During the 07/07/2021 Common Council meeting, the alderpersons took up the resolution and proposed changes to the Municipal Code related to allowing Accessory Dwelling Units to be built in Appleton.
One member of the public appeared and made public comment on this issue. Rhonda said that she was born and raised in Appleton and graduated from Appleton East before leaving to pursue her career. She retired 6 years ago after 19 years of working at the Federal Department of Education, and she returned to Appleton. She bought a house and has had a lot of challenges. She’s become on a first name basis with Kurt Craanen at the Inspections Department as well as with her alderperson, Kristin Alfheim. Out of both her own concerns and a desire to give back to the Appleton community where she is now living, she put a lot of research into the new regulations regarding ADUs that are about meeting housing needs in the community. She recognizes that the city has some challenges regarding affordable housing. She was surprised to learn that the average age of Appleton residents is only 37 years old. She thought that would be higher.
She recognized that staff had done a lot of research about these alternative housing units, and she knew Appleton has a need for affordable house; however, from the research she had done, she didn’t personally think that ADUs were the solution that Appleton needed right now. She said there were cities all over the country facing our same challenges, and she was concerned that this would open things up for Airbnb and VERBO rentals. Although these smaller units were intended to be used as affordable housing, that didn’t mean that people could be prevented from putting up Airbnbs. She knew that other Appleton residents were concerned about that happening.
She asked, before the city marched forward with this, if there was any possibility that they could do some more study into the issues around affordable housing and really look at what peoples’ needs are. Were ADUs for families of 5? What ages are the people who really use them? Her mother was 93 and there was no way she would want her daughter living with her on her property. She wondered how many elderly people would really want to do this with their property. She was asking for more time and study to look at other options so as not to trap Appleton in a situation where we’ve got regulations that allow types of development that we’re really not looking for. She understood there was a problem, but was this the right solution?
There were two items related to ADUs: item 21-0059 “Resolution #1-R-21 Accessory Dwelling Units (Associated with Action Item #21-0768), and item 21-0768 “Request to approve proposed text amendments to Chapter 23 Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code to create Article III., Sec. 23-55 Accessory Dwelling Units (Attached and Detached) and Sec. 23-56 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) and amend Sec. 23-43 Accessory uses, building and structures, Sec. 23-92 R-1A Single-Family District, Sec. 23-93 R-1B Single-Family District, Sec. 23-94 R-1C Central City Residential District, Sec. 23-95 R-2 Two-Family District, and Sec. 23-96 R-3 Multifamily District, as identified in the attached documents (Associated with Action Item #21-0059)”
There was some discussion about which item to take up first, and they eventually decided to discuss the resolution itself before moving on to the amendments to the Municipal Code.
Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4) started out by making a motion to amend the item to allow only one additional dwelling unit instead of two. He was concerned about lot lines and space.
Director Karen Harkness asked if he could clarify what he was proposing. The proposed accessory dwelling unit matrix that was attached to the agenda showed that a property owner could have either one ADU that was detached along with a junior ADU in their home. Or they could have one attached ADU and one junior ADU in their home. Either way, there would only be one dwelling unit that could either be detached or attached, plus a junior dwelling unit which would be like a vacant bedroom in the home that could be up to 500 square feet. She wanted further clarification as to what was meant by “one”.
Alderperson Martin said he was not comfortable with allowing a second dwelling. He was fine with a bedroom but he wanted to prevent a second dwelling because he was concerned about lot lines and parking and where things would go.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), in an attempt to clarify, said that the resolution clearly permitted two ADUs but only if one of them was a junior, which mean that it had to be attached to the primary structure.
Director Harkness said that page three of the report from the Planning Commission provided a definition. The Junior Dwelling Unit is a “a dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size, which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more individuals and is contained within or a combination of connected to and contained within an existing footprint of an existing built or proposed to be built single-family detached dwelling.” It then had a little bit more in there regarding provisions for living, sleeping, and eating. Whereas an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit is “a dwelling unit connected to (by a minimum of one shared wall), contained within or a combination of connected to and contained within the existing footprint of an existing built or proposed to be built single-family detached dwelling or two-family-zero lot line dwelling, including an attached garage.” She said all of those dwelling need to meet the city’s building code..
Alderperson Hartzheim said her understanding was that Alderperson Martin was concerned that there would be multiple structures on a property, and that he was concerned that there would be two extra buildings on a property in addition to a primary home. She then apologized for directing that toward Alderperson Martin because under Council rules, all comments should be directed toward the Chairperson of the meeting.
Council President Matt Reed (District 8) who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Mayor Woodford, said he was going to allow Alderperson Martin to answer so they could get some clarification on that.
Alderperson Martin she he was not going to vote for a detached dwelling. He was concerned about space, parking, and the usage of the water and sewer system. Even though there are many streets that have brand new equipment, he was concerned about where these units would be built, so he wanted to remove from the code the option for a detached dwelling unit.
Alderperson Hartzheim thanked him. She said she didn’t believe that the amendment he put forth, to remove a second ADU, would accomplish that goal.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) thought they all had questions about this. Regarding Alderperson Martin’s amendment, the concept of only allowing one ADU was valid to her because it would be a stepping stone toward what they were trying to accomplish; however she didn’t think that not allowing a non-attached unit was the right choice. Overall she supported the resolution and understood what they were trying to accomplish with it in terms of housing, and she didn’t think it was the right choice to ban unattached buildings, so she didn’t support the amendment Alderperson Martin proposed.
There was a technical discussion between Alderperson Reed, Attorney Behrens, Clerk Kami Lynch, and Director Harkness regarding what they needed to do procedurally to make an amendment that actually accomplished what Alderperson Martin wanted to accomplish which was to allow only attached dwelling units while banning detached dwelling units.
Attorney Behrens said that the cleanest thing procedurally would be to withdraw the current amendment if the mover and seconder agreed to that and then offer up a new motion with clearer language.
They did this and Alderperson Martin then moved to request that detached dwellings be removed from the language. He added that he didn’t need to speak on this any more.
The motion was seconded and they started discussing it.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) asked the Council to defeat this amendment because he was worried it would inadvertently create restrictions on potential site plans that a property owner could do. Based on certain lot layouts, there might not always be an opportunity to build an attached dwelling unit. By allowing detached units, they would allow for greater flexibility in design options for property owners.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) wanted to draw her colleagues attention to the legislative history of this item. It was first introduced in January of 2021 and referred to the City Plan Commission. Staff reviewed it for 6-8 weeks. There were multiple meetings with all of the sponsors and staff to clarify various points such as what the zoning would be, how the city code would be handled, the fact that all the dwellings would have to comply with city code. The proposal went through multiple iterations, and staff did a wonderful job coming up with a really good solution. Although she serves on the City Planning Commission, she noted she was not a city planner and her fear was that by making amendments to something that had been worked on for close to 6 months by professionals to keep it withing both the spirit of the resolution and the city’s building codes would be dangerous.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) wanted to bring up some points about the amendment. Alderperson Martin was concerned about parking, but, she said, typically these types of dwellings are used by older people or people with disabilities–people who don’t typically have vehicles. She noted, though, that the matrix did include information regarding the requirement for parking spaces. [Note: regarding parking, the matrix says, “Required parking spaces for principal dwelling shall be maintained.”] She said she had some friends in another municipality who just built a pool house which was considered an ADU. It was an expensive suburb surrounding by people with a lot of opinions and money, and they had no problem with it and, in fact, thought it was great. She stated that she would like the option for a detached dwelling unit because she has a son who may live in one of those units [She has mentioned in the past that her son has health issues], and a detached unit allows for privacy and dignity. She thought removing the detached option was a big mistake.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) thought that they were doing committee work on the Council floor. He appreciated what Alderperson Fenton said. Both city staff and the committee had worked on this for quite some time and now was not the time to do more committee work. If they wanted to do more committee work then they should refer it back.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) wanted to offer some perspective as someone who had worked in the construction trades and appreciated what might be required from a homeowner who wants to create an ADU attached to an existing structure vs a detached structure. It is far easier to create a detached unit with all the requirements for code than it is to look at space in an existing home and find an opportunity to expand and create enough space to do what you want to do with that ADU. He mentioned the firewall separation requirements specifically as an issue and stated that the capacity to install a firewall that meets code would be a significant challenge for anyone who wants to install an attached unit. He thought it was important for people to have the option to build a detached unit designed as a stand alone piece vs trying to create something that fits into an existing roof line and and everything that comes with trying to remodel a space. He encouraged his colleagues to defeat the amendment.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked to call the question, a request that was approved by the Council.
They voted on the amendment at it failed 13-1 with Alderperson Martin being the lone nay vote.
They then moved back to discussing the item as originally proposed.
Alderperson Alfheim thought that the idea of allowing ADUs scared a lot of people in the public and that the only way to remove that fear was to do research into all of the work that has been done in committee. She said she had asked questions of her constituents and they posed a number of questions, and she referred them to the video of the 06/09/2021 City Plan Commission meeting. She said that she learned a lot about the nut sand bolts of the proposal from that meeting and everything that everyone had asked her about ADUs had been addressed fully. She went on to say that not only were people with disabilities looking for a place to be safe and yet independent, but we also have the sandwich generation of people who are trying to take care of their aging parents as well as their adult children. She thought ADUs were a good idea, although it should be done properly. After watching the video of the June 9th committee meeting, she felt confident that all of the i’s and t’s had been dotted and crossed and that this was a good thing for the people in the Appleton community. She supported it wholly
Alderperson Firkus said he appreciated all the work that staff had put in on this and that well over a year had been put in on this resolution. [The resolution was submitted in January, 6 months agon, so I don’t know if there was work that went on behind the scenes prior to it being submitted.] They had gone over everything they could imagine—zoning codes, construction codes, etc. Staff across departments had worked tirelessly with one another working out all the details even down what the addresses for dwelling units would look like so that emergency responders would know where they needed to go if there was ever an emergency call from someone in an ADU. They really tried hard to be as expansive and detailed as possible. He asked for his colleagues’ support knowing that going forward there may be some opportunities to tweak things a little, but this was a good starting point. He said they were starting with an idea that had taken some of the best of what has been done in other communities both inside and outside of Wisconsin. This was a market solution to housing affordability that would not require building large and new tracks of development and would not require the city to expand and stretch out its service areas or build more infrastructure that they would have to find ways to fund maintenance for.
Alderperson Hartzheim echoed Alderpersons Alfheim and Firkus. She thought staff had done a great job putting everything together and looking at all of the options. She personally went to the City Plan Commission meeting with a lot of questions, particularly regarding the use of ADUs and Airbnbs and how to make sure that Appleton didn’t become the Airbnb capital of the world because we’ve allowed ADUs. At that meeting she learned that there are state requirements for anyone to use even their own personal home as an Airbnb so there are a lot of other restrictions that go far beyond what Appleton really needed to concern itself with. She would like residents who were concerned about this resulting in an Airbnb problem to know that there are a lot of rules and restrictions that must be followed to become an Airbnb so she didn’t see this legislation as a potential problem in that regard. She encouraged the Council to vote for this.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) asked to call the question.
There was one person still in the queue waiting to speak, but the Council members voted to call the question although there was at least one person who opposed that.
The approved item 21-0059 “Resolution #1-R-21 Accessory Dwelling Units” 13-1 with Alderperson Martin being the nay vote.
They then moved on to the associated item 21-0768 which was the “Request to approve proposed text amendments to Chapter 23 Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code to create Article III., Sec. 23-55 Accessory Dwelling Units (Attached and Detached) and Sec. 23-56 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) and amend Sec. 23-43 Accessory uses, building and structures, Sec. 23-92 R-1A Single-Family District, Sec. 23-93 R-1B Single-Family District, Sec. 23-94 R-1C Central City Residential District, Sec. 23-95 R-2 Two-Family District, and Sec. 23-96 R-3 Multifamily District”.
Given that extensive discussion had already occurred for the previous item, the discussion for this item was very brief.
Alderperson Meltzer (District 2) made a statement encouraging everyone to support this and said that Appleton has a problem with deteriorating housing stock and people moving out of our city. Allowing ADUs would provide opportunities to Appleton residents to do things with their property that would enable or inspire them to keep and improve their houses, and it would address the issue neighborhoods were facing of people moving out of them.
There was no further discussion and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code were approved 13-1 with Alderperson Martin being the one no vote.
View full Common Council meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=867240&GUID=24258141-DBC7-4247-935C-A5411B4C9045&Options=info|&Search=
One thought on “Common Council Approves Resolution And Code Changes Allowing For The Construction Of Accessory Dwelling Units In Appleton”