The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 03/20/2023 at 7:30PM. They will be taking up 4 variance requests.
The first is a request from Chick-fil-A. They would like to build a detached accessory structure (canopy and trash enclosure) in the front yard but section 23-43(f)(2)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits accessory structures in the front yard. The location for the accessory structure was chosen in order to “promote a safe and free-flowing traffic pattern throughout the mall parking lot.”
This new Chick-fil-A will be located in the Northland Mall parking lot and they believe their location contains unique hardships because “it is a carve out of the existing mall parking lot, not a standalone lot. As a result, the CFA site had to be configured in a way to provide/maintain as much parking as possible within the overall development while separating dine-in and drive-thru lane traffic. Providing this separation will help alleviate traffic issues and backups within the mall parking lot. Also, since CFA has a shared parking agreement with the mall, a safe path of travel from the mall parking lot and CFA building needs to be provided. Having pedestrians continually cross the drive-thru lane could lead to safety concerns.”
Per staff analysis, the application has met the review criteria for a variance.
The second request comes from a property owner on Haddonstone Drive. They would like to construct a pool and increase the coverage of their lot to 44% but section 23-92(g)(2) limits lot coverage to 40%. The applicant states that an easement behind their yard “limits the amount of useable space in our yard.” When describing the hardship, they would experience if not granted the variance they say, “We would like our backyard space to be useable for our family. Under current circumstances, due to the easement, the backyard is not functional space for our family. Putting in a pool would allow us to maximize the useable space of the limited yard we have.”
The analysis by city staff states that there is nothing unique about the size or shape of the lot, and “the hardship only exists because the owner prefers to have a pool.”
The third variance request is from Community First Credit Union on Oneida Street. They would like to replace their existing sign with a new sign that is 207 square feet in size but Section 23-523(a) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the area of a ground sign to 150 square feet.
They describe the hardship as being the fact that the existing sign is 20 years old and due to be replaced and go on to say, “We are requesting a replacement cabinet due to the age of the sign. The sign was approved under the Master Signage Plan in 2003. […] We are not requesting a larger sign. The new cabinet is a slightly different shape but slightly smaller than the existing, so still complying with the original approved Master Signage Plan.”
City staff’s position is that when the existing sign was installed it “met the standards of the Master Sign Plan and the method of determining area of a sign was calculated different than the code prescribes today,” additionally city code requires that when nonconforming signs are altered or modified they shall be made to comply with the provisions of the existing code. Per staff, “The applicant has not demonstrated that the parcel has a dimensional limitation or unique character that would require a sign larger than the minimum standards.”
The final variance request is for a property on the corner of N Lawe Street and E Pacific Street in between Moon Water Café and Jacobs Meat Market. An investor would like to change the property from a residential use to a tavern with a maximum capacity of 49 with 3 parking spaces; but Section 23-172(m) of the Zoning Ordinance requires taverns to provide 1 parking space for each 3 persons based on maximum capacity which means 17 parking spaces are required.
The applicant states that there is not room to construct a parking lot and that the lot had been “designated as commercial prior to the widespread adoption of vehicle usage.” Without the variance the applicant would be unable to construct the tavern and “the property would likely remain in residential use despite being zoned Commercial. This location, on a heavily trafficked street adjacent two other mixed use buildings, makes economic sense.”
The staff analysis determined that the applicant had met the review criteria for a variance. [I’m curious to see how this one goes. Although it’s a commercially zoned building next to two other commercial buildings, it is still located right in a residential area, and a tavern along with the potential late-night hours and disruptive behavior and noise might be viewed differently than a café and a meat market that close before bedtime. I would think some residents might not be happy about this new business moving to the area.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1084896&GUID=E31C8A02-C3E3-4355-AD26-054E405A9284
Be the first to reply