Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. If everyone's ready, good afternoon, everyone. This is the board of zoning appeals for 02/16/2026. I'm gonna call it to order. My name is Christie D'Angelo. They've decided that I'm gonna run the meeting today, so I guess that's how we're gonna do it. I will do a roll call though starting at my right. Tim Reddick present. Kevin Riley. Christy D'Angelo present.

Eric Dunn's, present.

Alright. Now we have time for public comment. If anyone has a comment to make that is not related to the appeals that are before the board today. Seeing none, we'll move on. Next is the approval of the meeting minutes from the 11/10/2025 meeting. It's been a few months since we've been here, but I need a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve. Kevin Riley seconds.

All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Alright. So now on to new business, which is why you are all here. Just to give you a little rundown kind of on how today works in case you have not been here before. This is again the Board of Appeals. The city will go first and Charlie will present kind of the information necessary for the board, give some background details. If you've had conversations with him or someone in his office, he will share that information with us.

When he is done, you will have the opportunity as the property owner or the agent of the property owner to ask him any questions that you might have. When he is done, then it will be your turn to present any additional information or evidence you want us to hear today in our consideration of your appeal. Then Charlie will also have an opportunity to ask you any questions and we on the board will be have an opportunity to ask questions. It's kind of a give and take as we go through this today. Maybe a little more informal than what you're expecting, but it really is just a conversation for us to figure out what's going on and and then to rule for the petition.

If you have any other witnesses or there are other people here that wish to speak to the particular appeal, they will have an opportunity to do so as well either for or against. Again, we'll be able to ask any comments. I would ask anyone who's going to speak, when it's your turn, please come up to the microphone, the podium in the center of the room when you get there and I will try to remind you, state your first and last name and your physical address just for the record so we can have a complete record on file. And then when everyone's done saying their piece and all the questions have been answered, we will close the testimony part of this. We will deliberate in open forum, you'll be able to hear our conversation on the petition or on the appeal.

Then we will go through and make findings and you will have a judgment or an answer before you leave here today. So with that, we will start with ID number 26Dash02876, The appeal of Bethesda LLC for a dimensional variance from section 22.38 sub seven sub c of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for the reconstruction of the manufacturing building at 576 Elizabeth Street, six inches from the rear lot line where a rear yard setback of not less than 25 feet is required. So, Charlie.

Alright. So this is 576 Elizabeth Street. It is a manufacturing storage building. It's adjacent to the Jiffy Gel Plant, which is currently operated by Ares Industries, and the property is owned by Bethesda LLC. Here it is from Elizabeth Street.

It's the building on the left, which is not very easily visible. And then from the parking lot in front of it, the building is right up to the parking lot, and it's a very utilitarian building. The there's a section in the rear. The building is built in several different sections and additions. And the section in the rear was removed a few years ago.

So here, you can see it from 2018. This is from facing from the north. You can see where the section in the rear was, And then that has been removed. It was in kind of a state of disrepair. It was a very old section of building.

So that was removed. And the applicants would like to rebuild in essentially the same location. So you can see a portion of the building still does extend right up to that rear lot line. And then the adjacent building, Chiffy Gel plant, the Ares Industries building, also extends right up to that lot line. They were in the past used for the applicants have stated that they would have been used for loading and unloading onto the railroad.

And that really is the only location that they believe they have to extend the building there. So this is the section that they would like to add onto the rear. If they do receive a variance, they would need to get approval from the Planning Commission, but they would like to find out whether or not they'll get a variance before they go through that process. So here's the view from this is from Dunbar Street looking from the north down towards where the building is. You can see the railroad line there in between and then a large lawn in between the street and the property boundary.

And then there's another and then this is to the other side of the street is Bethesda Park. So there's not really anybody to the rear that would be from good of John

a with that's feet. I Who is here to speak on behalf of Bethesda LLC? You just wanna step up to the mic. Yep. You can come on up. Step up to the microphone, state your name, and just to confirm, we do have an authorization on file. Correction. Okay.

My name is Mark Rollinger. I live at 2144 North 68th Street.

K. Do you have any questions for

For Charter.

The city.

Yeah. I don't. Thank you for presenting. I appreciate it. I'm more here if you guys have any questions. I'd like to field them for you and just let you know.

The question can you go back to the picture before the building was torn down? K. And when was it torn down? If you know, Charlie, either one of you.

It was definitely torn down before. I think we had a photo in 2020. I didn't see a demo permit to to get the exact date, but so sometime between 2018 and I believe On 2020?

Yes, that is correct. I don't remember the date on the demo permit either, but it was right around then.

Okay. Board questions.

Can you what kind of manufacturing? What exactly does your company manufacture just for reference for me?

Sure thing. It's the neighboring company, Ares Industries. And they they build sewer things for municipalities, like cameras, inspections, and they retrofit trucks for plumbing contractors like that. So it's pretty clean manufacturing, all new trucks and stuff, and they retrofit them with their equipment and sell them to plumbing contractors And they're just they're outgrowing their facility. So we're trying to help figure out where they can fit.

And this building has been leased to multiple tenants, but the applicants have stated that they'd like to bring it all under one.

And so the new additions gonna be where the old one was plus that open yard that used to be there?

So that open yard actually used to be part of a building as well that had also been torn down for safety reasons with the how old the chip or the bottling plant was. Parts of that original building were in dis disarray. So that was taken down probably just a couple of years before this photo was taken, and then we took down the next section for safety reasons as well. So the footprint of the new building will be less than what was originally there years ago.

But within that existing footprint?

Correct. Yep. That footprint that you see that had that open yard, it would probably be about for that that picture there yeah. About 20 feet in or less, 15 to 20 feet in.

Charlie, were any of the neighbors that sit on the other side of the railroad tracks contacted or notified at all? Are they ever

Would have gone out to the notice would go out to anybody who is within 100 feet.

So they probably aren't.

The property, they may gotten to a few of these houses along Dunbar. And I guess the hope with that is if it is an issue that's pertinent to the neighbors that they would talk to each other about it. But it wouldn't have it would have been maybe two or three houses at most, I guess. And then, of course, the park is directly across.

From the looks of the lot, does not appear like there is any other location on that lot where you could build out?

Correct. Yeah. Like as far as in front or anywhere else on the property. There's already there's kind of a drive path along the front of the buildings. Yes. Thank you for zooming in right there, which is already pretty narrow. And then the remainder of the spot, those trucks are no longer there. It would be employee parking for like where the current trucks are would be more parking for the buildings that are already there. So there's not a lot of room to build anywhere else that we can see.

And then just another question. How tall do you is the height line going to approximately match the other buildings?

Yes. There was a pretty large building there before. I don't know the exact heights. Our new building is definitely about the same height approximately. Okay. Because this it used to be a three story building in the center section of the old property. I I don't know the exact heights, though.

Thank you very much.

So the building you'll be putting in will be the same height as what used to be there or the current building?

It would be more in line it'd be in line with the far building on the, you know, right side of this picture, more about that height. Approximately a little bit more though for modern construction to allow the same head clearance through there that that building currently has. But there is a raised center section, which is probably more in line with the original building's height, just a center 50 feet or so.

Okay. Any other questions?

No, no. Alright.

Thank you.

Yep. Anything else let me know.

Alright. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak on behalf of this appeal for or against? Alright, then I will close down any further comments. And we will talk amongst ourselves on the microphones.

Go ahead.

I don't have any problems with this. I see it as a good thing to allow it.

Yeah. It's pretty clear. Sure your microphones are on.

Oh, yeah.

It's on. Do I just need to speak louder?

Yes.

Okay. I don't see I don't have a problem with granting this. I see it as a good And whatnot so it's pretty clear to me it's not encroaching on anyone.

Yeah. It's not going any closer to property line than the current building in the neighbor where building used to be.

Yes. And there's our instruments and everything there.

Addition to that, I think it's a good plus to increase the manufacturing and the tax base. It's a good thing for and also it doesn't make any sense to enforce a setback that's only going to make a bump out that would just be a problematic particularly for that part of town where we have lot of homelessness. It would just become a actually a problem. I think it actually solves a problem and adds a benefit to the city. And because they don't have any additional space on their lot, I would consider that a hardship for them to have any other options. For all those reasons, I would be in favor of granting this. All set.

All set. So smart. Alright. Any other discussion? Alright. Do you wanna walk through the findings, Todd?

Sure.

Okay.

Alright.

Let me just get the page up. So this is the appeal of Beth Bethesda LLC for a dimensional variance from section 22.387 c of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for the reconstruction of the manufacturing building at 576 Elizabeth Street, six inches from the rear lot line, where a rear yard setback of not less than 25 feet is required. So finding one is that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district. We'll start with

Tim. Mr.

We're voting now, yes.

Affirm or Affirm. Affirm. Affirm.

Affirm. Sorry, my mind is like

Finding two that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity?

Affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Affirm.

Affirm. Alright. Finding three, that a variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic gain or loss and that self imposed hardships are not being considered as grounds for granting the variance.

Affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Affirm.

Affirm.

Alright. Finding four, that the authorizing of such variants will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code or public interest. Affirm. Kevin Riley. Affirm.

Affirm. Affirm. Alright. Alright.

All passed four, four to nothing.

Four zero. So based upon the findings of the board of zoning appeals, I am making a motion that the appeal of Bethesda LLC for dimensional variance, granting a variance that will allow for the reconstruction of the manufacturing building at 576 Elizabeth Street, six inches from the rear lot line be, approved.

Tim Reddick, second that motion.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Anyone opposed? So the appeal passes. You can move on to the Planning Commission and good luck.

Thank you.

Alright. Item two, ID number 26Dash02891. The appeal of Michael and Charlene Markbart for a dimensional variance from section 22.26 sub seven sub a of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow a home to be constructed on the currently vacant property with tax key WAKC one zero zero zero zero seven one at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Pewaukee Road, set back 10 feet from the Buena Vista Avenue right of way when a street yard setback of not less than 25 feet is required.

Alright. So in this case, there's also they also have somebody here to speak for them. The applicants are live in Minnesota, and they weren't able to be here this week, unfortunately. So they have a friend. His name is Matt Sobatik, I believe. And and the applicants confirm both over the phone and in writing via email that he's authorized to speak for them.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep. So this is the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Pewaukee Road. It's just a little ways to the north of of City Hall here. The streets come together at an angle, which leaves this kind of small triangular property at the intersection. It hasn't been built on.

It was owned by the city for some time, but the applicants would like to build a single family home there. So here's a this is a photo of the property from the sidewalk. As you can see, Pewaukee Road is it's at a kind of a steep incline. So any home would be have to be built into the hill. The proposal is for a house with a 1st Floor area of approximately 1,000 square feet.

Then that would include a one car attached garage built into the front of the house as well as a foyer and then a living space behind it. So you can see the site plan is the whole property and then they also have the setback line shown on it. So it's a 25 foot setback from either street yard. And then there's a 10 foot setback that they have indicated on the west side that could be reduced because the property is a substandard lot, but it could only be reduced to nine feet. So you can see the there's a corner of the house that is proposed that would extend about 14 feet into that street yard setback along Buena Vista Avenue.

And so it would be setback about 10 feet from the property boundary there. They don't have full plans for the house. They'd like to wait until they have until they know whether or not they'll have a variance before they put together full plans. But they have provided some conceptual design ideas for the style of house that they would like to design. It would obviously be a little bit smaller than this, and it would be a little bit different with the garage in the front.

And again, it would be built into that incline. So it would be the first level would be partially or entirely built into the hill there. And then that's the incline from the other directions. You can see it as quite a steep hill at that location. Again, it will be it would be a 10 foot, as they've indicated here, 3.5 inches setback from the property boundary rather than 25 feet.

So the lot is 6,700 square feet in area, which is substandard under the zoning code. And for the typically, substandard lots have reduced setbacks. But in this case so again, the side yard setback, the rule is that it can be reduced to five feet or 10 feet 10% of lot width, whichever is greater. That's from a typical setback of 10 feet. In this case, the lot is, since it's triangular, it's 90 feet wide.

So they would be able to reduce it to nine feet. So they could potentially move the house a little bit further in, probably by a little less than a foot because of the angle. And then the rear yard typically can be reduced to as little as 10 feet. In this case, the rear yard is also the street yard. So they can't really reduce that any more than it already is.

And then for street yards, when there are houses that are on either side that have a street yard setback less than the 25 feet that's required, The street yard can be reduced to the average of the depth of the adjoining lots. In this case, since it's a corner lot, there aren't houses on either side. It's just the house on one side. So they don't really they can't really take advantage of any of those. There is a there are several houses going down Pewaukee Road and also on Buena Vista Avenue.

The applicants have noted that the intention is to build a house that would be of a similar scale and size to those neighboring houses. They've also noted that since the it's on a corner lot, they don't believe that the variance would have the same impact on the neighbors as it would if there was a house adjoining them to the West side or to the Northwest side because there is a pretty significant distance between where they would be proposing to build and where the neighbors would be. It also isn't a Vision Corner issue because it is more than 20 feet from the corner at the intersection. So again, this is Section 22.26 of the zoning code. So that's for the RS3 single family residential district.

So that would be 22.267A, which states that there should be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from any street yard any street right of way.

Is this the street yard setback is the only one that's an issue? Yes. Just in that one locate. Can you go back to like the where it showed the lines?

Yes. So that's the only spot where they have to go over the setback line. The rear yard setback would be reduced to 10 feet. And then the side yard, they're showing it at the 10 foot side yard setback, they could actually reduce that to nine feet if they wanted to.

So at the closest to the line, it's 10 feet.

10 feet.

Then it gets farther back, correct? Can you go to the picture that had, like, the intersection on it where you could see the hill? So I'm having some trouble visualizing. The house will be built in what direction?

It would be facing towards Pewaukee Road Most of the houses on Pewaukee Road have driveways that face out onto it and have partially basements that are partially on a or garages that open into a basement.

Into the hill.

Exactly. So it would be next to this house right here.

So just to clarify, this angle, this side, the garage is gonna be built into the basement? Because that was my major. Most likely. Yeah. Okay. So there really isn't any other room to go up or

Right. Yeah.

Okay. So their driveway will be off of Pewaukee Road?

Yeah. That's what they're proposing.

As well as their street address would be Pewaukee Road? Yep. Got it. K. Any other questions for Charlie? Alright. If you you're here on their behalf, come on up. Please at least state your name. Okay. Where you reside. Who you are.

I'm Matt Sobatek. I live in Pewaukee. My address is N 32 W 22190 Hillandale Circle, Pewaukee. So I am here because I'm a family friend and they had nobody that could come. So

And they're in Minnesota currently?

Yes.

Is that correct? Okay.

They got family down here, so they kind of wanted to build something, so

Do you happen to know how long ago they purchased the lot? Or do you, Charlie?

It was pretty recent. Yes, it was

within the last year or so. It had been city owned. I believe a neighbor had previously mowed the lawn and so nobody really realized it was city owned and then somebody stopped taking care of it and the city decided to sell it.

Fair enough. Is there a particular reason they chose this lot versus all the other lots that are available and the new construction that's available throughout the city?

I'm not sure. Probably because it was closer to their family.

That makes sense.

Are they planning to actually move here or?

Eventually I think is their plan. They're getting kind of older retirement is what I'm thinking.

So until then is this going be an income property? Do we know how close to retirement?

No, they'll be around. Like they'll be driving back and forth like they do right now. So

it's going to be a second home for them until they move here I

have one question on, are we talking about the driveway entering on Pewaukee Road? Yes. Do we know why you wouldn't choose Buena Vista like most of the other houses that would have access from that direction? It would seem a lot safer.

Very true. I guess the other houses going down Pewaukee Road do have driveways that enter onto the street. It may have just been a decision based on the angle of the lot and ease of putting in a driveway.

I agree. There are other properties with driveways on Pewaukee Road, but just knowing the neighborhood quite well, Pewaukee Road is if I were doing it, I would have chosen Buena Vista as a safer driveway, but that would I just was wondering if there was an answer to that question.

I do know with driveways with attached garages, I don't know that it's a requirement, but we do prefer that the driveway or that the garage phase, it normally would be a requirement that it'd be 25 feet from the right of way because that allows room for a car to park without hanging over the sidewalk. I think if you're

going to build into the hill, you'd rather have it be your garage than like your living room.

Okay.

My guess. Any other questions?

No. You said my other I'm really happy to see this lot potentially being built on.

I

would assume the owners, but I don't know if you can answer this. The owners would know that they would be responsible for the sidewalks on both sides of both of those streets.

I'm not sure there's

I'm sure they know that.

Yes, like any corner lot.

Yes. Okay. I just wanted it on the record.

Yeah. It's your responsibility. It's a lot of sidewalk. Any other questions? Yeah.

Just more curiosity. The back of the house, the how how much distance is it from the back of the house to the top corner of the lot?

I believe that was about 50 feet back from I can go to the yeah, just based on adding these two numbers, which I can't see now, but

fifty and twenty five is 70 Yeah.

So it was about it was about 50 feet back towards this corner.

Actually I got a question then. Front of the house, we officially consider the front of the house where the address is. Right. So based on that, wouldn't all the dimensions fit in in any way? Because it's 10 feet from the sides, 40 feet from the back, 25 from the front?

It's 25 from the front and then also 25 from any street yard is 25 feet. Okay.

But I mean, what it's saying is we officially consider the front of the house the address, which is 25 feet. So the back of the house, we just said is about 40 feet or fifth or higher. So where did that fit in all the variances anyway?

Yes, except for the street yard along Buena Vista. That's the street yard.

It has to be 25 feet

the long guess, I see what you're saying.

It's just an unusual angle.

I'm now getting it Usually. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Alright. Well, thank you for being here on behalf of your friends. We're gonna deliberate now and we'll give you an answer in just a second. Alright. Thank you. Well, a couple minutes.

Alright. But? It's a good thing for the city.

I think it's good that there's gonna be something there.

Yeah. So

And they can't. Mean, there's They're, I think, being very conscientious about the size of their lot, what they can and cannot do in that area, the houses around them.

Yeah. And again, having a new property over there is gonna be good for all the rest of the property values over there as well. So

I don't know if there's another way to build on that lot and That would not the city had to have sold it knowing that somebody was likely gonna build there. Thanks. So I feel like they had to have known it was gonna happen when they sold the lot.

True. I guess the only question I have is whether we wanna do it saying they have to do it, bring it down to nine feet to make it as close as possible to what I would be mean, don't have a problem with it otherwise. But if we move it over a foot, it's at least closer to where it's supposed to be. I don't know. But we're also just talking about that corner piece. Yeah. Yeah. Like it gets farther and farther away. I I'm

personally in favor of this. It's a very unusual situation Yep. It's a debt plus benefit to the city and follows the general spirit of the zoning laws as close as it can be applied.

Great.

All right. Charlie, if you would.

All

right. So this is the appeal of Michael and Charlene Marquardt for a dimensional variance from Section 22.267A of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow a home to be constructed on the currently vacant property with taxi taxi WAKC1000071 at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Pewaukee Road, setback 10 feet from the Buena Vista Avenue right of way when a set with street yard setback of not less than 25 feet is required. Finding one Go

ahead. I'm sorry. Okay.

Finding one, that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district.

Redick, affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Christie D'Angelo, affirm.

Eric Duntz, affirm. Alright. Finding two, that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity. Tim Reddick of firm.

Kevin Riley of

firm. Cristy D'Angelo, firm.

Eric Dunst, firm.

Alright. Finding three, that the variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic gain or loss and that self imposed hardships are not being considered as grounds for granting of a variance.

Tim Redick, a firm. Kevin Riley, a firm.

Christie D'Angelo, a firm.

Eric Dunst, a firm.

Alright. And finding four, that the authorizing of such variants will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intended zoning code or public interest. Tim Redick, affirm. Kevin Riley,

Christie D'Angelo, affirm.

Eric Dunst, affirm.

Alright. So those were all four zero.

Alright. So based upon the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I make a motion that the appeal of Michael and Charlene Markquart for a dimensional variance that will allow for a home to be constructed on the currently vacant property at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Pewaukee Road with a setback of 10 feet from the Buena Vista Avenue right of way be granted.

Tim Reddick second that motion.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Alright, so the motion and the appeal carries unanimously. You can let them know that they can get their plans underway.

Alright, thank you.

Thanks for coming in. Sure they appreciate you.

Yeah. Sorry you had to deal with me. It's a public speaker.

All good. I think you just need a motion to adjourn. Right? Yep. You don't really need a motion? Oh. Anybody opposes adjournment? Anybody oppose to an adjournment? Nope. Nope. Alright.

Alright. Order of pizza. We're all set, and that was

easy.

Those are interesting.