HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter (BZA - variance) - 11/17/08w City of Oshkosh Jackson R. Kinney
Dept. of Community Development Director
~` Planning Services Division Dept. of Community Development
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 Danyn Burich
(920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX Director
htto://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Planning Services Division
November 17, 2008
Mr. John Landolt
934 N. Main St.
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Re: 934 N. Main St.
Dear Mr. Landolt:
On November 12, 2008 the Board of Appeals approved a variance to permit a building addition with
a 5'S" transitional yard (east) setback with the following conditions:
1. The style and design of the proposed 6' high cedar fence shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Community Development prior to installation.
The decision of the Board was filed in the Planning Services Division Office of the Department of
Community Development on November 13, 2008. Per Section 30-6(C)(3) and (4) of the City of
Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, your variance will expire on May 13, 2009 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 meat (920) 236-5059.
Res~pe-ctf--ul-ly,
ti ~ ~ ~ ...
Todd M. Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
TMM/dff
CC: Inspection Services Division, City Hall
Bill Aubrey, AEC Architects, 2014 Shawnee Ln.
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
November 12, 2008
PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz
EXCUSED: Mark Nielsen, Moss Ruedinger, Cheryl Hentz
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording
Secretary
Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
The minutes of October 8, 2008 were approved with the correction noted that the vote on the minutes of the September
24, 2008 meeting should be 3-0-1 rather than 4-0 as Ms. Hentz was not present for that meeting and therefore
abstained from the vote. Penney/Corne114-0.
ITEM I: 934 NORTH MAIN STREET
Bill Aubrey, AEC Architects-applicant, John E. Landolt Jr.-owner, request a variance to permit a building addition
with a 5'S" transitional yard (east) setback. Section 30-35 (B)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional
Standards and Exceptions requires a 19'2" transitional yard setback. The applicant/owner previously requested and
was granted (4-0) a 10'4" transitional yard setback on May 14, 2008.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.
John Landolt, 264 South Clay Road, Van Dyne, and Bill Aubrey, AEC Architects, 2014 Shawnee Lane, were present
to answer questions from board members. Mr. Aubrey mentioned that the building addition meets code for fire
separation requirements. He further mentioned that they did not have any issues with the condition requiring the style
and design of the 6' high cedar fence be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior
to installation.
Board members discussed the possibility of the owner acquiring a portion of the property to the east of his site. It was
determined that this concept would not be possible as it would not leave sufficient yard for the owner of the residential
property.
Mr. Cornell asked for clarification of the fence location.
Mr. Muehrer pointed out the area on the site plan where the fence was to be located.
Board members also questioned if the staff had any neighbors who had objections to the variance requested.
Mr. Muehrer responded that he only heard from one neighbor who did not object to the variance, but was questioning
the type of material that would be used for the fence.
Motion by Carpenter to approve a variance to permit a building addition with a S'S"transitional yard (east)
setback with the following conditions:
The style and design of the proposed 6' high cedar fence shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Community Development prior to installation.
Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 4-0.
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 November 12, 2008
Finding of Facts:
It is the least variance necessary to resolve issue.
There is no adverse impact on neighboring properties.
The property has unique limitations.
ITEM II: 1130 NORTH WESTFIELD STREET
Dan Rothe-applicant, Evergreen Manor Inc.-owner, request a variance to permit a reconstructed off-street parking lot
with a 0' front yard setback. Section 30-17 (B)(3)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-1 Single Family Residence
District requires a 25' front yard setback.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.
Dan Rothe, Environmental Services Manager for Evergreen Retirement Community, 1130 North Wes~eld Street, was
present to answer any questions that board members may have.
Mr. Penney questioned if they had any issues with the two conditions placed on the request.
Mr. Rothe stated they did not.
Mr. Carpenter inquired if the reduction in the parking stall depth addressed in the conditions would create a problem.
Mr. Muehrer replied that it should not be an issue as there is at least two feet of concreted area lost in the proposed site
layout.
Motion by Penney to approve the variance to permit a reconstructed off-street parking lot with a 0' front yard
setback with the following conditions:
1. A S' green area (as defined by Section 30-35 (I)(1)) shall be installed in the front yard setback
between the lot line and the paved surface of the reconstructed parking lot.
2. The required parking stall depth shall be reduced from 18' to 16' and concrete curb or wheel
stops shall be provided.
Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-0.
Finding of Facts:
The property has unique limitations.
It will be an improvement for safety reasons.
There is no adverse impact on neighboring properties.
III: 310 WEST IRVING AVENUE
Thomas Wagner-applicant/owner, requests a variance to permit multiple commercial identification signs. Section 30-
37 (F)(1)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Sign Regulations does not permit commercial identification signage in a
residential zoning district.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.
Karla and Marvin Seaver, 651 Jackson Street, stated that they have lived at the southwest corner of Irving Avenue and
Jackson Street for 20 years and they do not have any objections to the presence of the business at this location,
however they do have issues with the lighted sign that was recently installed. The glare from the sign is too intense.
Ms. Seaver stated that the owner has also added. a second sign in the window and lighting along the soffit. She
distributed photos of the building and discussed the possibility of light trespass from the illuminated sign and stated
that she felt it was inappropriate on the edge of a historic district. She further commented that the owner claimed that
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 12, 2008
the signage was so customers could locate his establishment, however the hours of the business are 8:00 am to 5:00
pm, Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Friday and the lighted sign is not on during those hours.
The sign is only illuminated at night when the business is closed so she feels that it is merely an advertisement for the
business. She also commented that the lights remain on all night and that this neighborhood has deteriorated over the
years and they feel that the size and brighfiess of this sign will only further depreciate their property. Mr. and Mrs.
Seaver also discussed the previous commercial use on this site which also had signage but it was not illuminated. She
stated that they understand the conditional use permit to allow the use on the site; she just does not feel that the lighted
sign is necessary.
Mr. Cornell questioned if there was any city ordinance regulating lighting being on all night.
Mr. Muehrer responded that the city has an ordinance that addresses the intensity of lighting only and not the hours
said lighting can be functioning. He further stated that he was not aware of the objection to the illuminated sign as the
complaint filed only stated that the signs were installed without the proper permit. He explained the procedure for him
to perform a light inspection with requires that lighting not exceed .5 foot candles at the property line. If lighting
exceeds that amount, either less intense bulbs need to be utilized or the lighting would be required to be redirected. He
suggested that the board members could add a condition to the variance request restricting the hours that the sign can
be illuminated. In regard to the lighting around the soffit, that was permissible.
Mr. Penney commented that the owner/petitioner requesting the variance for the insurance agency did not appear to be
present.
Board members briefly discussed previous variance requests of this nature and the need to have the sign illuminated all
night. Board members agreed that it would be advantageous to table this item to the following meeting to allow Mr.
Muehrer time to perform a lighting inspection on the site and contact Mr. Wagner, the owner/petitioner, to see if he
could be present at the next meeting to discuss this matter.
Motion by Penney to lay over the variance to permit multiple commercial identification signs in a residential
zoning district until the meeting of December 10th to allow for a lighting inspection to be completed on site
and the owner/petitioner be present.
Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 4-0.
DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES
Mr. Carpenter questioned when variances are approved with conditions, how much flexibility is allowed when the
project is completed.
Mr. Muehrer responded that conditions should be met appropriately and he usually attempts to go out and visually
inspect the site a year later to ensure compliance with the variance granted.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (Carpenter/Penney).
Respectful) submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 12, 2008
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 12, 2008
ITEM I: 934 N. MAIN STREET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Bill Aubrey, AEC Architects-applicant, John E. Landolt Jr.-owner, request a variance to
permit a building addition with a 5'S" transitional yard (east) setback. Section 30-35
(B)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standazds and Exceptions requires
a 19'2" transitional yard setback. The applicant/owner previously requested and was
granted (4-0) a 10'4" transitional yazd setback on May 14, 2008.
The subject 0.31 acre (approx. 13,560 sq. ft.) property is zoned C-3 Central Commercial
District and is being used as commercial automobile service garage (i.e. John's
Automotive Service Center). The parcel is a corner lot (N. Main Street & E. Melvin
Avenue) bordered by single-family lots to the east, amulti-family residential lot to the
south and commercial lots to the north (across E. Melvin Avenue) and west (across N.
Main Street). The general area is comprised of a combination of commercial uses and
low-density residential uses.
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, set
backs, 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."
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 property owner is in the process of remodeling and expanding the existing principal
commercial structure to meet growing business needs. According to City records, the
existing single-story commercial facility was constructed in 1965, is approximately 1,632
sq. ft. in azea, and located on the eastern side of the parcel. The Boazd previously
approved four vaziances on May 14, 2008, one of which was a 10'4" transitional yazd
(east) setback (see attached staff report and site plan).
However, since those approvals were granted and construction activities commenced, the
applicant discovered a drawing error occurred on the building plans. Specifically, the
proposed 36'x16' storage area addition located in the southeast corner of the lot would be
5' closer to the east property line if constructed as drawn (see attached site plan). Due to
this drawing error, the applicant/owner needs to receive approval from the Boazd for a
further reduced setback to 5'S" or they will need to reduce the proposed addition size to
meet the setback variance that was granted in May 2008.
Since the property is fairly limited in size and developable azea the applicant/owner is
requesting the further reduced setback option. The reduced setback request should not
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
ITEM I -2- NOVEMBER 12, 2008
create any significant issues with the abutting property to the north as the development
will be screened by a 6' high cedaz fence.
It should be noted some other minor alterations occurred with the site's redevelopment as
a result of the drawing error. For example, the southern-most existing curb cut on N.
Main Street was closed to accommodate for additional pazking spaces along the western
portion of the property. Likewise, the ADA accessible pazking space was relocated from
the northeast corner of the lot to the northwest corner. These alterations were either
permitted by-right or through the context of the May 14, 2008 variances.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the
variance as requested with the following condition:
1. The style and design of the proposed 6' high cedaz fence shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Community Development prior to installation.
Attachment to BOA Packet 1 lll2/08
934 N. Main Street
~;~z
View of subject parcel looking southeast
View of east lot line looking south
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 14, 2008
ITEM IV: 934 N. MAIN STREET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Bill Aubrey-applicant, John E. Landolt Jr.-owner, request the following variances to
expand an automotive service center building and permit associated improvements:
Descriation Code Reference Required Proposed
1. Front yazd (north) setback 30-26 (B)(3) 25' 22'
2. Trans. yard (south) setback 30-35 (B)(1)(c) 19'2" 14'
3. Trans. yazd (east) setback 30-35 (B)(1)(c) 19'2" 6'
4. Trans. yazd (east) setback 30-35 (B)(1)(c) 19'2" 10'4"
The subject 0.31 acre (approx. 13,560 sq. ft.) property is zoned C-3 Central Commercial
District and is being used as commercial automobile service gazage (i.e. John's
Automotive Service Center). The pazcel is a corner lot (N. Main Street & E. Melvin
Avenue) bordered by single-family lots to the east, amulti-family residential lot to the
south and commercial lots to the north (across E. Melvin Avenue) and west (across N.
Main Street). The general area is comprised of a combination of commercial uses and
low-density residential uses. The Boazd will recall this property received variances on
11/14/07 for an alternative development layout (see attached staff report and approval
letter). However, the applicant has decided the current proposal will allow the business
to continue to operate during construction.
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, set
.backs, 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."
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 property owner is proposing to remodel and expand the existing principal
commercial structure to meet growing business needs. According to City records, the
existing. single-story commercial facility was constructed in 1965, is approximately 1,632
sq. ft. in azea, and located on the eastern side of the pazcel.
As the attached site plan indicates, the proposed expansion azeas include a new lobby,
office and restroom facilities on the north side of the building and new storage and break
rooms on the east side of the building. A 6'tall solid wood privacy fence is being
proposed along the entire east lot line and a portion of the south lot line to buffer the
proposed development from the adjacent residential uses. The fence will also enclose a
storage yazd located in the southeast comer of the lot.
4
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
ITEM IV -2- MAY 14, 2008
Access to the development will occur via existing curb cuts off of E. Melvin Avenue and
N. Main Street. A third existing curb cut along N. Main Street will be closed with the
proposal.
Eight customer parking spaces are proposed along the west property line fronting N.
Main Street and will be buffered. by a new 5' wide green space buffer. Additionally, one
handicap accessible parking space is proposed along the north property line fronting E.
Melvin Avenue and will be buffered by a new 8' wide green space buffer. No refuse
disposal azea is indicated on the submitted site plan but it is anticipated to be located
either within the building or behind the fenced storage ~ area. An existing legal
nonconforming ground mount monopole sign would remain in the northwest corner of
the property.
In the applicant's opinion, the variances would not have an adverse effect on surrounding
properties because the current proposal is enhancing neighborhood aesthetics by
upgrading the exterior appearance of the existing building. Likewise, the applicant feels
the proposed .fencing will adequately screen the development from -the abutting
residential uses. The special condition that is applicable to the subject lot is its unique
configuration and proximity to residential uses and/or districts that trigger transitional
yazd setback standards and limit the developable area. If the variances were not granted
the current business would no longer be feasible at this location because the existing
structure is in need of significant improvements and modifications.
Principal commercial structures located in the C-3 Central Commercial District have no
required setbacks under normal circumstances. The relaxed setback standazds aze
intended to foster appropriate commercial developments in the City's older urban core
where space is at a premium due to diminutive lot dimensions in some instances.
However, the subject pazcel is unique because it is sharing block frontage with a
residential district to the east and abuts a residential use to the south. Both of these
variables are triggering setbacks standards that would limit the buildable area for any
commercial development at this location. Therefore, staff concurs with the applicant and
feels a legitimate hardship exists at the property and variances are needed.
Staff believes each of the proposed building setback requests aze the least variance
needed to allow for practical use of the facility. Likewise, staff believes the proposed
increased green spaces of 5' and 8' for the off-street parking azeas along N. Main Street
and E. Melvin Avenue respectively provide increased safety buffers for pedestrians and
an area to provide green space on an otherwise impervious property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the
variances as requested.
5
~ ~ ® ¢ ~
~ ~ ~
• ~
~` €~ ~ ~
~ ~
d i}
I r- -- --
I
t
~
n I
~~ I
RII I t
~ ~
r ~
~i~ I
'~
- `
v I
~ L
~ --
, ~.
~
C
I
I
?,
DI
Z
lP
1
A i
MEWIN AVE~JE - - - - - -
~cn
ARCHITECTS
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /Oa®,~twR~ ~E1~K,INEERS ~•
.y ~ ~ ~ A[4N877~T CONSTRlk.J10N MANAQERS ,,o Ya
0~'KQ9`( OSltlCOSH, W16QOYJS/N REVS
SUBMITTED BYAPpL1CANT
s
Please 'I~me or Print in BLACK INK
lFi~f~IH
ON TM WATGN
CITY OF OSHKOSH
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Return to: Department of
Community Development
215 Church Ave.
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
Please submit a complete reproducible site Ulan (maximum size 11" x 17"). (A complete site plan includes, but is not
limited to, all structures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee.
FEE ISNON-REFUNDABLE. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is
submitted.
Address of Parcel Affected: 9-~ 4 Nnr;-h Main StraAt
Petitioner: Bill Aubrey , AEC Architects Home Phone: 920-233-1001
Petitioner's Address: 20/14 S have en L~ ne Work Phone: 9 2 0- 2 3 3- 6 9 0 8
Signature Required: I r-~~~l~1'~l~ ~! `f~-\ Date: 1 n _ A _
Owner (if not petitioner): John dolt Home Phone: 9 2 0 - 2 31- 5 3 6 9
Owner's Address: 9 3 N. M n treet Work Phone: 9 2 0- 2 31- 5 3 6 9
Signature Required: Date• 10 - 9 - 0 8
In order to be granted a var7anc~lach 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:
TNF. nrn~rl-y nwnPr wn tl d 1 i k o xpand hi bu i nPS to better
GPrva hi cu om rG_ Our proposed plan is designed to allow
hi ~ hilR; nPRS to c-nn i nuP o on rai`'a duri n~ the expansion and
ramndPlinq work
The ntirrcn~ cai-h~]~S~tI'c'~IlS7.t1.4lla~.~arr~c wi 1 1 make trA PxpanGi nn
r~i ffi rttl #c Thi c rp1~.1LPSi: 1G In addi ti nn t-n the t~-travi nttal ~ aFFroVe~
varience dated Mav 14th, 2008 We are reauestinaythe addition of
a lesser setback at the north rear/side yard on thg~east property
l i nA frnm i-ha apnrnvorl 1 n t 4" to S t 5" A P-..rrnr wac made i n t-h
nr;r*inal c;tP 1a~rnti- and the hnildin~ a d Ci~ned would have t0 be
reduced by 5'-0" to meet the approved setback resultin in reduce
naadPd StnRA S A F
7
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties:
Our nroosed olan will not have af~ adverse effect on the surroundirA
properties because the proiect will sicrnificantly upcrrade the exti~q
appearance of the building. We willnot encroach closer than the
current building alreadv does at its current east property line
--seize~i~~-€~nee ~s~e~~added--as we~l1.
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or
structures:
~~~Dar _al a un; quP shape and limi t-ar7 size along with the increased
nrnnart~ fnntrzri n~F
-~
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
Ttiic f-~, ~Fhc r~rnr~crtis -nS~ncrc rrrnS,ii-1~ i n }~ ~• ni- hl [~
-_-~ ~-- -, usiness, the urre g
has bP om o aamll fo r hiar n ac9a~ the age of the facility and
the need to make major improvements arA rlr; ,i nq tha naa~7 to t,}~gra r
i-ha cxi ati nn fari 1 i tv flamnl i ghi n~ tha r~ttrrPnt htti 1 c9i ng and
htti 1 r9i nQ a naw nna wi 1 1 c3i arttnt the nwnPra h tai nag and r t,~ui ra
his customers to use other repair businesses therefor puttin
his future business at risk.
8
v rosnr~srM Wsoxrrso
SFI3DYNYW NO/1D11F/1SN0~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a r
S8133N/DN3 ~~~ O1/lb'S~NH~O/' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ieumirvm aaa c SlJ3LHJHY
awM.. ~
i "__-----~---
I
i
O
g§~g
E
I '
1
~~
~~
,~
Z
Q
,~.
Iz i
i
~ ~ ~~
~ ® ----
i
4~ .1 ~ ~ i
x ~ r ~ s
pp
e g
•
~
~
gg
d ~ y
t
~ ® b b
~~
®~e~a~•~~~~~~~~~~~~1
3
8VBMlTTED BY APPLtCAN~' s
934 N MAIN ST SOSNOSKI STEVEN T AEC ARCHITECTS
BOA 11/12/08 .1002 N MAIN ST ATTN BILL AUBREY
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3838 2014 SHAWNEE LN
OSHKOSH WI 54901
MICKEY PROPERTIES INC
PO BOX 634
OSHKOSH WI 54903 0634
PRENTICE LIFE ESTATE
MARGARET
13 E MELVIN AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3845
LANDOLT JR JOHN E
934 N MAIN ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3806
935 N Main St
KLISS WILLIAM E
931 JEFFERSON ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3829
XE CHANG/SOUA HER
925 JEFFERSON ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3829
WARFIELD MARIANTONELLA
926 N MAIN ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3806
10
45.08' 33.8' ~;~
i ~
3
m
r A
132..
b
~ -
~
~ 132.a
~ ~ ~
I
ch
~:~tY- 73z.a
, .a
~
r
,sz.a
room
~
E '~ ~
i ;~ F ~~
p. ~
i ~
~ ~
~_ ~ ~is~ ~
0 --. ~ ~~ y~~
r _ .~^ z..T §
~
132.a
Ob
S I
~
' tl
I
~~a:a
'
P
132.0'
~
~ ,22
a
4 ~-,-
tesa• ~
I
j
i 73z.a 1
I
~ .
t7
O b
~ ~
721.a 1 b b r
$ ~
I
b i
i
N m
57.a 45.a
4e.a 1
i
1 722.a
-
~ ~L
i ~~
N
~~
I
I ~
~ ~
a- O
b I
j s}
b
~ ~
i
r ~ ~ i
'
' b
+ 7.~'~
•
' i ~`,
56.2
,
'
7 1;0
$d~ a ~', i 122.a
i
i i
-F-,-
j i
i
,r
r<~",,~
~ `
N~
b
i
i
i
'
1
b
$
;
I
i
05
b
d
I ~
/S2 I o 320
b
i
I
~ . I
1
I
i
~
3zo~
~
a
3 b i Qt i
i
i
i $
~
132.a i
i
I O
C7.
Q7 192.0
r
~
b
N I
i
I
i
I
I
w
T.`
- .: f1=~
rn
3 -•~
~
S
Z~.~tit:~
_~_
732a 7
s. I
i
I
i
sz.a
, _ _
_. I r
(/~
_~r
r.'
1 i}
~~~`
~
b
$ ~~i, ~ ~
i
I N
~
twr
SO.a
_ _-___•_-_.-.--_._-_-_.---._._-_-_-_._._-_.-. I
~ i
~
~
b
~
~
b ~
a I
I
I
I
I
~
32.a
I
i
7 27.8' ,38.8,
15
1
1
,sz.a 45. u
i
,
-~ „~
i - ~ p ~r ~ § i tsz.o
o
I
1 ; s7.e~ ~ ,s2.a i
ib
T _
4S ~ tto.a
i fM
I
I I
R I
~~'N-~'-----•-----•-----•-•i--•-•---------•-•-------•--------
i
"
~T~
-
.
i -
i ~..c• i . [~-.~ ~ -•-----•-•-----
t t
i
DISCLAIMER
This ma
Is neither a le
all
d
d
p
g
y recor
e
map nor
a survey and k is not Intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data 934 N MA I N S T
N
I
and information located In various cky, courtly
and state offices and other sources alfeeting
the area shown and It Ism be used for reference
purposes onl . The C of Oshkosh Is not re-
sponsiblefor any lnaccureclea herein contained.
Scale: ~ rr - ~ ~~
t
ow TME rr~ten
City of OshkOSh
Department of
If discrepsncles are found, please contact the
CKy of Oshkosh. Com munity Development
Created by - dff ~ ~/29/O$
11
~Ei
AVE.
~~
~.
E. ADA
DISCLAIMER
This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and It Is not Intended to be used as one.
This draaring is a compilation of records, data
and Information located In various Wty wunty
and state oMees and other sources affecting
the area shown and it Is to ba used for reference
purposes only. The Cky of Oshkosh is not re-
sponsiblefor any Inaccuracies herein contained.
ff discrepancies ore found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - dff
934 N MAI N ST
Scale: 1" = 1000'
N f
on n~ wnren
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
10/29/08
2
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 - dff
934 N MAI N ST
Scale: 1" = 100'
0
N O.1HKOfH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
10/29/08