The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 10/18/2021 at 7PM. They will be considering 3 separate variance requests.
The first is a request by Wisconsin Orthopedic Clinic to install a sign that is 694 square feet large. However, section 23-529(c)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the area of a sign in this location to 200 square feet in size. The applicant is claiming that the property is obstructed by the overpass and northbound traffic and people traveling north on the highway have difficulty seeing the current building sign, hence the desire to erect a larger sign. City staff is recommending again approving the variance because the claim of hardship is “too general in nature and not specific to the dimensional limitations of this particular parcel.” Instead of granting a variance, they recommend petitioning the Common Council to change the code language
[Given the ready availability of GPS on practically every single mobile phone out there, it’s difficult to see where the hardship is here. We’ll see what the Board decides.]
The second variance being requested is by a homeowner who wants to build a gazebo but the application was denied “because the property is over the maximum lot coverage for the R1A zoning district, which is 40%”. Apparently, the homeowners caused the violation by expanding the concrete area around their pool when they decreased the size of the pool, so now they can’t go ahead with their gazebo project until a variance is approved. It’s not entirely clear from the documents if the error was an innocent mistake or an issue of intentionally going ahead and doing it then asking for forgiveness after the fact. At any rate, staff believes the small size of their lot should qualify them for a hardship exemption, so one would expect the Board would grant it.
[For what it’s worth, I’m not sure their claim that the neighbors won’t see the gazebo they plan to install is actually true. I’m in this neighborhood on a fairly regular basis and I’ve seen this property and have regularly admired how comfortable and relaxing their pool and backyard area is. A gazebo will be a really cute addition. They would have my vote.]
The third variance request is from a property owner who wants to install a detached garage 86 feet from the front property line which is closer to the front property line that the principal building. The new garage would be in the same location as a former attached garage, but since it would be closer to the front property line than the existing house it would not be in compliance with the section of the Municipal Code which states “When not attached to the principal building, accessory structures, except for parking lots and driveways shall be prohibited in the front yard, unless otherwise stated in this chapter.”
City staff believes that alternatives exist that would allow the homeowner to build a structure that complies with city code and the review criteria for a hardship have not been met.
[I don’t really understand why the city cares if an accessory building is closer to the front lot line than the principal building.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=894382&GUID=2F12B96D-8620-4C0B-B16F-14CB70512872
Be the first to reply