The Appleton Common Council is meeting 07/07/2021.
It looks like Mayor Woodford will not be presenting any mayoral proclamations at this meeting.
One never knows exactly which items will be pulled from the various committee recommendations to receive special attention and individual votes, but there are a few items that strike me as likely to make the cut.
The agenda includes a public hearing for the “proposed text amendments to Chapter 23 Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code”. This is related to Resolution #1-R-21 Accessory Dwelling Units which would update the Municipal Code to allow the building of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units within the city. The City Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend this be approved. I would expect this to be separated out for an individual vote.
Another item that could be potentially separated out is the Municipal Services Committee’s recommendation to ban the use of pole buildings and shipping containers as accessory buildings in Appleton. Although no one on the committee was opposed to banning the use of shipping containers as sheds, Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) did not think pole buildings should be included in that ban because their design has really advanced over the years and they can look quite nice.
[I find it kind of interesting to see side-by-side the two items of Accessory Dwelling Units and then accessory structures such as pole buildings and shipping containers and how they’re both being handled. The plan to allow accessory dwelling units to be built in Appleton has been put forth as a way to open up additional affordable housing options for residents, while, at the same time, the plan to ban pole buildings would eliminate an affordable and accessible way for residents to improve the use and functionality of their property. I’m not sure why affordability and creativity are being embraced in relation to housing but not in relation to other aspects of property use.]
The final item of interest that stands out to me is Resolution #5-R-21 which would ban the display of political signs on city owned property that is rented by private entities.
Former Alderperson Kyle Lobner introduced this resolution in response to the USA Youth sports complex allowing the display of signs on that property for his opponent current Alderperson Shari Hartzheim (District 13). The original language of the resolution called for a blanket ban on the display of political signs on city owned property. After conducting some research, the City Attorney’s Office determined that such a ban could not be implemented; however, the city could insert language into their leases so that entities would contractually agree to not display campaign signs on the property they rent from the city.
Alderperson Hartzheim states on her aldermanic blog, “In my opinion, the spirit of this resolution is that parties who lease property from the city of Appleton must give up First Amendment rights to free speech since they would be prohibited from posting signage of a political nature on that leased property. […] I feel that this negotiation — and indeed, this resolution — is unnecessary. Very few people know, for instance, that the city owns the USA soccer fields in our district. So there’s really very little implication to most Appletonians that the city endorses *any* signage on that property. And disallowing property lessees from having a voice in the political happenings in the city is wrong of the City of Appleton to ask. If there is a city- or state-wide political initiative related to the youth and families that frequent and use the USA Youth complex and the USA Youth board of directors is not allowed to post signage of their support or opposition of the initiative on the property they pay to lease, what good does that serve? I believe that this resolution is a solution to a problem that really does not exist in Appleton. As such, I will be voting not to approve it, regardless the city attorney’s amended verbiage to address the issue through lease negotiations.”
[I can say I personally was not aware that the soccer fields in district 13 were owned by the city, and I would never have associated a political sign on them as coming from the city. I’m curious how many people were aware that it was city owned property and would have thought that a campaign sign displayed on it was a message from the city.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=867240&GUID=24258141-DBC7-4247-935C-A5411B4C9045&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply