Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Plan Commission for Wednesday, 01/14/2026 at 03:33PM. Mayor Woodford is delayed. I am Alder Fenton, the Vice Chair of the Plan Commission, and I will get the meeting started for us. So we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise and join me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call in membership. Let the record show that all members of the commission are present with the exception of Mayor Woodford, whom we expect will be joining us shortly. Our first item is approval of the minutes from our previous meeting, twenty five-fifteen thirty three, the City Plan minutes from 12/10/2025. Can I get them?

Approved. All right. We have a motion and a second. Are there any updates or corrections to the minutes from December 10? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. The minutes are approved.

All right. We have a public hearing to start our meeting, item twenty five-fifteen thirty four, a public hearing on the major amendment to plan development overlay commercial office district PDCCO number Eight-one For 1025 East South River Street, tax ID number 30One-four-eighty911OOne-elevenO7 111 East South River Street, tax ID number 30One-four-eighty600, including to the center line of existing adjacent streets as shown on the attached maps replacing the current implementation plan document number 140One-nine869 with the attached new implementation plan document development regulations subject to recording with the Outagamie County Register of Deeds. And this is associated with action item number 20Five-fifteen35. I think Colin is going to tell us about this. Mic are you on?

Thank you. So I think it might be helpful to just quickly explain what a PD is and what's being proposed here, what we're looking at today. So a PD, or planned development, is a specific type of zoning district that is particular to the property that it's attached to. What it does, what a PD does, is it takes a base zoning district, which is a zoning district that's found in the municipal code and has a standardized list of permitted special uses, accessory uses, and also development standards like setbacks and lot coverage, etcetera. And it takes that base zoning district and then identifies what the specific changes or exceptions to that base zoning district will be.

So PD is a specialized zoning district. In this particular case, this property has been in the subject PD, both of these parcels, since 2001. Currently, there are only three permitted uses. There's office, an officelaboratory, which in today's code would be defined as a research laboratory, and then multifamily. The applicant, which is Lawrence University, they own the parcel on the corner of Southwest Avenue and then East South River Street.

And then Park Place Holdings, which owns the larger parcel along East South River Street has a complex of buildings on it is proposing to repeal and replace as an amendment to the IPD repeal and replace the IPD, basically in kind with a handful of changes. In the staff report, we've outlined what those specific changes are. That can be found on pages two through four. And the real concern or the real meat of this amendment is to include some additional uses, many of which are found in the base CO zoning district, as well as some additional uses that are exceptions. And then also just update the document formatting.

Again, this is a 26 old document. The zoning code has actually been repealed and replaced in 2004. So there's some outdated conventions that are just being updated in this amended PD. I'm happy to elaborate on all of the specific changes, but I will just highlight perhaps the main changes. So the permitted uses, as I alluded to currently, are only office slash laboratory, and then multifamily.

And the proposed amendments will keep those three uses. It will carry those over and then add the following uses clubs, which is maybe like a union, a group club, not like a nightclub educational institutions, which would be business, technical, or vocational schools, colleges or universities governmental facilities, places of worship, and professional services. A professional service would be something like a dentist office clinic. And then in addition to those so those uses that I've just listed are in the base CO zoning district, so they're just being carried over into this PD. There are then three uses that are exceptions, though they

are not found in the base CO zoning district. That would be day care group and day care adult. So for children or adults, just a day care, right? There's staff on-site during the day. Parents drop off, whether it's children or adults, and pick them up later on. And then recreational facilities, nonprofit, which could be something like a senior center where folks gather and maybe there's games that are being played, things like that.

Both those three that I just mentioned day care group, day care adult, and recreational facilities nonprofit staff did find in the affirmative that those uses are appropriate with the uses that are currently found in the PD, as well as the ones that are being proposed to be added. The findings of fact are outlined in the staff report. And then jumping to some additional things. So the special uses that are found in the base district again, CO the accessory uses and the temporary uses that are found in the base district, those are all also options through this amendment for the property owners if they want to apply for a special use. So those special uses that are in base CO would be an option.

But they would have to go through the respective review processes for that. Then one additional thing that's worth highlighting is there is a requirement for all of the uses that we've mentioned here in this amended PD. One space per 300 square feet of gross floor area is the parking requirement for all of those uses. So you have about 140,000 gross square feet for all the buildings that are here. That results in a requirement of a minimum around four sixty parking stalls, of which there's 500 stalls currently on the site.

So there's still a pretty large requirement for all the parking that is found there, just something to make note of. And then lastly, there is a requirement for a minimum of 30% of the entire PD to remain open space. You can see there's a pretty substantial ravine that is going to take up a good chunk of that open space. Again, happy to dive into any other questions you may have on this PD. The last thing I will conclude with is that this PD, this amendment, I should say, is not proposing to change the footprints of the buildings, the extent of the parking lot, or the extent of the ravine.

What you see in the development plan is what is there today and is proposed to remain there after this PD. Rather, this is just a way to update the documents and include some uses that are mainly found in that base zoning district. Staff did find that this aligns with the comprehensive plan and all the findings that are required to be all the findings required for a PD amendment apologies were also found in the affirmative. And so staff is recommending approval of this amendment.

Okay. Thank you, Principal Planner Kafka. So for those who are present for the public hearing, before I call the public hearing to order, just a little bit of guidelines. Anybody who wishes to speak in the public hearing will be given the opportunity. We'll ask that you you provide your name and address for the record.

It's not intended to be a dialogue between each staff or members of the Planning Commission. But if you do have questions, staff will be taking notes and either will if it's something we can answer when we take it up as an action item, we will do that then. If it's something that requires follow-up, they'll get your information so that a member of the staff can follow-up with you. All right. With that being said, this

is

a public hearing. Is there anyone well, we'll call to order 2053 for the public hearing for this item. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right. So I will get the podium mic on. And again, name and address for the record.

My name is Greg Hall and I'm one of the my wife and I live our family live at 1000 Southwest. We're the parcel that's we're your neighbors, direct neighbors. And I guess just and I'm glad I just showed up and I got to hear what you just laid out. As one of the neighbors that, you know, chose to raise my family on this parcel and and love where we chose, I guess just asking is and I I kind of have the answer from your explanation already but that area is not going to change tremendously as far as, like, evening traffic. And, like, you know, when we first purchased this place, we we knew we purchased our backyard is a parking lot, and that ravine that we own neither of.

But it's also like a day use setup right now, and so, like, we we don't have the nighttime traffic outside of sometimes issues with just the lighting situation and sometimes like snow removal and where it ends up in places. It's been a great situation for us as residents. And I'm just, I guess as a resident and the one that's directly on the parcel, guess just asking the question, it sounds as though the and I don't know all the language that you're using, but it sounds as though the uses of it are meant to be the traffic during the daytime uses versus such things as like, you know, a nightclub or, you know, something like that where you have a substantial nighttime scene in a residential area that wasn't once there.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? I have to say it three times by law. This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right. With that, I declare the public hearing closed and we will move to the associated action item 20 five-fifteen 35, request to approve the major amendment to plan development overlay commercial office district PDCC008-one for 1025 East South River Street, tax ID number 30One-four-eight0Nine-zero and 11O111O7, and 1111 East South River Street, tax ID number 30Four-four-eight0Six-zero, including to the center line of existing adjacent streets as shown on the attached maps replacing the current implementation plan document number 140One-nine869 with the attached new implementation plan document document development regulations subject to the recording with the Outagamie County Register of Deeds. Can I get a motion? All right.

We have a motion and a second. Is there anything from commissioners on this? Questions? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. That passes unanimously.

I should have said

We will note Commissioner Palm's extension. Apologies. All right. Moving to our next action item, 20 Five-fifteen 30 six, request to approve the 5730 North Ballard Road annexation consisting of approximately 1.69 acres currently in the town of Grand Chute as shown on the attached maps subject to the stipulation in the attached staff memo. All right. And I was not prepared to chair so who's going tell us all right, Deputy Director Kress. Four did you

say? Four.

Okay. All right, Deputy Director Kress.

All right. Thank you, Chair. Pinch hitting for Lindsey Smith, who is on vacation today. But the subject property we're discussing for this particular item is located along Ballard Road near the intersection of Ballard and Apple Creek Road. There is an existing single family dwelling already located on the property. The owner is seeking annexation and is also requesting connection to city sewer and water. The property is adjacent to existing city limits and is also consistent with our boundary agreement that we have in place with the town of Grand Chute. Therefore, Therefore, is recommending approval of this annexation.

Thank you. All right. Can I get a motion? All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion of the item? Okay. Go ahead. What number are you, sir? Attorney. There you go.

If connect to the sewer and water, that's at their expense, I'm assuming?

That's

correct. And is that property still for sale?

It was at one point in time. It's not currently occupied. But I think my understanding is that the seller, in the interest of making the property more marketable, has worked her way through this process. That was

my next question. Was it the seller or a potential buyer who was

The seller is working towards this, I think, in the interest of making it an appealing property for a potential buyer.

Are there any liabilities or potential future costs in annexing that piece of property at this point?

You're saying for the city?

Yeah. Any liabilities for the city?

I mean, would provide city services for the property, right? Like waste collection, sewer and water would be provided after the connection fee is paid by the property owner, police and fire services and the like. So I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind or not, but we know different than any other residential property on the North Side near

City's not a hazardous dump it's not a hazardous dump site in a previous life or anything of that nature. There's mean, has it got a clear

Our understanding is it's a simple single family residence. Had been on well and septic and looking to connect to city sewer and city water.

Great. That's my question.

All right. Any other questions from commissioners? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. This does pass you down. You. All right. Our final action item is twenty five-fifteen thirty seven, request to approve the street discontinuance to vacate a portion of Canal Street public right of way, the southern half of Canal Street located 120 feet west of South Law Street, and adopt the initial resolution and exhibit map.

All right. Can we get a motion to get this on the floor? Deputy Director Krausz, are you telling us about this one as well?

I am, yes. Thank you, Chair. So subject area is located along Wall Street just south of the river. Historic right of way, not improved for public street purposes. Recently, had a situation where a property to the south was sold.

The individual that purchased that property reached out because of a private driveway that exists within a portion of this public right of way. Did some digging, we're able to discover that back in the late '80s, there was a site plan approving the private driveway in this public right of way. I had some conversation among various city departments. Long story short, it was determined that really no future public purposes for this segment of right of way. And staff feels comfortable vacating it so that it could be transferred to the property owner to the south, and therefore the private driver would be on his private property. So staff is recommending approval of this partial street vacation.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments from commissioners? Okay.

I have a we don't have Canal Street. I mean, there's no real Canal Street, is there? It's kind of the trail that goes around behind the Corps of Engineers home back there. Sorry.

Please not. That's okay. So that's correct. There is no improved Canal Street. When this area was platted many, many years ago, it was identified as public right of way and named Canal Street. Interestingly enough, we had to do a lot of digging to just discover what the name of this right of way actually was.

I drove on it today.

Okay. Interesting.

I wasn't supposed to be there, I'm sure, but I drove on that today.

An interesting admission from Commissioner Carpenter.

Drove on the Newberry Trail today. I

think you're out of order.

I'm going to just slide over

here. But I have a a lightning bolt's not going to hit you. But I have a why would we keep the right of way at all? I mean, why would we keep would we deed just the southern half 30 feet? Why not give it all to them and give it all to the people to the West, too?

So good good question. The northern half, there is a public trail. The Newberry Trail that's shown on the the map here is within that, northern half of the, right of way. So by retaining its status as public right of way allows for city to continue to own and operate that trail facility. In terms of anything to the west, it wasn't admittedly evaluated at that time. It was really just focusing on this smaller segment here and essentially cleaning up a situation where late eighties permission was granted for a private driveway to be built in this space, transferring it to the corresponding property made sense.

But are the neighbors to the west of there? There's two properties to the west that would have, I guess, shared line with the southern half of Canal Street. Are we going to hear from owner Four-three16 and owner Four-three15 or 325 that they would like to have that deeded to them as well? I mean, as long as we're doing this, shouldn't we just give it all away?

So it's a fair question. I do believe as the trail travels to the the West or Southwest, it does start to, kind of find a more center line of that right of way. So there may be some concerns about, transferring that public right of way in in the interest of keeping the trail facility. So, again, what was evaluated here was just the 120 feet by 30 feet that was adjacent to the property parcel ID 31Dash4Dash0316Dash1. And I think as you get further west, you do start to pick up some concerns about how the southern half of that right of way may intertwine with I'm the trying public make projects

go across that. Yeah.

Okay. Commissioner Robbins, did you have something? And

this We don't proactively just give away land. Wouldn't those owners of those plots need to make an application and make a request? Or would we just

give away our length?

Yeah. I'll try my best to answer broadly and then want to remind the commission that I want to stay focused on this particular request today. But I'd say it happens on a case by case basis with regard to street vacations. Occasionally, there are public works projects where street reconstruction of some kind is occurring, where it's determined that some historic right of way is no longer serving a public purpose of some kind, and we may initiate outreach to surrounding property owners. But in this case, it really began with an inquiry from a new owner on the property immediately to the south. Okay.

You. Anything else? All right. Seeing none, we're ready to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. That passes unanimously. That is our final action item. We do not have any information items, so that takes us to item eight. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you for being patient with