The City Plan Commission met 10/09/2024. They had three action items and three associated public hearings on the agenda. The three action items were proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code.
These items were discussed as information items at the 09/25/2024 commission meeting.
For the most part, the changes would rearrange where in the Municipal Code certain items are located and make sure the Municipal Code aligns with state statutes. They also streamline the process for rezoning applications and future land use map amendments.
The changes would result in the Municipal Services Committee no longer having to hear variance requests related to driveways because those would now go before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Although most of the changes do not increase regulations, in one area they substantially alter what it currently allowable. Right now, owners of property zoned as agricultural are allowed to build a single-family residential dwelling on that property. However, the changes would remove the ability to build single-family homes on property zoned for agricultural use.
No members of the public spoke during the public hearing portions of the meeting, and all of the items were approved unanimously by the City Plan Commission.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS, DRIVEWAY EXTENSIONS, PARKING PADS AND OUTDOOR PARKING OF VEHICLES/TRAILERS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY – These changes did not increase regulations but instead moved the relevant code from Chapter 19 to Chapter 23, placing associated variance requests under the purview of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The changes also explicitly outlined the permitting process so that it was more transparent and removed duplication of standards.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was pleased with the fact that it would take variance requests pertaining to driveways out of the hands of the Common Council and into the hands of the Board of Zoning Appeals. She felt the Council had not received great training regarding handling variance requests and wanted to make sure that the Board of Zoning Appeals members were versed in the requirements for handling variance requests.
Community Development Director Kara Homan noted that the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Center for Land Use Education had created a manual that could be used by all Board of Zoning Appeals members in the state. The City of Appleton provides that manual to any new member of the Board. The CLUE also provides in-person and virtual trainings every couple of years, and Appleton makes sure those are available to Board of Zoning Appeals members.
Board members were appointed by the mayor, and Mayor Woodford said that he was mindful of the expertise of applicants for the position and wanted to make sure that they had a good understanding of what the position required and that they had a good background to serve in that capacity.
He also noted that the burden was on the applicant to demonstrate a hardship, and that often city staff worked with people who were facing challenges with zoning so that they did not end up in a situation where they needed to apply for a variance.
OFFICIAL MAP AMENDMENTS AND ZONING AMENDMENTS/PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES – These proposed changes would codify the process for a map amendment and explain who can initiate such requests.
The changes would also markedly streamline the process for approving a zoning amendment and eliminate one of the public hearings that the city currently holds for zoning changes.
Another proposed change was the number of aye votes needed to approve a zoning amendment. The city currently required 8 members of the Common Council to vote affirmatively to approve a zoning amendment. These changes would require only a simple majority of quorum to approve changes. This change in voting standards was prompted by state law.
The proposed changes would also clarify the standards that could be used to approve zoning amendments and tried to make the standards less vague.
The changes would also eliminate the terms “temporary” and “permanent” as they relate to zoning.
Finally, the proposed changes would eliminated the building of single-family homes on land zoned for agricultural use. The current agricultural zoning district requires a minimum of 10 acres.
Per Principal Planner Lindsey Smith, “if someone was coming to planning staff and saying, ‘I have this property that I own in the city that’s 30 acres, and I would like to subdivide it and build single family homes,’ we would tell them that lot has to be a minimum of 10 acres to build a single-family home. I don’t—as we were reviewing this is why are we encouraging someone to say we want to have 10 acres. We want to look at, try to, evaluate efficient development, having them on smaller lots. And so, with that, we realized this was something that shouldn’t have been within our zoning code in the agricultural district.”
She noted that for residential districts there was a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet but there was no maximum lot size. So, if someone wanted to build a home on a 30 acre lot they could, but it would need to be zoned residential not agricultural. She said, “[T]here’s a large difference between telling someone ‘We want 10 acres’ or ‘We only need 8000 square feet.’ So, this will encourage if someone is looking to build a new set single family home in a on a property that’s zoned Ag is to rezone to our residential district.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) confirmed with Principal Planner Smith that existing single-family houses on land zoned agricultural would be an allowed non-conforming use after these code changes. A person, however, would not be allowed to build a new single-family home on land zoned agricultural. Principal Planner Smith said that wanting to build a single-family home on an agricultural parcel could explore subdividing the land and rezoning the part of the lot on which the house rested to a residential zoning then keeping the remaining land for agricultural use.
Not mentioned in this discussion was the fact that the owner of an existing house on agricultural land would also be prevented from building an addition to the existing house. Additionally, if the house was destroyed by an act of God, they would be able to rebuild on land zoned agricultural, but if something other than an act of God caused the house to be in such disrepair that it needed to be torn down and rebuilt, a property owner would not be able to do that on land zoned for agricultural use. Community Development Director Kara Homan was kind enough to answer some questions I had about this proposed change, and I have included screenshots of our correspondence. Her remarks are in red.
Alderperson Hartzheim, as the alderperson for a district with agricultural land in it, said, “[M]y concern is that this sort of treats negatively folks who are currently zoned agricultural within the city, but I understand that that’s probably a rarity except for the temporary zoning for when parcels are annexed. It is a concern on the north side of town where there is a fair amount of folks who want to be a part of the city, but want to maintain their small farm sort of thing. So those are my concerns. I don’t know how to really codify or explain those concerns beyond what was mentioned by Alder Fenton, but is—I feel as though this is, again, a negative or a discouraging factor of folks wanting to annex into the city but remain agriculture—agriculturally zoned.”
Principal Planner Smith responded that, for agricultural land that is annexed into the city, “they can continue that operation on their property when annexed into the city, as long as it was that use was in existence prior to annexation. And […] let’s say they annexed in and they want to build a couple homes on a, let’s say, a 30-acre lot, they could still look at then going through the rezoning process to one of our three residential districts, and that would still allow them to […] build a single-family home but still have a larger lot.”
Mayor Woodford said, “This provides, still flexibility for different lot sizes. It’s really just trying to get away from the requirement right now that lot sizes be a minimum of 10 acres. So, so that’s really what we’re trying to move away from. Actually, will give folks more flexibility when they’re thinking about lot sizes and configurations.”
[I still don’t entirely understand why the issue of people wanting to subdivide land zoned agricultural into residential lots and then finding out those lots have to be at least 10 acres is something that would needs this code change to be dealt with effectively. It seems to me that just providing some basic information and education about the benefits of rezoning from agricultural to residential when a property owner comes in wanting to subdivide agricultural land would be enough to solve this problem.]
LICENSES, PERMITS AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL USES – These changes would remove the consumption of alcohol from a special use to a permitted use. This will eliminate the need to go through a special use permitting process if a business is looking to sell alcohol on site for consumption.
Under state statute, the city does not have a lot of discretion on special use permits which has caused some frustration for Council members who are asked to vote on things that they essentially need to approve unless they want to open the city up to legal repercussions. These changes would the process administrative and not require Council approval.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked, with the removal of the notification that happens with the special permitting process, how neighbors of restaurants and bars would know if the establishment was seeking to expand their area of service to something like an outside patio. Principal Planner Smith said that there would not be a notification provided to the neighborhood, so the way people would know is if they read the agendas for committee and Council meetings.
Mayor Woodford said, “In a way, we’re trying to simplify regulation of these licenses, because they’re already heavily regulated through safety and licensing and the common council. So, at this point, it’s just an additional burden on applicants to have to come before another commission for a step that I think seems unnecessary.”
[I think this is a good change because, for the most part, there seem to be limitations on the special use permits that the committee and Council can deny. Notifying neighbors about a change can result in neighbors who oppose it coming to meetings and voicing their opposition just to find out that the committee can’t really vote to deny a permit application without placing the city in a dubious legal position. It seems better to remove that process rather than falsely make residents think their input can change the outcome of the decision when it really can’t.]
The commission ended up voting unanimously to approve each of the three items.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1220805&GUID=379C2BF6-8B55-4727-A1D4-B01B6D47DB89
One thought on “City Plan Commission Votes Unanimously To Approve Municipal Code Amendments That Will Conform Code To State Statute, Streamline Processes, Allow Driveway-Related Variance Requests To Be Heard By Board Of Zoning Appeals, And Prevent Single-Family Homes From Being Built On Land Zoned For Agricultural Use”