HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-336OCTOBER 12, 2010 OCTOBER 26, 2010 10 -318 10 -336 ORDINANCE
FIRST READING SECOND READING
(CARRIED 7 -0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
PURPOSE: APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING WTIH A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY / VACANT LOT NORTHWEST
CORNER OF MASON STREET AND OSBORN AVENUE
INITIATED BY: THOMAS RUSCH ETAL, OWNER
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved
A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 30 -16
(B) 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 M -3 General Industrial to R -3
Multiple Dwelling with a Planned Development Overlay.
All of Lots 7, 13 & 14, excluding the west 486 ft. and that portion lying west of Mason
Street and north of Osborn Avenue, being part of the NE Y4 of Section 27, 13th Ward,
City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, plus public right -of -way abutting said
lots extending to the centerlines of Mason Street and Osborn Avenue.
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 -336 APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING WTIH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY / VACANT LOT NORTHWEST CORNER OF MASON STREET AND
OSBORN AVENUE on October 26, 2010. The Ordinance changes the zoning
classification to R -3 PD. 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.
1� 12� 1❑
g
O C
W. 12TH AVE.
1230
1240
1280 1270 1250
1260 ,
1✓
I ?
O
DISCLAIMER
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data
and information located in various city, county
and state offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re-
sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepencies are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Rezone From M -3
To R -3 PD
1 " = 200'
City of Oshkosh Wisconsin
Community Development
N
+ 10/7/2010
Created by - D
,lHK 1H
ON THE WATER
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Darryn Burichh
Director of Planning Services
DATE: October 5, 2010
RE: Approve Zone Change from M -3 General Industrial to R -3 Multiple Dwelling with a Planned
Development Overlay / Vacant Lot Northwest Corner of Mason Street and Osborn Avenue
(Plan Commission Recommends Approval)
BACKGROUND
The 4.6 acre parcel included within this rezoning request is located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue
and Mason Street and is currently undeveloped open space. The property is a corner lot with approximately 500
feet of frontage on Osborn Avenue and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Mason Street. The property is
bound on the north with an established single family neighborhood, vacant industrial (formerly Strey
Construction) on the west, mini - warehousing on the east across Mason Street and the Vulcan Quarry on the
south across Osborn Avenue.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the rezoning request from the M -3 General Industrial District to the R -3 Multiple Dwelling
District is to allow the applicant to design and develop multiple family housing on the property consisting of six
eight -unit apartment buildings (48 units) with accessory garages. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use
map identifies this area as appropriate for residential use and the development of multiple family housing could
act as a "buffer" between the existing warehousing and quarry operations to the south and east and the adjacent
single - family neighborhood to the north. The probability of a single or two - family housing subdivision being
successful at this location is debatable and, as currently zoned, the property would allow a myriad of heavy
industrial uses with the application of a building permit only. The proposed R -3 zoning would limit
development to much more restricted uses. Staff is concerned with the rezoning of this one individual property
without also rezoning the property to the west which could be problematic by allowing the development of
residential uses surrounded on three sides with industrial zoning designation. Therefore, staff would
recommend that both properties remain industrially zoned or zoned for residential use which would remove
potential use conflicts on the adjacent properties. The owner of the adjacent parcel was contacted regarding the
rezoning request however he did not desire to change the zoning designation on his property. The Plan
Commission felt a zoning designation of R -3 Multiple Dwelling District with a planned development overlay
would be more appropriate as it would allow for review and approval of any development plans by the Plan
Commission and Common Council prior to construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
None anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from M -3 General Industrial to R -3 Multiple
Dwelling with a Planned Development Overlay for the applicant's property at its September 21, 2010 meeting.
Approved, City Manager Manager
ITEM: ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO R -3
MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF OSBORN AVENUE AND MASON STREET
Plan Commission meeting of September 21, 2010
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Thomas Rusch
Owner: Richard L. Gabert & Thomas N. Rusch
Action(s) Requested:
Zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is requested for review
and approval to allow the development of multiple family housing on the property.
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
The Zoning Ordinance does not establish criteria relative to appropriateness of changing zoning but relies on
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans and sound planning principles.
Property Location and Background Information:
The 4.6 acre parcel included within this rezoning request is located at the northwest corner of Osborn
Avenue and Mason Street and is currently undeveloped open space. The property is a corner lot with
approximately 500 feet of frontage on Osborn Avenue and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Mason
Street. The property is bound on the north with an established single family neighborhood, vacant industrial
(formerly Strey Construction) on the west, mini - warehousing on the east across Mason Street and the
Vulcan Quarry on the south across Osborn Avenue.
Cvvh;a'r Ci +P
Existing Land Use
Zonin
Vacant/Undeveloped
M -3
Adiacent Land Use and Lonin
Existn
Uses
10 Year Land Use Recommendation
Zonin
North
Single Family Residences ..... ............ ............ ...
. _
R -1
_ ..... ....
uth
South
Industrial - Active Quarry (a . .................... ...................................... _....... _
_ . _
...............
............ ....._.__.................... _...... ..... . _........................ .........
..
East
Industrial .... _.. . ...._
... . .. _.......1-1-1-1.1
......._.
..
West
...........
Vacant Industrial - Former Contractor Yard
M -3
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation
Land Use
10 Year Land Use Recommendation
Residential
20 Year Land Use Recommendation
Residential
ANAL LASTS
The purpose of the rezoning request from the M -3 General Industrial District to the R -3 Multiple Dwelling
District is to allow the applicant to design and develop multiple family housing on the property. The
application material indicates that the petitioner proposes to develop six eight -unit apartment buildings (48
units) with accessory garages on the site; however plans for the proposed development are not included with
the application material.
The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for residential use and a
zone change to an R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is being requested. The Comprehensive Plan does not
differentiate between single, two or multiple family within its residential land -use recommendations and
relies on a case -by -case review to determine appropriateness of individual designations. For the proposed
48 dwelling unit project proposal, the R -3 designation is appropriate as it is the City's lowest density
multiple family dwelling district and requires a minimum of 3,000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit,
thereby allowing a maximum of 67 dwelling units (which is also dependent on land area being available for
necessary building setbacks, accessory parking placement, stormwater management facilities, etc.).
Staff understands why and does not disagree with the multiple family dwelling designation being requested
by the applicant as the development of multiple family could potentially act as a "buffer" between the
existing warehousing and quarry operations to the south and east and the adjacent existing low- density
single - family neighborhood to the north. The probability of a single or two - family housing subdivision
being successful at this location is questionable, especially in the current housing market and the multiple
family dwelling use may be the highest and best use of land that is designated for residential use.
Additionally, as currently zoned, the property would allow a myriad of industrial uses (some very heavy)
with the simple application of a building permit where the proposed zoning would limit development to
much more restricted uses (see attached use comparison tables).
Staff is concerned that the rezoning of this one individual property without also rezoning the property to the
west could be problematic by allowing the development of residential uses surrounded on three sides with
industrial zoning designation. For this reason, staff feels that either both properties should remain
industrially zoned or, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, both be zoned for residential use. By
tying the two lots together in zoning and therefore allowable uses, it will remove potential use conflicts on
the adjacent properties as well as remove barriers (such as transition yards and landscape requirements)
associated with the protection of less restricted uses and zoning (industrial) when adjacent to more
restrictive (residential). The owner of the adjacent property was contacted to inquire on the desirability of
voluntarily including the his property in the rezoning but the owner felt a rezoning at this time would limit
the lands marketability as well as increase the taxes and therefore will not voluntarily include his property in
the rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the individual lot zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3
Multiple Dwelling District as requested, but recommends approval of a zone change for the subject property
and the adjacent property to the west.
The Plan Commission approved of the zone change for the subject property only. The following is the Plan
Commission's discussion on this item.
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area including the zoning classifications
and existing land uses. He stated that the multiple family development proposed would consist of six
Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason
buildings containing 48 units total. He also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan which recommends
residential use for this area and explained that staff was recommending denial of the zone change for the
individual lot but approval of the zone change for the subject property and the adjacent property to the west.
Mr. Burich added that Mr. Strey was approached regarding changing his property to the R -3 zoning
classification as well as Mr. Rusch's property to make the adjacent lots consistent and he was not supportive
of the suggested zone change. If the request would be approved for only the Rusch property it would result
in the Strey property remaining as an M -3 zoning classification which would allow for an industrial use to
be established at this site. He also suggested that a planned development overlay could be added to the zone
change request to allow for further review of any development on these sites prior to the use being
established.
Mr. Thorns inquired about the zoning classification to the east where the storage units are located.
Mr. Burich responded that the zoning classification on this site was also M -3.
Mr. Thorns then questioned if this property could also be included in the zone change request.
Mr. Burich replied that it could be done with a planned development overlay option however the R -3 zoning
classification without the planned development overlay would make the existing storage unit use a
nonconforming use on the site.
Mr. Hinz asked for clarification of the action being considered today and if it would only affect the Rusch
property.
Mr. Burich responded that the petitioner is requesting the zone change for his site only however staff was
recommending the zone change be applied to both sites to establish consistent uses in the area to avoid
creating a situation that would result in a residential site being surrounded by manufacturing uses on three
sides. The planned development overlay suggested could be added to both properties to ensure review
authority of potential uses prior to being established.
Ms. Propp commented that the Plan Commission was not in the habit of rezoning lands not requested by the
property owner.
Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission had reviewed several rezoning requests of areas where
current zoning is not consistent with existing uses such as the recent Knapp Street downzone where all the
property owners were not in agreement
Ms. Propp questioned if this was an appropriate action.
Mr. Burich replied that the Comprehensive Plan recommends residential use for this area and he felt it was
in the best interest of the community to change the zoning to be consistent with this recommendation.
Mr. Palmeri inquired if Mr. Strey was approached regarding the zone change to his property.
Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that Mr. Strey was not interested in having his site changed to
a residential zoning classification.
Mr. Palmeri then inquired if Mr. Rusch had discussed his proposed development with the neighboring
property owners.
Item - Reaone NW Osborn & Mason
Mr. Burich replied that he did not believe there was any contact with the neighbors as there were numerous
inquiries with the Planning Services office in regard to concerns from neighbors that were opposed to any
multiple family residential housing at this location.
Mr. Nau stated that he had a statement from Dennis Schneider, 1425 Kensington Avenue, which was mailed
to our office stating that he was opposed to a R -3 zoning classification but would be supportive of a R -1
zoning designation. He also had an email from Bea Halfen, 1125 Armory Place, which listed a number of
reasons that she was opposed to apartments at this location or the approval of a R -3 zoning classification for
this site. He summarized her statements which addressed issues such as her concerns with the density of the
development, residential property being developed on the site while the Vulcan Quarry was still operational,
the preservation of the Huntington Downs neighborhood, and that she felt the area should remain open space
as it currently exists.
Mr. Bowen commented that it appeared there were several different options to be considered with this
request such as changing the individual site only to a R -3 zoning classification or a R -3PD classification, or
changing both sites to either one of these zoning designations.
Mr. Vajgrt inquired if the proposed apartments would be low income housing.
Mr. Nau responded that this factor was not known at this time.
Joe Schirger, 1355 Cambridge Avenue, stated that he was concerned with the density of the proposed
development and the traffic problems it could create particularly on Osborn Avenue and Knapp Street. He
further stated that he would find single family homes or duplexes acceptable but had concerns how the
development of apartments at this location would impact the property values of homes in the neighborhood.
Ron Abitz, 1125 Canterbury Drive, questioned how long the Comprehensive Plan has been in existence as
there are storage units and the Armory in the neighborhood and he did not understand how the Plan could
recommend this area to be residential with these existing uses. He also commented that he did not feel it
was fair to force Mr. Strey to pay taxes on R -3 zoned property rather than M -3 if he did not wish to rezone
his site. He believed that the City had offered to purchase the quarry property at one time and he also had
concerns about an access road on the Strey property and if it would continue to exist. He voiced his
concerns about what type of housing would be developed on the site and stated that he was opposed to low -
income apartments but would find R -1 zoning for single - family homes acceptable. He also inquired how
the storage units were allowed to be established on the adjacent site.
Mr. Burich responded that the site was zoned M -3 which is General Industrial District and this zoning
classification allows uses such as storage units.
Mr. Abitz also inquired about the zoning designation for the Armory property adjacent to the site owned by
Mr. Strey.
Mr. Nau replied that the Armory property is zoned R -1 as it is classified as an institutional type use. He
added that the Vulcan Quarry site was recommended for passive recreational use in the Comprehensive Plan
when it is no longer operational.
Mr. Burich added that any change in use on the Armory site would require approval by both the Plan
Commission and Common Council.
Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason 4
Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, stated that she has lived there since 1993 and does not want to live
near apartments. She further stated that she purchased the property for the privacy it provided and the trees
along the lot line of the Strey and Rusch properties provide additional privacy for her home. She voiced her
concerns with the lighting, increased noise, destruction of her privacy, and children playing in the quarry or
on the Strey property. She commented that she was told that nothing would ever be developed on these lots
and her concerns that the ground on the Strey site was contaminated. She felt that single - family homes
could be acceptable on this site but preferred to not have them developed either. She also had concerns
regarding the blasting done on the quarry property which is disturbing and does not want to see the Strey
property rezoned to residential.
Kevin Diedrich, 1330 Kensington Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the apartment development on this
site and questioned if any traffic flow studies had been completed for the additional vehicles that will be
accessing the streets in the surrounding area. He also stated that he had concerns with the stability of the
proposed structures due to the blasting operations in the quarry facility and the safety of the children in their
neighborhood due to the increased density on the site that would add to the traffic congestion in the vicinity.
He commented that he would find R -1 zoning acceptable.
Tom Rusch, 3801 State Road 21, displayed a diagram of the proposed apartment development and stated
that Mr. Strey has a 75 foot easement on the north side of his property and that he did not have any
intentions of removing the existing trees on the north side of the lot. He commented that he has been
building apartments in Oshkosh for the past 43 years and distributed photographs of some of his existing
apartment developments. He stated that the proposed units would be typical apartments with detached
garages comparable to the photos he distributed and that several more of these developments were already
established around the city. He discussed some of the history of the area on Osborn Avenue and how it
became zoned for industrial use. He felt that the proposed apartment development would be a better and
more compatible use than the heavy industrial uses that could be established on the site with the current
zoning designation.
Mr. Thorns inquired if Mr. Rusch had contacted Mr. Strey in regard to purchasing his property.
Mr. Rusch responded that he had done so a few years ago.
Mr. Thoms also questioned if the issue of increased traffic in the Kensington Avenue area had been
researched.
Mr. Rusch replied that he anticipated that the streets that would handle the main traffic flow from the
apartments would be Osborn Avenue, Knapp Street, and Mason Street and he did not foresee an increase in
traffic in the Kensington Avenue neighborhood.
Mr. Fojtik inquired if he had concerns with the operations at the Vulcan Quarry.
Mr. Rusch responded negatively.
Ms. Propp questioned if the office building next to the storage units was vacant.
Mr. Rusch replied that they use one of the offices and the other one is currently vacant but may be rented as
of next month.
Ms. Propp also questioned if the high voltage lines in the area were a concern.
Item - Re_one NW Osborn & Mason
Mr. Rusch replied that he did not have concerns with the lines. They exist in other areas of the country and
had not caused any incidents to his knowledge in the past.
Ms. Propp inquired if he was aware that he would have to come back to the Plan Commission and Common
Council with the proposed plans for the development and if he had any issues with this.
Mr. Rusch responded that he was willing to do whatever was required to move forward with his project
which would entail free standing brick apartment buildings. He noted that the driveway shown on the
diagram was not there and will be omitted as the ingress and egress from the site would be on Osborn
Avenue and Mason Street.
Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay that was discussed previously would be the only
mechanism that would require additional review for the proposed development and if a zoning classification
of R -3 only was approved, no additional review would be necessary as it would be a permitted use in this
district.
Mr. Palmeri questioned if the neighbors had been contacted regarding the proposed development.
Mr. Rusch replied negatively.
Mr. Hinz inquired if the trees would be remaining on both the Strey and Rusch properties along the north
property line.
Mr. Rusch responded that there was one tree in the center of the site that would have to come down but the
remaining trees would be preserved. He further commented that he has apartment developments on both
Ninth Avenue and Highway 41 and State Highway 44 with no buffers in between the apartments and the
single family homes adjacent to the site without issue.
Mr. Palmeri stated that the City recently bought some properties because of potential methane issues near an
abandoned quarry and questioned what assurances we have that there will not be an environmental issue in
the future with this site. He also suggested that perhaps some further studies should be completed on the
site before allowing any development to proceed.
Mr. Burich stated that the methane issues that required the acquisition of several homes on Knapp Street and
West South Park Avenue was due to the filling of the abandoned quarry with garbage and this was not the
case with the Vulcan Quarry.
Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the blasting operations at the quarry would create issues with the structures
proposed on the adjacent site.
Mr. Burich responded that the City had no way to test for this type of issue and it would be the responsibility
of Mr. Rusch to investigate the matter. He further commented that there is residential development adjacent
to the quarry on Knapp Street and South Park and there were no issues to date that he was aware of where
the city has had to condemn the houses because of structural failure.
Mr. Palmeri commented that the City should be concerned that no structural or soil issues exist prior to
development.
Mr. Burich replied that the City can not get involved with these types of issues and he has not heard of any
structural problems in this area however engineering studies could be requested if deemed necessary.
Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason
Mr. Palmeri stated that the citizens in the residential development to the north are apparently not happy with
the proposed apartments and the petitioner has not had any communications with these neighbors. He felt
that the Commission should request that this conversation take place before moving forward with this
request.
Mr. Thorns commented that issues could not be addressed regarding the proposed development without a
planned development overlay being placed on the site. He further commented that he did not understand
why the neighbors had objections to the R -3 zoning classification but had no objections to the M -3 zoning
classification that currently exists on the site. He felt that the planned development overlay seems to be the
best decision for all involved as approving the zone change without knowing what will be built there could
be problematic.
Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay can address issues of what will be developed on the
site prior to it being constructed.
Mr. Bowen commented that he agreed with Mr. Thorns and as it sits right now a distribution center or some
other type of heavy manufacturing use could be established on this site and the Plan Commission or the
Common Council would have no say in the matter as it would be an allowable use. He further commented
that any development of the site will impact the neighborhood however the only request being considered
today is the rezoning of the property and no development of the site would be approved at this time. The
planned development overlay on one or both of these properties should be imperative to ensure review of
any proposed plans prior to proceeding with development.
Ms. Propp questioned if we could leave the M -3 zoning classification on the Strey property with a planned
development overlay.
Mr. Burich responded that the planned development overlay does not prevent a manufacturing use from
being established on this site.
Ms. Propp stated that it is not practical to place a planned development overlay on the storage unit property
as the use on this site already exists. She also commented that it is unrealistic to place a R -1 zoning
classification on this area as she did not feel the site would be appropriate for single family homes.
Mr. Burich commented that the storage units are not usually built to the highest standards and could be
removed at some point. He suggested that this site could be considered for a zone change in the future.
Mr. Hinz stated that the rezoning request was the issue at hand today and there would be no plans for review
at this time however a manufacturing use on this site is not desirable. The planned development overlay
would provide protection for the neighborhood and leave room for further input from the community and
the City prior to any development being established.
Mr. Palmeri commented that he felt the City and the Department of Community Development are putting
citizens in a position to accept a proposed development they do not desire to see at this location instead of
another possible development that they also do not want. He felt Mr. Rusch should initiate a meeting with
the neighbors to discuss his plans and he was not ready to vote on this request at this time.
Mr. Thorns stated that all developers are not required to hold neighborhood meetings prior to bringing an
item forward for review by the Plan Commission and he did not feel it was fair to ask Mr. Rusch to do this
when other developers are not held to the same standard. An ordinance should be passed by the Common
hem - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason 7
Council making this a requirement for all developers rather than single out certain requests. He also
commented that the Commission does not want to create development pockets of spot zoning in any area
but we have to consider the zone change of this site as that is the petitioner's request presented today. He
did not think it was necessary to have the developer incur the costs of preparing full development plans at
this point until it is known if the rezoning request would be approved.
Mr. Palmeri felt that the item should be laid over to a future meeting until matters could be worked out with
the neighbors who are opposed to this development.
Mr. Burich stated that Commission members could opt to lay the item over if they felt it appropriate.
Ms. Propp commented that she had mixed feelings about the issue as Osborn Avenue has mostly industrial
type uses currently although some of the other uses make the area sort of a mixture of various uses. She did
not feel that an industrial use on this site would be appropriate however residential use may also not be
desirable with both adjacent lots remaining with a M -3 zoning classification. She also commented that she
was not comfortable with rezoning the Strey property if the owner was not agreeable to the change.
Mr. Bowen stated that a neighborhood meeting is not a requirement of the City and he had concerns with
holding off on this request for the developer to meet with the neighbors as the neighbor's desires may not be
financially feasible in which case the rezoning request would not proceed and it could result in both of these
lots left with a M -3 zoning classification. If the developer decides to abandon the development plans, we
may not be able to facilitate any zone change to this area whatsoever in the future. He felt the planned
development overlay would be the most advantageous choice as it would provide the opportunity for further
review of the development plans and he would not support laying this request over until a later meeting.
Mr. Fojtik agreed.
Mr. Nollenberger commented that a neighborhood meeting could take place before the development plans
are brought forward for Plan Commission and Common Council review.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to
R -3 Multiple Dwelling District with a planned development overlay for property located at the
northwest corner of Osborn Avenue and Mason Street as requested.
Seconded by Propp.
Mr. Palmeri stated that both the Plan Commission and Common Council would have less difficulty
approving development plans for this site with input from neighboring property owners.
Mr. Thorns stated that he felt this action was too narrowly focused and would not support it. This will leave
the Strey property with a M -3 zoning classification and we should at least put a planned development
overlay on the property to provide some review authority for any development of the site.
Mr. Nollenberger questioned if that issue should be addressed with a separate motion.
Mr. Burich responded that the items could be separated and considered with two individual votes.
Mr. Thoms suggested that staff could address the other two properties (Strey's property and the site with the
storage units) at a meeting in October. He also supported the initiating of a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the development plans for the Rusch property.
Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason
Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen /Fojtik/Hinz/ Palmeri /Propp/Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms.)
Motion by Nollenberger requesting staff initiate a neighborhood meeting between the developer and
the citizens in the neighborhood as soon as possible relating to the proposed development of the site
and requesting staff to consider rezoning of the Strey property.
Seconded by Palmeri.
Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/ Palmeri /Propp/Vajgrt /Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms.)
Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason
R -3 to M -3 Zoning Use Comparison
P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed
USE
R -3
M -3
Accessory Structure
P
P
Acid Manufacturer
X
C
Agricultural
X
X
Airstrips /Landing Field (agricultural related)
X
X
Animal Hospital (excluding open kennel)
X
P
Animal Husbandry
X
X
Antique Sales
X
P
Appliance Manufacturing
X
P
Appliance Repair Shop
X
P
Appliance Store
X
P
Aquatic Nursery
X
P
Art Center
C
P
Art Gallery
X
P
Art Shop
X
P
Asphalt/Concrete Batch Plant
X
C
Auction Establishment
X
P
Auto Body Shop
X
P
Automobile Garage
X
P
Automobile Sales
X
P
Automobile Service Facility (excluding body shop)
X
C
Dyer (retail, collection & distribution only)
X
P
Bakery (on premise sales only)
X
P
Bakery (manufacturing, packaging)
X
P
Banks
X
P
Barber Shop
X
P
Barns
X
X
Beauty Shop
X
P
Bed and Breakfast Inn
X
X
Beekeeping
X
X
Beer Depot
X
P
Beverage Manufacturing
X
P
Billiard Room
X
P
Blacksmith
X
P
Boarding /Rooming House
C
X
Boathouse
P
X
Book Store (retail)
X
P
Bottling of Beverages
X
P
Bowling Alley
X
P
Bus Depot
X
P
Bus Garage
X
P
Bus Repair Shop
X
P
Flea Market
X
X
Candy Manufacturing
X
P
Candy Store
X
P
Cash Crops
X
X
Caterer
X
P
Cement Manufacturing
X
C
Cemetery
C
P
Charitable Institutions
X
X
Church
C
P
Cigar /Cigarette Manufacturing
X
P
Cleaners (collection & distribution only)
X
P
Cleaners (commercial)
X
P
Clinic
X
P
Clothing Manufacturing
X
P
Clothing Store (retail)
X
P
Clubs, private
X
P
Clubs - & Semi-Public Structures
X
X
Coffee & Tea Store
X
P
Colleges (including residence halls)
X
X
Commercial /Residential Structures
X
X
Community Centers
C
P
Concrete /Asphalt Batch Plant
X
C
Condenseries
X
X
Confectionary Store
X
P
Contractor's Yard
X
P
Convenience Foods, Prepackaged
(wholesaleldistributing)
X
P
Convention Hall
X
P
Cosmetic Manufacturing
X
P
Creameries
X
X
Crockery Store (retail)
X
P
Heating Supply Store
X
P
USE
R -3
M -3
Dairying
X
X
Dance Hall
X
P
Dancing School
X
P
Day Care Center
C
C
Day Care Center, Family (8 or less children)
P
X
Day Care Center, Family (9 or more children)
C
X
Delicatessen
X
P
Dental Office
X
P
Directional Sign for Hotel /Motel
X
C
Distributing Establishment
X
P
Dormitories
X
X
Dress Shop (retail)
X
P
Drive -Up /Drive -Thru Restaurant
X
C
Drug Store
X
P
Dry Cleaners (collection & distribution only)
X
P
Dry Goods Store (retail)
X
P
Dwelling, Multiple Family
P
X
Dwelling, Single Family
P
X
Dwelling, Two Family
P
X
Dyeing Establishment
X
P
Dyer (retail, collection & distribution only)
X
P
Educational institution
X
C
Electrical Supplies (retail)
X
P
Electrical Supplies (wholesale & distributing)
X
P
Elementary Schools (public & private)
C
X
Enameling Establishment
X
P
Engraving Establishment
X
P
Exhibition Hall
X
P
Explosive Manufacturing Storage
X
C
Extraction of Sand /Gravel /Other Raw Materials
X
C
Family Day Care Center (8 or less children)
P
X
Family Day Care Center (9 or more children)
C
X
Fat Rendering
X
C
Feed Lots
X
X
Fertilizer Manufacturing
X
C
Field Crops, Raising of
X
I X
Fish Farms
X
X
Fish Market (retail)
X
P
Fish Market (wholesale)
X
P
Flea Market
X
X
Floriculture
X
X
Florist Shop (retail)
X
P
Food Products (retail)
X
P
Food Products Packing
X
P
Forestry
X
X
Fraternity or Sorority House
X
X
Freight House
X
P
Fruit & Garden Produce Roadside Stand
X
X
Fruit & Vegetable Store
X
P
Funeral Home
C
P
Fur Farms
X
X
Furniture Upholstering /Refinishing /Repairs /Sales
X
P
Garbage or Rubbish Dumping
X
C
Gift Shop
X
P
Glue Manufacturing
X
C
Governmental Structure
C
P
Grazing
X
X
Greenhouse (commercial)
C
P
Grocery Store
X
P
Group Homes: Less than 8 persons
P
X
More than 9 persons
P
X
Less than 15 persons
P
X
More than 16 persons
C
X
Gypsum Manufacturing
X
C
Halfway House
C
X
Hardware Store
X
P
Hay
X
X
Heating Supply Store
X
P
High Schools (including Junior High)
C
X
lD
P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed
USE
R -3
M -3
Heating Supply Store
X
P
High Schools (including Junior High)
C
X
Hobby Store
X
P
Hogs, Raising of
X
X
Hoisery Shop
X
P
Home Occupation
P
X
Homeless Shelter /Center
X
X
Horticultural
X
X
Hospital, Mental or Psychiatric
X
X
Hospital
C
P
Hotel
X
X
Hotel/Motel Directional Sign
X
C
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
X
P
Ice Cream Store
X
P
Insurance Office
X
P
Interior Decorating Studio
X
P
Photographers Supplies
X
P
JaiVPrison
X
P
Jewelry Store
X
P
Junior High School
C
X
Junk Yard
X
C
Plumbing Supply Store
X
P
Kennel
X
X
Kindergarten School
C
X
Knitting Mill
X
P
Prison/Jail
X
P
Laboratory (experimental or testing)
X
P
Laundromat (coin operated)
X
P
Laundry Service Establishment
X
P
Libraries
X
P
Lime Manufacturing
X
C
Liquor Store, Packaged
X
P
Livestock Raising
X
X
Lodges and Clubs (private)
X
P
Lodging /Boarding House
X
X
Lunchroom
X
P
Radio Broadcasting Studio
X
P
Machine Shop
X
P
Marina
X
P
Meat and Fish Market
X
P
Medical Office
X
P
Mental or Psychiatric Hospital
X
X
Metal Stamp Manufacturing
X
P
Migratory Laborer Housing
X
X
Mink, Raising of
X
X
Monument Sales
X
P
Mobile Home Park (excluding commercial sale of)
C
X
Motel
X
X
Motel /Hotel Directional Sign
X
C
Multiple Dwellings
P
X
Municipal Structures
C
P
Museums
C
P
Music Store
X
P
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
X
P
Rubber Stamp Manufacturing
X
P
News Agency (except printing & publishing)
X
P
News Stand
X
P
Newspaper Printing
X
P
Notions Store
X
P
Novelty Manufacture
X
P
Nurseries & Commercial Greenhouses
C
P
Nursery School
C
X
Nursing Home
C
P
Shoe Store (retail)
X
P
Office Supply Manufacturing
X
P
Oil Drilling
X
C
Open Storage (NOT junk, autos, salvage, etc)
X
P
Optical Store
X
P
Orchards
X
X
Orchards and Tree Farms
X
X
Outdoor Motor Vehicle Racing or Test Track
X
C
USE
R -3
M -3
Packaged Liquor Store
X
P
Paddocks
X
X
Paint Store
X
P
Painting Establishment
X
P
P aper Proaucts manufacture (not paper pu p
X
P
Parking Lot
C
P
Parks
P
P
Parochial School, Elementary
C
X
Parachial School, Jr. High & High School
C
X
Pasturage
X
X
Pet Shop (excluding open kennel)
X
I P
Petroleum Refining
X
C
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
X
P
Pharmacy
X
P
Philanthropic Institution
X
P
Photographers Studio
X
P
Photographers Supplies
X
P
Picture Framing Store
X
P
Pipe Store
X
P
Plaster of Paris Manufacturing
X
C
Plastic Goods Manufacturing
X
P
Plumbing Supply Store
X
P
Pool Room
X
P
Poultry Farms
X
X
Printing Establishment
X
P
Prison/Jail
X
P
Private Clubs or Lodges
X
P
Professional Service Office
X
P
Psychiatric or Mental Hospital
X
X
Public Parks
P
P
Public Recreation Structure
X
P
Public Utility Structure
C
C
Quarry, Extraction of Sand /Gravel/Etc.
X
C
Race Track (automobile)
X
C
Radio Broadcasting Studio
X
P
Radio Relay Structure
X
P
Radio Store (retail)
X
P
Railroad Depot
X
P
Railroad Yard
X
C
Real Estate Office
X
P
Recreational Structure, Public
X
P
Repair /Service of Vehicles
X
P
Refining Operation
X
X
Refreshment Stand
X
P
Religious Structure
X
X
Restaurant
X
P
Restaurant w /Drive -Up or Drive -Thru
X
C
Retirement Community
P
X
Riding Stable
X
X
Roadside Stand, Garden /Orchard Produce
X
X
Rooming /Boarding House
C
X
Rubber Products Manufacturing
X
P
Rubber Stamp Manufacturing
X
P
Sanitarium
X
X
Schools, Private & Public
C
X
Vocational
X
X
Semi - Public Structures & Clubs
X
X
Service Industry (laundry, cleaning & dyeing)
X
I P
Sheet Metal Product Manufacturing
X
P
Shoe Repair
X
P
Shoe Store (retail)
X
P
Shooting Range, Private
X
Sign Manufacturing
X
P
Silos
X
X
Single Family Dwelling
P
X
Skating Rink
X
P
Slaughterhouse
X
C
Sludge Dispoal
X
X
P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed
USE
R -3
M -3
Smelting (tin /copper /zinchron ore)
X
C
Sod Fanning
X
X
Soda Fountain
X
P
Soft Drink Stand
X
P
Sorority or Fraternity House
X
X
Sporting Goods Manufacturing
X
P
Stables
X
X
Stationary Store
X
P
Stockyards
X
C
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
X
X
Swimming Club, Private (non - profit)
C
X
Tailor Shop
X
P
Tannery
X
C
Tavern
X
P
Tea and Coffee Store
X
P
Telecommunication Towers/Antennas
X
P
Television Broadcasting Studio
X
P
Television Relay Structure
X
P
Television Repair Shop
X
P
Television Store
X
P
Theater (except drive -in)
X
P
Tinsmithing
X
P
Tobacco Store
X
P
Toiletry Manufacture
X
P
Toy Manufacture
X
P
Tree Farms and Orchards
X
X
Truck Farming
X
X
Truck Terminal
X
P
Two Family Dwelling
P
X
Universities, Including Residence Halls
X
X
Utility Structures, public
C
C
Vegetable and Fruit Store
X
P
Viticulture
X
X
Vocational School
X
X
Warehouse
X
P
Water Heating Equipment Manufacturing
X
P
Water Treating Equipment Manufacturing
X
P
Wild Crop Harvesting
X
X
Wireless Telecommunication Towers/Antennas
X
P
Wholesale Establishment
X
P
Wholesale Market
X
P
Wood Products Mfg. (exc mfg of paper pulp &
plastics)
I X
P
/CZ
1 (0
OfHKO.fH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh Application
Rezoning
* *PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK **
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Petitioner:
Petitioner's Address: City: i
Telephone #: , )) :✓ / ✓ �l Z Fax: ( )
Status of Petitioner (Please Check): k Own — 0 Representative Tenant
Petitioner's Signature (required):
OWNER INFORMATION
Owner(s):
Owner(s) Address:
Telephone #: ( ) Fax: ( ) Other Contact # or Email:
Ownership Status (Please Check): 0 Individual 0 Trust 0 Partnership OCorporation
Date:
Date: 29
Zip:
Property Owner Consent: (required)
By signature hereon, I/We acknowledge that City officials and/or employees may, in the performance of their functions, enter upon
the property to inspect or gather other informat necessary to process this application. I also understand that all meeting dates are
tentative and may be postponed by the PI ng Service iv' ' me mplete submissions or �othe,ministrative reasons.
Property Owner's Signature: Date: zox
Address/Location of Rezoning
Tax Parcel Number(s):
Rezone property from:
Purpose for Rezoning:
Describe existing property development and land use:
SUBMIT TO:
Dept. of Community Development
215 Church Ave., P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903 -1130
PHONE: (920) 236 -5059
Date:
i � / i 'j
Stater I Zip:,S Y ���
Other Contact # or Email:
O Prospective Buyer
AV I oo sq
to
Describe proposed development and /or proposed land use:
Staff * Date Rec'd 17 l- 1 4 I D
P IA00
/3
Proppo ed time schedule for development and /or use of the property: /��� r✓ �� }%L����r✓
Zoning Adjacent to the Site: North:
South:
East:
West: �5�����
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — Must accompany the application to be complete.
❑ Map of the immediate area showing property involved. Area to be rezoned must be outlined in color
❑ A site plan drawn to readable scale showing present status of property and proposed development
❑ Street address, adjacent streets, intersections and any other information or landmarks to help identify the property
❑ Location of existing uses, structures, fences and signs and location of proposed uses, structures, fences and signs
❑ A narrative statement explaining the zone change and discussion of the project
➢ Application fees are due at time of submittal. Make check payable to City of Oshkosh.
➢ Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON - REFUNDABLE
SUMMARY OF PROCESS
The City of Oshkosh Plan Commission and Common Council act on all zone changes. The petitioner or owner
should be present at both the Plan Commission and Common Council meetings to discuss and answer
questions regarding the request.
Neighborhood opinion is an important factor in the decision - making process. For complex or controversial
proposals, it is recommended that the petitioner conduct a neighborhood meeting to solicit public input prior to
action by the Plan Commission and City Council. Planning Services staff is available to offer assistance in
compiling a mailing list for the neighborhood meeting. Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all
abutting property owners regarding your request.
The application package is reviewed by Planning Services staff to determine conformance with adopted city
plans, zoning requirements and development standards. A staff recommendation is prepared for consideration
by the Plan Commission and Common Council. The petitioner will be provided with a copy of the staff report
and meeting notice several days prior to the Plan Commission meeting. No notice is sent to the petitioner or
owner regarding the Common Council's consideration of the request. Petitioners and owners are encouraged
to contact Planning Services staff to find out when the request will be sent to the Common Council for review.
The Plan Commission's decision is advisory only. The Common Council will make the final decision
regarding all zone change requests. The Plan Commission may lay over requests to subsequent meetings if
incomplete information is provided or additional questions or concerns are raised at the meeting.
After the Plan Commission makes its recommendation, the request will be forwarded to the Common Council
for consideration. This generally occurs three weeks after the Plan Commission meeting depending on the date
the Council meeting is scheduled (the Council meets on the 2" and 0 Tuesday of every month) and on the
availability of a legal description for the zone change. Wisconsin State Statutes require a zone change to be
published as Class H notice in the local newspaper, the City takes care of this publication requirement prior to
the Council meeting.
If Council approves the rezoning, the Ordinance is published in the newspaper on the following Saturday and
will be effective on Sunday. City administrative offices are notified of the effective date of the Ordinance and
will make changes to the official zoning map accordingly.
For more information please visit the City's website at www.ei.oshkosh.wi.us/ Community _Development /Planning.htm
1�
REZONE -NW CORNER OSBORN AV SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL
& MASON ST MOTHER GENERALA
PC: 09 -21 -10 9056 N DEERBROOK TRL
MILWAUKEE WI 53223
RE 1145 DEVONSHIRE DR
DEHART CHRISTOPHER
STEINER ELIZABETH
1307 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
KOSMER JOHN F
1315 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
WOLLERSHEIM JEFFREY /TRINA
1335 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
PROUD WAYNE / KRISTINE S
1405 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246
RUSCH THOMAS N
GABERT RICHARD
PO BOX 3808
OSHKOSH WI 54903 3808
RE 1180 OSBORN AV & VAC LOT
STINGLE CHAD M /KRISTINA
1230 DEVONSHIRE DR
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6235
SMITH CYNTHIA A
1345 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
SCHNEIDER DENNIS R /SHARON
1425 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246
LENTZ SCOTT A /AMY M
1124 MASON ST
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6255
WIS DEPT OF MILITARY AFFRS
2400 WRIGHT ST
MADISON WI 53704
RE 1415 ARMORY PLC
KOTSCHI ADOLF D
1303 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
VILLARS KRISTINE S
1325 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
SIEBER NANCY L
1355 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244
ROBLEE MATTHEW T /SARA G
1435 KENSINGTON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246
STREY CONSTRUCTION INC
5037 RIVERMOOR DR
OMRO WI 54963 9428
RE MASON ST VACANT LOT
VULCAN LANDS INC
1000 E WARRENVILLE RD 100
NAPERVILLE IL 60563 1444
RE 1301 KNAPP ST
j5
Emu
1416 ARMORY PL.
0
1235 1228 1221
Y2M �7R7i3
�q
2Sti!,
I ffi
:t
p o,
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
NW CORNER OSBORN AV N O,fHKOlH
& MASON ST ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
Scale: 1" = 250' 09/09/10
r
V MP
2
WOM
lot
■:
o MEN
12 i
ME
1,
m 40 1112
' Ali Own
Lilt
� == La
IMK- M T
0 mi MMM
Jj
oil
�Lli 1L�
III �
bolt let as
III �1�1
1: 1
Jill
it
IF
rr rrr` t i� =Mul I
G 11 � � l� ]111 / t� •LA�'�1
DISCLAIMER REZONING PETITION
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.
NW CORNER OSBORN AV N
& MASON ST
Scale: 1" = 250'
OfHKO.fH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
09/09/101
Created by - dff