Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission approves site plan for 87-unit apartment building east of Fort Atkinson High School
Summary
The Fort Atkinson Plan Commission unanimously approved the specific implementation plan (site plan) for PUD-2025-01, an 87-unit, three‑story rental apartment building east of Fort Atkinson High School, subject to standard construction permitting requirements and recommended conditions in the staff report.
The Fort Atkinson Plan Commission on March 11 approved a specific implementation plan (the site-plan stage of a planned unit development) for PUD-2025-01, an 87‑unit, three‑story rental apartment building east of Fort Atkinson High School, south of Trillium Drive and west of Banker Road.
Staff said the project generally meets the previously approved general development plan and recommended several waivers and conditions tied to the PUD overlay. Planner Jed Draeger said the building is three stories with parking beneath and a layout that required several of the flexibilities previously granted in the zoning approval.
The commission's approval is conditioned on submittal of required construction permit documents before building permits are issued, including a construction‑site erosion control plan and a stormwater management plan; staff noted those are standard requirements handled at the permit stage. Draeger also recommended waiving the rule that prohibits access within 50 feet of an intersection to preserve a uniform four‑way intersection at the site.
Staff identified two compliance items for follow‑up: landscaping points and one parking stall shortage. The landscaping calculation showed the project is approximately 135 landscaping points short in one area; staff encouraged the developer to add additional plantings where feasible. Draeger reported the site is one parking stall short of the number of units, which staff attributed to space used for lower‑level amenities; how those spaces will be assigned or managed was not specified in the hearing.
Commissioners praised staff's thorough report and the multi‑month review process. A commissioner noted the city has not seen a comparable multifamily project in roughly two decades and expressed support for moving the project forward. The commission voted to approve the site plan as recommended in the staff report (page 11), with the standard condition that missing permit‑level documents be provided prior to issuance of building permits.
The motion passed; no roll‑call vote totals were recorded in the public minutes.
