HomeMy WebLinkAbout21. 13-502.docx
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 13-502 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED___6-0____LOST_______LAID OVER_______WITHDRAWN_______)
PURPOSE: APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX – RIVERS II
DEVELOPMENT; SOUTH SIDE OF MARION ROAD
INITIATED BY: MARION ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved with conditions
BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that a planned
development to construct a multi-family development, to include, but not limited to, a 5-
story 80-unit apartment building with one story being underground parking, surface
parking, and associated amenities, per the attached, is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1) Base standard modification to setbacks: front yard (Marion Road) setback from
25 feet to 20 feet, western side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet, eastern side
yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet and southern rear yard (riverfront) setback
from 40 feet to 8 feet 6 inches.
2) Inclusion of a fire hydrant near the building as approved by the Fire Department.
3) Connect the walk areas where it crosses the underground parking entrance drive
as approved by the Department of Community Development.
4) Base standard modification to allow the ground sign setback on north lot line
from 25 feet to 13 feet.
5) Base standard modification to omit an internal parking lot island in the west
parking lot with enhanced landscaping installed in the area where the island
would be located.
6) Balconies are either column or cable-hung supported as approved by the
Department of Community Development.
7) Base standard modification to allow one unit per approximately 1,280 square feet
land area and a building height of 53 feet 6 inches.
y
7HKOlH
ON ntE wAFFA
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services
DATE: November 7, 2013
RE: Approve Planned Development. for Construction of Multi - Family Apartment Complex -
Rivers 11 Development; South Side of Marion Road (Plan Commission recommends
approval)
BACKGROUND
The development is proposed to be established on 2.35 acres of land to be divided from the center of
a 6.4 acre parcel remaining within the Marion Road Redevelopment Area, located between UWO on
the west and Jackson Street on the east. The parcel will have approximately 400 feet of frontage on
the Fox River and Marion Road and be situated approximately 260 feet east of The Rivers senior
housing development and 260 feet west of Jackson Street right -of -way.
ANALYSIS
The City/RDA has been has been working with the development community for a number of years to
redevelop lands within the Marion Road Redevelopment Area. Upon completion of environmental
cleanup by the City/RDA and construction of the proposed apartment complex, the subject site will be
sold to the developer. The proposed development includes construction of a five -story 80 -unit
apartment building with the upper four stories being residential apartment units and the first story
parking. The structure will include with each facade an entryway, patio screen doors on private
balconies, windows, and air conditioning units. The density of the development is higher than allowed
by code requiring a base standard modification and the building is designed in a "U" shaped to take
advantage of the adjacency of the river and riverwalk which is also necessitating base standard
modifications for building placement for setback standards. Vehicular access is proposed in the form
of a single driveway off Marion Road centered on the development's frontage and pedestrian walks
connecting the front and western building entrances to Marion Road, a connection to the riverwalk
from the courtyard patio and near the underground parking access way. A public sidewalk on RDA
owned land will connect to the riverwalk from the road. A development sign is depicted on the site
plan east of the driveway which is consistent with The Rivers signage. Formal landscaping, lighting,
and storm water detention plans have not yet been submitted but will required to be submitted and
approved prior to building permit issuance.
FISCAL IMPACT
None anticipated but the project will add at least $5 million dollars in assessable value to the property
tax rolls.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission approved of this request at its September 3, 2013 meeting.
Approved,
City Ma gear f
ITEM: LAND DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A
MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA (431
MARION ROAD)
Plan Commission meeting of September 3, 2013
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Oshkosh River Development, LLC
Owner: City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority
Actions Requested:
The City of Oshkosh is requesting disposition of 2.35 acres of land within the Marion Road
Redevelopment area and Oshkosh River Development, LLC has submitted site plans and
elevations for Development Plan Review for The Rivers II, a multiple family apartment building to
be located on Marion Road along the Fox River.
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
The Zoning Ordinance establishes criteria and guidelines for the Planned Development overlay
district in Section 30 -33 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code.
Property Location and Type:
The development is proposed to be established on 2.35 acres of land to be divided from the center
of a 6.4 acre parcel remaining within the Marion Road Redevelopment Area, located between
UWO on the west and Jackson Street on the east. The parcel will have approximately 400 feet of
frontage on the Fox River and Marion Road and be situated approximately 260 feet east of The
Rivers senior housing development and 260 feet west of Jackson Street right-of-way.
SubJect Site
Existrn Lana Use
Zonin"
Vacant/Undeveloped
C -3 PD
Adjacent Land Use and 'Zoning
... ........................
_ o re ensive Plan Land Use Recommendation
.
Recommended Land .Use
10 Year Land Use Recommendation
Mixed Downtown and Parks,
Recreation & Open Space
20 Year Land Use Recommendation
Mixed Downtown and Parks,
Recreation & Open Space
ANALYSIS
Land Disposition
The City/RDA has been working with the development community and Oshkosh River
Development, LLC for a number of years to redevelop lands within the Marion Road
Redevelopment Area and has previously disposed of /sold property to the west for the construction
of The Rivers senior housing development. Upon completion of environmental cleanup by the
City/RDA and construction of the proposed apartment complex Planned Development by the
petitioner, the subject land area will be transferred (sold) to the petitioner. The Plan Commission
is being asked to approve disposition of the subject land area in conjunction with the clean -up and
approval of the development plan.
Design/Layout
The proposed development plan includes construction of a five -story 80 -unit apartment building
with the upper four stories being residential apartment units and first story parking. The
development will also include parking facilities that include code minimum two- stalls per unit by
way of 95 surface parking stalls on the north, west and east sides of the building and 65 interior
first story parking stalls. Other site improvements include pedestrian walkways and a concrete
patio area within the south side courtyard facing the river.
Site Development Statistics
Proposed Parcel Area:
2.35 Acres (102,337 sf)
Building Footprint:
26,432 s.f. 25.8%
Paved Area:
39,423 s.f. 38.5%
Greenspace & Landscape Areas
36,810 s.f. 35.6%
The density of the development is considered high at approximately 34 units per acre (one unit per
approximately 1,280 square feet), which is slightly higher than the density permitted within the C-
3 zoning district (68 units, 29 units per acre /one unit per 1,500 square feet) and will require a base
standard modification to density regulations. Though it is slightly higher than the code, this
density is consistent with the City's goal of activating the central city and riverfront as it offers an
urban -based population concentration vital to a healthy downtown.
The building is placed on the site to take advantage of the adjacency of the river and riverwalk and
the building is designed in a "U" shape to provide a center courtyard with patio for resident
gathering and activity. As designed, multiple base standard modifications to zoning ordinance
setback standards are necessary including:
• Northern front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. This setback could be
increased to 22 feet if stalls are reduced to 16 feet deep with 2 ft overhang on landscaped area.
• Western side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet. This setback could be increased to 12 feet if
stalls reduced to 16 feet deep with 2 ft overhang on landscaped area.
• Eastern side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet.
• Southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 40 feet to 8 feet 6 inches.
Review by the Fire Department identified concern that the single vehicle access to the site and
building may be problematic for their ability to respond and combat a fire occurrence on -site and
they have requested that a condition of the development plan approval include installation of a
hydrant near the building, with the final location approved by the Fire Department at time of
building permit issuance.
Rent - 431 Marion -MF PD
Access
Vehicular access to the development is proposed in the form of a single driveway off Marion Road
centered on the developments frontage that is the Class 11 standard 30 foot wide two -way drive.
There was considerable staff discussion, but no consensus, about the need to have cross access
between this property and the yet to be developed property adjacent to the east. The discussion
centered around potential traffic congestion that could occur on that parcel as its drive would need
to be within or in close proximity to the non - mountable median in Marion Road and that the
potential for higher volumes of traffic that could be generated from its yet to be known use would
be better dispersed if it could access the proposed apartment complex driveway, which is further
west on Marion Road. If access from the east is deemed necessary, cross access
easements /agreements with the undeveloped property to the east will be necessary for both the
drive and the northern drive aisle.
Pedestrian walks are depicted connecting the front and western building entrances to Marion Road.
A sidewalk connection to the riverwalk is also included leading from the internal courtyard patio.
The walkway near the underground parking access way on the western side of the building ends at
a landscaped area and at the norther side of the building ends at the automobile drive lane. These
walks need to be connected with a minimum of "striping" where it is cut off by the underground
parking entrance. Staff was initially concerned with the lack of pedestrian connection leading
directly to the riverwalk from the road but the plans are depicting an off-site public sidewalk
connecting Marion Road to the Riverwalk on City Redevelopment Authority owned land to the
west, which has been negotiated with the Community Development and Parks Departments.
Signag
A development sign is depicted on the site plan east of the driveway located 13 feet from the
property line encroaching 12 feet within the required front yard setback. The developer stated that
because of the placement of the parking stalls at 20 feet the sign needs to be installed closer to be
visible. Additionally, the sign's placement is consistent with the placement of The Rivers signage
to the west. No sign details have been provided but the base C -3 Zoning District allows for ample
signage area so the design will be required to meet code standards and reviewed during standard
site plan/building permit review.
Lands caping/Lighting
Landscaping and lighting plans have not been submitted with the proposal and code compliant
landscaping and lighting will be required to be reviewed at time of building permit issuance.
However, the submitted plans noticeably omit an internal parking lot island in the west parking lot.
The petitioner has indicated that this island must be left out in order for the minimum parking stall
count of two stalls per unit to be met. Staff is in support of the exclusion of this island only if
enhanced landscaping is installed in the setback area where the island should be located.
Stormwater Detention
Stormwater management plans have not been submitted with the application material. Formal
erosion control, drainage and stormwater management plans will be required to be submitted to
and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to building permit issuance.
Building Elevations
The apartment building is proposed to be a five -story structure with an overall height of 53 feet 6
inches, which will require a base standard modification to the 45 foot height maximum within the
C -3 Zoning District. The exterior is proposed to be CMU split -face block, brick veneer, bat and
Item - 431 Nfarion -NIF PD
board panel and horizontal siding with each facades including an entryway, patio screen doors on
private balconies, windows and air conditioning units. In reviewing the elevations, staff had
concerns with style of balconies proposed as they include very dominant underside support
structures and believe column style supported balconies like at the nearby The Rivers and Morgan
Crossing Apartments or cable -hung supported balconies like on the west side of Morgan Crossing
Apartments are more appropriate and in keeping with the higher design element realized within the
Riverfront Redevelopment Area.
RECOMMENDATION /CONDITIONS
Land Disposition
Staff recommends approval of the Land Disposition, as proposed; and
Planned Development
,Staff recommends approval of the Development Plan for the multifamily apartment development
with the following conditions:
1) Base standard modification to setbacks; front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet
to 20 feet, western side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet, eastern side yard setback
from 19 feet to 10 feet and southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 40 feet to 8 feet
6 inches.
2) Inclusion of a fire hydrant near the building as approved by the Fire Department.
3) Connect the walk areas where it crosses the underground parking entrance drive as
approved by the Department of Community Development.
4) Base standard modification to allow the ground sign setback on north lot line from 25
feet to 13 feet.
5) Base standard modification to omit an internal parking lot island in the west parking lot
with enhanced landscaping installed in the area where the island would be located.
6) Balconies are either column or cable -hung supported as approved by the Department of
Community Development.
7) Base standard modification to allow one unit per approximately 1,280 square feet land
area and a building height of 53 feet 6 inches.
The Plan Commission approved of the land disposition and planned development as requested
with conditions noted. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item.
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and stated that the land
was owned by the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority and would be sold to the petitioner if
their request was approved. He reviewed the site plan and discussed features of the development
and the driveway access as well as the possibility of the need for a cross access agreement between
this site and the vacant site to the east. He also discussed the internal pedestrian walks, signage,
landscaping and lighting plans, storm water detention plans, building elevations, and the proposed
balconies for the development which staff did not feel were aesthetically pleasing. He also
reviewed the conditions recommended for this request.
Mr. Borsuk commented that he was aware that discussion was transpiring with the developer
however he thought the location of the proposed development was going to be adjacent to "The
Rivers" apartments instead of in the middle of the remaining lot.
henr - 431 Marion-MFPD
Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that the development was relocated
from the original site due to the amount of contamination in this area. Locating the building in the
area that was remediated would be less costly than trying to place it adjacent to the existing
apartment building as the funds that it would cost to remediate that part of the property would
drive up the costs substantially. As the development is proposed, the parking lot would cap the
contamination on the site.
Mr. Thorns stated that the contaminated soil will eventually leak down to this site even if capped.
Mr. Davis responded that any contamination that leaked from the site should move toward the
river and not east or west of the site. He displayed on the map where the most contaminated soil is
located and stated that if the building would be situated on the contaminated soil, it could leak into
the structure. He further stated that there are no guarantees when working with a site such as this
one but we were working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on'the
issue and taking their advice in regard to containing the contamination. If buildings were located
on the most contaminated area, it may require the installation of a vapor intrusion system which
would increase costs to the developer.
Mr. Cummings questioned the need of capping the site with a parking lot.
Mr. Davis responded that it would be much more costly to attempt to develop the area.
Mr. Borsuk commented that he was real uncomfortable with this parcel.
Mr. Davis indicated that the parking lot must be placed over this area to cap the contamination
however the remaining lots are still developable.
Ms. Propp questioned if it would have to be a parking lot or could it remain as green space.
Mr. Davis responded that it could be green space however the safest version of this scenario is to
locate a parking lot over it.
Ms. Propp then questioned if that small of an area would still be marketable for development.
Mr. Davis replied that the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) would be meeting later in September
to discuss this matter.
Ms. Propp inquired if the RDA had not yet reviewed this, if we are getting ahead of ourselves by
presenting the proposal to the Plan Commission at this time.
Mr. Davis responded that the RDA meets about the same time as the Common Council and the
RDA only approves of the land disposition. The planned development requires going to both the
Plan Commission and the Common Council for approval.
Mr. Hinz confirmed where the most contaminated area was located as well as the building's
requirements for development.
Mr. Thorns questioned the access walkway from the public sidewalk to the riverwalk and why it
was not part of the requirements for the development. He felt it should be required by the RDA.
Item - 431 Marion -MF PD
Mr. Davis replied that it could not be included as yet with this development as the walkway would
be located on Lot 1 and this development is proposed to be on Lot 2.
Mr. Thoms felt it should be included in the conditions recommended for this request or officially
mapped to ensure that we will have the walkway in place regardless of the development that may
come forward at a later date for Lot 1,
Discussion continued regarding the cleanup of the site and if it was adequate. It was determined
that the DNR would be satisfied with capping it with the parking lot and the City has no additional
funding budgeted for further cleanup of the contamination. The City has a good idea of what is
down there and the practice of capping off a contaminated site is a common process.
Mr. Cummings did not feel that a parking lot along the river was good planning.
Mr. Davis indicated that this was the best barrier for intrusion of the contamination however it
could be used as green space but the City would have to confer with the DNR before proceeding
with that plan.
Mr. Thorns commented that he had concerns with items such as a base standard modification for
density and the fact that the Plan Commission still has not seen any design standards for riverfront
development. He felt we were piece - mealing the site developing only portions at a time, He felt
that we were going to want a parking area near the riverwalk however he did not wish to see it
right on the river. He discussed other structures in the area and stated his concerns with needing or
wanting a 5 -story building on the riverfront as it will block the view of the river for any other
developments. He questioned whether we should handle these issues on a one -on -one basis or
should we have set standards for the riverwalk area.
Mr. Borsuk stated that the Commission should go with the Comprehensive Plan for guidance and
the general planning process. The City has desired to create a more urban development in this area
however redevelopment plans or vision reports would be helpful as well.
Mr. Burich commented that the Commission should be considering if this development is
consistent in this district.
Mr. Thorns inquired about what the saturation rate for apartments was in the community and what
the target market was. He felt we were putting the cart before the horse as there was not enough
information provided to make an informed decision.
Mr. Cummings stated that the staff report referred to the land disposition to the petitioner and
questioned what the selling price would be.
Mr. Davis responded that the price was $1.00.
Andy Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, stated that he was present as the petitioner for this
development and a market study was completed and came back favorably. He further commented
that the previously constructed apartment units they have recently completed filled up
successfully.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if the apartments would be market based prices and what the size of the
units would be.
Rem - 431 Marion -MFPD
Mr. Dumke explained that 20% of the housing units would be subsidized housing and the formula
for calculating the market rent rates which are considered low in this community. He stated the
units would be 950 to 1035 square feet in size.
Mr. Hinz inquired if he had any thoughts about placing the public walkway along the edge of the
building.
Mr. Dumke responded that it was considered but it was too cost prohibitive.
Mr. Thoms questioned aesthetically how this development would compare to "The Rivers ".
Mr. Dumke replied that it was very comparable however it had a more industrial look similar to
housing units on the water in Milwaukee or Madison.
Mr. Thoms then questioned how he feels about the column based balconies discussed.
Mr. Dumke responded that he liked the look better however it will cost about $80,000 more and
they do not have funding in the project to cover this.
Mr. Burich added that the petitioner was open to more decorative steel work on the structure.
Mr. Borsuk inquired what the specific rental rates would be and who would be the target audience
for these units.
Mr. Dumke responded that the rates would be $900 -$1075 per month and was targeted for young
professionals who wanted to reside near the downtown area and not necessarily for families. The
original plan was to place this development adjacent to "The Rivers" however with the
contamination issues, they are now considering placing this development on Lot 2 and would
develop another apartment building in between the two sites that would be a smaller complex. The
contamination plume cannot be removed and the parking for the development can only go in this
area. He also stated that condominiums were considered however they would not work here.
Mr. Borsuk questioned what the estimated costs would be to remove the remaining contaminated
area.
Mr. Davis indicated that millions of dollars would be necessary to accomplish this and the City has
received grant funding to remediate the site and TIF money was necessary as well. He further
explained the costs involved and that the City could not pay off the overall TIF costs if the
remediation becomes any more expensive. He discussed the scenario if the remaining lot could
not be developed and how much funding was required to pay off the TIF. He concluded with this
development based on density and value makes sense for this site.
Mr. Nollenberger commented that he had no issues with the density on this site and that a parking
area for the riverwalk would be a needed amenity.
Mr. Thoms inquired if the City has considered borrowing from other TIF districts to assist this
TIF.
Item - 431 d- farion -MF PD
Mr. Davis responded that they have thought about it and embellished somewhat on which ones
could be considered.
Mr. Cummings stated that there has been a lot of discussion about a vision for the riverwalk area
and he felt that Oshkosh was architecturally challenged. He also felt that we were piece - mealing
things together to develop the site and that we need a vision for the area for guidance on what we
would like to see there.
Mr. Borsuk agreed but stated that he would reluctantly support the request after further
understanding of the contaminated plumed area. He further stated that the City had no vision
developed for this area and he felt they were afraid to wait for other proposals however he would
like to see some cohesive plan for the riverwalk area.
Mr. Thorns commented that he felt it was paramount to develop some type of plan as we owed this
to the community and the City should target market businesses for this area. We also need to
decide if we want park area in this vicinity or just buildings.
Mr. Fojtik stated that we need to determine if we want a vision for downtown or a vision for the
riverwalk. He further commented that design standards that we could develop would most likely
not be supported by the community. He felt we should be developing an urban riverfront area not
parking space.
Mr. Hinz agreed that the City does not have a plan for this area although there is some cohesion
here. He was unaware of who can develop in the area right now and the Commission needs to
know what is going on and he felt better communication was necessary.
Mr. Cummings commented that a lot of cities evolved around rivers and we should look at more
areas than what is in Wisconsin. He also felt a sizable rendering of the developments would help
as they need a better idea of what it would look like to make an informed decision.
Mr. Thorns stated that both Indianapolis and Vancouver did a good job of renovating their
riverfront areas and he felt we need to identify what kind of businesses we want to attract as
success breeds success.
Ms. Propp commented that the Plan Commission is looking at a better riverfront vision and 5 -story
apartment buildings should not line the river. She further stated that she understands the issues
and feels the base standard modifications were necessary in some cases however the balconies
seemed to be the only real issue and the developer has stated that it would be too costly to
construct.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the land disposition and development plan review for a
multiple family apartment development on property located in the Marion Road
Redevelopment Area (431 Marion Road) with the fallowing conditions:
I) Base standard modification to setbacks; front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet
to 20 feet, western side yard setbackf-om 19 feet to 10 feet, eastern side yard setback
from 19 feet to 10 feet and southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 40 feet to 8 feet
6 inches.
2) Inclusion of afire hydrant near the building as approved by the Fire Department.
Item - 431 Afarion -MF PD
3) Connect the walk areas where it crosses the underground parking entrance drive as
approved by the Department of Community Development.
4) Base standard modification to allow the ground sign setback on north lot line from 25
feet to 13 feet.
5) Base standard modification to omit an internal parking lot island in the west parking
lot with enhanced landscaping installed in the area where the island would be located.
6) Balconies are either column or cable -hung supported as approved by the Department
of Community Development.
7) Base standard modification to allow one unit per approximately 1, 280 square feet land
area and a building height of 53 feet 6 inches.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7 -0.
Item - 431 lfartan -MC PD
Cif Pf OSI os Appl cafi tai gUBMITTO.-
}}ma�yy y� Dept. of ConimonityDcvelopme
l�l K'dxAI1EC J�1tvVe O ]Ili At Review 2j5..Chutct Ave.; P,O: $ox 1.13(
I� I�tts� � :' bshkosb, Wisoons�n 549x3 -jai[
fl —II�o oudid' nal Se e � A�� r e pH01 (420)236 -5059
-ON IHE. PATER -
MSETYPk OR-PJtI7 1 C7SAVG BL!LCIt f]VtL�
AF-PL CA T TNFOSL�IAT-1QN.
petitioner, �,. _
Petitiflaer-'s Address; _o� .�W lC� �`i�F� _
Ctfy, Stste: �.L1 j Zip.,
Tolephone;
(`�' ~Y OthePL'pntact gr$marlc],�7
Status of 'etihoner {Plei:se Check }: D 0wrie» 5X' presentatiVP1 [] Tenant j Piospeclive Buyer
Patidwer's Signatpze (iegitjred):
OWNER MO ATI! f
Ov�niex(s):
Q Whgi(s) Address;
City:
c0lor Contacf# or u5ail _
Owneisliip 5ta% s (Please;,ChecT�);: � Individual Q :CrvsC� �partt;ershlp i:} Corporatioai -
18tate; Zip:.
,Prop ertyOwuOx Corseltf (regWred)'
By signatyre heieon,:I/We aticnowledge that City oft;cigls and/or employees inay, jt1 the perfarrriance:of then fanetion§, enter upon the:
properly to inspect or gaElter other lnformat)on necpssaty to process .this appltoattori ; erstan4:that all meeting dates ire ientatm
and inay�e postponed by the Planning Se�Sfces ]]rvrsion for incQmlilete subnussion of utlzer:adininistratii�e roast s:
propei#y_Owuei'.s Signatura?
Date:
SITE 7I\Tr+'`C)Rmkuow
Acitiress/f,oclfl_ott ofProposedlroj`e.cf:
"7;,
F,
Proposed,ProjectType; % RAM 16 7+
Current Use.of:Propert�;
Zoning: G- ,', iPrY Y)
.Gist dues Si Oiinding Slte:: North / V tp.,�ILJ CAr 7r a i 11
Sotiih:
Past;
want:
" Plr ase note that tt.nleeting.notiee �v1I1 be. mailed to all abutting property oWners regarding Yolirrcqumt,
>. Application fees are dux at t11ve Of submiftal, hTalce chedcpRyab]e tq C. t}, Of.Oshirosh;
> P1case-yefer to the fea schedttte for itppropriato fee,. RE, I� NON- ItLi?U1V1]AnZ,I,
.Fos` more information please the Uty's we6site at v1` fv. ci,oshltosil,1k'i,uslCoriuuuirty DeyelopluertVPtanriing,hCrn ii
Staff D� teRec'8 l'P
10
Briefly explain how the proposed conditional use/development plan will not have a negative effect on the issues below.
1. Health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands.
WITY %Js gFl,AJ&- A RESID&J77AL DFUELOPME1AJ7_�E DkVELoPMENT WICC AJ07"
HhUF 1\ Juf�GAT1vE EFFEc7- o� i7a►L� �E�ERAL GcJ LPARE dFCaC�UPAkgS 0111 S0R�I,J
2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety.
EXiSTI.L, QO%LlC NDESAINJ Mb QFRIc-UCAR �►( uc.�lT1o1J wuc. �E l+habr ,lr
PEQES-r�AQ{AND VERIGULARA4-c.ESS'TbT4E, S177WAIL C0wV�UaEb PER CITY
SPS'_JFic,4Tro
3. Noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution.
_TYE PROPOSED REs1D&07AZ iDEULCCoPMta-,7-1t)l44,ucT6-EIJElkA7E AUYX)6rsr -,AiR,
4. The demand for and availability of public services and facilities.
R) 91- IC. UT7GCr7 ,6 S ARf, AVAI L 4 L 70 THE S- f 7 -
5. Character and future development of the area.
%-H'E cHARAcT" OP: 7-HE PRC:' .SED DE0 EL`PMCAJ7`60)LL QE S 411,A V, To
i,THE RIDE RS's DEuEt oPA?O,lJr LocATED 7b 7,-4F 4utsT
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — Must accompany the application to be complete.
➢ A NAR ATIVE of the proposed conditional use/Development Plan including:
9 Existing and proposed use of the property
0 Identification of all structures (including paving, signage, etc.) on the property and discussion of their relation to the project
C9 Projected number of residents, employees, and/or daily customers
N Proposed amount of dwelling units, floor area, landscape area, and parking area expressed in square feet and acreage to the
nearest one - hundredth of an acre
0 Effects on adjoining properties to include: noise, hours of operation, glare, odor, fumes, vibration, etc.
9 Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent and other properties in the area.
K Traffic generation (anticipated number of customers, deliveries, employee shift changes, etc.)
21 Any other pertinent information to properly understand the intended use /plan and its relation to nearby properties and the
community as a whole
S.
➢ A complete SITE PLAN and BUILDING ELEVATIONS must include:
0 Two (2) full size (minimum 24" x 36 ") scaled and dimensioned prints of site plan and building elevations
Q Two (2) 8'/2" x 11 (minimum) to I I" x 17" (maximum) reduction of the site plan and building elevations
» One compact disc or diskette with digital plans and drawings of the project in AutoCAD 2000 format with fonts and plot style
table file (if plans have been prepared digitally)
0 Title block that provides all contact information for the petitioner and/or owner and contact information of petitioner's
engineers /surveyors /architects, or other design professionals used in the preparation of the plans
a The date of the original plan and revision dates, if applicable
ftg A north arrow and graphic scale.
22 All property lines and existing and proposed right-of-way lines with dimensions clearly labeled
29 All required setback and offset lines
X All existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved areas, including building entrances, walks, drives, signs, decks, patios,
fences, walls, etc.
X Location of all outdoor storage and refuse disposal areas and the design and materials used for screening
W Location and dimension of all on -site parking (and off -site parking provisions if they are to be employed), including a summary
of the number of parking stalls provided per the requirements of Section 30 -36 City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance
K Location and dimension of all loading and service areas
X Location, height, design, illumination power and orientation of all exterior lighting on the property including a photometrics plan
5' Location of all exterior mechanical equipment and utilities and elevations of proposed screening devices where applicable (i.e.
visible from a public street or residential use or district). Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to; HVAC
equipment, electrical transformers and boxes, exhaust flues, plumbing vents, gas regulators, generators, etc.
"The Rivers II" Project Narrative
The proposed multifamily residential development will consist of a 26,432 S.F. five story
building with underground parking proposed on the first story. The proposed building will sit on
a 2.35 acre lot which will be subdivided from an existing larger lot. The existing lot is currently
vacant. The proposed development will include parking areas on the north, east, and west sides
of the building, pedestrian walkways from the building to the public sidewalk and river walk,
and a concrete patio on the south side of the building which will face the Fox River. Vehicular
access to the site will be provided with two access drives to Marion Road. A ground sign will
also be located along Marion Road. The proposed pavement in area will be 39,423 SY with
36,810 S.F. remaining as green space. See site plan sheet C1.2 for more details.
The proposed building will consist of 4 stories of apartments and I story of underground parking.
There will be 65 parking stalls on the underground parking floor. The units will consist of one —
1 bedroom unit and seventy -nine -- 2 bedroom units for a total of 80 units. Each unit will have a
private balcony. Each apartment floor will have common areas for storage to accommodate the
tenants. There will be an office and approximately 2 -5 employees servicing the building. The
total building square footage for all five stories combined will be 105,720 S.F. The exterior of
the building will consist of CMU split -face block, brick veneer, batt and board panel, and
horizontal siding.
The proposed development will not have any negative effects on adjoining properties and will be
compatible with the existing multifamily residential development located to the west. Per the
Trip Generation software, the proposed development will generate an average of 550 driveway
trips per day.
Three known exceptions to the zoning code are requested. The first exception request is to allow
pavement to be constructed in the 10' rear pavement setback. The second exception request is to
allow the building to be constructed in the rear 35' building setback. With "The Rivers II" site
layout being similar to "The Rivers" layout, this setback reduction would be consistent with what
was allowed for "The Rivers" development. The third exception request is for building height.
The proposed building is 53' -6" in height. The zoning code allows 45'.
1d__
PD- RIVERS II APTS
431 MARION RD
PC: 09 -03 -13
RIVER FRONT SENIOR
APARTMENTS LLC
230 OHIO ST 200
OSHKOSH WI 54902 5825
CITY OF OSHKOSH
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PO BOX 1130
OSHKOSH WI 54903 1130
MORTON PROPERTIES
LLC /MORTON DRUG CO INC
PO BOX 778
NEENAH WI 54957 0778
CITY OF OSHKOSH
PO BOX 1130
OSHKOSH WI 54903 1130
L,AMICO INC
PO BOX 104
OSHKOSH WI 54903 0104
CITY CENTER ASSOC LLC OSHKOSH CHAMBER OF OSHKOSH RIVER DEVELPMT LLC
246 CITY CENTER COMMERCE INC ATTN ANDY DUMKE
OSHKOSH WI 54901 120 JACKSON ST OSHKOSH WI 54901 4714 230 OHIO ST 200
OSHKOSH WI 54902
! ANI
|� |
}�
�
110,
,
|
\
��•��|
|.i
\ §�
,_ &\
/
! �I,u�AO
/2mw
! ANI
|� |
}�
�
110,
3
, §
/
,
\
\
a
»
\
\
\
$
1
,
|
��•��|
|.i
3
, §
/
,
\
\
a
»
\
\
\
$
1
r
1
CZ'COY 3,9Z,LLIOS
QnQ n nn
F
Sao
Q yp yyP
CC
sobs lvs0'L s0l d0 WISIA102H 0ils0d0ad
plill
11111 e
CZ'COY 3,9Z,LLIOS
1
I
1
J�
1
r
i ory�
'
r
Fn
0�l
Al t
q.
/
,sv
M
m
� � m
('Now Oi 'NO19) ,w6e9z 3_9L,1I.10S „ 8F
S9'9CZZ M,9Z,LI.ION —$
- M�-0 -N ,S9! o Z
X � 19381.5 N05NJ1LI' a
o be
54'r6Z 3,L£,4Z.lOS oz
,6C'Ok- 99'OSL— —� ,
T ^�o9
00,Q) L
X M,Lb,9 'SOS
�� 92 ,ti0'8B
cq
a<
ca
oa� N
e�
.--I 1[
r1
wXI 00
n l °jo
� 6
arF ;ors �y 2�0� o I I I
A a
Z- z LJ o
mm �7z�a (L
Q) '
w>- s -����
Ld � w
{nC1i
C) F' uM J,rlza]UQc.. -� °
[O FW �z
a5� V!
ti l
' � � I � I I •OX�#
,7
yeti 3 r��� s ;N
Q
/ W t6
a �. V),(
.Q o
C
ryb
To
N
0
DRAFT CSM - FOR
w
fl
0
w0
INFORMATION PURPOSES
waYq.yfl414,q' x-iL wm i,� w Kvrs cla /vh yw�- mrW,rly wkWu�W,,of,WL'+17
Exhibit
='yam.. ' IIIIIII I� N �
i ��E,
gg,
LIM
IiIII11111•.,I�Viili -1�
Xu dti
L.0 W pi
=.�M�4-�o
nw4t wwo ac
oll' WdOl3n30vf mow
:U3NMO
Q
�w
waaoxunwsowso ar
avaa Hamm =�
�103f0iid w� '
ay
4
9
_4
Re
z
U
F=
U
a
y
Z
O
U
a
O
ti
ti
U
Z
l7
z
3
0
a
z
w
a
4
}
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for its own use. They may show the
approximate relative location of property, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources.
These map(s)ldatasets are provided for information purposes only and may not be sufficient or
appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided "AS -IS" without
warranties of any kind and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for use or misuse.
JAGIS1PIanningTIan Commission &le Plan Map TernplalelPlan Commission Site Plan Map Templale.mxd
tin= 0.03mi
A
1. in =140 ft
Printing Date: 7/2212013
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
0
0_7 H
ON THE WATER
Mor
17
E
Ed
r -2
I�WJI M MWA 1 iz%
�lr .
U
�a � •1 1(f.lif � V � -s ��
r-
�
N.0 -
The City of Oshkosh creates and maintains GIS maps and data for hs own use. They may show the
approximate relative location of property, boundaries and other feature from a variety of sources.
These map (s)ldalasets are provided for information purposes only and may not be sufficient or
appropriate for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They are provided W4S° without
warranties of any kind and the City of Oshkosh assumes no Gabilly for use or misuse.
... ► i
�� -o,
N
tin= 0.19mi
1 in =1,000 A
Prinfing Date: 71220013
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
0
O.f HKOf H
aH THE WATFA
JAGIS4Plannil IapCommission Site Plan Map Templale4Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.wd Uw, dehorahr
it 1 f L
Commission Site Plan Mao Temolalfflan Commission Sife Plan Mao Temolala rud
4 in = 0.02 mi
tin =130ft
Pdnting Date; 712212013
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh. WI
O.fHKOfH
ON THE WATER