City Plan Commission Unanimously Approves Clearwater Creek Rezoning And Addition – Reviews Emergency Vehicle Response Times, Parkland Acquisition Process, Wetland Review Process

The City Plan Committee met 09/13/2023 and ran for more than an hour and 20 minutes. Slightly more than 60 minutes was spent on the two items related to the Clearwater Creek subdivision—the request to rezone a portion of land from Agricultural to Residential and the request to add that rezoned land to the subdivision as the fourth addition. That would facilitate the creation of 14 new residential lots on that land in addition to the roughly 150 residential lots already in existence in Clearwater Creek

This addition to the subdivision has resulted in a lot of pushback from the Clearwater Creek residents. Several of them attended the Common Council meeting on 09/06/2023 and made their case against adding this land to the Clearwater Creek subdivision. They also presented the Council with a petition signed by 83 Clearwater Creek residents opposing the rezoning and addition to the subdivision.

The 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 an emergency vehicle access road was 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.

The Common Council referred the item back to the City Plan Commission for further discussion. After reviewing the concerns raised by residents and the ways in which those concerns had been addressed or taken into consideration by staff, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request and the request to add the land as the fourth addition to the Clearwater Creek development.

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

Alderperson Patrick Hayden, the alderperson for District 7 in which the subdivision is located, had an email discussion with city staff regarding many of the issues that had been raised by residents. That email was attached to the agenda for the meeting, and I’ve included it for download because while many of the items were discussed during the meeting, they were not all covered or some were touched on only briefly.

A number of Clearwater Creek residents attended the Plan Commission meeting, so, although public comment was not required, Mayor Woodford did allow a time of public comment.

Jill Hendricks a representative of the Clearwater Creek Developer had emailed Mayor Woodford and the Planning Division regarding the concerns pertaining to the environmental impact of the new development. In that email she noted that the natural prairie restoration area along the stormwater pond would not be disturbed, they would be installing an additional stormwater pond, and they would not be constructing homes or roads within 30’ of the wetland boundary. Additionally, she noted that the website marketing lots in the Third Addition to Clearwater Creek, clearly indicated that future phases of the development were planned to both the north and the south.

During the meeting, she spoke to the commission. Her main points were

• The area in question had been listed in Appleton’s Comprehensive Plan as being intendent for single-family residential since 2007.
• Temporary barriers didn’t impede emergency vehicles from accessing the subdivision.
• The fourth addition would include turnaround access on the street which would hopefully keep drivers from turning around in residents’ driveways.
• Although the development website incorrectly listed Plamann Park as being across the street, it was still clearly down the road. Additionally, she knew there was negotiation for a park adjacent to Clearwater Creek which she hoped would appease the homeowners looking for a park.

She finished up by saying, “In 1853, the city [of Appleton] was actually incorporated as a village. If we allowed 152 homeowners to change the trajectory of every development that happened within its municipal limits, it would still be a village and not a city.” She believed that if the commission voted against these items, they would set a precedent that would result in nobody wanting to build developments in Appleton.

Abby Maslanka from the engineering firm working on the new addition to the development also spoke and clarified that the buildings and roads would not be constructed within the wetlands, any runoff that drained to the wetlands directly would be from clearwater sources such as roofs and yards, and any runoff from streets and driveways would be directed into the city’s stormwater pond where it received quality and quantity control treatment prior to discharging into the wetlands.

Four Clearwater Creek residents also spoke. Their statements aligned very closely with the comments made at the Common Council meeting on 09/06/2023 and the 08/09/2023 City Plan Commission meeting, so I won’t recap them here. They are available in full in the transcript of the meeting.

One resident did take exception to Ms. Hendrick’s statement regarding the deleterious effect that allowing small numbers of homeowners to dictate development would have on the overall development of the city. Kara responded to that statement by saying, “You know, we [the residents of Clearwater Creek] are all doing our fair share in trying to support the neighborhood and the city, and it bothers me when I hear someone say ‘If you just listen to only 133 houses, what do they matter?’ I feel like we should matter.”

Fire Chief Jeremy Hansen addressed the concerns regarding access to the subdivision through the secondary emergency access road as well as the emergency response times to the Clearwater Creek area in general.

The concrete blocks that had been blocking the secondary emergency access road into the subdivision should not have been there and had been removed once the Fire Department was made aware of them. However, the primary access road was the fasted route into the subdivision from the fire station off of Lightning Drive. Using the secondary access road would take longer and it was only needed so that emergency services could still enter the subdivision if the primary access to the area was blocked.

At the Common Council meeting an incident had been brought up in which someone visiting the neighborhood had had a health emergency and ended up dying, the implication being a slow response time had been a factor in the person’s death. Chief Hansen said that when the call came in, the 911 dispatchers had 90 second to dispatch it but were able to do so in only 34 seconds. The time from when the Fire Department received the call until they left the station was 1 minute and 45 seconds. This was a little longer than what they wanted, but Chief Hansen noted it was almost midnight so there was a high likelihood the fire crew had been napping. It took 5 minutes after the truck left the station for it to arrive at the house which was a typical response time for calls to the north side of the city, north of Highway 41. Additionally, the benchmark arrival time for ambulances was 8 minutes, but the ambulance that responded to this incident only took 5 minutes and arrived at the same time as the fire truck did. “So, when you start coupling all those numbers together, it may seem like an eternity if you’re the loved one calling, but it was really only about seven minutes from the time the call came to when we arrived, and that’s not bad. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good.”

There was also discussion about the wetlands in this area and the research and review that had been done as to the impact of the development on the wetlands. City Principal Planner Jessica Titel told the commission the new development was not going to impact of fill the wetlands. “They are observing the wetland setbacks and protective areas as required in the DNR and the city’s municipal code.”

Community and Economic Development Director Kara Homan reviewed how the city makes sure that wetlands are protected. (1) When the infrastructure in a subdivision is developed, the Department of Public Works and the DNR oversee the process of land disturbance to make sure the wetlands are mapped out and not filled. (2) They also oversee the process when an actual house is constructed on the lot and make sure where a house is sited and where the grading and filling is located will not fill the wetland. Additionally, if after purchasing a property, a homeowner was to fill in wetland, a neighbor could file a complaint with the city or the DNR, and the DNR would look into it.

Most if not all of the concerns related to the wetlands had already been considered and dealt with not in the process for the rezoning request but in the process related to the preliminary plat for the Fourth Addition To Clearwater Creek. Principal Planner Titel explained, “We review it with a number of our departments in the city and talk about access roads, parks, stormwater, drainage, all of the things we’ve been hearing about tonight. Once the preliminary plat is submitted with the city, staff reviews it to ensure that the lots and the layouts comply with city regulations and standards.” The staff recommendation for approval was subject to 13 conditions including things like adding necessary drainage easements, showing the normal water level and the 100-year water level of the stormwater pond, and showing the overland flow paths.

During the meeting, Alderperson Hayden mentioned that District 7 only has 1 out of the city’s 35 parks. Director Homan did talk about the city’s park land planning was done. The city allowed developers to make a payment in lieu of parkland, rather than to build parks themselves. The fee for that had been recently increased. The city had a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, and did recognize the need for a park in the Clearwater Creek area. “There’s a specific reason why we don’t spell out exactly where that Park may be, because we’ll need to enter into negotiations with a private landowner. So, you don’t want to tip your hand as to specifically where you’re looking or not looking or the options that you’re weighing for parkland, because it can sometimes inflate the price when you’re trying to negotiate in the best interest of the public.”

She said that when the city receives subdivision proposals, staff will hold a preliminary consultation with the developers. They will discuss whether a particular area is one that the city would like to acquire for a park, but regarding this specific land “the Parks Department did not determine that a need for park land in this situation was the preferred option.”

The commission ended up voting unanimously to approve both items. Regarding the rezoning, Mayor Woodford noted that the commission could decide to approve or not approve the rezoning from Agricultural to Residential, but, “we as a body, as the plan commission don’t decide the what the property owner does with the property, and we don’t decide with the vote today what the landlord or does with the property?” [I thought that was a very relevant point. Maintaining the land as agricultural would not have prevented the owner from developing it; it would have merely changed the ways in which the owner could develop it. It would not have guaranteed that the land would remained undisturbed or that the existing homes in the neighborhood would be able to maintain their existing open views.]

Mayor Woodford appreciated the feedback they had received from the residents of the neighborhood and said that the city was certainly going to assess the intersection at Haymeadow Avenue and JJ to determine if additional traffic control measures were necessary. He said that staff would also continue to be diligent in their planning of future parkland.

He finished up by saying, “This request is in alignment with not only the plans that have been established—long established—for future development in this subdivision. It is a subdivision of the city of Appleton. It has been planned for future development since the property was acquired and preliminary plats were laid out. So, this goes back many, many years. And it is in alignment with the city’s comprehensive plan to rezone.”

Both items will go before the Common Council on 09/20/2023.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1111430&GUID=04F598A0-6BE5-49DF-ABF7-15F712ED9B40