The Community and Economic Development Committee met 05/11/2022 and took up a request from Farrell Investments to approve two variances to the Deed Restrictions and Covenants in Southpoint Commerce Park. The first variance would allow a second expansion wall to be constructed of metal material on the north face of the building and the second variance would allow for an overhead door facing the street on the south face of the building.
After brief discussion, the committee unanimously recommended the variances for approval.
The city’s Economic Development Specialist Matt Rehbein started out by giving more detail to the committee.
Farrell Investments owns a building on Endeavor Drive in the Southpoint Commerce Park. On 05/12/2022, they would be closing on the adjacent parcel which they were purchasing with the intention of expanding their existing building. While they were finalizing their plans for the building, city staff identified two variances that they would need to move forward.
The first was for a metal expansion wall. Farrell had designed their building so that they would be able to expand to either the west or the north; however, the Southpoint deed restrictions allow for only one metal expansion wall.
The second was for an overhead door facing the street on the south side of the building. Farrell had some small equipment and tools such as a tile saw or saw cutters that they would like to have out front. Because they were smaller, they didn’t need to be carried through a dock. They would also like to be able to park their trucks in the building. So, they would like to install an overhead door on the front face of the building. Farrell had assured the city that they would not be using the door to facilitate truck loading, and Matt noted that they had loading docks in the back of the building. Additionally, the overhead door would be screened by the landscaping in the site plan that the city had already approved.
City staff was recommending approval of both variances.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) said she read the in the materials included with the agenda that the metal face they were asking for was only a few inches off what they would already be allowed to do anyway. It seemed like what they wanted to do was not something out of the ordinary.
[Per the deed restriction, 75% of the visible wall could be metal and the remaining 25% had to be brick, architectural precast concrete panels, decorative face concrete block, cut stone, or exterior insulation and finish system.]
Specialist Rehbein answered that he did not get the actual calculation as to how far off they were from the requirements in the deed restriction because they knew that they would be seeking a variance for it.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) asked what the purpose of the deed restrictions were in the first place. It seemed to her that having a second lot sort of negated some of the needs that were shown in the deed restriction. For example, she assumed that the restriction on a second door was so that there wouldn’t be an excessive number of doors facing a street.
Specialist Rehbein answered that the deed restrictions were consistent throughout the park. Regarding the property before them that day, the lots were going to be combined into one large lot. Variance requests were subject to a cases-by-case review.
In general, the deed restrictions were in place exactly for some of the reasons she talked about—so that they didn’t have a dozen doors facing the street and so that truck traffic and loading/unloading were kept toward back of the building. They were trying to maintain the integrity of the park for people who already owned land there and to maintain the level of professionalism that those buyers had already committed to. The city wasn’t going to require developers to go to an architectural review board, but they did want to maintain a certain appearance in the park.
Alderperson Maiyoua Thao (District 7) asked why they had to have a variance for the project.
Specialist Rehbein answered that the deed restrictions required any variance to go before the committee and the Council.
There were no further questions and the committee approved the variance request 4-0.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=959524&GUID=860A400E-BD5E-4289-A0EC-3C439C5847F8
Be the first to reply