Council denies rezoning request for 525 Jefferson Street after planning staff says change conflicts with comprehensive plan

The Fort Atkinson City Council on Oct. 7 voted to deny a zoning map amendment that would have changed the zoning for 525 Jefferson Street from Urban Mixed Use (UMU) to Medium Industrial (MI).

The motion to deny the amendment passed after staff testimony that the proposal conflicts with the city’s comprehensive plan and could undermine the long-term land-use vision for the corridor. The property is a 1.82-acre vacant site with a 34,000-square-foot building that was previously used for light manufacturing.

Planning staff told the council the request is not accompanied by any redevelopment proposal and that medium industrial zoning would allow heavier industrial uses that the comprehensive plan’s planned mixed-use designation does not envision. Staff said the request “somewhat advances the general purposes of the zoning ordinance” but “is not in harmony with the comprehensive plan” and noted there were no significant changing conditions to justify altering the zoning map.

In public comment, Caroline Verbaten, speaking on behalf of Fortland Company, said the property currently hosts production lines, up to 49 shop workers and machinery, and that the site’s current operations “do not fall within” the zoning definition for an artist production shop. Verbaten said the applicant included a 2012 Wisconsin DNR letter in its application that, the applicant believes, supports industrial use for the site.

Staff noted a 2013 zoning confirmation letter showing a prior C-2 commercial zoning and explained that the 2020 rezoning to urban mixed-use was intended as a like-for-like zoning change rather than a downzoning. Staff also said some small-scale production uses permitted under former C-2 are similar to the artisan-production allowance in UMU, but that MI would allow heavier uses and outdoor storage not envisioned by the planned mixed-use designation.

After questions from council members about whether the change could be achieved through a conditional-use process or later redevelopment proposals, a council member moved to deny the zoning map amendment “based on its incompatibility with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.” The motion was seconded and, after no further discussion, the motion carried.

Because the application was only for rezoning and not tied to a specific redevelopment plan, staff told the council the applicant could pursue conditional-use approvals or a redevelopment-specific zoning request in the future if a concrete proposal is presented.

The denial restores the city’s current land-use designation for the property as planned mixed use under the comprehensive plan and maintains the buffer concept between residential areas to the south and existing industrial uses to the north.