Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 04-2007CITY OF MUSKEGO CC, September 5, 2007 John Karides S65 W 18718 Onyx Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Appeal #04-2007 Dear Mr. Karides: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jeff Muenkel, AICP Planning Director (262) 679-4I36 This is to advise that the Zoning Board of Appeals, at their meeting held Thursday, August 23, 2007 DENIED Appeal 04-2007, Requesting variances to Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.05 - Lot Size (1) Minimums Required and (4) Reduction. Enclosed is a copy of the fact of findings and minutes for your records. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 679-4136. Sincerely, 1 Keliie Renk Recording Secretary Enc. W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 749 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 • Fax (262) 679-5614 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDINGS OF FACTS A dimensional variance is hereby denied to John Karides, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal #04-2007 to divide the property at S65 W18718 Onyx Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2174.107 into two lots requesting a 3,608 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 square feet for lot one. It was found that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Municipal Code because there were not exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to other properties. The Zoning Code does not state that every property can be divided in the City and there is no implied right to divide. Also, a non -self imposed hardship was not found for the appeal. Dated this 30th day of August 2007. Signed ' Henry Schne' er Acting Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Signed 1 ` � - & - ( ( 4__ Kellie Renk Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO August 23, 2007 Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp (7:13 PM), Acting Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. Richard Ristow and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Mr. William Le Doux STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on August 9, 2007 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #04-2007 — Petitioner: John Karides, S65 W18718 Onyx Drive 1 Tax key No. 2174.107. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 — Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.05 — Lot Size (1) Minimums Required. No building shall be erected on a lot of less area or of minimum average width less than hereinafter specified by the regulations of the district in which such building is located, and (4) Reduction. No lot area shall be reduced by any means so as to create a lot of less than the required size or so that the existing offsets, setbacks, open space or lot area would be reduced below that required by the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. A minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is require per lot for any new land divisions within the ERS-3 zoning district. The property owner is proposing to divide the lot in question into two lots. Lot 2 will contain 15,000 square feet, while lot 1 will only contain 11,392 square feet. The petitioner seeks approvals to have one lot under the allowed size minimum to be able to create a new lot, and is therefore requesting a 3,608 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement. Dr. Blumenfield swore in John and Geraldine Karides, Alderman Neil Borgman, and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Karides explained in 1977 he received approval for a land division and was told a Certified Survey Map was not required and was under the understanding the second lot was approved. The tax bill he received listed lots 1 and 2 of block 13 in the description. Two years ago Mr. Karides went to the Plan Department to see what he needed to do to sell the second lot and was told the land division was never recorded and therefore not divided. Mr. Karides stated he had to start the land division process all over again. The surveyor who did the survey showed a 40-foot right-of-way, which under today's requirements should be a 60-foot right-of-way. Mr. Karides stated he trusted the City to help divide his property in 1977, which they did on one lot and they were able to sell. Mr. Karides stated the property is becoming too hard to maintain and is requesting the City waive the Chapter 17 requirement. The neighbors are not opposed to the land division and would rather see a house built than a vacant lot. Mr. Karides added the lot ZBA Minutes 8/23/2007 Page 2 with the house is under the size requirement and it fits in with the rest of the subdivision. All the lots are around 12,000 — 13,000 in size. Mr. Karides also noted he was told the City would record the documents for them and guided them through the process. Mr. Schneiker questioned who told Mr. Karides they would record the documents. Mr. Karides stated the City told him they would record the documents. Mr. Karides stated for the first land division the City did record the document. Mr. Ristow stated it was the property owner's responsibility to record the documents with the courthouse. Mr. Karides stated he was told by the City that the City would record it. Mr. Trzebiatowski clarified a corner lot was split off in 1977. This lot was recorded and is shown as an existing parcel on the current survey. Mr. Trzebiatowski also clarified the description on the tax bill. On the tax bill it states "pt of lots 1 and 2", which means part of lots 1 and 2. Originally the lots were divided through the middle into two long lots and the house was built on two lots. At the time of the first land division the lot line was adjusted to split off the corner lot. A certified survey map was not required to just reconfigure the lot lines. Mr. Karides stated the first land division for his daughter was done in 1977. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained, if approved at Board of Appeals, the property owner will have to show to Plan Commission that the lot is buildable outside of the 100 year floodplain. Alderman Neil Borgman explained he has been working with the Karides family for over a year on this issue. Ald. Borgman stated this is a confusing process and he wouldn't have known that each tax key has a separate tax bill. Onyx Drive and Diamond Drive are small streets and there is no foreseeable situation where the City would have to come in and improve this street. The lot may be nonconforming, but it is not nonconforming with the area. The property owners have thought for many years they followed through with the Plan Commission requirmements and have the documentation. Dr. Blumenfield questioned Ald. Borgman on what the hardhship is. Ald. Borgman stated the age of the property owners and financial burdens are hardships. Mr. Karides further stated they are not claming a financial hardship. Dr. Kashian expressed concern with taxes that were not paid over the past 30 years. Two lots would be more valuable than one piece of property. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the parcel is zoned ERS-3, Existing Suburban Residence District. Any lot wishing to divide with the ERS-3 district must follow the RS-3 zoning restrictions. The ERS districts were established to bring existing parcels in conformity since they were divided under the original Zoning Code or prior. The RS-3 district requires minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square feet and average lot widths of 100 feet. The petitioner seeks a variance of 3,608 square feet from the minimum lot size requirement. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets State Law and Zoning Case Law guidelines and rulings. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owners(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. ZBA Minutes 8/23/2007 Page 3 The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The reasons include the following: 1. "We cannot maintain the property because of our age and health problems. It would be a blight in the neighborhood. We don't think it would be fair to the neighbors for the eyesore. " Not a hardship; Self-Imposed/Circumstances of Applicant are not grounds for a variance. 2. "The lot would be similar to other lots in the neighborhood. It would be larger than most other lots in the subdivision. The zoning laws have been changed since these lots were originally platted. "(Quoting the petitioners submittal application) Not a hardship; Nearby Violations/Previous Divisions are not grounds for granting a variance. 3. The belief that they already had this lot split according to Resolution PC 141-77 from September 20, 1977 which stated, "WHEREAS this is a re -division of two lots joined by construction, and a certified survey map is not required. " Not a hardship; A formal CSM was never done, approved, and recorded to divide off the additional lot. They have only been paying one (1) tax bill for the past 30+ years. Two lots would have to have two separate tax bills. Also, a typo in the Resolution does not waive or incorrectly grant some type of approval. The Planning Commission did conceptually make a motion to waive the Chapter 18 (Land Division) requirements relating to this issue at hand at its June 5, 2007 meeting. It was a 5 in favor and 1 against vote. The difference between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals is that the Planning Commission does not need to look for hardships, while the Zoning Board of Appeals can only base their decision upon a valid hardship(s). If the variance is granted a formal Certified Survey Map (CSM) must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and Common Council. There also is a question relating to the 100-year floodplain being located on a fair portion of Lot 2 (the proposed vacant lot). The possible granting of any variance does not guarantee that the division will be allowed due to the floodplain on the lot. A suitable building site outside of the floodplain must be demonstrated for Lot 2 at the time of a formal CSM submittal, if a variance is approved. Staff respectfully recommends denial of Appeal 04-2007, allowing the division of one existing lot into two lots, with one of the lots not meeting the minimum lot size requirement and being 11,392 square feet in area, a 3,608 square foot variance; citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted it has already been determined by the Public Works committee that the full 60 feet must be dedicated for right-of-way. Even without the full 60 feet of dedication the lot would still be under the minimum lot size requirement. Dr Kashian questioned if Mr. Karides spoke to former Mayor Wayne Salentine who made the original motion to approve the land division at Plan Commission in 1977. Mr. Karides stated he did speak to him and stated Mr. Salentine couldn't understand why the City did not record the document. Mr. Karides explained he started this process by talking to the building inspector, Jerry Lee, who originally told him he didn't have enough land to divide into three lots. At that time he divided off one lot for his daughter. Mr. Karides stated he then went back to the City and asked to go before the Plan Commission for approval. Mr. Karides stated Plan Commission granted the approval. ZBA Minutes 8/23/2007 Page 4 Mr, Schneiker questioned if Mr. Karides had the right expectations that the City would record the paperwork. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted three months after the second request for a land division the first land division was recorded, which the Karides had to sign, and only separated off the lot that was sold to their daughter, Mr. Schmidt noted the first lot had to be recorded for the mortgage company to sign off on the daughter building a new home, which wasn't the same issue with the second land division. DELIBERATIONS Appeal #04-2007 — Dr. Kashian moved to table this item to request former Mayor Wayne Salentine to speak on this item. Motion died for lack of a second. Dr. Kashian withdrew his motion. Mr. Schepp moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Dr. Kashian stated it is the responsibility of the property owner to follow through on their assets and also noted the foregone taxes that were not collected for 30 years. Dr. Blumenfield explained the board is bound by State Statutes based on hardship. Age, finances, and lack of action are not considered hardships. Dr. Blumenfield stated she cannot find a hardship with this appeal within the parameters of the state law and will vote against. Mr. Schepp stated because the tax bill listed lots 1 and 2 and he would also think that the lots were divided. Mr. Schepp also added the proposed lots were larger than the lot that was split off for his daughter in 1977. Mr. Schepp questioned if the average person should know all the legal paperwork and have expectations of the City if the City told him the paperwork would be filed. Mr. Schneiker explained at some point the property owner should expect two tax bills for two tax keys. Dr. Blumenfield called for the question. Upon a roll call vote appeal 04-2007 is denied 4-1. Mr. Schepp voted yes citing the hardship being incompetence of the City in 1977 in filing the proper paperwork. OLD BUSINESS: none. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Blurnenfield moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 2007. Seconded by Mr. Schepp. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr, Schneiker moved to adjourn. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:40 P,M, Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA July 26, 2007 7:00 PM Muskego. City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi-judicial hearing; said cases being the appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS None, NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #04-2007 Petitioner: John Karides Property: S65 W 18718 Onyx Drive I Tax Key No. 2174.107 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoninq Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.05 — Lot Size (1) MINIMUMS REQUIRED No building shall be erected on a lot of less area or of minimum average width less than hereinafter specified by the regulations of the district in which such building is located. And (4) REDUCTION No lot area shall be reduced by any means so as to create a lot of less than the required size or so that the existing offsets, setbacks, open space or lot area would be reduced below that required by the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. A minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is required per lot for any new land divisions within the ERS-3 zoning district. The property owner is proposing to divide the lot in question into two lots. Lot 2 will contain 15,000 square feet, while Lot 1 will only contain 11,392 square feet. The petitioner seeks approvals to have one lot under the allowed size minimum to be able to create a new lot, and is therefore requesting a 3,608 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 28, 2007 MEETING. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ►aUa19191Nk' It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above -stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above -stated meeting other than the govemmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Also, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Janice Moyer, City Clerk/Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625. City of Muskego Staff Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 04-2007 For the meeting of: July 26, 2007 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.05 Lot Size (1) MINIMUMS REQUIRED No building shall be erected on a lot of less area or of minimum average width less than hereinafter specified by the regulations of the district in which such building is located. And (4) REDUCTION No lot area shall be reduced by any means so as to create a lot of less than the required size or so that the existing offsets, setbacks, open space or lot area would be reduced below that required by the regulations for the district in which such iot is located. APPELLANT: John Karides LOCATION: S65 W18718 Onyx Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2174.107 CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, City Staff Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner has submitted for a variance request to be able to divide their current lot into two (2) lots. The parcel is zoned ERS-3, Existing Suburban Residence District. Any lot wishing to divide with the ERS- 3 zoning district must follow the RS-3 zoning restrictions. The ERS districts were established to place existing parcels in conformity since they were divided under the original Zoning Code or prior. The RS-3 district requires minimum lot sizes of 15,000 SF and average lot widths of 100' with municipal sewer. The parcel in question is located on the corner of Onyx Drive and Diamond Drive. The petitioner seeks the following variance: An exception to the required minimum lot size for new land divisions in the ERS-3 zoning district. A minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is required per lot for any new land divisions within the ERS-3 zoning district. The property owner is proposing to divide the lot in question into two Pots Lot 2 will contain 15,000 square feet, while Lot 1 will only contain 11,392 square feet. The petitioner seeks approvals to have one lot under the allowed size minimum to be able to create a new lot, and is therefore requesting a 3,608 square foot variance from the minimum lot size requirement. NOTE: Please review the attached Plan Commission Discussion and Guidance report that was presented to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2007. This report details the history of this issue as well additional information relevant to this appeal. Appeal # 04-2007 ZBA 07-26-2007 Page 1 DISCUSSION Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets State Law and Zoning Case Law guidelines and rulings. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owners(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The reasons include the following: 1. "We cannot maintain the property because of our age and health problems. It would be a blight in the neighborhood. We don't think it would be fair to the neighbors for the eyesore. " (Quoting the petitioners submittal application) 2. "The lot would be similar to other lots in the neighborhood. It would be larger than most other lots in the subdivision. The zoning laws have been changed since these lots were originally platted." (Quoting the petitioners submittal application) 3. The belief that they already had this lot split according to Resolution PC 141-77 from September 20, 1977 which stated, "WHEREAS this is a re -division of two lots joined by construction, and a certified survey map is not required." The Zoning Code does not state that every property can be divided in the City and there is no implied right to divide. A lot must meet the required widths and areas to be able to be divided. There are a large amount of lots in the City that cannot be divided any further. The lot in question does not contain enough acreage to be able to divide into two lots. Below are responses to the "hardships" and reasons for the variance request listed above: Not a hardship, Self-Imposed/Circumstances of Applicant are not grounds for a variance. (See page 98 of the Zoning Board Handbook) Not a hardship; Nearby Violation siPrevious Divisions are not grounds for granting a variance. (See page 98 of the Zoning Board Handbook) Not a hardship, A formal CSM was never done, approved, and recorded to divide off the additional lot. They have only been paying one (1) tax bill for the past 30+ years. Two lots would have to have two separate tax bills. Also, a typo in the Resolution does not waive or incorrectly grant some type of approval Some additional case law standards that are reasons to not grant the requested variance are as follows: There is money to be made from the sale of a vacant lot and the loss of any lot sale money cannot be figured in since financial hardships do not justify a variance. According to the Zoning Board Handbook (page 98), "The test in not whether a variance would maximize economic value of the property." Also according to the Zoning Board Handbook (page 98), "The lack of objection from neighbors does not provide a basis for granting a variance. " The Planning Commission did conceptually make a motion to waive the Chapter 18 (Land Division) requirements relating to this issue at hand at its June 5, 2007 meeting. It was a 5 in favor and 1 against vote. The minutes are attached for your review. The difference between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals is that the Planning Commission does not need to look for hardships, while the Zoning Board of Appeals can g-al-y base their decision upon a valid hardship(s). As a side note, if the variance is granted a formal Certified Survey Map (CSM) must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and Common Council. There also is a question relating to the 100-year floodplain being located on a fair portion of Lot 2 (the proposed vacant lot). The possible Appeal # 04-2007 ZBA 07-26-2007 Page 2 granting of any variance does not guarantee that the division will be allowed due to the floodplain on the lot. A suitable building site outside of the floodplain must be demonstrated for Lot 2 at the time of a formal CSM submittal, if a variance is approved. NOTE: Please remember that the City bases their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to find a valid hardship in order to be able to approve a variance request. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY STAFF REPRESENITIVE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Denial of Appeal 04-2007, allowing the division of one existing lot into two lots, with one of the lots not meeting the minimum lot size requirement and being 11,392 square feet in area, a 3,608 square foot variance; citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The following are reasons that the request does not meet the guidelines for granting a variance: • The inability to maintain a lot condition is not grounds for a variance. • The owners never had a formal CSM done, approved, and recorded to divide off the additional lot. They have only been paying one (1) tax bill for the past 30+ years. Two lots would have to have two separate tax bills. • A typo in the Resolution does not waive or incorrectly grant some type of approval. • The lack of neighbor opposition and the loss of a potential financial gain are not grounds for a variance. All of the items identified above are self-imposed hardships, which are not legal grounds for granting a variance according the extensive zoning case law that have been determined by the Courts. Appeal # 04-2007 ZBA 07-26-2007 Page 3 Appeal #04-2007 Supplemental Map Print Application " CITY OF c DIMENSIONAL V" � E APPLICATION PACKET M USV.E(;Ol PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant Please Print or Type) Date: ) ( vp _ ru �_Y Name: Totw KmioEs Business Name: Address: I S, (CW. 18l �U% (0IVYx 1)k City: I M U,5 f,[C& d state: zip Code: Phone Number: �Z ��7�—��Ob6 Fax Number: Mobile Number: l E-mail Address: Property Owner (Please Print or Type) This section can be left blank if the same as above, Name: Business Name Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone Number: Fax Number: Mobile Number: E-mail Address: Please fill out the information below regarding the proposed dimensional variance. Location/Address: I S,46 W, md 6Ny"Y, PA Tax Key Number(s): �47q, 1 pf/ To allow: A Two-LVr 1_,WP 01VI&ION A literal enforcement of the terms of wE C,,4,V1jDY M J¢I�JTorJA} 7gE PA0 P6$CCA45E OF t the above -referenced section would A6E tU/b ffrAL W POE3L&45 IT- Wtl` db_ 56� A $i_14#7- 1hN T result in practical difficulty and tico# 000n, Qr POA� I_ f R 10 1.*,A T wocab Q � rhI unnecessary hardship because: '(k, Ns16#00,95 r0� %µme 'Y"5 A Page 1 of 4 The variance, if granted, will not beU1euLD BE 1M! t-N!Q ZeCL O�"!tElT �Qrs IN 7ffE ijiEG�or. contrary to the public interest and will NEE WOD ! IT Wo �LD e� +�a6L%1 TMAI Mv5r be in accord with the spirit of the code �tf��OR because: 0-rHe—K �6 n 1 N Toff Sit 6 D►U+Sl0A/, ! htc zO,41'At q 4' $WS Ynvs SEEN G1>rgN�E� S�N�E THESE lam:°°'r'S w�>4� The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because ( i Wout.b BE AAroT14EA'91Imtef9Mli-Y ftAiF 4Nb BE 51MrLAR -rD TrfKi— (Al 7'1tE A)'""O"00011-N� LAht" > No; CAw5G Aul} S4FFrY PAW-6,45, rr WOULb l)ar Impe-p `'rAhwic. Raw 1N 4Ny D1R66TroAJ, If this form has been filled out electronically, please click on the "Print Application" button on the top of page 1 or to the right of this text. I Print Application Once the application is printed/filled out it can be submitted to the Planning Department along with any applicable information required for your submittal. Please see the attached sheet to ensure that the proper supporting documents are submitted along with this completed form. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN THIS APPLICATION BEING WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES INCURRED BY THE CITY, IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR APPLICATION, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED BACK TO THE PETITIONER 1 APPLICANT 1 OWNER 1 DEVELOPER FOR 100% RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.08510rd. #909) Signature of the Property Owner: PYTnt Name: O lfA) ITS r� cs Date: Signature of the Applicant (working as "Agent" for the owner): Print Name - Date: For Planning Department Use Only Submittal Date:l Staff Signature: Fees Paid: [— Yes 1— No Public Hearing/Meeting Date: Page 2 of 4 r. 4 - s+ ------------------------- ONyx(7y� MU.5f�E6n , w 1 53i5"o i 1 2007 �1rR�NC ;3 q`r t► m (Y !S 1� IN NJ, VC &�4Hr-rNEPROPE9TY lo THcleik) StUbtV(S100) LD?�5 C ��D � RLOeK IN (qb7, wEAPPLr f; R A aV I LDW6 rE-P Ml r 6/� rIT) ----- �u�r PCPTW E�� r r� A, (AND DIV 151 ON �b tPr� fir 1177 pCTr�0�jc r1l er� �.4N%�ivlsra� ; b E-MuE� AF(AoUA� �!ulAi- I-i�-4MAfMM6 FROR TY 1A)IV rS,H 15 � A35 R PP�003 ON RE50 c,V 7-1 0/) (/-7q 04) SC Pr, zo,1477, AF cp7,#dp ovAt �AR6.-ClungomTI>� Cr�f �l rw sS��Sf�� r�vR ,rtte- Toe- 615, � 6 ou Ivoomf t hl-p WE- va FROM w)w s#4 �oupry RE(Sr� Q�EEbSIr� ��cpR�r�v Pis D,vR�a71 �Mf�S aaS�G,•'7, 4r APPROVAL Or-!;KErGft Rr #Alb Pt vtvoor A ecp,r1FfQ S AVEY15MrRtpama hlva� 84K,+36 Al�r r5 �-vUS�D � t1 VE ��gr�E DRI 6 JI)A Lrwo krs (oW$D RF1") 8i` l'orduablij4ko�s, bcw4 0 k R ri(srrimE Po ov� A tm,� 01v15,o U Wr AWFTT�F r y'% �urbt UsTrtRu '�tc PgaLEss►?or SoMEwf m 4 oA)6 Tir WA Y 7H f 67Y utb N4r GL-Ow fItRG[ Ov RC-cokprNC 7'#r �AND 't;vv)s ox4 THf-N 1N'�U�y iDs-, ���E bEp 'F) P147 k 0 T VP0ASALC,, �H t RE AWV 8 �iu6 FaAuo OF Aq A 4 c AoD f` lEb+cAi� PROS �EA5 W)i APir Nor ARLCTO M�i�raiN kor As WF wov4b Kc r, E Aspo TqE 4,w)w6 ger, Wfhr f n1� N EbED '�o bo EN ORDtR 7'0 8�jdjYltrsL07- up rp C-obC �reAUSf' 11- 14 `P4Ar/A�C y J�j T r rj oob PLRhv. AT 7� J7' Ef-M F W t WC�f %rD-�Ar We bf b Nor HAVE a kOT5, TN F RFA50P 61 VEN �y ��� RAVVfN4 DEPr, W45 Tor �He Gtry O Vt-R PAbTq APPRovEb b(VISID" REIQZ 676, WE �)FAE- oLj WC WOULD RVt' �AV1N4 I PPROUCD SWrIT WauLl) RCQWAI� � EPA 6 �,S;ooa 90, Fr, roR EAU �Ot, A- 5uAV6�"Iop 4HIS SgAVCY 7q c FAorrA7-Y To 4Av e Oj w S�, Fr WH i cH 15 OPlY W oar OF u{R 3 wo5*,Fr, Tq - ��1, 32Sc�r=7k Is SHoRf OFTHC f7, sHow� OAv PA6 G D rtb ?�lb'r7 0r f H9 w r wss7r, r�ur. -rIgcry wateo Pa-r 61ye 5 A VAR IA PGC j) D6016b �4� ffAvlV� E EPA A Or ` HE t N�j commissloP MEETING olu lulj 5,� r )HE\ VUj) T WAI06- C#APTCP, 19. So we ARC IVow A510«06 THE 31 0ARb Or Appu-\�5 7-0Wr 1�L C1rAPrF R 17 c R(ASE 0t P(11/ '�' 76. A Nb h7' No ak cros) /-r C,qCRTES A hAb SN I -ro MA/07-A fN AAm� As �lrr 17N--rKE Alt-w Ur Lime, W6 W01ILD � 06C Trf� -v56- OF DPI VC WAY Aw To U3z oUA &Wh , Wou c.b A5 K VoA Av k-A,5e-Al rv-r AND VA uz I ► � _ G�71�I�f= �� op ANY Ptpu&v)ZPK '7�//5 /5 Op� 4vty UlvbcVEL-dPi�-b ),O-r6 k/ Ta (,tvlmovA-;re NEOborz- 15 Aftri.l$��h1i�-Lc�!K A1' Jy ARC* - — �� �� (Mkt►�+ WE Y4\o-�ccrrS5 �o�'S f�UA I A��� t Li rmcMus Ki;&o. LAKis Mve HA ve A 4mDLrSeNool. — AHIA��� WE MAv rENSAR!< WI��{ A CHt c.D1�► tJtYC�ND 4v,� Letjidlva &A wit �7 5 '14 IN Vo L w It—,- 6 W LAa elb— 64 .1 A lz IV n� w z C 7 a z I 7 0 N .. N a N X • cD Cr ee m K 0 m o ,... M u (n • � � r r• �+ O C3 fi� r a a a C IA c � C K •p — m (O 0 .7 m a a k a to 10 c D to v 7 W Z 'Ly 3 N A M ^RC ° a d C P. m n m _ a � N •r -phi. �' m � � •C < • CL n A v ,r A CD N C V C3 4 V'4�1 �1 !2 � �I �l '1 PAGE I r C17 0 Q`a 00 r+- 00 v a^ z 5O rK m I ` tz, 6 W, h h i m KE W CRJ'� V PA4E' 6 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Office of the Building Inspector City of ,Muskego Date 196Z r I, the. undersigned Building Inspector, of the City of Muskego, Waukesha County, State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that all the requirements of the Building Code, adopted May 17, 1955, have been complied with by relative to Permit # THEREFORE, THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS HEREBY ISSUED. SIGNED THIS o2 I DA Y OF Building Inspector City of Muskego Wisconsin 6/66 5e Prl,6�r y CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION . MINUTES OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 1977 CITY HALT, Mayor Gottfried called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Jerome Gottfried, Secretary Edward Raimann Richard Arrowood, Laura Kilb, Fred Lavey and Wayne Salentine., Planning Consultant Joseph Mangiamele and Zoning Officer Lee were also present. MINUTES: It was moved by Mr. Salentine and seconded by Mrs. Kilb to amend the minutes of the August 2, 1977 meeting as follows - Page 2, DAIRY QUEEN, 3rd paragraph, the sentence reading "The Plan Commission has recommended....." is amended to "The Plan Commission had previously recommended to the Common Council that an ordinance be established to limit the number of signs per business to one, and to maintain an established setback from the highway for a free- standing sign." Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: WAUER'S EXTRACTIVE PERMIT - The Recording Secretary read Resolu- tion #P. C. 111-77, Recommendation of Approval for Wauer's Extractive Permit. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. DR. GLEN RIESS _ The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 112-77, Approval of Sign - Dr. Glen G. Riess. Mrs. Kilb moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. PIZZA HUT - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 113-77, Referral to Planning Consultant and City Engineer, Building, Site & Operational Plans - Pizza Hut. Mr. Salentine moved for adoption. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. RICHARD HANAGAN - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 114-77, Approval of Certified Survey Map, Richard J. Hanagan. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption, Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. RICHARD KN UDSEN - The Recording Secretary read Resolution 9P. C. 115-77, Recommending Zoning Map Amendment - Richard M. Knudsen. Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. Lavey seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. JOHN KARIDES - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 116-7 , Approval of Sketch for Land Division -- John Karides. Mr. Raimann moved for adoption. Nrs. Kilb seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. LAKEVIEW GARDENS - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 117-77, (Approval/Disapproval) of Sign, Lakeview Gardens. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption with the word "Approval" inserted in the resolution. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion. We �5 Page 2 - Plan Commission August 16, 1977 Discussion was held regarding the number of signs at the Lakeview Gardens site, and it was noted that there might possibly be a new owner. In order that this sign request could be discussed with the new owner, and to find out the disposition of the other signs on the property. Mr. Arrowood moved to defer action on Resolution #P. C. 117-77. Mrs. Kilb seconded the motion, and upon a voice vote the motion carried unanimously. LAKE LORE ESTATES - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 118-77, Architectural Approval of Pumphouse, Lake Lore Estates. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. C:LARENCE FROELICH - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 119-77, kequest for Submittal of Layout Sketch, Clarence J. Froelich. Mr. Raimann moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING CONSULTANT'S REPORTS LAKE BRITTANY LANDSCAPE PLANS - Planning Consultant Mangiamele presented his report dated August is, 1977. MARLAN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - Planning Consultant Mangiamele 41 presented his report dated August 11, 1977. CO1'MMU14ICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Mr. Masterson, Dandilion Park, was present and requested per- mission to speak to the Commission regarding the future development of the Dandilion Park property. Mr. Masterson indicated he and his family were interested in getting out of the amusement park business, and were looking for suggestions or comments from the Plan Commission as to what direction they should take regarding this property. Mr. Masterson stated he would like the property developed in the best interest of the City, and provided the Commission with several rough sketches showing different development ideas. Several members of the Commission commented on the matter, and they all agreed that the development of the property would require a great deal of thougbtand imagination. It was suggested that Mr. Masterson contact a professional land planner and present some sketches to the Commission for consideration. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Lavey moved for adjournment at 9:18 P.M. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion and the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, can Marenda Recording Secretary jm 8/18/77 CITY of musKmo PLAN COMMISSIOT1 MINUTES of 1IEETING UL.D SEPTEMS£K 20, 1977 CITY HALL Mayor Gottfried called the.meetirg to order at 8:30 P.m. PRESEPT: Chairman Jerome Cattfriedt Secretary Eduard Raimann, Richard Arrowood, Ald. Ed Dumke, Laura 1cilb, Fred L.avey and ~•Bayne Salentine. Planning Consultant Joseph Manriarele and Zoning Officer Lee were also present. MINUTES: The minutes of the previous meeting of September 6, 1977 mere approved as mailed. OLD BUSINESS: LAKEVIEW GARDENS - It vas noted by tbO Commission that P.eso- lution 17P. C: I 7- 7, (approval/.Disapproval) of Sign, Lakeview Gardens, is on the floor. Action'on this resolution was deferred at the AuFusx loth and September 6th meetinps. Mr.yalantir.e moved to table Resolution 9P. C. 117-77 to permit the new owners of Lakeview Orden$ to submit the request for the sign. Tars. Kilb seconded the motion, an4 upon a roll call vote • the motion to table Resolution #P, C, 117-77 carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: MUSKEGO ANIMAL HOSPITAL, - The Recording Secretary read Reso- lution #P. C. 134.7 , Approval of Building, Site and Operational Plans, Muskego Animal Hospital. Fr. Levey moved for adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion, and.upgn a roll call vote the motion carried unanimoqaly. JONN STl"11DEft - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 135177, Peferral to Planning Consultant, Sketch for Land Division, John Stender. A2d. Dumke moved for adoption. Mr. Raimann seconded the motion, apd upon 4 roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. LAKE DENO014 , The Recording secretary read Resolution {'P. C. 136-77, Recommendation to Rezone the Area around Lo ke Denoon to RS--2. Mr. Raimann moved for a4option. motion. 1*rs. Y.ilb seconded the 1-;ayor Gottfried explainer that this area needed to be rezoned because sewers should he fpstal]ed by 1978. Zoninp Officer Lee explained how the overlay districts affected the underlying, basic district. . 14ayor c;ottfrie� explained to those in attendance why the corTmission has chosen PS-2 over ether possible zonings. Severel property Qwners from the area request04 that the corimission consider RS--1' zoniJig rather than the RS-7. N6t"1 rapt- 2 - Flan rcr. iili ssion September 20, 1977 Harold DeRack spoke in favor of the RS-2 zoning, statin¢ that this type of zoning does allow for Quality development. The cost of development under FS-1 is too expensivj-, he felt. He also indicated that he .felt there is room for-PS-3 zoning; because one zoning can't cover everything. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to adopt Resolution IMP. C. 136-77 carried unanimously. THOV,AS FERGUSON - The Pecording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 137-77, Architectural Ppproval of Second Garage Structure, Thomas Ferguson. Mr. Fa$mann moved for adoption. Mr. Lavey seconded the motion. Concern was expressed by the commissioners regarding the use of the city right-of-way for* construction of this structure. Mayor Gottfried stated ghat the Comr+on Council had already agreed to permit the use of the right-of-way, and the Plan Commission need only decide whether the structure is architec,rurally com- patible. Discussion continued on the use of the ri.pht-of-way. Vr. Salentine moved to defer Resolution 8P• C. 137-77 until a report is received from the planning consultant regarding; the future development of the surrounding property. Ald. Dumke seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to defer was defeated with a vote of five "no" and two "yes". Upcn z roll call vot$ the Motion to adopt Fesolution #P. C. 137-77 carried unanimously. ?Mayor Gottfried called a -rece'es at 9:50 P.P. The meeting re- convened at 10:00 P.M. HAFLAN MEADOWS - The Recording Secretary read Resolution {'P. C. 138-7� equuest for .Revised Sketch for Proposed Development, Marlan Meadows. Mr. Salentine moved for adoption. Mr. Lavey seconded the motion. The engineer for the project, Foger Johnson was present and was informed that the sketch Includes a parcel of land already owned by another individual, which will cut down on the open space as presented. Mr. Arrowood agreed with Mr. Johnson that the dedication of B acres of land was gencrous, 1.1r. Arrowood moved to amend the resolution tc in-lude: Thy Cbmmi.43iop would be receptive to a 69 parcel development assuming the dedication of the additional 1. acres would be provided. Mr. Lavey seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motiori to amend OP. C. 138-77 carried unanimously. Upon a roll call vote,'the motion to adopt Resolution �'P. C. 138-77 (As Amended) carried unxn�mously, Frank 17alsh expressed concern Over d suggested entrance off of Lannon, Drive due to the steep ill. mayor Gottfried indicated that the entrance referred to in the planner's report was not for vehicular traffic. LOUIS LUEDKE. •- The Recording Secretary, read Resolution r`P. C. 139-77, Arch tectural Approval Qf Second Garage Structure, Louis Luedke. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the notion, and upon a rcll call vote the notion carried unanimously. N4 t 2 'ape 3 - Plan Commission September 20, 1977 . BUDGET - The Recording, Secretary read Pesolution #P. C. 140-7 Approval of 1978 Budget. M.P., Lavey moved for adoption. Mr. Arrowood seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. i JOHN KARIDES - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 141-77, Approval of Sketch for Land Division, John Karides. Mrs. Kilb moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. JOHN PAUL PROPERTY The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 142-77, Referral. to Planning, Consultant, Proposed Layout Sketch of the John Paul, Property. Mr. R.airiann moved for adoption. Mr. Salentine seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. KASTELLU BUILDERS - The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P. C. 143-77, Reterral to Planning Consultant, Sketch for Land Division, Kastello Builders, Inc. Mr. Arrowood moved for adoption. Mr. Lavey seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. rAHN-LNG - SCHMI DT - The Recording Secretary read Resolution nP. C. 144-77, Approval of Certified Survey Map, Pahning-Schmidt. Mr. Salentine moved for adoption. Mrs. Kilb seconded the motion, and upon a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously. STATE SAND E GRAVEL - The Recording Secretary read Fesolu-- tion #P. C. 145-77, Recommendation to Renew Extractive Permit, State Sand E Gravel. Mr. Lavey moved for adoption. Mr. Faimann seconded the mot ion. Mayor Gottfried reported that at the last meeting discussion was held regarding the impossibility of trying to bond an opera- tion as large as this one and it was indicated that we are looking for some other way of assuring the city that the restoration plan that has been approved is adhered to. Since a SIVU,UUU bond has been received, it is recommended that we renew the permit at this time and consider alternative methods to solve this problem before the permit expires again in July of 1978. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to adopt Resolution #P, C, 145-77 carried unanimously. PLAR'NING CONSULTANT'S REPORT; VIRGII;IA PEROCESCI'.I - Planning Consultant I•tangiamele pre- sented his report dated September 20, 1977. Mayor Gottfried advised I-Irs. Peroceschi that before the Plan Commission could make a recommendation to the Common Council regarding the legal lot status, it should be assured that the placement of the dwelling on the lot would not adversely affect the property on both sides and that a building and grade plan should be submitted Is so that a proper determination can be made. JOKN ZELLMER - Planning Consultant Mangiamele and Zoning Officer Lee presented their reports dated September 20, 1977. PAr E q Pape 4 - Plan Commission September 20, 1977 Mr. Zellmer was advised to contact the Building, Inspector for assistance in the preparation of a revised building and site plan for presentation to the Plan Commission. DANDILION PARK -- Planning Consultant Mangiamele reported that He had reviewed the sketch for development presented by Bill Masterson. He suc;gested that the number of dwelling, units be reduced by approximately 30t and that possibly a set -back from the lake could be created for a beach. He also indicated a planned unit development approach would be more favorable to permit more open space. Mayor Gottfried indicated that this prime piece of property would require a great deal more imagination than was shown in the sketch. JOSEPH KE LLY - Planning Consultant Mangiamele reported on the sketch submitted for development of the Kelly property on Kelly Drive. He recommended that full development of the cul de sac and the asphalting of the road would be required, along with a road reservation to allow for extension of Kelly Drive to Valley Drive Extended. COMMUNICATIONS & MISCELLANEOUS BUSI1dESS HOLIDAY PARK - fir. Bob Cunnerman , Hoffman, Polzin & Associates, Inc. was present representing, Holiday Park. A sketch was sub- mitted for a conventional subdivision and withdrew the request for a planned unit development. Mayor -Gottfried indicated that the commission acknowledged receipt of the sketch and would refer it to Planning Consultant Mangiamele for review and recommendation. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Lavey moved for adjournment. Ald. Dumke secon- de t e Motion, and the meeting, adjourned at 11:25 P.r;. jm 0 Respectfully submitted, ( -^t , _)211M r� can Marende •ecording Secretary D Q RESOLUTION #P. C. 141-77 APPROVAL OF SKETCH FOR LA1dD DIVISION JOHN KARIDES WHEREAS John Karides, S65 W18718 -Onyx Drive, has sub- mitted mitted a sketch for a three parcel division of his property in the NW 1/4 of Section 4, and WHEREAS this sketch replaces a sketch for a two parcel division approved by Resoluticn #P. C. 116-77 which was adopted August 16, 1977, and WHEREAS this is an RS-3 OED District which requires 11,250 sq. ft. lots with 75` average width and the lots proposed more than meet these requirements, and WHEREAS this is a re --division of two lots joined by con- struction, and a certified survey is not required. THEREFORE DE IT RESOLVED that the Plan Commission of the City of Muskego does hereby approve the sketch submitted for a three parcel division of the Karides property at S65 W18718 Onyx Drive. City of Muskego Plan Commission Adopted SEP 2 01977 Defeated Deferred Jm 9/15/77 V'4 'i 1 rj+�C- 11 S55 E.18718 onyx.. Drive r a 1EG' D DATE rITy or mUSYKE o p" coMAII55foN y o c;z 7 Y5 , 13 P4 aw (9- napte,:scr 3C, 1077 TO: Rayor Jerome J. 7ottfried Public Sewer Committee FA: _: Core!" i . is e uilc i3"}. J laVpector f RE: JOhn KaViLeS, S65 W18718 Onyx Drive r On �,cptr.m�er 16 1177, An City Kan {.coniss i c" a" ")_'`Cvc6 a reivrSyrar: Of 1 t:, ;:,,.L ct;." twd , 1104:; 13 in the Jewel Crc:: t A:J41MS" for JAn hars.s:tes . i Wliv-0 sewers were in2ict:jew, 't, c 6suesS:.on, "is ..z ec 0;. lots Ote =nd t O .: as Lira, one cc•rLer i w C. a i C: u s l a's', the assessment policy of taxiny the two streets' frontagean4.',. i7y ta:O. The 7repos c reCivisjoL LJoult crcat& two GC:•i:.&r iota an,_j C rer abutting OrYx . AVC which in cffeet nWQ6 create a LOW ssses6ment as the attacheO exhi zit inhicates . it is r•eccmmeLc:c:c that the: SewQr Ur. mi.-t-tce= adjust the s .,ss -- LJ .went roll in Ue IF' KiStViLt tw reflect We c: an es approvec; by the Plan cuo".is s ion . j Per.. Joni, Karldes Note to Mr. Karides : If you have any questions in this regard, the Public Sewer Committee will be meeting on Monday, October 17, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall. 6 - \ \ \ b c� � LUto V L_ G � 14 ` wo 1 4� c �\ O \ w � Us t fj° wA \ s� cf� L 99'BT T A n�rP9,0Td00 a7 (Al"0'a ,Sf) aatara PIo�q Coneu"P.tual Land Division P�rcel 20\\ of a portion of Lots 1 & 2, Block 13 in Jewel Crest Sub'd 1 � \ CSM No. 4001 _ \\ �80 \ 1 Proposed Parcel 2 15,000 sq. ft. 0.34 a cres �\ I , a � t1 IN, Existing Ivert ! Parcel 1 � � � r'• �`: � � lea �� � � ' � � Ar / Proposed Parcel 1 \col\ \ �63' ` \ ,i ' 11,392 sq. ft. \ r r 100 Year Flood plain Line / 0.26 acres Existing \ \ ` Per Community —Panel Number Dwelling �/ 550486 0001 B Dated December 1, 1982 / \ Qy ly• Prepared For. C. John Karides +fir DENNIS SAUER �►y i 035 / / S55 W18718 ONYX DRIVE a a A 1S'1'13 Parcel S SO / lMUSKEGO, WI 53150 FRANKLIN. Z�IIg - �� W i � b1 11,341 sq. ft. O: 0.26 a cres �� U � � /ry►if11llIIIl1111111tia ! one 14 ay �' Scale Prepared By: 1,.;30 METROPOLITAN SURVEY SERVICE, INC. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 5200 W. LOOMIS ROAD GREENDALE, WI 53129 / PH. (414) 529-5380 FAX (414) 529.9787 email address survey@bizwi.rr.com i / Socrates\Metro Data\STAKEOUT\98784.dwg 10/25/2006 4:26:05 PM CDT 1 PA6 E f City of Muskego Municipal Code Chapter 17 Zoning surrounding area, and provided further that in no case shall a reduction greater than 25% be permitted. B. Properties within the RL-1, RL-2, and RL-3 Lakeshore Residence Districts are exempt from maximum F.A.R. requirements. C. The area contained in a Rustic Structure, granted Conditional Use status by the Plan Commission, shall not be included in the calculation of the maximum FAR for the parcel. �5.05 LOT SIZE (1) MINIMUMS REQUIRED No building shall be erected on a lot of less area or of minimum average width less than hereinafter specified by the regulations of the district in which such building is located. (2) LOT AREA - HOW MEASURED For the purpose of this ordinance, the lot area shall be measured from the Base Setback Line and shall be exclusive of the area between the Base Setback Line and the existing property line ultimately to be included in the street, but may include land zoned "wetland-floodplain" subject to compliance with this Code. (3) WIDTH - HOW MEASURED In determining the minimum average width of a lot such measurement shall be made by a line perpendicular to the line establishing the average depth of the lot, at any point where one-half (112) the required minimum lot area would fall on each side of such line establishing the minimum average width. Minimum of,/2 of the Required Lot Area Minimum width Minimum of ,/2 of the Required Lot Area Right-of-way Minimum width 41 Minimum of/2 of the Required Lot Area i � ARirtilnum tlVidth� Minimum of Y2 of the 'required Lot Area i Right -of -Way City of Muskego Municipal Code Chapter 17 Zoning �(4)REDUCTION No lot area shall be reduced by any means so as to create a lot of less than the required size or so that the existing offsets, setbacks, open space or lot area would be reduced below that required by the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. 5.06 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (1) PURPOSE OF CONTROL The regulatory techniques controlling the distribution of population throughout the community are intended to achieve the desired environmental character as set forth in the General Plan and to achieve a practical economical and functional relationship between the residential use of land and its consequent impact upon traffic circulation, sewage disposal, school facilities, and other service demands. (2) METHOD OF CONTROL In single-family detached development the density is established by the minimum required lot size. In single family attached, or multiple family development. no minimum lot size is established; but the allowable density is established by a required ratio of lot area to each dwelling unit. In planned residential development projects the density is established by a special factor giving the number of dwelling units permitted per acre based on the underlying zoning. (3) HOW COMPUTED The determination of the number of allowable dwelling units on a given property being developed with single family attached or multiple family units shall be made a follows: A. Single Family Attached and Multiple Family - by dividing the net area of the parcel to be so developed by the number of square feet required per dwelling unit. B. Planned Development Projects - by applying the percentage factor to the gross area of the project as hereinafter set forth in this Code on the basis of the underlying zoning. 5.07 OPEN SPACE (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED No building shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reducreduce the usable neon area of such !ot to !es- than that hcroi.,- 4e- o cc;f'-r.ri ky e v...vv the ...vuv�u vru. u� uu u� v...v� l �v •. av la.._.V than l that I I�..1 �.. 11 I[JI I�..I J�.J\r V.11l V the regulations for that district. (2) HOW MEASURED To be considered usable, such open area shall be readily accessible and of a size and shape which can be reasonably considered to provide for the amenities and necessities of light, air, play space, drying yard, garden, etc., but shall not include parking areas, drives, and other impervious areas. Crop pasture and wooded land may be included in computing such open area. is AAPrrP, I Poo �0 (b) The number of intersections along arterial streets and highways shall be held to a minimum. Wherever practicable the distance between such intersections shall not be less than 1200'. (c) Property lines at intersections with collectors and arterial streets, as identified by the approved street and arterial system plan for the City of Muskego, shall be rounded with a minimum radius of 15' or of a greater radius when required by the City Plan Commission, or shall be cut-off b a straight line through the points of tangency of any arc having a radius of45'. (d) Minor streets shall not necessarily continue across arterial or collector streets; but if the centerline of such minor streets approach the arterial streets from opposite sides within 300' of each other, measured along the centerline of the arterial or collector street, then the location shall be so adjusted that the alignment across the arterial or collector street is continuous and a jog is avoided. (e) On all streets where sidewalks are required, ramps or openings to accommodate handicapped individuals or vehicles shall be provided in accordance with §66.0909, Wis. Stats. 18.41 BLOCKS. The widths, lengths and shapes of blocks shall be suited to the planned use of the land; zoning requirements; need for convenient access, control and safety of street traffic; topography and solar access. (1) The lengths of blocks in residential areas shall not as a general rule be less than 600' nor more than 1500' in length unless otherwise dictated by exceptional topography or other limiting factors of good design. (2) Pedestrian ways of not more than 10' in width may be required where deemed necessary by the City Plan Commission to provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation between the individual lots, streams, lake shores, park lands or other public areas or may be required near the center and entirely across any block where deemed essential by the City Plan Commission to provide adequate pedestrian circulation or access to schools, shopping centers, churches, parks, open spaces, or transportation facilities. The final plat shall contain a special restriction addressing by whom mid -block pedestrian ways will be maintained. (3) The width of blocks shall be wide enough to provide for 2 tiers of lots of appropriate depth except where otherwise required to separate residential development from through traffic. Width of lots or parcels reserved or laid out for commercial or industrial use shall be adequate to provide for off-street service and parking required by the use contemplated and the area zoning restrictions for such use. (4) Utility easements shall, where practical, be placed on mid -block easements along rear lot lines. 18.42 LOTS. The size, shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. The lots should be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing building site and a proper architectural setting, and for solar access for the building contemplated. In addition: 48 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www,pdffactory.com CkAPTEP, /$ Y4L�� �/ (1) LINES. Side lot lines shall be at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines on which the lots face. Lot lines shall follow municipal boundary lines rather than cross them. (2) DOUBLE FRONTAGE AND REVERSE FRONTAGE. Double frontage and reverse frontage lots shall be prohibited except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from through traffic or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. (3) ACCESS. Every lot shall front or abut for a distance of at least 30' on a public street and be at least 45' on all proposed cul-de-sacs. (44a�con oe IONS. (Ord. #1244 — 02/01/2007) Area and dimensions of all lots �®rmequirements of the City Zoning Code or zoning ordinance of the jurisdiction where the land division occurs, except where land divisions occur within the ERS Existing Suburban Residence Districts or RL Lakeshore Residence Districts -shall conform to the area and dimension requirements of a new conforming district appropriate to the surroundings as approved by the Planning Commission and Common Council. The Common Council determines these provisions are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and morals because: (a) The area and dimensions provided for the ERS and RL zoning districts were intended to accommodate the nature of existing developments, the majority of which pre -date the establishment of zoning codes. The area and dimensions provided by these districts are not intended to perpetuate high -density development opportunities. (b) The provisions of the ERS Existing Suburban Residence Districts or RL Lakeshore Residence Districts would otherwise permit high density development opportunities which are in conflict with the adopted Comprehensive Plans, which call for residential densities not to exceed 2.9 dwelling units per acre on 15,000 square foot lots. The allowance for 10,000 square foot lots in the RL district and 11,250 square foot lots in the ERS district have the effect of raising permitted densities to unacceptable levels. In addition to the area and dimension requirements above, those building sites not served by a public sanitary sewer system or other approved systems shall be sufficient to permit the use of an on -site soil absorption sewage disposal system designed in accordance with COMM 83, Wis. Adm. Code, and administered by Waukesha County. (5) RESUBDIVISION. Whenever a tract is subdivided into Parcels 5 acres or less in area and more than - the Plan Commission may require such parcels to be arranged and dimensioned so as to allow resubdivision of any such parcels in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and in conformance with the City or county zoning ordinance. (6) DEPTH. Depth of lots shall be a minimum of 100'. Excessive depth in relation to width shall be avoided and a proportion of 2 to one shall be considered a desirable ratio under normal conditions. Depth and width of lots or parcels reserved or laid out for commercial or industrial use shall be adequate to provide for off-street service and parking required by the use contemplated and the zoning restrictions for such use. (7) EXTRA DEPTH. Double frontage and reverse frontage lots, where permitted to provide separation of residential development from through traffic or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, shall provide an extra lot depth of 30' or landscaped buffering unless a greater depth is specified herein. (S) WATER'S EDGE. Lands lying between the meander line and the water's edge and any otherwise unplattable lands which lie between a proposed subdivision and the water's edge M PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com