Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the Monday, May 11, '2 thousand twenty six meeting of the board of zoning appeals for the city of Waukesha. And, we will have a call to order. Kevin Riley, present. Eric Duntz, present.

Timothy Reddick, present.

Turn your mic on.

Tim Reddick, present.

And just for information sake, we're starting at 04:15 rather than 04:00 because we had some members who had some prior engagements, but I hope that's okay with everybody. And do we have anybody here for public comment not pertaining to one of the items on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on to the approval of minutes for April 13. Do we have a motion to accept the minutes?

Motion to accept the minutes.

I'll second.

First and a second, Kevin Riley votes aye.

Eric Dunst votes aye.

Tim Reddick votes aye. The minutes of April 13 have been approved and we are on to new business. We are going to rearrange the order of new business and instead of the ID twenty six zero three five zero six being the first item on the agenda, we are going to move on to ID twenty six zero three five zero seven, the appeal of the Salvation Army of Waukesha County for a dimensional variance from section 22.427 a of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for the construction of a new attached garage at 445 West Madison Street with a street yard setback of eight feet from the 3rd Street right of way when there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from any street right of way.

Alright. So this is 445 Madison Street. It's at the intersection of Madison Street and 3rd Street, just up the hill from City Hall. This is it's the Salvation Army property. As you can see, the building is situated right at the corner with a parking lot behind it and then a small additional parking lot off of 3rd Street up at the top of the hill.

The building is there's a kind of a primary mass that's right on the corner and then two wings that extend out behind it. So you can see the one that goes down Madison Street there and then this is the one that comes out along 3rd Street. And the applicants would like to add an attached garage onto the building at the 3rd Street facing towards 3rd Street at the top of the hill there. So here you can see this is the topography for the property. As you can see, it's built into the hill.

And the portions of the property that aren't the either the building or the parking lots are very much steep grade that are that is taking up that hill. So there isn't really much space on the property to expand or add any even a small garage without going into that grade. So here's the area that they where they would like to locate the garage. As you can see that the hill is going down from that space. So if they moved it back even a little further than where they want to put it, it would have to be into the parking lot area.

And you can also see the what looks like sort of like an ambulance in the parking lot at the base of the hill is the vehicle that they would like to put into the garage. It's an emergency response vehicle that needs to be parked indoors. So they've considered a number of other options. Most recently, they've looked very closely at the possibility of locating a garage behind and potentially attached to the small house that's at that's located to the right of the parking lot entrance along Madison Street. So there's the house, it's a one story, formerly a residence that they've taken over and they use for, I believe, auxiliary office space.

In that location, as you can see, there's also a steep grade behind it. You can see several retaining walls that would have required some pretty significant grading work and would have had some complications with neighbors and with utility lines. So that location ultimately turned out to be not feasible for the garage. So that was because that location wasn't feasible, they had settled on this location instead. This is the footprint for the proposed addition.

It will it's intended to line up with the main with the larger mass of the main building closer to Madison Street. As you can see, that's a setback about 11 feet from 3rd Street. It's also about 16 feet from the Madison Street right of way. So that it's legal nonconforming with the current setbacks for the district. The building is almost, but not quite parallel with the 3rd Street right of way.

So running further back, it's a little bit closer to the right of way than that mass is. So that would be they're estimating a setback of not less than eight feet, eight inches for that for the addition. And here it is rendering from the east side facing towards the parking lot. You can see it will be built into the hill. There'll be a foundation underneath and then the garage up above, which will have brick and a roof designed to fit in and to match with the rest of the building.

Here it is again at that the level of the street, so you can see the where it will fit into the building. And then this is just the elevation facing from Madison Street where it will not there won't be any visible addition. The garage will be it's again setback about seven feet from the lot line. So it'll be less than one vehicle length out onto the street. So normally, a 25 foot setback is required partially for the purpose of when they're front facing garages to allow a space for parking in front of the building without extending over to over the sidewalk.

In this case, even a normal sized car would probably be extending into 3rd Street if it was parked in front of the building. So that wouldn't really be possible here. But it is something that's a concern if it was to be used for parking. So we would ideally like this to be approved with a condition whether you whether the Board of Zoning Appeals does it or the Planning Commission. This will have to go to the Planning Commission with the condition that, that space won't be used for parking.

Also, if they were to back out the truck, it would probably be over the sidewalk before the driver could see out from beyond the garage. So that might be a safety concern as well. Here they're showing it backed in and they have stated that they would always back it in and have a spotter. So that may be less of a safety concern, but you may want to consider requiring some kind of a mirror or something similar to aid with pulling out. Since we can't require that they we can't really require that they always back the truck in.

So again, this is just a close-up. You can see that seven foot setback and the path for the vehicle leading out. So again, this is 22.42, which is the I-one Institutional District. And the requirement is that there should be a minimum street yard setback of 20 feet 25 feet from the right of way of all streets.

Do we have any questions for Charlie and the city before opening it up for discussion? Seeing none. None. Do we have anybody here from the Salvation Army who would like to speak to the appeal? If you could step up to the microphone and give your name and your address or your association with the Salvation Army.

Okay. My name is Mike Nyman. I'm the building facilities director up there, but I'm also the EDS coordinator which is the emergency disaster services. So basically that canteen is my my responsibility. I know there is a concern about being close to the the street and we always back the vehicle in because it's just easy that way.

There is a camera on back that we can see, but we're we our insurance requires us to have a spotter on the back end, so there's always a spot that when we're backing in, it would never be left outside of the building. There's no reason for us to ever park on an apron outside. If we were to clean the garage, we would pull it off into the parking lot and then back it back in that way. So there's no either stall would would never be parked outside. There's just no reason for it.

We want it to be stored inside. Up until this year, we were blessed to have the fire station too from the city was allowing us to park it there, but now they bought another piece of equipment. So it's time for us to get our own place to put it into. So we service three it's not that you're interested, but we service three different counties, about 32 fire departments. And the vehicle itself is 32 feet long, so even with the 25 foot setback, it's still its nose would still hang over the sidewalk, but again there's no reason for us to to park it outside. It's either in or out. There's no there's no in between. So

And one one question. It's I see that there it's a it's a two vehicle garage. What would the other space be?

Our support trailer is in there. The trailer is in the parking lot now. And when that goes out, the van backs into it and and pulls it out. It doesn't always go out, but it was just a thought that as long as we're building a garage, it would be good maybe to get that out of the weather too instead of the snow building up on top of it all the time. So we go out varying times of the, you know, the the month that we can go have two months with no calls at all and then we can have, you know, seven or eight calls a month. So and the I will say that the we do have cameras on the side of the building. The pedestrian traffic on that side on 3rd Street is is minimal. 157 3rd has a few people that walk up and down, but if that makes a a bearing on anything.

Have you guys thought about putting the garage doors on the opposite end of the on the opposite side of the building where that door is at, that utility door is at on the side here? It it

would be That's my

architect. Have you thought of that?

Have you guys considered that? Because that would, you know, take care of any obstructions and stuff because you would always be

So you'd be aiming the 3rd Street parking lot up that way.

I think that that's such a big hill.

It's concrete.

Who's this?

Hey. This is I'm Connor from Fisher Fisher Tice Architects. We've kind of exhaustively studied the site trying to find a place to fit this and have ruled out a lot of ideas that would have been too complicated or too messy or didn't fit. We have not directly looked at the driveways kind of exiting, you know, behind us in this image. I think what that would take would be a fair amount of rework of the grading, and you'd probably have to rework all the parking lot to basically get a enough driveway to turn around there.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it would be a much more kind of involved site project than I think the budget might allow.

That's what I needed to hear. Thank you.

Anything else for me?

Just neighbors. You've got neighbors across the street, nobody the south of you. Is that correct? Is there a small little lot to the south? Can you bring that up, Charlie? There

yeah. There's there are neighbors all around.

There's none

on our side of the street. The the lot up there is ours.

Yeah. Right. There's not a neighbor right here. But further to the south, there's an apartment building. There are a couple of single family homes on the opposite side of 3rd Street. So it's not a it's not directly there's some separation there.

That's a huge deal. Have you been in contact with neighbors on 3rd Street across the street?

No, sir.

They did get notifications. Notifications. Charlie?

Yes. Okay. Any other questions, Tim or Eric?

And the garage can't be just slid back, what, 12 more feet to the you know what I'm saying?

Yeah. That's kinda the same as my question about directing.

No. You were changing the I thought you were asking about changing the actual direction of the garage.

True.

But my first thought was to push it back, but then that goes into the grade gradation of the hill and everything. And that was the first problem they were coming into. It's a huge

hill there.

Yeah. If you look.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But the only real problem with that is you need taller footings, basically. Right? Okay.

I don't have any more questions.

Me neither.

Any anybody else from the public want to comment on the issue at hand? Seeing none, we can go into deliberation. Is that where we're at, Charlie?

Yep. Okay. Thank you.

My initial thoughts are, I can see the need for this. I'm aware of all the good work that the Salvation Army does. Also aware that they lost their spot at the fire station. They always work in good cooperation with the city on emergencies and they're huge asset to the city. I'm listening and hearing to some of the questions you guys are having about a different setup, but being at that site on many occasions, the height of that drop off is Significant.

It's very, very significant. I think it would be probably potentially dangerous to try to come in at any other point for a garage unless they were to put it on the lower level. Right. I can't see changing it on the top at all except for the the the dimensions that they've suggested.

I'm inclined to, grant it simply because, again, like you said, all the good that they do in the emergency situations and everything for our community and, and abroad. Given the fact that I'm going to just go out on a limb and say that you guys have done your due diligence and have exhausted all other possibilities to for locating this garage, including the ground level and everything. I'm gonna assume that you guys have come to the conclusion that this is a final resort for placement and everything. And if that's the case, then I would say, again, yeah, because there's no monetary gain here. You know, it's just ease of access to keep their equipment covered out of the elements and then working condition. And like you mentioned, they lost that ability with the fire department.

Their design does match the current building well. I think we probably should require the mirrors. I mean, maybe right now, their insurance requires a backup. We don't know the future. I mean

The insurance isn't gonna change it. All it would take is them not having that in place and hitting someone, and that goes to the roof, and the insurance has to pay for it.

I'm still gonna keep have the mirrors there, though.

Definitely. And that's a minimal requirement. I mean, that's what? $50, $100 to put a mirror up if that it's a good place to start. Yeah. Or to finish, rather.

Do we have to make an amendment to the appeal, Charlie, to put that into place?

Nope. You could just do that as part of the motion after going through the findings of facts.

Done.

So conditional on a mirror placements?

Yep.

Okay. All right. Undo.

Are we finished with our discussion? Are we ready for a finding effect?

I think we're finished. All

right. So this is the appeal of the Salvation Army of Waukesha County for a dimensional variance from section 22.427 a of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for the construction of a new attached garage at 445 West Madison Street with a street yard setback of eight feet from the third street right of way, when there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from any street right away. So 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?

Tim Redick, affirm. Kevin Riley,

Eric Donson, affirm.

Alright. That's three to zero. 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 Redick, affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunstaffir.

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

We in the pleased

and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code or public interest.

Tim Reddick, affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Eric Dons, affirm.

Alright.

So all of those were three to zero.

Seeing we have, found in the affirmative for all the findings of fact, we can move on to a motion. Would someone like to make a motion to?

I, Tim Redick, make a motion that this, affirmation happens on the basis that they put mirrors in place for safety of the public.

I'll second.

We have a first and a second. And so we can take it to a vote, Kevin Riley votes aye.

Tim Reddick votes aye.

Eric Duntz votes aye.

The appeal has been approved with the conditions on mirrors.

Thank you, gentlemen. Perfect.

And thank you Salvation Army for all the good work you do for our community. Moving on, we can go on to the appeal of INEO, Waukesha Gas Engines Incorporated for a dimensional variance from section 22.397 a of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for reconstruction of an existing entrance to a manufacturing building at 11101 West Saint Paul Avenue with a street yard setback of seven feet two inches from West Saint Paul Avenue right away when there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from the right of way of all streets.

Alright. So this is 1101 West Saint Paul Avenue. This is the INEO gas engines plant. It's, I believe, the largest largest footprint of any building in the city at about 600,000 square feet. Wow.

And it has a front facade that's 13 a little over 1,300 feet long along West Saint Paul Avenue. No part of the that facade meets the required 25 foot setback. The building certainly predates the zoning code. Think it had been as of our first aerial photos in the 1940s, most of it was there and portions of it were added by the 1960s. But so it definitely predates the setback requirement, and it is a facade that whole length along the street.

The main entrance is right at the center of the building here. And the applicants would like to do an update to that entrance. So you can see it's a one story entrance with just a small sort of white covered facade and then a green metal accent. And you can see here that the sidewalk is kind of a double wide sidewalk. The lot line runs right along near where the divide in the sidewalk is.

So the applicants have a portion of sidewalk that's on their property, and then the rest is in the right of way. And then there's sort of a gap between the building and the sidewalk, but the entrance extends into that gap. So here it is from the other side and from across the street. And you can see there's, there are several, flagpoles there and then an existing utility pole. So they would like to reconstruct that entrance to make it a little more prominent and a little more easy to find.

And the proposal is it's a larger curtain wall of glass, windows extending floor to ceiling there with a metal accent that will extend up to the height of the top of the building, and that will be angled slightly out from the building. They will still be retaining those flagpoles, and then that, the utility pole will be in the same location. So here it is in the elevation. The rest of the building is around it is unchanged. And then from the east and west, you can see the there's a railing right at the edge of the sidewalk.

So it'll extend out a little bit ways into the sidewalk. You can see where the railing is on both sides, just a couple of feet back from the front of the building. And here it is in the site plan. You can see that where the entrance will extend out and it'll be at a little bit of an angle. So it'll be just over seven feet from the front of that corner to where the property line is about halfway through the sidewalk.

And then just to note, the building does extend all the way down to the south, and it is at that same setback for the whole extent of the building. So this is Section 22 Point 39, the M2 General Manufacturing District is the zoning district for that property. But it's essentially the same as the previous application. There should be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from the right of way of all streets.

Okay. Do we have any other questions for Charlie in the city? No. Just for clarification, Charlie, the basically what they're asking for is a redesign and rebuild of their existing entrance. Right. And it is basically with some minor variations, pretty much the same configure configuration as the old entrance with the with Yeah. DID mean that they can't it's that's where the grandfather line was in the past?

Right. It might be slightly closer to the lot line, but if it is, it's by

foot or two. So it's a right now it's seven feet or half away?

Right. It might be a little bit farther right now than it will be, but it is currently well under the 25 foot setback.

One other clarification, park there is avail that's all parking spaces, all up and down St. Paul in front of the building, correct? Yes. Okay.

Yes, that's street parking there. So

that would be

their main entrance for their clients and Yes.

They'd like to they've stated that they'd like to keep it that way. They'd have to do pretty significantly reconfigure the interior of the building if they couldn't either keep that as the main entrance or if they had to meet the setback requirement.

Thank you. Tim or Eric, any other questions for Charlie before I

bring Inio? I don't. Okay.

Do we have someone here from INEO who would like to speak to the project? And if you could just give your full name and address and your association with INEO.

Yeah, definitely. Dan Colvin with Riley Construction, construction manager for representing INEO here today. Address is N N E 4 West 13700 Fond Du Lac Avenue, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. I'll first address the the comment about the current distance from the property line and the proposed. So currently, it's about seven foot nine inches from the property line to the existing entrance as reflected here.

Thank you very much. We're we're looking to get a couple inches closer just due to making sure that we can get the ADA compliance within the entrance way itself with the rotation clearances, the ramp, and then also the stair adjacent to it. So little clarification there. Beyond that, really just scope of the project. So as some of you may be aware, we currently have an addition project proposed as well as a significant office renovation that's ongoing.

All with the plans to bring a new engine line back to this facility, which would bring approximately 500 jobs back to this particular campus. So the the intention or the goal with this entryway is to just bring the refresh up to the face of the building to be more appealing and greeting to potential clients or end users of the engine who may want to see it be ran or tested. So

It was Dan again? Dan. Dan. Is your current entrance not ADA compliant?

The current entrance, I believe, is ADA compliant. There's a stair. Perfect. So you can see you can see the stair closest to us here or the entry closest to us within this image does include a ramp that would meet ADA compliance. And then the second entrance there that has the six kind of behind the dumpster is a stair.

The intention or the issue they currently have is there's two entrances that converge in the middle and once people get in, they're not naturally directed to the security counter. So they have some people that just migrate downstairs, others that migrate in a different direction. So the goal here is to sort of guide people to the security counter to check-in appropriately and make sure that everyone's accounted for.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, it's a security concern?

That's part of it. The other the other part is just when guests arrive, they feel more welcomed when they know where they're going rather than potentially making a misstep.

It's not in the purview of of this appeal, but I noticed you've got some signage on your old entrance. Are you planning on putting up I didn't see anything on the new new entrance.

Correct. Our intention would be to to include signage. We we don't have that determined at this point, whether it would go on the metal panels towards the middle of the curtain wall or on the curtain wall itself. We have not gone up that far through development yet.

Okay. That's not our purview anyway. But I want I would love to see some beautiful signage there. Me too. Do we have any other questions for Dan?

No, sir.

No. I think we can go to deliberation now.

Thank you.

Dan, kick us off.

Eric?

Yeah. That's Dan.

My bad. I have a little bit of a problem of always pushing the boundaries a little bit farther, but I don't think it's a problem necessarily in this case.

I would tend to agree with giving the INEOS been an amazing asset to the city and expansion and stuff. I think a cleaner, more modern, a beautiful entrance only reflects better on the city if we give them six or eight inches extra to get that done. Don't see any reason to make a problem with that. It's basically the intent of follows the old grandfather.

I agree. Yeah.

Okay. I think we can vote.

You want to find these facts? Sure. Okay. Alright. So the appeal of INEO Waukesha gas engines for a dimensional variance from section 22.397 of the zoning code.

If granted, the variance will allow for reconstruction of an existing entrance to a manufacturing building at 1101 West St. Paul Avenue with a street yard setback of seven feet two inches from the West St. Paul Avenue right of way when there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from the right of way of all streets. 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.

Tim Reilly,

Eric Nunst, 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 Redicka Farm. Kevin Riley, Affirm.

Eric Dunst, Affirm.

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 the granting of variance.

Tim Reitich, affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Eric Dunds, affirm.

Alright. And finding four, that the authorizing of such variance 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.

Tim, ready to confirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Eric Dunds, confirm.

Alright. Those are all three to zero then.

We have, affirmed all the findings of fact in the affirmative, and we can move on to a vote. Do we have a motion for the, appeal?

A motion to appeal.

We have a motion from or for from Tim for to for the appeal. Do we have a second?

To to approve the appeal?

Yeah. There we go.

Thank you. I'll second that. Yeah.

Yeah. Alright. We have a first and a second. We can take a vote. Kevin Riley is aye.

Eric Dunsty.

Tim Redick is aye.

Thank you very much, Dan, and thank INEO for their wonderful contributions to the city.

Thank you.

And tell them we'd love to see that sign have the word Waukesha nice and big.

Yeah. Glowing.

Sounds good. Thank you Moving very

on to the city's appeal. Doug, are you doing this? Or

I'll give Charlie

Oh, okay, Charlie.

Yeah. I've got the presentation. Doug's sort of like the applicant, I guess. Okay. Alright. So this is 223 Southwest Avenue. This is a very small it's right at the intersection of West Avenue and Newhall just to the west of the the railroad tracks. It's a very small sliver of property, which has been, for many, many years, owned and used by the water utility. It has a small building on it, which they've used for storage. And what you can see in this aerial photo, it looks like the property line that the building runs right through the property line.

Sometimes the aerial photos are a little bit inaccurate that the angle of the photo makes the property line look like it's a few feet away from where it actually is. In this case, that is accurate. That's right where the property line is. It goes right through the building. So we believe that at some point, they probably expanded West Avenue and just moved the right of way across the building because they figured it was a city owned building.

So that was a fine location for the right of way anyway. Now the water utility has determined that it doesn't need this building for storage anymore. So they're looking to sell it. And there is a local artist who is has proposed an idea for reusing the building, and the council has approved that that reuse, assuming that it can receive all the necessary approvals. So as you can see, the sidewalk kind of angles out around the building.

That is the location of the where the right of way will be relocated to if this appeal is granted. The city has approved a street vacation for that portion of the right of way. So the lot will extend out a couple feet further from where it does now, and then the right of way will just be a little bit narrow there. But in order to make that happen, we need to approve a certified survey map or we need to have a certified survey map approved by the Planning Commission and Council. They can't approve a lot that is not that doesn't meet the city's zoning code requirements.

So in order for them to approve a new lot, they will need a variance. The street yard requires street yard the district requires a street yard setback of 25 feet and the building will be right at the right of way. So it won't meet that setback. And it also is quite a bit less than the setback from the railroad right of way on the east side of the property. So it doesn't meet either the street yard or the rear yard setback.

And the district has also has a requirement from lot area and width that individual business sites in the B-one District shall provide sufficient area for the principal building and its accessory buildings, off street parking and loading areas and required yards. So really, it's sort of up to you as the Board of Zoning Appeals to decide how you want to take this. If you are going to vote on a variance, you could just approve the variance for the street yard setback and the rear yard setback and then leave the just say that since that setback has been approved that the lot does now provide sufficient area in your determination, or you could approve it as a variance for all three of those requirements to allow a lot to then go through the Planning Commission and Council for approval that doesn't provide sufficient area for all of those things.

On the second thing you mentioned in regards to the rear setback approval, would that then require the building to be pushed back in the reconstruction of that entrance?

No. It would the building will stay in the same location. So it would be a rear yard of let's see, a rear yard of less than seven feet. So that's there's about seven feet right here. And then I would just stay in the same location. So the street yard would kind of extend out into the right of way. And the the right of way there has has already it the vacation of the right of way has been approved. So

Got it. And then there is a private business coming into the space?

Yep. It's a local artist who is looking to move a studio space there. Got it.

Any other questions before we move to deliberation? I have no other questions.

Me neither.

No, I'm good.

All right. We will move

to deliberation. As someone who rode my bike on that street as a small child and think I crashed into that building because of that goofy sidewalk. My preference would be that they would straighten that out and fix that. It it is somewhat of a hazard, and I wanna kinda make that clear that it it is a a kind of hazard. I mean, we've got a straight sidewalk, and then it curves out and runs against the face of the building close to the street.

So I'm not I know this has been through many many people before me, but I'm at least putting that on the record even if I make the appeal. But on the other hand, like the idea that the city is finding value in our old properties and finding a new value for them. My only reservation is safety in that particular spot.

Fair enough. I understand that. I would I would almost think that there's not gonna it's not a high traffic business being an art studio. I don't think they're gonna have a lot of people coming and going. Plus, like you said, they're finding they're repurposing the building so it's not gonna sit vacant and become an eyesore or something where people try to vandal or break into. So

Well, just on on the topic of what's going in there, I mean, we're approving all the future. Right? So I mean

Yeah.

That can change. Right? It's not necessarily gonna always be an art studio.

True, but for now it's going be an art But

we wouldn't have a say if it was something else.

That is an absolute fact.

And it has been rezoned to be one neighborhood business, which would allow it would allow businesses that are meant to fit in with a residential neighborhood that tends to be corners where there are three or four businesses surrounded by houses and similar kind of neighborhood uses, I guess.

Currently, this is city property. So obviously, their sidewalk is being taken care of up till now by the city. My guess is plowing, we would be plowing right up against that building at times, and then our crews can clean up that sidewalk. I do have concerns that if we that the new owner understands that they would have the obligation of cleaning that sidewalk all the way to the corner past.

Yeah. I think that'll certainly be something that our public works department will make very clear on the sale.

So this is going to go to Public Works?

They I guess they're the ones that would be responsible for probably the clearing the snow, but I think it's

Sure. So this the land has already been through council determined to be surplus land.

Right.

And then they also put out an the council put out an RFP for proposals and then chose this local artist to be the one to work with for the future use and sale sale the property to this person for their future use. So they should be aware of all of the requirements for snow shoveling, things like that.

And I would I'm pretty reticent to vote against an appeal put forward by the council considering They're the voted in people representing the public. So I I'm going I'm I'm leaning on the side of granting this. I just wanted to put my reservations on the record. Fair enough.

Make motion to move to findings and facts. Is that how we do that?

Yeah. You get any other comments here? No. Okay.

All right. So this is the Board the Board of of of If granted, the variance will allow for alteration of lot lines on an existing property at 223 Southwest Avenue resulting in a new parcel with a setback of less than one foot from the street right of way and a rear yard of less than seven feet When there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from the right of way of all streets, there shall be a rear yard of no less than 25 feet, and individual business sites in the B1 District shall provide sufficient area for the principal building and its accessory buildings and required yards. So 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.

Tim Reidy, Affirm. Kevin Riley, Affirm.

Eric Dons, 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 ready to confirm. Kevin Riley, firm.

Eric Dunst, affirm.

Alright.

And finally, 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 the granting of

to use the

the

Tim Riddick, affirm. Kevin Riley, affirm.

Eric Dunst, affirm.

Alright. Those were all three to zero.

Seeing we have a unanimous affirmation of the findings of fact, we can move on to a vote. And can I entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the appeal.

Aye. Tim Reddick has seconded the motion.

We have a first and a second. Kevin Riley votes aye.

Tim Reddick votes aye.

Eric Dunsup votes aye.

And that has passed unanimously. The appeal is granted. Do we have any other business before us, Charlie? Nope. Our meeting is adjourned. Awesome.