The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 07/18/2022 at 7PM. It looks like they have a full slate of variances to consider, with one property actually requesting 3 variances related to a rezoning.
The first variance request is for the commercial lot on Calumet Street near the Reel Shot. The developer wants to build a gas station with a convenience store and car wash. They want to be able to pave 85% of the property, but Section 23-113(h)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum lot coverage of only 75%. The applicant’s position is that, “If the variance to the lot coverage was not granted, the pavement dedicated to the maneuvering of trucks and vehicles would be greatly reduced.” This lack of pavement would result in reoccurring conflicts between various vehicles and pedestrians.
Per the staff analysis, “The lot is not abnormally small or a unique shape. The applicant must show that the dimensional limitations of the lot cause a hardship, rather than the preference of the site designer. For example, could the parking lot or building be decreased in size? There appears to be alternatives.”
The applicant does note in the application that the site has a permanent easement for a sanitary sewer that runs along the wester portion of the site.
[It sounds like a bit of a tough case to explain why this variance is necessary, but at least they do have a unique condition in the form of the easement, so maybe they’ll pull it off.]
The second variance request is for a property down by Eagle Point Senior Living. The developer wants to build 8 townhome style condominium units on the property. It is a corner lot and the applicant wants to erect a building that is 5 feet from one frontage property line and 12 feet from the other frontage property line even though the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot setback. Per the memo from city staff, “Due to the steep grades along the south side of the property, only a portion of this lot is buildable. The topography creates a hardship that meets the review criteria for a variance.”
The final applicant is requesting 3 variances. They hope to rezone their property from an M2 General Industrial District to a C2 Commercial District. Doing that would result in several nonconformities so a rezoning could not happen unless variances were granted. The three issues are:
- Rezoning would create a lot that is 11,551 square feet, but the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum size of 14,000 square feet in a C2 zoning district.
- Rezoning would create a parcel with 99% lot coverage but the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum lot coverage to 75%.
- Rezoning would create a parcel with a building that is 11 feet from the rear property line, but the Zoning Code requires a 20-foot rear yard setback.
The applicant is a growing business that needs more parking for the large semi tractor-trailers that they use. The adjacent property is zoned C2, and if the rezoning to C2 of this property goes through, then the owner of the neighboring property will split it into two parcels and sell one of the newly created parcels and merge it with their existing one. If they cannot purchase the parcel located next to them “we will have to shut down as we have nowhere to go with our large trucks and trailers.”
[It’s not clear to me why this rezoning needs to happen before the neighboring property could be split. Why couldn’t the neighboring property be split the new parcel purchased by the applicant and then that parcel rezoned to M2 instead of their existing main property being rezoned from M2 to C2? Perhaps that will be made clear during the meeting.]
The staff analysis memo concludes that “Variances are typically granted to remedy a hardship that existed due to the unique size or shape of the parcel, not the preferences of the applicant. The applicant does not appear to meet the review criteria for a variance because the hardships are self-created.”
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=986184&GUID=8CB3B2BC-48DB-4C0E-8283-F9606A9512AD
Be the first to reply