The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 02/21/2022 at 7PM and will be taking up two variance requests each of which staff has determined do not meet the requirements for a variance.
The first request is from a residential property owner who would like to build a deck 15 feet from the front property line, but the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot front yard setback. The applicant’s position is that being able to build this deck will add to his property value and the house next door seems to have a porch area closer than 20 feet from the front property line so he ought to be allowed to build that close also. Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen states in his memo to the board “A front porch/deck is not essential for the use of the property and the owner is causing the hardship by adding the addition. It does not appear the applicant has met the review criteria.” [This seems like it will be a hard sell for the applicant to make.]
The second variance request is from Core, LLC to construct a building that is 83” 9.75” tall, but the Zoning Ordinance limits building height to 60’. As you may recall, back in June of 2021, Core, LLC rezoned and combined four parcels on the corner of Richmond Street and Packard Street with the intention of building apartments. At the time, details about the apartment development were very high-level.
They appear to be back now with more detailed plans and those plans do not adhere to the city’s Zoning Ordinance, hence the request for a variance. Core LLC states in their application, “If the variance is not granted and there is no viable path to add parcels to the development, the re-development of the site will not happen with apartments. The site could continue to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.”
Inspections Supervisor Craanen says in his memo to the board, “the dimensions of the parcel do not limit development. The proposed lot is nearly an acre and could accommodate a development within the realm of permitted uses in the C1 zoning district. The factors that the applicant states require the building to be taller than the heigh limits in the Zoning Ordinance appear to be based on personal preferences, rather than the review criteria specified in Section 23-67(f) of the Zoning Ordinance. For example, the applicant has not indicated a unique physical limitation of the property. Also, by proposing an eighty three (83) foot building, rather than a sixty (60) foot building, is a self-created hardship. A sixty (60) foot building is an alternative.”
[Again, this seems like a bit of a hard sell, and it will be interesting to hear from the developer why a sixty-foot tall building is not viable and what about the property causes a hardship.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=926541&GUID=0C7CC846-52F4-4E5F-8BCE-13CDCA5B4E80
Be the first to reply