On 08/04/2021 the Common Council took up the request to rezone a parcel on Coolidge Court.
The rezoning was being sought because the current zoning locked the developer into a very specific site and building layout that would have been appropriate in 1985 when the property was first zoned this way, but that would not allow for a more modern layout that would appeal to people in the 2020s.
[There are a dozen apartment complexes right next to this undeveloped parcel and it looks to me like the parcel was originally supposed to have a building design and parking lot layout very similar to these other apartment buildings.]
This item was held at the last Common Council meeting because, per Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) whose district this property was located, some of the residents in the neighborhood still had several concerns regarding the rezoning that they weren’t able to get answered by developer. Although they had initially planned on coming to the Council meeting, they ended up deciding not to because they were told, that the Council usually does what the Commission says and they felt like what they had to say wasn’t going to affect the vote. The Council members generally seemed to feel badly that city residents felt that way and, since the developer had not attended the meeting either, they opted to hold it for two weeks to give the residents more time to get their questions answered and come speak before the Council if they decided they wanted to do that.
One of the residents did appear at this Council meeting to speak. John thanked the mayor and the Council for delaying the voting so that there could be some further thought put into this proposal here. He also thanked Alderperson Van Zeeland for her assistance in this process. He said the parcel was part of a larger development that was originally the Copps grocery store building. Over the years there have been numerous activities on that site with negative impact on the single-family homes adjacent to it, and some of those problems continue to the present time. One of the things about the proposed zoning change that would have a significant impact on the adjacent single-family homes was the reduction for the setback of the building on that lot. He came to the Council with a request to help make any future development of the property into a win-win situation for all parties involved. [He didn’t go into details but, as he mentioned at the City Plan Commission meeting, there were noise issues from the nearby hardware store which has a small engine repair station outside as well as foot traffic from the nearby strip mall.]
Andrew, the developer who submitted the application for the rezoning also spoke. He wasn’t originally going to speak because he didn’t have anything additional to add, but, given the concerns about the setback, he wanted to clarify some of the technical details of the property and the impact of the rezoning. The setback on the building would actually be increased because the parking would be brought to the front of the building and the parking lot setback being at the front would push the building back, so the rezoning would actually increase the setback of the building in direct contract to the concern that had been raised.
I’m not positive, but it sounded to me like John wanted to respond to that. Mayor Woodford said he understood he may have some follow-up points, but public comment was a time to register input. It was not a time to have a discussion about items on the agenda; that was for the Council to do.
There being no further speakers, they moved onto that discussion.
Alderperson Van Zeeland thanked her colleagues for holding the item so her constituent could come and speak on it. She asked if someone could speak about the setback and also the process of site approval that would happen should the Council approve the item.
Karen Harkness, the Director of Community and Economic Development, said that, regarding the setback the agenda packet did include a summary of the original 1985 plan development for the site as well as a summary of current zoning standards. She thought there was some misunderstanding that the driveways and garages would have a smaller setback than what they would have had in 1985, but the setbacks were greater today than back then. The west side lot line was 15 in 1985, but under current standards would be 20 feet. The east side setback was 10 feet in 1985 but today would be 20 feet. In 1985 the minimum rear lot pavement was 15 feet but today would be 35 feet.
Regarding the site plan review, she said that was an administrative duty, so there was no public process; however, the developer and the neighbors have continued to talk as they always encourage with every development. It’s been their experience that when that communication line is open, there’s usually some give and take with the site plan, but, ultimately, the site plan review is an administrative process.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that at the Plan Commission a question had been raised about the setbacks and the answer during that meeting was different from what Director Harkness just stated. At that meeting they had been told that the previous site plan had a 60-foot setback and that with the rezoning they would only have a 20-foot setback.
Director Harkness said it was not necessarily a mistake. The discussion during the Plan Commission meeting had been about the principle building setbacks as opposed to lot line setbacks. She wanted to caution everybody that the numbers she gave were minimum setbacks. There was nothing that said they couldn’t be deeper than those measurements. The minimum side lot line building setback was 60 feet on the west side. Today, the minimum setback required would be 20 feet, but that didn’t mean that that was how the layout would end up being. She thought that was important that everybody keep that in mind. [And, it certainly sounded to me like the developer was planning a different layout than the original 1985 plan that would have been required if the rezoning didn’t happen.]
There were no further questions and the Council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning.
[I do kind of wonder how John felt when they approved the rezoning given that he specifically hadn’t come to the previous meeting because he thought they would just approve the rezoning regardless of his opposition to it, which is essentially what happened. At the same time, it’s not clear to me what he wants. This wasn’t a case of a single-family property being rezoned to allow an apartment complex to be built. The parcel was already intended to have an apartment complex on it; this rezoning would just allow a different layout that may appeal to people in 2020 more than a 1985-style apartment would and, therefore, could attract a better quality of renters. Rezoning it to allow different layouts could also allow the building to be moved farther away from the existing homes, which would also be a plus. The change seems overall beneficial to the development of the property.
I would still say that it’s in Andrew’s best interest to talk to the neighbors get a handle on what exactly their concerns are. While that doesn’t mean one has to roll over on every petty whim a neighbor might have, it does help to work with them when reasonable. Whenever I hear stories of neighbors upset about development happening next to them I think of the Monster House Of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and how the entire fiasco could have been avoided if Josh Sapienza hadn’t used a dubious interpretation of Feng Shui principles to blow off his neighbor’s request to put his driveway in between their two houses.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=873331&GUID=05E94B95-E8A1-4761-82D5-5668A4FB8932&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply