The City Plan Commission met 06/23/2021 and took up several rezoning requests and a special use permit request.
Each of these items had a public hearing associated with them after which the commission took up the associated action item and voted which made things less confusing than holding all of the public hearings back to back before moving on to discuss and vote on the items back to back.
The first two items (Action Items #21-0847 and 21-0849) were connected to the same property and were necessary to allow for the development of several adjacent parcels as one whole. The property owner for the parking lot and one residential property west of Richmond Street and South of Packard Street (across the street from the VFW hall) was asking for the city’s comprehensive plan to be updated in relation to one of those parcels and for 3 of the parcels to be rezoned so that all four parcels had the same zoning.
City of Appleton Principal Planner David Kress gave an overview of both issues. The parcels were previously owned by the VFW but are now owned by Core, LLC. Core, LLC wants to combine the four parcels together, but in order to do that the future land use map designations and zoning for all 4 parcels needs to be uniform. 3 of the 4 parcels already have a mixed-use land use designation on the future land use map, but the fourth parcel was designated as 1 and 2 family residential land use. Core, LLC was requesting that the future land use map for that one parcel be amended to reflect a mixed-use designation.
Additionally, there were three zoning districts in place for the four different parcels—C-2 (General Commercial), R-2 (Two Family Residential) and R-1C (Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Core, LLC was seeking to have all parcels be zoned R-1C.
Mr. Kress said that city staff reviewed both the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning request against the typical criteria. In the case of the comprehensive plan amendment request, that includes reviewing it against the goals and objectives off the comprehensive plan document, and those criteria were met. In the case of the rezoning request, that included reviewing it against the criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance and, again, staff found that they were met. Staff recommended approval of both items.
Before opening up the public hearing, Mayor Woodford said that he wanted to be clear that what was being discussed at that meeting was just the land use. They were not talking about any specific site plans for the parcels.
Dave Allen one of the owners of the properties in question, spoke. He lives in Sturgeon Bay but owns property in Appleton including the commercial property across the street in Richmond Terrace. He said that the parcels in question had been used by the VFW since the 1950s, but now the Appleton chapter of the VFW no longer exists. With the current zoning for those parcels, the only thing they can do would be a small commercial development which is not what they want. They hope to do something larger with apartments being the goal. In order to do that they need consistent zoning. He thought approving the changes would be the right decision that would allow something to happen as soon as possible.
No other members of the public wanted to speak, so the commission moved onto discussion.
One commission member said that the parcels were currently being used as a parking lot. They wanted to know that, if the hoped for development fell through, would the parking lot still be allowed to exist there and be used as parking.
Mr. Kress said that parking is an historically allowed use and it could continue to function in that fashion.
A commission member said she understood that they were just discussing the usage of the property but was curious if the city had any more information about the plans in terms of a timeline for the project and what they know about the project thus far.
Director Karen Harkness said that they try to keep the project separate from the motion that are taking place because the motions being discussed were really about the land use. She said there were plans to build an apartment building, but they were still working through all the details and it was at a very high level still. That was all she could share at the moment.
There was no more discussion or public participation on either of the two items. The commission voted unanimously to approve both the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the rezoning requests.
The commission then moved on to the public hearing for Action Item #21-0851 which was a rezoning request for the former Family Video building on 2700 East Calumet Street.
Principal Planner Jessica Titel gave an overview on this item. The parcel was currently zoned PD/C-2 (Planned Development General Commercial District) and the owners were seeking to rezone it to C-2 (General Commercial District). The PD (Plan Development) was placed on the property in 1999 and was specific to the proposed development on the site at that time which was a multi-tenant vuilidng with a Family Video and a Papa Murphy’s Pizza. In this case, the PD was very restrictive in the uses that it allowed on this parcel and only allowed for it to be used as a video rental store and a pizza restaurant. [I’m kind of curious what the benefit would have been to only allowing the property to be used for such specific purposes.] The rezoning will allow for additional uses in the vacant space now that Family Video has closed. She noted that it was unlikely that another video rental store would be filling that space. The C-2 General Commercial District zoning would give more flexibility to fill the space and allow all of the uses permitted with that zoning. She said staff had reviewed the criteria for the rezoning against the criteria in the zoning code along with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval of the rezoning request.
Mayor Woodford asked for clarification purposes if she could provide a sense of the allowable uses under C-2 zoning.
She said a general commercial district would allow retail, office, personal service, hair salon, medical office, and restaurant uses. She said a lot of the properties along Wisconsin Avenue, Northland Avenue, and Calumet Street are zoned C-2.
Mayor Woodford opened up the public hearing. Michael Kohne, who represented the owner of the building, spoke. He said that they do not have any planned uses for the Family Video portion of the building right now, although they were opening a Marco’s Pizza Restaurant in the other half which was already allowed under the current zoning. He said that it was unlikely that Blockbuster was going to come out of retirement the lease their space, so it made sense to open up the zoning to fill what they saw as a great building on a premier corner in Appleton. He thought doing so would benefit both the city and the property owners.
No one else wished to speak, and no commission members had any questions or discussion. The commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request.
The commission then moved on to the item that garnered the most public feedback of the meeting. That was Action Item #21-0853 which was a rezoning request for the undeveloped parcel located on Coolidge Court just west of the Kitz and Pfeil Hardware store at 1919 E Calumet Street.
Principal Planner Don Harp gave an overview of this rezoning request. The property was currently zoned as PD/C-2 which was a Planned Development General Commercial District, and the owner was asking to rezone it to an R-3 Multi-Family District. The subject site is located in the Calumet Street Planned Development District #3484 which went into effect in 1985. The overlay district was approved to allow for a shopping center complex (which would include uses like personal services, professional services, and restaurant uses) and an 8 unit multi-family apartment building. The parcel for the apartment building was what the commission was considering at that meeting. The vacant lot was approved for an 8 unit apartment building as a use exception in that overlay district. The applicant was asking to rezone that to R-3 to allow for construction of a multi-family complex utilizing the current R-3 district standards rather than the standards from the 1985 Planned Development District. The plan in 1985 approved a specific layout that included just an 8 unit building with a driveway leading to an off-street parking lot. The applicant wants to do something different than that with a more modern style building that has attached garages and allows for single entrance to each unit rather than a single building with an entrance that serves all the tenants. He stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan does call for a multi-family use for this property, and, after reviewing it, staff was recommending approving the rezoning request.
Mayor Woodford opened up the public hearing.
Two residents of the neighborhood spoke.
John said that he lived at an adjacent property on Telulah Avenue which he had owned for over 40 year. He thanked Don Harp for taking the time to discuss things over the telephone and explain the process to him. John was concerned about the impact of putting a multi-family unit right next to single family properties. He said that when the rest of the property [I took that to be referencing the nearby commercial properties] was developed over 30 years ago, different problems were identified at that time, some of which continue to this day. One of the issues is noise. He said that, at the time, they were all assured by city officials and the property developer that there would be nothing that would generate noise on the side of the property by the residential neighborhood—there wouldn’t be any trucks or other things over on that side. However, currently, there’s a hardware store that set up an outdoor engine repair station which has been a nuisance. That experience along with the plans to bring in a lot more activity right next to single family homes caused him to be concerned about the impact it would have on families.
Noah lived right next to the lot where this development was proposed. He hoped that they would preserve the cul-de-sac that is currently there. He said there was a lot of foot traffic from schools and the little strip mall that was nearby. He also was concerned about noise being an issue since there already was a lot of noise. He also had privacy concerns, particularly if the development was going to be a two-story development.
After the neighbors spoke, Andrew Graf, the proposed property buyer spoke. He said that what they wanted to do with the property is not far off from what was already deemed acceptable for that land use. The only issue is that the design of the building that is currently permitted is not conducive to the elements and the climate here in Wisconsin. He said that a lot of those style units that were erected during the 80s are now needed to be renovated and people don’t like to live in that style of building. He said they were just trying to be proactive and raise the standards of the quality of building and how it will function, so that the building would attract high quality tenants for many years to come.
He didn’t envision there being noise. He was aware of the engine repair that goes on nearby, but they would not be putting in shops or things of that nature. Their plans are residential. He also said they had plans to develop the greenspace on the lot and make it more attractive and appealing.
There were no further public comments, so the commission took up the item for discussion and a vote.
Commission member Andrew Dane was curious if the owner/developer had more information to share regarding the project and the different design plans.
Mayor Woodford said that given the item on the agenda was not about the site plan but about the land use issue and rezoning that is what the discussion needed to focus on.
Another commission member was curious if the concerns some of the speakers voiced were specific to the proposed project or to the idea of the rezoning itself. She also wasn’t entirely clear on what the current zoning and the rezoning would allow and if it was commercial or residential.
Principal Planner Harp said that the current zoning is Plan Development C-2 which is Plan Development General Commercial District. When that was approved in 1985, they approved the parcel with a residential use, so no commercial would be permitted on there. It was solely approved for an 8 unit multi-family complex with associated parking. He said it does have that commercial zoning but land-use wise it was intended to be residential.
The commission member who asked the question said that, essentially, the property was permitted for a residential purpose regardless of whether the zoning was changed. This change would just allow the developers to go forward with a different design plan. She then went on to ask if, without that residential exception, the property would be used for something commercial.
Mr. Harp told her no. If someone wanted to do something commercial on that property, it would require an amendment to the Plan Development. They would need to bring forward a plan regarding a new type of use and then the city would work through whether or not that would be appropriate to amend the current Plan Development or recommend something different.
[Honestly, I found the intricacies of the different types of zoning to be confusing. Just like this property, the Family Video property discussed earlier in the meeting was zoned PD/C-2. In that case, the “PD” or Plan Development part of the zoning seemed to limit the property to only be used as pizza places and video rental stores. In this case, the “PD” part of the PD/C-2 zoning seemed to limit the property to be used only as an 8-unit apartment complex with a specific layout, and didn’t allow any sort of commercial use. As a lay person I wouldn’t typically associate apartment complexes with commercial zoning, and it sounded like maybe this commission member was also struggling with that idea.]
The commission member said it sounded like the residents who spoke would have the same concerns whether the property had a commercial use or a residential use. She was trying to figure out what their hopes were for this property if they didn’t like this specific project. Did they just want it to be zoned for single families?
Mayor Woodford said that was related to site planning which would be a separate discussion and which would take place in a future process if they needed to be approved.
Mr. Harp confirmed that was correct. If this rezoning request was approved and the applicant then applied for a site plan approval for the building that plan would be reviewed internally by staff form various departments including Public Works, Building Inspection, and the Fire Department. They would review the current code standards to ensure that all of those were met prior to a permit being issued for construction.
Mayor Woodford took that moment to say that they encourage anyone who is planning a project in the City of Appleton to connect with neighbors and adjacent property owners to create opportunities for discussion about the project.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) was trying to figure out what the difference was exactly between the current zoning and the zoning they were being asked to approve. She said it sounded like the same type of building and she didn’t understand why there would need to be a change in the zoning at all.
Mr. Harp said that the 1985 plan included approval of a specific layout. The staff report included an attached diagram showing the driveway location leading to an off-street parking lot as well as the apartment building and how it was positioned on the property.
Their interpretation of that approval from 1985 was that it was the plan that would need to be presented to staff in order to get a permit to build under the current zoning today. The applicant wanted to come up with a different layout that may not comply with the setback regulations in the original diagram. What staff does in situations like that is look at the city’s long-range plan to see if it is feasible to recommend to the applicant a different zoning category that could facilitate that project. Based on the land use plan being designated as multi-family, they recommended repealing the plan development from 1985 and rezoning as R-3 so that the developer could use current-day standards when laying out a building project rather than going back in time and using the 1985 standards.
Director Karen Harkness added that this would really clean up the zoning that is there right now. They don’t zone the same way as they did in 1985 with the PD overlays, and so, as these come forward, they’re trying to clean it up and marry it with where we are today.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked what the specific differences were in setbacks from the PD/C-2 to the R-3 that was being proposed.
Mr. Harp said that was included in the plan summary sheet attached to the agenda. For the building setbacks there’s a 20 foot setback from Coolidge court in the 1985 PD district, and that would be the same as the current code. The side yard setback (which would be from the west lot line where the residential properties are located) is 60 feet under the 1985 PD, but under current regulations the minimum setback would be 20 feet. The east lot line (the one next to Kitz and Pfeil) would be a minimum of 10 feet under the existing PD, but under today’s current code that would be a 20 foot setback. The rear lot line to the south under the 1985 PD has a 20 foot setback, but under current code would have a 35 food setback.
One of the neighborhood residents who spoke during the public hearing asked to confirm that as things currently were there was a 60 foot setback from the side yard.
Don Harp confirmed that the way the building is positioned on the site layout from 1985, it was about 60 feet from the westerly lot line, and that is what they would use today as their regulations for a project there.
The man said that he thought that making the zoning change would move that setback from 60 to 20 feet which he thought would definitely have a negative impact on the single family homes next to this property.
Mayor Woodford said that he understood there might be interest from the public to have further discussion about this, but the public hearing was closed and rather than have members of the public debate this issue, they could direct their questions to staff. He asked that they refrain from any further debate upon the item or futher public comment as the public hearing had been closed.
The members of the commission had no further questions or comments and the item was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Dane voting nay.
Mayor Woodford again reiterated to the public that if they had further questions, particularly about where this project would move in terms of process, to please get in touch with staff. He also said that the city does encourage anyone who is planning a project in Appleton to make connections with neighbors and gather input from them.
The final item of the meeting was item #21-0855 which was a request for a Special Use Permit to allow alcohol sales and consumption (inside the building and outdoors) on the premises located at 141 South RiverHeath Way.
Principal Planner Harp said this property is located in the RiverHeath District and the regulations for that district require a special use permit for alcohol sales and consumption on premise. Staff recommended approval of the request, ad he noted that the liquor license had already been approved by Council and the building is under construction based upon previous site approval last year.
No members of the public wished to speak on the item, and the commission members had no questions or comments. The item was approved unanimously.
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=867054&GUID=6F03E27B-249D-46CA-AE27-97510F281AD3&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply