Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31. 21-611NOVEMBER 23, 2021 DECEMBER 14, 2021 21-580 21-611 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING (CARRIED___7-0_____LOST________LAID OVER________WITHDRAWN________) PURPOSE: APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 9 DISTRICT (SR-9) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET AND WEST NEVADA AVENUE INITIATED BY: OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOOL DISTRICT PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 30- 387 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING DISTRICTS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 30-387 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to Zoning Districts and the map therein described is hereby amended by changing the district character of the property located at the Southeast Corner of Jackson Street and West Nevada Avenue from Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). ALL OF LOTS 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18 AND 20, PART OF LOTS 5 AND 14, ALL IN BLOCK 91 PER LEACH’S MAP OF 1894, AND ALSO ½ OF THE ADJACENT RIGHTS- OF-WAY OF JACKSON STREET, W. NEVADA AVENUE AND KENTUCKY STREET, BEING PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH, RANGE 16 EAST, CITY OF OSHKOSH, WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN, BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING FROM THE WEST ¼ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE N00°15’21”E, 30.07 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE N89°42’39”E, 33.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 91; NOVEMBER 23, 2021 DECEMBER 14, 2021 21-580 21-611 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING CONT’D THENCE N00°16’28”W, 540.09 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF SAID BLOCK 91 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N00°16’28”W, 60.01 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE N89°42’21”E, 203.68 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE N00°16’28”W, 60.02 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 9 OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE S89°42’12”W, 203.68 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9 TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N00°16’28”W, 180.03 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N89°41’54”E, 163.68 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO A POINT; THENCE N00°16’28”W, 60.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 4 OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE S89°41’36”W, 163.68 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N00°16’28”W, 360.90 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N89°24’55”E, 393.69 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE S00°15’21”E, 1,083.08 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 91 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17 OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE S89°42’39”W, 216.77 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE N00°18’44”W, 120.03 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE AND EXTENDED WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 17 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N89°43’05”E, 27.19 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14 TO THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SAID BLOCK 91; THENCE N00°16’28”W, 240.07 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE S89°42’30”W, 203.68 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID AREA CONTAINS 333,674 SQUARE FEET OR 7.660 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, NOT INCLUDING ½ OF THE ADJACENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF JACKSON STREET, W. NEW YORK AVENUE AND KENTUCKY STREET. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh NOVEMBER 23, 2021 DECEMBER 14, 2021 21-580 21-611 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING CONT’D enacted Ordinance #21-611 ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 9 DISTRICT (SR-9) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET AND WEST NEVADA AVENUE on December 14, 2021. This ordinance changes the zoning of the property located at the Southeast Corner of Jackson Street and West Nevada Avenue from Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The full text of the Ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Ave. and on the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us. Clerk's phone: (920) 236-5011. 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: November 18, 2021 RE: Approve Zone Change from Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Jackson Street and West Nevada Avenue BACKGROUND The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The subject area consists of two existing properties owned and utilized by the Oshkosh Area School District along with five residential or vacant properties totaling 7.66 acres in size with frontage on Jackson Street, West Nevada Avenue, and Kentucky Street. The subject area is currently used for school sports facilities and parking as well as single-family residences. The surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses along with the existing Merrill School site to the east. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plans recommends Park and Light Density Residential use for the subject area. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject parcels that are currently zoned Institutional (I) as well a zone change for 5 existing residential properties from Single Family Residential – 9 (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). This request is intended to provide consistent (I-PD) zoning for the subject parcels, which will allow the lots to be combined. The Planned Development Overlay will allow for flexibility from zoning ordinance requirements, which are needed to accommodate the proposed site development and the unique shape of the proposed lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning as it will help to accommodate the development of the site for a new middle school and allow for further review of the proposed development as it relates to surrounding residential uses. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission recommended approval of the zone change on November 16, 2021. 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: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) & SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 9 DISTRICT (SR-9) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET & W NEVADA AVENUE Plan Commission meeting of November 16, 2021. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Nate Considine, Bray Architects Property Owner: Oshkosh Area School District Action(s) Requested: The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I- PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a new middle school development. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance does not establish criteria relative to the appropriateness of changing the zoning from one classification to another but relies on the Comprehensive Plan and good planning principles. Planned Development standards are found in Section 30-387 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property Location and Background Information: The subject area consists of two existing properties owned and utilized by the School District along with 5 residential or vacant properties, totaling 7.66 acres in size, with frontage on Jackson Street, W Nevada Avenue, and Kentucky Street. The subject area is currently used for school sports facilities and parking as well as single-family residences. The surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses along with the existing Merrill School site to the east. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plans recommends Park and Light Density Residential use for the subject area. Subject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Athletic fields, parking, vacant, & residential SR-9 & I Recognized Neighborhood Organizations Historic Jackson ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 2 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Existing Uses Zoning North Residential SR-9 South Residential SR-9 East School SR-9 & I West Residential SR-9 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Recommendation Park and Light Density Residential ANALYSIS Zone Change The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject parcels that are currently zoned Institutional (I) as well a zone change for 5 existing residential properties from Single Family Residential – 9 (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). This request is intended to provide consistent (I-PD) zoning for the subject parcels, which will allow the lots to be combined. The Planned Development Overlay will allow for flexibility from zoning ordinance requirements, which are needed to accommodate the proposed site development and the unique shape of the proposed lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning as it will help to accommodate the development of the site and allow for further review of the proposed development as it relates to surrounding residential uses. Use The applicant is proposing to combine the subject parcels for the development of a new Merrill Middle School, combining the existing Merrill Middle School and Webster-Stanley Middle ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 3 School. This site was chosen for the new middle school through a referendum that was passed in November 2020. Elementary and Middle Schools are considered Indoor Institutional land use and are a conditional use in the Institutional District. A Plan Commission workshop was held on September 21, 2021, with Plan Commission voicing support for the proposed plans. A neighborhood meeting was held at the existing Merrill Middle School on September 9, 2021, with neighbors voicing concerns related to pick up/drop off of students, bicycle access/racks, location of the loading area along Jackson St., and appearance of the site as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. Site Design/Access The proposed development will have four driveway accesses off of Kentucky Street to two parking areas (main parking area and ADA/guest parking area) and one access off of Jackson Street to a loading area to be used for deliveries only. The loading area will be surrounded by 4’ tall steel ornamental fencing to deter pedestrian and vehicle access to the area. The Department of Public Works has noted that the changes to the public right-of-way will need to be discussed in detail and the City will need to determine if the work along Kentucky Street is going to be approved. They have also noted that the public sidewalks need to be placed at the right-of-way line. The City Transportation Department has noted that a traffic impact analysist (TIA) has been reviewed and supported by the Traffic and Parking Advisory Board. Plans include flipping the one-way pairs of Kentucky St. and Central St., which has also been reviewed and approved by the Board, and the reversal of one-way traffic flow for these streets was approved by Common Council on November 9, 2021. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 4 Required Provided Parking Spaces Minimum: 38 147 Bicycle Spaces 4 116 Impervious Surface Maximum: 60% of lot 66% of lot Building Height Maximum: 45 ft. 60 ft. The provided parking is significantly exceeding the code minimum of 1 space per two employees, as the applicant has noted that the school will have approximately 75 employees. The applicant has provided a total of 116 bicycle parking spaces for use by students and staff. The total impervious surface area for the site is over the maximum of 60% for the Institutional District. According to the applicant, the increased impervious surface area is necessary to provide the needed building and parking areas on the site without further increasing the building height. Staff is supportive of the proposed BSM for the increased impervious surface area as it is necessary for site functionality. Staff feels that increased impervious surface is an appropriate alternative to increased building height, as it is more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed building height will exceed the maximum height by 3’ to accommodate a three- story height and by 15’ to accommodate mezzanine features. According to the applicant, a 45’ tall building (maximum height) is not achievable for a three-story building due to current HVAC, structural, and architectural design requirements. Staff is supportive of the BSM for increased height as it is necessary to accommodate the needed floor area. The site plan includes a masonry dumpster enclosure at the northwest portion of the site, located between the building and Jackson Street public right-of-way. The dumpster enclosure must be 6’ tall and masonry must match the principal building. Staff feels that the proposed location is appropriate as it will be placed along the proposed loading area, which will be the most functional location for the site. Staff is recommending a condition that a minimum of 40 evergreen tree landscaping points be provided in front of the dumpster enclosure to “break up” the view of the enclosure from the street. Minimum Provided Front Setback (W Nevada Ave.) 30 ft. 38 ft. (building) Street Side Setback (Jackson St.) 25 ft. 18.75 ft. (pavement) Street Side Setback (Kentucky St.) 25 ft. 16.5 ft. (pavement) Side Setback (west) 7.5 ft. 26 ft. (pavement) Side Setback (southwest) 7.5 ft. 51 ft. (pavement) Rear Setback (south) 25 ft. 75.66 ft. (pavement) ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 5 The applicant is meeting applicable setbacks for the Institutional district, with the exception street side setbacks for parking/drive areas along Jackson St. and Kentucky St. According to the applicant, the reduced street side setbacks are needed to accommodate floor area and parking needs without forcing the building more toward the middle of the site, resulting in a need for additional building height. Staff is supportive of the reduced pavement setbacks for the drive areas as it is needed to accommodate access to needed parking and loading areas. Storm Water Management/Utilities Storm water management plans have been provided and are being reviewed by the Department of Public Works. Finalized storm water management plans will need to be submitted and approved as part of the Site Plan Review processes. Landscaping ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 6 Points Required Points Provided Building Foundation 940 970.1 Paved Area 780 (234 tall trees, 312 shrubs) 814.8 (650 tall trees, 314.8 shrubs) Street Frontage (W Nevada Ave.) 393 (196.5 medium trees) 285.5 (209.5 medium trees) Street Frontage (Jackson St. – north) 311.4 (155.7 medium trees) 594 (66 medium trees) Street Frontage (Jackson St. – south) 393 (196.5 medium trees) 61.5 (61.5 medium trees) Street Frontage (Kentucky St.) 1083 (541.5 medium trees) 811 (120 medium trees) Yards 2,340 1,355.3 Bufferyard (south) 297 315 Bufferyard (west – by basin) 162 165 Bufferyard (west – by parking) 1080 1089 Bufferyard (west – for residential lot) 298 396 Total 7,137.4 5,887.1 Building Foundation The building foundation point requirement of 40 building foundation landscaping points per 100 linear feet of building foundation is being met for the site. Paved Area The paved area requirement of 50 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls or 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area is being met. The code further specifies 30% of all points will be devoted to medium or tall trees and 40% will be devoted to shrubs, which is also being met. The landscaping plan is also providing a deciduous/shade tree at the ends of all parking rows as required by code, except for a tree missing at the northwest corner of the main (south) parking area. This can be addressed during the Site Plan Review process. Street Frontage Code requires 100 points per 100 feet of street frontage. The landscaping ordinance also specifies that 50% of the required points must be devoted to medium trees. The applicant is requesting BSMs for reduced street frontage landscaping along the Jackson Street and Kentucky Street frontages. According to the applicant, the need for an underground stormwater detention tank system and a bio basin limit the available area to provide plantings along these street frontages. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 7 Staff is supportive of the requested BSM as limited available area exists for street frontage landscaping and the applicant has provided additional building foundation and paved area landscaping to offset the reduced street frontage landscaping. Yards Code requires 20 landscaping points per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The applicant has not included yard landscaping in the point total calculations. Due to the uniquely large floor area of the proposed school (117,000 sq. ft.) and limited available yard area, staff is recommending that the yard landscaping requirement be waived. Also, open lawn space may be more advantageous for a school setting than additional plantings. The combined total of all other landscaping categories (building foundation, paved areas, street frontages, bufferyards) exceeds the minimum requirement by over 1,000 total points. This serves to offset the reduced yard landscaping points. Bufferyards A 0.2 opacity bufferyard is required for property lines bordering Single Family Residential – 9 zoning districts. The 0.2 opacity bufferyard requirement is being met with a minimum 10’ bufferyard width along with 6’ solid fencing on all 3 sides of the residential lot. The bufferyard is being met along 4 other property lines abutting SR-9 zoning by providing a 15’ wide bufferyard and a minimum of 198 landscaping points per 100 feet. Signage Proposed signage for the site includes a 6’ 10” tall, approximately 40 sq. ft. monument sign including an electronic message center along the Kentucky Street frontage. The sign complies with the maximum ground sign area for the Institutional district of 1 sq. ft. of sign area per linear of street frontage, as well as the maximum EMC sign area of 100 sq. ft. for the site. A BSM is required for the sign placement as it is within the Kentucky Street front setback area and will be located approximately 64 feet from the residential properties to the east, where EMCs are not permitted within 100’ of a residentially zoned parcel. Staff is supportive of the reduced setback to approximately 19’ as it will match the setback of the drive aisle immediately to the south of the sign. Staff is also supportive of the reduced separation from the residential properties as the EMC will be relatively small in size and not face toward the neighboring residential properties to the east. Also, due to the site constraints, it does not appear feasible to move the sign further to the interior of the site. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 8 Site Lighting A photometric plan has been provided by the applicant. The provided plan is within the maximum 0.5-footcandle lighting level allowed at the property lines. The minimum lighting level of the 0.4-footcandle is being met for all parking and drive areas, except for the loading area at the northwest corner of the site. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the decreased lighting level as that area will be utilized for loading only and will not be utilized for parking. Proposed light fixture heights do not exceed the maximum height of 20’ and will be full cut-off fixtures. Building Facades Building Materials ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 9 The City’s Exterior Design Standards do not apply to Institutional land uses. However, the exterior design may be reviewed as part of the Planned Development review process. The petitioner has provided elevations for the building as well as a material list and material breakdown for the building for each building facade. The specific elevations breakdown is as follows: North: Class I – 82% Class III – 18% South: Class I – 78% Class III – 22% East: Class I – 78% Class III – 22% West: Class I – 85% Class III – 15% The proposed building elevations consist of a combination of stone, brick, glass, and metal panels. When compared to the Class I material allotment that would be required under commercial standards, the proposed elevations significantly exceed the minimum of 50% Class I materials for all facades. Staff feels that the proposed elevations provide an attractive appearance for the building and the significant proportion of Class I materials serves to offset requested BSMs. Staff is recommending a condition that all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from view per commercial building design standards. Overall Site The applicant is requesting BSMs related to impervious surface ratio, building height, street-side setbacks, and street frontage landscaping requirements as well as placement of the EMC sign. To offset these requested code exceptions, the applicant has exceeded building foundation, paved area, and bufferyard landscaping point requirements as well as provided enhanced building façade materials. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSMs and the overall site is compatible with the surrounding area. 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. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 10 (e) The proposed Planned Development project will incorporate appropriate and adequate buffers and transitions between areas of different land use and development densities/intensities. (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 relates to and more than compensate for any requested exceptions/base standard modifications variation of any standard or regulation of this Chapter. Staff recommends approval of the rezone, General Development Plan, and Specific Implementation Plan and the findings listed above with the proposed following conditions: 1. BSM to allow 66% impervious surface ratio, where code allows a maximum of 60%. 2. A Certified Survey Map (CSM) shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 3. BSM to allow building height of 48’ (60’ including mezzanine features), where code allows a maximum building height of 45’. 4. BSM to allow reduced street side setback (Jackson St.) to 18.75’, where code requires a 25’ setback. 5. BSM to allow reduced street side setback (Kentucky St.) to 16.5’, where code requires a 25’ setback. 6. BSM to allow reduced street frontage landscaping (Nevada St.) to 285.5 points, where code requires 393 points. 7. BSM to allow reduced street frontage landscaping (Kentucky St.) to 811 points including 120 medium tree points, where code requires 1,083 points including 541.5 medium tree points. 8. BSM to allow reduced street frontage landscaping (Jackson St. – south section) to 61.5 points including 61.5 medium tree points, where code requires 393 points including 196.5 medium tree points. 9. BSM to allow reduced street frontage medium tree landscaping (Jackson St. – north section) to 66 medium tree points, where code requires 155.7 medium tree points. 10. BSM to allow reduced yard landscaping points to 1,355.3, where code requires 2,340-yard landscaping points. 11. BSM to allow reduced street side setback for monument sign to 19’, where code requires a 25’ setback. 12. BSM to allow Electronic Message Board sign to be placed 64 ft. from the residentially- zoned parcel, where code requires a 100 ft. separation from residentially-zoned parcels. 13. BSM to allow a refuse enclosure to be located between a building and the public street. 14. A minimum of 40 evergreen tree landscaping points shall be provided in front of the dumpster enclosure. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 11 15. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 16. BSM to allow 0 fc lighting level for drive area along Jackson St., where code requires a minimum 0.4 fc for drive areas. 17. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened per commercial building design standards. The Plan Commission approved of the rezone, general development plan, and specific implementation plan on November 16, 2021. The following is their discussion on the item. Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz, Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp, Council Member Ford, Ms. Scheuermann, and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I- PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a new middle school development. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject parcels that are currently zoned Institutional (I) as well a zone change for 5 existing residential properties from Single Family Residential – 9 (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). This request is intended to provide consistent (I-PD) zoning for the subject parcels, which will allow the lots to be combined. The Planned Development Overlay will allow for flexibility from zoning ordinance requirements, which are needed to accommodate the proposed site development and the unique shape of the proposed lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning as it will help to accommodate the development of the site and allow for further review of the proposed development as it relates to surrounding residential uses. The applicant is proposing to combine the subject parcels for the development of a new Merrill Middle School, combining the existing Merrill Middle School and Webster-Stanley Middle School. This site was chosen for the new middle school through a referendum that was passed in November 2020. Elementary and Middle Schools are considered Indoor Institutional land use and are a conditional use in the Institutional District. A Plan Commission workshop was held on September 21, 2021, with Plan Commission voicing support for the proposed plans. A neighborhood meeting was held at the existing Merrill Middle School on September 9, 2021, with neighbors voicing concerns related to pick up/drop off of students, bicycle access/racks, location of the loading area along Jackson St., and appearance of the site as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development will have four driveway accesses off of Kentucky Street to two parking areas (main parking area and ADA/guest parking area) and one access off of Jackson ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 12 Street to a loading area to be used for deliveries only. The loading area will be surrounded by 4’ tall steel ornamental fencing to deter pedestrian and vehicle access to the area. The Department of Public Works has noted that the changes to the public right-of-way will need to be discussed in detail and the City will need to determine if the work along Kentucky Street is going to be approved. They have also noted that the public sidewalks need to be placed at the right-of-way line. The City Transportation Department has noted that a traffic impact analysist (TIA) has been reviewed and supported by the Traffic and Parking Advisory Board. Plans include flipping the one-way pairs of Kentucky St. and Central St., which has also been reviewed and approved by the Board, and the reversal of one-way traffic flow for these streets was approved by Common Council on November 9, 2021. The applicant is meeting applicable setbacks for the Institutional district, with the exception street side setbacks for parking/drive areas along Jackson St. and Kentucky St. According to the applicant, the reduced street side setbacks are needed to accommodate floor area and parking needs without forcing the building more toward the middle of the site, resulting in a need for additional building height. Staff is supportive of the reduced pavement setbacks for the drive areas as it is needed to accommodate access to needed parking and loading areas. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Davey asked where the reduced lighting is. Mr. Slusarek said it is off of Jackson St and the northern portion of that loading area. Ms. Scheuermann asked why reduced lighting is allowed in a loading zone. Mr. Lyons said that it's really the layout of the area. They went from 2 access points to a single access point. They have to have some backup room to get back out onto the street. Allows you to enter and exit in a forward motion. It was looked at as the limited capacity and limited use. Plan Commission could require them to up it to code minimum. Mr. Mitchell said that it sometimes pains him when they start a topic and they add the commentary in a way can be interpreted as they are only looking at this small portion of what the plan may be for. All of the sites in particular plan for the other site where the school currently sits and he knows that's not on the discussion. If they get too far along this development and the school district comes back and says, well, you approved all of that. And now we don't have enough space. And so this is our only alternative options for the other plot of land which includes potentially demolishing historically significant building. If they do move forward on this particular proposal today that Plan Commission needs to have some sort of come together or some sort of session where they see the full picture of what they're looking at, what they've considered what's been offered to them regarding open space, parks, space, that sort of thing. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 13 Mr. Lyons said that he appreciates the comments. Plan Commission does have a definitive role in this and as staff evaluated this. The other side, whether it is green space, or looks at potential housing from, from our perspective doesn't change the fact of what we're evaluating on this site is if this is an appropriate development for this site. I appreciate the comments and the feedbacks and understanding what they may do. They'll decide in the future, but from our perspective, the land use, and the decision made for this site are separate from that. Mr. Mitchell said when we transitioned from the golf course if we would have said, you know, we're not going to look at a full picture of it all and we're just going look at the gas station they want there. So, we're only going to look at that at that gas station, and not see how it flows with the potential other future developments. Not look how it impacts anything else we would not have been doing our job, nor would of the department and we didn't, we were pretty comprehensive on that. There was a full plan. Nate Considine, Bray Architects, said that it was very apparent in the neighborhood meeting that the existing neighbors, whether immediately adjacent to our site, or across the street from our site were respected a visibility perspective whether that's light levels, aesthetics, fencing. They had some input that we wanted to honor. Not lighting the corner was intentional. Most deliveries would happen when it is light outside. For the exiting Merrill sight, if you look back on referendum documents that area has been shown as a green space and the school district could still see it that way. Its future is still to be determined and Plan Commission will be a part of the plan. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Donald Kalmerton, 1310 Jackson St said he is one of the residential properties that will be surrounded by the new facility. To begin with, I would like to commend Justin Mitchell's comment about not going forward with this until you have all of the information. I personally have attended meetings and have not yet received any straight answers to my questions. I do not know that anyone fully understands what's involved here other than perhaps a few people at the school district, the neighborhood to the best of my knowledge. And all of the people that I chat with are not happy with things the way that they are. None of the property owners that are directly, by they proposed construction site are happy with the design or how it's laid out. The variance that the school district has asked for the building, as is designed really shouldn't be approved if you're trying to put in a building of this size into a residential area, it should be able to conform and blend in with the neighborhood. It doesn't. It's going to be a sore thumb. I strongly urged the planning commission to reject this application until a complete full plan of what is going to happen with the property is put before the planning commission and the citizens. I'd like to see that setbacks, even increased from 10 to 10 feet per story of construction. Um, based on the foot traffic and vehicle traffic on Jackson Street that this will affect and probably increase the way the current design is and I believe it will not function as you have it designed. I have asked for somebody to talk with about this and as of now, I still don't know who to talk to about this matter. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 14 Mr. Mitchell asked if the meetings that Donald attended were public official meetings that the school district had set up. Mr. Kalmerton said that they were neighborhood meetings by the neighborhood associations and a meeting set up by the school board. The other thing I'm highly critical of the school district. They notify some people of the meetings and not everyone. Mr. Lyons said the meeting that took place at Merrill, the city did the notice to make sure we could identify as many people as possible. In this instance, staff went much larger than normal. It was also sent to the neighbored organizations to help distribute. Mr. Mitchell said that the school board meeting in particular is something that could be valuable in the report when there’s a section on a community meeting and the general sentiment if it was positive. It would be helpful to receive better records. This allows us to make an informed decision on what issues were raised and how they are being addressed and what’s the rationale for not addressing them. Mr. Lyons said that Mr. Slusarek did reference it in his comments. Mr. Mitchell said that it ends up being a one or two sentence comment as opposed to actually seeing records similar to previous discussion about what we’re actually seeing and what the issues that were raised and what was the conversation that was had. It seems there are opportunities where we could be getting more information. Mr. Kalmerton said the response by the staff who prepared the notes for the meeting today are very short on the accuracy of how the local residents feel towards this project. You're looking at a project, which encompasses 2 parcels of property in excess of 154 Million dollars the facts, which the school district have referenced as justification for their actions have not been demonstrated to my understanding to be accurate look at the traffic patterns and the traffic counts. They referred to a traffic study. There was according to the traffic engineer who attended the meeting on Merrill Avenue. There was no study. He merely took the traffic engineer merely took the national averages and put it into his report for supplying to the school district. I think that's totally inaccurate. The lighting of the loading zone is inaccurate based on the heavy traffic on the Jackson side of the street. I believe it's justifiable to reduce the lighting on the rest of the building. Having said that I still go back to a building up this size in this area, which is residential should mean be set back at least 10 feet from the property lines for 10 feet for each story of construction. I have not been able to find anybody to honestly talk to after the last meeting on Merrill school. I was very disappointed about the meeting at Merrill school, because the members of the city staff members of the engineering staff members of the school district, all wore face mask and did not take their face masks off to speak. Their speech was muffled on the microphone. Sometimes you could understand it sometimes you couldn't. And there was no directory who was at the meeting, who put on the meeting and who you could contact. I spent 3 days trying to run down the people who were there to make comments or send letters to and I'm sorry but I just couldn't find anybody who could confirm anything this is my attitude on how this has been put forward so far. There are more shadows than facts here and I firmly believe that the zoning board did that, and ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 15 the planning commission here should not approve this. There's nothing here in front of you, which benefits the school district or benefits the city might in the future but there's nothing there. Now, I believe right now, because of the cost and everything else involved, it will actually do more harm to distribute than benefit. And I, and again, I am more than willing to talk or sit down and explain anything to anybody. Mr. Considine said thank you to all for attending and for the comments that have been voiced. Any questions regarding the referendum as mentioned at the neighborhood meeting can be directed to Dr. David Gundlach, the deputy superintendent of the school districted. He has fielded multiple phone calls and emails. I would encourage any conversation to continue to Dr. Gundlach at the school district. The school district has the best interest in the public, and the community, as it regards to that site and we'll look for further community and engagement and involvement as it relates to the existing building and what that site will do. James Fochs, Oshkosh Area School District, said that an exhaustive traffic study was performed, um, as is necessary for a facility of this size. Moreover, a secondary traffic study was done to try to verify or validate a couple of additional unforeseen traffic patterns by the request of the traffic commission, so there were several meetings with regard to vehicle traffic, drop off with regard to this facility. So again, I do appreciate the concern of the community and the planning commission. Mr. Mitchell said you noted that there were additional meetings and studies and I know that the report indicates that the traffic and parking advisory board discussed traffic analysis. Are those available anywhere. Something that I didn't see it on your website and I certainly don't have that. Is that something that is made available to the public. Mr. Considine say that when we went through the traffic advisory board, that report was made available during that process. I would assume that you would be able to grab it from the cities meeting minutes. Mr. Lyons said he will get those from traffic advisory board. Mr. Mitchell said that he feels like those sorts of things are a part of land uses and how it impacts traffic patterns and whatnot. We often talk about restricting entrance and exit and whatnot and that that would be another great thing to have included as we review this. It's a big decision. Mr. Lyons said from a timing standpoint, the reason that went before this is they did wanted council to weigh in on the flipping of the 1 way paired before site design got all the the way to the point for documents being ready for plan commission. So the TIA along with 1 way pairs preceded this part of the project. If council wasn't willing to approve that element of it, it would've substantially impacted the entire design so that's why that element went through its approving body, through the traffic advisory board and then ultimately council prior to the land use and site plan. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 16 Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Fochs understands that by moving forward on the proposal today in no way indicates or suggest the support for any sort of idea on the other land and that what we do today, doesn't give a go ahead or has no impact on any other lot that's not under consideration today and therefore it won't later come back and say, well, because you supported this, therefore, we have to have that additional space as blank. That this is a standalone thing. Mr. Fochs said that this is being treated as a completely separate project apart from this building. This building is a standalone project as was pointed out. So we are looking strictly at this facility. The existing parcel that you're referring to that is the existing Merrill middle and elementary school will be evaluated again on a month by month basis. Ultimately, a design standard will be determined in the future a date to which I do not have at this point again, because it is a constant evaluation as to what that will look like. But that will be a freestanding project a couple of years from now. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell said that I really appreciate the design that they put forth. I think this is a great project and I think it's a great location. I have one kind of real hold up in that we as a body have looked at other developments and there was two neighbors that made concerns and we said no because they couldn't address those concerns. I don't know what the neighbors’ concerns are here because we don't have any information on that. I would love to see this body say that bring this back in two weeks, provide us the information so we can see what the neighbors’ concerns are and what's been done to address them. Council Member Ford said that this is a hard one because some of the public comments and public outreach would have been done by the school district as opposed to the city. What is the outreach that has been done on this. Mr. Lyons said that the school district did a number of meetings prior to the referendum. I don't have specific dates or meeting notes from those during the planning process. The city was involved with helping them notice a neighborhood meeting and we sent representatives to the meeting at the existing middle school. There was a number of neighbors with comments made ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 17 directly about the referendum not wanting the school. Outside of those comments, the questions were about pick up and drop off and how that was going to take place. There were comments about the design of the building, some neighbors thought it was a good looking building and some didn’t. Council Member Ford asked if there would be a need for another vote on this referendum or anything involved with this new school. Mr. Lyons said to the best of his knowledge the referendum was passed and approved for construction for this school as well as the school at the other site and no additional referendum would be required. Ms. Davey said that we're sacrificing a lot of the landscaping points, and I understand why that's helpful not to have that around a school, but I don't want to see this become a trend. We have those landscaping points on there for a reason and it's a significant amount of points between the two buildings. When there are more parking spaces built, we are encouraging people to drive more. We are not encouraging people to use alternative transportation. I think that we need to really aware of how many parking places we build. Why don't we put some of that money into encouraging people to walk, bike or take buses. We need to be working as a community on encouraging more not car transportation and I don't see that we're doing that. I'd like to see the studies, I guess, to show how that's going to work. If this building had more of a rectangular footprint it could then have setbacks that were greater because there'd be more space available and I think that sometimes we tend to see just from our own viewpoint and kind of forget the overall view. Council Member Ford said that one of the conditions we are placing on this is that the final landscaping plan has to be reviewed and approved by the department community development and related to that within the report, discusses the need to change some of the screens and some of the buffer landscaping. So, presumably those recommendations that are in the report will be covered by that condition. Mr. Lyons said that is correct and the conditions are there to address the non-additional yard landscaping. That is the one that one truly deficient. If you take the yard landscaping out of the equation, they meet most of them, or we'll have to address those other elements that aren't being met outside of a little bit of foundation. We are recommending that there are some base standard modifications really specific to the yard where we reduce it with just the volume of this building and the site and the way it lays out staff feels that it's appropriate with the higher architectural elements to off some of that with landscaping. 6000 landscaping points is a lot of landscaping points for a site. Council Member Ford asked if there was any way to take away a couple of those parking spots to help get closer to the required impervious surface. It could go a long way to alleviate some concerns. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 18 Mr. Lyons said there are PTA and parent associations that say they want enough event parking and they want more parking. So when they come to watch their kids’ basketball game and whatnot, and then we have some of the city codes and our desire to look at sustainable practices that really butt heads and just trying to evaluate what is the best use in each situation. There's a lot more bump out to get cars out of travel lanes to help facilitate some of that waiting area for child pick up. It was significantly discussed as making sure we don't repeat the issues that Traeger had. Mr. Perry said as a property owner in an adjacent area next to the school, I think that the parking lot is probably not big enough on a Monday through Friday during school hours and after school hours. I can't even park within 300 feet of my property because of the street parking by all the staff employees and others. So I have no problem with the parking whatsoever. I also want to remind this board that we're not here to discuss the merits of what the school district did, or didn't do to get to this point. There was a referendum past. We're here to discuss the project that is in front of us right now and I think we've spent far too much time discussing what could, or couldn't have been, or what did, or didn't do we have a project in front of us and this is our duty right here. Ms. Scheuermann said there were suggestions made during workshop and if they had taken them into consideration. Mr. Lyons said they did not. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the plan will come back to the board. Mr. Lyons said that unless it gets tabled or council refers it back to the Plan Commission, it would not come back to the board. Ms. Scheuermann asked what the harm would be to table this for two weeks. Mr. Lyons said that zone change takes two readings in front of council, the 1st, which would be November 23rd. The 2nd would be December 14th. For statutory requirements delaying just the plain development portion of it. Now, the zone change portion of it would need to get done today, but ultimately we could move the zone change portion of it forward separate from the plan development. In the final decision. Date would all still end up in December 14th. Ms. Propp said that she recognizes this building is an intrusion into the neighborhood but that the current Merrill building is three stories. Delaying will not help any and we will not come up with any different conclusion. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend proceed with only the zone change. Seconded by Davey. Motion to amend lost 3-4. ITEM III: Rezone, GDP & SIP SE Corner W Nevada Ave. & Jackson St. 19 Original Motion carried 7-0. Specific Implementation Plan Submittal City of Oshkosh New Middle School October 18, 2021 To whom it may concern: The submittal being filed today is to revitalize the “Jackson Field” site between Jackson Street and Kentucky Street, as well as between Nevada Avenue and New York Avenue, to be a New Middle School for Oshkosh Area School District. This site has been known to be the future home of a New Middle School for OASD since referendum talks began prior to 2020. In November of 2020, over 60% of the community voted “Yes” to a larger referendum to build a New Middle School, a New Elementary School, and District-Wide Upgrades throughout Oshkosh Area School District. Specific to the New Middle School project, this project will unify two student populations. One being the current Merrill Middle School and the other being the current Webster-Stanley Middle School. An obvious theme to this project was unification as OASD has two study bodies, two staffs, and two school communities merging and unifying as one on the North side of Oshkosh. The building is largely two stories tall, with the “Core-Academic” classrooms such as Math, Science, History, English, being a three-story tall building. The building is nestled nicely into a prominent neighborhood on the North side of Oshkosh, paying homage to the historical Oshkosh, yet paving the future for young Oshkosh students. The building has many elective courses built into this new facility, plenty of space for Core Learning, and yet a very prominent community focused design. This building will invite members of the community to come in to use a ~1,000 SF Community Room outfitted for small meetings, a Community Classroom, a Three-Station Gymnasium with a public walking track, along with a shared public/class focused Fitness Room and Multi-Purpose Room used for exercise classes, etc. It is worth noting that in looking at the design of this site, it was very important to Oshkosh Area School District principals and administration that from a safety lense, that the guest entry from 8:00AM – 3:00PM be located on Kentucky Street. Putting that access off of Kentucky Street stuck out to be a safety concern for dropping and picking up kids as well as guest access during the day. As a full building and site design, and working with a site that has three front yards, it was determined that a single point of access should be considered off of Kentucky Street and directly lined up with Congress Avenue. Another site access point would be for the guest loop along Kentucky Street to allow for ADA and guest parking, that would enter North of Custer Avenue, and expel back onto Kentucky directly lined up with Custer Avenue. In going through the design with the City of Oshkosh, we acknowledged for a building of this size, we were likely to run into areas where the Planned Development process would be necessary. The following areas are areas that the design does not comply with the zoning standards set forth by the City of Oshkosh: 1- This building is only permitted to be 45’-0” tall. The building is 48’-0” tall. 2- The setback along Jackson St and Kentucky St is 30’-0”. We have a drive lane and dumpster enclosure within the setback along Jackson St. We also have a drive lane, and an electronic message board within the setback along Kentucky St. 3- The maximum impervious surface percentage per ordinance is listed at 60%. The current design puts the current impervious surface at 66%. 4- Per local ordinances, we are supposed to supply 1 foot candle of lighting at all paved drives. In the Northwest corner of the site, the drive area used for large vehicles to back up does have the called for lighting levels. To offset these items, the design of this facility and site has included above and beyond the minimum for landscape requirements. This is especially true along Kentucky St and Jackson St where the design gets into those setbacks. The drive lane within the setback along Kentucky St is designed as such to maximize the amount of ADA parking stalls closest to the guest entry during a typical school day. Lastly the lack of lighting in the Northwest corner of the site is intentional to treat the entire northern portion of the building the same architecturally and to the neighboring community. Since the access point from Jackson Street is for deliveries only, lighting the Northwest corner of the site would largely be unused by deliveries as deliveries are largely between 6:00AM and 5:00PM. Lastly, the existing Merrill School site is still part of a phased discussion to happen later on down the road. Whether that building remains and is sold or torn down to offer green space adjacent to this site, is still to be determined. It is also worth noting that the sequencing of the referendum has the new building fully functional for one full year while the current Merrill operates as a stand-alone Elementary School until the New Elementary School (part of the referendum) is built. On behalf of Oshkosh Area School District, we thank you for your time and willingness to work together to build a successful project in Oshkosh. Nate Considine, AIA, NCARB Delivery Team Leader | Architect Bray Architects REZONE/GDP/SIP MERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOL PC: 11-16-2021 PEPPLER PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 3301 OSHKOSH, WI 54903 PINE APARTMENTS IV LLC 3389 COUNTY ROAD A OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JASON R MENTZEL 113 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 STEVEN G/DIANE LEACH 121 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 NICHOLAS L TRAVIS 1156 MERRILL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 STACY A DEATON 203 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 PAUL E NICKOLAI 209 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JASON M/ERIKA LLOYD 213 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 HARTMAN FAMILY IRREV TRUST 219 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JOSHUA/JACQUELINE N LONG 450 LEMONGRASS WAY KAUKAUNA, WI 54130 PETER J/MARLO W VANDOREN 1261 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 SARA L VANBOOGARD 1267 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 ANDREW C SMITH LIVING TRUST 1271 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JUAN F/KATHY D GUZMAN 1301 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JESSICA GREENING 1307 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JEFF/JOSEPHINE R REDEMANN 1317 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 KA CHANG YANG/DAO CHANG 1403 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 CARTER L BOHN 1407 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 GORDON J OLSON ETAL 1413 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 BARBER ENTERPRISES INC 480 N PIONEER RD FOND DU LAC, WI 54937 MARY T MELCHIOR 1421 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 ROBERT W/BROOKE KNOLL N3111 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD FALL RIVER, WI 53932 SYDNEY M GRAY 302 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 STEVEN J BRUSS 1219 KENTUCKY ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 LOWELL H/IVA KALMERTON REV TRUST 1310 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 ROBERT C FERNAU 1264 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JOSEPH J KRAUS JR 1252 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 MICHAEL J ROSENBERG 1244 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 CHRISTOPHER/SUSAN BILLSTROM 1240 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JNL INVESTMENTS LLC W6079 RYFORD ST MENASHA, WI 54952 MARY CHRISTINE LEBELLE 1232 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 HILDEBRAND HOUSING COMPANY LLC W4461 DRUMLIN DR CAMPBELLSPORT, WI 53010 JEFFREY A KASTEN 1218 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 GREGORY C/MARY BETH BOSSERT 32 W NEW YORK AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JOHN P/SHARON C JONES 1222 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 ANN M SCHOEN 33 W TENNESSEE AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT PO BOX 3048 OSHKOSH, WI 54903 SHANE G/SUSAN K LUFT 133 W CUSTER AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 INGRID F TSCHECH 127 W CUSTER AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 WESLEY J/JAMES/PENNY KOTTKE 117 W CUSTER AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 BERHOLTZ RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 1804 N OAKWOOD RD OSHKOSH, WI 54904 ROBERT P FELDNER 1329 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 TRAVIS N JAGODZINSKI 1323 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 NICK L PAULOS 739 JEFFERSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 AMY J IMMEL 207 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 MARK W/LINDA NOTZKE 217 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JACOB M/SAMANTHA A PAMPERIN 1416 KENTUCKY ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 KIRBY L KNOBLOCH 1330 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 GRANT DAVIS/NICOLE M BOEHLER 1326 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 PETER H/JESSICA L ZABORSKI 1320 CENTRAL ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 MARTIN HOLDINGS LLC 325 WILSON ST AMHERST, WI 54406 ROBERT J/THERESA J RUBIN 283 CURRANT CT OMRO, WI 54963 LORI A MADES 30 W TENNESSEE AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JUNE D ZUEHLKE LIFE ESTATE 208 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 CYNTHIA L WEBB 222 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 JEFFREY L HEALEY 310 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54902 JUDITH M ZIEBELL 304 W NEVADA AVE OSHKOSH, WI 54901 ANTHONY E/COURTNEY E FOSTER JR 1500 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 SHIRLEY BRABENDER MATTOX 1313 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 CARLEEN CHRISTIANSON 1231 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH, WI 54901 NATE CONSIDINE, BRAY ARCHITECTS 829 S 1ST ST MILWAUKEE, WI 53204 JIM FOCHS 1404 S MAIN S OSHKOSH, WI 54902 East Hall JACKSON STJACKSON STW NEW YORK AVW NEW YORK AV CENTRAL STCENTRAL STKENTUCKY STKENTUCKY STW CUSTER AVW CUSTER AV TITAN CTTITAN CTSSAARRAATTOOGGAA AAVV ANNEX AVANNEX AV MERRILL STMERRILL STW NEVADA AVW NEVADA AV CONGRESS AVCONGRESS AV W TENNESSEE AVW TENNESSEE AVBBUURRDDIICCKKSSTT CENTRAL STCENTRAL STW NEVADA AVW NEVADA AV C:\Users\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 11/2/2021 1 in = 200 ft1 in = 0.04 mi¯MERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOLMERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOL 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 SR-9 I TR-10 SR-5 UMU UI I-PDSR-5 TR-10-PD SMU I I TR-10-UTO UMU SR-5-UTO SMU-PD UMU-PD I-PD MR-20 NMU MR-12 TR-10PDUTO NMU MR-20-UTO MR-12 IMR-20-UTOI-PD-UTO East Hall N MAIN STN MAIN STJACKSON STJACKSON STWISCONSIN STWISCONSIN STHARRISON STHARRISON STW NEW YORK AVW NEW YORK AV W MURDOCK AVW MURDOCK AV E MURDOCK AVE MURDOCK AV E NEW YORK AVE NEW YORK AV SCOTT AVSCOTT AVLLIIBBEERRTTYYSSTTONTARIO STONTARIO STWESTERN STWESTERN STEASTMAN STEASTMAN STHOBBS AVHOBBS AV CHERRY STCHERRY STW BENT AVW BENT AV JEFFERSON STJEFFERSON STBURDICK STBURDICK STCENTRAL STCENTRAL STMT VERNON STMT VERNON STW MELVIN AVW MELVIN AVKENTUCKY STKENTUCKY STE MELVIN AVE MELVIN AV BALDWIN AVBALDWIN AV E CUSTER AVE CUSTER AV STERLING AVSTERLING AV ANNEX AVANNEX AV VINE AVVINE AV W CUSTER AVW CUSTER AV ASHLAND STASHLAND STMERRILL STMERRILL STTITAN CTTITAN CTW NEVADA AVW NEVADA AV SARATOGA AVSARATOGA AV PROSPECT AVPROSPECT AV E NEVADA AVE NEVADA AV VILAS AVVILAS AV W TENNESSEE AVW TENNESSEE AV W BENT AVW BENT AV CCEENNTTRRAALLSSTTKENTUCKY STKENTUCKY STCENTRAL STCENTRAL STMT VERNON STMT VERNON STW NEVADA AVW NEVADA AV C:\Users\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 11/2/2021 1 in = 500 ft1 in = 0.09 mi¯MERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOLMERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOL 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\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 11/2/2021 1 in = 200 ft1 in = 0.04 mi¯MERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOLMERRILL MIDDLE SCHOOL 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