Fourth Addition To Clearwater Creek Subdivision Referred Back To City Plan Commission For Further Review After Neighbors Express Concerns Regarding Road Access, Water Access, Lack Of Park

The Common Council met 09/06/2023. The bulk of the meeting was taken up by the public hearing for a rezoning request related to the Clearwater Creek housing subdivision and a request to approve a fourth addition to the housing subdivision’s preliminary plat. These same items resulted in pushback from residents in the neighborhood at the City Plan Commission meeting on 08/09/2923.

In general, neighborhood residents were concerned about…

• Access to the subdivision in light of the fact that there was only one entrance/exit. This was particularly a concern due to possible impact on emergency vehicles, and the residents believed somebody had actually died because of a slow ambulance response time caused by limited access to the subdivision.
• 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.

The neighbors also presented the Council with a petition signed by 83 Clearwater Creek residents opposing the rezoning request and the Fourth Addition to the subdivision.

Alderperson Patrick Hayden, the alderperson for District 7 where the subdivision is located, requested that the item be referred back to the City Plan Commission for further review. This refer-back was objected to, but a 2/3 majority was needed to block the item from being sent back. Although 8 of the 13 present alderpersons voted against referring the item back, they needed 9. So, the item did end up being sent back to the Plan Commission for further review and another vote.

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

[I have to say, I think the residents did a really good job presenting their concerns and the reasons for opposing the rezoning and subdivision addition. In fact, I think they’re probably the best organized neighborhood group I have seen come before the Common Council in the 3 years I’ve been following local meetings. They put together a very helpful handout with diagrams and pictures that illustrated their concerns, and they managed to stay on point and not be needlessly wordy or repetitive when speaking to the Council.

Patrick, a Clearwater Creek resident, started off be talking about the access issues. He started out by saying that, combined, the third and the newly proposed fourth addition to the subdivision accounted for roughly a 30% increase in dwellings in the area. [The original development plus the first two additions consisted of 126 dwellings. The third addition which was still ongoing was approved for 26 dwellings, and the fourth addition as proposed would consist of 14 dwellings.]

Despite that increase in number of dwellings, there was only one public access road to the subdivision, and if that road ever gets block for any reason people will not be able to enter or exit the subdivision. Additionally, the community was already experiencing vehicle congestion with everyone trying to gain access to the main road to get to school [and, presumably, also work.]

There were plans to connect Spartan Drive to Mead, but those were theoretical. The city had no plans to build that road any time during the next 5 years. Beyond that, the road as currently mapped, cut through a farmer’s land, and that farmer had no intention of selling that land to the city.

In terms of emergency access, code required a secondary emergency access road to a community with 30 or more dwellings, but the emergency access road that was in existence (a) was not completed and (b) was effectively blocked by large vehicles owned by a local business. Patrick stated, “Whereas in theory, people may point to that road as a secondary emergency access road, de facto it’s not.”

He went on to say, “There’s actually been an incident not that long ago, where we had an emergency in the neighborhood, and unfortunately, due to the response time of the of the vehicles, the person passed away on their way to the hospital.”

Michelle, another Clearwater Creek, resident spoke about the lack of a park. Per Michelle, the residents of the subdivision had been promised a park 20 years ago, but that has not happened. The specific land that the developers want to add as the fourth addition to the subdivision seemed like an ideal location for a park.

Currently, the closest parks were Plamann Park and Highland Park which were each at least 2 miles away and required a 20–40-minute walk from many areas in the subdivision. “If we keep developing this land without picking a spot to develop this promised park—I should say unfulfilled promised park—the land will be gone. That’s not something we can get back. Once we approve this, we can’t get that back for a park.”

Kate, another subdivision resident, expressed concerns about how the development of houses would impact the existing wetland environment. The wetland area included a stormwater retention pond as well as the beginning of Appleton Creek. Per Kate, the water levels in the pond rose substantially at different times of the year during heavy rainstorms and spring snow melts. “People are generally advised not to even build in a wetland area, and the Wisconsin DNR does not recommend it.” She said that homes on the south side of the pond had already experienced increased water levels on their property.

She had reviewed the plat maps for other subdivisions this particular developer had built and found that, while they had created subdivisions near wetlands in the past, they had never created lots extending directly into designated wetlands prior to what they were requesting to do with the fourth addition to Clearwater Creek.

She pointed out, “The preliminary plat maps submitted to the city clearly show that delineated wetlands encroach on eight of the lots. Three of those lots, numbers 160, 161, and 162, clearly show almost 1/3 of the entire lot is wetland,” and noted that the in the staff report included a recommendation that the developers verify that lot’s 160-162 are buildable.

She went on to say, “The developer has since submitted a final plat map to the city for approval file number 23-1053, which now includes an additional 30-foot setback from the wetlands. This now covers at least half of the lot, and it makes you question whether or not it’s even feasible to build a house on the remaining space and why the developer is willing to encroach on the wetland so much when they never have in the past.” [I haven’t been able to find the file or final plat map that she was talking about, so I can’t share it.]

Those three residents were the ones who presented the main reasons why the neighbors opposed the addition to the subdivision, but several other residents spoke.

Sonu said that she lost a friend who was at her house for a Christmas party. She believed the delay in the emergency vehicles arriving contributed to that. She also thought the environmental impacts of the new development would be bad. “We hear about the environmental impacts. We all are aware of how the weather has been changing and what’s happening in our country currently. If we take away the green space, if we do not let the wild animals and insects live around the wetlands, we all know what’s happening around the world globally.”

Ara, a child, who looked like she was middle-school aged, said that she and her friends had nowhere to play because there was no park and her parents would not let her cross the road during the summer because of the busy traffic.

Alaine presented a petition that had been signed by over 80 residents opposing the addition to the subdivision.

Charlotte made a motion that the item be tabled until then next meeting so that the Council members had adequate time to review the information the residents had presented. Mayor Woodford explained that motions could only be made by members of the Council, “but I’m sure that the Council has heard your request and will take it into consideration as they take up the item.”

Alderperson Hayden did end up requesting that the rezoning request and the fourth addition to the subdivision be referred back to the City Plan Commission. The refer-back was objected to (the minutes don’t record who objected), so the Council debated the refer-back.

Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) asked if these were time sensitive items. Community and Economic Director Kara Homan answered, “It is my understanding that the developer wishes to break ground on utilities and earthwork this year yet. With that said, we haven’t advanced a development agreement at present.”

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) said that that the issues about access and public safety were things that staff could answer at the Council meeting. “I don’t see any reason why we would need to have another committee meeting just to bring this back when they can be answered this evening.”

Alderperson Hayden asked “Is it normal for plats to be readjusted to wetlands after they’ve been submitted to Council like we saw in this case?” Mayor Woodford ruled that question not relevant to the discussion about referring the item back.

There was no further discussion and the Council voted on the refer back. 8 alderpersons opposed the refer back and 5 alderpersons supported the refer back; however, a 2/3 vote was required to block a refer back, so 9 alderpersons would have needed to vote against the refer back in order to stop it.

The item will now go to the City Plan Commission on 09/13/2023.

[I don’t see any harm in having the item go back to the committee. If the developer was really all that concerned about timing, they should have been at the meeting to promote their own interests. The neighbor’s opposition to the fourth addition to the subdivision was not unknow since several of them had spoken at the City Plan Commission in August.

At the same time, I don’t really know how much authority the city has to prevent development from happening on this land. If the owner of the land plans to develop it within the bounds of the law, then it would be hugely concerning if the city could just ban them from building on their own land because the neighbors didn’t want them to build there.

Ultimately, if you’re buying a house and you want a park and through access you need to buy a house next to an existing park in a subdivision with through access. And if there is undeveloped land that you want to remain as wilderness you need to either (a) purchase it yourself or (b) confirm that it’s owned by your HOA and subject to non-development restrictions within the HOA covenants. You should not be relying on statements or promises made to you by realtors, developers, or city staff, because, unless you have a contract pertaining to those promises, those things are not, in most cases, legally binding.

Having said that. The blocked off emergency access road seems concerning and worthy of closer review.]

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1114838&GUID=98D146C3-542F-4487-93F3-233C8103D43D