City Plan Commission Approves Land Use Change And Rezoning Request For Apostolic Truth Church – Two Commissioners And One Non-Member Alderperson Express Opposition

The City Plan Commission met 05/11/2022 and took up the rezoning request regarding property owned by the Apostolic Truth Church.

The church had owned this undeveloped property on the north side of Appleton slightly north of the Youth Sports Complex for 29 years and was now planning to construct a church building on it. In order to do so, they needed the land to be rezoned from a mixture of single and multi-family residential to a unified Public Institutional zoning.

Commission members Andrew Dane and Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) both voted against the rezoning citing concerns that it would reduce the land available for housing. Although not commission member, Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) was in attendance and also expressed opposition to the rezoning.

The commission did end up recommending that the rezoning be approved. Mayor Woodford, who is a commission member, specifically cited as reason for his positive vote the value that institutions and organizations such as churches bring to the community as well as the fact even if the rezoning was not approved, the city could not compel the construction of housing.

[Given that two alderpersons expressed opposition to this rezoning, it would not surprise me if this item ends up being separated out for individual discussion and vote at the Common Council meeting on 05/18/2022.]

Now for the detailed recap…

There were several related items on the agenda, the rezoning request, a connected request to amend the city’s Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030 Future Land Use Map to reflect the change in zoning, and two public hearings, one for each of the items.

City of Appleton Principal Planner Jessica Titel presented on both of the items. She explained to the commission that this was a vacant, undeveloped property. She noted that the city’s Future Land Use Map does not identify specific locations for future Public Institutional land use but there are criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan for reviewing the request. Those are made based upon an application from a property owner to make that change. Staff reviewed those guidelines and also the requirements for a rezoning request and was recommending approval of the future land use change and rezoning.

One neighborhood resident did not appear in person but took the time to send an email expressing her support for the rezoning request and for the church’s project.

There were also a number of members of the public in attendance and a couple who opted to speak when Mayor Woodford opened up the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Jim lived across the street from the property being discussed. He was concerned that changing the part that was zoned as one and two family residential was too far of a step, and he wanted more information. He wanted to know what the general purpose of converting the land to Public Institutional was.

Ms. Titel explained that the applicant was proposing to construct a future church on the site and they needed the zoning to be consistent with a place of worship. When a property was rezoned, state statute required a municipality’s comprehensive plan be consistent with the rezoning which explained why they were updating both things.

She reiterated that the city does not make plans for future Public Institutional uses because it is hard to know where those public institutions will be located, so they take them on a case-by-case basis as they were doing that day.

Jim wanted to know why they were converting the section that was zoned for one- and two-family homes. The church had provided information about their plans to neighboring residents and that indicated their footprint would only be on the side currently zoned as multi-family residential. Why were they converting the entire lot to Public Institutional?

Ms. Titel responded that the whole thing was going to be Public Institutional because they couldn’t have two zoning classifications on one lot. They wanted the entire property rezoned and the future land use changed which would then allow them to use that property in the future as they chose.

Jim wondered what the plan was for the portion that was not going to be developed right now, but that was a question for the church and not the commission.

The next member of the public to speak was Liz. She also lived adjacent to the property in question. She didn’t have a lot of information about what the project was, so she wanted to get some information about that. Were they going to just build a church or were they going to resell the land without building on it? It seemed like a big decision to move it from single-family to Public Institutional use without knowing what was going to happen and how it would impact the people in the area. She said there were a lot of rumors swirly around the neighborhood and people were wondering if they were going to sell the land to the city to build a school.

Community and Economic Development Director Karen Harkness said that the information that had been submitted to the city at this point was that the church had owned the property for 29 years and it has been their intention to build a church there. The city had not had any other inquiries from the Appleton Area School District and the city had not had any other discussions in recent times regarding any other developments occurring on the site. As far as the city was aware, the land would be used for a church.

Liz asked if it would be possible to get more information from the church regarding their intentions which could allay some of the concerns of the neighbors. She noted that there was an ongoing conversation regarding addressing the already existing traffic issues caused by the nearby location of North High School. French is a busy road and sometimes it gets backed up all the way from Northland Avenue to Evergreen Dr, and she had heard accidents happen near her house. She was worried about an increase in traffic caused by the church.

Pastor Aaron Soto of the Apostolic Truth Church was present. They would have a 10AM service and then a midweek service on Wednesday evening. He didn’t think their schedules would conflict with the heavy traffic schedules in the area. They would love to talk to their neighbors more about their plans for the property and would be happy to answer any questions they had.

Mayor Woodford asked if he could speak at a high level as to the plans of the church in terms of building on the site and what their general plan was.

Pastor Soto said building projects were questionable in this current economic climate, but they were looking to build an approximately 53,000 square foot facility. They intended to include a 1,000 square foot community room that they wanted to make available to their immediate neighbors for birthday parties and neighborhood meetings. They had planned an 850-seat capacity sanctuary, an atrium, an administrative wing, a student ministry wing, and 350 parking spaces.

Liz asked if they intended to have a school at the church as well or would it just be a church. I don’t know what his answer was because their conversation happened off microphone. It sounded like the church representatives were talking to the neighbors and answering their questions and that parking and traffic flow may have been brought up, but it all happened off microphone.

Mayor Woodford brought things back to staff. 

Ms. Titel said that the city owned a strip of land between the church’s property and French Road, which served as a drainage area, so parking lot access could not come off of French Road.

Mayor Woodford said that while this information was important and good to share to keep the public informed, the Plan Commission was not conducting a site plan review and that was not part of their discussion.

No other members of the public wanted to speak, so Mayor Woodford closed the public hearings, and the commission moved on to discussing the two items, taking up the future land use amendment first.

Alderperson Wolff who was not a member of the commission but was in attendance asked if the commission was approving construction on the property shouldn’t they need to rezone that first? He was confused by rezoning.

Mayor Woodford answered that the plan commission was not reviewing a construction or site plan at that time. They were taking up the Comprehensive Plan amendment which would update the Future Land Use map. The next piece they would take up was the rezoning request to permit the proposed future use of the property.

Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was not a member of the Plan Commission but was the alderperson for the district in which the property was location. She asked if they could explain why a single lot was shown on the Future Land Use map as having two different types of future land use. [That’s a question I had had too.]

Ms. Titel answered that that was just the way it had been in the Comprehensive Plan. There had been no reason to change it, and if a developer had wanted to come in and split the property, they could have done that and built half multi-family and half one- and two-family residential properties.

Alderperson Hartzheim appreciated the answer and mentioned that she thought that current designation may have been the reason for the first question during the public hearing. She thought it had been fairly well-answered although she still found it kind of confusing. [I also find it confusing. It doesn’t seem to make much sense as to why the city would designate half of a single lot to one use and half of it to another use.]

Mayor Woodford said the action the Plan Commission was considering would reconcile that issue by making the entire parcel a single designated use.

Commissioner Dane said that the city had around 800 acres available for multi-family growth in the future. The parcel they were considering was 15 acres which he thought was significant size for a parcel. He was concerned about balancing the growth of the city. He believed that the reason why that parcel was shown as being designated for residential single family and multi family homes was because there was a desire to add new residents into the city and accommodate future growth. Appleton was very land-locked, so whenever they were looking at converting existing future land uses currently shown as residential out of residential, they needed to make sure that they were doing it as wisely as possible because decreasing the amount of land available for housing was going to drive up the cost to build housing in the rest of the city.

[I think he made a huge assumption as to why the land had been designated as intended for single and multi-family. It was already established at the very beginning of the meeting that the city doesn’t include Public Institutional designations on the Future Land Use map. If it did, this land seems like an obvious contender for that designation given that it was owned by a church prior to when the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan was put together. Rather than assuming that the parcel was designated residential because the city desired to add new residents, one could just as easily assume that the parcel was designated residential simply as a placeholder because it couldn’t be designated Public Institutional.]

There was some sort of line/topographical feature that cut through the parcel from north to south. Commissioner Dane asked staff if there had been any considering given to changing the Future Land Use map so that the area of land on the east side of that line was changed to Public Institutional and the area on the west maintained its residential future land use designation.

Ms. Titel responded the request the city received from the applicant was for the entire parcel since they own the entire parcel. The city takes the applications as they receive them.

Commissioner Dane said, “With Future Land Use maps you don’t have to respect boundary lines. Part of the reason—I mean, you’re growing the city. You’ve got huge areas you’re trying to accommodate into a smart-growth framework, so having higher density residential along an arterial like French Street makes some sense from a land use standpoint. I guess I would argue that with such a large parcel, given it’s highly likely this development that they’re planning is gonna be contained on the east side of that drainage area, that I think perhaps I would be in favor of the applicant considering a future land use amendment that would retain the residential on the west side of the riparian area with the proposed public institutional on the east side.”

[I was confused by Commissioner Dane’s reasoning. He talked about the need for higher density residential, but the area on the Future Land Use map currently designated as multi-family residential was the east side which is the same side he expressed a willingness to have changed to Public Institutional.

I also don’t know why he assumed “it’s highly likely this development that they’re planning is gonna be contained on the east side of that drainage area.” No site plans had been submitted or were under consideration by the Plan Commission, and it was already established that the church can’t access the property from French Road given that the city owns a strip of land along that eastern edge. The church was going to need access to the street and a parking lot someplace on the property. I don’t understand why he assumed that parking lot and access wouldn’t happen toward the western portion of the property.]

Alderperson Fenton said she did the same research Commissioner Dane had done and looked at the very large parcel they were considering and compared it to the single and multi-family areas to the south. “And I understand that this property has been in the hands of the applicant, but given that we only have about 5.5% of our undeveloped land allocated or zoned for multi-family in the future, I can’t in good conscience support this when I am hearing every day from people in the community about the housing shortage.”

Alderperson Wolf said, “I would have to agree with my colleague Denise Fenton. As I have talked to people in the community, the housing has been one of the most important issues, and considering how little we have in the city for housing I would have to ask you not to support this as well. Just to represent my constituents as they’ve asked me to.”

[District 12 is all the way on the opposite side of the city. I’m curious how many District 12 constituents expressed opposition to this zoning change and future land use map amendment request for an undeveloped lot in District 13.]

A commission member wanted to clarify if there was a timeline set for building the church.

A church representative named Sam Al-Saadi responded. He was the new campus coordinator leading the project. Their projected timeline was spring to summer (possible fall) of 2023. A lot of that depended on the variables of construction cost and the economy.

He went on to say, “We would not be able to build if we couldn’t use the entire property—both sides of that ravine. Just to answer that question.” He said that future projections would place the parking on the other side of the ravine so that they could expand their building. What they were currently planning to build was just phase one. [Boom! Even I, a random person on the internet with no city planning experience, could listen to the discussion and look at the site layout and determine it was likely that parking would be on the west side of the property.]

Mr. Al-Saadi finished up by saying, “15 acres for a church is not a large parcel—even though it’s a large parcel, you know, in the city and in that area. It’s not a large parcel for a church. A lot of churches have 20, 30, 40 acres. So, we would need the entire property, and we have planned for future development on that entire property. So, if you split it and keep the designation one way, we would not be able to move forward at all.”

A commissioner asked what would happen if they approved the rezoning and Future Land Use map amendment but the project didn’t move forward and the current site owners sold the property.

Ms. Titel responded that if the requested changes were approved then that would be the zoning and designation for the parcel. If someone wanted to do something different with it in the future they would have to go through the same rezoning and Future Land Use map amendment process they were currently going through.

Commissioner Sabrina Robins confirm that the property was currently empty and they were not getting rid of existing housing and that the church owned all of the property and had done so for 29 years.

Mayor Woodford said, “I’ll just say, I’m gonna vote in favor of this, and the reason is that I think we have to take care in balancing the needs of the community and also the projects that institutions and organizations in the community want to take on as they make investments in the community.

“I also think we have to recognize that if we don’t approve this action, we as a city are not—we cannot compel the construction of housing. So even if the Plan Commission were to deny this, it would not guarantee that housing would be built there. It would not guarantee the lot sizes.

“So, while the land certainly has capacity for additional housing and while it is absolutely true that as time goes on, our available space for additional single-family homes in the city, and even multi-family housing, will become more constrained, I think we have to take into consideration the investments that institutions do make in our neighborhoods. And we as a city have a development pattern of organizations and institutions like churches and schools in neighborhoods that become important contributing members of those neighborhoods and important parts of the lives of those neighborhoods. So, I think we have to take that into consideration as a plan commission and as a city as we manage the orderly growth and development of our community. So, I’ll be voting in favor of this.”

Commissioner Robins said she would also vote in favor of it. “I think churches make a good investment and is part—a valued part of a community as well.” Additionally, although she was a supporter of affordable housing, to her knowledge from having lived in Appleton for 25 years, the area in question was not where low income or moderate-income families lived. The people who needed affordable housing typically wouldn’t be in that area. She thought it would be of great value to have a church in that space. Additionally, the church owned the property and they wouldn’t be tearing down homes to build the church.

Commission Dane said, “I will probably be voting against this, but I agree with the mayor’s points that great neighborhoods have institutions like churches at the heart of them, and I could see how this could fit into this neighborhood and be a vibrant part of the neighborhood.

“I also think this is a very large church that’s probably serving a much broader area than just this neighborhood, and we have to make tough choices and balance competing needs. The vision for this parcel of land as identified—and the pretty very robust visioning process with the city not too many years ago—was for a mix of housing including multi family. And I guess I would take a contrarian take on the housing demographics out there. I would love to see less income segregation in this city, and I’d love to see us frankly start putting affordable housing in all of our neighborhoods and not just concentrated into a handful. So, I could probably be persuaded to coming around on this in the future. I certainly would be much more enthusiastic about it if the development could be contained on a portion of the site but I think just in balancing out all these competing factors for me the housing piece just rises to the top.”

[Honestly, it seems like a terrible location for low-income housing. It’s a 2.5 mile walk to the nearest grocery store and a mile and a half to Kwik Trip. There are also no nearby bus stops.]

Alderperson Wolff wanted to say something but Mayor Woodford wanted to keep the discussion among commission members although he did remind him that the Council would be taking this up at its next meeting regardless of what action the commission took.

None of the commission members had any further questions or comments and they voted 5-2 to approve the Future Land Use map amendment and 5-2 to approve the rezoning request with Commissioner Dane and Alderperson Fenton casting the 2 dissenting votes.

[It seems like a reasonable location for a church. The whole idea that the city couldn’t designate the property (which was owned by the church prior to the creation of the map) as Public Institutional on the Future Land Use map so instead designated it as residential but then commissioners opposed changing it to Public Institutional because it was designated residential seems at least a little Kafkaesque.

I also find it very hard to look at the city’s Future Land Use map and come away feeling that housing will be measurably impacted by a church being built on this one 15-acre, undeveloped lot.

Additionally, I’m curious where the commissioners who voted against this believe that churches should be allowed to develop land if they’re not allowed to build on land zoned as residential. It looks like the largest most expansive portion of the city is zoned residential with little pockets of other types of zoning within that. Should churches be blocked from building in a majority of the city?]

View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=958948&GUID=DB9D5D66-9D26-451B-A294-DB41EE111309