Fort Atkinson planning commission recommends council deny rezoning at 525 Jefferson Street

The City of Fort Atkinson Plan Commission on Sept. 23 recommended the City Council deny a zoning map amendment that would change the property at 525 Jefferson Street from Urban Mixed Use (UMU) to Medium Industrial.

City staff told the commission the 1.82-acre site, which contains an approximately 34,000-square-foot vacant building, is designated Planned Mixed Use on the city’s adopted comprehensive plan and that a rezoning to medium industrial would be inconsistent with that future land use designation. Jed Drager, director of building and neighborhood services, said staff therefore recommends denial.

The recommendation matters because the comprehensive plan guides the city’s future land uses; staff said a rezoning to medium industrial would not align with the plan and several neighboring residential parcels. Drager told the commission the parcel does meet technical lot-standards for medium industrial but that the amendment would not advance the comprehensive-plan goals.

The applicant’s representative, Caroline Verbaten of Godfrey & Conn, said the property historically hosted manufacturing and that a 2013 city zoning letter described manufacturing as a permitted use for the site. “The applicant relied on this zoning letter, and as the city knows, manufacturing was used before he bought the property and then after up until about 3 months ago,” Verbaten said. She argued the surrounding area includes properties zoned industrial and that, taken in context, the requested zoning aligns with nearby land uses.

During discussion commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on the practical effect of UMU zoning. Drager noted that UMU allows small-scale “artisan” manufacturing and defined that category in part as “a small production shop, jewelry, bait and tackle,” saying the ordinance does not set a firm employee cap but evaluates potential negative effects on neighbors.

After deliberation the commission voted to recommend denial to the City Council; the commission’s negative recommendation will be forwarded to the council for final consideration at its Oct. 7 meeting. The commission’s council representative, Eric Schultz, noted that the council is an independent decision-making body and is not bound by the planning commission’s recommendation.

The record shows staff advised that if the applicant sought and secured a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with planned land-use policies, a zoning map amendment could be considered in the future.