HomeMy WebLinkAbout31. 21-83
FEBRUARY 9, 2021 21-83 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED_______LOST_______LAID OVER_______WITHDRAWN_______)
PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR A MONUMENT SIGN AT 150 ASPIRE LANE
INITIATED BY: OSHKOSH ALF, LLC.
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w/ conditions
WHEREAS, the applicant would like to amend the previously approved Specific
Implementation Plan for a monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane.
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that the planned development
amendment for a monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane is consistent with the criteria
established in Section 30-387 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that the amendment to the specific implementation plan for a monument sign
to the approved site design at 150 Aspire Lane, per the attached, is hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a ground sign with a 10’ front
setback, where code requires a 25’ front setback.
2. Remove the east property line requirement and ready – 165 points of
evergreen trees shall be provided along the west property lines to provide
for screen of the sign from the neighboring residence.
3. Base of the sign shall be constructed of masonry, stone or muted metal.
4. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department
of Community Development.
City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5000 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager
DATE: February 4, 2021
RE: Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for a Monument Sign at 150 Aspire
Lane (Plan Commission Recommends Approval)
BACKGROUND
The subject area is zoned Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-
PD) and consists of one parcel encompassing approximately 14.57 acres, located on the north side of
Witzel Avenue and approximately 740’ west of S. Washburn Street. The surrounding area consists of
commercial and residential uses. On September 10, 2019, the Common Council approved a Specific
Implementation Plan (SIP) for a senior living community at the subject site.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner requests an amendment to the SIP approval for a monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane. The
applicant did not request a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to place the sign within the front setback
at that time. The applicant has submitted a revised sign plan for a 6’ tall internally lit monument sign to
be placed at 10’ from the front property line (Witzel Avenue). The applicant is requesting a BSM for the
sign to be placed within the 25’ front setback to provide visibility of the sign for vehicles accessing the
site from Witzel Avenue. According to the applicant, meeting the 25’ setback would result in visibility of
the sign being obstructed by trees for both east-bound and west-bound traffic. Staff is supportive of the
BSM for the reduced setback as the narrow frontage of the lot restricts visibility of the site from Witzel
Avenue. As the site abuts residential properties to the west, Plan Commission is recommending a
condition that 165 points of evergreen screening be installed along the west property lines to buffer the
view of the sign from the neighboring residence. Plan Commission is recommending a condition that the
base be constructed of masonry, stone or muted metal to provide a more attractive appearance from the
public right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission recommended approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment with
conditions at its February 2, 2021 meeting. Please see the attached staff report and meeting minutes for
more information.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved:
Mark Lyons Mark A. Rohloff
Planning Services Manager City Manager
ITEM: SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A MONUMENT
SIGN AT 150 ASPIRE LANE
Plan Commission meeting of February 3, 2021.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner: Oshkosh ALF, LLC
Petitioner: Mark Hammond/MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Action(s) Requested:
The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan approval for a
monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane.
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
Planned Development standards are found in Section 30-387 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Background Information Property Location and Type:
The subject area is zoned Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay
(SMU-PD) and consists of one parcel encompassing approximately 14.57 acres, located on the
north side of Witzel Avenue and approximately 740’ west of S. Washburn Street. The
surrounding area consists of commercial and residential uses.
On September 10, 2019, the Common Council approved a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for
a senior living community at the subject site.
Subject Site
Existing Land Use Zoning
Senior living community SMU-PD
Recognized Neighborhood Organizations
N/A
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
Existing Uses Zoning
North Commercial SMU
South Commercial SMU
East Commercial & Residential SMU
West Residential DR-6
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use
2040 Land Use Recommendation Interstate Commercial
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 2
ANALYSIS
Use
The previously approved SIP (2019) for the site was for a senior living community. No changes
are being proposed to the approved use of the site.
Site Design & Access/Parking
No changes to the site design are being proposed.
Lighting
No changes have been made from the approved SIP.
Signage
The approved SIP included a 5’8” tall monument sign. However, the applicant did not request
a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to place the sign within the front setback at that time. The
applicant has submitted a revised sign plan for a 6’ tall internally lit monument sign to be
placed at 10’ from the front property line (Witzel Avenue). The applicant is requesting a BSM
for the sign to be placed within the 25’ front setback to provide visibility of the sign for vehicles
accessing the site from Witzel Avenue. According to the applicant, meeting the 25’ setback
would result in visibility of the sign being obstructed by trees for both east-bound and west-
bound traffic.
Sign renderings.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 3
Staff is supportive of the BSM for the reduced setback as the narrow frontage of the lot restricts
visibility of the site from Witzel Avenue. The proposed location of the sign will provide
increased visibility of the site’s access point. As the site abuts residential properties to the east
and west, staff is recommending a condition that 165 points of evergreen screening be installed
along the east and west property lines to buffer the view of the sign from the neighboring
residences.
The applicant is proposing a concrete base for the sign and has also discussed metal as a
possible alternative for the base. However, staff is recommending a condition that the base be
constructed of masonry or stone to provide a more attractive appearance from the public right-
of-way. Staff is requesting that Plan Commission also consider the proposed concrete or metal
base as the applicant has stated that they prefer concrete or metal as those materials would
provide increased durability compared to masonry or stone.
Site plan of signage location
Landscaping
A variety of shrubs have been added around the base of the sign. As previously noted, staff is
also recommending 165 points (example: 5 Arborvitae trees) of evergreen trees be installed
along both the east and west property lines to buffer the view of the sign.
Storm Water Management
No changes to the storm water management plan are being proposed.
Building Facades
No changes to building facades are included with this request.
Evergreen trees
Evergreen trees
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 4
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 design does not detract from areas of
natural beauty surrounding the site.
(c) The proposed architecture and character of the proposed Planned Development
project is compatible with adjacent/nearby development.
(d) The proposed Planned Development project will positively contribute to and not
detract from the physical appearance and functional arrangement of development in the
area.
Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with
the findings listed above and following conditions:
(1) Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a ground sign with a 10’ front setback,
where code requires a 25’ front setback.
(2) Remove the east property line requirement and ready – 165 points of evergreen trees
shall be provided along the west property lines to provide for screen of the sign from the
neighboring residence.
(3) Base of the sign shall be constructed of masonry, stone or muted metal.
(4) Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Community Development.
The Plan Commission approved of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as requested.
The following is the Plan Commission’s discussion on this item.
Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) approval for a
monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land
use and zoning classifications in this area. On September 10, 2019, the Common Council
approved a SIP for a senior living community at the subject site. The approved SIP included a
5’8” tall monument sign. However, the applicant did not request a Base Standard Modification
(BSM) to place the sign within the front setback at that time. The applicant has submitted a
revised sign plan for a 6’ tall internally lit monument sign to be placed at 10’ from the front
property line (Witzel Avenue). The applicant is requesting a BSM for the sign to be placed
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 5
within the 25’ front setback to provide visibility of the sign for vehicles accessing the site from
Witzel Avenue. According to the applicant, meeting the 25’ setback would result in visibility of
the sign being obstructed by trees for both east-bound and west-bound traffic. He said that staff
recommends approval of the SIP amendment for a monument sign as proposed with the
conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Slusarek asked for Plan Commission input on using a metal or concrete base for the sign as
proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Lyons replied that usually staff has a pretty good feel for Plan Commission’s preferences,
but a metal sign base is not something that they have seen in the past. The current
recommendation is for stone or brick because it was consistent with other projects of this
nature. Generally when they move a sign forward for site constraint reasons, they usually look
for that elevated design. This is obviously a very new alternative, so they did want to get some
feedback with potentially being open to modifying this away from the stone or brick. The
applicant is here and can express their concerns with the stone and brick option. They have
their normal requirement in there for a condition, but there is potentially an option to modify
that condition if Plan Commission feels it is appropriate. There were two considerations staff
looked at when they determining if it would be appropriate to reduce the setback. The first
consideration was the impact on the neighbors, which is why they are recommending the
evergreens. They want to avoid a situation where they have two residential properties that have
a direct sight line to this sign. They did reach out to the neighbors and it seems like a reasonable
request. The second consideration is the elevated design which is something they typically look
for when they reduce setbacks.
Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff.
Mr. Perry asked if the metal would be a muted or matted type of finish because he would be
concerned about sun glare with traffic. He asked if the sign required to be off at a certain time
each night so that it doesn’t light up the front yard of the residents around it.
Mr. Lyons replied that they will verify with the petitioner and have them weigh in on the metal
aspect as well.
Mr. Hinz stated that there is pretty aggressive planting around the base of the sign. He asked if
they wanted to go with something like what they have presented or if it could be something like
evergreen that would be around all year to cover the base.
Mr. Lyons replied that it is definitely a potential option as well. The concern with perennial type
plants is that they’re great for four or five months of the year and then the base is visible for the
rest. Evergreen plantings in a concrete base could be another great compromise.
Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 6
Mr. Mark Hammond stated that they are well underway on construction of this site. They did
always have a monument sign in their plans that were submitted. They did not know to request
a BSM for the sign. This is their 16th community. They have typically done brick or stone bases,
but they just don’t hold up. They look good for the first couple years, but inevitably they have
issues with brick or stone falling off or effervescence dripping down. He doesn’t know what
happened with the sign company, but this sign was always intended to have a metal base. They
were aware of the suggestion or recommendation to do brick or stone, but just in talking to the
owner with the concerns he mentioned, he wanted to use this design that they have used before
with a design. He thought it was a nice design and it was really holding up well. It is a little
more contemporary than the traditional brick base, so he really wanted to go this route. It is a
really good question about whether it would be matte. He wants to make sure that their sign
company could get some kind of a matte finish, but he thinks that makes sense and would help
make for a better sign. The intent was that this would be a lit sign. In terms of the plantings,
they did try to use robust plantings. In terms of the modified landscape plan, he thought that
screening made a lot of sense for the neighbor to the west. With that neighbor you can kind of
see the corner of their house, so it’s close to their property line. He’s supportive of being a good
neighbor and doing the evergreens. They also have more room to work with on that side of the
access drive to get the evergreens or deciduous trees which really framed the entrance nicely.
For the neighbor to the east, on the corner there is either a shed that is next to their garage or it
is a garage and he doesn’t think there are any windows. They’re further away from that
property and they have all kinds of overgrown buckthorn tree stuff in there, so they’ve already
provided the screening. They are quite a bit further away and having those evergreens kind of
squished in would interfere with the deciduous trees that they had proposed there. He is
requesting consideration to not have those green trees on the eastern edge, but still maintaining
them on the western edge as staff has proposed.
Mr. Hinz asked if is there something else that would be more green or stay green for twelve
months of the year instead of the day lilies included in the landscaping plan which tend to just
shrivel away.
Mr. Hammond replied that he hasn’t really thought about it. They like to add little splashes of
color to add interest. They use the same landscape designer for all of their projects and he tries
to follow their lead. If it was something that kind of helped this body to get a little more
comfortable with the materiality, then they could find a way to incorporate some evergreens.
He would be hesitant to just do a low hedge of evergreens, but it would be appreciated if the
condition for approval would be to incorporate some evergreens.
Mr. Perry asked if Plan Commission has ever had a condition on lighting for signs in the past.
Mr. Lyons replied that there are requirements within the code.
Mr. Slusarek replied that generally for lit signs, it would need to be shown on their lighting plan
to verify that it does not cause an excess of .5 foot candles at the neighboring property lines.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 7
Mr. Lyons replied it would be a similar standard to what they have for parking lots. They have
added additional sign lighting requirements to projects. The big one that he can think of is the
arena. They had quite a bit of sign lighting discussion during that project.
Mr. Perry asked if Plan Commission could incorporate a condition that after a certain time at
night the candle light output be significantly reduced. His concern is that it is very close to that
property line he doesn’t see how it wouldn’t encroach upon that property.
Mr. Lyons replied that Plan Commission could consider it. It is the same reasoning why staff
was trying to put evergreens on the north side as well to help with that same concern.
Mr. Perry replied that he is not a big fan of the concrete and that he would be a much bigger fan
of the metal. He thinks they should try some things here and there, but he does really believe
that it needs to be muted in some fashion. It has to be gunmetal or something where it’s not
shining in somebody’s eyes by chance.
Ms. Propp replied that she agreed. She is not in favor of shiny metal.
Mr. Ford asked the applicant if he would be open to additional lighting requirements and what
impact that would have on the project.
Mr. Hammond replied that a concern would be wayfinding after that hour how easy it would
be to have dim it at a certain time in terms of controls.
Mr. Lyons asked if it is an LED lit sign or an internally illuminated sign.
Mr. Hammond replied that it is internally illuminated.
Mr. Lyons replied that is a little more difficult to dim the internally illuminated signs compared
to the LED signs which are computer controlled. Most of the ones with those requirements have
been of the LED variety.
Mr. Hammond replied that incidents happen 24-7 at their communities, ambulance calls and
things like that. He is just thinking out loud on concerns of dropping the lighting after a certain
time.
Mr. Hinz asked Mr. Lyons if the .5 candle for the edge of the lot is that the same standard that
they have for parking lot lighting.
Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively.
There were no public comments on this item.
Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 8
There were no closing statements from the applicant.
Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Conditions:
1. Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a ground sign with a 10’ front setback,
where code requires a 25’ front setback.
2. 165 points of evergreen trees shall be provided along the east and west property lines to
provide for screen of the sign from the neighboring residence.
3. Base of the sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone.
4. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community
Development.
Seconded by Coulibaly.
Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Mr. Perry stated that he can completely agree that the base should not be concrete. He is
wondering if they can adjust the motion to recommend stone, brick, and/or muted metal so that
it is clear that one of those materials must be used. He is also very aware of the need for
landmarking with that sign. With the predominately white background, there is the potential to
turn it down significantly and still have it be a very visible landmark after a certain point in the
evening, but that may require them to switch to a LED sign. It is something that he would also
like to have highly considered.
Mr. Hinz stated that he thinks they’re going too far with the lighting because there is a lighting
ordinance in place for elevated lighting in a parking lot and he is guessing this will not throw
off as much as a light for a parking lot. He’d be surprised if they’re right on the edge of that
because most signs don’t throw off that much light simply because they don’t need to. Staff is
going make sure that they’re within the ordinance, so he doesn’t think that we need to make the
ordinance more difficult.
Ms. Davey replied that she didn’t have the same concern about the concrete base, but she
certainly would acquiesce to the metal. She can see where either of those would probably be
much easier to maintain than either of the other options that have traditionally been used in
Oshkosh. As far as the light from the sign, she agrees that they might be getting too concerned
about that. There is definitely also a safety problem with that for people arriving after a certain
time of night. It is not going to be a real easy area to find if you haven’t been there before. She
thinks it’s more important to go with the safety aspect of having a sign that can actually be seen
so people know where to turn and slow down. Like Mr. Hammond mentioned, it is definitely
beneficial for safety vehicles to know where they were headed. She doesn’t have a concern
about a lighting on that side and she thinks that will be fine. She thinks the matte metal would
be very pretty and even if there’s not total evergreen coverage at the base of the sign, it would
still look nice. She likes it.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 9
Motion by Ford to amend the third condition to include muted metal.
Seconded by Davey.
Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion to amend condition 3 carried 9-0.
Mr. Perry asked how long the petitioner would have to put up the landscaping if it were
approved.
Mr. Lyons replied that because the project is still under construction, it would have to be
installed along with the landscaping for the rest of the site.
Mr. Perry stated that his concern is if for some reason the buckthorn growing wild are cut
down, then they have nothing. However he does agree that putting them up now with the
buckthorn is a waste, so he is kind of torn about where to go.
Mr. Ford stated that the phrasing of the condition gives staff a lot of discretion about how to
assign points, so he would be fine allowing staff to make that decision.
Ms. Propp agreed with Mr. Ford.
Mr. Hammond replied that he appreciates the amendment for muted metal and is fine with the
ordinance controlling the lighting. The landscaping flexibility is nice, but he is unsure what 165
points means. It makes sense if they would have some flexibility in terms of where these go. If
the buckthorn goes away, he doesn’t believe there are windows on the side of the shed or
garage. He thinks that providing that buffer isn’t as much of a concern for that neighbor. He
asked for clarification on the 165 points.
Mr. Lyons replied that the request was for 165 points on the east and 165 points on the west as
written. If Plan Commission is open to a reduction on the south, he would recommend
amending that condition so that it is clear what Plan Commission wants to see.
Ms. Davey stated that if the buckthorn does go away, she doesn’t understand why there would
need to be something else there because that would have been the owner’s decision. It is further
away and there are no windows, so she doesn’t see how that concern is relevant. She is
wondering if they could amend the condition to say however many points for five or six
evergreen trees on the west property line.
Mr. Lyons replied that for clarification, five arbor vitae equal 165 points. They aren’t looking at
large evergreen trees, it is more of the arbor vitae variety.
ITEM III- SIP Amendment – 150 Aspire Ln. 10
Motion by Davey to amend condition 2 to remove 165 point requirement along the east property
line.
Seconded by Hinz.
Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion to amend condition 2 carried 9-0.
Motion carried 9-0.
We are proposing to install a lit monument sign as shown on attachment 5173.1R6 with a 10'
setback due to blocked visibility. The trees are blocking the sign from both the East bound and
West bound traffic, and the 25' setback would not allow viewing of the sign until you approach
the driveway, which would then of course be too late to enter. The building itself will not be
visible from the road so building signage would not help this issue.
We will be improving this site with landscaping as shown in the attached landscape plan.
Attached is the updated form. Mark please let Brian know if you have anything to add, I will be
leaving on vacation in 20 minutes.
Thank you!
Sara Greil
Owner
768
769
769
770
770770770
770
770
77177177
1
WETLAND
EXISTING
ASPHALT
LAWN
LAWN
WALK
STORM WATER
POND
TEMPORARY
STORM WATER
POND
(5) TRC
(2) NHE
(5) PJC
(8) EC5
(2) AB3
(5) DSY
(11) HE2
(5) LDN
(9) AWS
(3) DSY
(7) HE2
(16) SH2
(21) SS1
(1) DKL
(1) SMM
(6) SDN
WETLAND
WETLAND
RETAINING WALL
6' CEDAR FENCE
EXISTING
VEGETATION
EASEMENT
LAWN
SEED MIX
LAWN
SEED MIX
LAWN
SEED MIX
LAWN
SEED MIX
EXISTING
VEGETATION
CONSTRUCTION /
DISTURBANCE
LIMIT
7757767
7
6776777777778WITZEL AVENUE (C.T.H. "E")(4) SKH
MIXED
DAYLILIES
(3) SKHMIXED
DAYLILIES
(3) H4
(3) H6
(4) H13
(4) H6
(4) H13
(4) H4
(5) LPS
(3) LPS
(3) CA3
WALK
PROPOSED
MONUMENT
SIGN
LIGHT POLE,
TYP.
10'-0"
17'-1"
SHADE TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS
SKH 7 Street Keeper Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos `Draves`3" CAL B&B Full, matching heads
LOW DECIDUOUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS
LPS 8 Little Princess Spirea Spiraea x japonica `Little Princess`15" HT CONT.
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS
CA3 3 Overdam Feather Reed Grass Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Overdam`1 GAL POT 24" Spacing
PERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS
H4 7 Happy Returns Daylily Hemerocallis x `Happy Returns`4 1/2"POT 18" Spacing
H6 7 Little Business Daylily Hemerocallis x `Little Business`4 1/2"POT 24" Spacing
H13 8 Mini Pearl Daylily Hemerocallis x `Mini Pearl`4 1/2"POT 18" Spacing
PLANT SCHEDULE SOUTH ENTRANCE
WRITTEN CONSENT OF R.A. SMITH, INC.
OR ALTERATIONS MADE TO THIS PLAN WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED
FOR DAMAGES, LIABILITY OR COSTS RESULTING FROM CHANGES
R.A. SMITH, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY
EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE
THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITY INSTALLATIONS AS
SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. THERE MAY
BE OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN
THE PROJECT AREA THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. THE
15 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
NORTH
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R MSP - OSHKOSHOSHKOSH, WILANDSCAPE PLANNORTH PROPERTY & SOUTH PROPERTY ENTRANCEMATCHLINE SHEET L200MATCHLINE SHEET L200MATCHLINE SHEET L200SOUTH PROPERTY
ENTRANCE
NORTH PROPERTY
PHASE 1PLANT SYMBOL KEY
DECIDUOUS TREES
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
PERENNIALS
LAWN SEEDING
SEE NOTES ON SHEET L300
SHEET NUMBER Brookfield, WI | Milwaukee, WI | Appleton, WI | Madison, WI | Cedarburg, WIMount Pleasant, WI | Naperville, IL | Irvine, CA
SIP AMENDMT
150 ASPIRE LN
PC: 02-02-21
CRAIG J/BICKEY J KINDERMAN
2092 WITZEL AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54904
DIANA M HANSEDER
232 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
DONALD R BRUEX
379 FOSTER ST
OSHKOSH WI 54902
JAMES D/AGATHA A WOOD
152 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
JOHN FAUST
272 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
KURT T/TINA M PLECHATY
21695 SHELBY LN
JORDAN MN 55352
MATT T/KRISTINE A TROIBER
280 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
MFF MORTGAGE BORROWER 23 LLC
512 LAUREL ST
BRAINERD MN 56401
MICHAEL J COTTER
1221 TARA DR
SUN PRAIRIE WI 53590
MUSTAIN INVESTMENTS II LLC
275 N WASHBURN ST
OSHKOSH WI 54904
PAUL J BEIER
4219 LEONARD POINT RD
OSHKOSH WI 54904
PETER J FAUST
1229 NATURE TRAIL DR
NEENAH WI 54956
RANDALL J SAWICKI
3310 CREEK SIDE DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
REBEKAH R PETERSON
170 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
RICHARD R TOELLNER
2775 BEECHNUT DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
ROBERT G/KATHERINE M/BRENT R NEMETH
210 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT CORP
459 N WASHBURN ST
OSHKOSH WI 54904
STEVEN F FAUST
PO BOX 3415
OSHKOSH WI 54903
THOMAS A/MARY E SCHUHART
130 WESTBROOK DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
WINNEBAGO COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION
2060 WITZEL AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54904
OSHKOSH ALF LLC
1295 NORTHLAND DR STE 270
SAINT PAUL MN 55120
MSP REAL ESTATE INC
ATTN: MARK HAMMOND
150 & 220 ASPIRE LN
OSHKOSH WI 54904
WWIITTZZEELL AAVV
SSWWAASSHHBBU
U
R
R
NN
SS
TTWESTBROOK DRWESTBROOK DRHHEERRIITTAAGGEELLAAGRACELAND DRGRACELAND DRC:\Users\minak\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: minak
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 1/5/2021
1 in = 250 ft1 in = 0.05 mi¯150 ASPIRE LN150 ASPIRE LN
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
I
I
SMU
I
SR-5
SMU
SR-3 SMU-PD
I
MR-20
SR-5
SMU-PD
I
SR-5
SR-5
MR-20
DR-6
SMU-PD
DR-6
MR-12
MR-12
MR-12
SMU
I
MR-12-PD
NMU
DR-6
SMU-PD
MR-12-PD
NMU-PD
DR-6
MR-12
DR-6-PD
I
MR-36
SMU-PD
MR-12
MR-12-PD
MR-12
DR-6
DR-6
DR-6-PD
SMU
I-PD
SMU-PD
MR-12
I-PD
Red Arrow Park!"#$41
!"#$41
WITZEL AVWITZEL AV N KOELLER STN KOELLER STNNWWEESSTTHHAAVVEENNDDRRN WASHBURN STN WASHBURN STSSKKOOEELLLLEERR
SSTTS WESTHAVEN DRS WESTHAVEN DRS WASHBURN STS WASHBURN STABBEY AVABBEY AV N WESTFIELD STN WESTFIELD STTAFT AVTAFT AV
GGRRAACCEELLAANNDDDDRRGREENFIELD TRGREENFIELD TRS WESTFIELD STS WESTFIELD STWESTBROOK DRWESTBROOK DRLILAC STLILAC STGOLDEN AVGOLDEN AV
LOMBARD AVLOMBARD AV
SKYVIEW AVSKYVIEW AV
HHEERRIITTAAGGEETTRRSSPP RR IINNGGMMIILLLL DDRR
SECURITY DR
SECURITY DR
BLAKE CTBLAKE CT
NICOLE CTNICOLE CT
KATY CTKATY CT
LINWAY CTLINWAY CT
SR-5
C:\Users\minak\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: minak
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 1/5/2021
1 in = 700 ft1 in = 0.13 mi¯150 ASPIRE LN150 ASPIRE LN
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
C:\Users\minak\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: minak
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 1/5/2021
1 in = 200 ft1 in = 0.04 mi¯150 ASPIRE LN150 ASPIRE LN
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer