The Municipal Services Committee met 03/08/2021.
Alderperson Otis was not there for at least part of the meeting.
The first item they took up was Matt Miller’s request to bag 9 meters on March 17, 2021 on Lawrence Street and Walnut Street to facilitate food pick-up at McGuinness Pub. The request was administratively denied and didn’t have time to go before the Common Council because the date of the event is March 17 and the next Common Council meeting isn’t until that evening after the event will have taken place.
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) accidentally made a motion to approve the recommendation to deny then had to go back and change his motion to recommend approving the request to bag the meters notwithstanding the administrative denial.
Mr. Miller appeared at the meeting and explained that doing this would make holding the event much easier and would also improve safety for their guests because he expected that they would have a decent number of people participate in their St. Patrick’s Day event.
Director Paula Vandehey explained that they would typically not approve bagging meters for convenience which is why it was administratively denied. They approve bagging meters for situations such as if someone’s taking an air conditioner off their roof and that’s the only way to safely do it. With the timing of the request they were not able to get it on the agenda in time to go before the Council prior to the 17th. She said that Mr. Miller was taking a chance by relying only on committee approval. If approved by the Council on the 17th he’ll have to pay $9 per meter bag plus tax. [She didn’t actually say what would happen if the Council doesn’t approve it next Wednesday. It sounds like he would be in violation then, but I don’t know if there would be a fine he needed to pay or not.]
Alderperson Prohaska said that Director Vandehey said this request was denied because the city doesn’t approve meter bags for convenience, but to him this request seemed to spring from logistics caused by covid and the need for people to keep their distance within the safety recommendations of the health department. He applauded Mr. Miller for both running his business and trying to keep the public healthy.
Alderperson Patti Coenen (District 11) said that normally she would expect this request to be denied for the reason state, but she would approve it in this case because of the special circumstances surrounding the pandemic. She’d rather see fewer health issues and fewer traffic problems during the event.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) asked if this were rejected would that mean that everyone would have to enter the business, make their order, and wait around for the order to be ready or call ahead and enter the business to pick it up.
Mr. Miller confirmed that was the case and that it would make things more difficult and much less safe.
Jennifer Stephany from Appleton Downtown Inc. spoke in support of the request being approved. They have an opportunity to make the event safer for everyone ordering and picking up. There was also a traffic concern as well, and this request would help reduce the traffic issues.
Alderperson Firkus said that under normal circumstances, he’d agree with the denial but was okay allowing the request under the current circumstances.
The motion to approve the request to bag the meters was approved unanimously. [And, honestly, I’d be really surprised if it doesn’t also pass the Common Council on the 17th.]
The committee then moved on to review Driveway Opening Policy to possibly delete requirement #5 regarding neighboring property owners.
On the table was a motion to remove item 5 from the driveway opening policy. Alderperson Prohaska requested this be put on the agenda based on the situation that came up during the previous Common Council meeting and the previous Municipal Services Committee meeting.
The policy for a second curb cut has 5 conditions.
- A sketch showing proposed location of second driveway is submitted to the Engineering Division of Public Work.
- The Engineering Division does not object to the request.
- The Forestry Division does not object to the request.
- The Inspections Division does not object to the request.
- The two neighboring properties to each side of the requesting property do not object to the request. (Municipal Services Report, June 18, 1997)
Alderperson Prohaska said that three city departments must agree that a second curb cut meets all city regulations, but, after these three departments agree that everything is in order, any one of those four neighbors can unilaterally and arbitrarily object to the driveway. One neighbor can decide who can or cannot have a second curb cut because they don’t like the location or they don’t like the look or maybe they just don’t like you. They don’t need to give a reason; they only need to object. He thought that no neighbor should have the ability to prevent someone from utilizing their property when that use is legal and within the rules the city has set forth. When neighbors can arbitrarily stop a second curb cut, they have the right to stop other things. Maybe a neighbor doesn’t like dogs or cats or red trucks. Maybe they don’t like your lifestyle. Should they then force you to defend your rights because they object? He didn’t think so. He thought the right thing to do was to remove condition 5 from this policy. He had no problem with the four neighbors being notified and given the chance to voice their concerns, but he thought those neighbors should not be able to arbitrarily deny what was done to their neighbor’s property. He urged his colleagues to remove this unnecessary and overreaching condition from the policy.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) wholeheartedly agreed with what Alderperson Prohaska said.
Director Vandehey clarified that if one of those neighbors had a problem it didn’t mean that they could stop the second driveway. It just meant that the city could not administratively approve the permit. Instead, it had to go to the committee and Council for conversation. She didn’t see the point of sending letters to the neighbors if rule number 5 was eliminated because the city wouldn’t be able to do anything with any feedback they received.
Alderperson Prohaska clarified that he was not saying the city *had* to send out letters. He thought it was fine if letters went out but the permitting process shouldn’t be stopped just because a neighbor objected.
Alderperson Coenen preferred to not see letters go out if rule 5 was removed. If a request meets all the criteria the city has set, she didn’t see a reason to send out a letter to get neighbor approval. She also pointed out that if rule 5 is kept in place and a neighbor objects, many Council Members think that they should automatically go with the objecting neighbor because this rule is listed even though the policy was meant to set up an appeals process that could go either way. She mentioned that in the most recent case, they sent out letters to four neighbors but only one of the homeowners showed up, so there wasn’t even consensus from a majority of the neighbors.
Alderperson Firkus asked if they would need language in it that included that letters would not be sent out.
Attorney Behrens said that, in general, there are not any requirements to send out notifications when an application is made. In this specific case, they have to send out letters as part of the process to see if any of the neighbors object, but if they remove the right of a neighboring property owner to object then they would also be removing the requirement that a property owner be notified.
Alderperson Firkus was satisfied that they didn’t need to add language specifying that they would no longer send letters out. He added that he is sympathetic to the idea people buy houses as an investment and to be their home and they want their neighborhood to stay a certain way, but he also believed that no matter how you try, neighborhoods do change. He wasn’t in favor of putting that extra hurdle in the way of people making changes to their property. He thought getting the approval of three different departments really added to the legitimacy of a request. He didn’t think the city needed to have the Common Council or any other committee or body weigh in and say “This is okay; this is good.” He agreed with much that had been said and thought that getting approvals from departments was good enough.
The motion to remove the fifth requirement passed 4-0. [As mentioned earlier, Alderperson Cory Otis (District 15) was the one committee member who was not there. He was also the one committee member who, previously, had voted against approving Tyler’s request for a second curb cut. I think it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter]
They then moved onto the item “Approve installation of standard parking meters in Soldier Square along with Passport pay-by-phone option.”
Director Vandehey explained that they did a pilot program of the pay-by-phone option only and she thought it was hugely successful. They did the pilot program to get the community to try something new and give honest feedback. The most important feedback they got was that, even if people like the pay-by-phone app, what they really wanted was options. As a result, the city thought it was worth the $13,000 charge to install standard meters so that people would have the option to use the pay-by-phone or just plug the meter.
Jennifer Stephany of Appleton Downtown, Inc spoke and said the feedback their organization received aligns with the memo sent to the committee and what Director Vandehey just stated. People do love the passport app, but they would still like the second option of being able to use a different form of payment and plug a meter for less than an hour long time frame.
Alderperson Firkus said that it was $13,000 to replace the meters, but replacing the current payment kiosk would have been $30,000, so he thought they were still coming out ahead.
Director Vandehey said they did budget to purchase these meters, but instead of just going ahead and purchasing them they conducted the pilot to see if it was necessary. They do have the money budgeted to purchase them and Alderperson Firkus was correct that installing them would cost less than to install a new pay station.
Alderperson Firkus said this was the second time they had piloted the pay-by-phone app. He thought the first time was for street parking whereas this second time was for off-street parking.
Director Vandehey confirmed this was the second pilot but corrected him that both pilots were for off-street parking.
The request was approved unanimously
The final action item was the Request from Appleton Downtown, Inc. for a street occupancy permit for “Fiber Rain” to install yarn creations on planters, wayfinding kiosks and poles on College Avenue from April 12, 2021 through May 31, 2021.
Jennifer Stephany spoke again. They would like to bring this program back. They’ve reconnected with the Fiber Rain group, and the Fiber Rain group is excited and re-engergized. She acknowledged that the weather plays a factor with these pieces, and said that if they start to look tattered, they will be removed. They are all installed by the artists who create them because many of them are stitched on. Fiber Rain does the installation and removal, and they would be able to have them removed if needed.
The request was approved unanimously.
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=831367&GUID=536CB0A2-9BE7-4B80-87D2-E536488F8568&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply