Plan Commission backs PUD amendment for 2931 Union Street despite neighbor parking concerns

The East Troy Plan Commission on an advisory vote recommended that the Village Board approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 2931 Union Street to allow office, personal and professional services in portions of the building that had been a parochial school and to add a multi-tenant monument sign. The commission voted in favor and the item will appear on next week’s Village Board agenda.

The application is a refiled version of an earlier petition the commission had tabled; staff said the prior submittal was withdrawn after it did not include all of the petitioner’s intended changes. Planner Oren (Orin) told the commission the new application clarifies that personal and professional service uses would be allowed in the lower level and in portions of the church side of the building that had been used for fellowship hall activities. He said notice to neighbors was mailed for the new filing.

Neighbors and nearby business owners spoke during the public hearing. John Islab, 1799 Kettle Court and a Community Development Authority member, urged commissioners to give careful consideration to architectural treatments because of the site’s proximity to the square and a major connection to the freeway. Daniel and Brenda Spot submitted a letter saying the storefront conversion has increased on-street parking demand and created safety problems for driveway access; the letter said a commercial use on the lower level had not been authorized during the previous rezoning. The letter also said the building now contains multiple mailboxes and expressed concern about customer parking in front of residences.

Josh Voyga, owner of East Troy Fitness and an occupant of the building, told the commission his business schedules individual appointments, walks to work, generally has one vehicle at the premises at a time, and holds a certificate of occupancy from the village inspector; he said his clients contribute weekday customers to downtown businesses. Planner Oren told the commission the PUD language for the building states that on‑street parking is permitted and that on‑site parking is not required for the church/school building as approved in the PUD.

Commissioners discussed possible street changes such as diagonal parking or other right‑of‑way alterations but agreed any alteration to public streets would require Department of Public Works and village board review. The commission noted that obstructing a private driveway can be enforced by police and that property owners have the right to park on the street in the same way as other residents.

A motion to recommend the Village Board approve the PUD amendment with the three listed conditions passed by voice vote; commissioners did not record a roll-call tally in the commission minutes. The commission asked staff to add a separate agenda item for village staff to evaluate Clark Street parking (including DPW review) and to ask the applicant to remind tenants not to park in front of private driveways.

The amendment will proceed to the Village Board for final action.