The Common Council met 09/20/2023 and during that meeting listened to around 50 minutes of public comment, almost all of which was related to the Clearwater Creek subdivision. The developer was wanting to rezone some adjacent land from agricultural to residential and then add that land as the fourth addition to the subdivision with the intention of building 14 new homes on it.
The existing residents were opposed to both actions, fearing that the addition of more houses would lead to even more traffic congestion than they were already experiencing in a subdivision that had only one access road. They also feared that the lack of an additional access road was a safety issue in terms of the ability of emergency services to reach the subdivision in a timely manner and for residents to exit the neighborhood if the main access point got blocked for some reason.
As previously posted, the Common Council went on to approve both of the items, though not unanimously. The need for more housing in the area as well as the fact that the developer had met all of the requirements laid out in state statute and city code were cited as reasons for the approval. Additionally, the other concerns that the residents brought, though they were recognized as having some validity, did not seem to be tied specifically to whether or not this particular piece of land was rezoned and added to the development.
On 09/27/2023, the City Plan Commission will be voting on the final plat for the fourth addition to the Clearwater Creek subdivision. So, ahead of that meeting, I wanted to recap the public feedback that was given regarding the addition to Clearwater Creek at the 09/20/2023 Common Council meeting.
I have prepared a transcript of the public comments for download.
Those opposed to the rezoning and addition to the subdivision focused mainly on the safety issues related to having only one entrance/exit to the subdivision, concerns regarding building close to wetlands, and the lack of a nearby park.
ACCESS ISSUES
- Residents had been told by the developer as far back as 2005-2007 that there would be a second exit and had even had a neighborhood meeting with then Mayor Time Hanna about it, but development of that second exit was not even in the city’s five-year plan.
- The subdivision already had approximately 150 and it was not uncommon for cars to line up at the beginning of the day at the one access point to JJ. Turning left onto JJ during peak traffic hours was challenging for even experienced drivers, much less the highschoolers who were new drivers.
- The secondary emergency access road had been inappropriately blocked off, but the city staff had recently removed the concrete blocks and reported that it was now blocked by a chain with a Knox lock and accessible to emergency services. The residents questioned whether this was actually the case and whether the road was truly accessible to emergency vehicles.
WETLAND ISSUES
- Residents wondered if all of the local, state, and federal rules regarding wetlands had been followed.
- Would the houses built near wetlands experience flooding issues?
- There was general concern over how being so close to wetlands would effect the houses that were planned for the new addition.
PARK ISSUES
- There were no neighborhood parks in easy walking distance even though the city’s comprehensive outdoor recreation plan had identified a need for a park in this area.
- Rather than securing land and dedicating it to a future park, the city had been collecting a fee-in-lieu-of parkland from the developer.
- The total area being rezoned and added was only 7.162 acres. One of the speakers asked that it be left as greenspace.
- One speaker pointed to a quote from Mayor Woodford in a Post Crescent article in which he said, “We have to think about the investment in trails and parks as generational investments in our community. When we’re engaging in new development, we have to be especially cognizant of that because it’s much more difficult, if not impossible, to go back later and put parks and trails into neighborhoods where we didn’t do it in the first place.”
Beyond those issues, there was concern about the response times in general by emergency services. At least one resident also questioned the value of the city’s comprehensive plan as it related to this area. The resident’s perspective was that the plan was implemented in 2007 before the conditions of the area in 2023, in terms of both access and wetlands, were known. How could the comprehensive plan from 2007 be used to support a rezoning in 2023 now that the issues in the area were known? That resident asked for the comprehensive plan to be reassessed, redefined, and reworked to reflect the current situation today.
Four speakers also spoke in favor of moving forward with the rezoning and addition to the development.
Abby Maslanka with the engineering firm that had worked on the development told the Council that the wetlands in the area had been properly delineated by someone who was certified by the Wisconsin DNR and the Army Corp of Engineers. She assured the Council, “There will be no constructions of homes in the wetlands. There’ll be no construction of utilities in the wetlands. There is no intention to disturb wetlands with this proposed development.”
She said that all water draining directly into the wetlands would be clear water. Any gray water would be directed toward the city’s existing stormwater pond where it would receive wetland quality control before being released into the wetlands.
She reminded the Council that the item under consideration was a zoning change, and this land did meet the requirements for that rezoning. Additionally, she pointed out residential land had more restrictive wetland conservation requirements than agricultural land did.
Jennifer Sunstrom, the Director of Public Relations and Government Affairs for the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, spoke in favor of moving forward with the development. She said that normally she would not be involved in hearings for individual projects, “However, the extent of the current housing crisis has led our association to realize the need that we need to do all we can to help our developers and advocate for more housing in our communities.”
She stressed that there was an unprecedented lack of available homes across the board in the area due to a significant under production of lots and homes over the last 10 years, and currently housing was being built at only 1/4th of the rate it needed to in order to get up to a healthy level.
She told the Council, “At a time when development carries significant risk with limited return, developers are watching what happens here very carefully. Is the process straightforward, predictable, efficient, or even somewhat fair?”
She finished up by saying, “There really is only one question at hand: does the proposed project fit the comprehensive plan and future land use map? This is what this document is created for. It creates a process and it outlines for everyone in the community to know what is coming. If it fits the plan and local ordinances have been met, the project should be approved.”
Jill Hendricks, representing the Clearwater Creek Development, said that they had paid $45,600 in park fees thus far. “So, we have done our due diligence when it comes to planning for future parks for the city to add that. We have completed all of our requirements including wetland preservation, permitting with the DNR, stormwater management, along with all the regulations the city requires for us to move forward with the development. Regardless of what the city’s obligations are to the homeowners within the subdivision, we as the developers have provided exactly what was expected of us.”
She also said that there have been clients looking at purchasing homes in this area for almost a year, and she had a couple recently pull away because they had heard that existing residents didn’t want additional houses built there.
Finally, Tom Rooney of Mark Winter Homes, a builder who had built many homes in the neighborhood told the Council, “We are a very heavily regulated industry. We have rules at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. I can assure you all of those items have been taken care of for this division—or for the subdivision.”
He pointed out that many of the concerns brought by the residents had nothing to do with the zoning of the land. He believed that many of those items could be taken care of easily or were on the long-term plan to be dealt with.
He finished by saying, “We are in dire need of housing. We are in dire need of lots. The process is long, not only for the development, but also for the construction of homes. It just takes a lot longer now. We’re asking for your help. And I’m asking you to pass this.”
Scott, a Clearwater Creek resident, closed out the public comments by reiterating that the issue was the fact that there was only one access point for a neighborhood of that size. It was difficult to get in and out of the neighborhood and was a safety issue. He asked the Council to think about if it was their family member who lived in this neighborhood and could not be reached quickly by emergency vehicles because of the one access point. “If this isn’t if this is something that you guys can live with it; this is your family member, and there’s something dire and you can’t get in and out of there to get them to emergency services to save their life, please don’t vote for this.”
[I appreciate the effort the residents put into making their case, and although they were not successful in blocking the new development they did effectively raise awareness to some of their ongoing issues. As was indicated at the Council meeting, city staff will be looking at the traffic issues, 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.
I can understand their frustration regarding the single access point and the traffic congestion, particularly if they had been told when they purchased their homes that a second access point was going to be installed. But, at the same time, unless you get that in a contract then it’s not a legally binding requirement.
It also seemed to me that some of the concerns raised about building houses next to wetland did not actually pertain to them. They were considerations that were relevant to potential purchasers of those lots, but not to existing homeowners whose lots did not contain wetland.
I also think that it was probably better for the homeowners that the rezoning to residential was approved, because there are many completely legal things that can be done with agricultural land that might not be pleasant to have happening right next door to a home. And if I were a developer who had gone through all the legal hoops of getting the land rezoned and added to the subdivision only to have the city vote it down because the neighbors, who do not own the land, opposed its development, I would be pretty angry and would seriously investigate the feasibility of constructing a pig farm on that land or putting the property to some other off-putting agricultural use.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1114839&GUID=50924CCD-719A-41E8-982A-51D0EA4112F5
One thought on “Recap Of Public Comments At 09/20/2023 Common Council Meeting Regarding Clearwater Creek Development”