HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-391OCTOBER 13, 2009 09 -391 RESOLUTION
CARRIED 4 -3 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
REFER BACK TO PLAN COMMISSION
PURPOSE: APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 4 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM
BUILDINGS; 600 BLOCK GROVE STREET
INITIATED BY: KURT KOEPPLER, PETITIONER
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Denied
BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that a planned
development for construction of two 4 -unit condominiums, and associated amenities,
per the attached, is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1) Base standard modification to allow 15 ft. rear yard setbacks on the interior lot
lines of the two separate parcels.
2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward
motion.
3) Base standards modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the
building entrances to the public walk.
fi
YHKOfH
ON THE WATER
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Darryn Burich P_12�
Director of Planning Services
DATE: October 8, 2009
RE: Approve Planned Development to Allow Construction of Two 4 -unit
Condominium Buildings; 600 Block Grove Street (Plan Commission recommends
denial)
BACKGROUND /SUBJECT PROPERTY
The land area encompassed in this PD request is located on the entire east side of the 600 block
of Grove Street bordered by Cleveland Avenue on the north and Parkway Avenue on the south
and is currently a 1.24 acre single parcel of land which has been vacant since the recent
demolition of the former Mercy Hospital generator /maintenance structure that had previously
been on the center of the site. The subject property had previously been identified with the
development of duplex style structures and one single family structure as illustrated in the staff
report. The subject property is located within Tax Increment District #14, which was created to
assist with the redevelopment of the former Mercy Medical Center for which no funds are being
requested to assist with this proposed development.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner is proposing to divide the planned development area into three parcels of which
two parcels (the northernmost and southernmost) will be developed with four -unit multiple
family structures. The center parcel will remain for future purchase and development. The
condominiums are designed as four -unit attached structures each with a two -stall attached garage
and space for parking two vehicles within the shared driveway with access directly onto Grove
Street. The design for the development places the garages and main entry doors on the front or
street side of the structure with the single story buildings utilizing textured architectural shingles,
horizontal vinyl siding, vinyl shake siding in the garage gable ends and casement windows. Base
standard modifications will be required to allow a 15 foot rear yard setback on the interior lot
lines, vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion, and elimination of required pedestrian
access from the building entrances to the public walk.
During the discussions at the Plan Commission meeting, some members of the Plan Commission
and two neighborhood residents expressed concern with the design of the development and
particularly the attached garages placed in front of the living units. The developer has since
attempted to adjust a portion of the building to de- emphasize the garage. Attached is the revised
rendering. The developer is currently attempting to revise the site plans to match the renderings
for consideration by the Council at Tuesday's meeting.
a
a
Q
W
O00
ti
z
_C
F
W
J
W
0
IL
4
a
GLEVEL NP AVFNUE
_ -- _ - - I � •[LSIL�16 SI �oYAV< _ � - - _ - ���- - - -,
UI I
I
C, J
]4' SOBI.GC'
I 1
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
i
I
. , D•. , � gv3z' I
LU
L L ^ U /
IL
0)
0
' i I
I
- — t
j..
I
I
N
I
u
k'
i
r'
_ I
I
_ I
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II Ig
f`LVhGY
� euce I
c
i
Im 4
s R
I
I I
I
I
- I
- I
I
I
_ I
I
1
I
I
y �-I GN
o� CD
P, CD CD
N O �
N >✓ p
n
� cz) N
C
CD P3 o
CD
-
o
ITEM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF TWO
FOUR -UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT THE 600
BLOCK OF GROVE STREET
Plan Commission meeting of October 6, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Kurt Koeppler
Owner: Parklane Place, LLC
Actions Requested:
Approval of a development plan for a development that includes two four -unit multiple family
condominium structures, located along the east side of the 600 block of Grove Street.
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
The Zoning Ordinance establishes criteria and guidelines for the PD overlay district in Section 30--
33 (A)(1).
Property Location and Type:
The land area encompassed in this PD request is located on the entire east side of the 600 block of
Grove Street bordered by Cleveland Avenue on the north and Parkway Avenue on the south. The
subject area is currently a 1.24 acre (approx. 54,000 square feet) single parcel of land which has
been vacant since the recent demolition of the former Mercy Hospital generator /maintenance
structure that had previously been on the center of the site. The property is included in a
Development Agreement between the City and Parkside Place, LLC (Res. 07 -86), for which said
agreement depicted a townhouse development consisting of four duplexes and a single - family unit
on the overall area (attached is the Master Plan included within said Development Agreement).
Subiect Site
Vacant/Redevelopment Area I R -5 PD
Adiacent Land Use and
North Single- Family Residences R -2
_........... .............................................................................................._........................................................................... .............................._ .............................................................
g Lot /Redevelopment Area R -5 PD
... ... ...... ..... ........ . ................ . . ....... . ... . .. ........ .................. ..... .............
East Elderly Housing and Multiple Family Residence R -5 PD
...._......._..... ....... .. ......... _ . .... ........ ... ..... .... ..........
West Single - Family Residences R -2
1
�� t
C'o�re eis�ave Plan ar�cl Ise 17ecommenciatio� .��'�� '
Land Use n m
10 Year Land Use Recommendation
Residential
20 Year Land Use Recommendation
Residential
1
ANALYSIS
Property Reconfiguration and Development Area
The petitioner has a request, in a separate action on this agenda, to divide the proposed planned
development area into three parcels of land; the two to be developed as part of this development
plan are approximately 0.44 acres (19,200 sq ft) each and the remaining parcel of land not to be
developed at this time being approximately 0.36 acres (15,500 sq ft). The petitioner plans to
purchase two of the three parcels and develop a four -unit multiple family structure on the
northernmost proposed parcel and another four -unit multiple family structure on the southernmost .
proposed parcel, leaving the central parcel open/vacant and available for future purchase and
development.
Design/Laygut
The proposed plan includes development of two four -unit multiple family condominium structures.
Density is approximately 9 units per acre (one unit per 4,800 square feet), which is approximately
23% more dense than the nine units presented on the entire parcel in the Development Agreement
at approximately 7 units per acre (one unit per 6000 square feet) but is 68% less dense than what
would be permitted for multiple family residences allowed within the current R -5 zoning
designation at 25 units per acre (one per 1500 square feet). Green space in the form of yard and
setback areas constitutes 54% of the site while impervious surfaces (patios, driveways &
buildings) constitute approximately 46% of the total land area.
The condominiums are designed as four -unit attached units, each with a two -stall attached garage
and space for parking two vehicles within the driveway. The driveways are proposed to be shared
between two units and have a width of 38 feet wide with access directly onto the Grove Street
public roadway. The structure placement as designed meets district setback standards with the
exception of the rear yards setback (north and south interior lot lines) which are short of the
required 25 foot setback by 10 feet, thereby requiring a base standard modification to allow a 15
foot rear setback. This setback issue is tenuous because the designs of the developments on the
corner lots functionally operate as side yards even though they are technically rear yards (opposite;
the front lot line, which are the shorter of the two frontages on a corner lot). Staff supports this
base standard modification because if the rear yards were technically side yards, the setback would
be required to be 7.5 feet, which is half of what is proposed.
Access
Vehicular access to each of the two development parcels will be provided by means of two two -
unit shared driveways that are 38 feet wide. A base standard modification is required for the
driveway design as the Parking Ordinance requires that shared drives such as these provide a four -
foot separation between them (see attached illustration). Staff does not support this base standard
modification as the intent of the code provision is to provide a protective barrier and sense of
individuality between the individual units and to create a more aesthetically pleasing appearance
for the surrounding neighborhood and the public roadway.
The design of the stalls as if they were single or two - family units and the design of the driveways
with direct access to Grove Street require vehicles exiting the site to do so in a backward motion.
This will also require a base standard modification as the Zoning Ordinance requires all multiple
family developments (those with more than two attached units) to provide access that enter and
exit the site in a forward motion.
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
Internal pedestrian walks are included within the design and lead from the front door of each unit
to the driveways. The Parking Ordinance requires all multiple family developments (those with
more than two attached units) to provide pedestrian access from the entrance of the structure to the
public walk. As the design of the structures is much like two duplexes, staff believes the intent of
the Parking Ordinance would not apply to these structures and supports the base standard
modification.
Sinae
The R -5 Multiple Residence District would allow each of the two lots one identification sign not to
exceed 16 square feet on all sides identifying the name and address of the structure and the name
of the management, if applicable. No signage is proposed within the development plan approval
request.
Landscaping
A landscape plan has not been submitted with the proposal but the petitioner has indicated in their
narrative that there is significant area available for landscaping. Landscaping for the two
multiple - family lots will require the submittal and approval of a landscape plan that complies with
code requirements prior to building permit issuance.
Stormwater Detention
Stormwater management plans have not been submitted with the application material. Formal
erosion control, drainage and stormwater management plans will be required to be submitted to
and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to building permit issuance.
Building Elevations
The two four -unit structures are designed identically and are single story buildings utilizing
textured architectural shingles, horizontal vinyl siding, vinyl shake siding in the garage gable ends
and casement windows. The design places the garages and main entry doors on the front or street
side of the structure and includes a rear door and 150 square foot at -grade concrete patio on the
rear fagade. The individual units are approximately 1,200 square feet with a 420 square foot
attached garage. The petitioner states that the design and style of the proposal is consistent with
the majority of the neighborhood and has also indicated that they have constructed many projects
like this in the past and have had good success with them.
Development Improvement Opportunities
Staff would like to provide an observation on the proposed design of the development in context to
the neighboring area and offer suggestions that may better integrate it into the neighborhood. The
design of the multiple unit structures is basically two sets of duplexes with a common wall
connection commonly known as a townhome style of building. Staff has observed many styles of
attached or common wall townhome developments in the past and would like to comment that
preference would be given to a design which was more in keeping with the layout of homes in the
neighboring area and more responsive to the street and neighborhood.
All of the homes across Grove Street and most of the immediate area are owner occupied single -
family homes constructed in the late 19 century or early 20 century with considerable focus on
the front of the home, its interaction to the street, including all having garages within the rear yard'.
rather than the side or front. This is an important aspect of neighborhood character and aesthetic
continuity or "flow ". The development as proposed places the attention or primary focus of the
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
homes to the back yard areas and places emphasis of vehicular utilization including garage
entrance and driveway at the front yard, which is very typical of late 20 century housing design.
Staff's observation is that the design of the proposed townhomes could be easily modified by
basically "flipping" the orientation of the buildings thereby placing the vehicular access and
garage to the rear and focusing what is currently the back wall to the street similar to the newer
townhomes developed as part of the Lakefront development along Oak Street (655 -685 Oak
Street). By placing a porch on the new front fagade and walk to the public sidewalk, providing
direct access to the unit's living rooms, the development design would be significantly more
consistent with neighborhood design and character. The access to the rear parking and garages
could then be provided by placing driveways off Parkway and Cleveland Avenues through the use
of a private drive. This reconfiguration would have functional benefit to the neighborhood as it
would eliminate the four wide drives and curb -cuts along Grove Street that, as proposed,
eliminates the majority of on- street parking currently available to the neighborhood as well as to
remove the necessity for the base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a
backward motion.
It should be noted however, that the development as proposed, other than the discussed base
standard modifications is consistent with the requirements of the zoning district and will be a
contributing asset to this TIF district. Similarly developed structures are located in the area along
Wisconsin Street and Packer Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION /CONDITIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Development Plan for
the condominium development as it meets density requirements, is substantially consistent with
the former development agreement and is a typically building construction style throughout the
City, with the following conditions:
1) Base standard modification to allow 15 foot rear yard setbacks on the interior lot lines
of the two separate parcels.
2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion.
3) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the
building entrances to the public walk.
The Plan Commission approved of the Planned Development with conditions noted. The
following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item.
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site, which is located in a redevelopment area, and
the surrounding area and explained that the site had been vacant since the demolition of the
generator /maintenance structure for the former Mercy Hospital. He further stated the
Development Agreement and Master Site Plan depicted townhouses on the site. He reviewed the
site plan which proposed condominiums to be constructed on Lot 1 to the north and Lot 3 to the
south with Lot 2 to remain vacant for future development. The driveway accesses would be
located on Grove Street for both developments with a base standard modification being requested
for a 15 foot rear yard setback which is supported by staff. The driveways were proposed to be
two two -unit shared driveways that are 38 feet wide; however the Parking Ordinance requires that
shared drives such as these provide a four -foot separation between them. Staff is not supporting a
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
base standard modification for this request. The design of the stalls onto Grove Street requires
vehicles to exit the site in a backward motion which also requires a base standard modification
which staff is supporting. A base standard modification is also being requested to eliminate the
required pedestrian access from the building entrance to the public walk which staff is also
supporting. No signage is currently being proposed at this time and landscaping and stormwater
detention plans have not yet been submitted but will need to meet code requirements at the time of
building permit issuance. Mr. Buck reviewed elevations and building features and discussed the
concept of "flipping" the orientation of the buildings thereby placing the vehicular access and
garage to the rear and focusing what is currently the back wall to the street which would be more
consistent with neighborhood design and character. This design would place the access to the rear
parking and garages off Parkway and Cleveland Avenues preventing the elimination of on street
parking on Grove Street due to the driveways.
The Plan Commission decided to review and vote on both the planned development and land
division request as one item.
IIIB. THREE LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR 600 BLOCK
GROVE STREET
The applicant /owner is requesting a three -lot land division to facilitate development of two four -
unit multiple family structures on two of the lots.
Mr. Buck also presented this item and reviewed the CSM. He stated that the proposed land
division meets dimensional requirements and that the Police and Fire Departments have reviewed
this request and do not have any concerns with the proposed land division.
Mr. Fojtik questioned if the suggestion of "flipping" the development could be added as a
condition of approval.
Mr. Buck responded that it could not as the development, as proposed, other than the discussed
base standard modifications, is consistent with the requirements of the zoning district therefore
staff is recommending approval of the development plan as proposed.
Thomas Guenther, Sr., 639 Grove Street, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was objecting
to having garages facing his house and was supportive of the concept of "flipping" the orientation
of the buildings.
Becky Fitzhenry, 651 Evans Street, stated that she likes the style of the neighborhood and the
characteristics of the older homes and feels that new development should be more integrated with
the style of homes currently in the area. She further stated that she felt the addition of this modern
style of development would devaluate the neighborhood.
Kurt Koeppler, 1726 River Mill Road, petitioner for the project, distributed photos of the proposed
development with pictures displaying other sites he has developed with garages placed in the front.
He stated that the current housing need was for elderly and his proposed units were zero entry
handicapped accessible and that size, price and marketability were all considered when developing
this site. He further stated that he has constructed many other homes of this nature in the area and.
all were very successful. He commented that Lot 2 is not considered as part of this development
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
as it is an unbuildable site due to its previous use. The removal of the former foundation makes it
economically unfeasible to develop in this area and the parcel will remain as greenspace. He also
commented that the concept of "flipping" the orientation of the buildings was not as easy as it
sounds as it would place the master bedroom on Grove Street and add an extreme amount of
additional costs to the project which in this location would make it economically unfeasible. He is
not willing to incur the additional expense and if the project is not approved as proposed, he will
not be moving forward with it. It is an infill site and the development would serve as a buffer to
the development on the hospital site. He understands the concerns of the neighbors, however the
landscaping around the site will be very adequate and the site will not support an expensive home
with the backyards facing a large brick building. The project will improve the area and increase
the City's tax base.
Mr. Fojtik commented that he could understand both sides of this issue.
Mr. Monte asked Mr. Guenther how felt about the development after viewing the photos Mr.
Koeppler provided.
Mr. Guenther responded that he still objected to the development as proposed.
Mr. Thorns asked why the garages could not be placed in the rear of the structures.
Mr. Koeppler replied that placing the garages in the rear would increase costs extremely which
was not economically feasible for retiree housing.
Ms. Fitzhenry commented that she struggles with the idea that building something on this site just
so it is no longer vacant is the right approach. She felt that there would be another chance to
develop the area if this project does not proceed.
Mr. Borsuk stated that the first set of plans for this site failed and he hesitates to turn down a
successful developer who is proposing something that works on this site.
Mr. Thorns stated that the proposed new homes do not fit into the existing architectural design of
the neighborhood, and even though it is an infill project, he felt it should keep with the character of
the area.
Mr. Bowen commented that he had concerns with architectural absolutism and feels that we have
to consider how architectural designs are progressing. He also had concerns with approving
projects based on economic feasibility as he does not feel that is an issue to be taken into account
by the Plan Commission, but it should be more of a Council decision.
Mr. Monte stated that he has a hard time denying this request as the development appears to be
tasteful and he felt a more modern development should not be denied just because it does not
integrate well with the older style homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. McHugh commented that he felt that structures cannot be developed without affecting
someone such as the residents on Graceland Drive who used to have a view of the wooded area
and now have a view of the Wal -Mart development currently on the site. He felt that these types
of situations are inevitable.
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
Mr. Hinz stated that residents on Brockway Avenue used to have a view of the lake until a large
house was constructed in the way. He has also noticed that as homes have been demolished in that
neighborhood, ranch style homes have been built in their place and he has noticed it in other areas
of the city as well.
Mr. Thorns commented that aesthetically it does not need to appear the way it does and it not only
does not fit in the neighborhood, but it is radically different.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he felt the Plan Commission should hold a workshop in the future on topics
such as if economic feasibility should be a factor to be considered when reviewing projects and
also if standards should be set for infill projects. He felt that we have to be realistic about what
works and what is doable in a development area.
Mr. McHugh commented that we have listened to a lot of stories about preserving architectural
values in past requests.
Mr. Bowen commented that he felt an architectural design standards review board would be
beneficial in this circumstance and the City should consider creating one.
Mr. Monte questioned if the units on Cleveland Avenue and Oak Street were an example of what
"flipping" the orientation of the buildings would look like.
Mr. Buck responded affirmatively.
Motion by Borsuk to approve the planned development review for the creation of two four --
unit multiple family condominium units and the three lot land division /certified survey map
at the 600 block of Grove Street as requested with the following conditions to be applied to
the PD:
1) Base standard modification to allow 15 foot rear yard setbacks on the interior lot lines of
the two separate parcels.
2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion.
3) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building
entrances to the public walk.
Seconded by Monte. Motion denied 3 -4. Ayes- Borsuk/Monte /Hinz. Nays -
Bowen /Thoms /Fojtik/McHugh.
Item - 600 Block Grove St PD
NNAFREW
t� C � �; - �„ i "". �' � �s..� f � r '� t j a ', i z �. .0 5 ' � �' ..+i = � �'�'!'°L A,
�� y � ,,� �� ��� �� L;L'i � �� �'�' `-' `� ...� �,.� � tan 1� ��'
�. �FlltF�l
IL
mhmbla
�A'l L is
�� � t r
Future Development Site
PARKSIDE PLACE PHASE THREE
CLEVELAND STREET
AS
re
77
W,
m
m. L-a-
v
I
RESIDENT ROOM Y VERTICALCIRCULATION
COMMON AREAS Ej SUPPORT AREAS
IL
RETAIL El EXISTING
FI CIRCULATION
A
MARKET RATE APARTMENTS I DOCTOR'S OFFICE!
B
LONGFELLOW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SITE
C
ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SITE
D
FUTURE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SITE
FERRUARY 28, 2007
NIAP,T I NjCM7Hkf QAMTHr
MASTER SITE PLAN GROUP -
.,te I
PARKSIDE PLACE PHASE THREE SINCE 19m
0
N ,
7
I
ma'l, A4,
X
7�
4.
rM
asi ....... .......
R M, W A 'r 9, IS V k; 2
i
KEY
'-7-3
EIJWA
ESO
1.2
TERRACE
MINIMUM 8',
MAX IM U M 24' AT
PROPERTY LINE
OR NO WIDER
THAN GARAGE,
12' MAXIMUM
IF NO GARAGE
E
GREEN
STREET SEPARATION
City of Oshkosh Application
planned Development Review
Q Conditional Use Permit Review
ON TM WKICH
* *nZ4 SZ ME OR PRII T UMG BLACK WX **
Petitioad: Ao ex 1 a_�7 z� L =
Petitiontt's Address: yyo G✓ Z r� city:
relephana d 7 3 Faxr(f 20) Y.�= Other Contact # or Email:
SU13MITTO:
Dept. of Community Davrlopmo
215 Church Ave., P.O. Box 1130
Oshkwh,Wisoondn 34903 -1130
PHONE: (920) 236.5439
s�arx ✓� �pa�c�l
Staus of Peddoner (Please Checicr 0 Owner 13 Representative 0 Tenant XProspective Buyer q
Peddoner's Sigma (required): Date:
QWNEI� INF'OR,MATION
FLA4,5 LL C
Xowncr(g) Ate;
/t(, M I t! �-11 S7 Cite C state: Zip: /1
other Contact # or Email: )Wf6
X Telephone M.
l``i`t' 01 V
3COwnership 3ta (Please Check): D bdividual ❑ Trust C Partnership D Corporation K 1
Property Owner Content: (required)
By signataue hereon, IlWe acknowledge that City officials anWor employees may, fu the performance of their functions, cma upon the
property to iespeot or gather other information necessary to process this application. I also undetstand that all meeting dates are tentative
sad tray be postponed by the Planning Services Division for incomplete submissions or other administrative reesoas. q
X Property Owner's Signature:
�ITE �TFpRIV�,ATION
Address/Location of Proposed Project; r 7'�. Glt f A LI arcel No.
. !
Proposed PrajcxtType: ,,,�•s •- n •
Current use OfP'roperty:
hh
Iand Uses Suusouading Site: North:
South: _A - • 1
Bast
West
*;Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all abutting property owners regarding your request-
D AppUrAtion feet are due at time of submittal. Make cheek payable to City of Oshkosh.
A Plem refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON - RE RMABLE
For more information please the City's website at www. ei. oshkosh. wi. tis/ Community_DevelopmentThming.htm
Staff_L Date Itee'd 1 Y
11
Briefly explain how the proposed conditional use/development plan will not have a negative effect on the issues below.
1. Health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding 1 .
t! bc.t. �LJ�r.�� % -�� � /�c;r.,✓ G._0 n.�.d,+2iG d� �. o.a G7" �� G�,t_
2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulationW circulation safety.
3. Noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution.
�e� ivel
4. Th demand for an availallility of public services and facilities. /!
vJGf //�
5. Character and future development of
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — Must accompany the application to be complete.
ANARRATIVE of the proposed conditional use/Development Plan including:
❑ Existing and proposed use of the property
❑ Identification of all structures (including paving, signage, etc.) on the property and discussion of their relation to the project
❑ Projected number of residents, employees, and/or daily customers
❑ Proposed amount of dwelling units, floor area, landscape area, and parking area expressed in square feet and acreage; to the
nearest one - hundredth of an acre
❑ Effects on adjoining properties to include: noise, hours of operation, glare, odor, fumes, vibration, etc.
❑ Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent and other properties in the area.
❑ Traffic generation (anticipated number of customers, deliveries, employee shift changes, etc.)
❑ Any other pertinent information to properly understand the intended use /plan and its relation to nearby properties and the
community as a whole
➢ A complete SITE PLAN and BUILDING ELEVATIONS must include:
❑ Two (2) full size (minimum 24" x 36 ") scaled and dimensioned prints of site plan and building elevations
❑ Two (2) 8 ' /Z" x 11 ( to 11" x 17" (maximum) reduction of the site plan and building elevations
❑ One compact disc or diskette with digital plans and drawings of the project in AutoCAD 2000 format with fonts and plot style
table file (if plans have been prepared digitally)
S4' Title block that provides all contact information for the petitioner and/or owner and contact information of petitioner's
engineers /surveyors /architects, or other design professionals used in the preparation of the plans
t� The date of the original plan and revision dates, if applicable
®• A north arrow and graphic scale.
. All property lines and existing and proposed right -of -way lines with dimensions clearly labeled
All required setback and offset lines
JZf All existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved areas, including building entrances, walks, drives, signs, decks, patios,
fences, walls, etc.
r Location of all outdoor storage and refuse disposal areas and the design and materials used for screening
b� Location and dimension of all on -site parking (and off -site parking provisions if they are to be employed), including; a summary
of the number of parking stalls provided per the requirements of Section 30 -36 City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance
[� Location and dimension of all loading and service areas
't Location, height, design, illumination power and orientation of all exterior lighting on the property including a photometrics plan
Location of all exterior mechanical equipment and utilities and elevations of proposed screening devices where applicable (i.e.
visible from a public street or residential use or district). Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to; HVAC
equipment, electrical transformers and boxes, exhaust flues, plumbing vents, gas regulators, generators, etc.
12
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF GROVE ST. CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
We propose to construct two 4 -unit condominium buildings on 2 separate lots within the
R -3 PO area. Each lot will be 160' by 120'. The density shall be 4,800 sq. ft. per unit.
Sidewalks are currently on the property. All driveways and walks shall be concrete. The
building, walks, and drive shall consist of 8,760 sq. ft. which leaves 10,440 sq. ft. for
landscaping. The parking area shall be located in the attached garages.
We don't believe this will have any affect on the adjacent property owners because it is a
residential project consistent with the majority of the neighborhood.
Due to the lower density, we believe this project will generate no significant traffic in the
area.
We believe this an excellent use for a vacant property within the city. It will provide
energy efficient, affordable housing. We have constructed many projects like this in the
past and have had good success with them. This project will add approx. 1.2 million
dollars to the city's tax base. It will provide an excellent transitional buffer from the
commercial property to the east.
13
w
'z
w
Q
w
V
8 1
�I I
I
I
I I
I I
�I I
e I
z I
1
I
1
I
I �
, d
1
I
i
t i
i
I I
I 1
I
I
I �
r
J -22N1S 3AOb9
.GMd.LS 9A0219
I I
I ,
I
I
1
I '
, I
1
I
1 �
I
I �I
I
I
1
� I
� 1
I
I
I g,
1
i
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
- r - - ,
1
I
I ,
1 1
I
I
1
i I
4
o Q:
Lu
zz
w
a
Q
Y
Q
w
Lu
`,
Q
J
Q
R
14
IM "4so*4so § E
c g
opuoZ) I!un -.V
5
LR
0£
f{a3E
j 41
: 3 q g
yy
J, O_ Eu
--- --- __ ---- imm' —__
w
'z
w
Q
w
V
8 1
�I I
I
I
I I
I I
�I I
e I
z I
1
I
1
I
I �
, d
1
I
i
t i
i
I I
I 1
I
I
I �
r
J -22N1S 3AOb9
.GMd.LS 9A0219
I I
I ,
I
I
1
I '
, I
1
I
1 �
I
I �I
I
I
1
� I
� 1
I
I
I g,
1
i
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
- r - - ,
1
I
I ,
1 1
I
I
1
i I
4
o Q:
Lu
zz
w
a
Q
Y
Q
w
Lu
`,
Q
J
Q
R
14
IM "4so*4so § E
c g
opuoZ) I!un -.V
I
I
u O � "a
t
�_
I M �y 0 1 1 4 5 0 P =
N
E
`—
a
d E HE,
-�
f�����
.y
°°
o
C
gg
av
3
opuoo jpn - tr
s u o
Q
v
n
I
I
J
V
.y
1
b
�_
tbJ I
38
—
56Yd1G
@SVd•IC
`� w
P
'
L
4
I
� ccvrle
F
sbror
Y.
r -
Qz
L__ .
.o
at
0
as.
T ���
1
b�:
L�ffff;
�
t•�
d'
i 1 N(
a.
I rW J-
I
.E•Z
Q
at ov
UH h
--+•-
�
I
—
I
aY ar `,@ U Va _
I sv •i Q z 4
a �
I
C
P-�
V '
15
;_ *� �- [t
FF lip; - opuoD jiun -{
0
® O
I
I
z
O r -
E--
O
z�
n
z
o O
Q II
I
= m
2 �� N
� o qg 0 u , O F
ig��uQ� H $, o R
pfu u"3 U O SI
3
u
I
iu
t
16
PD- CONDOMINIUM UNITS MCCORKLE KENNETH J /JULIET SLUSARSKI JEFFREY J / RENEE
600 BLOCK GROVE ST 655 GROVE ST 650 GROVE ST
PC: 10 -06 -09 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4673 OSHKOSH WI 54901
HEALTH CARE REIT INC
1 SEA GATE 1.500
TOLEDO OH 43603
PARKLANE PLACE LLC
875 N MICHIGAN AVE 3740
CHICAGO IL 60611 1961
ALSTEEN CHAD C /JILL D
645 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
RE 631 HAZEL ST
GUENTHER THOMAS /PATRICIA
639 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
MEISELWITZ JEFFREY P /TAMMY
625 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
WILSON DONALD D /BRENDA
609 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
SONNLEITNER ANDREW F
925 E PARKWAY AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4624
RE VACANT LOTS GROVE /PARKWAY
DUTKO JENNIFER J
633 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
SMITH MICHAEL T /EVA
621 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
FELDNER JOANN R
1240 S WESTHAVEN DR
OSHKOSH WI 54904 8142
RE 922 E PARKWAY AV
KURT KOEPPLER
40 W 6 T AV
OSHKOSH WI 54901
MANSKE THOMAS L /BONITA
631 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
MILLER SALLY
617 GROVE ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 4609
LAKEFRONT LLC
7447 UNIVERSITY AVE 210
MIDDLETON WI 53562
RE 651 OAK ST
17
ly9 3
0'
MI M I
r- r�� '-J
1340
?ARKVV_AY_.A-VF- -------------- ------------
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 discrepancies are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - t iff
Scale: 1" = 100'
1103
U)
51L z
r
O o �n
N O.fH KO. IH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
09/16/09
134.15'
o
(fl m
34.18' 134.17
Q
O
J._._._._. -._.-
00
,I
U)
W
O
(D
- - - - - - . -. -.- AVE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS
600 BLOCK GROVE ST
7 if
if m �..
J i ts r
rg:Il''�i
lull
WHO
MIR
� z ISM MO
�
1
`�i ���.
r � -A
ma
M IN
OL
f 2 i■t
■
Fill 1
VC �■.
dim I� . �� .
l�
1 �4
Al
I t
oji '.
!:11�
v; MA ,
�Lit
;� ►�
A� �U� M
AF. %O