The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 05/20/2024 at 7PM. They will be taking up three separate requests for variances.
The first variance request is from a home owner on Easterbrook Court who would like replace two existing garages with one single garage within the same footprint. The existing garages are closer to the front property line than the principal building, but section 23-43(f)(1)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits detached accessory buildings in the front yard.
As a hardship, the property owner states his land is surrounded by a ravine and the only buildable area is the area where the garages currently are located which is technically considered in front of the house.
Per the staff analysis report submitted by Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen, “Because of the unique topography of a large portion of this property, the applicant meets the review criteria for a variance.”
The second variance request is from a homeowner on Leminwah Street who would like construct an attached 2-stall garage three feet from the side lot line. Section 23-93(g)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6-foot setback.
The applicant does not point to any sort of topographical issues related to the property as the reason for the variance but, rather, states that a variance is needed because “My patients may not survive a life threatening diagnosis that could have been prevented if I had arrived to the hospital sooner and didn’t have to dry off.” The application does not indicate why a 1-stall attached garage that was small enough to meet the 6-foot setback requirement would not sufficiently allow the applicant to leave for work on time. Nor does it explain how a variance-granted 2-stall garage would be able to prevent the applicant from being rained on while walking from the hospital parking lot into the hospital building.
Per the staff report put together by Inspector Craanen, “Staff recommends denial of this request because this proposed addition would remain, after the current applicant sells the house in the future. Also, the review criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as cited case law, required that a hardship relating to the unique physical limitations of the property be identified. Variances should not be granted based on the preferences of the current occupant.”
The third variance is from the Fox Commons developer. They would like to install multiple wall signs with a cumulative size of 581 square feet. Section 23-523(c)(1)(a) of the zoning ordinance limits the size of wall signs to 35% of each wall or 350 square feet.
The applicant believes this variance is warranted because the building is extremely large, the 581 square feet of signage would constitute only 1.52% of the building’s total surface area, and the signage is necessary to effectively advertise the multiple tenants in the building.
Per the staff report put together by Inspector Craanen, “The building encompasses nearly two city blocks. The size of the wall is uniquely large. Because of the large size of the wall at Fox Commons, this property meets the review criteria for a variance […] This property has a condition (size) that makes this property different than other properties in the area.”
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1191899&GUID=D427C620-E4F2-4434-9C67-2C2B0CC3D3DF
Be the first to reply