HomeMy WebLinkAbout16. 19-578 NOVEMBER 12, 2019 19-578 RESOLUTION
CARRIED 7-0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR A NEW BUILDING FOR AN EXPRESS LUBE FACILITY; 355
N. WASHBURN STREET
INITIATED BY: BERGSTROM AUTOMOTIVE
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w/ conditions
WHEREAS, the applicant would like to amend the previously approved Specific
Implementation Plan for an express lube facility at 355 N. Washburn Street; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that the planned development
amendment for an express lube facility at 355 N. Washburn Street is consistent with the
criteria established in Section 30-387(C)(6) of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council of the
City of Oshkosh that the amendment to the specific implementation plan for an express
lube facility at 355 N. Washburn Street, per the attached, is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plan with information
verifying code compliance for illumination levels at the south property line
as part of the Site Plan Review process.
2. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department
of Community Development and shall include an additional 80 points of
landscaping around the new building.
:::--1:-.,--4..-,,,4
_..
._
City
of
Oshkosh
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager
DATE: November 7, 2019
RE: Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for a New Building for an
Express Lube Facility; 355 N. Washburn Street (Plan Commission Recommends
Approval)
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2005, the Common Council approved a Conditional Use Permit/Planned
Development (CUP/PD) for the parcel at 355 N. Washburn Street for an auto sales and service
dealership. The original CUP/PD addressed fencing, landscaping, landscaping maintenance,
lighting and detention areas.
The approximate 8.56 acre site includes a 34,340 sq. ft. automotive dealership with an
associated service space and vehicle display areas built in 2005, according to City Assessor
information. The parcel also contains parking areas for customers, employees, serviced
vehicles and the display of new and used vehicles. The subject parcel is zoned Suburban
Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD). The subject parcel is bounded by
N. Washburn Street and Interstate 41 on the east and commercial uses to the north and south.
A number of single and two family residential properties are located adjacent to the subject
property on its' western edge.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to expand the use to include the express lube facility at the rear of the
main building. This additional facility would serve customers of the dealership. The site's
commercial use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan's Interstate Commercial land
use. The petitioner is not proposing any changes to the site's access drives, parking and vehicle
display areas facing N. Washburn Street in the front of the site or customer traffic/ circulation
patterns. The new building will be located within an area currently occupied by service and
employee parking spaces. Customers and the general public access the site from N. Washburn
Street and their vehicular circulation is restricted to the eastern portion of the site. The rear of
the site where the new building would be located is gated off from the front of the site. The on-
site parking significantly exceeds the base standards for the site and will continue to do so.
City Hall,215 Church Avenue P 0 Box 1 130 Oshkosh,WI 54903-1130 920 236 5000 http.//www ci oshkosh wi us
The original 2005 CUP/PD approval addressed lighting by requiring that parking lot lighting
use full cutoff light fixtures. As part of the current proposal, the petitioner plans to remove one
existing light pole just south of the proposed building's location and the petitioner would install
five new full cutoff wall packs on the new building. Any storm water requirements can be
addressed during the Site Plan Review process.
No changes are being proposed to the existing building facades. The petitioner proposes to clad
the new express lube building in split-face Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) to match the
existing dealership building.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this project should result in a small increase in assessed property value for the site
and should require no additional city service provision. The owner is anticipating spending
approximately $620,000 on the new building.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission recommended approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment
with findings and conditions at its November 5, 2019 meeting.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved:
"/Ktie
Mark Lyons Mark A. Rohloff
Planning Services Manager City Manager
City Hall,215 Church Avenue P.O.Box 1 130 Oshkosh,WI 54903-1130 920 236 5000 http.//www.ci.oshkosh wi us
ITEM: SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A NEW
BUILDING FOR AN EXPRESS LUBE FACILITY AT 355 N.WASHBURN
STREET
Plan Commission meeting of November 5, 2019.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Gries Architectural Group, Inc.
Owner: Bergstrom Automotive
Action(s)Requested:
The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for a new
building for an express lube facility at 355 N.Washburn Street.
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
Planned Development standards are found in Section 30-387 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Background Information Property Location and Type:
On July 12, 2005,the Common Council approved a Conditional Use Permit/Planned
Development(CUP/PD) for the parcel at 355 N.Washburn Street for an auto sales and service
dealership. The original CUP/PD addressed fencing, landscaping,landscaping maintenance,
lighting and detention areas.
The approximate 8.56 acre(372,975 sq. ft.) site includes a 34,340 sq. ft. automotive dealership with
an associated service space and vehicle display areas built in 2005, according to City Assessor
information. The parcel also contains parking areas for customers, employees, serviced vehicles
and the display of new and used vehicles. The subject parcel is zoned Suburban Mixed Use with
a Planned Development Overlay(SMU-PD). The subject parcel is bounded by N. Washburn
Street and Interstate 41 on the east and commercial uses to the north and south. A number of
single and two family residential properties are located adjacent to the subject property on its'
western edge.
Subject Site
Existing Land Use Zoning
Commercial-Bergstrom Chevrolet Cadillac SMU-PD
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
Existin Uses Zoning
North..........__Commercial-Shoreland Development Corp..........................__......._SMU_PD....- ..............................................
South Commercial-Revs Bowl Bar and Grill SMU
...........__..........._..._._._........._.........---....................._..... ................_........__.........__.....-..._....._................-........................_._......--........- - __..._._....................__.._
East N.Washburn Street and Interstate 41 N/A
--._...................__........._.._..............__....................................................._.........---._....._.....-..................__......................_.........-.._..............................._.....................................__._........._.._._---.........................__......I..._-........-
West Single and Two Family Residential DR-6
Comprehensive Plan(Land Use Recommendation Land Use
2040 Land Use Recommendation Interstate Commercial
The petitioners spoke with Planning Services staff regarding their proposal to construct an
express lube facility of approximately 2,286 sq. ft. on the rear of the site behind the main building.
The express Tube facility would serve the existing dealership. Staff informed the petitioners that
they would have to file for a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment due to the additional
building and site changes.
ANALYSIS
Use
The previously approved CUP/PD (2005) of the site was for the construction of an auto dealership
including a showroom, associated service area, outdoor vehicle display areas and surface
parking. The applicant proposes to expand the use to include the express lube facility at the rear
of the main building. This additional facility would serve customers of the dealership. The site's
commercial use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plans Interstate Commercial land use.
Site Design&Access/Parking
The petitioner is not proposing any changes to the site's access drives. No changes are proposed
to the parking and vehicle display areas facing N. Washburn Street in the front of the site.
Customer traffic/circulation patterns will not change. The new building will be located within
an area currently occupied by service and employee parking spaces. The 19 customer parking
spaces (located in the front of the building)will remain the same. The primary impact the new
building will have is the reduction of service parking from 116 spaces to 102 spaces (all in the rear
of the building).
RELIIRD-P INC
, AItF:II `.CD1�tTS
1 SPACE PER 300 Sq. ft. of gross floor area+1 CATEGORY CURRENT PROPOSED
space for every 3,000 Sq. ft. of outdoor display SERVICE 116 102
GROSS FLOOR AREA CUSTOMER 19 19
EXISTING FACILITY 32,840 sq. ft. EMPLOYEE 50 51
EXPRESS LUBE(PROPOSED) 2,286 sq. ft. NEW CAR
TOTAL 35,126 sq. ft. INVENTORY 453 439
35,126 sq. ft./300 sq. ft.= 118 required parking USED CAR
spaces INVENTORY 60 60
34,903 sq. ft. outdoor display/3,000 sq. ft.=12 TOTAL 698,671 SPACES
Required Parking Stalls
130 PARKING STALLS REQUIRED
Customers and the general public access the site from N. Washburn Street and their vehicular
circulation is restricted to the eastern portion of the site. The rear of the site where the new
building would be located is gated off from the front of the site. The proposed building's impact
on circulation would be restricted to impacts on the internal circulation for employees and service
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn St. 2
operations. The on-site parking significantly exceeds the base standards for the site and will
continue to do so (see tables above).
Lighting
The original 2005 CUP/PD approval addressed lighting by requiring that parking lot lighting use
full cutoff light fixtures. No other lighting conditions or Base Standard Modifications (BSMs)
were placed on the property at the time. As part of the current proposal,the petitioner plans to
remove one existing light pole just south of the proposed building's location. When the
construction of the new building occurs,the petitioner would install five new full cutoff wall
packs on the new building. Each fagade would have at least one wall pack. Other than the
removal of one pole mentioned previously,no other on-site lighting would change from the
existing fixtures and levels. Due to the proposed building's location behind the main building
away from customer circulation areas, staff is less concerned with meeting the code minimum for
all parking areas and access drives. Staff's main concern is the level of light trespass on the south
property line from the proposed wall pack on the southern edge of the new building. The
lighting ordinance restricts illumination levels at the property line to 0.5 footcandles. The
photometric plan submitted was lacking information on the illumination levels at the south
property line. The plan showed illumination levels of 1.6 and 1.7 footcandles just south of the
proposed building, and levels of 0.1 and 0.2 footcandles just south of the south property line.
Staff will require an updated photometric plan with information that verifies code compliance
with the 0.5 footcandle limit at the south property line as part of the Site Plan Review process.
Signage
The original 2005 CUP/PD did not address signage. All on-site signage will remain the same. No
sign changes are proposed as part of this SIP amendment.
Landscaping
The original 2005 CUP/PD addressed landscaping and the applicant is not proposing any changes
to the landscaping on-site. Staff was of the opinion that requiring foundation landscaping around
the new building would not significantly benefit the site due to the building's location at the rear
of the site away from street frontages, customer parking and circulation areas. No new
landscaping is proposed as part of this request.
Storm Water Management
The Department of Public Works will review the proposed site plans. Any storm water
requirements can be addressed during the Site Plan Review process.
Building
No changes are being proposed to the existing building facades. The petitioner proposes to clad
the new express lube building in split-face Concrete Masonry Units(CMUs) to match the existing
dealership building. The Exterior Building Design Standards classify split-face CMU a Class II
material. Staff discussed the proposed exterior elevations and cladding materials for the new
building and are supportive of the applicant's intent to match the materials of the main building.
Staff considered the materials of the existing building and proposed location of the new building,
away from street frontages and customer parking/circulation areas, when discussing the
ITEM-SIP Amendment—3SS N. Washburn St. 3
proposed materials and elevations. Staff determined that requiring a certain percentage of Class I
materials for the new building was not necessary.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION/CONDITIONS
In its review and recommendation to the Common Council on an application for a Planned
Development district, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based
on the criteria established by Chapter 30-387(C)(6):
(a) The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the overall purpose and
intent of this Chapter.
(b) The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and other area plans. (It is the responsibility of the City to determine
such consistency.)
(c) The proposed Planned Development project would maintain the desired relationships
between land uses,land use densities and intensities, and land use impacts in the environs
of the subject site.
(d) Adequate public infrastructure is or will be available to accommodate the range of
uses being proposed for the Planned Development project, including but not limited to
public sewer and water and public roads.
(e) The proposed Planned Development project will incorporate appropriate and adequate
buffers and transitions between areas of different land uses and development
densities/intensities.
(f) The proposed Planned Development project design does not detract from areas of
natural beauty surrounding the site.
(g) The proposed architecture and character of the proposed Planned Development project
is compatible with adjacent/nearby development.
(h) The proposed Planned Development project will positively contribute to and not
detract from the physical appearance and functional arrangement of development in the
area.
(i) The proposed Planned Development project will produce significant benefits in terms
of environmental design and significant alternative approaches to addressing
development performance that relate to and more than compensate for any requested
exceptions/base standard modifications variation of any standard or regulation of this
Chapter.
(j) For Planned Development projects that are proposed to be developed in phases, the
applicant can provide a timeline for development and can demonstrate that the project
would be successful even if all phases were not or could not be completed.
Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with
the findings listed above and the proposed following condition:
1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plan with information verifying code
compliance for illumination levels at the south property line as part of the Site Plan
Review process.
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn St. 4
The Plan Commission approved of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as requested
with findings and a condition noted. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this
item.
Site Inspections: Report:Mr. Groth, Mr.Hinz and Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for a new
building for an express lube facility at 355 N.Washburn Street.
Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. The previously approved CUP/PD (2005) of the site was
for the construction of an auto dealership including a showroom, associated service area, outdoor
vehicle display areas and surface parking. The applicant proposes to expand the use to include
the express lube facility of approximately 2,286 sq. ft. at the rear of the main building. The new
building will be located within an area currently occupied by service and employee parking
spaces. As part of the current proposal,the petitioner plans to remove one existing light pole just
south of the proposed building's location. There will be no changes to signage or landscaping.
No changes are being proposed to the existing building facades. The petitioner proposes to clad
the new express lube building in split-face Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) to match the existing
dealership building. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan
amendment as proposed with the findings and a condition as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr.Mitchell requested that Mr. Wiley go back to the elevation image. He asked what was on the
lower right side of the image at the bottom left.
Mr.Wiley replied he believes that area is for waste oil.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make
any statements.
There were no statements from the applicant.
There were no public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
There were no closing statements from the applicant.
Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Condition:
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn St. 5
1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plan with information verifying code
compliance for illumination levels at the south property line as part of the Site Plan Review
process.
Seconded by Propp.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Mr.Mitchell requested Mr.Wiley go back to the aerial photo. He said this is an intentional built
environment and it just looks like a large concrete and asphalt slab with very minimal
improvements or value in terms of the environment in which people are working/living and
customers are visiting. He pointed out he has a slight issue with the part in the staff report where
it states landscaping is not required because it is not visible form the street. He said we have an
interest in having an environmentally friendly and attractive setting regardless of the visibility
from the street. He said he understands there are limitations, given that it is a drive-thru Tube,
but there are waste oil receptacles that are out in the open. He said additional landscaping could
help break up the large area of concrete. He said one of the things they are doing is trying to
create valuable environmental and life areas that improve our lives. He believes that landscaping
can help improve it in the same way it does at golf courses,parks and hunting in the woods. He
stated he does not understand why landscaping isn't pursued to break up the concrete.
Mr. Lyons explained that typically staff reviews them by looking at what is required and if Base
Standard Modifications are being requested, if so, what is a reasonable ask to offset those
requests. He said in this case there is none required and the applicant is not asking for any Base
Standard Modifications. He said staff contemplated what the justification was for asking for
landscaping and decided it was not required as part of the ordinance. He said it is a Planned
Development and Plan Commission has leeway if they want to add other conditions. He
reiterated that staff did not have a rational reason to why they should be requesting additional
landscaping.
Ms. Palmeri pointed out and read Item I in the staff report on page 4 under Findings and
Recommendations. She stated she realized this was something that the Council found
previously.
Mr. Lyons replied that item could easily be removed from a finding in this case. He explained
that staff looked at the actual ordinance requirements and there weren't any requirements for
staff to use to require the landscaping. He reiterated that it is a Planned Development and it is in
Plan Commissions purview to add/modify conditions or findings as they see fit.
Ms. Palmeri said she brings it up because recently she was at the airport and the director was
referencing some of the storm water issues that they face. She said it may or may not be
attributed from the Outlet mall and the strip going across because they experienced some issues
over there.
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn& 6
Mr. Lyons said Stringham Creek watershed in general as you move east across the highway has
some summations to the airport.
Ms.Palmeri asked if this contributes to the Stringham Creek watershed.
Mr. Gierach stated this is separate from the Stringham Creek watershed and that it is too far
north.
Mr. Lyons said he wouldn't imagine this area being impacted like it is by the airport due to the
different watersheds.
Mr.Hinz asked what would be required if the entire back section was redone/repaved.
Mr. Lyons replied if a full reconstruct of the parking lot were to take place,it would have to be
brought up to code with today's standards in terms of storm water management, landscaping,
islands, curbing, etc. He said a mill and overlay resurfacing does not require those things but a
full reconstruct does.
Mr. Mitchell said he would like to make a motion.
Plan Commission members and staff discussed the condition to be motioned and how it should
be written based on the ordinance and previous methodologies.
Motion by Mr. Mitchell to add the following condition:
1. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community
Development and shall include an additional 80 points of landscaping around the new
building.
Seconded by Palmeri to add a second condition.
Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that the landscaping would be only around the new building.
Mr. Mitchell confirmed.
Ms. Propp said there are a lot of issues with that. She said she sees ingress and egress. She stated
there is not enough room on the side of the building and pointed it out on the map.
Mr.Wiley mentioned landscaping on the southern end was discussed. He said they were going
to require 40 points on the south side but the applicant came back and said it was not possible
because there is only 16 feet for the access drive.
Ms. Propp said they would have to move the building to the north.
Mr.Wiley said they mentioned that they wanted to have a straight shot from the bays of the
original dealership to the new building.
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn St. 7
Mr. Lyons said he believes the area is gated and customers would not be able to bring their
vehicles to the back directly. He said the dealership would be taking the vehicles back. He said
the developer can confirm.
Mr.Mitchell explained to Ms. Propp that he was thinking more about adding landscaping by the
waste oil receptacle area.
Ms. Propp stated she is sympathetic to what Mr.Mitchell wants to accomplish but does not like
the fact that the ordinance does not allow them to do this. She said she was not sure what
grounds Plan Commission has if the applicant pushes back. She said she will probably not be
supporting the amendment though she is sympathetic with the thought.
Mr.Hinz echoed what Ms. Propp said. He said it is not that they shouldn't add more
landscaping to the city because they should. He said Oshkosh is already known to be difficult to
develop in and for Plan Commission to start adding conditions that are not required in the
ordinance just further enhances that vision,whether it is true or not. He said adding this could
discourage other developers from coming to Oshkosh. He stated Plan Commission needs to
remain consistent in following the ordinance and the intent of it. He said he agrees with Ms.
Propp and does not think this is the right time and place.
Mr.Mitchell stated these two have pointed out that it is not in the ordinance and is not required.
He said Mr. Lyons was kind of gray with his description. He said he is reading the staff report
and there is a whole section on landscaping and it does not state that it is not required because
staff can't do that. He said the staff report simply states it doesn't really make sense because this
or that or because it is not seen from the road. He said this would mean that staff is giving a
discussion that they would require it but it is not visible from the road.
Mr. Lyons explained the section is referencing the fact that it is a Planned Development. He said
staff looked at the base code and the base code does not require it. He explained that anytime it is
a Planned Development,the City is given the option of valuating it. He said staff valuated it and
did not think there was anything in the request the necessitated asking. He reiterated the ask is
usually based on the amount of Base Standard Modifications requested. He said when someone
makes an ask, staff will offset it and it is a compromise between the two bodies. He said in staff's
opinion,there is no justification for the ask.
Mr.Mitchell asked if it would be different if the building was facing the highway.
Mr. Lyons replied it would because foundation landscaping and some of the street frontage
landscaping would then come into play.
Mr.Mitchell asked if there were ordinance requirements for landscaping based on if the building
were visible from the street or not.
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. {Washburn St. 8
Mr. Lyons replied correct. He explained some of the foundation landscaping requirements and
street frontage plantings are related to proximity from the street. He said this is the same for
exterior requirements for building materials and the visibility from the street.
Mr. Ford asked if Mr. Wiley discussed landscaping with the applicant.
Mr. Wiley replied correct but it was particularly for the south side of the building.
Mr. Ford asked what the rationale was.
Mr. Lyons said staff wanted to evaluate the impact to the south and ability to fit landscaping. He
said staff thought the south side would make the most sense for landscaping. He explained the
intent of landscaping is to mitigate impact on neighbors. He said Mr. Mitchell is correct that yard
landscaping points are added to help beautify the site and change the environmental impact. He
said staff did not see any value in adding landscaping to the south and did not have justification
for the ask in forcing the applicant to do it.
Mr. Ford thanked Mr. Lyons for clarifying the process.
Ms. Palmeri asked if during the site plan review of the storm water management plans,if there
was a possibility of having to add bioswales to the site or storm water mitigation that would lend
itself along the lines of environmental consideration.
Mr. Lyons said he does not believe there will be much change because this is changing from
impervious surface to another impervious surface but said Mr. Gierach would know more.
Mr. Gierach said in this specific case, the applicant will be removing street,parking or drive aisles
and adding a building. He stated under Chapter 14, the requirements would be them needing to
treat the street,parking or drive aisles not rooftops under reconstruction so there would be very
minimal requirements,not necessarily even bioswales or anything like that for this project.
Motion carried 5-4 (Ayes: Coulibaly, Groth,Mitchell, Palmeri, Perry. Nays:Fojtik,Ford,Hinz,
Propp) to add a second condition.
Motion carried 9-0 to approve first motion.
Final conditions to state:
1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plan with information verifying code
compliance for illumination levels at the south property line as part of the Site Plan Review
process.
2. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community
Development and shall include an additional 80 points of landscaping around the new
building.
ITEM-SIP Amendment—355 N. Washburn St. 9
SUBMIT TO:
^A City of Oshkosh Dept.of Community Development
215 Church Ave..P.O.Box 1130
0' Planned Development Application PHONE:, 20)2361
Oshkosh PHONE:(920)236.5059
For General Development Plan or Specific implementation Plan
"PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK"
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Petitioner: Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Steve Borsecnik Date:09-30-2019
Petitioner's Address: 500 N. Commercial Street city: Neenah State: WI zip: 54956
Telephone#: (920) 722-2445 Email:sborsecrilk@gries.design Contact preference: O Phone IQ Email
Status of Petitioner(Please Check): i✓ caner XRepr sentative Q T nant 0 Prospective Buyer
Petitioner's Signature (required): Date:09-30-2019
OWNER INFORMATION
owner(s): Bergstrom Automotive John Hogerty Date; 09-30-2019
Owner(s)Address: Oner Neenah Center city: Neenah State: Wl rp: 54956
jhogerty@bergstromauto.com
Telephone#: (920) 725-4444 Email: Contact preference: ❑Phone jQ Email
Ownership Status(Please Check): ri Individual Trust n Partnership XCorporation
Properly Owner Consent:(required)
By signature hereon,I/We acknowledge that City officials and/or employees may,in the performance of their functions,enter
upon the property to inspect or gather other information necessary to process this application. I also understand that all
meeting dates are tentative and may be postponed by the Planning Services Division for incomplete submissions or other
administrative reasons.
Property Owner's Signature:, Date:09-30-2019
TYPE OF REQUEST:
❑General Development Plan (GDP) ❑General Development Plan (GDP)Amendment
Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) A Specific Implementation Plan(SIP)Amendment
SITE INFORMATION
Address/Location of Proposed Project:-355 N. Washburn Street
Proposed Project Type:_ Automotive Service
Current Use of Property: Automotive Facility Zoning: SMU-PD
Land Uses Surrounding Your Site: North: SMU-PD
South: SMU ---- -
East: SMU
West: DR-6
➢ It is recommended that the applicant meet with Planning Services staff prior to submittal to discuss the proposal
➢ Application fees are due at time of submittal.Make check payable to City of Oshkosh.
➢ Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE
For more information please visit the City's website at www.cl.oshkosh.wl.us/Community_Development/Planning.htm
Sign Staff Date Rec'd
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS-Must accompany the application to be complete.
(Submit only digital files. Please note at the discretion of Community Development staff may request a hard copy)
The following information must be provided in order for the application to be considered complete and able to
be scheduled for Plan Commission Review. Please use the checklist below to determine the required information
to be submitted at the time of application. if all information below cannot be provided at the time of application,
please request a waiver in writing to the Division's Director or designee.
o A General Development Plan(GDP)submittal, per Section 30-387(C)(4),shall include the following items
(Submit only digital flies.Please note at the discretion of Community Development staff may request a hard copy):
o General location map of the subject site depicting:
• All lands for which the Planned Development is proposed and other lands within 100 feet of the
boundaries of the subject property.
• Current zoning of the subject site and abutting properties,and the jurisdictions) that maintains that
control
• A graphic scale and north arrow,
o Generalized site plan showing the pattern or proposed land uses,including:
• General size,shape,and arrangement of lots and specific use areas.
• Basic street pattern and pattern of internal drives.
• General site grading plan showing preliminary road grades.
• Basic storm drainage pattern,including proposed on-site stormwater detention.
• General location of recreational and open space areas,including designation of any such areas to
be classified as common open space.
o Statistical data,including:
• Minimum lot sizes in the development.
• Approximate areas of all lots.
• Density/intensity of various parts of the development.
• Building coverage.
• Landscaping surface area ratio of all land uses.
• Expected staging.
o Conceptual landscaping plan.
o General signage plan.
o General outline of property owners association,covenants,easements,and deed restrictions.
o A written description of the proposed Planned Development,including:
• General project themes and images.
• The general mix of dwelling unit types and/or land uses.
• Approximate residential densities and nonresidential intensities.
• General treatment of natural features.
• General relationship to nearby properties and public streets.
• General relationship of the project to the Comprehensive Plan or other area plans.
• Proposed exceptions from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
❑ Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),if deemed necessary by the Director of Planning Services,or designee.
j� A Specific Implementation Plan(SIP)submittal,per Section 30-387(C)(5), shall include the following items.
Note that the area included In an SIP may be only a portion of the area included in a previously approved GDP
(Submit only digital files. Please note at the discretion of Community Development staff may request a hard copy):
o An existing conditions map of the subject site depicting the following:
• All lands for which the Planned Development is proposed and other lands within 100 feet of the
boundaries of the subject site.
• Current zoning of the subject property and all abutting properties,and the jurisdiction(s) that
maintains that control.
• Existing utilities and recorded easements.
• All lot dimensions of the subject site.
• A graphic scale and a north arrow.
a An SIP map of the proposed site showing at least the following:
• Lot layout and the arrangements of buildings.
• Public and private roads,driveways,walkways,and parking facilities.
• Specific treatment and location of recreational and open space areas,including designation of
any such areas to be classified as common open space.
Page 9
❑ Proposed grading plan.
❑ Specific landscaping plan for the subject site,specifying the location,species,and installation size of
plantings. The landscaping plans shall include a table summarizing all proposed species.
❑ Architectural plans for any nonresidential buildings,multi-family structures, or building clusters,other than
conventional single-family or two-family homes on individual lots,in sufficient detail to indicate the floor
area,bulk,and visual character of such buildings.
❑ Engineering plans for all water and sewer systems,stormwater systems,roads,parking areas, and
j walkways,
❑ Signage plan for the project,including all project identification signs,concepts for public fixtures and signs,
and group development signage themes that may or may not vary from City standards or common
practices.
❑ Specific written description of the proposed SIP including:
• Specific project themes and images.
• Specific mix of dwelling unit types and/or land uses.
• Specific residential densities and nonresidential intensities as described by dwelling units per acre,
and landscaping surface area ratio and/or other appropriate measures of density and intensity.
• Specific treatment of natural features,including parkland.
• Specific relationship to nearby properties and public streets.
• Statistical data on minimum lot sizes in the development,the precise areas of all development lots
and pads; density/intensity of various parts of the development; building coverage,and
landscaping surface area ratio of all land uses;proposed staging; and any other plans required by
Plan Commission.
• A statement of rationale as to why PD zoning is proposed.This statement shall list the standard
zoning requirements that,in the applicant's opinion,would inhibit the development project and the
opportunities for community betterment that are available through the proposed PD project.
• A complete list of zoning standards that would not be met by the proposed SIP and the location($)
in which such exceptions/base standard modifications would occur.
• Phasing schedule,if more than one development phase is intended.
❑ Agreements,bylaws,covenants,and other documents relative to the operational regulations of the
development and particularly providing for the permanent preservation and maintenance of common
open areas and amenities.
❑ A written description that demonstrates how the SIP is consistent with the approved GDP and any and all
differences between the requirements of the approved GDP and the proposed SIP.
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge all required application materials are Included with this
application. I am aware that failure to submit the required completed application materials may result in denial or
delay of the application request.
Applicant's Signature (required): Date: 09-30-2019
Page
Gries
Architectural Group Inc.
September 30, 2019
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Bergstrom Automotive Express Lube Center
(Bergstrom Cadillac Chevrolet)
1. Proposed use of property: New building for an express lube facility.
2. Existing use of property: The existing area for construction of the new
building is paved and currently used for vehicle inventory parking.
3. Identification of new structure:
j a. Express Lube Center.
4. Compatibility of adjacent properties: New construction will occur in a
developed area where properties are zoned SMU-PD or SMU and
property to the west is zoned RD-6.
5. Traffic generation. Will remain the same and traffic patterns into the
property will not change.
6. Hours of Operation: lam—9pm Monday—Saturday.
7. Proposed site construction overview:
a. Construction of a new Express Lube building.
b. Site lighting and landscaping to remain the same with the
exception of one light pole to be removed and addition of wall
pack lighting on each side of the new building.
"Please refer to site plan submittal and Applications for additional
information.
500 North Commercial Street
\'cenah.l','iscc'nsm 54956
Phone:920-722.2445
Fax:920.722.6605
Page 8
NI5N09GIM 'HGONHGO
soil[) Q
Z10A 9NIQIng MAN V a a
�l
i
I
t ,
i
r�
i
I� I
i
r �
wl�ve)v�avv�o-�sa,a.3�,o�a�aev!�ea seo-snv=o�o-na��wnsa,as seo-stwwz�z o�v sere>�ll slozrocs
NIGN0�,)51M 'H50-IHGO T—
-out dna0(v,rtt.t!yo,tl �5 �dx� W4�l1.59?�39 v I r
sa�arJ Q
"bss ?BOA ON16109 MAN Y
_ s�K
w
? m w
< I ,
jjq.,��
6 £S
40
S 4 S
t z z
ilk M11Mo o
w w
lu
LLTIT
`s
I
d �
❑ A❑ !❑ �kiln �.I$ �Nry � �3 �o
KN
w; w
4
d
0 0 0 e i
NF
6
c
Fll�
qa k 6
3
. s
a �
g
W(FM f1 V5aaV50-naM jurogs8iag�piely 60ObL14mYVs0-ssaxlv3 uwgs8iep 68051�b1OZ4Z IYtl OS56�tl fitOLO£/a
355 N WASHBURN ST ANTHONY C/REBECCA L ANTE AUDREY R HERUTH LIFE ESTATE
SIP AMENDMT 370 WESTBROOK DR 310 WESTBROOK DR
PC: 11-05-19 OSHKOSH WI 54904 OSHKOSH WI 54904
BERGSTROM CHEVROLET CURTIS A JAWORT REV TRUST JEFF M/ROBIN NASON
CADILLAC OF OSHKOSH 362 WESTBROOK DR 4124 ALIDA LN
150 N GREEN BAY RD OSHKOSH WI 54904 OSHKOSH WI 54904
NEENAH WI 54956
KRI TI H DRUCKREY MUSTAI INVESTMENTS II LLC SHORE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP
340 WESTBROOK DR 275 N WASHBURN ST 459 N WASHBURN ST
OSHKOSH WI 54904 OSHKOSH WI 54904 OSHKOSH WI 54904
GRIES ARCHITECTURAL GROUP INC ONE NEENAH CENTER-BERGSTROM
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATE OFFICE
500 N COMMERCIAL ST 134 E WISCONSIN AVE SUITE 700
NEENAH WI 54956 NEENAH WI 54956
Page 11
LINWAYCT ......
...........................
10
ho 0
..........................
Ei El 0.........................................
o
X0
................................................... 2,
............
—MIN"----------
...................-
A-
3:
........................
............—
..........
.............
'g—
Pr
2A * M9ffiI 'AN9AA Iin 005 m i
�fAA,
A%I in=250 ft ,
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only,and Cit-Y
the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the
information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please :go to Printing Date:10/312019 f
ti .ci,oshkosli.wi,us/GlSdisclaimer Prepared by:City of Oshkosh,WI Oshkosh
"�.w
JAGOPIanningRin Commission Site Plan: Site Plan MapTem.plate.mxd P a q�seri-Qak
SMU LI-PD SR-5
INN
\,, u'PD I�PD
D SMU-PD
U3 µ
\ t4NWAY GT-z
M.12-PD � 1 MR-20 ,
SMU_l
� :GaITIJF;t�DR=6=PD.._ .__iGS= = i
.................._...._------ m
-SMU
1 -.._..
- ...........
---- _ SMU=PD W.........__...... . . ....
7
SR-5
> _.... �4ti�4
-......_
z -
/ SR?5
DR--6_PD
i
........ .. .
_ ................__.. V E �41f
v — SMU PD —`
DR-6
r — -DR-6
MR=12=PD PMR-12
NMU SMU fNTE'
0 '
NMU=PD
AV MR-12
f' DR-6
............
\ \ _.._......_........_......_: SMU-PD DR-6
SR-5 r
r
N
1 in=0,11 mi
1 in=600 ftev
..
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only,and city
the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the cif information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to Printing Date:10I3l2019
.v�vw.d.oshkosh.wi,usiu^ISdisclaimer Prepared by:City of Oshkosh,W) Oshkosh
':1G1S`,PIenninglPlan Commission.Site Plan Map Temrate!Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd P aCJ6jsP`��k
FF
a t
w r "
*t anw
. ems,
f t t r
�.'
I
'•a �� ar
s y.
a — Aft -
�t P
will�I .111 - sr�:GG9repS'AIRAAI a
`
cei g,R`\ '�+'B��y0��t3:°a�/`�l�5 — J i 049 �B T
"116,19 1 TOM
a
a4 W'
1 1 1 in=0.04mi
1 in=220 ft
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only,and
the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the Printing Date: 10/3/2019 information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to
www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GlSdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh,WI Oshkosh
J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User:minak