Common Council Votes 12-3 To Approve Rezoning Of Land Next To Clearwater Creek, 11-4 To Approve Addition To The Subdivision

The Common Council met 09/20/2023. Two of the items they took up and separated out for individual votes were a request to rezone property located along the Clearwater Creek subdivision from agricultural to residential and then a request to add that land to the Clearwater Creek development as the fourth addition.

These proposals generated a lot of opposition from the existing Clearwater Creek residents which they raised in detail during the 09/06/2023 Common Council meeting and the 09/13/2023 City Plan Commission meeting. Their main points of concern were…

• Access to the subdivision and traffic congestion because there was only one entrance/exit. They were particularly concerned about traffic congestion in the mornings as people left for work and school and the impact on emergency vehicle response times.
• The way a secondary emergency vehicle access road had been blocked off.
• The lack of a neighborhood park.
• The impact that building new construction on wetlands would have on water runoff for the rest of the subdivision.
• The general impact to the environment resulting from additional construction.

During the meeting on 09/20/2023, the Common Council listened to around 50 minutes of public comments, almost all of which pertained to the Clearwater Creek items. I do not want to give those comments short shrift so I will be devoting a separate post to the public feedback which was given. This current post, however, will focus only on the Council discussion and vote that took place after public comments were closed.

The Council did end up voting 11 to 4 to approve the two items. Legal concerns and the need for affordable housing were each expressed as reasons for voting in favor of the rezoning and the addition to the subdivision.

I’ve prepared a transcript of that Council discussion for download.

Alderperson Patrick Hayden, who represents District 7 where the Clearwater Creek subdivision is located, started off the discussion by thanking the residents for their feedback. He felt that progress was being made to find solutions to some of the problems they had brought forward.

He pointed to state legislation (Assembly Bill 463 and Senate Bill 368) as having weakened the ability of the DNR to regulate construction on wetlands. “When the state passed these bills, wetlands were no longer viewed plot by plot and were looked at holistically as a project. This allows plots like you see on the map, where nearly a third of some of the plots are wetlands. These bills also instruct the DNR not only to take into account the environmental impact but also the economic impact of the development. The current standards the DNR do not adequately protect wetlands, and looking at the attachment you can see this development impacts wetlands without a question.”

He also said that despite being one of the fastest growing districts in the city, District 7 only had one park, which was particularly evident in this specific neighborhood where the closest park was almost 2 miles away. He did not think it was unreasonable for the people in that neighborhood “to be looking for equitable access to green spaces and parks.”

He also shared the residents’ concerns regarding the amount of traffic congestion caused by having almost 170 households in a neighborhood that was accessible only through a single outlet to JJ. He opposed adding additional land to the development saying, “Until the city puts together a plan that adequately protects the wetlands in the area, provides equitable access to green spaces and parks, and increases the safety by providing more outlets for residents, I believe the risk to the residents outweigh the benefits to the city.”

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) explained that his district had a lot of apartment complexes and a lot of renters, “And one thing that they have pushed me on over and over and over again, is housing availability in the city because they want to be homeowners.” For that reason, he was going to vote in favor of the two items.

Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) pointed out that approving the rezoning or the new development would not prevent the ability to create a second entryway or build a park in the future. Additionally, the southern boundary of the wetlands in question already had development along them that did not disturb the wetlands. In fact, the images that had been shared of the area indicated the wetland had been able to thrive while also having houses long its edge. “I believe that we can move forward with this. And I think we do have to take into consideration when we have conversations like this, that there is a broader audience watching and it does affect what happens going forward.”

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) noted that there were requirements laid out in Appleton’s municipal code regarding when rezonings could occur. Per Section 23-65(d)(3) of the Municipal Code, “all recommendations for Official Zoning Map amendments shall be consistent with the adopted plans, goals, and policies of the City and with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.” The rezoning request did conform to the with the city’s Comprehensive Plan which identified this area for future one and two family residential land uses. She also reminded the Council, “the decision to rezone is based upon the proposed land use as single family residential, not the development details.” She believed there were other avenues available to address the lack of a park and the safety concern, outside of denying the rezoning request.

Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) was concerned about the environmental impact of granting the rezoning request. “As stated by community members, half of the proposed lots are well within delineated wetland boundaries. From an ecological perspective wetlands, regardless of their quality, perform key ecosystem services. Key amongst them are the protection and preservation of biodiversity, stormwater management, and carbon sequestration. Loss of habitat has the potential to be home—has the potential to be home to vulnerable and threatened vegetation, and animal biodiversity is irreversible, irreversible in this case. Once the wetland is developed, we as a community lose the benefits of biodiversity conservation, period.”

He said that the Future Land Use Plan Map that designated that area as residential was created in 2007 whereas the report from the Task Force On Resiliency, Climate Mitigation, and Adaptation was passed in 2020 and “clearly outlines the city must find ways—new ways—to offset the area’s carbon footprint and create new carbon sinks. Wetland habitats are a key part of that solution.” He finished up by saying, “Why ignore the most recent recommendations to the city and instead support the outdated historical plan to re-zone this neighborhood? Let’s use this tool in our toolkit to protect our habitats and send a message that Appleton listens to its constituents and will adamantly protect our natural resources.”

Alderperson Van Zeeland reminded the Council that the Comprehensive Plan was actually updated most recently in March of 2017.

Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) said that wetland regulations had been changed at the state level. She understood why residents didn’t like it, but these laws needed to be addressed in Madison. Meanwhile, Appleton needed to follow the rules that it was given, “and our rules say that we are legally allowed to and technically bound to allow something that has gone through the proper process to proceed. “

The Council voted 12-3 to approve the rezoning request with Alderpersons Del Toro, Hayden, and Alex Schultz (District 9) voting against it.

They Council then voted 11-4 to approve the addition of the new land to the Clearwater Creek subdivision with Alderpersons Vered Meltzer (District 2), Del Toro, Hayden, and Schultz voting nay.

After the items were approved, Mayor Woodford specifically addressed the concerns about the way the secondary emergency access road into the subdivision had been inappropriately blocked. The concrete blocks in the road had been removed, and earlier in the discussion Fire Chief Jeremy Hansen had assured the public that the fire department could get through. Mayor Woodford took a moment to say, “I would just like to make a clearer statement about the secondary access. We will ensure routine inspection of that secondary access, and we will maintain a Knox box on that access as was noted at the previous meeting. So, we will ensure that that is done, and I will personally make inspection of it.”

[I know the Clearwater Creek homeowners are probably pretty disappointed that they are losing what has been a visually pleasing wilderness area next to their homes, but it does sound like they were able to effectively raise awareness of some of the ongoing issues they have been experiencing in the area. City staff will be looking at the traffic issues, and Alderperson Hayden said he looked forward to introducing a resolution for the city to start looking for a space in that area to acquire park land, and the city will now be routinely inspecting the secondary access road to make sure it is not incorrectly blocked off, so I would not say that their public feedback went unheard or accomplished nothing.]

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1114839&GUID=50924CCD-719A-41E8-982A-51D0EA4112F5