Plan Commission unanimously denies rezoning for 1030 Fairfield Street after extensive resident opposition

The Onalaska Plan Commission voted unanimously April 22 to deny a rezoning request that would have changed 1030 Fairfield Street (Tax Parcel 18-1042-10) from low-medium density residential (R2) to high-density residential (R4).

The motion to deny was made by Commissioner Eric Archer and seconded by Commissioner Tom Smith; commissioners voted aye on a unanimous roll call. The application had sought R4 to accommodate a future multifamily row‑house development shown in a conceptual plan.

Why it mattered: dozens of nearby residents turned out to oppose the rezoning, citing increased traffic through narrow neighborhood streets, safety for children and park users, stormwater/runoff risks on the parcel’s slope, loss of trees and neighborhood character. City staff and the applicant said the parcel’s future land‑use designation in the comprehensive plan envisions multifamily housing, but staff stressed that tonight’s decision concerned zoning only — not approval of any specific site plan.

Residents described daily foot traffic to a small park near the site and repeated that streets in the neighborhood lack sidewalks and are narrow. “Our neighborhood really wasn't built for that kind of density,” said Marsha Chabrew, a Green Bay Street resident who spoke during the hearing. Several parents said their children ride bikes to school and use the park. Another resident, Tina Cupitz, urged commissioners to visit the site “because you just can't see it in plan view until you're really out there and see how all these things hit at one point.”

City planner Katie Aspenson said the applicant had requested R4 and that the comprehensive plan’s future land‑use map identifies the parcel for multifamily development. Aspenson told the commission the Department of Administration had found the petition for a different agenda item (annexation) to be in the public interest, and she summarized staff analysis that the conceptual plan shown did not fully conform to the Unified Development Code and that the developer would likely seek a planned unit development (PUD) to request deviations, if rezoning were granted.

Amanda (city staff) emphasized the procedural distinction: “I just want to remind everybody that we are not approving the conceptual plan tonight, and so our discussion should really center on the idea of zoning.” The question before commissioners, she said, was whether the R4 zoning district itself was appropriate for this parcel.

Applicant Jacob Mooney and an engineer from Vierbecker Associates said traffic would likely use Twelfth Avenue and Wilson Street rather than Green Bay Street, and they argued the broader city policy supports townhomes and higher‑density housing types in some locations. Opponents disputed that the development would route primarily to Twelfth and predicted drivers would use neighborhood cut‑throughs if Fairfield became congested.

Commission discussion cited multiple concerns raised at the hearing: pedestrian safety on streets without sidewalks, emergency access for a densely built development served by a private drive and cul‑de‑sac, potential runoff and retaining‑wall impacts on adjoining yards, and compatibility with the immediately adjacent R2 single‑family neighborhood. Commissioner Tom Smith said he drove the area before the meeting and concluded the proposal “is too much for that community.” Commissioner Jared Holter and others described existing infrastructure improvements to the neighborhood (sanitary and storm sewer installed in the 1990s) but said those did not resolve the neighborhood’s pedestrian‑safety concerns.

Outcome and next steps: The commission’s denial means the applicant’s requested R4 zoning was not approved. As a procedural matter discussed during the meeting, rezoning and subsequent site plans can be revisited or forwarded to the Common Council depending on future submissions; if a rezoning were forwarded from the planning body, it would proceed to elected council consideration.

The commission’s decision was framed by competing city aims: the comprehensive plan’s support for more housing options and residents’ concerns about local impacts and safety. No PUD or site plan was approved or enacted as part of tonight’s action.