The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About35. 19-259 APRIL 9, 2019 APRIL 23, 2019 19-224 19-259 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING (CARRIED 6-0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 (MR-12) AT THE 1400 BLOCK OF OSBORN AVENUE INITIATED BY: STREY CONSTRUCTION, INC. PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 30-32 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 30-32 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to Zoning Districts and the map therein described is hereby amended by changing the district character of the described property at the 1400 block of Osborn Avenue from Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Multi-Family Residential (MR-12). WEST 486 FEET OF LOTS 7, 13 AND 14 IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 27 PLUS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO SAID LOT EXTENDING TO THE CENTERLINE OF OSBORN AVENUE ALL IN THE 13TH WARD, CITY OF OSHKOSH, WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN. 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 #19-259 APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU)TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 (MR-12) AT THE 1400 BLOCK OF OSBORN AVENUE on April 23, 2019. This ordinance changes the zoning in the 1400 Block of Osborn Avenue from Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Multi-Family Residential 12 (MR-12). 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. U10 - I FORM. MIM151 `p tl ARM M, M I©0 19M Ll V 10 LWA D��11WIN Siii Di�i�i�i�i�i KIN►�i�i��i�i�i City of Oshkosh maps and data are Intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the Informal Those using the informailon are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to www.ci,oshkosh.wl.usIGISdisclaimer J:1GISIPlannIngkPlan Commission Site Plan Map Templaie"Plan Commission Site Plan Map Templal HI N I in = 0.05 ml A, I in= 250 R Printing Date: 2/12/2019 Prepared by: City of Oshkosh. WE Oshkosh User kalieb TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services DATE: April 3, 2019 RE: Approve Zone Change from Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Multi - Family Residential 12 (MR -12) at the 1400 Block of Osborn Avenue (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the north side of Osborn Avenue and is located approximately 480' west of Mason Street. The subject parcel is about 9.6 acres and is presently vacant. The site was previously used as a contractors / construction yard (Strey). The surrounding area consists of predominantly single family residential uses to the north, multi -family uses to the east, an armory to the west and a quarry to the south across Osborn Avenue. On February 21, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project. On March 5, the Plan Commission held the required Public Hearing related to the request. The petitioner had originally proposed construction of six 12 -unit apartment buildings. The northern most building was located approximately 35' from the north property line and the western most building approximately 100' from the west property line. During the February 21st neighborhood meeting, residents in the area expressed concerns about building height and proximity of those buildings to the northern property line. As a result of that neighborhood meeting, the applicant made signification modifications to the site plan and reduced the number of buildings from six to five and included a tiered landscaping berm along the north property line to mitigate the development's impact on the neighbors to the north. Following the site plan revisions the Plan Commission conducted a Public Hearing for the request at its March 5, 2019 Plan Commission meeting. Staff presented a revised concept plan at that time. Two neighbors spoke that the public hearing. One neighbor to the north raised concerns related to drainage along the north property line and the neighbor to the northwest raised concerns related to the revised building location in relation to his property and asked the petitioner to further evaluate what could be done. City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5000 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us ANALYSIS The petitioner is now proposing to construct five 2.5 story 12 -unit apartment buildings. The development would include both surface and garage parking. In order to construct the proposed development, the applicant is requesting a zone change to permit multiple family uses. The subject parcel is presently zoned Suburban Mixed Use (SMU). As part of the April 2018 zoning code updates, multi -family was removed as a conditional use within SMU. As a result, the applicant is requesting a zone change from the existing SMU to Multi -Family Residential — 12 (MR -12). MR -12 is the City's lowest density multi -family zoning district, allowing a maximum of 12 units per acre. The proposed development of 60 units on a 9.6 acre site provides a density of 6.25 units per acre, is well below the maximum 115 allowed. Also, the property immediately to the east is zoned MR -12 -PD which contains a multi -family development. The MR -12 designation for the subject parcel should provide a buffer between the single family residential area to the north and the quarry use to the south. FISCAL IMPACT The property is currently in an undeveloped state and the proposed new apartments should value at around $3.6 million. Any utility service extensions will be paid for by the developer though agreement with the city. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission recommended approval of the zone change with conditions at its March 19, 2019 meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Approved: Mark A. Rohloff City Manager City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1 130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5000 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us ITEM: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT SMU TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 (MR -12) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTI -FAMILY USE AT THE 1400 BLOCK OF OSBORN AVENUE Plan Commission meeting of April 2, 2019. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Premier/Nicolet Lumber Company Property Owner: Strey Construction, Inc. Action(s) Requested: The applicant is requesting a zone change and a group development Conditional Use Permit to establish a multi -family development at the 1400 block of Osborn Avenue. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance does not establish criteria relative to appropriateness of changing zoning from one classification to another but relies on the Comprehensive Plan and good planning principles. Section 30-171 of the zoning ordinance classifies any development comprised of 3 or more principal structures as a Group Development and all Group Developments require a CoAditional Use Permit. Criteria used for Conditional Use Permits are located in Section 30-382 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property Location and Background Information: The subject site is located at the north side of Osborn Avenue and is located approximately 480' west of Mason Street. The subject parcel is about 9.6 acres and is presently vacant. The site was previously used as a contractors / construction yard. The surrounding area consists of predominantly single family residential uses to the north, multi -family uses to the east, armory to the west and a quarry to the south across Osborn Avenue. Subiect Site: Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Zon�n Vacant SMU Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: a �v�n re�e�tsi�e Plr�x� Lam �e I�ecotngnenc�c�tta>ft - L�n�, ase ... 2040 Land Use Recommendation Community Facility. ANALYSIS Background On February 21, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project. On March 5, the Plan Commission held the required Public Hearing related to the request. The petitioner had originally proposed the construction of six 12 -unit apartment buildings. The northern most building was located approximately 35' from the north property line and the western most building approximately 100' from the west property fine. During the February 21St neighborhood meeting, residents in the area expressed concerns about building height and proximity of those buildings to the northern property line. A several foot grade change exists between the adjacent residential properties and subject parcel with the subject parcel sitting higher. As a result of that neighborhood meeting, the applicant made signification modifications to the site plan and reduced the number of buildings from six to five and included a tiered landscaping berm along the north property line to mitigate the development's impact on the neighbors to the north. Following the site plan revisions the Plan Commission conducted a Public Hearing for the request at its March 5, 2019 Plan Commission meeting. Staff presented a revised concept plan at that time. Two neighbors spoke that the public hearing. One neighbor to the north raised concerns related to drainage along the north property line and the neighbor to the northwest raised concerns related to the revised building location in relation to his property and asked the petitioner to further evaluate what could be done. Use The petitioner is now proposing to construct five 2.5 story 12 -unit apartment buildings. The development would include both surface and garage parking. In order to construct the proposed development, the applicant will need to be approved for a zone change and Conditional Use Permit. The subject parcel is presently zoned Suburban Mixed Use (SMU). As part of the April 2018 zoning code updates, multi -family was removed as a conditional use within SMU. As a result, the applicant is requesting a zone change from the existing SMU to Multi -Family Residential -12 (MR -12). MR -12 is our lowest density multi -family zoning district, allowing a maximum of 12 units per acre. The proposed development of 60 units on a 9.6 acre site provides a density of 6.25 units per acre, well below the maximum allowed. Staff supports the zone change from SMU to MR -12 as the property immediately to the east is zoned MR -12 -PD. The MR -12 designation for the subject parcel should provide a buffer between the single family residential area to the north and the quarry use to the south. The 2040 land use recommendations designates this area as Community Facility; however, this parcel is adjacent to an existing MR -12 parcel which contains a multi -family development. The comprehensive land use map recommendations are a general representation of land use patterns Item- Rezne. CUP Apartments -1400 Osborn and are not intended to be parcel specific like zoning., Therefore, staff is recommending that the zoning be extended to maintain consistency with adjacent land uses. Section 30-171 of the zoning ordinance classifies any development comprised of three or more principal structures as a Group Development. It further states all Group Developments require a Conditional Use Permit. Site Design/Access The revised site layout includes several modifications from the original plan. The revised plan includes five 2.5 story 12 -unit apartment buildings. The two northern most buildings are setback approximately 125' from the north property line and separated from the neighboring residences to the north by a tiered landscaping berm and required bufferyard landscaping. The revised buildings are approximately 40' further south than originally proposed. The increased setback and additional landscaping should aid in mitigating the development's impact on the neighborhood to the north. The northwestern most building is located approximately 70' from the west property line on the revised plan. This is a reduction of approximately 30' as the original site plan had an approximate building setback along the west property line of 100'. The northwestern building is located approximately 100' farther north than building 4 of the original plan. Staff does understand the neighbor's concern related to the placement of this building in relation to their property. In evaluating building 3's location on the revised plan staff considered several factors. First, the pavement setback along the side property line is unchanged between the original and revised plan and is approximately 24'. Second, the current SMU zoning district would allow a side yard setback of 10' and the proposed MR -12 would require 13' for 2.5 -story buildings. The applicant is proposing approximately 200% tl- e required setback for the pavement and over a 500% increase in the require setback to the building. It is the staff's opinion that these increased setbacks should aid in mitigating the proposed building's height and the grade change between properties. Additionally, the applicant is required bufferyard landscaping along the adjoining single family properties, which will be discussed further in the landscaping section of this report. The applicant has also removed the access drive located at the northeast corner of site that provided direct access to Mason Street. Several neighbors had voiced concerns about an access drive in close proximity to the property line. In removing the secondary access point to Mason Street the applicant is now proposing a second access point along Osborn Avenue. Although the applicant has removed the driveway access to Mason Street, they are still proposing a pedestrian connection in that area. The applicant is proposing 63 surface parking spaces and 60 garage parking spaces. The development meets the City's requirements for parking. The applicant will need to provide a minimum 2700 sq. ft. area devoted to outdoor recreational space. At this time the current plan does not indicate a location for the required outdoor recreational space and this will need to be addressed prior to Site Plan Review. The applicant will also need to add the code required 4 space "inverted -U" bike rack. Item— Refne.CUP Apartments —1400 Osborn Storm Water Mana ement/Utilities Storm water management plans have not been provided at this time. The applicant has been made aware of the City's requirements for storm water management. Finalized storm water management plans will be required as part of the Site Plan Review process. Landscaping Building Foundation Per the applicant's site plan a total of 343 foundation landscaping points are required per building. The provided plan indicates a total of 345 foundation landscaping points are being provided per building. The landscaping ordinance also specifies that 50% of the required points must be located along the primary building facade or in this case the east facade. All building foundation landscaping requirements are being meet. Paved Area Code requires 50 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls or 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area, equating to a required 539 paved area landscaping points. The applicant exceeds this requirement by providing a total of approximately 592 paved area landscaping points. The code further specifies 30% of all points will be devoted to medium or tall trees and 40% will be devoted to shrubs. Again, the applicant far exceeds both requirements. Street Frontage Code requires 100 points per 100 feet of street frontage. The subject parcel has 590 feet of frontage along Osborn Avenue, equating to a required 590 landscaping points. The plan provided indicates 600 points along Osborn Avenue. All street frontage landscaping requirements are being met. Yards Code requires 20 landscaping points per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Per the provided plan, 1,964 yard landscaping points are required and the applicant is providing 2,343. All yard landscaping requirements are being met. Buff eryard Code requires 198 points per 100 feet of bufferyard frontage. The subject parcel has approximately 645 feet of frontage along the adjoining SR -3 zoning, equating to a required 1,287 landscaping points. The plan provided indicates 2,640 points along the adjoining SR -3 properties. The applicant meets the base code requirements for bufferyard landscaping, The applicant is proposing to use Techny Arborvitae. Techny Arborvitae grow to approximately 12-15 feet high at maturity and have a mature width of 6-8 feet. They are considered to have a medium growth rate which equates to 1-2 feet per year. Code requires a minimum size at planting of 4 feet in height. The proposed bufferyard should effectively create a living fence / barrier along the north and northwest property lines. The applicant is also proposing an approximately 280 foot long tiered landscaping berm along the north property line to further mitigate the development's impact on the adjacent residential area. The berm as proposed includes an additional 21 Black Hills Spruce trees and two Red Maple trees. Staff believes the landscaping enhancements and increased setback along the north property line should significantly mitigate the grade change and buildings impact item— Rene. CUP Apartments —1100 Osborn on the adjacent single family residential use. Although the applicant meets the required bufferyard screening requirements along the west property line, staff feels a few additional changes could provide similar mitigation to what has been provided to the neighbors along the north property line. Staff is recommending the applicant construct a 6' solid fence along the entire length of the water easement and continue the Techny Arborvitae bufferyard, screening an additional approximately 35' south to the end of the water easement and the end of the adjacent SR -3 zoned parcel. Staff believes the additional landscaping and construction of a 6' fence should provide similar mitigation to what the berm is providing along the north property line. Site Lighting The applicant has provided a site lighting plan for the development. The plan is generally in conformance with City standards for maximum allowed lighting Ievel at property lines and minimum required lighting levels for pedestrian / vehicle areas. Staff did note two locations where the applicant will need to make adjustments to the lighting plan. Both occur at the driveway entrances. The northern most driveway location exceeds the maximum allowed 0.5 foot-candle at the property line and southern driveway is below the minimum required 0.4 foot-candle for a driveway. Final code compliant lighting plan will be required as part of Site Plan Review. Building Facades The applicant has provided concept building elevations. The buildings are similar to those the applicant has constructed along Ripple Avenue. The structures are clad in a mixture of brick, veneer, glass, and dutchlap siding. The proposed elevations meet the exterior design standards requirements for multi -family uses. Finalized building elevations will be reviewed and approved as part of the Site Plan Review process. Communications/Corres ondence Attached to the report you will find copies of communications/correspondence staff has received during this process. RECOMMENDATION/CONDITIONS In its review and recommendation to the Common Council on an application for a Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based on the criteria established by Chapter 30-382 (F)(3): (i) Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare. (3) Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property. (4) The conditional use is located in an area, that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property. Item— Reztte.CUP Apartments — 7400 Osborn (5) The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant's proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change and Conditional Use Permit request for a Group Development with the findings listed above and the following conditions: 1. Lighting plan must be modified to meet City lighting code requirements. 2. 2,700 sq. ft. of recreation open space shall be provided to fulfil the outdoor recreational space requirements. 3. Minimum 4 space "inverted -U" bike rack shall be added. 4. Provide an additional 35' of bufferyard screen along the water easement. 5. Construct a 6' solid fence along the entire length of the water easement. 6. Final landscaping and landscaping berm plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. The Plan Commission approved of the zone change and Conditional Use Permit as requested with findings and conditions noted. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Minutes of 03-05-19 Site Inspection Reports: Ms. Propp and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Plan Cornfrussion voted to accept the memo as part of the record which passed unanimously. Mr. Lyons presented the item and explained that staff had originally received a zone change and Conditional Use Permit request for the 1400 block of Osborn Road. The request was related to a proposal for construction of six 12 unit apartment buildings. In compliance with state law a class II notice for Public Hearing was submitted on February 20th and published on February 23rd and February 26th stating that a Public Hearing would take place on March 5th. On February 21, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project. As a result of that meeting, the applicant is proposing modification to the development plan. Due to the timing of the advertised Public Hearing and time necessary to revise the plans, staff was not able to provide an official staff report and recommendation for action for the March 5th Plan Commission meeting and the applicant is requesting official action be delayed until the March 19th Plan Commission meeting. However, as the Public Hearing has already been noticed for March 5th, there is a requirement to hold the Public Hearing. An official staff report and recommendation, based on the revised plans will be provided as part of the March 19th Plan Commission packet. Mr. Lyons showed the original plan and compared it to the revised plan. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the density. Mr. Lyons responded the density falls significantly below the unit density that could be allowed. Item— Reme.CUP Aparthnents —1400 Osborn Mr. Burich gave background information on the reasoning for the zone change and Conditional Use Permit. He said the SMU district used to allow residential as a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lyons commented there is additional material that has been added such as the two letter written by an adjacent property owner. Mr. Burich added the letters are both from Joe and Carol Ferlo of 1230 Devonshire Drive. Mr. Mott questioned about the area to the north. Mr. Lyons replied it was a multi -tier landscaping berm. Ms. Propp inquired about the water easement located at the northwest corner. Mr. Lyons explained it is an underground water line. Mr. Gohde added it was for drinking water. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Sarah Hillenbrand, 3121. Gateway Road of Brookfield, stated she is with Premier Real Estate. She stated Premier is the development firm that has completed two projects in the last four years in Oshkosh. She said the projects were Soda Creek and Oregon Place. She explained the projects helped them understand how much of a need apartments were to the city. She said Oregon Place was 100% pre -leased the day it opened. She brought a rendering of the building. She gave background information on the neighborhood meeting and the concerns/feedback of the neighbors. She said in light of the concerns; they decided to redesign the site to try and please as many neighbors as possible. She said as part of the redesign, there was more landscaping/buffer added to the north and the drive leading to Mason Street was removed. She stated they only want what is best for the neighborhood. Mr. Hinz inquired about the tree line on the northwest corner of the property. Ms. Hillenbrand replied the tree line does end at the south of the Ferlo property. She said she believes the ordinance states that the tree line should run along the true property line but they are not doing that because they are trying to be as accommodating as possible. Ms. Propp inquired about the western part of the site. Ms. Hillenbrand referred to her rendering. She explained all front doors to the units are located on the long stretches of the building and the garages are located on the shorter sides of the building. She said the area Ms. Propp was inquiring about would be the garage areas of six units. Item Re::37e. CUP Apartments —1400 Osborn Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, said she had many questions. She asked about the access drive to Mason Street, the height of the berm, distance of the berm to her property line, if there would be a dugout for the water runoff, elevation and the buffer screen. Joe Ferlo,1230 Devonshire Drive, said he was here with his wife Carol. He thanked Ms. Hillenbrand, Jinn and city staff for going over and beyond with helping find a solution to please as many people as possible. He stated the buildings are lovely looking. He showed pictures of his property with the placement of the buildings overlaid. He stated he is not trying to stop the development but would like the developers to take one more look at the site. He said the development will affect the property values as well as the backyards. He referenced both of his letters and said he is very thankful for being able to meet and talk with the developers through the whole process. He explained that his lot is open to the site with no buffer. He suggested using the first site layout but removing the north building. He feels this would be a win-win for everyone. He stated he does not want anyone to feel as if he is ungrateful but is just asking for another look at the site. He explained how they chose the house at Devonshire Drive and have put in $40,000 worth of improvements in the hopes of retiring in that home. He thanked everyone again and welcomed anyone to visit his property to better understand his side. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing continents. John Maas, 840 Challenger Drive of Green Bay, stated he prepared a lot of the documentation for the property owner and Premier, the prospective developer. He referenced the hard copies of the site plan and landscaping plan he brought to the meeting. He explained the reasoning for the rezone, gave background information of the zoning for the surrounding properties and said he believes the rezone aligns with the Comprehensive Plan. He said one of the big concerns for the neighbors were the second floor balconies. He said to fix that issues, they will be installing a multi -tier berm which would consist of black spruce and would be 8-12 feet high and grow more when mature. Mr. Maas reviewed the amount of buffer between residential. He said Premier should be applauded for redesigning their site and completely removing one building. He said in order to accommodate the neighbors, they may have to get a variance for the landscaping at the northwest corner of the property because the landscaping does not line up with the true property line. He said they would leave the vegetation in that area. He stated the lot is one of the worst lots they have tried to develop into a multi -family. He stated the neighbors warned them about the petroleum contamination in the soil which does exist. He explained there and five to six feet of fill throughout the property. He said there are a lot of extra cost in developing this lot. Mr. Hinz questioned how tall the trees were at the northwest corner. Mr. Maas replied around 30 feet. Mr. Ferlo replied to the west, there are four to six oak trees that run along the property line which are quiet tali. He said at the very top northwest corner, there is a grove of trees which creates a buffer from his house and the house on Kensington Avenue. He stated keeping the vegetation in those areas is definitely a win. Item— Reine.CUP Apartments — 1400 Osborn Mr. Hinz commented it is hard to tell distance without lines on the maps. Mr. Maas stated they are extending the buffer plantings 1.55.5 feet from the south even though it may go in a diagonal but may need a variance for this deviation. He said another concern from the neighbors was the developer having to trim down the mature trees by the fence area. He said the redesign mitigated the issue by creating more of a buffer and no trimming would be needed. He said they took into account the concerns of the neighbors during the redesign. Mr. Fojtik inquired about Mr. Ferlo's suggestion about utilizing the first plan but removing the north building. Mr. Maas explained the second plan gave more of a buffer from the transmission line towers in the front. He said the green space they created in the front can be a berm if necessary because it is one of the few places they can borrow clay soils from that aren't fill. He explained the areas outside of the buildings and pond are areas identified as fill. Ms. Propp thanked Mr. Maas. She inquired about what the northwest corner of the lot would look like at completion because it is hard for her to visualize. She said it is one of her primary concerns. She asked about the arborvitae hedge on the west side and why it does not go further south. Mr. Maas responded it runs to the Ferlo's southern property line. He explained the landscaping and how it aligns with the water main. Plan Commission and staff discussed the process for site inspections. Mr. Hinz commented he is very happy that developers are starting to work with Plan Commission on developments and willing to find a middle ground because it was not always like that. He commended staff for their work in creating this working relationship with developers. Ms. Fojtik agreed with Mr. Hinz. He asked what the process would be for next meeting on this item. Mr. Burich and Mr. Lyons explained the process would be the same as any other item but they would not need to hold a public hearing as that requirement has already been fulfilled. No actions were taken on this item. Minutes of 03-19-19 Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Memo accepted as part of the record. hem—,Resne.CUP Aparlments-1400 Osborn Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained as a result of the March 5th Plan Commission meeting the applicant has been working to make additional revisions to the proposed site plan. The applicant has request this item be laid over to the April 2nd meeting in order to continue updating the plans. He stated notices were sent out to neighboring properties notifying them of the updated meeting date. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. There was no technical questions on this item.. Motion by Propp to lay over the zone change and Conditional Use Permit a group development for multi family located at the 1400 block of Osborn until April 2714. Seconded byVajgrt. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Burich added that discussions are still ongoing with the applicant because of the concerns from neighbors and Plan Commission. Motion carried 9-0. Minutes of 04-02-19 Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a zone change and a group development Conditional Use Permit to establish a multi -family development at the 1400 block of Osborn Avenue. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He gave a brief overview of the previous meeting in regard to this property. The petitioner is now proposing to construct five 2.5 story 12 -unit apartment buildings. The development would include both surface and garage parking. The revised site layout includes several modifications from the original plan. The applicant is proposing approximately 200% the required setback for the pavement and over a 500% increase in the required setback to the building. These increased setbacks should aid in mitigating the proposed building's height and the grade change between properties. The applicant has also removed the access drive located at the northeast corner of site that provided direct access to Mason Street due to concerns from the neighbors. The applicant is now proposing a second access point along Osborn Avenue. The applicant is still proposing a pedestrian connection in that area. The development meets the City's requirements for parking. Finalized storm water management plans will be required as part of the Site Plan Review process. All required landscaping for building Item— Rene. CUP Apartments —1400 Osborn foundation, paved areas, street frontage, yard and bufferyard are being met or exceeding requirements. Final code compliant lighting plan will be required as part of Site Plan Review. The applicant has provided concept building elevations. The buildings are similar to those the applicant has constructed along Ripple Avenue. The structures are clad in a mixture of brick, veneer, glass and dutchlap siding. The proposed elevations meet the exterior design standards requirements for multi -family uses. Finalized building elevations will be reviewed and approved as part of the Site Plan Review process. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Propp inquired about the CUP process because it looks similar to the GDP process. Mr. Lyons stated the request is only for a rezone and a CUP. Ms. Propp asked if the proposed development would come back to Plan Commission for a GDP. Mr. Lyons replied it would not because it is not a Planned Development. He explained that it is only a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for more than three buildings. Mr. Burich added it is a group development and goes through the Conditional Use process. Mr. Lyons explained the Conditional Use Permit is triggered due to the number of buildings and not the use. He said the use is permitted under the MR -12 zoning district. Mr. Burich explained Planned Developments are typically for sites that need Base Standard Modifications or are unique sites to develop. Mr. Lyons pointed out there are no Base Standard Modifications or variances needed to accommodate this development because it meets the requirements of the base zoning district. Mr. Fojtik asked what types of developments would be allowed if the zoning stayed as SMU. Mr. Lyons listed a few examples such as gas stations, convenience stores, retail related and light industrial. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Lyons commented there have been numerous correspondences throughout this process with the applicant and neighbors. He said all the correspondences were included as part of the staff report. John Maas (applicant), 840 Challenger Drive of Green Bay, wanted to comment on some of the environmental items he found from his review. He said the site has been idle since about 1987. He said the staff report states multi -family use is the highest and best use for the property. He said the Item— Rene, CUP Rparhnenls —1400 Osborn site is not the best to develop because of the buried construction rubble, fill and petroleum contamination. He feels if the site hasn't developed in the past 36 years, it won't be developed for another 36 or more years. He stated the development would be an asset to the community. Joe Ferlo, 1230 Devonshire Drive, said he is the northwest neighbor. He said they would prefer to have trees/vacant lot behind their house. He said the first plan was better but the third plan was perfect. He thanked the developers for being very cooperative and for working with the neighbors. He said he has been caring for the northwest corner of the property. He stated there have not been any drainage issues. He said about half a dozen mature trees will remain which he is happy with. He thanked staff for listening to his concerns especially about installing a fence. He said his main concern is related to the fence because it will be the feature of the backyard. He said he would be willing to give up the arborvitae for a nicer fence. He said the northwest corner grading would create a berm if the grading stayed as is on both sides. He requested the fence be on the east side of the waterline easement with no arborvitae. He said he hopes to stay in good communication with the applicant throughout the process. He inquired about the type of fence and said he would prefer a privacy fence that is wood. He thank Plan Commission and Council for visiting his property and understanding his concerns. He reiterated that the developer has gone over and beyond and he prefers this use over other permitted SMU uses. He said he is grateful for this process and that the developer has been very generous. Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, said she would like the northwest fence to match the rest of the fencing on the north side. She hopes that Mr. Ferlo is happy too because his property is just as important as the rest of the neighbors. She asked if the proposed berm is the same berm that was presented at the last meeting. Mr. Maas replied the area of the berm is the same but the height has been lowered. He said it was 9-11 feet high and now the highest point is 6-$ feet. Ms. Smith said she doesn't mind the big berm or the height but questioned if the rain water would go into her backyard. Mr. Lyons pointed out the berm is still about 20 feet off the property line. He explained the applicant still has to provide and submit a code compliant drainage plan to the Department of Public Works prior to construction. Ms. Smith asked if there would be tiles installed if needed. Mr. Lyons replied he is not sure and reiterated that the drainage plan would have to meet all city standards before the project can move forward. Ms. Smith mentioned she does not have drainage issues with normal rainfall. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Item— Rene. CUP Apartments —1400 Osborn Sarah Hillenbrand (applicant), 3120 Gateway Road of Brookfield, said she appreciates the comments from the Ferlos. She pointed out the true property line of the lot they are under contract for. She explained the Ferlos are currently using the proposed development's land as their backyard which they will still permit. She stated it is still their. property and they would be responsible for maintaining it as well as installing the landscaping. She wants to work with the neighbors but feels it is a little overreaching for non -owners of the property to dictate the specifics of the landscaping. She requested leaving the landscaping up to the developer and the staff to finalize. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Cttmmings. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Cummings asked if the school district has been involved in the discussions. Mr. Lyons replied they have been notified and made aware of the plans. Mr. Perry said he is sensitive when it comes to abutting properties especially for residential. He feels the applicant and the city has gone over and beyond to make this development work. He said he has not seen this kind of effort during his time on the board. He said the multi -family is an appropriate use for the property. He said he will be voting for this because the efforts are extra ordinary from all involved. Ms. Propp agrees that the apartment complex is the best use. She said she spent 30 minutes visiting the Ferlo's property and understood their concerns. She is grateful to the developer for allowing the Ferlos to keep using the northwest corner though they don't have to. She appreciates the developer's efforts. She would like to amend condition #4 and #5 based on the developer's request. Motion by Propp to amend condition #4 and #5 to state: Applicant shall provide either a continuous evergreen bttfferyard along the entire length of the water easement or construct a 6'solid fence along the entire length of the water easement. Final conditions to state: 1. Lighting plan mast be modified to meet City lighting code requirements. 2. 2,700 sq. ft. of recreation open space shall be provided to fulfil the outdoor recreational space requirements. 3. Minimum 4 space "inverted -U" bike rack shall be added. 4. Applicant shall provide either a continuous evergreen bufferyard along the entire Iength of the water easement or construct a 6'solid fence along the entire length of the water easement.6. 5. Final landscaping and landscaping berm plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Commtcnity Development. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 6-0. Motion to approve carried 6-0. Item— Re-ne.CUP Apartnnents —1400 Osborn Lyons, Mark From: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah@pre-3.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:30 AM To: Lyons, Mark Subject: RE: Osborn Mark, I apologize for my delayed response. I received your original email while on vacation. We have gone to great lengths to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. After the neighborhood meeting we spent much time and engineering effort to redesign our site to meet the desires of as many neighbors as we possibly could. We eliminated building 6, and consequently more than 15% of the cash flow and value of our project. That in itself is an enormous sacrifice of profitability that needs to be focused on, while remembering that the original plan we submitted complied with all density and set back requirements on its face. We did not have to eliminate the building; we did so in efforts to be good neighbors and partners with the community. Then after the Public Hearing, we again, at Ferlos request, looked again at our design. JMM Consulting has spent countless hours on redesign plans (I think we have 7 or 8 versions at this time). It is not appropriate to share the actual cost figures given the proprietary nature of the bids as well as the subjectivity of the definition of what is cost prohibitive. I fear it would be a circular discussion. I can share that the additional incremental costs related to the Ferlo Plan includes the following items: -Additional engineering hours to finalize drainage, storm water, utility, lighting, landscaping plans for the new design -Need to construct two ponds (given the new building locations) with a 24" connecting culvert -Additional work and expense to get a two pond SWMP approved by the City -Increased size of berm and heavy plantings I'd like to remind all involved that the Ferlos are currently using a significant portion of property that they do not own as their back yard; and all of their opposition arguments surround preventing us from interfering with that continued use. Although we have no obligation to do so, we have agreed to allow them to continue using this land (again, which they do not own) and also already modified our landscape plan to run along their perceived backyard boundary, instead of the true property line. As illustrated above, we've made significant effort and sacrifice already in eliminating 16% of the units and the plan we submitted complies with all requirements. PRE/3 is a professional and proven development group who has already added millions to the City tax base with our Soda Creek and Oregon Place apartment developments, and is prepared to invest —$5MM in this proposed project. Given that staff and counsel are to represent the entire populous and tax paying body, as a large tax payer, we ask for your support. Sincerely, Sarah Sarah Hillenbrand Vice President RE/g 3120 Gateway Road Page 7 Lyons, Mark From: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah@pre-3.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:18 AM To: Lyons, Mark Subject: Fwd: Following up our conversation Darrin was on it, not you. See below. Sent from my Whone Begin forwarded message: From: Joseph Ferlo <iosephferlo gmail.com> Date: March 18, 2019 at 9:35:42 AM CDT To: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarahgpre-3.com> Cc: "Burich, Darryn" <dburichgci.oshkosh.wi.us>, Carol Ferlo <cfferlo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Following up our conversation Dear Sarah, I've spent the better part of the weekend, trying to figure out how to respond to your email. First off, let me say that the design you sent on Thursday would have been perfect. It took all of our concerns about proximity, security, and privacy under consideration, and created a layout that I would have been proud to have said took great care of our concerns. I don't think we can quite get our heads around the idea that this solution is "cost prohibitive". Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with your hope we can continue to discuss civilly, and I absolutely intend to do just that. I just want to ask you to please, take a last look at the options on that latest drawing, as it is so very much better. In the few weeks we've been acquainted, watched your company eliminate a building (and its income), move a road, create a heavily landscaped berm, all to make sure the neighbors to the North are happy. And I do believe you want us to be happy, as well. In my work, I'm used to looking at unconventional ways to get conventional things done, and if there's something I can help with in working with Planning, the Planning Commission, or even the Council, to make this plan "cost possible", then I am on board to help. May we get together to discuss? Thank you for the time and efforts made so far. Sincerely, Joe Page 8 On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah a,pre-3.com> wrote: Dear Joe, We are grateful for your cooperation in this. Your creativity and resourcefulness encouraged us to work towards further modifications that would appeal to all. Attached is a plan into which we have invested hours of engineering effort. However, in examining the new plan and obtaining bids from our contractors, the adaptations require measures that are cost prohibitive. It is not as easy as it might appear to move the buildings; pond sizing, location of the contaminated soils, size of the landscape berm, locations of the berms we may need to cap the unbuildable soils, among other things, all come into play. We are hopeful that, as a leading business owner in the community, you can understand how, at a certain point, the increased costs simply aren't manageable. Despite the other neighbors' satisfaction with our proposal, we were committed to ensuring that you too, would be amenable. You provide an unparalleled service to the Oshkosh community — one that continues to enrich its spirit and culture, thus why it is such an attractive area for us to develop. With a shared interest in that, we are confident that we will be able to work together cordially moving forward. Best Regards, Sarah Sarah Hillenbrand Vice President PRE V 3120 Gateway Road Brookfield, WI 53045 Phone: 262.790.4560 Cell: 262.825.2194 Email: sarah(a)-pre-3.com Page 9 PRE/3, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability. All real estate brokerage and property management services are provided by Premier Real Estate Management, LLC, a Real Estate Business Entity registered with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services by real estate brokers, licensed by the State of Wisconsin. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are privileged, confidential and intended for use by the person name in this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents or information in this e-mail is prohibited and may constitute an actionable matter. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by telephone, (262) 790-4560 or reply e-mail immediately From: Joseph Ferlo [mailto:iosephferlo@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:05 AM To: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah@pre-3.com> Cc: Burich, Darryn <dburich@ci.oshkosh.wi.us>; Carol Ferlo <cfferlo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Following up our conversation Good morning, Sarah, I just wanted to check in before week was out to see if John had any luck in his creative process. I walked the area yesterday with a member of Plan Commission yesterday, and as we were talking, it occurred to me that if we had any luck at all with the "diagonal" idea that you and I each had after the meeting, coupled with moving buildings I and 2 just a little South, not only would that take building 3 further from the property line and further South, but there might even be an opportunity to retain some of the mature trees East of the water easement, as you said you'd be doing on the West side of the easement. I. encourage you to come look from the Devonshire side, if you haven't already. The water easement is flagged out and is a great reference point. And do know that in each meeting I have, I continue to say positive things about our dialogue, and what has been accommodated thus far, and continue to express hope for this latest work. We are appreciative. Let me know if I can be of any further help. Joe Page 10 Virus -free. www.avast.com On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:01 PM Sarah Hillenbrand <sarahgpre-3.com> wrote: Hi Joe, Thank you. Yes, John is looking at adjustments we can make this morning. We'll do our best. Sarah Hillenbrand Vice President PRE 3120 Gateway Road Brookfield, WI 53045 Phone: 262.790.4560 Cell: 262.825.2194 Email: sarah _pre-3.com PRE/3, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability. All real estate brokerage and property management services are provided by Premier Real Estate Management, LLC, a Real Estate Business Entity registered with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services by real estate brokers, licensed by the State of Wisconsin. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are privileged, confidential and intended for use by the person name in this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents or information in this e-mail is prohibited and may constitute an actionable matter. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by telephone, (262) 790-4560 or reply e-mail immediately From: Joseph Ferlo [mailto:iosephferlo@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 1:00 PM 4 Page 11 To: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah@pre-3.com> Cc: Burich, Darryn <dburich @ci.oshkosh.wi.us>; Carol Ferlo <cfferlo@gmail.com> Subject: Following up our conversation Dear Sarah, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me after the meeting. As I mentioned, I had also put together a suggestion which I did not include in my letter, but mirrored almost exactly what you were brainstorming- namely, turning the northwest building on a diagonal, and wrapping the berm (you used the term "boomerang") diagonally along the northwest corner, to the east of the water line easement. That would not only move the building further south, but also provide most of our border with the same "berm benefits" as the homes to the North, still allow us to maintain the area west of (and over the top of) the water easement, and preserve a number of mature trees. I'd love to pursue this further. Obviously my drawing is very crude, but you get the idea. Again, thank you for allowing me to contact you directly. I have copied Darryn Burich who has, as you know, been very helpful to this process, as he has also never seen this suggestion. Let me know your thoughts, and thank you again for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, Joe Virus -free. www.avast.com Page 12 Lyons, Mark From: Joseph Ferlo <josephferlo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 8:20 AM To: Burich, Darryn Cc: Kuss, Mina; Carol Ferlo; Lyons, Mark Subject: Osborn project update Dear Darryn, wanted to check in as we get closer to the April 2 meeting. I have not heard any sort of response from Sarah Hillenbrand since my reply to her March 14 email, which I shared with you, and in which I asked them to please reconsider their site plan revision she had shared in that email, which she had said was cost -prohibitive When you and I met on March 18, we discussed this, and I mentioned that I had hoped we'd be able to ask for a little more detail on what made this version cost -prohibitive. And Carol and I still feel that it is by far the best option, as it dealt with our concerns about proximity and security. We hope that you will be able to obtain a little more detailed information on this subject. This past week, as the snow has melted, I've had a better chance to actually walk the yard as I showed it to a few members of the council and plan commission who have visited. It's given me a chance to take a good look at the topography and it's been very helpful. You and I also discussed what might happen if, in fact, it was true that the "Ferlo site plan option 36 19" was indeed cost -prohibitive, and how best to deal with our concerns within the parameters of their most recently submitted plan. Carol and I have discussed that, and I'd like to share our suggestions with you, in hope that you might help us advocate for them. First, we'd hope that everything that has been said thus far about leaving the area west of the water easement untouched, and with its current mature trees, so, as John said at the plan commission meeting, "the Ferlos can continue to enjoy it as they have been", is true. We've been very appreciative of that, right from the start. Next, the fence. You and I had discussed this in our meeting, and Carol and I would request a privacy fence to be installed, ideally, east of the water main, and for the entire length of the property. In addition to helping to address our privacy concerns, this would also prevent the "short cut" through the northwest corner (and, eventually, across our yard), which was a concern not only of ours but also came up at the very first neighborhood meeting. Obviously, what this fence looks like is important, and we'd hope that it be a privacy fence, natural wood, and a minimum of six feet tall. We do have some suggestions we'd like to have considered, since it will be the new focal point of our horizon. Finally, the topography itself. As you know, our lot sits in a hollow, down slope from the project. It crests to a berm and then dips to what I suspect is the level of the project. If the area west of the water easement was to remain unchanged with regard to grade, and then, on the east of the easement, dipped to the level of the project, I believe the net result would be a small berm. With a six foot privacy fence at the top of that berm, we'd have a small berm- not as effective a berm as in the preferred version (plan 36 19), but at least we'd maximize our level of privacy as best as possible. Page 13 Again, we are extremely appreciative of the consideration that Pre/3 has shown, from the very first meeting through this time. We are confident that they would like for all of the neighbors, including us, to be satisfied with the proposal, and it's for this reason we offer these suggestions, and hope that you will bring them forward in continuing discussion with the developers. In the meantime, as I said, the snow is gone, our deck is clear, and I am happy to brainstorm on site with you, anyone in your department, Pre/3, and anyone else. This is our "forever view" and I appreciate everyone's understanding of our trying to lessen the impact as much as we can. Please let me know if there is anything more we can do. Thank you, Joe and Carol Ferlo 920-242-2416 == Virus -free. www.avast.com Page 14 Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 3:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Following up our conversation To: Burich, Darryn <dburichgci.oshkosh.wi.us> Members of Plan Commission, Thank you for your attention to my concerns at your last meeting. The developers and I have continued talks and they have been positive. They sent a proposal that was actually just right (Darryn has that as he was copied in the email), but, as they told me, cost prohibitive. Below is my response, praising their solution and asking them to reconsider the cost. Thank you Joseph and Carol Ferlo ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Joseph Ferlo <'o�sephferlo(a�gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 9:35 AM Subject: Re: Following up our conversation To: Sarah Hillenbrand <sarahgpre-3.com> Cc: Burich, Darryn <dburich a,ci.oshkosh.wi.us>, Carol Ferlo <cfferlo a,gmail.com> Dear Sarah, I've spent the better part of the weekend, trying to figure out how to respond to your email. First off, let me say that the design you sent on Thursday would have been perfect. It took all of our concerns about proximity, security, and privacy under consideration, and created a layout that I would have been proud to have said took great care of our concerns. I don't think we can quite get our heads around the idea that this solution is "cost prohibitive". Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with your hope we can continue to discuss civilly, and I absolutely intend to do just that. I just want to ask you to please, take a last look at the options on that latest drawing, as it is so very much better. In the few weeks we've been acquainted, I watched your company eliminate a building (and its income), move a road, create a heavily landscaped berm, all to make sure the neighbors to the North are happy. And I do believe you want us to be happy, as well. Page 15 In my work, I'm used to looking at unconventional ways to get conventional things done, and if there's something I can help with in working with Planning, the Planning Commission, or even the Council, to make this plan "cost possible", then I am on board to help. May we get together to discuss? Thank you for the time and efforts made so far. Sincerely, Joe On Thu, Mtr 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sarah Hillenbrand <sarah cr,pre-3.com> wrote: Dear Joe, We are grateful for your cooperation in this. Your creativity and resourcefulness encouraged us to work towards further modifications that would appeal to all. Attached is a plan into which we have invested hours of engineering effort. However, in examining the new plan and obtaining bids from our contractors, the adaptations require measures that are cost prohibitive. It is not as easy as it might appear to move the buildings; pond sizing, location of the contaminated soils, size of the landscape berm, locations of the berms we may need to cap the unbuildable soils, among other things, all come into play. We are hopeful that, as a leading business owner in the community, you can understand how, at a certain point, the increased costs simply aren't manageable. Despite the other neighbors' satisfaction with our proposal, we were committed to ensuring that you too, would be amenable. You provide an unparalleled service to the Oshkosh community — one that continues to enrich its spirit and culture, thus why it is such an attractive area for us to develop. With a shared interest in that, we are confident that we will be able to work together cordially moving forward. Best Regards, Sarah Sarah Hillenbrand Vice President Page 16 3120 Gateway Road Brookfield, WI 53045 Phone: 262.790.4560 Cell: 262.825.2194 Email: sarahCapre-3.com PRE/3, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability. All real estate brokerage and property management services are provided by Premier Real Estate Management, LLC, a Real Estate Business Entity registered with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services by real estate brokers, licensed by the State of Wisconsin. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are privileged, confidential and intended for use by the person name in this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents or information in this e-mail is prohibited and may constitute an actionable matter. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by telephone, (262) 790-4560 or reply e-mail immediately Page 17 i 1 1 % c: I 1 I 1 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 0 1 1 I I f 1 0 1 i I 1 Page 18 Joseph and Carol Ferlo 1230 Devonshire Drive Oshkosh, WI 54902 February 17, 2019 Dept. of Community Development, Oshkosh Oshkosh Common Council Dear friends, We are writing in regard to the proposed re -zoning and proposed project on parcel 1307360200 on Osborn Street, to replace the undeveloped woodlands/former construction yard with multi -family housing. As taxpayers and homeowners affected by the development, we are extremely concerned with the adverse effect it will have on our family home. First, to clarify, the proposal lists all property to the west of the development to be used by the Wisconsin National Guard. In fact, our home is also on the west side of the development, adjacent to the armory property, and our entire lot line borders the proposed development, to the west (this is an important designation). The narrative from the consultant, in paragraph 4 of Attachment A states: "A living fence of mountbatten junipers is proposed to create a hedge -type buffer yard separating barrier between the rear yards of the neighboring existing homes on the North side of the subject property. These yards are already separated from the proposed site by an existing wooded fence (emphasis added). The combination of the hedge and the existing fence will create an effective barrier between the two uses." Again, with due respect to the developers, our property is not on the north side. It's on the west, in the northwest corner. There is no fence. Rather, our backyard, the entirety of it, has been open to these beautiful undeveloped woods. We do not believe that adequate attention has been paid to the effect of this development on our property because of its location "around the corner" from the homes mentioned. Since this home was built in the 1960s, it has had four owners- we are the fourth- and two of those owners were different generations of the same family. It's charm lies not only in its unique -to -Oshkosh architecture, but also in its relatively private location at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac, abutted by beautiful woodlands. Over the years, prior owners have had to make adjustments to the property based on the desire to keep this idyllic setting. The most notable were the prior owners, who, at their own expense, did some landscape work and re -grading, to eliminate a severe drainage issue, and, in the process, began to maintain a small area adjacent to the backyard, planting grass and keeping the property up, in order to manage the drainage issue (our home has a full, finished basement with below -grade entrances) without causing any issues for the adjacent property owners. The owner gave me this background information prior to my purchasing the property and, since I purchased five years ago, I have continued to maintain this area, both for aesthetic and practical reasons. There is absolutely no doubt that the project, as proposed, will have a tremendously adverse effect on the aesthetics, the privacy, and the overall appeal of our beautiful home. Shade trees will be gone, foliage which Page 19 provides a natural privacy barrier between our home and our neighbors on Kensington Lane, will be removed, and much of what was a private backyard will now be open to this apartment complex. For us, obviously, this is a devastating development. This is the home we bought as our place to settle in Oshkosh. We've invested heavily in upgrades, and planned to retire in this home. We do realize that we are but one taxpayer family. But, looking at the site plan, it would appear that this northwest corner which abuts our property is primarily set to be landscaped area. A creative developer who was, as stated, concerned about the impact of the development on the neighbors, might be willing to (and, we would hope, be directed to) visit with us, see the issues of this particular corner, and work creatively to find a landscaping solution which may leave some of the existing trees, some of the natural character, and still not adversely effect the basics of their development. I am attaching some examples—family photos, if you will—which show the potential adverse effects of the development as presented: First, the location of our home. The highlighted line on the developer's landscape plan corresponds to our backyard, and similar lines drawn on the photos which follow. k m t C li .. el *' Page 20 Next, a lovely summer view from our back deck. The property line is approximated by red lines on all photos which follow: Another view, this from our front deck, of the point at which the fence mentioned in the proposal ends. This is the extreme northwest corner of the development, looking North, and those two sections of fence will hit a corner and go off to the right along the northern line of the development. Note the value of these woods to both our home and those on the other side, in terms of privacy: Page 21 As mentioned, the prior owner did do some work, clearing some debris, re -grading, and planting, in order to mitigate a drainage issue in his (now our) finished basement. We have continued to maintain and, in some cases, beautify this area: Page 22 And finally, a recent shot, a winter view showing what will be removed from our daily experience: We are in hope that this project will not be approved, as is. Rather, we respectfully request that the developers be encouraged to take the time to evaluate the northwest corner of the development, to creatively find a solution which lessens the impact on our beautiful home. Please know that we are more than happy to walk the areas with the developers, the city planning department, with members of the council. I'll serve you a beverage on our back deck, weather permitting, and we can get creative. I am, after all, a creative person by nature. My duties as Director of The Grand Oshkosh will require me to be at a donor event on February 21, the day of the neighborhood meeting, or else I'd plan to be there to speak. Carol will be in attendance on the 21st, and I will be at future meetings on this issue. In the meantime, we are simply saying, to quote the words of Dr. Seuss, "We are here! We are here!" I do hope we can all work together to find a way to lessen the impact on our beautiful home. Thank you to all. Page 23 Sincerely, Joseph A. Ferlo Carol F. Ferlo (920) 242-2416 cell (920) 424-2355 The Grand Oshkosh josephferlo@gmail.com Page 24 Joseph and Carol Ferlo 1230 Devonshire Drive Oshkosh, Wl 54902 March 3, 2019 Dept. of Community Development, Oshkosh Oshkosh Common Council Oshkosh Planning Commission Dear friends, We are writing again in regard to the proposed re -zoning and proposed project on parcel 1307360200 on Osborn Street, to replace the undeveloped woodlands/former construction yard with multi -family housing. It is meant to serve as a companion and update to our letter dated February 17, 2019, in which, as taxpayers and homeowners affected by the development, we voiced our concern with the adverse effect it will have on our family home. We reference it here in order to not have to repeat those concerns. We'd like to start by expressing thanks not only to the Planning Department but also to the Consultant to the developer and developers themselves, who have proven to be interested in listening not only to our concerns but also to those of the neighboring homes on Kensington Ave. It is precisely because of that attention to our concerns, that Carol and I write this in hope of further discussion before the proposal moves ahead. While the developer has done (in our opinion) a great job of adjusting their proposal to address the concerns of the neighbors on the northern line, it was done so at the expense of a solution on our (northwest) line. (continued) Page 25 To explain and illustrate, here are the first proposal, and the current version, side -by side. CURRENT VERSION PREVIOUS REVISION Our lot is outlined in red, with the situation of our home indicated. The blue line to the right (East) of our home is the water line referenced in all drawings. It's a good reference as it's also marked in the rear of our house now. So you'll see it not only on the drawing but also the photos, as a point of reference. In the previous version, most of the area adjacent to our lot was landscaped area—not a building. In conversation with the consultant and developer, and in emails exchanged by them with planning, there was further discussion to relocate the shrubs (in green) to the east of the water line, which -would enable us to continue to maintain the area to the west, as both the prior owners and we have done for over a decade (this outlined in the previous letter). However, when the current version was adjusted to address the concerns of the Kensington folks (very well, I might add), it reconfigured the buildings, and in the current version, building #3, with its associated streets, security lights, etc., are now directly opposite and very, very close to our backyard. Our quiet view of trees will be replaced by an up -close and personal view of building 3. In fixing the issues for the Kensington folks, the new design (probably not on purpose) instead lays the same issues, literally, at our back door. (Continued) Page 26 In the photo below, imagine the trees at the rear, gone (a foregone conclusion in any scenario), but also, building #3 at the location of the red "x": We've been told these apartments are modeled after similar ones at Oregon and Ripple. So, now imagine your new view, replacing the trees, was this— And therein lies our tremendous concern with the revisions proposed. Keep in mind that, unlike the Kensington neighbors who possess a fence barrier, our property is wide open to the development. Imagine what happens to our property value. I think the developers are, in fact, listening to and giving attention to all of our concerns, and 1 know that planning is encouraging them to do so. It is precisely for that reason that we request that they be asked to go back to the drawing board, one more time, to address the concerns specific to our property with the same creativity that they have shown towards the northern side. Page 27 We aren't anti-progress—but 1 just know that, with a little creative thought towards our specific concerns, that this can be worked in a way that further minimizes the loss in "backyard appeal" that we are going to suffer, regardless. In the spirit of creativity, Joe has put pencil to paper (figuratively), and we have a suggestion- one that combines their first two plans, in a way that addresses our concerns as well. (Joe:) I took the original plan here. Since the recent revision reduced the number of buildings from six to five, I simply replaced the northernmost building with the berm in the revised version—but kept the five remaining buildings as originally designed (which was much better from our view as well). if this were done, the "heavily landscaped tiered berm" on the northern side, might be brought round the northeast corner on the diagonal and provide an improved landscape from our yard, in addition to the north border. This would also allow us to continue to maintain the area west of the water line, as we had discussed with the developers prior to the neighborhood meeting. This could preserve not only the mature growth in the far northwest corner (which shields us from the neighbor's homes on Kensington) but would also allow for the preservation of no fewer Page 28 than eight mature trees behind our home- an effective compromise that would mitigate the aesthetic loss of the undeveloped woods. It might even open possibilities for the developer to add a play area on the complex' north side, or, even better, to preserve that entire northernmost swath of mature growth instead of installing the berm (there may be reasons why that is not possible—but it was too inviting a prospect for me not to at least mention it). To be sure, there are other details which have been discussed, that still need to be worked on- the access to the water line when needed, how to minimize the idea that apartment complex residents might use out yard as a "short cut" to school, Kwik Trip, etc., via Devonshire Drive and Huntington Downs, and other things I'm sure I'm not aware of. We are, as we have been, more than willing to sit and find creative solutions to these issues as well. To conclude, it is our request that this proposal, as it stands, not be moved forward. Instead, we would request that the developers work with planning and with us, to find the same innovative and creative solution to our border as they have with the properties to their North. We have found everyone involved to be attentive, helpful and creative, and simply request that we go back to the drawing board, one more time. We love our home, we'd like to stay put, and we are committed to doing everything we can, cooperatively, to endure that it maintains the charm which drew us to it in the first place. Thank you to all. rely; Jo ph A. Ferlo 123q Devonshire Dr Oshk sh WI 54902 (920) 242-2416 josephferlo@gmail.com Carol F. Ferlo cfferlo@gmail.com Page 29 City of Oshkosh Application suarnirrc.. Cif Aar+ of C^n ,rur i35hkcas zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) 2 1 S hUf { a;v, 0 01,0t0st, We5co n 5490.3,1 "PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK- k't`•`$E i42,11 236.5(,54 AP.PLTANT AWMAngN ,fi: , PrarrtierlNicglet Luntiber Company ("Nt-C") February 1, 2019 _.. _ P<�Si,:orh3r'sA t,e 4050 Nicolet Drive Green Say 4 e statw . p; 543.1 920 606-2375 ray, i I N/A _ otherccnfac fn.ai jonnnicoletlumber@gmaii.com ;� vin; Xlrrsr)ecfive 3uye, & General Contractor INFORMATIONOWNER Jon Hermans, NLS r wr`urls}, Strey Construction, Inc o«rc_ January 31, 2019 bp37 Rivermoor Drive__.___:__, c� Omro ,. � , Wl 54963 r_ _ _ .. 740-5464 9201, Cor,;a�i u or GregL@naipfefferle,com Et"Msn . ciwreersh;uStats:= t#'};^{ii�'.t1Et;arl: 1'�rii,i:juel Frt„a �'t•f�t.'S"-ifs �C;.^r€a^rn��l`, Property owner Consent: (required) + s;,g ua� tri u � a1'€' e. r r«curt cfsj+3 i Kit ttu sat 3 � �nd'tf ,np?ss�aes mop, i� tt x� � Pso,. ta: z;a rtxfe tai, 'wry:, yr ar � n lh , r it;t,t rn"ur ,nrr c s.> > i x r;tr�.wrr rhes apaa�;"xit» i '1s0 unrat sssrtd !hell nf! rr,aefirg �r2 a. n,d, f.`rv4c . fe_ , ..f)n'C!t t subrniziortc orothc-1 =r,1WS11a!iw ri gjsr7n� r Pr.) ,er t r ZONINGg o EVE _1'.�LN. AW_QWA7%QN Stuart D! Strey Addrosstlocoiion of Rezoning Request, __,_gsborn Street It7X P.'.7tr .` 4i„r;`:t t a,, _1,30730200 Re:onF h �.g•; e ; ri, SMIJ to MR -12 allow for the construction of Multi -Family Housing Project Cruse”Currently undeveloped woodlands/formerly construction yard Construct six 12-unft apartment buildings, officeigarage & mailroom, drive aisles, parking lots and wet detention pond y – rer.�SttCf tt rs &, fs Ur7`ri I,_ 73 it i> {. ?;'L+.`,r C7nYJ.rre t�,G' r[ �f19 lua}�3�fty. Site work completed in 2019 with all all buildings completed by Fall 2020 "SR 3" Residential aet.. sa.th 1-1 1"Hl" - Meavy I1-1-1-111ndustrial _ _ ____ Asa: "MR -12" - Multi-Family 11" - Institutional Staff _ pate Recd _._..._ Page 30 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 j� 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 amendments to the Official Zoning Map. The petitioner or owner should be present at both the Plan Commission and Common Council meetings to discuss and answer questions regarding the 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. The staff report and meeting notice will also be available on the City's website. 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. Neighborhood opinion is an important factor in the decision-making process. If the proposed development is expected to have significant impact on other properties, the petitioner may be required to 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. if deemed appropriate, notification by mail informing the property owners within 100 feet of the subject property of the proposal may substitute for the public meeting. Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all abutting property owners regarding your request. Within 90 days of filing a complete application, Plan Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the request. Within 60 days of the public hearing, the Plan Commission may make a written report to the Common Council with recommendations regarding the proposal. The Plan Commission's report 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^d and 41h 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 II notice in the local newspaper, the City takes care of this publication requirement prior to the Council meeting, The Common Council may approve the Official Zoning Map amendment as originally proposed, may approve the proposed amendment with modifications, or may deny approval of the proposed amendment,. If the Official Zoning Map amendment is approved, 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.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/Community_Development/Pfanning.htm Page 31 SUIMITIO, City of Oshkosh Application 1700' of _-or',Munily Devak,pr.,q,,)l ed4rx216 01,,'M?, A10- P,Q Box I ? Conditional Use Permit Oshkosh -PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK -1 APPLICANT INFORMATION Fetitior,ar. Premier/Nicolet Lumber Company ("NLC") February 1, 2019 Pefiiior,er's 4050 Nicolet Drive 54311 City, Y, n_. Bay fa -e: LI felophcne g:!920) 606-2375lcrr. N/A �Qpnicoletlumber@ Other Contact 4 or Frt 0 ,,gmail.com Status nf le,Worser (Pieo�,e Rer,14,z5ont,�1live Tenari X Ptnep(ctivp Buyer & General Contnulor r Pefitiunr:r's Signature (required). OWNER INFOqq NLC RWT Owner($)` Stripy Construction, Inc, Dule:,January 31, 2019 Owner(s) Addross; ,5037 Rivermooi DriveOmro W1 City: zip, 54963 920) 740-5464 NIA0*her C Jo of l-oil�regL@nalptefferfe.com -ontr it, rr Ownership Statim (Pkoc e C:heck;; lnc!M-dua; Trisi, Portrership XCorpo!oi!:q,, Properly Owner Consent: (required) 8ySi9rOtkAe 11014-0r% I/WC =kr)O`Wledgc- thot rite` 01ficiols and/or empluyL�w rnav, in of their tune fian, enter upon lhf,- pmporty to insr.ecl, or r that 61 meeting dates ore lenlativ6 and may be oostpont;,d by the Pionrir,,�r Sewices Division for lncompl0e or other odniir,61iohve Property Owner's Sicwuiw(,r. Date, SITE INFORMATION Stuart D. Strey Address/Location of Proposed Project Osborn Proposed Pioit"t Typc,,,.1307360200 Curren' Use of �ropeily Undeveloped woorkd1ands/formerly construction yard SIVIU/to be MR -12 Lund Jsist 'Surfrunning Your ;ii,;: t4adh, Residential Quarry Multi-Familyf-tousinq Project west; Wisconsin National Guard "Phase note that a rnret�rq will b�:. I - - , -,Ailed to all abutling orope1v owr;i_,rs regarding yofequosl, It Is recommended that the applicant meet with Planning Services staff prior to submittal to discuss the proposal. 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 For more info(rn,,.1I%)n olearo ii,,e Staff - Date Rec'd Page 32 Briefly explain how the proposed conditional use will not have a negative effect on the issues below. 1. Health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts on the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding lands and land owners. 2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety. The pedestrians will have access to the on-site sidewalks and the vehicular traffic will be disbursed by providing two means of ingress/egress. 3, Noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution. There will be some noise and dust while the project is being constructed but once it is completed the project will be an asset to the neighborhood and surrounding area. 4. The demand for and availability of public services and facilities. There are adequate existing public improvements/infrastructure in place to support the project, i.e. sewer, water & streets. 5. Character and future development of the area. This project compliments the existing developments in the area and will complete the development of the area. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — Must accompany the application to be complete. 1= A narrative of the proposed conditional use and project including: r Proposed use of the property Existing use of the property !� Identification of structures on the property and discussion of their relation to the project 1ZQ Projected number of residents, employees, and/or daily customers Proposed amount of dwelling units, floor area, landscape area, and parking area expressed in square feet and acreage to the nearest one-hundredth of an acre TN Effects on adjoining properties to include: noise, hours of operation, glare, odor, fumes, vibration, etc. Surrounding land uses X Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent and other properties in the area. IN Traffic generation A Any other information pertinent to adequate understanding of the intended use and its relation to nearby properties A complete site plan including: Two (2) full size (24" x 36") scaled and dimensioned prints of site plan and building elevations Two (2) 8'/2" x 11 (minimum) to 11 " x 17" (maximum) reduction of the building elevations and site plan �t 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) >?Si Title block that provides all contact information for the petitioner and/or owner, if different jtQ Full name and contact information of petitioner's engineers/surveyors/architects, or other design professionals used in the plan preparation ✓ The date of the original plan and latest date of revision to the plan j� A north arrow and graphic scale. Said scale is not to be smaller than one inch equals sixty feet (1 "=60') unless otherwise approved by the Department of Community Development prior to submittal All property lines and existing and proposed right-of-way lines with bearings and dimensions clearly labeled j� All required building setback and offset lines Q All existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved areas, including building entrances, walks, drives, decks, patios, fences, walls Location of all outdoor storage and refuse disposal areas and the design and materials used for construction [ 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 30-175 City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance > Location and dimension of all loading and service areas on the subject property Location, height, design, illumination power and orientation of all exterior lighting on the property including a photometrics plan Location of all exterior mechanical equipment and utilities and elevations of proposed screening devices where applicable (Le. 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 Page 33 ATTACHMENT "A" Prepared by: JMM CONSULTING, LLC Prepared date: January 29, 2019 The subject property is currently undeveloped lands. It was formerly a construction yard. The subject property consists of a single parcel of land totaling 429,773 square feet (9.866 acres), more or less. The parcel is described in the Warranty Deed recorded in Volume 905 on Page 109 recorded as Document No. 266755. The parcel's identification number is 1307360200. The parcel is currently zoned suburban mixed use ("SMU") and there is a request to rezone the property to Multi -family ("MR -12"). MR -12 allows for a density of 12 units per acre so the subject site could accommodate 115 units whereas only 72 units are proposed. A conditional use permit ("CUP") is also being requested to allow for more than one principle multi -family building to be constructed on the same lot under Section 30-171 (B) (1) Group and Large Development Standards of the City of Oshkosh's Zoning Code. The proposed project consists of the construction of six (6) twelve unit apartment buildings with attached garages, associated driveways, parking lots, underground utilities, and a wet detention pond to reduce the amount of runoff and treat the runoff from the subject site and extensive landscaping to compliment the development and the surrounding area. When completed the subject site will consist of 64,702 square feet of buildings (16%), 129,633 square feet of blacktop (30%), 21,650 square feet of pond (5%) 15,259 square feet of concrete (3%) and 198,529 square feet of grass/landscaping (46%). A living fence of mountbatten junipers is proposed to create a hedge -type buffer yard separating barrier between the rear yards of the neighboring existing homes on the North side of the subject property. Those yards are already separated from the proposed site by an existing wooded fence. The combination of the hedge and the existing fence will create an effective barrier between the two uses. Based on our traffic studies on projects of this type, we anticipate a maximum of 6 vehicular trips per day per unit and a total of 20 vehicular/truck trips per day for postal delivery, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, maintenance vans and trucks for a total of 452 vehicular trips per day. Those vehicular trips will be disbursed between the two points of ingress/egress to Osborn and Mason Street. Most of the traffic will use Osborn Street as it more of an arterial type street. The additional traffic in the area will be insignificant. Page 34 ATTACHMENT "B" ■ SITE LOCATION MAP ■ SITE PLAN • BUILDING ELEVATIONS • LANDSCAPING PLAN • LIGHTING PLAN ® PHOTOMETRICS PLAN Page 35 Page 36 z 11M IA 'AVO HMO Avid 911S NISROOSTA 'HSOXHS0 do ALIO V, amua Lmoal OgOv jA3Rd(yln3G C\2 00 Haawfili ila-1103IN — RUSTNIONS 0HUMS0 J.'HKvd -man GasOdOUd arms - —.. Om lommsRoo mu ----------- F z z I -ITTPFTT1 9 ---q -Hm 4 v yE n a In In 16� 16 18� 5 5 G, 5 Page 37 ox 9 ---q -Hm 4 v yE n a In In 16� 16 18� 5 5 G, 5 Page 37 8 5 Han 58857, HS 2 II TT C> 0 E I .. .. ..... . . . .......... 4 '7— Page 38 TIM JA 'AYU HMO Nvqd DNIdVOSGNVq HISNOOSIA 'HSOXHG0 JO AMD amo MOWN o9ot imanamma .oz) SUSHMIONY ONUMSHO.7 AH nVII -LLInK aaSOdOHd Q0 3M O)MMOO m"of ON' V 8 5 Han 58857, HS 2 II TT C> 0 E I .. .. ..... . . . .......... 4 '7— Page 38 „eY9 u xve HMO S'I UM ONIcIVOS(INV'I NISNOOSIN 'HSOXHSO 30 =0 > s F 3AIH0 IMOOM 090Y .LN3ftd073A30 ` W •00 HaawII'I ,LS'f0OIi1 e186 :•sio36 _=es eao rsi:0 a aaa;, sas�ro�wrusio� Amir xwev� —la�nn aasodoad C� _ 061 31M - 3AR10 N30N3TI'OI0 068 rn Lij a O � h � II N U Q fA `G � a � g la <m �' x �y z 3 _ z t 5 < LAI $a w_ z° s� U¢ S� ¢ $ x D 4 N nJ. x i^ a 4 z ry a e a ^ z c s „ o c=8 a i Sg€g Page 39 ps m i7EY9 ik'Ilv8 N'nd DNIIHJPI 'RSOXHSO z `* a" z HMO HISNooSLI do JISIo s m Ori JMOOIN mt J,N3ftdft3Ao J _ _ _ 00 uanfrI ixiooN xod .90-26g/on uoSNSNoNB omumsNo oei quos - an�va v:io!unmo oee DTI 'Dammoo mu xzlftvd -unHa uasodoHd k ¢¢ Q O I O Page 40 Ilcr� lu 'Ana xaaao z I a � o NISNOJSf 11 '4{SOYHSO 30 A1iJ 8 C � Ch K :391N0 L'ilo�IN ocor ,LN31(dO13�130 w � U1 �7 �.7 gYV nrl .I��Zn 73N 618E-299/Oia >73 Bove-ZaB/oia :aao9d SN3J.Vt�N3 7V/l"/I15,\'OJ A'IIIYVd IJ.' I, 0:35'Od OHd n a' rSfB-tifi9 Il 'LB8 xo>+0 yri '9;:1111 N— I(IYt a Q Bn aa:ns - anraB 3>eBxarnx� ore z � nA $ n \ r. 1. gy- C -•z¢ M-10-4 ........... 0 ' /�` C \ ` �1 k �' � 1 3 .s'.� Yom.. � 7�0�`� •-. � Q 191 ov I D ;rte. ..::: jv wlm:s:G i, £i eie:Ei,...en u.., ............. ,..,.,^::�y:ra;.;..•:^:••� t.... ...:::::::::r.#{:: �� 3i3i333::•r.;::^::.. ............................ .y....;?I _ � _ ..-_ �-'� _-�_�� T.. �` y, � j ` - ..., ..:::�.�::^:ii!5'�is:.L:i:�ie-i•:".Li...•: .r � � — ^�, Page 41 Eno MUMMINNIM MMMIMMMM Page 41 e 42 REZONE.CUP JOHN F KOSMER KRISTINE S VILLARS 1400 BLK OF OSBORN 1315 KENSINGTON AVE 1325 KENSINGTON AVE PC: 03-05-19 OSHKOSH WI 54902 OSHKOSH WI 54902 JEFFREY J/TRINA A WOLLERSHEIM 1335 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 WAYNE/KRISTINE S PROUD 1405 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 GARRY H/CHERYL G DECKER TRUST 3844 APPLE LN OSHKOSH WI 54902 SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL MOTHER GENERALA 8858 N 60TH ST BROWN DEER WI 53223 JOSEPH A FERLO 1230 DEVONSHIRE DR OSHKOSH WI 54902 CYNTHIA A SMITH 1345 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 DENNIS R/SHARON SCHNEIDER LIFE ESTATE 1425 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 STREY CONSTRUCTION INC 5037 RIVERMOOR DR OMRO WI 54963 P&Q NORTH KOSH LLC PO BOX 128 BROWNSVILLE WI 53006 PREMIER/NICOLET LUMBER COMPANY 4050 NICOLET DR GREEN BAY WI 54311 NANCY L SIEBER 1355 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 MATTHEW T/SARA GAWLIK ROBLEE 1435 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 STATE OF WISCONSIN 663 W 3RD AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 DEERFIELD VILLAGE LLC PO BOX 3808 OSHKOSH WI 54903 Page 43 .gyp �• . MIN N I I ��II �� ♦��MEMO ►!i!i!i!i!i!� _ HI 7 00 1P f� N 1 1 in 0.05 mi lin=250ft City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and Oii the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the Or Or are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to Printing Date: 2112/2019 Oshkosh www.ci.oshkosh.wl.us/GlShcsclalmer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI AGISRanninglPlan Commission Site Plan Map Template\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User. katieb Page 44 Page 45 ... # - r S c- F � , 3 N r t z a "cry {T` ii it x .x - •Arj .f z. ' m r tx+ F r c 1 ' jq N lin=0.04 mi 1 in = 200 ft City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general idenfification purposes only, and city the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to Printing Date: 2/1212019�� www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GlSdisclaimer Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI J:IGISRanningRan Commission Site Plan Map TemplatelPlan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katieb Page 46