HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-192MAY 25, 2010 JUNE 8, 2010 10 -165 10 -192 ORDINANCE
FIRST READING SECOND READING
(CARRIED 4 -3 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
AS AMENDED
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.
I_'ir=1fil7rTIR
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 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 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.
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.
F_:
U)
E 8TH
8T M
From R-2
El
To C 1036 7 j �i �] I Z
W 9TH AVE 9TH
1041 l t '� 008 9 r. a �.� � .n. r a6l
From R-2
To C-1
13
F t I Lj
4
hr� 940
W 1 0TH AVE W. 1 0TH
�� �� � ���� x Wig_ o' �� a
a_
Rezone from R-2, C-2 & C-2 PD City of Oshkosh Wisconsin
Dj
CL IMER To C-1 Community Development
This map is ne er a legally recorded map nor — ----------------- — -- — ------------
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing i a compilation of records, data Knapp St. Area N
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. 1 = 200'
If discrepencies are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh. Created by - D
INS
WMW
F_:
U)
E 8TH
8T M
From R-2
El
To C 1036 7 j �i �] I Z
W 9TH AVE 9TH
1041 l t '� 008 9 r. a �.� � .n. r a6l
From R-2
To C-1
13
F t I Lj
4
hr� 940
W 1 0TH AVE W. 1 0TH
�� �� � ���� x Wig_ o' �� a
a_
Rezone from R-2, C-2 & C-2 PD City of Oshkosh Wisconsin
Dj
CL IMER To C-1 Community Development
This map is ne er a legally recorded map nor — ----------------- — -- — ------------
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing i a compilation of records, data Knapp St. Area N
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. 1 = 200'
If discrepencies are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh. Created by - D
O,IHKOJH
ON THE WATER
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Darryn Burich)
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 5th 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 1h 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; #2- rezoning of 709
Knapp Street only; 43- partial rezonings from C -2 and C -2PD to C -1; and 44- 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
CITY HALL
215 Church Avenue
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, 54903-1130 City of Oshkosh
QIHKOlH
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Lynn A. Lorenson, City Attorney
DATE: June 3, 2010
RE: Petitions related to Knapp Street Rezoning
BACKGROUND
In response to a city- initiated rezoning of properties along Knapp Street from 5th
to 9th Avenue, the City Clerk's Office received two petitions, the first stating "We
are all property owners of the proposed rezoning Knapp Street, 5th to 9th
Avenues We do not want to be changed to C1 Please leave as is. See
attached map "; and the second stating "We the undersigned would like to keep
the property's C -2 as is ".
The first petition is signed by 20 individuals listing their addresses, a date and a
check in a column indicating that they are owners of the property as opposed to
renters. The petition is signed at the bottom of the page, presumably by the
person who circulated the petition. However, the signature of the circulator is
not dated, nor is there any assertion of specifically what role the person had in
circulating the petition. The signature is also illegible.
The second petition is signed by 4 individuals (one of the "signatures" is
apparently only the 2 first names of individuals — Don & Mary Ann). The petition
also contains a date and an indication that they own the properties referenced.
This petition is also signed at the bottom, again presumably by the person who
circulated the petition. However, the signature of the circulator is not dated, nor
is there any assertion of specifically what role the person had in circulating the
petition. The signature on the second page is also illegible.
L"J
Petitions related to Knapp Street Rezoning: 6/3/10: Page 2
ANALYSIS
The reason for this detailed review of exactly what information is, and is not, on
this petition is because the Wisconsin Statutes have legal implications for the
submission of petitions that include certain information. Citizens may always
submit petitions to their elected bodies in an effort to achieve a certain course of
action. In most of the situations in which a petition is submitted, the result is
political for the Council rather than having a specific legal consequence.
There are certain circumstances in which petitions submitted have legal
implications if they are properly submitted. Objections to zoning issues before
the Council is one such instance. If the citizens follow specific rules, then the
citizen petition can have the effect of changing the Council's voting rules by
requiring a supermajority vote for the zoning issues. If they don't follow the rules
as set forth by the Legislature, the petition will not change the Council's voting
rules, but may still be considered by the Council when making its decisions on
the specific issue.
Under Section 62.23(7)(d)(2m) if a protest against a proposed amendment to an
existing zoning ordinance "duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20%
or more either of the areas of the land included in such proposed amendment, or
by the owners of 20% or more of the area of the land immediately adjacent
extending 100 feet therefrom, or by the owners of 20% or more of the land
directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet from the street frontage of such
opposite land" is submitted to the City, the amendment shall not become
effective unless adopted by a 3/4 majority of the members of the council voting
on the proposed change. Assuming that all 7 members of the Council would vote
on the proposed change, this would require that the amendment receive 6
affirmative votes for passage.
Therefore, there are two essential statutory requirements for petitions objecting
to zoning issues. The first is that the signatures must be "duly signed and
acknowledged ". The second requirement relates to the percentage of adjacent
property owners who have objected to the zoning proposal. Staff has reviewed
the petitions filed and concluded that the petitions do not meet the requirement
that the signatures of the owners be "duly signed and acknowledged ". Therefore,
while Council could consider the petition, it would not trigger the super- majority
vote requirement for passage of the zone change.
No Wisconsin Court has ever directly interpreted the statutory language and,
therefore, it is difficult to predict with certainty how a court would rule. However,
The League of Municipalities has issued an opinion with relation to this issue.
Although they note, it was their opinion that the requirements of Sections 706.06
and 706.07 would apply to petitions filed under this section of the Statutes. They
further noted, that there are good reasons for the requirement. They conclude
Petitions related to Knapp Street Rezoning: 6/3/10: Page 3
that the requirement of acknowledgment of each signature on the petition is
mandatory and designed to assist the clerk in determining the sufficiency of the
petition as well as to prevent frivolous petitions and to insure that persons signing
will be fully aware of the implication of their act and will not later attempt to
remove their signatures from the petition."
The requirement that the owners duly sign and acknowledge requires more than
simply signing the petition form. Otherwise, the words "duly" and "acknowledge"
would have been included for no reason. If Sections 706.06 and 706.07 of the
Wisconsin Statutes applies, then those sections specify the requirements for
acknowledgment, authentication or notarization of signatures. In general, these
sections would require that the signatures be notarized or authenticated by a
public officer entitled to administer oaths or a member of the State Bar. There is
no indication on the form submitted that the signatures were notarized or
authenticated in any manner. We found no authority in the statutes for allowing
acknowledgment to occur simply by having a signature witnessed by someone
who does not fit at least one of the categories of public official, member of the
Bar or notarial officer.
Although no courts have directly interpreted the statutory language, the Court of
Appeals has interpreted similar language in an ordinance form and concluded
that the requirements placed upon petitioners under the ordinance which, like the
statute, required protests to be "duly signed and acknowledged ", did not require
each separate signature to be notarized. In that case the Court concluded that
the signatures were sufficiently acknowledged under the ordinance because the
particular protest met all of the requirements of an acknowledgment and
contained a notarized affidavit from the circulator indicating that the circulator had
personally circulated the protest, had personally obtained each of the signatures,
knew the signers to be the property owners and knew that each protestor signed
with full knowledge of the contents of the protest.
Assuming that a Court would interpret the statutory language similarly to the
ordinance language in the noted case, the petitions received would still not
trigger the super- majority requirement for passage of the proposed ordinance.
The petition filed does not include the affidavit of the circulator and does not
clearly identify the purpose of the document. Although there is a reference to an
attached map on the first petition submitted, no map was filed with the City
Clerk's office and the second petition contains no indication related to the specific
properties.
While a Court may find that holding petitioners to a standard which would require
each signature on a protest petition to be notarized would be too burdensome, it
would appear that identification of the specific purpose of the document would
still be required and a statement from the circulator would still be required. As I
noted above, if objectors to zoning issues wish to change the legal voting rules
Petitions related to Knapp Street Rezoning: 6/3/10: Page 4
for the Council on this issue, then the Statutes require that they follow the
additional rules set forth by the Legislature.
Because the petition in this case contains no indication as to the circulator,
except possibly the undated signature at the bottom of the form or whether this
person actually obtained all of the signatures on the form, this form is not
sufficient under even this less stringent reading of the statute to trigger the 3/
voting requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
While Council may consider the petitions submitted in relation to this proposed
zoning change, the petitions would not trigger the super- majority vote
requirement for passage of the zone change and the passage of the zone
change would require an affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the
Council.
Reectfully Sub tted,
L n . Lor
i y orney
Approved:
Mark A. Rohloff
City Manager
f /
Petition
To the � h C 1 of the City of Oshkosh:
The petition of t h e undersigned residents of said city respxtfully represents:
That your petitioners are residents of the said city, and that each of them resin
respectively written below after their names (s),
rnm A AridrPec of C;irr'llat0r:
2*
MAY 2 0 2010
in the
CIT �c�,.t_, ���'� °; () ICE
.7#
of the City of Oshkosh:
j-.
Thi petition of the undersigned residents of said city respectfully represents
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), a _ %
i Rr A ririre -qs of Circulator:
I.
r,
i Rr A ririre -qs of Circulator:
ITEM: ZONE CHANGE FROM C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 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 th Avenue to south of W. 9th 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.
�ub'ect Site
Existin Land Use Zonin
Residential &Commercial C -2, C -2PD & R -2
Ad'acent 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
4
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 15
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
Acreage
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 — RezoneKnappStreet
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 41- 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 #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 43 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 42 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 th 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. Thorns, 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'" 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 43
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 43 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 staffs 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 #4 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 94 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 #4.
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 94 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)
ED
m
29
w
L�
ta
o
Cam.
EW
0
5m
m�f
ED
FE
I
0
0
0
0
\
\
\
\
\
0
\
\
\
LO
CD
t—
O
W
M
O
L
L
N
N
(
aO
0
1r
O
O)
CO
I�
O
M
O)
C
N
O)
C�
M
M
O
O
O
6
O
N
O)
w
I�
N
ti
O
U')
O
M
tt
ti
c
0
f`
M
I`
O
to
I.
ti
M
N
r
CO
root,
O
O
N
Or
m
Or
N
r
M
N
CO
O
N
O)
c
CO
r
tt
00
M
O
O
6 Q
M
M
N
O)
ti
O
O
M
O
N
N
O
LCD
O)
m
CA
(O
t0
O
00
I�
N
O
O
LO
O
CO
C
N
N
CO
(O
r
r
N
O
ti
r
r
C'7
LC)
C4
t1'
'�t
O
L!7
M
« a) r)
r
r
3 N d
N � �
Q O C
a) Z y
B 6Q)
m
� 7
_ c
� N c
Lo
J
LC
N
'C
O
CID
N
N
O
r
N
r
COO
tM
O
O
tt
r
tt
N is
ti
N
"t
N
O
f`
r
d7
tt
O
N
O
r
O
O
O)
O
O
c0
O
O
tt
Q
C
r
Cl)
r
d'
CO
N
h
N
= U
r
v� a
U)
¢ 0
y Z y
a w
'c
N c
o Lo
J
N
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
OOOi
M
co
co
N
c
O
N
r
O
tt
O
Lo
r
LO
r
ti
O
TN-
0
a)
N
r
O)
CO
Ln
Co
N
LO
o0
co
M
0 0
L6 C u)
M
N
LO
C
M
r
M
r
LO
co
r
co D
r
N
mr
c U J
w y 'X
c Q w
0
a)
O
N
Cl)
Cl)
0)
co
O)
N
O
It
M
O
M
O
r
M
N
C N
tT
CN
In
D
co
r
N
t4 N C
cc
6
-j
N t CT
� C
y 3
0 H
w
c ¢
0
OD
CO
co
l()
tt
(O
Co
tt
O)
U)
I.-
N
M
O
O
0o
I�
N
N
Ln
O
ti
O
O
O
ti
O
00
r
LV
O
O
In
M
LC
M
00
r
O
1n
Lf')
M
LL)
M
M
O
M
O)
I'-
M
N
Co
f-
N
N
a
Cp
t t
CA
M
tt
ct
CO
M
'I
r
O
O
r
N
Ln
U')
O
CO
O
CO
tt
1
In
CO
t
t
N
N
r
r
U
N
CL
w
>
U)
U
z
�
L q
F--
E
E
J
U
m
W
Z
U
Y
U)
J
H
CD
LU
LU
O
}
Z
LO
¢
W
p
Q
a
z
o
O
_
z
bf
w
Z >
Y
a
w
o
z
o
L
[Y
o
co
w
er
o
Q U
�
g
�
v
v,
a
J
¢
N
N
�
w
W
w
w
w
w
w
>
w
>
W
>
w
>
w
>
¢
w
a
w
¢
Cq
C7
Cl)
Cq
Cn
C/J
'O
a ¢¢¢¢
>
>
>
>
>
a
>
a¢¢¢
a
Ln
(/)
a
Ln
a
Cq
a
LA
CL
a
a
a
a
a
a
F
rn
rn
rn
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
¢
a
¢
a
¢
a
Q
¢
a
¢
a)
m
L
n
co
m
rn
¢
Z
¢
Z
¢
Z
a
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
?
3
3
�
3:
C3
0
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
d
c
v
v
a
Ln
o
0
o
o
m
n
r
o
0
0
")
o
o
co
m
Ln
rn
v
CA
m
Lo
CA
CA
u
CA
CA
M
M
CA
CA
c°p
cc
L`
co
1025 0
U ,
rn
1020 an
6TH �--
1051 1 1043 1 1039 1 1033 1 1029 1 1023 1 1017 1 1013
M
6 1048 1044 1036 1028 1 1022 1 1016 1016A 1 1012
155 I 1041 .2= I iou 1027 1 1021 i
5TH
933 929 923 919 915 905 8477 84:
J 958 "950,` 940 1 934 1 930 1 926 1 920 1 914 1 910 1 906
gpk0� W11 943 935 927 921 997 911 907 9
1 936A
940 936 926 922 916 910 1 906 1 91
2 W 7TH
949 943 933 925 919
9 907 9
... K a
938 93D 926 920 912 904
8TH
r 951 935 931 927 921 1 917 913 907
cq ,t 948 944 940 934 928 920 916 1 9 910 906
9TH
X95 7 - 937 1 933 925 921 913
x 937A
.za
r
0
N
0)
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 otraces and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not
responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepancies are found, please Contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Rezoning of Knapp Street Area,
W. 5th Avenue to W. 9th Avenue
50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Feet
N
A
04 -23 -2010
Scale: 1" = 150'
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
1039
1033
1029
1025
1019
1015 c D�l5
<,
1048A
1048
1036
1034
1028
1024
1016
"
1014.
1051 1 1043 1 1039 1 1033 1 1029 1 1023 1 1017 1 1013
M
6 1048 1044 1036 1028 1 1022 1 1016 1016A 1 1012
155 I 1041 .2= I iou 1027 1 1021 i
5TH
933 929 923 919 915 905 8477 84:
J 958 "950,` 940 1 934 1 930 1 926 1 920 1 914 1 910 1 906
gpk0� W11 943 935 927 921 997 911 907 9
1 936A
940 936 926 922 916 910 1 906 1 91
2 W 7TH
949 943 933 925 919
9 907 9
... K a
938 93D 926 920 912 904
8TH
r 951 935 931 927 921 1 917 913 907
cq ,t 948 944 940 934 928 920 916 1 9 910 906
9TH
X95 7 - 937 1 933 925 921 913
x 937A
.za
r
0
N
0)
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 otraces and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not
responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepancies are found, please Contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Rezoning of Knapp Street Area,
W. 5th Avenue to W. 9th Avenue
50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Feet
N
A
04 -23 -2010
Scale: 1" = 150'
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
m
W
P4
w
In
r
N
m
N
Z
�0
10
•Y.
o
o
3
A o
h o
E o
\
0
N
0
m
\ m
¢ pqa
aWja
Qwa
Q . N
W N
W> N
n
x F N
E
N N
a' N
P4 F4
S
�E3
R;x3
al (74
�a
S4
O m x
m x
m x
h x
x
H3 o
> o
X30
030
aim
3w
m 2
mp�
MG
aw
�i
rx
HNx
W
oxm
m 0
Lny
N m 0
F,om
m H 0
am
m m 0
Hr N
m 0
m0
U
a
N
W
<
Q N
m
m
w
m O
W N
H H
> o
H N
P'
Q
, 10
LO
a
a�
w N
Ul
[�
U m
N
�D
H m
F� m
>R
O N
N
=
O N
P4 aT
>
ci
R
\ O
w m p
RCaw
EWw
PQ
O
W O
a N
Q N
r
N
=
W W N
W
$
U
E•O
a 3
w W 3
mOx
w P. 3
w W
h 3
m
F
rzC LLF
9 Q 0
- ix
ca�xxC
W x
O ' F y Cx
^ p
x
0 o
$ x
R
U
w CG 0
p
a
C w j� mx
0
o bC
ae
i
a
w�
x
m
x
0
G4 N •.�'
H x
wom
w x
O•a'mom
ri
fC r1m
O
O.im
a m 0
.�
Owm
0
£oy
H O
ca
W m0
h w x
a H O
w m 0
m 0
E M
w
>
'
Q
w
.7
O
>
b
i
\ m
W
M
l0
raj
3 "4
w+
w
w
a l
:
U N
m
h l0
N
H ko
N
U m
N
ko
N
w l0
m
C
i
wW
Ai N
a
m
a O
N o
4
FFGG
p o
a
a Q o
,>a
a
N >
O R
F N
F w o
h W
v
h m
a m
C7 m
m a
m> m
> v
�i
.
\ w
a' a
W
Qmw
(� a tn
Ha. +
N
w
N 31
w Qa
N
N
Faj
01
Q O
�i
w ''
G.EH
xH
�n
H
q❑
m
ai H
wQpq
m
ti
H
H
E W
aU H
�H3
c
o H
X03 a
CH,
a,3
x
Hm x
H W
W Pd
x
a
m x
tQ 30
��m
3 0
w30
wxm
t
mSCO
m0
a O
u C4
x
a�
F P4
O x
r E+
m m
N r '4
a r x
PG
U f'1 x
N SG
'a N =
N .`L
G� r x
"I = m
Q m u•
�"� x
(Y N
O O m
C m
m W
FC 10 m
rr�� N m
w m
9t
P�r0
O m
mH0
WHO
m0
xN3
mH0
xm0
m.-t0
R
H
O
N
H
N
O
N
O
m
N
m
>
W M
�[xj�'��+.i =
N
O
N
£
r
N
N
lfl
N
N
N
O
U Iw
V 0 w
C.7
O N
N
N
N
°
N
°
a
m
m
m
a m
.
h N
E m
h W m
N
6a H m
N
a . m
m
a F n
m
w a
`z
w
Fj W w
�+ w dI
x > N
\ 1 w
Q N
o
W w
O>4N
Cx >
rt N
3 �N
L ,n
a�N
a �N
h F3
E W
I
tW7FN
c
3x3
x3
o xa
ryx3
m F
m
2::
a W 0
o
Ow
O
F
x
(� x
r x
N x
ei x n
Q H x
V3
U3
2C
t o
VI
I m 0
m
i x iOp
m0
W3
z�PO4
P.
gm0
W 30w
ca V4
Ln
° mN0
Uao
HO
amo
i
.�4m0
SmO
Wt
x
o
y
x'j •
H
N
O
q
g ko
Pd q O
00
m
en
N
o
00
x O
�.
N
W r
tx m
m O R
r
N
r
N
w l0
N
N m
'T.. a: N 4
N
W N
H N
[ N
N
y
N
a
, > a
N
N
rt
m
W m
w
U�m
XW7
m ���jjj w
a
ppqq
g9v
3 w
W m
w w
a
p w
�w
axN
x a
EaN
W Fu
Ea
>�
u N
i
`xCN
Q
Qu
W CElN
prj gON a
p
NF3
�
a W 3
F3
NH3
a a
m
+S
a �o
>M3
a
r P.M
a P.
E2. A
a r
3
a4
ai
x N
rr.��
c�
Su
QS40
m0
cc
Hy
W g3t x n
£�u
n'3to
W>' 0
C9
q
W Pi
P:ND
54
H"
o2
14 m
R.Q
z H
( F � C D4
[q
pq .
H.1 N m
R 1 j ox
/� d' N
wax
O O m
co
7.� M m
N m
r O
m
a m m
MO
o m
mH0
y r7
ai�O
mamO
CC77NO
fx�O
aimO
w0
m14 0
wm0
rrr'C••"..
U
a
a %
3 w
N
�
W
w u�i
to
H
m
r
N
rzt
H m
N
m
N
m
DW �y N
N
N
w N
N
h N
Q N
h G
O
h O
rn
° ,qR i
w
W w
W >a
�Ch w
W w
H sr
a N
i• N
52
x Qi N
m
Ln
m
. r w 7 C a
�0
z
Hx3
Q' W
El
•t ai' H
QP
F x H
Q,�F3
w w H
F a 3
H
R x 3
q H
3
303
m
H
g
a
a�x
r x
x�x
hmx
[
m W x
wvFix
W30
zUZ3
aLn
FRx
hh
z[wy°
m00
W3
z
a�
]uNxMxwx
NW ••
W Hx
�mx
o
Omx
W rx
P4
QiOom
dim
Wd'm
W'LV
Nom
ONm
.-MFG
U W m
H0M
OOm
wmro
0m0
P mo
a P.
0%W0
qmo
z�
0 mo
DL%o0
zH0
u� ;
11M '
1
u� n ■It ni.� i
'V 040
IGi °`9l111111111111�1 �1
illl��lllillllll II
:�o llllllilllllllll' �I
0 1 pill ■ ! 11
�rl y! : n iJJ91■ �'� r, III
r —
!� x .111'% Imm
Lip
. -
Fir
� � 63 ■iLi a� �� F�
1 -� CJ •-
. irk IJ-� M
"� I -�IIV� MOM
T.
�
i
11 � J
�U 1 ! 1 11
ll I III �I i M
MINI
1
I I 1
1�I 1
11
►1
nr-
L
C ELM
'� ff
mo Gig 0i1
j "r
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 - dff
REZONING PETITION
KNAPP ST -5TH TO 9TH AVS. N O.lHKOlH
'1 T'*ATER
City of Oshkosh
Scale: 1 = 200 Department of
�� ' Community Development
01/18110