Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

In fact, you know, like all like going through 2026 back to me or.

The United States of America and to their own or she says one nation under individual liberty and justice for all.

You will also be looking for a motion to adopt the agenda memorandum.

I'll make that motion. I'll second.

Motion's been made by Susie, seconded by Jay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion's carried. Review and approve July 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Minutes is read in your packet. Looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I'll second. Motion was made by Jay, seconded by Mark. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion's carried. Any public comment? Any public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on. Review and approve site plan for Amcor New London.

All right, thank you. So Amcor New London is seeking approval of a building expansion located at their plant at 718 High Street. Proposed expansion is on the north side of the existing building. It consists of a 14 by 16 foot overhead door, the relocation of an existing exit door and existing stairs, and the addition of a new concrete ramp, driveway, and apron to be used to access the building floor level from the adjacent exterior grade. So as shown on the visual up there, that's kind of the schematic of what they're proposing. The city of New Orleans ordinance requires a site plan review for site changes, including building expansions with optional review by the planning commission at the discretion of the zoning administrator. The reason why I brought this in front of the planning commission today is because this site is a legal non-conforming structure. It existed prior to the ordinance and it is currently within the setbacks as listed in the current ordinance. So this proposal is a lateral expansion. It's not increasing the non-conformity at the site. We're not increasing the use of the site. This is essentially an expansion that will make their operations a bit easier, add to some safety aspects, and make it more efficient for their operations there. For the applicants, this loading dock won't be used for day-to-day operations. It's going to be used periodically and won't be changing anything that has to do with landscaping. signage, lighting, or parking, which is typically what we review in the site plan process. So no changes to that. It is essentially what we're being shown on the screen right here with that loading dock, overhead door, and some changes in fencing located on the site. So with that being said, staff did review it against the current ordinance for site plan and zoning requirements. As I mentioned, this lateral expansion, we're not increasing the non-conformity, not getting any closer to the road, and the use itself is not increasing in intensity. So with that, staff found there is grounds for approval of this site plan request with three conditions. First one being that the applicant obtain a right-of-way permit from Public Works because they'll be working within the city's owned right-of-way there with that apron they're proposing. It's my understanding they're currently working with Robert and our public works department on that permit and they have already received it. So first condition is that they abide by the provisions of the right-of-way permit. Second one is that they obtain a building permit from the community development department and abide by those provisions. As of the day of this meeting, they have gotten that permit and we'll be starting here soon following approval of the site plan here tonight. So second condition is receiving that building permit and abiding by those provisions. And the third condition is that they obtain a fence permit for their altered fencing design shown there. So they'll be changing some fencing on the site, which will require a permit. So to reiterate, staff is recommending approval with the three conditions as stated. The applicant is online via Zoom to answer any questions that the committee may have. I'm happy to answer any as well.

I got a question. Now, they're already getting a building permit to do that. Why do they need another permit for the fence when the fence is there?

Because they're altering the area of the fence, right? So by doing the site plan expansion, they're moving their fence to be able to get into that loading dock area. So typically the ordinance, if you're changing the fence, moving it, putting up new fencing, that requires a fence permit.

Why isn't that included in the building permit?

Because it's a separate permit altogether.

Okay, just asking. Okay, is there any more discussion on this approval?

I'll make the motion to approve.

I'll second it.

Okay, motion was made by Mark, seconded by Susie. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion is carried. The next item is a public hearing proposed resigning for parcel 33, 1277, 162 from quarter mix use to mix residential density.

I can seeking a reason on the subject property shown on the screen there, outline in white. properties located at 312, 314 South Pearl Street. Reason for the rezone request is to accommodate the existing and future use of the structure located on the property. Currently, the 312 address that's on the north side is being used as a single family residence, whereas the attached office area on the 314 address is currently vacant. So the applicant is seeking a rezone to mixed residential low density to accommodate a rezone potential buyer that would purchase the property and use it as a residential use. Now, currently it is zoned as corridor mixed use. So that kind of area is designated for commercial type uses as shown on the map there. However, it is adjacent to some mixed residential low density, some single family homes directly behind it. So there is some moving parts with this one. There is criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance that I'll go through. that we can kind of talk about, but just from a high level view, there's pros and cons, we'll go over and we're hoping to have some discussion on this one. So the first level criteria listed in the ordinance is that it advances the purposes of the zoning ordinance and meets the purpose and intent of the applicable rules there. So basically the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance is to promote every type of health, safety and general welfare. This proposal here is essentially what we call a down zone, because by going from a downtown mixed use commercial type area, where we're getting away from the commercial type uses, which may be more intense than a residential use that you would have in mixed residential low-density. So in terms of health, safety, and welfare, staff found that by approving this rezone, there would not be issues with health, safety and welfare by approving a select criteria was met for staff's opinion. The next criteria is that the proposed reasonable complies with the comprehensive plan. So this is one where there's some moving parts. So the future land use map for this area designates it as a mixed use downtown commercial as much of this area is. For the comprehensive plan, the mixed use downtown commercial land use designation is primarily for commercial as listed in the name, but it also allows for compatible residential uses in certain areas. So while the proposed rezoning to residential doesn't exactly match the future land use designation because it's not a commercial use, the comprehensive plan does allow for compatible uses. And with the area there, we do have some residential behind this proposed rezoning. So staff balance this criteria was partially met. And there would be potential grounds for approval with that, depending on the opinions of the Planning Commission and what they foresaw for this court order. Next level criteria was that it maintains the desired overall consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts within the zoning district. So as I kind of mentioned before, this proposed rezoning is a downzoning, so we wouldn't be increasing any intensity of uses here by going to a zoning district that allows primary residential. So no real issue from that staff standpoint. As shown on the map there, it's directly adjacent to what we're zoning district we're looking to go to. So it would match that. However, as I've previously talked about, it is in a commercial corridor there. So the lots directly north and south are also zoned downtown mixed use, downtown commercial. So there's pros and cons to that as well. Again, grounds for approval, the criteria was partially met with that. And the last one is that the proposed rezoning addresses any of the following factors that are not properly addressed in the current official zoning map. So some of those factors are mapping errors, things over time, parcel lines shipped with online GIS data, maybe surveys have been done. So that's one criteria that you can look at to approve a rezoning of this type. That criteria didn't apply here. We don't have any mapping areas that mapping errors that we know of in this location. So that criteria was applicable. The next level of that criteria was that factors have changed such as new data, infrastructure, market conditions, development, annexation, other zoning changes. So that one staff took a long time looking at that and in conversations with the owner, basically, most of their intent comes from their desire to sell a property and market it to someone that can purchase the property. use it as a single family residence with the potential of having home occupation type use. So in mixed residential low density zoning, you're allowed to have home occupation use by right. There's criteria associated with that. So by rezoning to mixed residential low density, there's still an opportunity that this could be associated with a commercial use, but you have to look at it as the potential of this property only being used as a single family residence as well. pros and cons to that. But with that criteria being listed, some of it was not applicable, some of it was partially met. So with this proposal, there's pros and cons. So hoping to have some discussion associated with this. As I mentioned, there's grounds for approval. The community does not have to take action today. They have 60 days from the public hearing to take action on the proposal. So depending on the Planning Commission's feelings about this proposal, what they envision for this corridor, I would encourage some discussion on that. I'm happy to answer questions and I believe the applicant is here as well.

I think I have a couple of concerns with that. My first concern is obviously if you drive by that property, it has a downtown feel to it. I think anybody would agree that that does not appear to where a single family resident should reside. I think we had a clear I'm not in favor of re-zoning this parcel for those couple of reasons. So I'm not in favor of re-zoning this parcel for those couple of reasons. So I'm not in favor of re-zoning this parcel for those couple of reasons. So I'm not in favor of re-zoning this parcel for those couple up for anybody that could challenge to change my mind. But those are some of the things that I see that are pretty obvious to me that I just I think we haven't enough housing coming to New London, we don't need to make an exception for one single family home, that should be an opportunity for business. Because I think that's really the true feel of that area right next to the ball.

That's a single family home. Where do they park?

A lot.

Right in that little gravel area. Okay, so it's not part of the bowling alley parking lot. Okay. Okay. And is there enough for two cars or just one car? You can two two cars back. Okay. All right.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm excited that I mean, that's that is a really the lot is predominantly building there's like no place for play there's yeah if you go and take a look at that that's predominantly it's a building lot and it's the historical feel you know antiquity of the building was once in a day the business owner operated the business out of the one side lived in the other side, that old time, way back when feel, which is quite charming. I'm inclined to agree with Jay. It's not so charming to have a family residence that could end up having- A bunch of kids playing out in the sidewalk.

Because they don't have a yard.

They don't. They don't. And I mean, that would be the responsibility of the property owner, but that's just, but I have the same concern, especially directly across the street. There's a couple of buildings over there that have apartments upstairs and vacancies downstairs. And I could see those building owners wanting to switch those into lower level residences as well. at least two of them, maybe three of them over there right now. So.

If we allow one, we have to allow them all.

We do.

I'll just kind of remind everybody that we do have a public hearing yet set for this. So I don't know, Bernie, if you want to call the public hearing, at least to get some public input along with your discussion, it'd probably be a good opportunity to do that now.

Okay. Anybody from the public want to? Speak on their behalf.

Yeah. And if you wouldn't mind, come up to the microphone so we can get you on. And then name and address and then represent.

Home address or office address. It doesn't really matter. Okay. Carter Crowley, 1117 West New York Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin. And then, so we've owned the property for the last, I don't know, probably handfully. No, probably not that long. Three years. And prior to our ownership, it was occupied as a single family residence, still is. And then that right side of the property, 314 South Pearl, was vacant at the time of purchase. We placed a business in there for about nine months and then they vacated. And it's been sitting vacant since that date. So the opportunity for the rezone and why we're requesting that was totally based upon the fact of It's basically, it qualifies for commercial financing only based upon the current zoning. A residential loan cannot be obtained, even though the property is primarily, at least from conversations with the previous owner and then ourselves, it's been used as a single family house with kids and children and families for probably the last 13 years. So that was the only reason for seeking the rezone on it. I'm open to any questions on that.

And that is true. It's been predominantly used as a residence. That business has not been occupied for quite some time. It's been sitting vacant. And for a while there, the door was even boarded up, I think, before you bought it.

Yeah, it was.

Yeah, it was very unseemly looking, but... Yeah.

I think we need to consider the whole downtown area there and what could happen across the street. If we make some changes to this, I'll just keep it going on the public. All right.

To allow anybody else that wants to provide public input as well. If there is.

And you said we had how many days to consider this 60?

Anybody else want to speak on?

Ask three times Richie and then move on. Ask three times and then you can move on.

And then you can close the public hearing after you ask.

Ask three times for public comment. After that, then you can close the public hearing.

Is there any more public comment on this? Okay. Closing the public hearing. Next review recommend.

Hold on. I think you guys can discuss something.

Now we can talk.

All right. The one thought I had is would they potentially want to make it a duplex? Make the commercial side like a small studio apartment or something?

If I may. By rezoning it to mixed residential low density, it does unlock the ability to have a twin-door or duplex as it's currently zoned. A single-family residence by itself is not a permitted use and duplex is also not a permitted use. So we have to look at it from, you know, there's a potential they could do a duplex, but by rezoning it, there's also the potential that there's no commercial use associated with that. Whereas now it's technically a legal non-conforming use that allows commercial. And if we rezone it, there's the opportunity to have a home occupation use, but it's no longer required. So there's moving parts with this, pros and cons. There was a couple of comments about setting a precedence for allowing this type of rezoning. you know, with any rezoning, we look at the comprehensive plan and we can evaluate on a case-by-case basis. So when we look at some of those properties across the street, there are apartments above, you know, commercial uses below. Those situations we can look at, but, you know, for this specific application, this criteria, we should evaluate this particular application against comprehensive plan, surrounding uses, and whether it fits the corridor and overall field what we want, so.

Do we know how long the commercial side has been vacant prior? Like, when was the last time it was a business?

Two years ago, maybe?

Yeah, it's probably, yeah, probably nine months is when it was less occupied.

I was thinking, like, prior to that. Like, did it have a long stretch of, we can't find a commercial use for it, so should we allow it to be residential, I guess?

It was years long stretch.

Because it's just as much a shame to have it be vacant.

They did have a bicycle shop in there for a while, but I don't know when they stopped that.

It does provide a space for a small business to start. Where else is somebody going to start a small business? If you make it a residential...

And it does seem like the perfect spot for a small single owner to live and work out the side of the building.

Um, so I think the important thing to note here is that regardless, um, of an approval or a denial of the rezone, a live work scenario is allowed in each scenario. So if we rezone if it's residential low density, there is the opportunity for the person to live within the residential side and operate a business out of the right side, if you did go to residential. And it currently sits with there not being a business in the 314th side being only used as a single family residence, and secondly, a legal non-controlled use. So if no action was taken, it can continue as is. If you can leave it at that, there's opportunities we can make work as well.

So maybe I'm not understanding the rezone.

Yeah, can't it be like a temporary variance or something?

No, I want to understand the rezone request.

So it's my understanding, and Carter, you can comment on this, that there are any issues with financing because it's- I understand that, and I heard that part.

I'm looking at it from our perspective. The rezone allows what?

By rezoning a mixed residential low density, you can have a single family residence with a home occupation use. With this property being attached, you could consider it a single family residence. If the owner wanted to operate a home occupation out of that 314 site, they could do that. But it wouldn't be to. It would make it a single family residence.

So it also could be a single family residence.

But the whole thing then could be a single family residence. And the fact that a business is not operating out of there makes it non-conforming to our current.

Legal non-conforming. So it's allowed to remain. Um, you know, essentially it would just be used as a single family residence and that 314 side is not being used as a business.

But it could not be the way it is now. It could not be changed to a single family.

Okay.

So the rezone allows it to stay the way that it is and, or change to a single family and it would allow it to go back later on too, potentially. But if somebody did the remodel, they wouldn't go back. So, okay, that's what I needed to understand.

Part of this, Austin, and kind of correct me if I'm wrong, is any future situations as well. So rezoning it to mixed residential low, obviously that's providing the opportunity for the financing because then it's in a residential district. But if someone wants to tear that down, They could put a single family home up there by right on that.

And that's what I don't want. Like if the building were ever tore down, it needs to be commercial.

And flip it, if it's left as is and it's tore down, it wouldn't be able to be a single family residential. The use would have to be more commercial with an opportunity of a residential living space.

If the structure is removed, the legal nonconforming status goes away. So anything new that would need to be built there under the current zoning would need to comply with the downtown mixed use district, which is that commercial type stuff.

That's why I was asking, is there any way to have a variance that says while the buildings, like no renovations, no changing the building structure, that kind of thing?

Well, as I mentioned, you know, this is a legal non-conforming use as it's, you know, existed prior to our zoning ordinance. It's been used as a single family residence prior to the zoning ordinance. So in terms of a variance, it wouldn't be required in this situation. It's allowed for me, as is prior, provided there's no alterations to it, provided they don't lose that non-conforming status by having it vacant for 12 months per se, that's non-conforming status, or if they were to remove the building.

But if you make it mixed residential, all bets are off what it could become in the future.

If it's rezoned in mixed residential, low density, and as Chad mentioned, if they were to remove the building, they could build any allowed use within mixed residential density, which could be a single family home, could be a duplex, could be that scenario where it's a residence with a home occupation side of it. So there's options to what it could be if that were to happen, if they were to remove

or remodel the current structure into 100% residential structure? I guess, I mean, one of the biggest questions I have is, is there any way for, because it's a legal non-conforming use, you know, we can send letters out and say, hey, you know, so the banks, financial institutions, it's a legal non-conforming use. I don't know if there's any opportunity for that with the financing institutions at all.

Yeah, so we can get you on mic.

That'd be great. Thank you.

So the biggest issue that the banks told me, because that was the same question that I had when we were in the process of trying to sell it initially. They said, if there was a catastrophic event that occurred there based upon current zoning, then it would have to be a business. And then it's like, okay, no residential loan will qualify for that. So then it's like, well, commercial lending or cash purchase is the only other options.

feel like I do have time out.

So what are our options? I mean, like Austin said, obviously the owner is requesting to kind of expedite this as soon as possible, but we have 60 days, you know, whether you guys feel like you want to chew on this a little bit or make a decision one way or the other.

It's not a super rush thing on our side. There's a tenant in there that's on a long-term lease. So It's not a big deal either way.

Any more discussion?

I'm concerned what the property would become in the future, which makes me want to say no.

Leave it zoned the way it is. So you can make the motion. in that direction. I don't think we're done discussing, but.

But when you're ready, Bernie would go to number seven and you would, that's going to be the recommendation to move forward. You would either pause and defer to the next planning commission meeting for more consideration.

I think we all wanted to mull that one over until the next meeting.

Yeah, our options are kind of, Motion to approve, motion to deny, or a motion to table until next meeting.

I would make a motion to table it until our next meeting, and then we'll make a plan then.

Are we on that agenda item?

Okay, I got a motion on the floor to table it to the next meeting. Do I have a second on that?

I'll second it.

Okay, the motion table was made by Keith, seconded by Susie. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Opposed. How many ayes do we got? Three. How many noes do we got? We got two noes, three noes, and three. Yes. What about Bob and Mike? Not my favorite table yet.

Oh, that was? Yeah. Okay. I didn't see you raise your hand. And then Mike? I'm not voting. What's that? I'm not voting. You're abstaining then? Yes. Do you have that all written down in Boston?

Three yeses, three noes, two states.

Do you have everybody?

I think so, yes.

And what was the vote just so we have that here?

So we have three for yes, three for no, two abstentions. That's what I had.

Doesn't pass. I'm abstaining on it.

What's that?

I'm not. I'm abstaining on it too. I'm not going to vote on it.

So the majority doesn't pass?

No, there's no pass. It doesn't. Now what do we do? Motion fails. Okay, motion fails.

Are there any other motions to move forward?

Any other motions? Any more discussion?

We spent a lot of money on our recodification for planning and zoning and everybody sat in this room and we went through it. Now we're sitting here to try and amend what we just previously did. The discussion on the floor here that I've heard is everybody's kind of worried about what the future holds if we change the zoning. And with that, I'll make a motion to deny. I'll second.

Okay. I got a motion on the floor to deny the approval. And it's seconded. Is there any more discussion. Can you vote. I want to show hands for approval marks motion. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And I want to show hands of the ones that disapprove Mark motion.

Abstaining.

Any abstentions? What was your vote?

I voted to no. I voted to not grant it.

Awesome. What's the tally? And I got a yes. Mine is a yes for.

Six votes to approve Mark's motion. I got one abstention. So we're missing two here. I got a yes vote.

He voted no, right? I voted to deny. With the motion to deny.

Okay, so that's B7.

So A to approve, one abstention.

Okay, it looks like the yeses have it. The recommendation would be not recommended for the change of the ordinance. Okay, moving on to number seven, review, recommend. That's what we already did that. Okay, number eight, public hearing proposed rezoning a parcel 333-069-100 and 333-069-000 from mixed residential low density to mixed residential high density.

All right. So as the commission may have recalled, this proposal has been discussed a few times. This was the proposed townhome project on the corner of Orville Drive and North Point Drive on the northeast side of town. So previous action on this, the Planning Commission and the council voted to approve a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use classification from single family duplex residential to that medium high density residential, which essentially unlocks a higher density of housing out here and unlocks the higher density of zoning district, which we're gonna discuss tonight. The proposal is to go to high density residential to accommodate the 19 unit townhome development that was previously discussed. As listed in the zoning ordinance, the townhomes at this density are only allowed in that mixed residential high zoning district. So that's the reason for the request tonight is to unlock this type of development within the zoning district. So as mentioned in the previous item, there's criteria listed in the zoning ordinance for approval for zoning changes. First one was the overall purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that was the health, safety and welfare. So as we previously discussed prior meetings, the city has a housing need. So by allowing higher density uses out in this area, we're working towards adding additional housing units that we need in the city. So the proposed rezoning, staff felt as though that criteria does help to protect the health, safety, and welfare by adding those additional housing units that people need. So that criteria was met associated with the proposal. Second criteria was that it complies with comprehensive plan. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission and Common Council voted to amend the comprehensive plan to allow for a zoning issue of this type on this property here. The comprehensive plan does support this reason because the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan future land use designation is that medium high density residential. So it directly matches and that criteria is met. Clear criteria is that it maintains the overall desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts that pertain to zoning districts. So this area of the city, we've got several residential developments to the northeast there. There's some duplex development there. as well as some potential future development here with undeveloped areas there as shown on the screen. So this sort of small area is that residential style. So, but it's not necessarily our single family home type corridor, it's our mixed residential, it's our higher density residential area. So by rezoning this area to that mixed residential high, staff thought that that proposal would be compatible with the area here, as mentioned, It's not single family homes, it's a multifamily housing. So that criteria was met for staff's opinion. Last criteria was factors that are not properly addressed in the current official zoning map. Staff found there's been no errors in the zoning map out here, no recent surveys. So that criteria was not applicable. The second level of that criteria was factors such as new data, infrastructure, work conditions and development. Our comprehensive plan that we did in previous years identified that need for housing. So staff found that to be additional data, new data that would be grounds for an approval of a rezone here because that data shows we need more housing. So allowing that higher density housing works towards that goal as listed in the comprehensive plan. So staff found that criteria to be met. So overall, the criteria in the zoning ordinance is met. for staff's opinion and staff is going to be recommending approval of this rezone. I'm happy to answer any questions and we'll defer some discussion on this.

Okay, is there any questions?

I think that would be a nice addition to the area with the duplexes and the small family residential there. I think that's a nice blend for the entrance of the industrial area. It's a nice use of the property. I don't think putting some single family houses there would utilize that property as well as these townhouses. It's a lot of bang for your buck.

Richie, public hearing is good.

Bernie, I would open up a public hearing again. As for public input, if you get done after three asks, then go ahead and close the public hearing and then you can discuss further.

Open it up for public hearing. I see nobody here. Closing it right away. Now, is there any discussion from the board?

Seems like a good use to me.

I would suggest moving on to number nine where you can make an action.

No more discussion. We'll move on to item number nine. Review and recommend ordinance rezoning parcels 333-069-100 and 333-069-000. I'll make that motion.

I'll second it.

Okay, motion was made by Mark, seconded by Susie to recommend ordinance to rezone parcels 3, 3, 3, 0, 6, 9, 1, 100 and 3, 3, 3, 0, 6, 9, 0, 0, 0. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion is carried. Okay. Review upcoming agenda items.

All right. So as we've seen, we're getting a lot of interest in development in the city right now. So future agenda items are going to fall on applicant timelines, whether that be a site plan review for the townhomes, as we just discussed, or potential future rezonings for some of the residential developments that we spoke about at our last meeting or the former. So, um, You know, staff will continue working with the developers and the applicants to move forward with that process, and the agenda is all in place based on their timelines.

Okay, nothing else to look at. Review next meeting date would be tentatively August 26th. 27th.

27th, 2026.

Do we have any issues? I'm looking for a motion. I do not believe I'm here. But I could possibly assume that. Okay. We're looking for a motion for adjournment. I'll make that motion to adjourn. I'll second it. Motion's been made by Jay, seconded by Susie. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?