The Common Council met 04/17/2024. One of the items separated out for an individual vote was the request to rezone a parcel of land near the Midway/Plank Road roundabout from R1-A Single Family District to R-3 Multi-Family District. This rezoning was also the subject of a public hearing also head during the Common Council meeting.
Three people spoke during the public hearing. A representative of the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin and a representative of the Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce both expressed support for the rezoning and believed that multi-unit development in that area would increase workforce housing availability in the Fox Cities.
A representative of the single-family neighborhood directly abutting this parcel spoke against the rezoning. Speaking on behalf of herself and other people associated with the neighborhood, she expressed frustration at the lack of transparency from the city, particularly in reference to the fact that the parcel in question had been zoned single-family for many years and she had periodically called and checked in with the city regarding that status and had never been told that the city’s Comprehensive Plan had it designated for multi-family use regardless of the single-family zoning.
She was also frustrated with the way the City Plan Commission meeting had gone, during which the rezoning had initially been approved because the approval seemed to have been a foregone conclusion.
She also did not understand what the development planned for this parcel had to do with workforce housing, because the neighbors had been told that the development was intended to be condominium retirement homes.
The Council ended up voting 13-0 to approve the rezoning request with Alderperson Patti Heffernan (District 8) abstaining.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Jennifer Sunstrom of the Realtors Association and Northeast Wisconsin and Eric Broten the Vice President of Business Growth and Development for the Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce both stressed that this project was important in improving workforce housing options within the city. Mr. Broten said that there was an employer in the area who had an expansion project in the works that would result in 60-80 new jobs but was holding back due to their concern that they were not going to be able to find enough workers here. “So even though this is a relatively small project in the grand scheme, every little bit helps, and if we don’t start saying yes to things like this, we’re gonna continue to lose out to the regions and cities that will like Sheboygan County where they’re in favor of doing these kinds of projects. So, again, we are in support of this rezoning to multifamily, and we hope you guys will consider that.”
[I didn’t really understand the inference that Appleton has not been approving multi-family projects, because, from what I can see, the city is quite gung-ho on multi-family projects and approves them whenever they come up for a vote.]
Carol, a representative of the single-family neighborhood directly next to this parcel, expressed a desire for greater transparency from the City of Appleton regarding these sorts of things. If I had to boil her words down to their essence, I would say it seemed like she felt that the city should do more to educate residents on how these various processes like rezoning work and provide access to the various maps and guidelines the city uses to make determinations on rezoning requests. [Hopefully, the city’s planned website redesign will help make these things more accessible, because these things are actually already on the city’s website but not necessarily super easy to find. I would also assume that some of this information would be provided during the Citizens Academy program that the city runs.]
She was also frustrated that for years she had been calling the city to check in on the status of that parcel and what kind of development was planned for it and had been reassured repeatedly that it was zoned for single-family. Other people also had called and been told it was zoned single-family. [I can appreciate their frustration in this regard. City staff could have provided a little more education on the matter when they fielded these calls. It wouldn’t have been that hard to give these residents a heads up that zoning was only part of the picture and they needed to also check the parcel’s designation on the city’s Comprehensive Plan. I remember my own experience as a newer homeowner finding out that my street was on the 5-year Capital Projects plan and then talking to a staff member and finding out that I might end up having to pay $6,000 in special assessments. My first reaction was to mention that I probably ought to warn the other people on my street, which the staff member immediately tried to advise me against. My impression was that staff member just didn’t want to deal with a bunch of residents worried about special assessments. Based on my experience, I could definitely see other staff members also not being overly helpful or volunteering information to residents that they think might result in a stir. At any rate…]
The Council did not discuss the matter at length, though they did review the pertinent aspects of the rezoning.
As a matter of general education, Community and Economic Development Director Kara Homan reviewed the rezoning process. She noted that when this parcel was first annexed into the city it had, by default, been given the R1-A single family zoning designation. Now the city’s practice was to zone annexed properties as agricultural until a rezoning request was made.
The city has the ability to rezone parcels without receiving a request, but it is not the city’s practice to rezone in that manner.
When a rezoning request is made, state law requires it to be judged against the city’s Comprehensive Plan for consistency. In this case, the future land use map within the Comprehensive Plan had designated the area for multi-family use and, therefore, supported the rezoning request.
Director Homan was asked about the planned use for the parcel in light of two people claiming the development would improve workforce housing and one person claiming she had been told it would be for a retirement community.
Director Homan said that the question before the Council was whether or not the rezoning was appropriate in terms of the density and type of housing, not who was going to live there. She noted that even if there was specific development project planned, a new development proposal could emerge. She did add, “There’s a lot of seniors that live in what I would call single-family family supporting time homes that have no place to transition to. So even if it is senior housing, the ability to have seniors move from a three- or four-bedroom home to a more appropriate housing unit for their needs at that point in their life, it then opens up houses for families to move in into that might then open up homes in either rentals or smaller housing units for—to support the workforce.”
City Attorney Christopher Behrens told the Council, “When the Council is making these kinds of decisions regarding zoning, your purview is really whether or not the rezoning is appropriate. You’ve heard possible uses that could take place, but you can get yourselves into legal trouble if you make a zoning decision based upon a representation of what’s going to be built there. That’s known as contract zoning. So, you really need to focus on information provided by the staff, take that into consideration whether or not the proposed rezoning is appropriate. How that land will be used in the future will be determined through staff, a future developer proposals, input from neighbor woods. There’s a lot of other steps in place, but right now, the focus is simply on whether or not the proposed rezoning is appropriate.”
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) is the alderperson for the district in question. He was not able to attend the Council meeting that evening, but he did email Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) and asked her to say some things on his behalf. Alderperson Doran believed the Council had a legal obligation to approve the rezoning request because the project met all of the legal requirements to be rezoned. He understood and sympathized with the neighbors who wanted it to remained zoned for single-family. He also recognized their concerns related to the new development including runoff, noise, traffic, and impact on wildlife, but none of those issues were things the Plan Commission or the Council were allowed to consider when deciding the rezoning request. [I would note, those sorts of issues would be covered by the development process for the project, even if they are not allowed to be considered as part of the rezoning request.]
The Council voted 13-0 to approve the rezoning request with Alderperson Heffernan abstaining.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1182537&GUID=71714EAF-9E4D-423D-B4EF-ABB89B38216F
Be the first to reply