City of Oak Creek

Common Council Report

Meeting Date: November 6, 2007

Item No.:        

Recommendation:  That the Council not adopt Ordinance No. 2480, which would amend the official map for the northwest  ¼ of Section 16.

Background: Mike & Julie St John are requesting approval of an official map amendment for their property at 730 E. Forest Hill Avenue and the property to the west at 640 E. Darcy Drive.  The request would result in the future Darcy Drive ending in a cul-de-sac on the property at 640 E. Darcy Drive.  Currently Darcy is mapped as a through-street that would connect to an officially mapped extension of S. Shepard Avenue (see attached map). 

The St. John’s are requesting this amendment to allow them to construct a new home towards the north end of their property at 730 E. Forest Hill Drive. Staff has tried to get them to reconfigure their house plans and placement on the lot but they would prefer to keep the home towards the back in its current configuration. 

The St. Johns and the owner of the property at 640 E. Darcy Drive, Mr. Lue Yang, have come before the Plan Commission three (3) separate times with different proposed map amendments.  In the end, the Plan Commission recommended that the official map remain as it is currently configured.  Staff has included in this Council Report the two previous alternatives.  Alternative 2 shows the officially mapped extension of E. Darcy Drive being moved slightly to the south, which would still allow for the possibility of a future connection to the future S. Shepard Avenue which would connect to E. Forest Hill Avenue.  Staff’s concern with this layout is that it is unlikely that the limited number of lots that could be created on the parcel at 640 E. Darcy Drive may result in it being financially unfeasible to ever construct the road. Alternative 3 shows a longer cul-de-sac on the property at 640 E. Darcy Drive.   While this layout would allow for the future subdivision into 8-10 lots (depending on the size and location of stormwater ponds) it still eliminates another access point and this property could not be subdivided until there is another access point established.

When considering a proposal to amend an official map the Commission should consider the impact upon the ability to logically develop adjacent properties in accordance with the existing official map.  Nearby property owners may have an interest in maintaining certain aspects of an official map if it provides them the future opportunity to subdivide their property in a cost effective manner.  If a person is proposing to remove this opportunity, or to alter it, they need to demonstrate that any adverse affects on the property owners involved would be offset by the benefit to the neighborhood.  In other words, a property owner should not be able to amend the official map to maximize the development potential of his or her property at the detriment of surrounding properties.

Staff feels that removing this segment of officially mapped street will have a negative impact on the development potential for the properties to the west and north.  The property at 640 E. Darcy Drive owned Lue Yang cannot be developed as it is an unbuildable outlot.  Removing potential access points would make it even more unlikely that this property could ever be developed.  Additionally, there are several other larger parcels of land in this area that cannot be developed until additional access points are established so staff strongly believes that creating more dead end cul-de-sacs is not in the best long-term interest of the City. 

The best option would be to leave the officially mapped street as is.  Mr. St. John has a building pad north of the officially mapped street that is approximately 67’ deep by 165’ wide. To the south of the officially mapped street is a significantly larger building pad.  It would seem that the most logical solution would be for Mr. St. John to reconfigure the layout of his home instead of removing or altering the official map.  The biggest obstacle is the large 48’x 48’ (2304 square feet) garage that is connected to another 4-car attached garage.  Mr. St. John is connecting this with a small hallway so it is considered part of the principal building and is therefore not subject to accessory building restrictions which would limit the size to 1,000 square feet.   If Mr. St. John would reconfigure the layout or reduce the size of this additional garage and detach it from the building he would have more than ample room to build on this parcel.

The Plan Commission has reviewed this request and has recommended that the Common Council not amend the official map as proposed.

Fiscal Impact:  There would not be any fiscal impact associated with the proposed amendment to the official map.

Prepared by: Doug Seymour, AICP Director of Community Development	Respectfully submitted, Patrick DeGrave City Administrator
Fiscal Review by: Beverly A. Buretta, CMC City Clerk