I very rarely am able to recap every single committee meeting during a given committee week, but since Appleton is currently short on meetings, I thought I would go back and recap a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting I missed. Variance requests are some of my most favorite meetings because they’re kind of like the local version of a courtroom reality show.
Back on 02/21/2022 the Board of Zoning Appeals met and took up two variance requests. The first was for a request from a homeowner to build a deck 15’ from the property line even though city code required it to be at least 20’ back. They ended up denying the request.
The second variance which is the focus of this recap was from the developers of the parcel at 719 W. Packard St, who wanted to build a building that was 83’ 9 3/4” tall, but Section 23-112(h)(7) of Appleton’s Zoning Ordinance limits building height to 60’.
This property last came before a committee in June of 2021 when the developers requested it be rezoned to help facilitate their development plans. The rezoning request had been approved without controversy, but their request this time for a variance was not successful, at least not this go-round, and there was marked opposition to the development from neighborhood residents. Although the variance was denied, the project was not fully shut down and the possibility was left open for the developers to come back with a revised request or pursue different avenues in city government to gain approval for their project.
There was quite a bit of neighbor opposition to the variance request from both the east and west side of the proposed development.
Sandra who lived in Richmond Terrace across the street from this proposed development was upset with the plans for the property and thought it would both block sunlight and increase noise. During only the 2 hours before the board meeting, she had been able to gather 30 signatures from Richmond Terrace residents opposed to the 89’ building height. She thought that if a 60’ tall project wasn’t feasible that maybe the project shouldn’t have been proposed at all.
A man who lived on Richmond Street was concerned not simply about the height but also about parking. The plans for the development indicated that there would be 116 unites but less than 100 parking stalls.
Edmond who lived in Richmond Terrace didn’t think that the claim that that the building wouldn’t be viable if it wasn’t over 60’ wasn’t a valid claim and suggested that they build commercial space instead of residential. He was concerned that this property being granted a variance would result in similar developments being granted variances to build tall buildings. Where would it stop?
Amy lived on Harris Street and worried that no one would be willing to buy her house if the development went forward. The new development would fill her entire view. She also worried that all the people who lived in that building would be able to watch her while she in her yard and was concerned about the privacy of her and her daughter. She was open to selling her house to the developer if the developer was interested.
Susan also lived in a house near where the development would be. The building would block the sun from her back yard and her solar heated swimming pool. The lack of sun would also ruin her garden. She also was worried no one would ever buy her house and that she would lose all her privacy. She was very angry with the whole thing.
David Allen and Michael Loy, the developers, were both in attendance.
Mr. Allen not only was a developer for this site but was also one of the owners of the commercial space across the street at Richmond Terrace. He told the board, “The Richmond corridor needs more people to live there. College Avenue is pretty much built out in many ways in terms of buildings with residential users, and for 30 years Richmond Street has been stagnant. […] But having lived with the Richmond Terrace commercial property, I can tell you—the board and even the folks at Richmond Terrace who are concerned about development—it’s going to be a much better environment for Richmond Terrace when you have more people living in the neighborhood.”
He thought more development would allow greater services to be at Richmond Terrace itself as well as up and down Richmond Street. It would also be a more pedestrian-friendly area overall. If residential development didn’t happen at that site, then they would end up with another strip mall-type development.
There wasn’t much available land to do a development so that meant they had to build up instead of out. He noted that Richmond Terrace was already 64’ tall so also exceeded the 60’ height restriction. He said there was plenty of parking on the proposed site and pointed out that even if the variance weren’t granted the people on the west side of Richmond Terrace would still lose their view.
He thought a lot of design issues could be dealt with but ultimately this building was not being placed in a field in Grand Chute but rather was in an urban environment where they had to build up.
He said, “I think it would be a good thing to be a catalyst for the redevelopment of Richmond Street which everyone gains from,” and indicated some of the other property owners in the area were excited about having a modern, new development there that could compliment Richmond Terrace. “So, I can see both sides, but I do believe it’s a good thing for rehabilitating that part of Appleton.”
Board Chairman Paul McCann wanted to know if the Richmond Terrace building predated the city’s 60’ height restriction or if they received a variance.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen thought the project had been a planned development that had been approved through the plan development process instead of having to get a variance.
Mr. Loy, who was attending virtually, wanted to give the board a little background on the project and where they were at in its development. The lot was a transitional parcel between the very busy street of Richmond and a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes. They tried to orientate the proposed building to not overshadow the single-family homes by positioning it closer to the street than to the neighboring houses.
The overall building would not be unique as compared to Richmond Terrace. They understood they would need to accommodate both resident and visitor parking needs.
They were calling the building the Cornerstone Building and intended for the some of the corner units to be larger and of higher quality than the rest of the units in the building. The variance they had requested was to build up to 83’ 9.75”. That would give them enough room for the special architectural features they had envisioned for the corners of the building. Without those architectural features, the actual height of the building from the ground to the top of the finished roof was only 75’ 5 5/8”.
The parking garage was two levels, an underground level and then the first floor of the building. The actual living units only started on the second floor of the building which was important for both safety and quality of life. Having a first-floor window along Richmond Street would be noisy and also a potential safety issue if a driver veered off the road and drove their car into someone’s living room.
He explained that there were possibilities to get the height limit of the building down. They could remove the architectural features on the corners. They could also take off one entire floor which would get the heigh much closer to the 60’ limit, but it would still end up being around 64’. Adding back the architectural features would make it almost 70’.
Placing the building as close to Richmond Street as possible necessitated having the residential units start on the second floor instead of the first floor, but that in turn meant they couldn’t remove more than one floor to get down to the 60’ height requirement because they would lose too many units. 70’ was about as close as they could get to the 60’ heigh limit while keeping in mind those other issues, and without a variance, he wasn’t sure that they could do the project the way they wanted.
[At this point, I became confused because he had talked about having two levels of parking, and there are diagrams in the agenda packet that show ground floor and underground parking, but…] Chairman McCann said that one of the images he had presented to the Board during the meeting seemed to depict storefront windows.
Mr. Loy confirmed that they were and that they envisioned created a glass first floor along Richmond Street which would include some co-working-type spaces. They wanted to create a very vibrant active area on the front side of the building along Richmond Street. [So, it’s not clear to me if there’s parking and commercial space on the first floor or something else. Also, they put the living units on the second floor so that cars wouldn’t crash into someone’s living room, but for some reason it’s perfectly okay to create an open glass co-working space on the first floor?] It sounded like there were different options for the first floor and they were waiting to see if the variance was approved before moving forward on plans.
A board member asked what property limitations prevent the development of something on that site that conformed to code.
There was a noticeable pause before Mr. Loy answered, “The property limitations are just really in terms of how far we can go down without creating a situation, you know, on the streetscape. I mean, there—certainly we can be smaller with the building, but we’d have to completely reconsider the design. I’m not sure that we can make that work.” [He basically lost me right there. That was a terrible answer. If you can go smaller and meet the code then maybe you should do that or lobby to get the code changed. But that answer seems to indicate that there’s nothing unique about this site that would require a variance.]
Chairman McCann wanted to know how many apartments were anticipated per level and in total for the building.
Mr. Loy answered that the original design had 112 units. If they pared the design back that would be somewhere in the 90s. He didn’t have an exact number because the corner units were intended to be multi-level 3-bedroom units, so removing a floor would impact the design of those corner apartments.
Chairman McCann asked Sandra, the Richmond Terrace resident who had spoken earlier, if she thought there would still be unanimous opposition to the new building if the new building had a height of 64’ matching that of Richmond Terrace.
She answered that they had originally thought there would be greenspace and parking in the front instead of the building being right up to Richmond Street. She did understand the concerns of the homeowners on the other side of the building. She did think that the new building being only 64’ high would be preferable to it being higher than Richmond Terrace and blocking out the sun completely.
Board member Karen Cain wondered if Sandra had any thoughts regarding Mr. Allen’s belief that the new development would improve the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
Sandra didn’t think the vibrancy would improve and pointed out that the commercial space on the first floor of Richmond Terrace was still not full. She thought that was because the rents were very high.
Chairman McCann thought Mr. Allen’s position was that if the number of people living in the area increased then more people would be interested in developing those commercial spaces whereas Richmond Terrace alone may not support that sort of commercial development.
A community member wanted to know if the 10’ setback shown on the diagram was from the sidewalk to the building or from the road to the building. It was eventually clarified that the setback was from the property line which was the inside of the sidewalk which meant that that building was a little further away than the Richmond Terrace residents had thought it would be.
Board member Brian Engstrom asked Susan, the homeowner with the pool and garden, if a building that was closer to 64’ would still have an impact on her pool and garden. Susan responded that of course it would. The building itself would cause her to completely lose the use of her backyard. She would have to buy a heater for her pool because her yard would not get any sunlight until noon.
John, another resident in the area, said he was pleased the building was being pushed toward Richmond Street. He was very interested in having an urban, walkable environment and was also hoping that the building would be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. He thought that the sun coming up from the south would only be blocked from shining on a commercial parcel the developer already owned. [As a side note, I last remember John showing up at a committee meeting when he spoke to the Safety and Licensing Committee about the noise terror, he experiences on College Avenue. (https://allthingsappleton.com/2021/09/12/safety-and-licensing-committee-refers-excess-vehicle-noise-resolution-to-staff-wants-to-come-up-with-ways-to-combat-noise-on-college-avenue/)]
A resident named Edmund was concerned that having two tall buildings across the street from each other would create a wind tunnel effect.
A board member pointed out that, although there was a lot of general opposition to the development, the thing that was before the committee that night was only whether or not the building could have a variance to be almost 84’ tall or something closer to 64’. “So really the issue here is: is the additional 20 feet going to substantially impact the neighborhood or not?” He understood there could be some extra sun blockage with a 20-foot taller building but he didn’t know how much more there would be. “The issue here is the height of the building, not the development itself and I think we have to make that clear.”
He went on to point out the development could very well happen without a variance being granted and he wasn’t sure that making the developer change their design was the right outcome because it seemed like it would be a great addition to the neighborhood.
Mr. Loy said they understood the concerns of the neighbors and they could move from 6 stories to 5 stories so that the height would be more comparable with Richmond Terrace. At this point they weren’t’ even interested in the full 84’ variance.
A board member said that the variance before them was for 84’ and they didn’t know what the revised design would be but it would probably end up being above the 60’ height limit. He thought they should take action on the variance before them and then let the developers come back to them with a revision if they found they still needed a variance.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen pointed out that they could alter the request and approve a variance for a lower height, but Chairman McCann didn’t think the board should propose a height because the developer’s designs had not been finalized.
As something of a side note, Chairman McCann asked Supervisor Craanen what other processes the developers could go through to bring their design forward and get it approved by the city without going through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Supervisor Craanen said that they could put together a plan development proposal that could be negotiated with the city, or they could potentially rezone the property to a zoning district that had different height limits.
Chairman McCann appreciated that answer and said, “it’s not the business of this group to design what’s best for this site, and it concerns me a little bit when—’cause we’ve ended up with these situations before, where we’re saying ‘it’s not supposed to be 10 feet but we can’t allow 15 feet so let’s give them 12’ and we end up doing some compromising and engineering and other work here that, for a project this size, seems maybe a little inappropriate.”
The board then went on to deny the request for a variance by a 0-4 vote. But it sounded like the project is not over and could very well come back in the future with an updated design either before the Board of Zoning Appeals or some other committee for approval.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=926541&GUID=0C7CC846-52F4-4E5F-8BCE-13CDCA5B4E80
Be the first to reply