Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms planning commission denial of rezoning request at 433 Genesee Street
Summary
The council voted to affirm the planning commission’s unanimous recommendation to deny an applicant’s request to rezone 433 Genesee Street from CBD‑2 to CBD‑1, citing parking and zoning‑island concerns.
At the July 21 meeting the Delafield Common Council affirmed the planning commission’s unanimous recommendation to deny a zoning map amendment request for the property at 433 Genesee Street. The applicant, Aaron Werner, had asked the council to rezone the parcel from CBD‑2 (Central Business District‑2) to CBD‑1 to allow a larger downtown‑style building footprint and to avoid on‑site parking requirements that apply under CBD‑2; the planning commission recommended denial at its June 25 meeting.
The matter matters because the rezoning would change allowable uses and parking expectations for a small, narrow lot directly across from City Hall and could create a single parcel with different zoning surrounded by other CBD designations — what staff and commissioners described as a zoning island. Planning staff and commissioners cited parking impacts, frontage and lot‑size limits that apply in CBD‑1, and the potential for inconsistent precedent if a single parcel is rezoned without a development plan attached.
Applicant Aaron Werner described the property as a constrained, 53‑by‑150‑foot lot and argued a CBD‑1 designation would support redevelopment that generates greater taxable value than the existing building. Werner said property ownership patterns around the parcel make the site effectively isolated and that redevelopment would increase tax revenue. Planning staff highlighted that adjacent parcels have direct access to parking and that CBD‑1 reduces parking requirements for on‑site spaces, which is a core concern for the commission.
During council discussion one member said she would prefer the applicant pursue a conditional use or a tied development plan instead of a blanket rezoning, and others agreed the request to change the zoning without a specific development plan raised planning and enforcement concerns. A motion to affirm the planning commission’s decision to deny the rezoning carried on a voice vote.
The council did not adopt a rezoning ordinance; the applicant said he may sell, rent or maintain the property as‑is if the zoning is not changed. The planning commission and staff will retain jurisdiction should the applicant pursue a conditional‑use request or a new development plan requiring parking accommodations.
