Board approves variances for Georgia Pacific parking reconstruction at 1919 South Broadway

The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals voted to approve variances allowing reconstruction of a parking lot at 1919 South Broadway for Georgia Pacific Corporation, the board announced after deliberations weighing site constraints, stormwater improvements and long‑standing parking demand.

City staff member John opened the hearing with a technical report describing six specific code areas at issue, including driveway throat length (Section 44‑1774(g)), interior parking‑lot landscaping (Section 44‑1965), perimeter screening and curbing requirements. Staff said the applicant’s plan would create about 336 stalls on the lot now under review but that installing the code‑required islands and perimeter landscaping could reduce that number to roughly 266.

Petitioner John Jankour, who stated his name and address for the record, told the board the broader Georgia Pacific parcel contains about 1,100 parking stalls and that peak personnel needs approach roughly 1,476 (about 1,500 with visitors). Jankour said recent storms and drifting have reduced usable spaces — he described a recent count near 956 spaces — and argued the site’s 24‑hour operations, truck and salt‑shed activity and limited room elsewhere on the parcel justify the requested variances. "We're going to be taking out... 14 inches of soil underneath, recompacting it," Jankour said, describing the work as a reconstruction rather than a simple resurfacing and noting planned stormwater work to reduce suspended solids entering the City of Green Bay system.

Staff clarified the code change timeline and prior variances on other parts of the property, noting sections 19‑64 through 19‑69 governing landscaping are relatively new. Staff also said the city could consider reduced setbacks in limited circumstances but that interior islands and certain landscaping requirements exist to address runoff and visual impacts.

Board members split on whether the parking shortfall was "self‑imposed" by prior expansions or whether the parcel’s unique characteristics and the public‑safety and stormwater benefits warranted relief. Some members said preserving the site’s long‑standing use and the proposed fencing and lighting improvements mitigated visual impacts; others said granting variances for code nonconformance risks precedent. One board member said the combination of the site's size, multi‑municipal footprint and the stormwater upgrades constituted exceptional circumstances. The board ultimately moved and seconded a motion to approve all requested variances. The chair called for a voice vote and declared the motion carried.

The board did not adopt a roll‑call vote record in the transcript; a voice vote passed with no recorded opposition and with one member noted as absent earlier in the meeting. The board scheduled its next meeting for 2026‑04‑20 and adjourned.