Onalaska plan commission denies rezoning for 1030 Fairfield after sustained neighborhood opposition

On Sept. 23 the Onalaska Plan Commission voted to deny a rezoning request to change a vacant parcel at 1030 Fairfield Street (Tax Parcel 18-1042-110) from low‑medium density residential (R-2) to medium‑density residential (R-3), a change the applicant said would allow two eight‑unit row‑house buildings (16 units total).

The parcel is about 1.68 acres and the applicant reduced an earlier 28‑unit proposal after an April hearing, but neighbors said the scaled‑back plan still represents excessive density and would worsen traffic, pedestrian safety and parking near a small neighborhood park.

City planner Katie Aspenson told the commission that the city’s comprehensive plan identifies the parcel for multifamily use and that the R‑3 district “allows a maximum of eight dwelling units per parcel,” noting the applicant intends to divide the site into two parcels to reach the 16 units proposed. Aspenson also said the conceptual plan does not fully conform to the Unified Development Code and that the developer would likely seek a planned unit development (PUD) and additional public hearings if rezoning were approved.

Developer Jacob Mooney urged the commission to approve the rezoning, saying his firm is local and that the current proposal “reduces the scale by nearly half” from the earlier submission; he described 2.5 parking stalls per unit (40 stalls total) versus the code requirement the packet lists as 1.5 stalls per unit (24 stalls) and said the buildings would be “class A” construction with fire suppression and landscaping. Consultant Neil Pfaff (Vierbecker Associates) said the comprehensive plan had identified the site as infill and that the infrastructure could support the proposal.

Dozens of nearby residents spoke in opposition. Resident Dean Zimmer said the neighborhood lacks safe pedestrian passage along Fairfield and urged the commission not to put “pedestrians in the street.” Marsha Chagru said 16 units “is still way too many” and described frequent stroller and dog‑walking use of the street; David Olson said the proposal would “increase the number of cars substantially” on streets that lack sidewalks. Tiffany Johnson and other parents cited the park and children playing “right next to” the parcel. Multiple speakers urged smaller infill — single‑family homes or duplexes — rather than the proposed row houses.

Commission discussion stressed site constraints and fit. Commissioners and staff noted the lot is effectively landlocked with a single access off Fairfield; Commission staff and the developer pointed to the narrow right‑of‑way and the difficulty of creating a traditional public street on the parcel. Commissioners compared the site to other infill projects such as the Elhauser Road development and questioned whether row houses were an appropriate form for a mature single‑family neighborhood.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Tom Smith moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded for discussion and carried on a roll call vote. The roll call in the record shows: Jan — yes; Tom Smith — yes; Jim Madash — yes; Jared Holter — no; and one other commissioner recorded as voting no. The motion to deny therefore carried. The staff record notes that if R‑3 zoning is denied, the applicant cannot reapply for the same zoning designation for one year under the city’s ordinance.

Planning staff also summarized recommended conditions and noted outstanding design issues that would have required deviations from the UDC, including proposed building setbacks. Staff said a PUD would be required for deviations and would trigger additional public notice and hearings.

The commission’s action leaves the parcel at its current R‑2 designation. Staff and several commissioners reiterated that sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements are a separate city policy topic; staff said the city has a sidewalk plan and that sidewalk projects would be considered through separate capital or assessment processes.

Residents who opposed the rezoning said they may press for alternatives such as single‑level duplexes or smaller infill lots in future proposals. The developer indicated willingness to revisit the design but, per staff, would have to wait the ordinance’s one‑year reapplication period before submitting the same rezoning request again.