Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter (approved) - 5/10/2007 ce OJHKOfH ON THE WATEIl City of Oshkosh Dept. of Community Development Planning Services Division 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 (920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Jackson R. Kinney Director Dept. of Community Development Darryn Burich Director Planning Services Division May 10, 2007 Mr. Gregory Kargus 2934 Shorewood Dr Oshkosh, WI 54902 Re: 908 Wisconsin St. Dear Mr. Kargus: On May 9, 2007 the Board of Appeals approved a variance to permit the creation of a new single- family dwelling with a two space off street parking area with a 4 ft. rear yard setback for the building, a 4 ft. rear yard setback and 0 ft. side yard setback for the parking area. The decision of the Board was filed in the Planning Services Division Office of the Department of Community Development on May 10, 2007. Per Section 30-6(C)(3) and (4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, your variance will expire on November 10, 2007 unless you have started construction for the activity allowed by the variance. If you fail to begin construction by this date, you must reapply for a variance if you intend to go ahead with the activity allowed by the variance. Please be advised that any person or persons aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may commence action in Circuit Court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision. Permits may be issued on approval of the Board, but you should be aware that further action could take place until as much as 30 days after the date of the decision. Building permits may be applied for from the Inspection Services Division in Room 205 at the Oshkosh City Hall between 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 12:30 - 1 :30 PM, Monday thru Friday, or call (920) 236-5050 for an appointment. Please bring all required building plans and information necessary for review when obtaining your building permit. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (920) 236-5057. Re~ Todd Mue er Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator TM/kj g ~C: Inspection Services Division, City Hall I. 908 WISCONSIN STREET It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing occurred on March 14, 2007 and was denied 0-5. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, has altered his proposal and is requesting the second hearing. The most significant change to the proposal is the reduced footprint of the principal structure. By doing so, the front and side yard (north) setback variance requests related to the new single- family dwelling at the first hearing have been eliminated Additionally, the solidfence requirement and front yard setback variance requests related to the two- space off street parking area have been eliminated since the first hearing. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, Kargus Properties LLC-owner, request variances to permit the creation of a new single-family dwelling with a two space off street parking area. The following request is related to the proposed new single-family dwelling: Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) I) 25' rear yard setback Proposed 4' rear yard setback The following requests are related to the proposed new two space off street parking area: Required (Section 30-36 (C)(5)) II) 25' rear yard setback III) 7"h' side yard setback IV) 12' maximum driveway width Proposed 4' rear yard setback 0' side yard setback 15' driveway width The subject 0.05 acre (approx. 2,250 sq. ft.) property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is in a Planned Development (PD) Overlay District. The R-2 PD designation for the overall area was established in 2001 (Resolution 01-58) as a result of a petition submitted by area residents. Prior to the down zoning, a majority of the area was zoned R-5 Multiple Dwelling District (see attached). Generally speaking, the area was developed prior to the Zoning Ordinance originally as a single-family neighborhood. However, over time, the homes were converted to student rentals that were not designed for multi-family density. The parcel is rectangular in shape (54' x 42') and the general area can be characterized as high density residential. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Gregory Kargus, 2934 Shorewood Dr. said without a building on the lot the lot is worthless. Also, since the lot has been vacant he has had ongoing problems with cars parking on the property and has had to call the police to have them ticketed. There have also been two piles of dirt dumped on the property. Mr. Kargus said he could see that it would be an ongoing problem if left undeveloped. Mr. Carpenter requested clarification of what had changed from his first request. Mr. Muehrer explained that the footprint of the building has been reduced so that the front yard setback of 15' is being met. Also a solid wood fence would be constructed. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 9, 2007 Mr. Kargus said he would be okay with a 12' wide driveway. The only reason he had proposed the variance for the driveway to be 15' wide is because that is the width of the current curb cut. Mr. Muehrer mentioned that the structure would now be a two-bedroom home instead of a four-bedroom home. Mr. Wilusz asked staff under what circumstances could a house be re-built on the property. Could the previous home be rebuilt? What if it was a primary residence and not a rental? Mr. Muehrer said nothing could be built on the lot without getting variances. He also stated that not every lot has to have a building on it. Mr. Wilusz said the main question to determine is whether or not there is a hardship. The lot is a bad situation from a zoning standpoint, and the fire has made it an even worse situation. Mr. Wilusz' feeling was that this did create a hardship. Mr. Muehrer said Mr. Kargus does have options. He could consolidate the lot to the parcel to the south and use it in relation to that house. Mr. Wilusz asked who owned the property to the south. Mr. Kargus said he did but that it is a separate parcel. He also said he did not have anything to do with the fact that it is a separate lot. The previous house had probably been there for over 100 years. Mr. Carpenter asked what would happen to the lot if Mr. Kargus were not allowed to build on it. Would the city take it over? Mr. Muehrer said no, it would be under Mr. Kargus' ownership until he sells it. Mr. Cornell said he goes by the property all the time and the same car is parked there. He thought perhaps the owner of the car had permission to park there. Mr. Kargus said no one was given permission to park there. Referring back to the new request, Mr. Lang asked what the parking requirement is for a 2-,bedroom home. Mr. Muehrer said two car spaces are needed. Mr. Lang referred to page 6 of the staffreport and asked Mr. Kargus if the cement slab of23'xI8'6 is for parking. Mr. Kargus said yes, that is the area for the parking, but that he may add a side entrance to the home and that the parking area would then be moved back depending on where the stairway would be located. Mr. Lang asked ifthe two cars had to park parallel to each other or could they be end to end. Mr. Muehrer said they could not be end to end. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 9, 2007 Mr. Cornell asked if the lot could be used as parking space for 522 Scott St. Mr. Muehrer said it could be with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lang asked if there could be a garage built on the lot. Mr. Muehrer said yes, if it was combined with the abutting parcel. Mr. Carpenter voiced his concern that if the lot did not get developed it would be a constant eyesore because of potential dumping on it. It would be better to have a house on it. Ms. Hentz said she tended to agree with Mr. Carpenter that it would create a larger tax base with a building on it. Mr. Carpenter said if Mr. Kargus went with a 12' wide driveway that would reduce the requested variances to three. Mr. Lang said he would not support the request since there is 0' setback for the driveway which will create difficulty with snow removal. The only place for it to go is on the 15ft. setback. Mr. Cornell said the property could be maintained if it were leveled and seeded so that it would not be an eyesore. The criterion does not allow the decision of the board to be made due to financial consequences. Ms. Hentz said it wouldn't matter how beautiful the lot would be. Students don't care and would continue to park on it. Mr. Muehrer said if the lot were to remain vacant the City would enforce any codes to mitigate the illegal parking and garbage dumping issues. Also the city has dealt with similar circumstances in regard to substandard lots in the Near East Neighborhood and the guidelines used are directly from the "Land Use and Zoning Recommendations" section of the Near East Neighborhood Plan: "whether parcels are vacant or contain structures, if they are so substandard in size that there is insufficient area for a structure, compliant parking and recreation, they should be acquired, cleared if necessary, and combined with abutting parcels to create viable lots." The city does not look at this as a viable lot. Mr. Wilusz asked for clarification of the phrase "should be acquired." Does that mean acquired by the city? Is there a program for purchasing substandard lots? Mr. Muehrer said yes, Ms. Keppinger handles that program and could answer any questions in regard to it. Motion by Lang to approve the request with the deletion of item IV Seconded by Cornell. Motion approved 3-2. Ayes-Carpenter/Wilusz/Hentz. Nays- Cornell/Lang. Finding of Facts: Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 9, 2007 Strict compliance with the code would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the lot. A building will eliminate potential problems that a vacant lot would create. There will be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. II. Church & Christian Day School, applicant and owner, are requesting a var' ance to permit a sign with a nt yard setback of 12' on Algoma Boulevard. Section 30-18 (B)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code. R-l C Single Family Central Residence District of the City of Oshko Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' fron ard setback. The subject 4.93-acre approx. 214,931 sq. ft.) property is currently zoned lC Single Family Central Residence and is also 'thin the Algoma Boulevard Historic District ( e subject property is not a contributing historic prope y). The property features an existing church wit an attached elementary school. The parcel is located on the orth side of Algoma Boulevard, north of ngress Avenue and south of W. Bent A venue. The area's gene ] land use can be characterized as a mix f low-density residential dwellings (many of which are on the N ional Register) and cultural/recreat' nal uses (Oshkosh Public & Paine Museums, Hiker Monument). Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Steve Fields, 1526 Algoma Blvd said t intersection has hanged to create two one-way streets and this change has impacted the visibHity of the cUff t sign. Mr. Fields presented photos mentioning that the Ii ting or the sign will be closer to the driveway and help identify the entrance. Mr. Fields also explained that photos show what the sign would look like ifit were in the current position and what it would look like if i ere moved back to comply with current zoning regulations. Mr. Wilusz asked if the sign would be a lighted Mr. Fields said yes. He also shared that he h 8 been in touch with e Historical Society and they had no problem with the sign. Mr. John Kelly, 1428 Algoma Blvd sai e has lived next to the church fo 24 years. The church had asked for a Conditional Use Permit years ag to have a kindergarten and first grad 'n the basement of the church. Mr. Kelly was agreeable to that prop sal. Several years after that the church ted to add to the school and assured Mr. Kelly it would be on E wood Ave. Mr. Kelly again was agreeable the proposed addition, but the school ended up with the ayground right next to his backyard patio area, ing it un-useable at times due to the noise and prese e of the children next door. In Mr. Kelly's opinion the ch ch has been misusing the property excessively, given that i s III a residentially zoned neighbo ood. It is no longer just a church used on Sundays. Mr. Kelly' s aware that the size of the sign (14'1 x 7.5 h) is permitted, however his feeling is that since the neighborhoo 's residential he is opposed to a billbo d going up next to his property. Board of Appeals Mi u s 6 May 9, 2007 o ~ OJHKOJH City of Oshkosh Planning Services Division 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 (920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Jackson R. Kinney Director Dept. of Community Development Darryn Burich Director Planning Services Division BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA. May 9, 2007 3:30 PM To Whom It May Concern: Please note the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals will meet on WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 at 3:30 PM in Room 404 at the Oshkosh City Hall to consider the following agenda. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF APRIL 11,2007 MINUTES I I. 908 WISCONSIN STREET It should be noted this is the second hearingfor this application. The original hearing occurred on March 14, 2007 and was denied 0-5. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, has altered his proposal and is requesting the second hearing. The most significant change to the proposal is the reduced footprint of the principal structure. By doing so, the front and side yard (north) setback variance requests related to the new single- family dwelling at the first hearing have been eliminated. Additionally, the solidfence requirement andfront yard setback variance requests related to the two space off street parking area have been eliminated since the first hearing. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, Kargus Properties LLC-owner, request variances to permit the creation of a new single-family dwelling with a two space off street parking area. n. 1526 ALGOMA BLVD Martin Luther Church & Christian Day School, applicant and owner, are requesting a variance to permit a sign with a front yard setback of 12' on Algoma Boulevard. Section 30-18 (B)(3)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-IC Single Family Central Residence District of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' front yard setback. III. 601 W 6th AVENUE Charles Showers-applicant, Kelly J. Burnett-owner, request the following variances to permit the creation of a new single-story office building with off-street parking: Required (Section 30-35 (B)(l)(c)) I) 25' transitional yard setback (north) II) 25' transitional yard setback (north) III) 19'3" transitional yard setback (west) IV) 19'3" transitional yard setback (south) Proposed 4' transitional yard setback (parking) 0' transitional yard setback (building) 0' transitional yard setback (parking) 12' transitional yard setback (building) , The subject 0.14 acre (approx. 6,155 sq. ft.) property is zoned C-3 Central Commercial District and is located on the southwest comer at the intersection of W. 6th Avenue and Ohio Street. The lot is rectangular in shape (approximately 68'x 90') and the general area can be characterized as mixed commercial-residential. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of BOA procedures Discussion of re-appointments/appointments Discussion on Minority Findings of Fact ADJOURNMENT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION AT (920) 236-5059, BETWEEN 8 AM - 4:30 PM, MONDAY THRU FRIDAY STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 2007 ITEM I: 908 WISCONSIN STREET GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing occurred on March 14, 2007 and was denied 0-5. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, has altered his proposal and is requesting the second hearing. The most significant change to the proposal is the reduced footprint of the principal structure. By doing so, the front and side yard (north) setback variance requests related to the new single-family dwelling at the first hearing have been eliminated Additionally, the solidfence requirement and front yard setback variance requests related to the two space off street parking area have been eliminated since the first hearing. Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, Kargus Properties LLC-owner, request variances to permit the creation of a new single-family dwelling with a two space off street parking area. The following request is related to the proposed new single-family dwelling: I) Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) 25' rear yard setback Proposed 4' rear yard setback The following requests are related to the proposed new two space off street parking area: Required (Section 30-36 (C)(5)) II) 25' rear yard setback III) 7Y/ side yard setback IV) 12' maximum driveway width Proposed 4' rear yard setback 0' side yard setback 15' driveway width The subject 0.05 acre (approx. 2,250 sq. ft.) property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is in a Planned Development (PD) Overlay District. The R-2 PD designation for the overall area was established in 2001 (Resolution 01-58) as a result of a petition submitted by area residents. Prior to the downzoning, a majority of the area was zoned R-5 Multiple Dwelling District (see attached). Generally speaking, the area was developed prior to the Zoning Ordinance originally as a single-family neighborhood. However, over time, the homes were converted to student rentals that were not designed for multi-family density. The parcel is rectangular in shape (54' x 42') and the general area can be characterized as high density residential. ANALYSIS In reviewing a variance request, the following questions should be addressed: When considering an area variance, the question of whether unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty exists is best explained as "whether compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome." 1 STAFF REPORT ITEM I -2- BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 2007 Are there any unusual or unique physical limitations of the property, which create a hardship? Will granting of a variance result in harm to the public interest? The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the development of a new two bedroom, single-family dwelling with an uncovered two space off street parking area on a substandard lot. Per the applicant, the new dwelling will be a 1,288 sq. ft. (23 'x 28') bi-level structure upon completion. The Board may recall that the applicant proposed a 1,500 sq. ft. (25'x 30') four bedroom dwelling at the first hearing. The previous 50+ year-old dwelling was destroyed by fire on 02/07/07. According to . City of Oshkosh Assessor's Office, the previous legal nonconforming 1 ~ story structure included 1,278 sq. ft. oftotal area, 5 bedrooms, and 2 full baths: . According to the applicant, the variance requests will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties because the new house will be further from the previous structure setbacks and several structures of similar design are located within the neighborhood. The applicant also states since an alley lies directly to the north and a parking lot lies to the east of the subject property, the new structure will not be located close to any structures. In the applicant's opinion, the special conditions related to the subject lot that do not apply to surrounding lots are its small dimensions, which limit the buildable area. The applicant believes hardships will be imposed if the variances were not granted because the lot would be un-buildable and the remaining vacant lot would have no value on its own. Although the revised application has mitigated some concerns regarding establishing a dwelling on a grossly substandard lot, the present application. still requests significant relief from setback standards that would undermine the Zoning Ordinance's purpose and intent. In particular, the requests to reduce the 25' rear yard setback standards for both the proposed new dwelling and off street parking area down to 4' is most concerning. Likewise, the current proposal is requesting a complete reduction to the 7 ~' side yard (south) setback requirement to provide required off street parking. The severely reduced setback requests would create a large amount of impervious surface on the property. The severely reduced setbacks, coupled with the new paved/asp halted driveway and off-street parking area (that would be required by Code if approved), and internal sidewalks would limit available open space for snow removal/storage and infiltration of storm water. Limited on-site open space and reduced yard areas would reduce leisure and recreational opportunities for residents as well. Aesthetic and design concerns are present as well. Since no formal plans or building elevations have been submitted, details such as orientation of the house to the street, primary/secondary access to and from the dwelling unit, and internal sidewalks remain open-ended at this point. Also, while required setbacks effectively make the lot un-buildable, the vacant . lot still possesses value. Although the subject lot would not be able to maximize improvement value, the land itself still possesses contributory value and could be sold to adjacent 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM I -3- BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 2007 property owners. Under this scenario, the property could be used as a rear yard area for open space, garage, and/or accessory structure purposes. It should also be noted that when analyzing the rest of the block, the remaining properties are either 42 or 43 feet wide by 136 feet deep. While city records do not indicate when the subject parcel was split, it is clear the original intent of the platting of this area was to create uniform lot dimensions. The subject lot and its subsequent division from the parent parcel has created a disruptive flow to the neighborhood character and created an un-buildable nonconforming lot. Finally, this is a classic example of a nonconforming structure constructed prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance that cannot meet current district standards. Therefore, when events like this occur, no matter how unfortunate, it is an opportunity to bring the affected nonconforming property into a conforming (or more conforming) state with current ordinance standards. Every property owner with a nonconforming lot runs the risk of similar incidents occurring and losing the investment potential. However, financial hardship is not a deciding factor when granting variances. Moreover, the public interest is best served by enforcing current districts standards. The City of Oshkosh has reinforced this policy in its Near East Neighborhood Plan, which was established to address similar circumstances where infill projects were inappropriately designed and scaled. The following is from the "Land Use and Zoning Recommendations" section: "Whether parcels are vacant or contain structures, if they are so substandard in size that there is insufficient area for a structure, compliant parking and recreation, they should be acquired, cleared if necessary, and combined with abutting parcels to create viable lots. Substandard lots and lots with awkward configurations would be disposed of to one or more abutting property owners on a case by case basis as the dimension and shape of the subject lot relate to the dimension and shapes of abutting properties. " RECOMMENDATION Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends denial of the variances requested. 3 Please Type or Print in BLACK INK ~ QfH<Q7R ON TKE W1J'ER Return to: Department of Community Development 215 Church Ave. P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 CITY OF OSHKOSH APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Please submit a complete reproducible site plan (maximum size 11" x 17"). (Acomplete'site plan includes, but is not llimited to, all stI'4ctures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is submitted. Address of Parcel Affected: 908 Wisconsin. Street Oshkosh, WI 54901 JPetitioner: Greaorv R. Karqus (Kargus Prqperties LLC) Home Phone: 920-233-5272 J[letitioner's Address: 819 Oreqon Street Oshkosh. WI Signature Required:, ~ ~7--- Owner(ifri~t~;. ;, . Owner's Add.ress: 54902-WorkPhone: .920""'23]..;.,0526 Date:.. 4/2/2007 ;Holi1e:~~one:. ?tJO-eJ::S.1~S~?;:) .WorkPhon~: rrlt!) y-. ;;; 3./~ (!).!;'J.' Signature Required: " .j"' "Date: , .i In order to be granted a variance, each applicant must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship-would be created if the variance is not granted. The burden of proving an unnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant.The attached sheet provides information on what constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to'provide the information requested. Additional information may be requested as needed.) 1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance: The structure located at 908 Wisconsin was destroyed by fire on 2/7/2007. The site measures 54' x 42' whmch is a substandard size lot. I am requestinq a variance for front, side and rear setbacks. due to the sma] 1 Rl7.e of t.ne lot., so that a new residential structure can .be constructed on the lot. The proposed new house structure will measure 23' x 28'. The requested setbacks would be 15 feet from the front yard, 7.r::. feet side yard on the north side~8.5 feet from the south side yard and 4 feet from the rear (east) yard. A solid wood fence will be constructed alonq the south and east lot lines. SUBMit. ED BY APPLICANT " 4 t-t\ I ~ ~ 2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties: '!he new structure will be further from the previous structure setbacks. '!he design of t~e new structure will be a bi-Ievel single family dwelling. Several structures of similar desion are located within the neiqhborhood. An allevlies directlY to the north of the sub;ect and a parkinq lot lies to the east so the new structure will not be located close to any structure. 3.. Describe the special conditions th~tapply" to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots 01,":,;; , .. . .. stru~t~res: .. .' . ,,'.. .... ......... . . .. '!heexistinq lot is smaller. than any' oth~r 10tf:l.in theneiqhborhood. The '''/i),c " small size of this lot seriouslY limits the buildable.area.of.thelot. 4. Describe the ~ardship that would result if your variance were not granted: Without a variance for relief from the setback requirements the lot is unbuildable. The qrantinq of the variance will improve the setback sit.uation that is current Iv present. Without a variance the remaininq vacant lot has. no value. SU9!\ll!: ~ EO BY .~J"!"l'C.~..NT 5 --/ , N 7..(' fJUiy 15" L\/o-, :..~~~ ~J ~F ~;O.-. "R~ G.v..:~...J ? Ii _ U l r;,o,.l;.t1la.~ KI,)\ I -- ~~ LI' _ 1b ~ ~-~':o 1<1 ~)I 7~' I.-(t '1' f\(1.I;l I' P Lv e:i.-LI111 2.- &..fi-1iD..... ].. U;L8B ~~~. . PCiV'l.l(fil11 ~o i1 J) W~C\ J) F( V1( f 4;). '. JI ..~ - ~-fj'f--- J.~I IS' C~/2..(J ..s LI ' c,i.4 t- tJ/.trtJ'1 !..Iv ~ f \ ',\0 SUBMlnED BY APPLICANT Sv I o I I "'Ir. " Dw ....fL.' .. ".' ....~,. ","'." ~.'.', .... .... 6 : . -..' ...~_... '.,- ..~.-:." ;'"-" ':':"', - ,-.-," . .. Impression antibourrage at a sechage rapide Utilisez Ie gabarit 5160CB> BOA .908 WISCONSIN ST May 9, 2007 STANG LAURA L 905 WISCONSIN ST OSHKOSH WI 54901 3681 SULLIVAN RENTALS LLC 4: 11 HOUSTON ST RIPON WI 54971 91B Wisconsin Ave - www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY - NICOLET INVESTMENTS OF OSHKOSH LLP 3389 COUNTY ROAD A OSHKOSH WI 54901 1414 917 Wisconsin St DELTA CHI FRAT INC 254 N MEADOWBREEZE CT APPLETON WI 54915 5503 911 Wisconsin St ~AVERY@ 5160CB> CK PROPERTIES LLC 1125 MALLARD AVE OSHKOSH WI 54901 51B Scott Ave KARGUS PROPERTIES LLC 819 OREGON ST OSHKOSH WI 54902 522 Scott Ave 7 (]]ill..;f'2'6:~~ 1~U,U' :r: ~ 0 (9 0 ci 0) I- '<t '<t 120.0' C/) - ~ r:t: -.- 0) Z '<t ~ $ --------- 120.0' ~ 0) - 0) CJ) Z 0 43.0~ 43.0' 0 C/) - S i;; ,('I) '..... SUBJECT SITE SCOTT I 10 o N -.- 60.0' o Of (0' 54.75' 114.75' 60.0' --~------- . ......- ~ . _. ~ - . -.- 147.38' This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and it is not Intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilatiOn of records, data c<nd information located in various city, county and state offices and other sources affecting the area shown and it is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. ~f discrepencies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. 908 Wisconsin St DISCLAIMER OJHKOJH Scale: 1" = 60' ON THE. WATER City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development Created by - kjg February 13, 2007 8 ~ ==r---::::~' , == i= = f-- _= -f-- I--- _ - -~ I--- _ _ .-.... I-- - -.-- --I rr .,. fF= ~-7 :L - - ~ -::;. 1"1 == ~ :J'-; - ,-- I!== =- ':::::: I~_;;: ==n L!t ~ - II IU- ;=r I T ujll I~ 1 Ft I ~ 1 I W- ~~ ;~ II lJ "!~ I AVE. ,D. r --I'PlrtH'H' I ~ Rlfr I~ IEO :~ I/U ~"7 == ~ ~ ., I.... ;;;;' _ ~ '-J- ::;::; _ ~\T =:=-:: Q ::. r I ,'~:; 'M I R R . ,,-, ,',.I- i I lit-' I rf1 F .. I ;/;: --L = DH~ I IIJ [7. rc: ~. _ r=r . " ~ -- SUBJECT r- ~'~ r,;;;;,- ::1 SITE r- .... e;- .Z.,L --II I.. .- sz..r- V~. tttllll'}- ~ III ~ ~ tJJitj~B ffij tj~ I ~~ ~ ~JI~r~ ~fjJ Fit f ~ ~$ ~ ~\I,,~ ~~ II == I~~l~ ~_ ~~ ~~~III ~~~ Iwh~~\~l~ ~ ~ I ~~ II' - ~ U_~ 1:~~ -~ -= ~- I [[\ -{: TI ~iffil ~ ~~ ~;'~ !.~L= _ ~, == ~ 1s= ~,. ~- J.;.- ~.BEIl ~::c ~ ::J;~ ~_ 1i _ II~ ~ ~ ~j= ~ ~= fZ :2 ::~~l\tlN~~\ =~ =1; ~r;- == T1 mrn =i= ~~ Rtf [ = - . ~ 2r:::= lJ..J. k, w fEi till 'l~T 11 ~ =t= i IT . lli h I'" V I' ''9''''1 ~I =n ~ '-'- ~ 1 I- =r -I ;=:= f= W- J H -- -- f- Jj LE)~ ~"ll V HSII A\ r- ~= == = ::::c:: t= -"-'- ;;0;;' I--~ 1--- =:;_ ~ -I-- 1 I 1 b, 'n 1--1--- 1--- __" f-- I T'm I-J F'rl LI-- 1---- . ," ~ . - I r-- 1--..", I-- I--- I--- '-- - .:.z...- I V I\J 1Uf"J Aj'v ~ . '--i r---- i::- I L \ d' ~. ~~~/~~~~~~ ~ <8V/~ ~<. ~ -;L EEmtlh11 Z ~SJ ~ ~ ~ _';"'J~~ t9pr .d1 -....- "- ="- -'-- -'-- -- -- == -- -. -- -- :--- 1--- =~ '- ~ ...5 ..L~ =-!:;:: ~ i=" ~ nil E[ .... - '"1( Q_ ~-51 ~ DISCLAIMER This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, data and information located in various city, county and state offices and other sources affecting the, area shown and it is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepencies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Created by - kjg ~ =-th )ri f- ~' t= ~ e-t---.- ~.o:~;::: ~ ---< -< \. u -,"'- II - - - - prqlNI J~ ~ ~ ~ I I--- = l.C:L o I'- .. I---- Sl- o o ........ ........ - U =-- &:I II- ( ~ ~ -g 2:L ~" U I- ~. H \ ,- 17 ~PDJ 908 Wisconsin St OJHKOJH Scale: 1" = 600' ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development February 13, 2007 9 DISCLAIMER This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, data and information located In various city, county a nd state offices and other sources affecting the area shown and it is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepencies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. 908 Wisconsin St OJHKOJH Scale: 1" = 1 DO' ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development Created by - kjg February 13, 2007 i( Attachment to BZA Packet 03/14/07 908 \Visconsin Street View of south lot line looking east View of south lot line looking west 11 Attachment to BZA Packet 03/14/07 908 Wisconsin Street View of \vest lot line looking south Vie\\! of west lot line looking north . ,-. 12. Attachment to BZA Packet 03/14/07 908 Wisconsin Street View of north lot line looking east View of no!1h lot line looking west 13 Attachment to BZA Packet 03/14/07 908 Wisconsin Street View of east lot line looking nOlth View of east lot line looking south 14 Attachment to BZA. Packet m!l4/07 908 \Visconsin Street View [raIn Wisconsin Street looking southeast View fi-om Wisconsin Street !oo'kingeast '-, 1~ Attachment to BZA Packet 03/14i07 908 \\/isconsin Street View from V\lisconsin Street looking northcStst 16