Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-165MAY 25, 2010 10 -165 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM R -2 TWO FAMILY, C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS / KNAPP STREET, BETWEEN WEST 5TH AVENUE AND WEST 10TH AVENUE INITIATED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATION PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 30- 16(6) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING DISTRICTS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows SECTION 1. That Section 30 -16(B) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to Zoning Districts and the map therein described is hereby amended by changing the district character of the following described area from R -2 Two Family, C -2 General Commercial and C -2 General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay to C -1 Neighborhood Business. (as described in the attached Exhibit A) SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted Ordinance #10 -XXX APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM R -2 TWO FAMILY, C- 2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS / KNAPP STREET, BETWEEN WEST 5TH AVENUE AND WEST 10TH AVENUE on June 8, 2010. The Ordinance changes the zoning classification to C -1. The full text of the Ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Ave. and on the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Clerk's phone: (920) 236 -5011. EXHIBIT A Rezone Knapp Street Area, Between West 5th Avenue & West 10th Avenue From R -2 to C -1 Lot 7, Block 1, FB Kings Subdivision, plus public right -of -way abutting said lot to the centerline of W. 9th Ave.; also a part of the NW Y4 of the NW Y4, Section 26, described as the E 50 ft. of the W 170 ft. of the N 200 ft. excluding the N 150 ft., Lot 16, Farming Land, all in the 13th Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. (generally located west of 1009 W. 9th Ave., and south of 947 W. 9th Ave.) From C -2 to C -1 All of Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Block 1, FB Kings Subdivision, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St. and W. 9th Ave., 13th Ward. Also being a part of the NW Y4 of the NW Y4, Section 26, described as the W 95 ft. of the N 150 ft. and the E 25 ft. of the W 120 ft. of the N 150 ft., Lot 16, Farming Land Subdivision, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St. and W. 9th Ave., 13th Ward. Also all of Lots 12 & 13, Block 6; also all of Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14, Block 4; also all of Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, & 15, Block 2, Progressive Home Plat, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St., 6th Ave., 7th Ave., 8th Ave. and 9th Ave., 6th Ward. Also Lots 9, 10, 11 & 12, Block 1; also Lots 9 & 10, Block 4, Investment Addition, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St., 6th Ave. and 7th Ave., 6th Ward. Also Lots 17, 18 19, 20 & 21, Block 2, Anna M. Lull's 1 st Addition, plus public right -of- way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St., 5th Ave. and 6th Ave., 6th Ward. All in the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. From C -2 PD to C -1 All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6, Assessor's Plat No. 8, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Knapp St. and 9th Ave., 6th Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. 1030 100 1014 1 vp� ■ W. 5TH VV b I H1 1025 � � Y� �15 � <� 3 3 3 7 I � i I�f, �'ftJf Ik From C-2 L L To C-1 LT 6TH AV p f0 43 Ill 3 148 M 7TH AVE 7TH AV From C-2 PD 9 1 1 D943 Is N U) 'N To C-1 U-1 91 Ed E�D ■ 4 938 B30 928 920 912 -18 H AVE 8TH A\ nz jr ■ From R-, ? T o C n 1036 W 9TH AVE 9TH A 1041 000 F9 8 5 Im T From R-2 To C-1 E3 L= F 1 � � � � x-4046 17ll10 e � i J 954 9�0 84 92*0 2�0 � `Y! 90� W I OTH AVE W. 1 0TH 1015 U) 0-6 7 9 i O _ i I © I i� Rezone from R-2, C-2 & C-2 PD City of Oshkosh Wisconsin D CLAIMER To C-1 Community Development This map is ne . legally recorded map nor ------------------------ — — — ---- — ------ a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, data Knapp St. Area and information located in various city, county Between 5th Ave & 10th Ave and State offices and other sources affecting + the area shown and it is to be used for reference 3/4/2010 purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. 200' If discrepencies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Created by - D A O1HKOf H ON THE WATER TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Darryn Burich_)V Director of Planning Services DATE: May 20, 2010 RE: Approve Zone Change from R -2 Two Family, C -2 General Commercial and C -2 General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay to C -1 Neighborhood Business / Knapp Street, between West 5 th Avenue and West 10 Avenue (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) BACKGROUND The subject 7.8 acre area is multi -zoned with C -2 General Commercial, C -2PD General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay and R -2 Two Family Residence Districts. The area is located along both sides of Knapp Street from W. 5 th Avenue to south of W. 9 th Avenue. The subject area contains 24 parcels, 17 of which are zoned C -2, five are zoned C -2PD and the remaining two have a split zoning of C -2 and R -2. Late 2009, Planning Services was contacted by a residential property owner within the subject area who is having difficulty selling his duplex due to its C -2 zoning classification, which prohibits residential uses and makes all existing residential uses legal nonconforming (grandfathered). ANALYSIS Planning staff analyzed the existing land use pattern along Knapp Street and compared that with the recommended land -use from the Comprehensive Plan, and as a result, is proposing a zone change to help alleviate the residential nonconforming issue while not affecting the existing commercial uses. The C -1 Neighborhood Business District zoning is being proposed because of its flexibility in allowing a number of uses including residential and commercial uses. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for commercial uses however the C -2 District is intended for more intense commercial uses typically found along heavy commercial corridors, large shopping centers and business parks. This current C -2 zoning classification would also allow light industrial uses (with Conditional Use Permit) which conflicts with the recommended land use plan and would negatively impact the surrounding residential uses. The C -1 zoning classification is most beneficial as it is compatible with the existing residential uses and does not diminish or hinder the operations of the existing or future commercial uses. The City presented the C -1 rezoning proposal at the February 2, 2010 Plan Commission meeting with the Commission recommending for approval to the Common Council. However, prior to the second reading at the Common Council at its March 23, 2010 meeting, the City received an opposition petition requesting that the zoning remain C -2 General Commercial District. City Administration withdrew the rezoning request to allow time to develop alternative zoning scenarios for consideration. Four different scenarios were presented as follows: #1- zoning remains unchanged; 42- rezoning of 709 Knapp Street only; 0- partial rezonings from C -2 and C -2PD to C -1; and #4- rezone entire subject site to C -1. Scenario #1 was not desirable as it would leave 15 residential properties as nonconforming uses and if they were to be discontinued and the property redeveloped, the C -2 zoning classification would create many properties that would be unusable as the setbacks in this district are too great to have sufficient buildable area. Scenario #2 was also not desirable as it would address the one property owner's issues but does not address the underlying problems for this area and would result in additional contacts from other residential owners requesting to have their properties rezoned as well. Scenario #3 was not optimal either as it was a partial rezoning creating pockets of C -1 and C -2 zonings leaving three residential properties with C -2 zoning classifications. This scenario would improve the area but would not be an ideal solution. Scenario #4 was the original recommendation to rezone the entire area to C -1 which would make all the existing uses conforming as it permits both residential and commercial uses. It would also prohibit light industrial uses in this area which would be inappropriate for this site and could negatively impact the surrounding properties. FISCAL IMPACT As the area involved in the rezoning is currently developed, no fiscal impact is anticipated. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission approved of this request at its February 2, 2010 meeting and approved Scenario #4 (the same as the original request) at its May 4, 2010 meeting. Approved, City Manager ITEM: ZONE CHANGE FROM C -2 GENERAL CO MMERCIAL, C -2PD GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND R -2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG KNAPP STREET FROM W. 5 AVENUE TO SOUTH OF W. 9 AVENUE Plan Commission meeting of May 4, 2010 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City Administration Property Owners: Multiple Action(s) Requested: The City is presenting several zone change options from C -2 General Commercial, C -2PD General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay and R -2 Two Family Residence Districts to C -1 Neighborhood Business District. Three other rezoning options will be presented as well for the Plan Commission's consideration. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance does not establish criteria relative to appropriateness of changing zoning but relies on the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans and good planning principles. Property Location and Background Information: The subject 7.8 acre area is multi -zoned with C -2 General Commercial, C -2PD General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay and R -2 Two Family Residence Districts. The area is located along both sides of Knapp Street from W. 5` Avenue to south of W. 9` Avenue. The subject area contains 24 parcels owned by 24 property owners. 17 of the subject properties are zoned C -2, five are zoned C -2PD and the remaining two have a split zoning of C -2 and R -2. Late last year, Planning Services was contacted by a residential property owner within the subject area who is having difficulty selling his duplex due to its C -2 zoning classification which prohibits residential uses. 15 of the 24 properties in the subject area are currently residential and classified as legal nonconforming (grandfathered). Planning staff analyzed the existing land uses along Knapp Street and compared that with the recommended land -use from the Comprehensive Plan, and proposed a zone change to C -1 Neighborhood Business District. The C -1 District was proposed because of its flexibility in allowing a number of uses including residential or commercial uses. This would have alleviated the residential nonconforming issue while not affecting the conforming statuses of the existing commercial uses. The City presented the C -1 rezoning proposal at the February 2, 2010 Plan Commission meeting with the Commission recommending for approval to the Common Council. However, prior to the second reading at the Common Council at its March 23, 2010 meeting, the City received a petition requesting that the zoning remain C -2, General Commercial District. The City withdrew the rezoning request to allow time to address the petitioners' concerns and develop alternative rezoning scenarios to present to the Plan Commission. Subject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Residential & Commercial C -2, C -2PD & R -2 Adjacent Land Use and Zonin Existing Land Uses Zoning North Residential R -2 South Residential R -2 East Residential R-2 West Residential & Institutional R -2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 10 Year Land Use Recommendation Commercial 20 Year Land Use Recommendation Commercial ANALYSIS The area included in the rezone request is a mixed use area with existing one and two - family residential uses comprising approximately 63% of all parcels and 38% of total land area. These If parcels are all currently considered to be legal nonconforming uses meaning that the existing use of a structure or premises may be continued but may not be extended and if it is discontinued for a period of a year or if the structure is damaged more than 50% of its assessed value, it may no longer be used or rebuilt as a residential dwelling. The rezoning area also includes five commercial parcels comprising 21% of the properties and 17% of the land area. Lastly, four mixed use commercial /residential properties equal 17% of the parcels and 16% of the land area. Public right -of -way makes up the remainder of the area with 30% of the total land area. The use breakdown is depicted in the table below. LAND USE BREAKDOWN Use Number of Parcels Acrea e Single Family 11 2.20 Two Family'' 4 0.74 Commercial 5 1.29 Mixed Use 4 1.26' Right -of -Way - 2.31 Total 24 7.80 SCENARIO 1— ZONING REMAINS UNCHANGED Scenario 1 takes the advice of the petitioners to leave the existing zoning as -is. This lack of change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use recommendation for commercial uses in this area. Over time, the existing residential uses will cease piecemeal, allowing for potential redevelopment for more intensive commercial or potential industrial uses. However, any redevelopment of a former residential property to a commercial or industrial use may be challenging. The makeup of the parcels in the subject area average only 0.22 acres in size, just slightly larger than the minimum lot size for a single - family home (0.17 acres). 10 of the 24 Item — RezoneKnapp&reet subject parcels are corner lots requiring 25 -foot setbacks from both streets. Four of the ten corner properties encompass entire block frontages and possess three front yards, each requiring 25 -foot front yard setbacks. Additionally, any redevelopment of a former residential property will be required to provide a 16 -foot, 3 -inch, 19 -foot, 2 -inch or a 25 -foot transitional yard setback from existing adjacent residential uses within or bordering the subject area. In the unfortunate event that one of the existing residential structures were to be damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value, the parcel will more than likely remain vacant for an extended period of time. Reestablishment of a residential use is prohibited per the current C -2 zoning. Redeveloping the property commercially will be challenging due to the parcel's small size and setback requirements of the C -2 District. The parcel may eventually be combined with an adjacent parcel but that could potentially take years. Until that time, the parcel will remain unused, possibly becoming a blighting influence due to lack of upkeep. Staff is uncomfortable with this scenario as it will jeopardize the character of the neighborhood. Staff welcomes the continuation and introduction of new businesses in this area, however, the City does not want to see the existing residential uses in this area deteriorate as this is a classic example of a neighborhood business district — a mix of small scale businesses and residential uses. SCENARIO 2 — REZONING OF 709 KNAPP STREET ONLY This scenario involves the rezoning of a single parcel, 709 Knapp Street (see map — Scenario 2), currently a two - family residence. The owner of this property made initial contact with the City to rezone his property so that a potential buyer can secure financing. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that this property be rezoned to C -1, Neighborhood Business District. This makes the use of the property conforming, allowing the sale to proceed. Again, staff feels this course of action is inappropriate because it is not solving the underlying problem of this neighborhood. Staff feels that if this individual rezoning were to change, some of the property owners of the remaining 14 residential uses would request similar rezoning requests to address their concerns. Ideally, staff should be looking at and addressing the situation as a whole, and take the burden off the citizens affected by this inappropriate zoning. SCENARIO 3 — PARTIAL REZONINGS FROM C -2 AND C -2PD TO C -1 Staff created a plan that would rezone 13 of the 24 subject properties from either C -2 or C -2PD to C -1 (see map — Scenario 3). This scenario would make 12 of the 15 existing residential uses conforming. All of the existing businesses with the exception of Mahoney's (954 W. 6 th Avenue) would remain C -2 or C -2PD and would be unaffected. The three residential properties to remain C -2 are located at the south intersection of W. 9 th Avenue and Knapp Street, two collector streets. This option addresses the concerns of the business owners who signed the petition wishing to remain C -2. This option positively impacts the majority of the nonconforming residential uses, however, rather than cleaning up the area's zoning as a whole, this creates several pockets of C -1 and C -2 zonings. If a C -1 property ever combined with a C -2 property, the owner would have to request the City for a zone change to one or the other to make the whole parcel a single, uniform zoning. Item — RezoneKnappStreet SCENARIO 4 — REZONE ENTIRE SUBJECT SITE TO C -1 This is the scenario originally presented and approved by the Plan Commission at its February 2, 2010 meeting. A rezoning to the C -1 Neighborhood Business District will make the residential and commercial uses permitted uses in the zoning district. The attached Zoning Comparison Table lists uses permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (C) in both the existing C -2 District and the proposed C -1 District. The list includes uses currently found within the subject area and is only a sample of what uses are permitted. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use maps identify this area suitable for commercial uses. The current zoning is consistent with that recommendation; however, the C -2 zoning is viewed by staff as inappropriate for this area. The C -2 district is intended for more intense commercial uses typically found along commercial corridors, large shopping centers and business parks. Introduction of new commercial developments in this area would be a challenge due to the existing small parcels and greater setbacks required of the C -2 District. In addition, the C -2 district allows light industrial uses via Conditional Use Permit which conflicts with the recommended land use plan. Just as important, the introduction of industrial uses could negatively impact the surrounding residential uses in this neighborhood. Based on the existing land uses within the subject area, the C -1 Neighborhood Business District is a more appropriate zoning. This area is a prime example of what the C -1 District is aimed to represent: a neighborhood setting with a mix of residential and small -scale commercial uses. Staff initiated this zone change to maintain the health of the residential properties in this area by providing residential property owners the ability to make significant improvements to their properties without running into conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance. The benefit of this zone change is that it helps the existing residential uses while not impairing the operations of the existing commercial uses. Contrary to some of the information being spread throughout the subject area in opposition of the zone change, the City Assessor stated that property values will not decline as result of a rezoning to C -1 from C -2. In fact, the Assessor said that the existing values of the existing businesses may go up because legal building envelopes (developable area) increase on every existing business property in the subject area when zoned to C -1 (see attached table). RECOMMENDATION Staff requests approval of its original recommendation to change the zoning to the C -1, Neighborhood Business District classification. The Plan Commission approved of the zone change to C -1 (Scenario 4) as requested. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the current zoning classifications for parcels in the subject area. Mr. Nau explained the reason that the zoning districts were being reviewed was because an owner of a residential property contacted the city as he was having difficulty selling his home due to its C -2 zoning classification. City staff analyzed the area and found that 15 of the 24 properties contained in it are currently residential and classified as legal nonconforming uses. A rezoning proposal to reclassify this area to C -1 was presented to the Plan Commission in February of this year which was recommended for approval to the Common Council. The City received a petition requesting that the zoning remain C -2 prior Item — RezoneKnappStreet to its presentation to the Council at which time the request was withdrawn to allow time to address the petitioners' concerns and develop alternative rezoning scenarios to present to the Plan Commission. Mr. Nau presented the four scenarios which were #I -zoning remains unchanged; #2- rezoning of 709 Knapp Street only; #3- partial rezonings from C -2 and C -2PD to C -1; and #4- rezone entire subject site to C -1. He explained that scenario #1 was not desirable as it would leave 15 residential properties as nonconforming uses and if they were to be discontinued and the property redeveloped, the C -2 zoning classification would create many properties that would be unusable as the setbacks in this district are too great to have sufficient buildable area. Scenario 42 was also not desirable as it would address the one property owner's issues but does not address the underlying problems for this area and would result in additional contacts from other residential owners requesting to have their properties rezoned as well. Scenario #3 was not optimal either as it was a partial rezoning creating pockets of C -1 and C -2 zonings leaving three residential properties with C -2 zoning classifications. This scenario would improve the area but would not be an ideal solution. Scenario #4 was the original recommendation to rezone the entire area to C -1 which would make all the existing uses conforming as it permits both residential and commercial uses. It would also prohibit light industrial uses in this area which would be inappropriate for this site and could negatively impact the surrounding properties. It would also prohibit the use of electronic message centers as they are not a permitted use in the C -1 zoning district. Mr. Nau also addressed the rumor that property values would decrease due to the rezoning from C -2 to C -1 classification and referenced a graph comparing the buildable area in both zones and the percent of increase in buildable area if the zoning classification was changed to C -1 as the setbacks on the property are not as great as the C -2 district. He also reviewed a map of the building envelopes which support that there would be more developable land if the area was zoned C -1. Mr. Thorns questioned what type of businesses would be permitted in the C -1 or C -2 scenarios and which ones would have to come through the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval. Mr. Nau directed the Commissioners to the zoning comparison table included in the staff report which listed the permitted uses by right and by conditional use permit in both zoning classifications. Mr. Burich added that permitted uses go through the administrative process however the main difference between the two zoning classifications was that the C -1 district does not permit light industrial uses and C -2 does not allow stand alone residential uses. Mr. Thorns commented that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as not conducive to industrial uses. Mr. Nau stated that the C -2 classification allows uses such as ones located in the Highway 41 corridor which is not appropriate in this area. Mr. Palmeri questioned if the people who signed the petition requesting to leave the zoning classification as C -2 were opposed to rezoning the property at 709 Knapp Street only and would they object to scenario #2 being brought forward for approval. Mr. Nau responded negatively. Mr. Palmeri also questioned if scenario #2 does not solve the underlying problems of the neighborhood, why was this action initiated by the owner of the property at 709 Knapp Street and not addressed by City staff before. Item — RezoneKnappStreet Mr. Nau replied that the City has identified several areas to review for rezoning purposes however the citizen's request came in before the matter could be addressed. Mr. Palmeri inquired if the petitioners were still opposed to scenario #4. Mr. Nau responded that he had not spoken to anyone regarding the matter and that is was staff s opinion that that option was still the best solution for the long term health of the neighborhood. Mr. Palmeri asked for explanation of what the problem was with just changing the zoning classification for 709 Knapp Street and letting each property owner decide what zoning district they desired on an individual basis. Mr. Nau replied that it created spot zoning which is not considered to be a good planning practice. He further stated that this area has been zoned as it currently is since 1964 and it is the City's responsibility to be more proactive and rezone the area more appropriately for its current uses. The current zoning classification of C -2 is more appropriate for the Highway 41 corridor not for an area with residential uses. Ms. Propp requested staff to reiterate that if the zoning classification is changed to C -1, that there would be no negative impact on the commercial uses in the area. Mr. Nau responded that all the existing uses in the subject site would be conforming uses in the C- 1 district. He further stated that electronic message centers would not be permitted with this change and he was not sure if it would be allowed with a variance request either. It may be possible to obtain the building permit to erect the EMC prior to the zone change taking affect. Mr. Fojtik inquired if everything that is currently operating in the area could still exist as is. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Jeff Schmiedel, 230 Ohio Street, owner of 709 Knapp Street, stated that his main concern was to get his home rezoned to enable him to sell it. Mr. Thorns asked how long he has been waiting to complete this zone change. Mr. Schmiedel replied that he has had a buyer since last August and ran into issues when the C -2 zoning was discovered. The party would still like to purchase the property however he is not able to obtain financing with the existing zoning classification. Mr. Thorns questioned if the zone change must take place for the purchase to proceed. Mr. Schmiedel responded affirmatively. Steve Sosnoski, owner of Sisters Restaurant, 1009 West 9`" Avenue, stated that he attended the first neighborhood meeting at the Seniors Center to discuss the proposed zone change and inquired about just rezoning the one property who was requesting it. He was told that it would not be considered, however, since he has submitted the petition objecting to the zone change, now it's being considered. He further stated that he wanted additional clarification on what the differences were between the C -1 and C -2 zoning classification as far as what was allowed since he has discovered that an electronic message center would not be permitted, he had concerns on what else Item — RezoneKnappStreet would not be permitted with this proposed change that was not presently being disclosed. He was told that the Plan Commission said that everyone wants it changed to the C -1 zoning classification and he was present to say that it was not true. He had numerous signatures from property owners within the subject site in support of leaving the zoning as is before and he has even more now. He also commented that the notice for today's Plan Commission meeting to consider the zone change was also sent to adjacent property owners who were not within the area and he felt should not have been notified as they would not be affected by this change. He personally approached the property owners in the neighborhood and a majority of them do not want their zoning classification changed from its current C -2 district. Mr. Fojtik questioned how Mr. Sosnoski explained the situation to the neighboring property owners and if he made them aware of the fact that they would not be allowed to rebuild their home if it should be destroyed. Mr. Sosnoski replied that any house built in the 1950's would be considered nonconforming. Mr. Nau added that some of the older homes in Oshkosh have nonconforming setbacks; however that is not the same as the property having a nonconforming use as the setback issue would not prevent the homeowner from rebuilding the structure. Mr. Sosnoski stated that telling people they could not rebuild their homes if destroyed would scare them. Mr. Nau responded that it should. Mr. Sosnoski commented that he had 15 signatures out of the 24 businesses in the subject area. Ms. Propp stated that there are only nine business located in this area. Mr. Sosnoski commented that 915 Knapp Street is displayed as a residential property on the map but it is commercial. Mr. Nau stated that 915 Knapp Street is a house and not a commercial use. Mr. Burich added that the property may be zoned commercial, but the use on it is residential. This is the same issue that Mr. Schmiedel has with his property. Mr. Sosnoski commented that realtors can arrange for loans for houses in commercial areas. Mr. Schmiedel stated that he has sold properties for residential use that are zoned C -1, but lenders will not finance property for residential use in a C -2 zoned area. Mr. Sosnoski then stated that he wanted a more detailed list of the comparisons of what is allowed in C -1 and C -2 zones other than the table already provided in the staff report. Mr. Nau responded that he could provide a copy of the matrix containing all the code information with full explanation for Mr. Sosnoski to review. Mr. Sosnoski commented that he wants to keep his property as is and will continue to collect signatures on his petition. Item — RezoneKnappStreet Mr. Thorns stated that last time the Commission talked about a lot of issues regarding this proposed zone change and the businesses that would be allowed in this area under C -1 and C -2 classifications. There are 15 nonconforming residential uses in the subject site which could be addressed at another time however if we rezone just the property on 709 Knapp Street now, it would prevent other residential property owners from selling or rebuilding their homes until the zoning classification could be changed on their parcel. The partial change leaves pockets of problems for rezoning and the Commission has determined that light industrial use is not appropriate in this area. We need to find a way to solve this issue for all property owners in the area and there are some differences between the zoning categories but many property owners may not understand the issues. He further stated that we do not want to start spot zoning properties and the C -1 classification would allow both the residential and commercial uses and makes more sense from a land use standpoint. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Thoms, but questioned what would the implication be of just changing the residential properties to C -1 and leaving the remaining uses C- 2. Mr. Nau responded that it was not a clean or ideal situation creating pockets of difference types of zoning within the same area. Mr. Bowen commented that the problem with that scenario is that the corner of West 7 th Avenue and Knapp Street could be utilized for light industrial use and he felt there was some misunderstanding here. He further stated that he thinks this area fits the C -1 zoning classification better than any other area as all current uses would be permitted and he supports the rezoning to all C -1. Ms. Propp stated that it is important for the residential uses to be conforming and the C -1 classification would be best for them. She did not like the potential difficulties with Scenario #3 and leaving the pockets of C -2 zoning that could allow light industrial uses in the neighborhood and stated that the C -1 district would be a far better situation for all properties. She further commented that she would support the rezoning Scenario #4 to all C -1, but could live with Scenario #3 as a second resort. Mr. Palmeri questioned if there was a time that all the property owners were invited to a meeting to discuss this proposal. Mr. Nau responded that a neighborhood meeting was held in January of this year to explain the zone change proposal and Mr. Sosnoski and an owner from the pet store were the only parties with concerns or objections to the proposal. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if staff felt that the C -1 classification for the entire area was the best scenario. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that he has not heard any arguments or objections from anyone other than Mr. Sosnoski and the prohibiting of light industrial uses and electronic message centers were the only two tangible differences between the C -1 and C -2 classifications. He further stated that the zoning comparison table in the staff report further explains the uses allowed in both districts. Mr. Palmeri inquired what staff's objection was to Scenario #3. Item — RezoneKnappStreet Mr. Burich replied that it was not a holistic view for the neighborhood and that the C -2 zoning classification allows more intensive commercial uses that were not appropriate for this area. He further stated that the C -1 classification is a natural fit for this type of neighborhood with both residential and commercial uses and explained his concerns with the more intensive uses that could be allowed if the area was left with C -2 pockets of zoning. Mr. Palmeri commented that he would support the C -1 zoning classification as it was probably better for all property owners involved and suggested that better communication with the property owners may be necessary for them to understand the ramifications of the different zoning classifications. Mr. Nollenberger stated that it sounded as though Scenario 44 was the best concept but questioned if additional requirements would be imposed on the commercial property owners being down zoned from C -2 to C -1. Mr. Buck replied that it was not really down zoning but more of a lateral move. The C -2 classification is a strict commercial district only whereas the C -1 classification allows residential uses and also reduces the setbacks on the site for commercial development. The major difference is it would not allow light industrial use. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he would support Scenario #4 but that the Common Council should be informed that Scenario #3 should be approved as an alternative if they did not agree with approving Scenario 44. Mr. Thoms suggested that staff reach out to property owners and explain the proposed zone change to educate the citizens in this area about the consequences of this action prior to it going before the Common Council. He felt the people signing the petition objecting to it should have a better understanding of its ramifications on their property. Mr. Burich stated that was the intent of the neighborhood meeting held and the proposed zone change was explained in detail at that time however there is no way of knowing what the person is telling property owners who is circulating the petition. Ms. Propp inquired how the Common Council would know that Scenario #3 was to be the backup plan if Scenario #4 was not approved. Mr. Burich responded that the Common Council had the ability to approve any one of the four scenarios regardless of the Plan Commission's recommendation. Motion by Monte to approve the zone change from C -2, C -2PD, and R -2 to C -1 as requested Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 8 -0. Item — RezoneKnappStreet Zoning Comparison Table C-1 Neighborhood Business District (Section 30-24) and C -2 General Commercial District (Section 30-25) Comparison Topic I C-1 I C -2 usmea m �. -: aaw ...��:..� u� .. - CUP = Conditional Use Permit Single-Family Residential Permitted Not Permitted Duplex/2 -Farm Residential Permitted Not Permitted Multiple Family Residential Permitted Not Permitted Mixed Use Residential above Business CUP CUP Mixed Use (Residential on same floor as 7.5-1 Not Permitted Business CUP Permitted Not Permitted Bed & Breakfast Boarding/Room gfLodging House Permitted Not Permitted Fraternity/Sorority Fraternity/Sorority Permitted Not Permitted Nursing Home Permitted Not Permitted Church Permitted Permitted Community Center Permitted Permitted Retail Permitted Permitted Professional Service Permitted Permitted Personal Service Permitted Permitted Animal Hospital CUP Permitted Not Permitted CUP Car Sales Not Permitted CUP Light Industrial Uses CUP Not Permitted Family Daycare CUP Not Permitted Homeless Shelter CUP Not Permitted Schools CUP Not Permitted Treatment Centers Any uses pernitted in C-2 & C-3 and not CUP permitted usmea m �. -: aaw ...��:..� u� .. - CUP = Conditional Use Permit 10 Setbacks in feet Front Yard Commercial 20 2 Residential 25 Not Permitted Mixed -Use 25 Side Yard Commercial 10 Residential 7.5-1 Not Permitted Mixed -Use t 0 Rear Yard Commercial 2 25 Residential 25-3 Not Permitted Mixed -Use 20 25 Comer Front Yard Commercial 12-2 25 Residential 25 Not Permitted Mixed -Use 12 -2 25 Hei ht (in feet Commercial 32 45 Residential 45 Not Permitted Mixed -Use 45 45 10 0 f a { r I r _ Ep F 6 � d Et s 3. rm y �a A Op rp s 8 m - » © :\ \ \ \2� 0 Em, �E a� m I � F f @' a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 U) r o] M tt ct Ln M cT M Lo to 00 O h to (o r N T d N CO �- M W 1� W O M W 1` O M M d( j c p Lo I- t` M O N O M M I� 1� M � M r O O to 0 O O n M to h r O O `7 M I- h C .0 3 N d' O to ti h M N r r T Co O O W N d' f� In M I� r y M OT p r M W W O r Co r r N r W O M N N r (o r W M O O ( D M M N r- O M N N O Ln M M M (o 0 O W f- N O O to O W a N �- N W W T r N W h r T � r M Ln N d - 4 O T M M r- � 3 n .n r Ln a o c y Z w to N m C c o L ° m J M ,t N O 1'- M W N N W r N r Co Co to O O 'C 't N O tto h C» r r Lo M r N N h N r CO Ha Q o m Z N d cc C N _ C co co N c m J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n 20.9 t[ cq V M CD CD c`) 0 L c a N (o Lo N r O (o r r O r r co N N N r M O "th M fo N (o to to Co M O m La M t0 LL') Ln N co C a Lo M r W M r M r :3 N ? r a m � C() M J c @ .X X c Q W 0 CD M W n. co r O O M m N r m N C c C� CD � • c . ca a) N m X N c a W 0 M (o (o � .� (p (p 10 �' M M M to n ti N M (D O W r N r N 'tt Ln O n O M O h O r W O co (o N r Lo 1� m N M O Lo M Lo M W r O Lo Lo M M to M M N (o F-�. N N q M W M W ' t 0 1'- M a Co cY M M --i v 0 M d' Ln to r to L1') O (o O (O - I� to W U m a > Ln U z O W J y E J OU co W Z .e U H J N W W 0 m } a Z O U) w y 7 > x a m m (n a Q m W O 0 m x O g ug v (j (n ¢ ¢ 3 N W W W W W W W W W W W W W F H a a a a a Q a a Q a a a a a a a m a a a d a __________ a a a a a_ a a a a a a to (D P co P 0 F- o I-- n n ao to rn M rn m � a Z Q Z a Z Q Z Q Z Q Z a Z Q z Q z a Z a Z Lj--O � � � � � � ? � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y v M M v M U, to v cn v v v n v �n O O o co O 0 0) o 0 m 0 n 0 n 0 N 0 M 0 u7 o 0 n 0 v m .t rn m Ln M 'o CD cn M M M rn M m m m n n n r� oo ao co W. 5TH 1025 0 933 929 923 919 915 905 847 84: to M 1020 v' 9S'958 950 940 934 930 926 L920 91 4 910 a 906 6TH 1051 1 1043 1 1039 1 1033 1 1029 1 1023 1 1017 1 1013 943 1 935 1 927 1 921 1917 1 911 1 907 1 9d 1 936A 940 936 926 922 916 910 906 9 m 2 W 7TH r= 943 933 925 919 911 907 9 •: 911A c J 938 930 926 920 1 912 904 8TH 951 935 931 927 921 1 917 1 913 907 S 3 1048 1044 1036 1028 1022 1016 1016A 1012 55 I 1041 s= I 10 1027 1021 IMI 148A 910A 948 944 940 934 928 920 916 910 906 9TH 937 933 925 921 913 S M937A I m o> 0 N 0 DISCLAIMER N This map is neither a legally recorded map nor ■ itis not intended tobe one. Rezoning of Knapp Street Area This his drawing is a compilation of records, orda, data 1 and information located in various city, county andstate offices and other sources reference 5th Avenue to W. 9th Avenue the area shown and is be used for refeference 04 -23 -2010 purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Feet Scale: 1 " = 150' If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Source: City of Oshkosh GIS !4i 1039 1033 1029 1025 1019 1015 10&� 1048A 1048 1038 1034 1028 1024 1016 {�,s 1014 1051 1 1043 1 1039 1 1033 1 1029 1 1023 1 1017 1 1013 943 1 935 1 927 1 921 1917 1 911 1 907 1 9d 1 936A 940 936 926 922 916 910 906 9 m 2 W 7TH r= 943 933 925 919 911 907 9 •: 911A c J 938 930 926 920 1 912 904 8TH 951 935 931 927 921 1 917 1 913 907 S 3 1048 1044 1036 1028 1022 1016 1016A 1012 55 I 1041 s= I 10 1027 1021 IMI 148A 910A 948 944 940 934 928 920 916 910 906 9TH 937 933 925 921 913 S M937A I m o> 0 N 0 DISCLAIMER N This map is neither a legally recorded map nor ■ itis not intended tobe one. Rezoning of Knapp Street Area This his drawing is a compilation of records, orda, data 1 and information located in various city, county andstate offices and other sources reference 5th Avenue to W. 9th Avenue the area shown and is be used for refeference 04 -23 -2010 purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Feet Scale: 1 " = 150' If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Source: City of Oshkosh GIS !4i m. N d d n b x b b £ r m cli w et m ,n 0 o q C O , h o £ o Q o o \ m Q w m \ m W m x Ftq p.>Ln x aLn Ln w >u�i W aLn xE'L Hwaa °E �E3 ° xEs oa r o W3 H3o W3o 3o ado m H E zz o uu = w w se w ae x ]� ryoxmx .�wx r Hin x z o w Eo w m Hm Darn W Hrn m0 Nm0 ca PQ OQm0 £m0 m0 mm0 U a W H b '` Q N m .1 W N H > o x ,7. %D w 0 N a N 3 O N u w 0 z O ! x O W O 4 O a O \ O W m €o \ m H m \ �, m q m m o m a o w m o Q Q w E W a x w £ a • x w > w r 3 in p n : FN N 3 r Frn a q�n 3 2Qin r x W H H tZ H 'a � ° i 33a3 m wa3 �o a Wmx o oF U3 0 M En E+ ax . 1 O x Eox r £S D a 0 m o a m o m Q H m o H m o w m S o m a m 0 �t H O w m 0 m o E m o a a, 0 P4 m 0 H O h a x N N -0 co H m R �C w a x N 4 N 3 h m q N N N 3 N CD rn ID w b w p b a a In , '° a m > b E b £ N ri o s o zzm �n o 4 O o q o q o E w o h m o h m 3 x z in a 3 E m a x m z m w , \ w w q m w w z Q a = y v M 3 W Q Ln �Q Qa� Waa W z � _ �0 m ao Q wx FED o >� H C� p H c H a UH M a H m wEH H 3 z W u H O$ Fa D [7° aH x Hmx H W xx Qx W x H W r3ai o x ao d W 0 ° 0 - 0 2 m r F N A4 m m,Y. L x b xNx 0m m � t - vi r x H x OO r•Gvca m W b N W W H PQ H 0 z m 0 x N$ m H 0 m O m H O a r 0 m H O H Q 4 O N H O O rff > W m x O In b 1I7 W m m N y m S 5 0 H 3 N rn r m m m m m d m m c7 o co £ r N In to rn In r In 1 U m b o r N m Q N N N a N N N ( N 3 h N \ N w p � N m N 0 0 0 0 £ o W o „ \ o h ° W E m m m a m m £ W w m m a m . £ m w m E. Ln z >� aDLn h >ry W ii W a \ w a ww x >a w wmw ° \ .r >m Q >rn a z >u1 W Qrn h' N {1uF]N xm OQ aQ aQ EFQ Q o OQ F P4 H H H H H O H H h H E H H a a H C7fy H 3 E� 3E3 I a E aH� e W 0 O w x x mx wID ubx �bx rx rnx Hx qHx h x CO] m u m H m m x m m m wxm m M o '1 H3o £30 3 0 030 0 p � �o Ho w o mx Wmx wox Wmxmx xoX qax ox xox Nrnx 7 xmm pa�m w �n m p; wm Uwm Umm bm Umm OH N m u .0 o Fm0 czmo .amo a4m0 £m0 £m0 b0 mNo pgr0 x 0 x .� O Ln 01 N m m Ln q d' C \C]� m £ b [.� m to in O m In m F b H m W Ln C N N p N N N Q N �2i x N < N H N W o 0 o m o 0 o E O O q o o a o m m m m e m m m m x m w m w m d� wFrn eaF -Q rn >m rn 3 Qui Evi Ein cF�338Ln 3 w orn Fare a f a f.r� uiF3 p rC3 a a �S a R� a �y 3 a7�a3 F a a3 'y E3 UFf. xw x t6b H x x q r.� x x x x Wmx H m Q rA m xm xam z m xr m cam ° gy m m m A P xin2 D4�Q Oa gin 6 FC�� �� ox W �x x wNx Nx V- d' .i z Hx W r x W ay� N m Q O m H v m m m H O m aa H m H N m w m O O m m m w m 0 m H 0 w m 0 m 0 W H O ry b 0 m a m 0 N 0 x H 0 m 0 m £ N o a� W Q m m > b N a m rn C7 W u1 b m x m m r H 2 m m v� F �n in rn FC in rn m > W N h N q N h N o W N N h N a 0 o a q 0 0 0 z o \ o 0 Q m € a r,, rtwWm a m 3 W m ZQ m a m q m F� EviN 3 >� Q y. � O >u�i HF� [ x � �� � a w >Ln �>u�i L i b x Q r / 1c7 x Q m H E x H w W m H FQ a H Q Q H Ln v C9F HE C7 V 3 e 0E q W r FC [ay3 qN3 E3 H 0 WpM a�rr Hr o 'ra ,' a G Qrx» a 9zm hhFC rxA W r c x n 9m v x i i N Q� •• O m Or x O p m x D r x W ' u In O m 0 O N O m 0 m WW H U V' n. 0 m m 0 H O bd ro 0 m O O m Q O O m L f L f L f����� J d� m (((��j]]] d� m a a m b z S H 0 w m r 0 m 0 a m 0 11 �firl Alp lei 'I 1 ■"if�ilil n■If NO, w Mir V JI AP GL M. 1111111111111 ■t '1 1I •; MINIlilUM[ 111! �o IIIIIIIIIIilllil' '11 �u 11�> �,v:►ca uum III �1:� ��;�■1� IIIr■■ �. ■•_ter-_ 001111 0 ■ Imo'.% i1 ..1 4� : n 6MAY1..1 ow- 4r --- Im m,m,������ ►.a A_ A . N L" I /:III .jl III y F: Ir ilal Of WON INS WE WT -` ►:�i _ ���_ ■ell Fjpgi 111. r Il ■q .1 ■1 i I r L11�Y11�1 =1r, ► - i�► 111111 r , 11 ��:�1� 11 =1111 � 111 II�I� 1111 =1111 I all JJjXI1F4 1 =11111 = 111111111 11�N1'ua 1LLilILii 'w NOW _ I �'. ■� ■n O ML �- ' obw �I� ELM ��m iN p i I N, P•L�����I m Ur '� it � 111111111 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. I Created by - dff REZONING PETITION KNAPP ST -5TH TO 9TH AVS. Scale: 1" = 200' 0 N OfHK lH 0" T"' WATO City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development 01/18/10 .2� Petition To the 0 IA)n ('1 ) _ o f t h e Cit o f Oshkosh- _ Petition of the undersigned it. 'rs res id en ts of city res p e ctfully represents: That your petitioners are residents of the said city, and that each of them resit res pectively written below after their names(s), Tne- A Aridrt--R- of CirclllAtOr' MAY 2 0 2010 in the CITY rol 0i Petiti To the That your petitioners are residents of the said city, and that each of them resides in the street of the said city respectively written below after their names(s), ON THE WATER i R A ririrPgs of Circulator: µ Rim mom &MIAMEM = 11 i R A ririrPgs of Circulator: µ