Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Agenda is, for one who is able, please rise, and we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States

Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you. Next item is a roll call of the membership Mr. Angstrom? Here. Mr. Spurrow? Here. Ms. Kane?

Here.

Mr. Loosan? Here. Mr. Babbitts? Present. And Paul McCann as chair. I will conduct the meeting tonight. Next item on our agenda would be approval of the minutes from our previous meeting. That meeting was 05/19/2025. I did not attend that meeting. So if those who did attend that meeting would consider the minutes and either make corrections or a motion to approve.

I was in attendance. I've reviewed. Make a motion to approve.

Seconded. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. The next part of the agenda is for public appearances, which means anyone who is not directly an applicant for a case tonight would have the opportunity to come forward to the podium and either ask questions or give us something information that they may want to share that we would use in consideration for tonight's cases. So there being only one case, 1740 North Clark Street, is there anyone in the audience that would like to appear as a citizen? Yes, ma'am? Oh, sure.

Let me do that. Okay. Well, tonight, there there is a request for a variance from 1740 North Clark Street. If you are here, you likely received some sort of a notification from the city that these folks are going to ask for an extension off of their driveway to allow for parking. Simply describe it between the the front sidewalk and the driveway on the front side of the home.

So, we will go through that case tonight. We will hear, about any hardships that may be associated with the property. Obviously, if you're interested, we would hear from, neighbors as well to hear what concerns there might be or what endorsement or or, you know, favorable opinions there may be of the project. And then we will, deliberate and vote on that tonight, and it would require four yes votes by this board to approve a variance that would go along with that property and be associated with that property for the for the remainder of that the useful life of that property. So tonight, these folks are asking for something that is not allowed by code.

And this this body is responsible for determining whether or not there's a hardship associated with that property that should be considered and that we should take into account and offer them a variance to that city code requirement. So that's what's gonna happen tonight. Is that understandable?

Pretty much.

Okay. What's the hardship

to the city? Just the fact that they're asking for six feet?

There the it's not a consideration of a hardship to the city. Okay. The city has a rule that says you can't do this. Property owners have the right to come forward to this group and say, I know you can't do this, but we believe that our property has certain constraints and certain issues, whether they be topographical or physical or something is different about our property that should allow us to do this. And then we if we find that to be a hardship that that follows the the definition of a hardship by law, we can grant a variance. Okay?

Thank you.

Sure. Would you like to come forward? Do you have an opinion one way or another or a question that you wanna make sure? Ma'am, would you mind coming forward and just go ahead and this is you get to be on TV and all kinds of stuff. I'm sorry. Just come forward to the podium. All right. If you could just introduce yourself and then just

Kelly Hileman. I live across the street from them.

Okay.

And like I said, they take care of their property very well, at least the short time they've lived there they have. And very nice people. So I think they should be granted the variance, to be honest with you.

Okay. Appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has or would like to make a public appearance appearance tonight? Tonight? Just final warning, there is no other opportunity going forward. If you end up with a question or something, know, we we we'll close the public appearances, and then it's just the people who are presenting their case tonight. Okay? Alright. We're all set then. We'll go forward. Kurt, if you would read the request for variance. And if those folks who are representing that case would come forward, that would be appreciated. Oops. I thought I had you. Oops. I have director two. Go ahead.

The applicant proposes to install a driveway extension eight feet into the front yard. Section 2,343 F3G of the zoning ordinance limits driveway extensions to four feet into the front yard. Okay.

Folks, I assume you're representing the case. If you'd introduce yourselves.

I'm Jacob Diet, and this is my wife.

Courtney. Courtney Diet.

We live at 1740 North Clark Street. Do you just want me to

Yeah. If you could just tell us the background behind your request, and then Yeah. If you could also outline whatever hardships you believe that not being allowed to do this would cause.

Okay.

Those things are the only things really that we can take into consideration. And yeah, your request should be up here pictorially. We have all received it and we've been able to review it ahead of this meeting.

Perfect. Thank you. So our request is this isn't something we want to do. Since it's a we bought this as a two dwelling property. So it's a duplex upper and lower.

And according to Section 23.172, it's required to provide two off street parking spots per unit if it's a two family dwelling. So with our layout that you can see on the left there of our property, there's nowhere else in our backyard that we could actually add a parking spot. So our only choice to give a second parking spot to upstairs unit, because we currently haven't rented this out yet, would be to put that parking spot in the front there that you see on the right hand side. The hardship is that if you were to park in the driveway, there's enough room to pull out on the left up there in front of the left garage. So I kind of marked it, if you're in the lower unit, you'd have the left garage and that left little pull out.

But if you were to park, let's say, the second car for the upper unit behind the right stall of the garage or in the driveway, everyone is blocked in. So there's no way to safely get out of

there. Okay.

So the physical limitation of the size of the lot and the fact that it's a two family. Can I can I need to understand from the city's perspective here because there is some understanding, I think, that we're gonna have to gain here as to this is an r one b zoning? And you you described throughout your documentation that this is a duplex. I think those two things are income

Yes.

Competition with each other.

Yeah.

I don't think you can have a duplex by code on this property.

Yeah. So one So

I think I think we just need to if you don't mind, let me hear from the city first, and then you can weigh in as well.

Having a nonconforming use is common, where a property was used a certain way many years ago, and then the zoning could change. All areas could just the zoning could change and create nonconformities. You'll see that on Wisconsin Avenue. All kinds of houses are there that are zoned commercial for that uses in the future. That's what the city wants. So this is a single family neighborhood. I think most of the air around there is R1C. This property is R1B. But it is obviously used as a duplex. I did a little bit of research today.

Went to look into some of our records. I looked at the card of the when it was originally built in the 1930s, didn't really indicate whether it was a duplex or not. That long ago, who knows what was going on there. They could have changed. At some point over the year, it wasn't documented. Maybe it was originally built as a two unit and just no one ever really put that on the card. But at some point, the zoning changed to R1B. So this would be considered now. I'm going to assume it's a legal nonconforming use. And there's a section in our code 2342.

It's a whole section on nonconformities. It gives some rules about doing maintenance. It says, for example, if they stop using it as a duplex they cannot go back to a duplex because it would have to stay a single family if they chose to do that. Another thing is like they could never put an addition onto this property. So there are rules to this. I'm comfortable that it is a legal non conforming use as opposed to somebody like five years ago just said, hey, let's change this into a duplex illegally. I don't think that happened based on the records that I reviewed.

So is this legally a duplex? Or would this second unit be considered an auxiliary dwelling unit?

No, this is a duplex.

It is. Legally, it's a duplex.

Yeah. Accessory dwelling units really didn't exist until, like, five years ago. Right.

So this is just a duplex. So the requirements that they're referring to for parking, is there a requirement that they provide for parking spaces on this property? Yes. So

we don't usually refer to that in residential properties, but there is technically a section for required off street parking spaces.

And

in residential use actually based on the use, not the district they are required to provide parking spaces. Family two dwelling, they are correct, up to three bedrooms, two spaces for each dwelling unit.

Okay. All right. And you wanted to add something? Or is that think

did that really well.

We did provide the property record for you as well. And it highlights that it's a two dwelling unit. Or a two dwelling building. Right.

Yeah, I assume that you hadn't converted it and it had been that way. Has it been that way for ninety years? I mean, it been a two as far as you can

tell? As far as we know, the person we bought it from owned it for ten years. We're going on two years of ownership. I can't find where they converted it if they converted it. It looks like it's in that way.

Okay. And then, Kurt, is there any concern about extending the use of a nonconforming property?

No. Okay.

All

right. Any other so the hardship that you've described is that it's a narrow lot?

Yeah, there's no room to extend the opposite way because you have the neighbor's yard. And I mean, where the house is, you can't go around the house. So it's yes, it would be the narrow lot.

And then you run into packed parking. So if one unit is parked, then the other can't get out if there's an emergency

or something like that?

I mean, ultimately, I'd love to have, if you could fit it in the back, but there's not enough room to get around that garage. So like even if you're because that was my first option I looked at was putting it on the left of the garage back there, but you still don't have enough room to park in another car in pretty much.

Could you describe to us what the dimensional size of those boxes that you depicted there? Is that

Is that supposed to be about a car? So it's not scientific by any means. But when you pull out that so we'll say seventeen forty number two there. When you park a car there, it completely blocks the car seventeen forty one. So those two would be one unit, which would be the downstairs.

So that's about another size of a car there, the x'd out one, because that would be where second person for the second dwelling would park. But then every other car is now parked in by And one there's not enough room on the driveway to get around a car, even if you were to concrete it all the way up to the house.

So your intention is to put the eight by 17 foot. It's gravel today. Right? There's a car parked on it today.

Yeah.

Your intent is to have that be resident number two's number two space?

So currently, it's we are the only ones that live there because we we haven't rented it out because of this this issue. And it was a little nice to have our own house for a little bit. So we just kind of put the pause on that. But yes, this is one of the things that is preventing us from using it as an intended two dwelling house.

Do you know what they did for the last ninety years?

I don't know. Modern standards have changed a little bit. It's more affordable to have a car and to you know, if you have two people, the upstairs is a two bedroom. So you could have a couple living there. You could have two friends living there. Assume they're probably going to have two cars. Don't know what it used to be like, you know?

So was that grass when you bought it? And you put the gravel in?

Well, was like half grass, Yeah. Half

Yeah, I looked it up to see what it was when it was sold. And it was grass, not gravel. Okay.

We spent our second anniversary digging it up.

Now Ragged or completed? Memorized. Now you got me all emotional. Beautiful.

Hey, wait till you're married forty four years. We've through a lot more.

So are there any other questions or any other members of the board have anything for the applicants?

Do you know how wide your existing driveway apron is? Because just visually, it might be a bad angle or whatever, but it appears that it's not a whole lot wider, if any, than the than the driveway apron. There's actually gravel extension

Mhmm. The apron as well.

Oh, the apron added too? Yep.

Just to make it square instead of

I had a little elastic over that I threw there.

Yeah. Couple hours left in your anniversary. Yeah. So it's I

don't know exact measurements of that.

It didn't look to be 12 feet. I mean, it's probably

I dropped back too.

Parking stall wide, kind of.

And then you throw in snow in the winter. Yeah.

Mean, there's a couple of issues with putting a car there. You know, it's in the it's in the setback. It's in the site the vision area to back onto the sidewalk. Right? Someone walking from north to south may not be able to be seen by somebody backing out of the driveway because there's a car there. There there's lots of reasons why the code's written the way it's written. My concerns are always for safety and and being able to see when you're backing out. You you clear the house. You still have some time to pause your car before you get to the sidewalk. Mhmm.

With that you know, if you put a you put a ban there or something, you know, F-one 150, you might not be able to see someone on the sidewalk. A little bit of a concern in that respect.

Yeah. I know that our neighbors who had a gravel spot that they got the same notice we did. And what they tended to do just for, I think, ease of parking in a spot like that, you know, it's a tighter spot to get into each time, is they parked on the road till the end of the night. So I'm assuming that that could be a possibility, too, that we tell our tenants that if they would prefer you know, we'd prefer them to park on the road until they absolutely are done using their car for the night, which would help with that safety issue.

And Clark Street allows parking on one side?

Not overnight. No parking Yeah, but one side, yes.

JAMES Because it's a pretty narrow it's only 20 foot wide Yeah. We heard

it was the old Cattle Drive Road.

JAMES Yeah. That's what we were just recalling as well. Any other questions for the applicant? Michael?

I guess I'm curious just is the reason you're not able to rent it out because of this section of the code? I feel like we might be talking about the wrong variance, right? And maybe I'm out of bounds, but it feels like we should be varying from how many parking stalls are required, not varying from how we park the second car.

I think you might be correct in your thought process, but I don't know that that doesn't mean they're forced to have four cars there. It's just that, you know, if somebody moves there, they have to provide a spot for four cars as the property owner. But somebody that's living there doesn't necessarily have to have a car.

Well, and and you could argue that there's plenty of room for four cars. It's just they're not able to shuttle cars Mhmm. Conveniently. Yeah. And and you could pose a potential issue when someone has an emergency and none of their cars are accessible.

And also the board has to consider the relief being requested. You know, we can't fashion a different type of relief being requested in the application.

No. But to Michael's point, if if this was purely a, there's no room for four cars anywhere, you know, they wouldn't be coming here with this. They'd be coming here with, can we get away with three cars or two cars instead of four cars? And and that's the variance we'd be considering. That's not the case. I mean, there's there's plenty of room for four cars here. You can meet that requirement. It has for ninety years. But, you know, the the issue the only hardship issue here really is is it safe and convenient to be able to manage the space that they have parking.

Is that garage kind of pitched or, like, offset slightly from from

the the orientation so that you

can get out? Well, what do you mean by that? Like, it's it's pitched a little, as you can see there Yeah. To the left. So, yes. So if it wasn't like that, you wouldn't even be able to get around the house. It is very tight if you park in that left one. As soon as you get out the garage, you got to crank that steering wheel as far

as you

can to get over it.

Yeah. The north stall wouldn't if it were squared up, it wouldn't

No, even wouldn't be usable.

So what I'm seeing is that the proposed spot is eight feet by 17 feet. Have you all seen any situation where if this were to be approved that you could require the parker to be closer to the house so there is more clearance between the street and the end of the car? I mean, I I don't know how you would, enforce that. But

Yeah. I don't know how we could direct that or how it would be enforced.

Just keep your fingers crossed.

Bet they don't have enough two fifty.

Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, current currently, we don't have any way to prevent a car from parking right at the sidewalk in the driveway. Right? I mean, you don't have that, but but then presumably, there's no there's no vision obstruction there either. They can just back out across the sidewalk.

Is there any reason to think about that parkard pulling in the driveway and pulling in parallel to the house so that the sight line is the same when they back out? It's the same as the driveway when they back out. They're not coming right out from that lot into the driveway. They're coming from that spot into the driveway then into the road.

Lost me a little bit.

So Okay. So

are you trying to get a little bit more relief from the sidewalk? Yeah. Okay. So understanding the width versus length of the car, she's suggesting to pull

If they were to pull in

like that. Width of

the car be The length. So Yeah.

This is a spot going like this.

You'd be Right. So they pull into the driveway, and then they turn left parallel to the home.

In front right there? Yes.

Right. Yeah. Exactly.

I think it would be taking up they'd be parking on the front sidewalk Yeah, the front step.

You're saying you have less width and length.

Yes, less width and length there currently. Okay. It would be a good option, though, if we had it.

Well, you do that in the back as well. You could do that in

Yeah, the right.

Same maneuver. You said that you've tried that. Is that correct? You've tried to

Yeah, so currently there is like, if you can see there, there's like a little wedge in the concrete and that's a pullout spot. And, yeah, you can fit that one car. You wouldn't be able to fit, like, two cars this way. You wouldn't be able to there wouldn't be enough room if you were to put a parking space back there to clear, and then they'd be clogging each other when they're backing up. Because that was my first option I looked into. Okay.

So the terminology I'm to find the terminology. You said something about packed parking. Right? I mean, is that a city term? Tandem. I think it's tandem. Well, it's packed. The issue here is a packed parking issue. I don't know the definition, but I think I understand what you're talking about. You're talking about somebody can't get out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Is that when the city sets the requirement for parking for both units and four parking spots on this property, is that any consideration? No. Okay. So they should be able to park four cars end to end in this driveway and that's sufficient for the city and the city doesn't concern themselves with whether or not car A can get out or car B can get out.

Correct. That's a convenience for the app tenants there. It's not a code issue.

Right. Is there any aspect to that we should be concerned about?

I think that in my staff report, I just said that the hardship criteria is not met because this is just a convenience. You could move your cars around, jog your cars. And that's not a code issue. It's just convenience Okay. That they're wanting this. They have adequate parking, and they want this just out of convenience, not that there's a hardship.

Because even if they got that, if the variance was approved potentially, somebody could still park right in the driveway and block the other two cars that are up near the garage. So it only eliminates one of the problems.

Okay. Any other questions of the applicants? Anybody? Okay. With no other questions, I will entertain a motion on the variance.

I'm not remembering this. I move to approve for the sake of discussion.

I'll second.

Thank

you. Moved and second to approve the variance. Is there any further discussion by the board?

I think the, if this was approved, I think it's gonna create a real heart share or a real problem safety wise for anything coming in and out of that driveway. Because if some if there's a car parked in that front spot that they're proposing and somebody's trying to back out that driveway, they won't see past that car in that direction. And it's right in that vision corner. That that vision corner is what I think it's 12 or 10 by 10 by 10, isn't it, or something like that?

Yep.

So, I mean, I'd I'd be really to your point earlier, Paul, I think I'd be real concerned about the safety about somebody coming down that sidewalk.

I think we're creating that opportunity. I mean, it's not there today, really. And I think that would be a concern. And I think I mean, it's not convenient. But I think there is opportunity to park four cars here if you need four cars.

And I also think it sets up a precedent for lots of other properties in the city to to create something that the that the code certainly was trying to prevent.

And once you grant the variance, if something would happen, somebody got hurt, you can't change the variance.

Yeah. It goes with the life of

the property. Life of property. Anything

else from further discussion?

Alright.

Take a vote then. Miss Kane? No. Mister Angstrom? No. Mister Lusen? No. Mister Spurrow? No. Mister Babbitts, would you like to vote for

It's a no.

The record? Okay. You did not receive four yes votes, so the variance request is denied. You'll have to figure out other ways to get your parking issue taken care of.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda would be election of the chair for this next year. Is this going to be a shortened term because we should have done this in June? Or is this a June to June? We'll do a November to November chair. Any candidates from the available board members? Would You be nominate yourself. I would be happy to serve again as chair.

We would be happy to have you.

Anything to get rid

of these ads. Always political ads.

Sure, yeah. Just to avoid a messy campaign. All right. Well, I'd be happy to. Someone be interested in

I'll nominate. I'll second the nomination.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay. Thank you very much. Then, election of a vice chair.

I think Scott's doing a wonderful job. I'll second that.

Nominated in second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you. Congratulations, Scott.

Help me, who Who made the motion for the Vice Chair? Kelly? For Vice Chair, Vice Chair.

Kelly did. Kevin, I seconded it.

Kevin, you seconded it?

For Chair Kelly moved, I second No. Karen.

Karen moved. No. Moved. Seconded. Yeah. I moved it. On yours, Kevin seconded.

This is the Spider Man meme

of everything. Treasurer No.

Okay. So for the chair, Karen, pay the motion. Yes. And Kelly's second.

I think Scott's second.

Scott's

Scott's second ago. Yeah.

I think I was here. Okay. All set? Mhmm. Good. Final item on the agenda is to discuss potential times and dates or days of the week for this meeting? There's been some issues have arisen.

So this question came up about meeting times, like why is it at 7PM, this meeting, and can we change it? So there's been some discussion. I think one of the concerns is I might not always be here. I have no problem coming here at night, but we might have other people that might not feel comfortable being here at night alone, walking out to the car, things like that. Anything can happen to anybody, but that was the concern about people being here late. Also, coming back to work. There are some ideas coming up like having it seven a. M. Or like 04:30, like most of the city committee meetings are?

I work in Green Bay, so neither of those are

gonna be an option for me.

Okay.

And I would decline on the early morning when I would be happy to do the 04:31.

Mhmm.

My concern would be for others who are asked to attend or allowed to attend. I think it's less convenient Mhmm. For the public to come, any time during the work day.

I also think we should also consider the Yeah. Job environment that we're in right now and making it more difficult for people to go to their job during work hours, probably isn't a good idea right now.

Yeah. I think from applicant standpoint or a appearances standpoint, this is the most convenient of those choices. You know, it doesn't matter to me too much, but I I don't wanna inconvenience 10 people to, you know, to make it more convenient for one or two or three. Right. And I think I think this is a public meeting, and it should be as available as possible. So I my my preference would be to stay where we are. Mondays at seven and

And it sounds like it would work out better for

your Yeah. Job.

Yeah.

I mean, even though it conflicts with Monday night football and badger games as we speak.

Thursday night football.

I think we'll live through football.

I I think you're right, especially with the a lot of the general public can't make up two in the afternoon or a, you know, a a daytime meeting, whether it's four or two or Mhmm.

Paul's point, I think, on transparency.

I think having it outside of normal working hours, you're gonna have more people Yeah. Able to, I guess, take in the proceedings.

Yeah. I'd propose the city pay whoever attends double time from city. Agree. Yeah. Is that gonna work out okay?

Well Yeah. Alright. I'm exempt. Doesn't matter. These two are nonexempt.

You get paid the same that we do

Mhmm. Yeah. For being here. Okay.

Any any do do you want us to vote? Or would

you No. It's an information item. I don't think it's something we vote on. I think just we wanted to get get your input. Does Monday's work for everybody?

Yeah. I think as as well as any day.

Mhmm. Yep.

So the consensus is keeping it where it is. Nobody has Mhmm. Thought that they'd like a change.

It didn't sound like it was an improvement for anybody on the board.

And the only time it's really an inconvenience is if you have four or five cases in one night. Yeah. Then it gets a little bit later. But other than that, normally it's not that much.

And that's super rare. I don't know that

It's we not past any bedtime. So good for yourself. Well We'll excuse you if you need to take a nap. Alright. I think, Kurt, we'll just send back the advice that we'd prefer to stay just where it is. Okay. Okay.

One other thing, information item that's on the agenda but I came up today. Just sending emails out, asking questions. I need to be a little careful about what I communicate before a meeting. Yeah. Sure. It's like an open meetings issue. That's why I was I just said, I'll let's talk about it at the meeting tonight about questions that come up. I know I provide a memo that is, you know, there for the public to see. But then if there's emails being exchanged Yeah. Then we don't want any inside information or anything.

Well, was much a it was I mean, Michael's point was as much a correction.

You're right. Absolutely. I appreciate that very much. Well. Catching that, then we know. But then when you get into other things like that we talked about tonight about non conforming uses, it's best to just talk about it now.

Mhmm. Yep. I I I just imagine that with the auxiliary dwelling unit thing on the books now, there's a lot of homes that could look just like this one

Mhmm.

Where at their and it wouldn't have a parking requirement. So it it's kind of awkward to be stuck with a parking requirement when the house next door could put an ADU in and not have a parking requirement. Yeah.

And I didn't catch them. I'm glad Michael read it as closely as he did and did the research on it because I didn't catch that at all. Yeah.

You're right. Mhmm. I don't know I don't know what I which I had in my mind, was a duplex. So I just went with that. It was right there in front of me. So thank you.

Well, yeah. I mean, are there many of these, you think, in the city? Legal non conformities? That are called duplexes and that are in R1B and Yes. Okay. Well sure

there are because they used to convert these uppers and lowers all the time. Yeah.

Think probably the last time they did it for family members. Yeah.

Yeah.

And her parents lived upstairs and you lived downstairs and Yeah.

Well, what should have happened is a permit should have been taken out at some point if this was, in fact, built as a single family. It may have been built as a duplex

from day But

if it were to be changed, you just take a permit out. And there might be some requirements, like if you go from single family to duplex, you have to rate you have a separation, so there might be some a rated wall you have to put in or something like that. Yeah. But we just want a permit just to document it rather than just start using it as a duplex, you know, illegally. And then twenty years later saying, Oh, it's always been that way.

Yeah.

How did it get that way?

Yeah. Well, or reclassify it as an ADU instead of a second unit in a duplex. Because a duplex sort of makes you think that that each could be sold separately somehow or could be owned by someone on each side. And then and that you know, even in the code, that's sort of a definition. And that's there's no way that this could be sold that way or condominium

Not been up the level. Upper or lower.

Yeah. Yeah.

It's good. You had the right fire ratings and separations.

Mhmm. Yeah.

You can now because it's a duplex.

It doesn't ADU have to be can an ADU be attached, or does it have to be detached?

Either. Either? Yeah. There's three different styles. Okay. So we are at the point where we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll so move.

I'll second it.

All in favor, say

aye. Aye.

Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.