City Plan Commission Approves Clearwater Creek Rezoning And Preliminary Plat – Neighbors Express Concerns With New Development

The City Plan Commission met 08/09/2023. The meeting was almost a hour long and most of it was taken up with the items related to the Clearwater Creek rezoning request and plat addition. The area in question is located on the north side of town in District 7 near E Spartan Drive and N Haymeadow Avenue.

The developer wanted to rezone the area from an AG Agricultural District to an R-1B Single-Family District and then establish a preliminary plat dividing the land into 14 single-family lots and 2 out-lots.

The commission ended up voting unanimously to approve the rezoning and the preliminary plat, but only after several neighboring property owners expressed varying levels of concern about the new development. One man in particular did not speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting but then tried to speak and ask questions later in the meeting and became argumentative when he was told the public hearing portion of the meeting was over and he needed to stop interrupting.

I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download.

Five current property owners in the adjacent neighborhood spoke at the public hearing, while several others attended but did not speak. The people who spoke raised several concerns.

• They had not expected that land to be developed, or at least, had not expected it to be as developed as shown in the plans. One of the speakers had even asked about future development plans when she and her husband were considering purchasing in the neighborhood and had been told that the area was going to be a nature reserve.
• There were already perceived access issues to and from the existing subdivision because there was only one entrance/exit. They wanted to know how further development would impact traffic congestion and when the city would be extending Spartan Drive to connect to Richmond and Mead Street.
• They were concerned about water issues and the proximity of the new development to a water retention pond.
• They were concerned that the new homes would be smaller than the existing homes and would drive down property values in the area.
• They wanted to know when construction would begin.
• The nearest park was 1-2 miles away, and now the more natural elements in the neighborhood were being removed in order to make room for this new development. They wanted to know if and when a park would be built in their neighborhood.
• Some residents did not receive official notices from the city about the project because they were outside the notification area, and they wished that they would have been notified.

Principal Planner Jessical Title, Deputy Director Pete Neuberger (who was also a commission member), and Community and Economic Development Director Kara Homan answered multiple questions that were raised during the meeting.

The rezoning was consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan which had designated that area as one- and two-family residential since at least 1996.

The project was expected to begin later this year, but the timing was up to the developer.

The extensions of Spartan Drive to Richmond Street and Mead Street were planned and officially mapped and recorded, but the project was not currently in the city’s 5 year Capital Improvement Plan, and any movement forward would generally be driven by the development of the neighborhood as well as the city’s budget. There was, however a gravel access road connecting W Spartan Drive to Highway 47/Richmond which could not be used by the public but was in place to provide additional access to emergency service vehicles.

Extending Spartan Drive westward so that it connected to Richmond/Highway 47 was dependent on meeting state requirements because Highway 47 was controlled by the state. State permits would be required and the city would have to meet the Department of Transportation’s requirements for any public intersection that would be built there. There were no plans to move forward with that in the next 5 years.

In terms of having a park in the area, the city’s comprehensive outdoor recreation plan does indicate that a park is needed in this general area; however, the city has not acquired land or officially mapped the final location of that park. The city’s subdivision code had a “fee in leu of parkland” dedication option through which the city could generate money that could be used to purchase land for a park. Per Director Homan, “Because any purchase would require negotiations, places we may or may not be looking is not something that we can disclose in a public forum as it could harm future negotiations.”

Regarding the questions about water and wetlands in the area, the preliminary plan did show the location of wetlands, but there wasn’t really any discussion about what that meant or how it would potentially impact development.

The size of the houses for the new lots was not known and was not something that the city had much control over outside of the very basic requirements laid out in city code; however, the lot sizes in the new addition were on average 15,290 square feet in size whereas the average size of the lots already in existence to the north was slightly smaller than that at 14,250 square feet.

Commissioner Sabrina Robins asked about the notification guidelines for the public hearing and was told that the city sends out notices to any property within 100 feet of an affected area. The people who had not received notices were outside of that distance. She wondered if there was a way to expand that notification area in this case, but Assistant City Attorney Darrin Glad stopped that line of questioning because he believed it was too far off topic.

One member of the public attended the meeting, declined to speak during the public hearing, but then tried to ask questions and make comments after the public hearing had been closed. His words were not picked up well by the microphones in the room, but it sounded like he became fairly argumentative with Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) who was chairing the meeting. It sounded like he was not happy with the proposed development.

In spite of the apparent opposition or dissatisfaction with the project by various members of the public, the rezoning request was in line with city guidelines, and, again, the area had been designated as residential on the city’s Comprehensive Plan for nearly 3 decades. The preliminary plat was also consistent with the city’s subdivision and zoning code standards.

As a result, the commission ended up approving both the rezoning request and the preliminary plat. The item will come before the full Common Council for another public hearing as well as final vote, next month, on 09/06/2023.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1107152&GUID=5CABC566-7D62-4182-B091-FECEF8E2E285