (31, the
I ~~ limited to major and secondary
Master Plan, and on section 5.02 (2) A. 1. of the zoning ordinance.
Therefore the limitation imposed by 62.23 (6) (d) that only the Board
of Appeals may grant variances to deviations from 62.23 (6) should not
apply in Muskego.
action by the Common Council, Plan Commission and Board of Appeals as
follolvs:
control ordinance at Sec. V A 2. which requires that lots conform to
1. Petition the Common Council for a variance to the subdivision
the zoning ordinance. Authority for Council consideration would be
Sec. XI1 variances.
V G 4. which requires lots to be on a public street.
2. Include in the above petition a request for a variance to Sec.
dation on three questions: smaller lot width, lot not on a street, and
3. Common Council refers petition to Plan Commission for recommen-
lot less than 2 acres. Soil map readings and percolation tests to be
carefully evaluated. Prospects for urban renewal and redevelopment,
also to be given importa nt consideration by Commission.
4. Common Council refers petition to Board of Appeals for two
zoning ordinance variance determinations: Should a lot of less than
required width be permitted, and should a lot on less than 2 acres
be created on a non-public street. A negative vote by the Board on
either of these two points would finish the whole matter, since only
the Board of Appeals can grant those specific variances to the zoning
ordinance. However, to appeal to the courts would probably first re-
quire exhausting the City procedures, by going to step 5.
5. The whole issue is then returned to the Council for their
act ion.
The above procedure is very complicated because the petitioner is
seeking so many variances--lot size below zoning district, lot size
below private street standard, lot not on a public street. If the
Council were to choose not to subject itself and these bodies to this
petition by rejecting it upon presentation, it would seem only the
courts would remain to the petitioner.
If this be the case then the procedure would seen to be a joint
Respectfully,
/s/ Russell Knetzger"
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & RSM ZONING - Mr. Raymond Wallner presented
the following communication dated Dec. 17, 1968, to the Commission
which was read by the Recording Secretary:
"Gentlemen:
ment by the Kilps Builders of the land in the area known as Parkland
Plaza, and (2) the rezoning of the Foth property for multiple family
dwelling requested by Relocation Realty. The Kilps company reqGests
approval for 213 units with the option to request additional units
This represents a total of 273 units, or application for forced rather
at a future date. Relocation Realty request is for 60 housing units.
than healthy economic growth.
to every taxpayer in our community. The Muskego Taxpayer will again
This will not represent progress, but be an additional burden
protest the increased school and city taxes, but.too late if these
projects become a reality. We again will be talhng of additional
-
This letter is in regards to: (1) the request for planned develop-
Page 6 - Plan Commission
December 17, 1968
schools required for 2.6 children per household, and the cost of $375
per child for education which Muskego will have to assume because of
forced growth. The citizens of our community who are in dire need of
sanitary sewers will be forced to wait because of treatment pond limi-
tations, while citizens from other communities have the service avail-
able.
High density lots of 9000 sq. ft. called for in the Kilps Plan will
federal sponsored housing projects and high taxes. We have a sufficient
remove the suburban atmosphere of our city, and be an invitation for
number of lots of 1/2 acre and over in existing approved subdivisions
available to builders. There is no need to divide lands in the subur-
back acreage at this time and 9000 sq. ft. lots will set precedent and
ban area smaller than 1/2 acre lots. Approval of extending sewers to
provide uncontrolled growth. A policy regarding this would be appro-
priate at this time.
a written opinion as to the need and desiralility of a new public hearing
on the Kilps petition because of the following:
I request that the Plan Commission request from the City Attorney
1. Original petitioner is no longer a party of the petition.
2. Major changes made in the petition and plans.
3. The lapse of time of 4 years has changed economic conditions,
4. Removal from the planned development the Parkland Plaza shopping
5. Public's attitude at the public hearing was immensly influenced
I further suggest before approval of the Kilps Planned Development
1. School Board be contacted as to the repercussions this
plans of the city and the public's desires.
center which provided a strong tax base and community necessity.
by the supposed construction of a major shopping center.
and the rezoning of the Foth land for multiple use the following:
development would have relative to the need for additional schools and
increased school tax.
2. Police and fire department opinion be requested as to the
affect these projects would have relative to increasing their depart-
ments and budget .
Yours truly,
/s/ Raymond Wallner"
planned development pointing out that the cost of sewered 1/2 acre
lots would be prohibitive.
to be self-supporting and possibly tax assets as they had become in
other communities. Mr. Buehler pointed out that according to Mr.
Kilp's figures, the value of the apartment buildings would be approxi-
mately $16,400 per unit, this based on 90 units with total valuation
of $1,478,000 and each towhhouse approximately $18,400 based on 42
townhouses with total valuation of $774,000.
with the school board when they meet jointly to analyze the revised
comprehensive plan.
Alderman Narlock moved that the Recording Secretary request an
opinion from the city attorney to determine whether or not the Commission
had acted properly in determining that another public hearing is not
necessary. Mr. Bertram seconded the motion and the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT - Ald. Narlock moved for adjournment, Mr. Basse
seconded the motion and the meeting adjourned at 1O:lO P. M.
/-z-db - 4p Recording Secretary
Planner Knetzger spoke in favor of the smaller lot size in the
It was the Commission's opinion that the developments would prove
It was the Commission's opinion that they could discuss this matter
Respectfully submitted,