The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 10/17/2022 at 7PM.
In the 2+ years I’ve been following Appleton committee meetings, this is the first time they have met twice in one month. They have a lot of variance requests to consider.
The first request is from a residential property owner who wants to install a pool that would increase the lot coverage to 55% even though city code only allows a maximum lot coverage of 40% on residential lots. The agenda packet does not provide any further details about their request or any hardships that they may be facing.
The second request is from an applicant who wants to erect a 6’10” fence in their back yard even though city code only allows a maximum height of 6’. Based on the included information, it appears the fence already exists. They added addition boards to the top (bringing it to 6’10”) in order to “ensure privacy for our neighbors since the houses are in very close proximity.”
The third, fourth, and fifth variance requests all relate to a proposed Club Car Wash on the corner of Ballard and Longview. They want to…
- Construct a drive through facility in the front yard, but city code prohibits drive through facilities in the front yard.
- Build a canopy off the principal building 8 feet from the front property line, but city code requires a 10-foot setback.
- Place a trash dumpster in the front yard, but city code prohibits dumpsters in the front yard.
The hardship is that the lot has three front yards. Staff, however, believes “this does not make the parcel unusable for other uses that do not have front yards restrictions. The hardship appears to be self-created because the applicant is choosing this project over other potential uses for this parcel that are code compliant. [I don’t know how relevant it is, but the site is already a car wash. It’s just being developed into a new car wash. I’m trying to keep an open mind here, but at this point staff’s position seems at least a little ridiculous. Perhaps it will become less so once they make their case to the board.]
The sixth variance request is to construct a projecting sign that is 48’ above grade, but city code limits the height of projecting signs to 16’. This is the Zuelke Building on College Avenue, and the developers are arguing that the property is a registered historic property and “without a variance granted we would not have the ability to showcase the unique façade as a cohesive architectural landmark for the city, which would undermine the historical significance of the property.”
The seventh and eight variance requests pertain to a property on Oneida Street. The applicant would like to rezone the parcel from Commercial to Residential however the existing building is 18’7” from the front lot line, but city code requires a 20’ front yard setback. The parcel is also 56’6’ in width, but city code requires a minimum lot width of 70’. Per the property owners, “The property was once a 2-family duplex and is still set up as such. We would like to update the old worn out aspects of the property with new amenities and rent it as a modern affordable 2 family.” City staff’s position is that “the hardship appears to be self-created. The property could remain a legal nonconforming use as a commercial property.” [Maybe I’m just in a grumpy mood today, but frankly, I’m having a hard time having sympathy for staff’s position on this. The house was built to be residential and is currently used in a residential capacity. Maybe city code should have to bend to the things that predate it rather than having old things bend to the modern city code.]
The ninth and final variance request is from an applicant who wants to build an attached garage that is on the lot line, but city code requires a 5’ side yard setback. This sounds like an odd situation. Two properties share a garage that is divided by their property line. They would like to tear it down so that each property can build their own garages. Per city staff, “To date, a plan showing the location and size of the proposed garage has not been submitted with the application. There does not appear to be space on this parcel for an attached garage. Without more detail, the city cannot recommend approval of this request.”
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=999525&GUID=A24C52D8-B20D-445E-AB82-7EF04C5633BA
Be the first to reply