Council approves resolution to vacate portion of Fourth Street

By Kim McDarison 

Members of the Fort Atkinson City Council Tuesday voted in favor of vacating a section of Fourth Street on the city’s northeast side. 

The decision, which, according to an opinion offered by Fort Atkinson City Attorney David Westrick, required a supermajority, or two-thirds vote, was made in response to a request from Fort HealthCare. The organization has been in conversations with city officials, Fort HealthCare Senior Vice President of Finance and Strategic Development Jim Nelson said, regarding its plans to expand a parking lot on land near its campus. 

Council approved the resolution, vacating a portion of the street between McMillen and Armenia streets, by a 4-1 vote, achieving the required supermajority. Councilman Eric Schultz cast the ‘no’ vote. 

In advance of the vote, Tuesday’s council meeting included a public hearing on the matter. While some 20 residents were in attendance, only four offered comments, one of whom was Nelson.  

Public hearing 

During the public hearing, McMillen Street resident Jeff Newbold said: “In your consideration of the vacation of Fourth Street, I would challenge any of you that believes this is going to be a benefit to the hospital to trade houses with me and come and ride that benefit.”  

Fort Atkinson resident Elliott Larson said he and his family had lived in their McMillen Street home for more than 40 years. While he said he was “grateful” that Fort Atkinson was home to a hospital, he did not understand the reasoning behind discontinuing a section of Fourth Street. 

He said he believed the hospital had “options to consider for parking” that did not involve closing a portion of the street, and expressed concerns regarding traffic flow, especially as it might impact residents living on McMillen and Armenia streets, and East Sherman Avenue.  Additionally, he said, McMillion Street was in need of repairs. 

“I’m worried about that because people are having trouble getting out of their driveways and you’re going to have more traffic on those two aspects if you’re going to shut that off. Put yourself in the shoes of some of these residents pertaining to Armenia and McMillen, and some other areas. We the people want you to look at this situation and help us,” he said. 

According to Larson, 22 residents with properties abutting Fourth Street had formally objected to plans to vacate the section of roadway. 

Addressing council from the podium, Nelson said that Fort HealthCare, over the course of several years, has been ranked within the top 100 rural hospitals in the nation and as a top 100 workplace. 

“They’re not recognitions that we ever sought out. They just happened because of what we do and how we do it. A big reason why we do so well is we plan for our future, and we get the support from our community to make it happen,” he said. 

Nelson said the hospital’s petition to close Fourth Street was the result of discussions between the hospital and city officials, working jointly to help the hospital address current challenges, which he described as parking, and look with an eye to the future at “anticipated projects.”  

Nelson said when the hospital expanded in 2004, it “maxed out” the parcel of land it occupies. 

“When we maxed that site out, we had already started planning for what the future might be and how it might occur,” he said, adding that then-city manager John Wilmet was crafting the city’s first comprehensive plan. At the time, Nelson said, there was agreement that expansion to the north of the hospital’s site was the most prudent and would bring the least disruption to the community as the hospital continued to grow. 

“That’s why you see the block immediately north of the hospital campus identified as the growth area for medical services on the current comprehensive plan. Fort HealthCare began purchasing houses to the north right at that same time, knowing that some day, we’d need to be ready for our next expansion,” Nelson stated. 

Communication with the city indicating the hospital’s “readiness” to take the next step began last year, he said, adding: “granting the closure of Fourth Street will allow us to convert Fourth Street and the area where those four houses currently sit to the north of our campus into parking and accommodate our current and anticipated needs.” 

Nelson said anticipated needs would include moving some of the hospital’s clinical operations back to its campus for the purpose of gaining efficiencies and fiscal responsibility. 

Further, he said, plans call for a 7-acre remote lot currently used for parking to be developed for housing. The four houses north of the campus owned by the hospital could be relocated there.  

“We are working with the city to obtain rezoning in that area so we can put (in) a street parallel to Florence Street, to accommodate the four houses and also create an additional lot for a new duplex in that area. We anticipate the new street to be the first effort in developing that remaining … area for some additional housing,” Nelson said, adding that the area under consideration is within the new tax incremental financing district created by the city at the beginning of this year. 

He noted that plans for all of the proposals will be returning to the city’s Plan Commission “over the next couple of months.” 

A resident came forward with questions about process. She asked council members if they had read emails received from community members who had expressed their concerns. Citing a reference made to the emails by another resident, she said to council members: “I think you’ve gotten emails; I didn’t see anybody react. So, have you gotten emails from people? Because I’m coming trying to learn about city government and how you guys work, and I don’t see any discussion really.” 

Council President Chris Scherer and City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire both addressed the commenter’s questions, noting that emails had been received, read, and conversations with individual constituents had been conducted. Additionally, they noted that the information was available in packeted form shared with council and the public through the city’s website.  

City engineer offers background, process  

In advance of discussion by council members, City Engineer Andy Selle spoke about the proposal to vacate Fourth Street, as well as actions taken in advance of the meeting to inform the public. 

He described the process as “fairly involved” and “set out by state statute.” 

Selle noted that Fort HealthCare had held two informational sessions, and on Jan. 28, a proposal from the organization came before the city council in the form of a draft resolution, indicating at that time, he said, “that we were going to consider this within the public forum.” 

An earlier story about the resolution, which set Tuesday’s public hearing date, is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/council-advances-plans-to-vacate-portion-of-north-fourth-street-march-21-public-hearing-set/. 

The proposal next appeared before the city’s Plan Commission on Feb. 28, Selle said, at which time the public was offered an opportunity for input. The proposal to vacate Fourth Street was approved by the Plan Commission and recommended for approval by council during the February meeting, he said. 

An earlier story about the Plan Commission meeting is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/hospital-street-vacation-advances-to-council/. 

Said Selle: “The coexistence of a hospital in a town of our size and great neighborhood that we have, really demands compromise.”

He, too, referenced emailed received by city officials from residents abutting Fourth Street, which, he said, touched most frequently on several issues: traffic, stormwater, lighting and screening. 

Addressing concerns with traffic, Selle said he had spoken with leaders within the Fort Atkinson Police and Fire departments, noting they expressed “no concern.”  

From the engineering side, he said, his department looked at two types of traffic: transient and local. 

Looking at transient traffic, which he defined as traffic that is “passing through,” he said he believed the impact would be “significant.” 

“The street does not have any stop signs along that stretch once you turn onto it from Sherman Avenue or from High Street. So it is kind of a nice cut-through if you are the efficiency type. So that will obviously go away if the vacation is approved,” Selle said. 

Looking at local traffic, which he decided as traffic from people living in the area, he said: “Obviously you can’t travel on a street through that area if it is discontinued. So certainly there will be some local impacts as well.” 

Still, he said, city staff was not concerned. He added that he felt confident that the area could handle the impacts.  

“I don’t have any safety concern at the moment, but we obviously would keep track of it should it pass, and we are very much adept at managing these situations as they come up. If we need to put in stop signs, yield signs, various things like that for traffic calming we can do that fairly easily,” Selle said. 

Selle noted that concerns about property values also were noted within the correspondence receives from homeowners in the area.  

“I can’t speak to the property values; we don’t really have a good way of really answering that question, other than to acknowledge that the question came out,” he said. 

Selle said issues of stormwater management, lighting and screening would be handled through the Plan Commission through the site plan review process as any proposed parking area would. 

“I feel very confident that we can put together a parking (area) that will be as aesthetically pleasing within the neighborhood and also as accommodating as it could possibly be,” Selle said. 

Selle next discussed his understanding regarding state statutes and the provisions regarding a need for a supermajority to approve the discontinuation of the section of Fourth Street.  

“The statute itself that governs all this does have a provision in it that indicates that one-third of the property owners who are abutting, meaning actually have frontage on North Fourth Street, if they file a formal written objection, … that the vacation would pass city council by a supermajority, in this case four of five council members voting for,” Selle said. 

According to Selle, the filing with the city of 21 objections would have been required to necessitate the one-third provision. To-date, he said, staff had received 19 objections. Referencing a comment made by a resident that the city received 22, Selle said that several of the filings were received from renters. According to the statute, he said, the objections needed to be filed by property owners. 

Selle said city staff contacted the individuals who were renters and explained to them that the objections needed to come from owners. 

Citing a recommendation by city staff to approve the resolution to discontinue the portion of North Fourth Street, Selle said a desire to follow the city’s comprehensive plan was a determining factor.  

He added: “I will note that this isn’t a situation of — Fort HealthCare is a major part of our community — and this isn’t a situation of they say jump, we say how high. This is a situation where planning has gone into this many years in advance and the comprehensive plan has encompassed that planning.”

Council members weigh in 

Before the vote was taken, several council members asked questions and offered views. 

Councilwoman Megan Hartwick asked Selle to speak about other options that were considered to expand parking for Fort HealthCare that might not have involved vacation of Fourth Street. 

Said Selle: “I think, and this is somewhat second hand from Mr. Nelson, I think the big thing that we heard from Fort HealthCare was the remote aspect of parking was a major concern, not only in employee retention, but employee safety and just simply logistics; that having the ability to put employees and patrons of the hospital on hospital grounds was a major goal of theirs. I think that is a short-term goal. I think the longer-term goal of Fort HealthCare is to look at expansion, and so we may see that in the future — five years from now, 10 years from now — we are not talking about parking expansion, but facility expansion. When you think of it in that light, you look at other alternatives, such as going to a lot … between the current remote lot and the hospital campus. The lack of continuity of that just doesn’t make sense for longterm goals.”  

Selle said the city had exhausted on-street parking options. 

“So we really didn’t have a whole lot of alternatives to look at,” he said. 

LeMire also responded, saying: “When we initially started these discussions, folks from the hospital indicated that they were purchasing other properties around to the east and to the west of the campus, and suggested possibly putting is several small parking lots, and that was a nonstarter, that was inconsistent with our comprehensive plan, and it doesn’t make sense when you look at screening requirements, and intrusiveness to the neighborhoods. We really did work with the hospital to focus their efforts to go north, which is what is included in our comprehensive plan, and I believe has been included in the last two iterations of that document.” 

Hartwick asked about plans to repair McMillen. Additionally she asked: “When will Fourth Street be closed?” 

Selle said “a good chunk” of McMillen had been repaired, but, he noted, it was not the portion in front of an earlier commenter’s house.  

“We are aware of the terrible nature of that. We are waiting for water main. We do have McMillen Street to the east of the hospital on our list. I think it is within the next five years … for water main replacement, and that’s the time when we will fix the road above,” Selle said. 

Addressing Fourth Street closure, Selle said the process would “move through a CSM (certified survey map),” that would “really define the area of Fourth Street to be vacated. It would also include in that CSM the easements, because we do have utilities in that area … So, I would imagine within a couple of months, perhaps, we would have the formal document vacating.” 

He said he had received indication that the hospital hoped, would the vacation be approved, that employees could be parking in the expanded lot by Thanksgiving. 

Councilman Bruce Johnson asked if there was evidence of “congestion” in the existing parking lot. He asked: “Do we need to add parking?” 

Selle said the hospital was required by the city to complete a parking study when discussions about parking lot expansion were begun, which, he said, was about a year ago.  

“That parking study did indicate that, with all of the future plans, remember their plan is to bring many of these outlying facilities under one roof, that with that consolidation, that the parking needs were going to go up significantly. It did indicate that the amount of parking on the site would be adequate, but there is no additional area, I guess, or no buffer. It would look pretty tight,” Selle said.  

Schultz described the parking study as a “firehose of information.” 

He asked for further explanation about how the vacation of Fourth Street would accommodate the parking requirements as outlined by the hospital. 

Selle cited the hospital’s longterm plan, which, he said, involved expansion of the facilities in the future. He said those plans rested on the vacation of Fourth Street. 

Said Selle: “If they are unable to vacate Fourth Street now to gain additional parking, how then will they be able to expand 10 years from now? And, with that — we don’t have a crystal ball by any means — but that certainly helped me understand Fort HealthCare’s situation in saying now is the time to sort of follow through on the planning that’s been done and ask for the vacation of Fourth Street. We need the parking within the short term, but I think the longterm option of being able to expand to the north for non-parking, facilities, things like that, is really a part of this discussion.”  

Schultz asked for a better understanding of how traffic might change on McMillen and Armenia. 

Said Selle: “I don’t think the patterns will change. I think as they (Fort HealthCare) bring additional clinics under that roof, certainly the volume will change. There is almost no concern from my part of the world — the city engineer and director of public works — about the ability of our current road network in that area to accommodate traffic.” 

Councilman Mason Becker said he though there had been “quite a bit” of discussion revolving around Fort HealthCare and its future plans.  

He asked: “It sounds like Fort HealthCare’s intent is to discontinue use of that remote lot. Would that be happening immediately after this new parking lot is constructed?”  

Selle said he did not have a specific timeline. He said that whether or not the vacation was approved, the four houses owned by Fort HealthCare would need to be moved. 

“Those are slated to go up into that area on the back side of Florence Street,” Selle said adding that discussions also have included plans for some redevelopment in the area. 

Said Becker: “We had a lot of resident engagement on this issue; more than we usually get … I do empathize with the people that live in that neighborhood. I know that this would represent a pretty major change; I get the concerns about the change in traffic patterns and potentially the affects on property values, which none of us here, I don’t think, are qualified to gauge. 

He continued: “I think we need to consider what the alternatives would have been, and I think back to a handful of years ago, Fort HealthCare bought land west of the bypass and was considering building a new hospital out there. While that maybe would have been exciting, and presented some new opportunities for our community, it would have left a huge, hulking property that would have been extremely challenging to redevelop, and I don’t know realistically what that would have looked like. I think, given that the hospital’s been so successful there for a number of decades, I do think staying in place is the best thing for the community and, longterm — knowing just in the near term future what population metrics look like in the area, we have an aging population — having Fort HealthCare here providing services is only a huge benefit to our community.” 

Additionally, he said, Fort HealthCare was a property owner looking to redevelop its own property.  

“This isn’t houses being seized by the city or anything like that … and it is in concert with the comprehensive plan, so I just think those are important points for people to remember.”  

Westrick said that after having done some research, he believed that approving the resolution would require a supermajority, defined as a two-thirds of council verbal vote. Achieving a two-thirds vote, he noted, would require four of five council members voting in favor of the measure.