Since it’s a quiet week with no committee or Council meetings, I thought now would be a good time to revisit the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on 07/18/2022.
First off, of all shows under the City of Appleton umbrella, the Board of Zoning Appeals is my most favorite. It’s basically the municipal version of courtroom tv, which I love, but it has the worst production values. The microphones are frequently messed up, and back during the 07/18, the camera wasn’t even focused on the committee members but rather off to the side on Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen.
During this meeting the microphones for the applicants were not working very well and it was hard to fully hear what they were saying, particularly if they spoke softly.
The committee took up three variance requests. This recap is of the first request which involved a proposed gas station/convenience store/car wash on the corner of East Calumet and South Schaefer streets.
There is already a Best Wash car wash right next to this lot, and this location is only a couple of miles away from the carwash-heavy intersection of College Avenue and Kensington Drive. But for some reason, including a car wash in this site design was important to the developers.
The applicant was requesting a variance to create 85% lot coverage but section 23-113(h)(2) of the zoning ordinance limits lot coverage to 75%. The applicant did cite the location of a permanent sanitary sewer easement as a special condition of the lot, but the main hardship they indicated they would experience if the variance was were not granted was that “the maneuvering of trucks and vehicles would be greatly reduced.” That in turn would cause recurring conflicting between various vehicles that accessed the property. “The granting of the variance would help ensure the safety of the people utilizing the property for its proposed land use.”
The Board ended up voting 4-0 to deny the variance because they felt that, while there was probably benefit to the proposed development, the issues they were wanting the variance for were self-created.
No members of the public/neighborhood provided public comment on the variance request. There were, however, a number of representatives of the applicant who appeared.
Given the poor quality of the audio, I’m not going to do a full play-by-play.
Per the representatives the proposed development was a Holiday gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Holiday had around 550 stores throughout the upper US. Over the years, Holiday had developed design standards for their site layouts which they believed improved safety and the flow business operations. They gave an entire presentation which was not visible in the video. They explained the proposed layout and how it was intended to decrease traffic congestion and improve traffic flow, particularly in regards to delivery vehicles, fuel trucks, and garbage collection trucks.
Board member Kelly Sperl asked about the easement that had been mentioned in the application. In talking with the applicants, it seemed that the easement was not going to impede their ability to build on the site, and although they would not be able to build structures on top of the easement, they would be able to pave over it.
Board Chairman Paul McCann noted that the concept design that had been presented had been for a typical Holiday store and commented, “It just appears overbuilt for this site.” He wondered if it would be possible for them to make changes and decrease the lot coverage in a way that would not significantly decrease their business model. He suggested possibly decreasing the number of fuel pumps or removing the car wash.
The number of fuel pumps in their design was the number needed in order for the business to be viable. It sounded like the car wash was an add-on to the site and not strictly necessary but it was something that previous study had indicated would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Additionally, if I understood properly in spite of the poor audio quality, the Holiday representatives sounded like they indicated a reduction in size would most acutely impact the convenience store’s storage area which would result in increased deliveries and more truck traffic.
Chairman McCann noted that there seemed to be an abundance of car washes in the area. He mentioned Club Car Wash by name and also pointed out that there was already a car wash right next door. He wondered if the car wash was removed from their plan if they could fit in the site without a variance.
Again, I have to reiterate, the audio quality of the video was very bad. Alternately, maybe I was just having a fever dream or something, but it really sounded to me like a Holiday representative said that when they were evaluating the area, they found that there was a need for a car wash even with the growing number of car washes in the area. They believed it was a good service that, at other stores, had increased the overall customer experience.
They also reiterated that a decrease in space would likely increase the amount of delivery truck traffic the site experienced.
Board Member Engstrom was concerned about safety issues with large fuel trucks navigating through the current design.
Chairman McCann and board member Sperl agreed the space was tight, and board member Sperl commented that he felt it was over designed.
Chairman McCann raised the possibility of Holiday potentially purchasing more land to expand the size of their lot.
There was also a discussion about stormwater runoff which I didn’t entirely follow and which ended up sounding mostly like it was a non-issue.
Ultimately, the Board voted 4-0 to deny the variance request. Board member Engstrom said that he had a hard time due to the traffic concerns. The board had a responsibility to do no harm to the public interest and they needed to keep that in mind when evaluating requests. Additionally, the lot coverage requested was only a relatively small increase on what was permitted but it would be a much larger increase from what the current coverage of the lot was. He also thought there were also a lot of other considerations they hadn’t discussed such as snow removal. He saw the value of the project to the area but could not overcome those issues and also viewed the need for the variance as being self-created.
Board member Sperl agreed. He also didn’t see the hardship because the unique condition of the lot (in this case an easement) did not in any way affect their design plans. Ultimately, it seemed to be a financial issue which didn’t create a hardship. He reiterated that he felt it was overbuilt.
Although the variance was denied, Chairman McCann did let the Holiday representatives know that they could work with the city’s Inspections Department or City Planning Department to see if there were other options.
[This variance request reminded me a little of the request from the Orthopedic Sports Institute which wanted to erect a billboard-sized electronic sign for their business. Their reasons for wanting it were understandable, but the underlying hardship necessitating the variance was not demonstrated.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=986184&GUID=8CB3B2BC-48DB-4C0E-8283-F9606A9512AD
Be the first to reply