Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10JANUARY 12, 2010 10 -10 RESOLUTION (CARRIED 7 -0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4 FOUR -UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS / SOUTH SIDE OF EAST PARKWAY AVENUE, BETWEEN GROVE & OAK STREETS INITIATED BY: KURT KOEPPLER, PETITIONER PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w /conditions BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the planned development for construction of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium units and associated amenities, per the attached, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow 14 driveways onto a single lot. 2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion. 3) Base standard modification to permit driveways closer to intersections as proposed. 4) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building entrances to the public walk. OINK fH ON THE WATER TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Darryn Burich Director of Planning erv' s DATE: January 7, 2010 RE: Approve Planned Development for Construction of 4 Four -Unit Multiple Family Condominium Units, South Side of East Parkway Avenue, Between Grove & Oak Streets (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) BACKGROUND The land area encompassed in this PD request is located along the south side of East Parkway Avenue at the 500 block of Grove Street and Oak Street. The subject area is a 2.3 acre parcel of land with three frontages including approximately 370 feet of frontage on both Grove Street and Oak Street and approximately 270 feet of frontage on East Parkway Avenue. The property was originally the site of the Longfellow School and has been used as parking lot support to the former Mercy Hospital. The property is included in a Development Agreement between the City and Parkside Place, LLC for which said agreement depicted a townhouse development consisting of 8 two- family units. ANALYSIS The condominiums are designed as four -unit attached buildings each with a two -stall attached garage and space for parking two+ vehicles within the driveway. The structures are similarly designed and are single story buildings with the garages and main entry doors on the front or street side of the structure with the rear door and patio located on the rear facades. The driveways have widths of 18 feet which access directly onto Grove Street, Oak Street, and East Parkway Avenue with the structures meeting district setback standards. A base standard modification will be necessary for the driveways to be located 27 feet from the intersections rather than the 40 feet minimum standard and to allow 14 driveways onto a single lot. A base standard modification will also be necessary to allow vehicles to exit the site in a backward motion and to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building entrances to the public walk. As the design of the development and its structures are much more like individual units with individual parking, staff supports the requested modifications. No signage is proposed with the development and landscaping and stormwater management plans have not yet been submitted but will be required prior to building permit issuance. FISCAL IMPACT N/A but the City will receive a benefit through increased property taxes from the new development. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission approved of this request at its January 5, 2010 meeting. Approved, City Manager ITEM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4 FOUR -UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKWAY AVENUE, 500 BLOCKS OF GROVE AND OAK STREETS Plan Commission meeting of January 5, 2010 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Kurt Koeppler Owner: Parklane Place, LLC Actions Requested: Approval of a development plan that includes construction of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium structures, located on the south side of East Parkway Avenue at the 500 block of Grove Street and Oak Street. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance establishes criteria and guidelines for the Planned Development (PD) Overlay district in Section 30- 33(A)(1). Property Location and Type: The land area encompassed in this PD request is located along the south side of East Parkway Avenue at the 500 block of Grove Street and Oak Street. The subject area is a 2.3 acre parcel of land with three frontages including approximately 370 feet of frontage on both Grove Street and Oak Street and approximately 270 feet of frontage on East Parkway Avenue. The property was originally the site of the Longfellow School and has been used as parking lot support to the former Mercy Hospital. 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 8 two - family units (attached is the Master Plan excerpted from the Development Agreement). Su )ject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Parkin Lot R -5 PD liacent Land Use and Lonin Existin Uses Zonin North Mixed -Use Residential .... R -5 PD South Sin le -Famil Residences R -2 ... East ...... ............................... ...... .. Single- Family Residences .... . .. ..... . ........ R-2 . .... ......... ........... ...... . ............... ..... ........... ........... ......... West .... .... I Single- Family Residences I R -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 10 Year Land Use Recommendation Residential 20 Year Land Use Recommendation Residential ANALYSIS Design/Layout The proposed plan includes development of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium structures. Density is approximately 7 units per acre (one unit per 6,200 square feet), which is the same as presented on the entire parcel in the Development Agreement at approximately 7 units per acre (one unit per 6,200 square feet) but is 76% 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 1,500 square feet). Green space in the form of yards and setback areas constitute 58% of the site while impervious surfaces (patios, driveways & buildings) constitute approximately 42% of the total land area. The condominiums are designed as four -unit attached buildings, each with a two -stall attached garage and space for parking two+ vehicles within the driveway. The driveways are proposed to be individual to each unit with the exception of the center four units, which are shared. The driveways have widths of 18 feet which access directly onto Grove Street, Oak Street and East Parkway Avenue. The structure placements, as presented, meet district setback standards. The petitioner has indicated a design to relocate all improvements on the site 10 feet south have been expressed to staff but new plans had not been submitted at the time the staff report was drafted. Access Vehicular access to each of the living units will be provided by means of a single 18 foot driveway with the exception of the center four units, which will have shared driveways at 18 feet wide. The two individual drives accessing East Parkway Avenue are situated 27 feet from the intersections of East Parkway Avenue at Grove Street and East Parkway Avenue at Oak Street. The Access Control ordinance requires all development except one and two - family uses to maintain driveways a minimum distance of 40 feet from intersections on local streets so a base standard modification will be necessary to place these drives at their proposed locations. Discussion took place during staff review regarding meeting the 40 foot minimum distance regulation by relocating the two drives from East Parkway Avenue to Grove and Oak Streets but remained open- ended. Considerable discussion revolving around the belief that the 27 foot corner distance would not negatively impact the traffic flow as the driveways are serving essentially single - family units (require 25 feet corner distance) that have a low vehicle trip rate especially when weighed against the aesthetic of the side - loaded garages and the context of the neighborhood while other thoughts focused on maintaining the 40 foot clearance as driveway distances from intersections may affect visibility /safety and ease roadway maintenance at the intersection. The petitioner has indicated a willingness to shift the structures to the south 10 feet, which will not remove the need for the access control variance but will provide additional vision clearance as additional area is made available for snow storage and to allow vehicles to be parked in the driveway farther from the right -of -way. The design of the stalls are as if they were single or two - family units and the design of the driveways, with direct access to the public streets, require vehicles exiting the site to do so in a backward motion. This requires 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. Additionally, 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 to provide pedestrian access from the entrance of the structure to the public walk. As the design of the development and its structures are much more like individual units with individual parking, staff believes the intent of the Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD Parking Ordinance would not apply to these structures and supports the base standard modification. Si_gnage The R -5 Multiple Residence District would allow one identification sign not to exceed 16 square feet on all sides identifying only the name and address of the structures 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 that there is significant area available for landscaping. Landscaping for the development site 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 4 four -unit structures are similarly designed and are single story buildings utilizing textured architectural shingles, horizontal vinyl siding, vinyl shake siding in the garage gable ends, a brick knee wall on portions of the front fagade and casement windows. The design places the garages and main entry doors on the front or street side of the structure though half are side loaded (turned 90 degrees) camouflaging the garage -in -front look. A rear door and 150 square foot at -grade concrete patio are located on the rear fagades. 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. RECOMMENDATION /CONDITIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Development Plan for the condominium development with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow 14 driveways onto a single lot. 2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion. 3) Base standard modification to permit driveways closer to intersections as proposed. 4) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building entrances to the public walk. The Plan Commission approved of the Development Plan for the condominium development with conditions noted. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He also reviewed the master site plan from the 2007 Development Agreement between the City and Parkside Place, LLC. He reviewed the site plan for the proposed development and stated that each unit would have its own entrance and garage and the structures meet the necessary setback requirements. Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD 3 The developer has submitted a revised plan that shifts the structures 10 feet to the south which provides additional vision clearance, snow storage and to allow vehicles to be parked in the driveway farther from the right -of -way. Mr. Buck also reviewed the base standard modifications requested, the elevations of the structures and photos of structures in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Thorns questioned how the design of the development was considered similar in nature to the surrounding area. Mr. Buck responded that the petitioner stated this in his application and although it is not the same style as the homes in the neighborhood, it is also not in conflict. The single- family homes in the surrounding area are mostly two - story, but there has been newer development that was similar in structure to the north of the old hospital site. Mr. Thoms then questioned if snow build up near driveways was going to block visibility when exiting the development. Mr. Buck replied that staff had some concern regarding blocking the vision triangle, however this situation would not be any different from conditions that exist with one or two family homes in most neighborhoods. He further stated that the developer has tried to address the matter by moving the structures on the development 10 feet south. Mr. Fojtik inquired if the design with the current garage layout fit in the neighborhood as there were some issues regarding this matter with the last proposal. Mr. Burich responded that this version of the design was similar to the revised version submitted to the Common Council for the last proposal. Mr. McHugh stated that he was concerned with the 25 foot setback of the driveways from the corners and questioned if the height and location of the landscaping could be limited to prevent a hazardous situation for citizens traveling the street. Mr. Thorns suggested that a condition could be added to pull back the terrace plantings to address this issue. Mr. Buck stated that a landscaping plan would have to be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance and the matter could be addressed at that time. He also reviewed the city ordinance relating to the vision clearance triangle requirements and stated that often times the issue is not that the plantings are too high initially, but they grow beyond the required limitations if not maintained. Mr. Thorns then questioned how this issue is enforced. Mr. Burich responded that the enforcement issue is usually driven by citizen complaints. Mr. McHugh asked about the 42% of impervious surface that would be created on the site and how the stormwater management plans would be addressed. Mr. Buck replied that he believes the site currently sheets drains into the street and is approximately 80 percent impervious and plans would have to be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works during the building permit process. Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD 4 Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, added that the development would be exempt from the City's ordinance for stormwater management plans if the lot is not over one acre or if there is not an increase of more than 50% of impervious surface on the site. Mr. Monte inquired about the access control standard regarding the minimum distance of 40 feet from intersections for placement of driveways in multi- family uses and questioned what the minimum distance was for a single - family home as this use was more similar to that situation. Mr. Buck responded that the minimum distance for single or two family uses was 25 feet. Kurt Koeppler, 1726 Rivermill Road, developer for the project, stated that he had attempted to address the neighbor's concerns regarding the garages facing the street in his last proposal and had eliminated 50% of garages facing the street by placing side - loaded garages on the end units. This would allow the development to still have eight units on each side with only four garages facing the street. He also discussed the concept of "flipping" the design of the units to place the garages in the rear and explained that this would not work as it lowered the amount of greenspace on the site, increased the construction costs of the units, and negatively affected the water run off for the development. He further stated that he felt this development would be an excellent transition between the older east side neighborhood and the newly constructed homes north of the hospital. He stated that he will save as many of the existing trees on site as possible and will be planting large new trees in addition to the existing landscaping. He also commented that this development would be professionally managed and will not have any rental units, and will not allow any outside parking of vehicles, boat or RV storage, trash stored outside, and would even limit the size of pets at the development. He has built over 100 of these types of units and they are mainly marketed to empty nesters and the development would add 2.5 million dollars to the City's tax base. Mr. Thorns questioned if the design included porches on the front of the units. Mr. Koeppler responded that there was a covered porch area on each unit and pointed out its location on the perspective drawings displayed. Mr. Thorns inquired if, although it was not required, rain gardens could be incorporated into the design. Mr. Koeppler replied that he would be complying with the requirements of the Department of Public Works on stormwater management. Mr. Thorns stated that rain gardens were not a requirement of the City ordinance but a new concept that he felt should be included in developments to alleviate flooding issues. Mr. Koeppler responded that there was adequate greenspace on the site and he did not anticipate utilizing this new concept in his plans although he may incorporate some type of detention area in the rear of the development. Mr. Buck read comments from Peter Westort and Mary Ann Offer, 1103 E. Parkway Avenue, who were concerned with the landscaping on the site and would like to see large deciduous trees in the development that would create a full canopy and would also like to see terrace trees included when the street reconstruction is completed. They also wished to see the stone marker for Longfellow School preserved and incorporated into the site and would like to see the Longfellow name included as part of the naming of the development. They were in favor of the Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD project. He also read an email from Richard Norenberg, 524 Oak Street, who was mainly concerned with the departure from the original plans for the site which was located adjacent to the City's historic district. He stated that single - family housing was originally planned for this site and the proposed development was not similar to the existing housing in the neighborhood. He did not feel this development would be an improvement to the area and the redevelopment of the old hospital site was not impressive either. He was disappointed with the lack of neighborhood participation in the plans and was concerned with the increase in pedestrian activity as well as the devaluation of his property and the potential for increased flooding. Leif Larson, 547 Oak Street, stated that he lives adjacent to the site and was concerned if the mature trees along the property line would remain intact or if new plantings would be placed in this area as the trees provided a certain amount of privacy for him and his family. Mr. Koeppler stated that there was about 50 -75 feet between the driveway and Mr. Larson's home and he did not intend to remove the hedgerow as it was a great privacy buffer. Mr. Larson also stated that he had concerns with the income level of individuals living in the development, but his main issue was that he did not want rental units in the area. He was not as concerned with the fact that the development would look a little more modern and not the same as the existing homes in the area. Loretta Kirk, 566 Oak Street, questioned what the estimated value of the units would be. Mr. Koeppler responded that the estimated value would be approximately $140,000. Ms. Kirk also questioned if the street was damaged during construction of the project, who would be responsible for repairing it. Mr. Koeppler stated that he would be responsible to repair any damages caused from the development construction. Ms. Kirk inquired where she could locate a similar development by Mr. Koeppler in the city to view. Mr. Koeppler responded that he had several developments similar to this proposal on Lake Pointe Drive, Mitchell Street, Oakwood Road, and east of Knapp Street and 20 Avenue. Mr. Thorns asked if there were modern style homes constructed north of the hospital. Mr. Buck replied that there were some assisted living homes on Cleveland Avenue that were similar in construction style but the garages were not located in the front of the units. Ms. Kirk also voiced her concerns about the preservation of the sugar maples on Oak Street and questioned if the units would be owner occupied. Mr. Koeppler responded that he did not intend to cut down any trees that were not necessary and that the development would be owner occupied only. Mr. Fojtik commented that he was pleased with what the developer has proposed to address both concerns of the neighbors and city regarding the redevelopment of this area. Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD Mr. Monte stated that he felt the petitioner did a lot to blend this new development into the neighborhood and he did not want to turn away an opportunity to create development on a site where just a parking lot exists now. Mr. Thorns agreed with Mr. Monte and added that Mr. Koeppler was a long time responsible builder in the city and he liked the inclusion of the front porches in the design and the use of brick in the construction. He felt the development was not such a bad fit in a neighborhood with mixed buildings and any stormwater management issues would be controlled by Public Works. Mr. Hinz agreed and commented that the developer worked well with the neighbors to design a project that would address their concerns and that new development is a part of a community growing and changing. The older homes in the neighborhood are in good shape and the new development would help the neighborhood to move forward into the future. Motion by Bowen to approve a planned development for construction of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium units on the south side of Parkway Avenue, in the 500 blocks of Grove and Oak Streets as requested with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow 14 driveways onto a single lot. 2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion. 3) Base standard modification to permit driveways closer to intersections as proposed. 4) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building entrances to the public walk. Seconded by Monte. Motion carried 6 -0. Item - 500 Block Grove & Oak St PD Future Development Site PARKSIDE PLACE PHASE THREE CLEVELLNO STREET ^1 . I � �r � z �ww j:s w m i n � =ss k� t m F a a 0 e e R3'TT,a9'A b9Ife66�S lv:SQ6l,'Y WnM14S L•GR 4f tG V1i F•tl46 .IS Ltl p.NpL•91� �rotrrrs i KEY RESIDENT ROOM 'gym VERTICAL CIRCULATION ors. r m COMMON AREAS 13 SUPPORT AREAS f +� RETAIL E3 EXISTING 0 ❑ CIRCULATION A MARKET RATE APARTMENTS !DOCTOR'S OFFICE B LONGFELLOW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SITE C ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SITE D FUTURE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT SITE M F KC. ♦t a. 1 LV-0' i1L1 - L.'L'V.l•CJiV 1. FEBRUARYZS, 2007 GAPjJrHER K MASTER SITE PLAN �.� — �.�« PARKSf ®E PLACE PHASE THREE r,:fr �� �RN 7,A - SUBMIT TO: City Of Oshkosh Application Dept. of Community Development Planned Development Review 215 Church Ave., P.O. Box 1130 p Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903 -1130 0-11�KCYH ❑ Conditional Use Permit Review PHONE: (920) 236-5059 ON THE WATER — PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK-- APPLICANT INFO RMATION Petitioner: + / A n 0 2,0 0 i Qr ,�7 Date: ! 7 Petitioner's Address: 0 �t �- 104A Ale (J City: S State: Zip: -W94 J-) Telephone #: (?.)a 73 Fax: (ell J Other Contact # or Email: /O for � -/"1, AL-1 Status of Petitioner (Please Check): U Owner U Representative U Tenant Ad Prospective Buyer Petitioner's Signature (required): Date: OWNER INFORMATION Owner(s): � /1 c k h nig f&X g L U6 Date: Owner(s) Address: 9 25 Al. M -C h. � 3 4 3 - 2 L1 0 City : (:h,M State Zip: &()CD l Telephone #: (,?q -1) Say - (o. 1 Fax: Q/., ) 377 P 9aO Other Coutact # or Email: . tfi✓8gP-9 - OR r I.AP-CS, Ownership Status (Please Check): U Individual U Trust U Partnership U Corporation 1t LL G Property Owner Consent: (required) By signature hereon, I/We acknowledge that City officials and/or employees may, in the performance of their functions, enter upon the property to inspect or gather other information necessary to process this application. I also understand that all meeting dates are tentative and may be postponed by the Planning Services Division for incomplete submissions or other administrative reasons. Property Owner's Signature ' Date: I�' S — � Y SITE INFORMATION -7.a Gt�,(eS .Sou. -k) o-/ Pa.r kWRcl Address /Location of Proposed Project: /Df,lvnn Oa -, K - d- (D✓P, Parcel No. //- 0a99- - 0440 Proposed Project Type: (b nd-L m . , A. Li n-1 7 ,Q rn r e n Current Use of Property: & Zoning: Land Uses Surrounding Site: North: —96- :4 South: Re- , d z n La l East: R S roc A Y'' / West: k-C, �en,,'GZ/ "Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all abutting property owners regarding your request. ➢ Application fees are due at time of submittal. Make check payable to City of Oshkosh. D Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON - REFUNDABLE For more information please the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/ Community _pevelopment /Pl(aming.htm /�� j,{ l! Staff' I1 + � Date Recd 9 1 713 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 lands. Q it r P r od ,'s ces e �c.tt�'cL! 4�Q' rta-fe%es -ale P�. ,n aC(ja czs t erb 0ei � y. 2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety. par [4'n AQ ay o-f - lo- Qt�V2i. O1ty two dW;Ves t°4.eron Parkc�lcte�/�+/0— bit-( "e f s trod [ 3. Noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution. 4. The demand for and availability of public services and facilities. �! P u.b 1 5e , S alley qra c �' r,' �� es Cu lee l Y 5e r� 44a_ a/'ea. 5. Character and future development of the area. O /U a -I( 41-Q- ,Cd o r kx od 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 `` /a" x 11 (minimum) 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) ❑ 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 ❑ 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 ❑ All existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved areas, including building entrances, walks, drives, signs, decks, patios, fences, walls, etc. ❑ Location of all outdoor storage and refuse disposal areas and the design and materials used for screening ❑ 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 ❑ 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. 7C 2 The following is a narrative of our proposed project on Grove & Oak St. The property is currently an asphalt parking lot which consists of more than 95% impervious asphalt surface and we propose to construct four 4 unit single story condominium buildings on this site. These units will be marketed toward the retirement community. Each unit shall have an attached 2 car garage and there will be restrictions on parking outside. This project will include 16 owned units. The site with its current zoning application could have up to 20 rental units (10 duplexes). In a condominium project, you have ownership, not rental property. The exterior maintenance and landscaping is controlled by an association so it is consistent and professional. There will be restrictions on boat and RV parking, pets and exterior alterations to the units. With rental property, none of this exists. We feel these units would be compatible to the neighborhood because they are a form of attached single family housing. As far as traffic issues, the fact is that this project will have 20% fewer units than what is allowed if duplexes were built. If duplex rental units are constructed, there could be up to 10 driveways facing Grove and Oak Streets. Our project will have 6 drives, a reduction of 40 %. Our company has built 4 of these projects in the city consisting of 84 units. Each project was very successful with most of the units selling before completion. More than 90% of our buyers were elderly or empty- nesters. Our project will provide over 2 million dollars in increased tax base for the city. 8 Page 1 of 1 kurt koeppler From: "Tim Kent" <tkent @architectsincommon.com> To: <kkoeppler @new.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday., December 15, 2009 1:23 PM Subject: Grove condo areas Site Area Percentages: Building area Impervious area Driveways Sidewalks Porch's/Patios Landscape area Total site area A * o Architects in Common LLC 26,040 sq.ft. 26.12% 10,407 sq.ft. 10.44% 1,934 sq.ft. 1.94% 3,608 sq.ft. 3.62% 57,706 sq.ft. 57.88% 99,695 sq.ft. 100% Timothy Kent, AIA, LEED® AP Principal Architect N7246 Scenic View Drive Glenbeulah, WI 53023 Ph 920.526.2328 Cell 920.904.2008 www.architectsincommon.com A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. E 12/15/2009 At Architects In CommonLLc w w K F in W b me � Preliminary ,r K F- m Y rw O owny. k�N O.eM W Nwd Vf E 0 3 N � o O L U o 4 Me Plan Cudu Homes SITE I-LAN e r w n �a 09 -00.5 rq.ewnv A002 a�.r nw+r 10 t Architects in Common uc i= 0 Prelrrdnory BACK ELEVATION bow ¢ FRONT ELEVATION e • r r• u• E Tf 5 Y t �F a s Ewa ft 3�{a�b tj 4sY �A�F., I F �Ti�'a ' .� t ( 4c, :r4 b f �. i 3:`, PD -CONDO DEVELOPMENT PARKLANE PLACE LLC PARKSIDE PLACE LLC GROVE /OAK /E PARKWAY AV 875 N MICHIGAN AV STE 3740 875 N MICHIGAN AV STE 3740 PC: 01 -05 -10 CHICAGO IL 60611 1961 CHICAGO IL 60611 1961 RE VACANT LOT GROVE ST RE 1120 E PARKWAY AV FELDNER JOANN R WESTORT PETER HEALTH CARE REIT INC 1240 S WESTHAVEN DR OFFER MARY ANN 1 SEA GATE 1500 OSHKOSH WI 54904 8142 1103 E PARKWAY AVE TOLEDO OH 43603 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4678 RE 922 E PARKWAY AV RE 631 HAZEL ST SONNLEITNER ANDREW F FOLLETZ STEVEN /KATHY SCHMIT LYNN C 925 E PARKWAY AVE 574 OAK ST 571 GROVE ST OSHKOSH WI 54901 4624 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4621 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4607 FRYMAN LORETTA J JANZEN MR /MRS ROY M HUIZENGA TRAVIS 566 OAK ST 569 GROVE ST POLSTER ALICIA OSHKOSH WI 54901 4621 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4607 563 GROVE ST OSHKOSH WI 54901 4607 VANDENBERG JULIE E JURISIC MARIO /IRENA SPANBAUER GERALD J /KARRI L 231 N LARK ST 559 GROVE ST 519 HAZEL ST OSHKOSH WI 54902 4233 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4607 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4610 RE 560 OAK ST RE 556 OAK ST PURTELL RICHARD /SHERRY CARTWRIGHT CARLA J LARSON SARA J 4504 ISLAND VIEW DR 546 OAK ST 547 OAK ST OSHKOSH WI 54901 1309 OSHKOSH WI 54901 4621 OSHKOSH WI 54901 RE 555 GROVE ST PARKER LYNN C SCHMIDT TRUST JOHN /ELLEN KOEPPLER KURT 548 GROVE ST 4303 SWALLOW BANKS LN 40 W 6 TH AV OSHKOSH WI 54901 4608 OSHKOSH WI 54904 9349 OSHKOSH WI 54902 RE 547 GROVE ST 13 DISCLAIMER CONDOMINIUM PROJECT This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor 'Th drawin Is a not Intended to be used compilation of records, to G ROVE /OAK/E PARKWAY AV N ,fHK fH and Information located In various city, county a+TNE WATEP and stab offices and other sources affecting the area shown and it Is to be used for reference City of Oshkosh purposes only. The City of Oshkosh Is not re- Department of sponsibls for any Inaccuracies herein contained. Scale: 1 " — 150' Community Development If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Created by - dff 12/21/09 14 V ■ 1711 �' Y =; Chi it u n, on i m al ' awo it �li YdY a ` All Y . MM mo all mss© a�'Yir■ ■ 1 ' ®: oil 1 �A gnu �i 11 �I >ri fin■ 1 II� � M inff a �� , ; --A a■ 11l110 rag I mt. r\ ° t 1 m �rw ■ ■ =Maw all 00 I 1!` II II 1 =6 M i% I�� I�,i � � �►i1 x � \4� � DM2 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 - d ff GROVE /OAK/E PARKWAY AV Scale: 1" = 150' N OfH K lH a' TH[ "Tm City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development 12/21/09 �0 DISCLAIMER A < ' CONDOMINIUM PROJECT