Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Think so.

Ready? Yep. Good? Yep. Alright. I will call this to order. Good afternoon, everyone. It is this is the board of zoning appeals for 11/10/2025. I will do roll call starting from my right.

Kevin Riley. Timothy Reddick.

Christie D'Angelo. Eric Jones.

Is there anyone here that wants to offer a public comment that is not in relation to the appeal before us? Okay. See no one, so we will move on. First item then or the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the August.

Kevin Riley motions to accept the minutes.

Tim Reddick seconds.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Yep. I'm watching. Yes. All right. The new business. This is ID number 25Dash02365. The appeal of Lynette Jordan for a dimensional variance from section 22.3 sub seven sub capital b of the zoning code.

If granted, the variance would allow for the construction of a duplex at 236 Southwest Avenue with side yard setbacks of 9.75 feet when there shall be a side yard on each side of all buildings of not less than 10 feet in width. So are there people here on that appeal? Okay. Just to give you an idea kind of how this works, the city will go first and give their presentation, kind of give us background on the information, show us pictures and all of that. When they are done, if you have anything that you wanna ask of them, you're welcome to.

Otherwise, you will then have a chance to come and give us whatever information you want us to have from your behalf. When you do, I just ask whoever's gonna speak that you need to come up to the microphone. Speak into the microphone. First, identify who you are and your address. And then you can tell us what you wanna tell us. Kind of an open dialogue so we might go there might be some back and forth going on while we're doing that. I just ask any time that you're gonna be speaking that you're on a microphone that's turned on. That is my bad. Sorry about that. I also have a loud voice, so hopefully everyone heard me anyway. So with that, Charlie, I'll turn to you.

Alright. So 236 Southwest Avenue is just to the north of the intersection of West Avenue and Newhall across from the railroad tracks right where it passes over Newhall. This is the property zoned RM1 multifamily residential. So single family and then multifamily up to four units per property are allowed by the underlying zoning. As you can see, it's a little bit larger than the standard residential lots in that area, but it is still substandard based on the zoning, which I'll get to in a little bit.

It's currently vacant and does not have any building on it. There was a house there that was demolished in 2022. So that's the house and then the lot as it is now. As you can see, it has an area of 13,130 square feet. The minimum lot area in the district is 8,000 square feet or 9,000 for a duplex.

The minimum lot width is 65 feet, and that's measured at the setback line. As you can see, the lot is about 64 feet wide at the street, and then it tapers back to a width of 48 feet. So it would be a little under probably a couple of feet less than 64 feet at that setback line of 25 feet. The applicants would like to build a duplex on the property. So here's the footprint.

It's about a footprint of about 1,800 square feet with a width of 39 feet and length or depth of 46 feet. It will meet the street yard setback and very much exceed the rear yard setback requirement. But as you can see, they're proposing of 9.75 feet rather than 10 feet on both of the side yards. If they were building a single family home, a substandard lot, they would be allowed setbacks of 10% of the ir with question.

That's

with single car garages in the front. And so as you can see, it's three bedrooms on the 2nd Floor. The bedrooms, the two bedrooms in the rear section of the 2nd Floor are about nine feet wide, as the applicants noted in their application materials. So that's pretty narrow. And then family room and kitchen and the garages on the 1st Floor as well as a restroom.

So again, in the RM1 zoning district, the setback requirement for the side yard is that there shall be a side yard on each side of all buildings of not less than 10 feet in width. And this would be would meet the substandard lot setback requirements, but it's they would like to go for a duplex rather than a single family home.

Any questions for the city from anyone?

So Charlie, just for clarification, the front of the building complies, but the back of the building is half a foot short for the Yes. Or less than half a foot, quarter of a foot on each side.

Quarter foot on each side, so half a foot total. And there the variance would allow setback of nine feet on either side just written that way because just to prevent any kind of mistakes or anything like that. So give a little bit of a leeway.

And then just to be clear on the on the drawing, it looks like is there gonna be two single car driveways in the front?

That's what they're proposing. Yeah. That they would have to get a permit from the public works department for the driveway opening in the street. So that would be a separate process that potentially they could that could be something that Public Works Department could say no, and then they would have to change the driveway configuration. But as of right now, that's what they're proposing.

All right. Thank you, Charlie. That was all my questions.

Can you go back to the picture just of the lot itself?

Do you want the picture or the This is good. Okay.

All right. Any other questions from anyone? Or the city? All right. So if there is anyone here speaking on behalf of the appellant, Lynette Jordan, you're welcome to come forward now. Okay.

I'm Lynette Jordan and I was told I have to be here.

Before you start, did you bring the paperwork for whether you're authorized by the LLC? You

want it up here?

Yeah. I guess just so we can see it. So we touch all the boxes.

I realized it was an LLC.

Wanna see it? Yeah. Sure.

Thank you.

Just make sure you state your name and where you currently reside as well. My

name is Lynette Jordan, and we currently reside at 113 Mary Lane Drive in Neosho.

It's right on the cover. Just shows that she's the general partner. Yep. Okay. You can go ahead.

So we're asking for the variance. Basically, so the back corner of the duplex can be built. If we make the duplex any thinner, or narrower so that the back fits in the current 10 foot, those back bedrooms would be very, very thin. They'd only be eight feet wide. Uh-huh. And that's really not economically, you know, supportive. So that's I don't know.

Any questions from the city first? Do you have any questions? Any questions from anyone else up here? Yeah.

So this is income property?

Yes. And likely we will have one of our children in one side of it, because they currently live at another property we own here in the city of Waukesha.

Is that child a part of the LLC?

Is what?

Is your is your child that's got the potentially gonna be living there, are they a part of the LLC?

No. Okay.

The reason I asked was owner occupancy.

Yeah.

No. Okay.

Do you know at what point in the length of the home you cross over Is it the

last six feet that cross?

Yeah. Okay. Just the last six. And how long is it? Forty forty?

Forty six. Six. Sorry.

Okay. There it is. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone up here?

Have you spoken to the adjacent neighbors on each side?

Not recently.

Okay.

I'm fairly new to the board, so I'm still getting used to all this myself. And quite honestly, anything that comes in front of me, I'm gonna wanna say yes. But we've got certain questions that that we have to be able to say that there's these exceptions that we can say we can give you a variance. And I I might have a problem with a few of them actually. Are are are there any extraordinary circumstances that's really unique to your property that

It's very nonconforming. It's very thin. The front of it is not the standard width, and then it narrows quite substantially on its way back.

And you're speaking of the lot size right now. Correct?

Yeah. The current lot the lot size.

Charlie, can you go back to the picture with the setbacks? Okay. You can't really move it forward anywhere and be in compliance. Let's see if we can move closer. I mean because it's 25 feet, right, from the front yard, Charlie, is that correct?

Yep. Okay.

And again, that would be potentially reduced if it was a single family, but but for a duplex, that's the they have to comply with the regular setbacks.

Right. And for a single family, we can do six foot on each side?

Yep.

Another question I have that actually just brought up on what you were saying about it not being economically feasible. And one of the things that we have to determine is whether the crest is being made solely on economic gain or loss reasons. And and and you mentioned it was not economically feasible to make it any smaller?

No. Because it would have to be completely redrawn. And for the we really wouldn't be able to put garages on both of them because you need so much room for the entry also. And then the the bedrooms and back would only be about eight feet. So we'd lose the garage very likely and have very, very small bedrooms.

Why a duplex and not just a single family home?

Well, because of the zoning and a single family home costs almost the same amount to build as a duplex. And so

it

would be way out of our daughter's price range to put her on a in a single family at that location with a new build.

Any other questions?

Did you consider any other designs that would be longer and go deeper into the

We've looked at some. They obviously don't have garages on them or they were three stories high. So they'd just be garage garage and then quite a few of them went three stories high.

Okay. Any other questions? Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak? You guys raised your hand before, if you'd like to speak on this appeal. Just come up and make sure you state your name and where you reside.

I'm Kevin Willigel. I'm at 230 Southwest Avenue. And what you have before you is a picture of their half of the tree that is planted in my yard that nobody bothered to tell me they were gonna take down. With our neighbors stating they haven't talked to us recently, she doesn't. I had no idea this was going to happen. This took place, I believe, on August 2022. No. Nothing told to me. My concern was snow being on one side of the tree. Her response was insurance will cover that if it falls into your house. It would be falling into my daughter's bedroom where she sleeps.

Can I just I'm sorry? What does this have to do with the zoning appeal? Because that's why we're here today.

I I I don't want them anywhere near my property if I can help it. And I'm just really upset that this is going the way it is.

Sir, would an easy solution be to just have the tree taken down completely?

Already done. So the tree is removed completely? Right. But we didn't wanna have to remove it to begin with.

But it doesn't pose a threat anymore is what my question was gonna be after that.

Correct. Okay. I just have a very hard time with everything that'll be proposed going on there for for the build and everything else.

So basically, you're saying you're against variance.

Right. In what way, if this variance is granted by us, is this going to make your life harder?

It would put their home closer to my property.

By a quarter foot? Yes. Okay. Anyone else?

Any other questions? Did you have anything else that you'd like to say? No. Okay. Thank you for being here today. Any other questions from the board? Alright. So we

There was one other comment. Was just gonna see if

Okay.

I don't know if if it's

I gotta move.

We had received something, so if it's not

k. If again, can you please state your name and your address? Hi.

I'm Ben Smale. I live at 24 Southwest Avenue. I'm the property just to the south of this. My wife's similar to this picture. Basically, the same reason as Kevin is we oppose this. Personally, like, I feel like there is adequate room on the property to extend it rather than keep it, you know, shorter and wider. It should be able to narrow it and make it longer. I mean, I understand a side by side probably isn't the most feasible option, but maybe a, you know, top and bottom duplex would be a more feasible option. Also, if you bring up the dial line of the building with the driveways on it proposed, this situation right here, I'm very against. I've lived at my property for sixteen years now.

There is routinely events at Hartlefield across the street at the railroad tracks, and there our street is very parked up, and parking is very tight as it is. This would basically eliminate parking in front of their house altogether. There probably would be no room to park any cars per the city's instructions, but you know how people are. They will try to park there anyways, and that means people who already routinely block my driveway will out block theirs, both tenants, and make it harder for both Kevin and Liesl to get in their driveway too as well. I think the driveway kinda needs to be a like, you know, dual lane driveway.

The city indicated, we don't control how driveways are put in that's a public works thing. So the only question before us today is if we will allow the one foot variance on each side of the building at the very back of the building in order to allow the duplex to be built.

If this was a, like, smaller than standard lot, I would have no reason to oppose this. But I being as there's more than adequate room behind this to build a house. I mean, they have a huge back lot to build on. There's plenty of room that they could go further back and still would maintain, you know, the setback.

They actually don't. The lot gets narrower.

I know.

It goes backwards. So they would run into an a situation really quick where they don't meet that 10 feet. They're exactly where they're gonna they can't go forward, and they can't go back with the current design. We we I know.

But they could redesign to be a narrower design and meet all the requirements.

I understand what

you're And and possibly build a bigger house than what they're proposing and have adequate bedrooms.

What do you do for a living?

I am in maintenance.

In maintenance? Okay. You speak as if you were a contractor. You have adequate info. You know what? Just respectfully. Respectfully. No. K.

I've been in maintenance for, like, the last five years. So

Alright.

Anything else you'd like to share?

No. I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. I'll ask you. Is anyone else would like to speak okay? Got everyone? Alright. Seeing no one else, then I will close that part of the discussion. We will now talk amongst ourselves. And then there are some findings that we have to make that we will do before you leave so you have a decision before you go. You guys are very far away.

Oh, sorry. It's my feeling is I understand all of the concerns, but and if this was, a serious encroachment, I would. But it's a matter of interest. And only the last six feet of the building?

I guess you do you guys do still have to, you know, speak on the record.

Oh. Sorry. Can you not hear me?

I Okay.

The mic is on.

It's only the last six feet of the building and it barely misses the setback requirements. Requirements. Correct. Correct. I mean, I get the concerns, but the reality is they can build on this lot if they want to.

Right. They can build on the lot. Yep. My only thought process was that design wise, if they could squeeze the bottom and then widen the top because it's easier to build up than it is to build down and so if they would consider doing something like that, they could potentially squeeze that quarter. You know what I mean?

They could squeeze the bottom and then still go wider on the top so that you don't lose that bedroom space. That would be a e easier solution for you design wise and you shouldn't lose support either. Not that I'm a contractor, but I cut a lot of contractors. So but that's my only thought process there. Other than that, I'm in total agreements with you that they own the lot. They have every right to build on the lot. No. Personal grievances don't. No. Suffices hardship, in my opinion.

I have some, I have mixed feelings on this one. First off, if they would just be building a single family home, they could actually encroach another four feet closer to each of the properties on the other side, which if we deny their appeal, they could build a single family home and put it much, much closer to the Neighbors. Neighbors that are in every right to be outspoken that the zoning codes are enforced. So I feel that the neighbors have every right to ask that the zoning codes be enforced as is, but I would it's unfortunate that we're here today because I think that the other solutions the property owner could come up with would actually be more egregious to their property than this current one, which only impinges a quarter foot, which would be normally what we would look at if the neighbors were in agreement with the building of this property. We would probably have no problem doing it because it in the spirit of the zoning, a single property could expand much farther in both directions.

But I have to respect the other homeowners rights as well and they do have the right to ask that the zoning codes be enforced. So I am conflicted.

And I'm conflicted too. I mean, like I said, I want to let the property or do what they want, it's their property. But we do have the zoning codes and I don't see extraordinary circumstance here. They've said it's for economic reasons.

And

it the check boxes we have to check, they don't satisfy a lot of those.

I know we're supposed to speak amongst ourselves right now, but I'm wondering, can

I have

can I ask the, the neighbors a question?

Sure.

Yeah.

Yeah. If this came if we say no, right, and you guys get what you want today and then they come back and build a single family home, which would put them closer to you, it seems as if you would be more, you know, angry with that solution than us granting a quarter, half foot variance today. Is that correct in my thought process or no? Because out of spite, they could turn around and build a single family, which would means they could be four feet closer to you on either side.

Personally speaking, as long as they follow the rules, they can do what they're you know, with within their rights with the property. I'm only here because I wish that they follow the rules.

I'm looking at the findings and I think there is like the property narrows, it's it's a weirdly shaped lot and it is a little bit substandard for the area. Do you think they have the right to build on their own property? Talking about a matter of inches. I understand there's a bright line rule, but we are talking about a matter of inches. Part of the reason we have a Board of Zoning Appeals is for situations that by the bright line letter of the law, you know, don't conform.

But it makes logistical and logical sense to allow something to happen anyway. It's being requested for economic gain in that it's a commercial, or it's gonna be a income generating property for them. But I don't know that's the only reason that the variance is being requested because the variance is being requested in that. It'd be hard to build a smaller duplex if they keep it a duplex, but they have other options. I just don't know if that's solely the reason that they're asking for the variance.

And I don't think the six inches or even the foot on each side is really a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Won't I don't think it impairs the purpose of the zoning code. But again, I mean, like Kevin, I'm a little conflicted. I understand the bright line rule. Like it's 10 feet. Figure out a way to shave off six inches then on the bottom. Yeah. I think it could get a lot worse.

She's got her hand up

in the back. Yes.

There are minimum rules for square footage for a duplex or for each family unit of a multifamily. And we can't go down a whole lot and still meet those minimums. I think we can go down, like, 200 feet or something. So

Unless you don't build a duplex.

What?

Unless you don't build a duplex.

Correct. Or you stack it. Yeah. A lot. But then we would still get difficulties toward the back ends.

Are you talking about the minimums in the zoning?

Yeah. Okay. It's like 900 square feet per unit I believe.

Yeah, could open that up. Don't know it off the top of my head unfortunately. Yeah. Okay. So the total minimum floor area of a principal three or four, well that two family dwelling shall be 1,800 square feet and 900 square feet per dwelling unit.

Do you know what the current square footage is? I don't think that was in the

Are we at 1,300 per side, I believe. So we're we're not we're not huge.

Yeah. Thirteen eighty one.

So, I mean, we we tried to keep it fairly small.

Comments? Thoughts?

We at? Smoke.

I don't think you mentioned that butt's ankle bone. That's not unique to it, though. And the one right next to it's unique. Where I live is more ankle than theirs. Not an extraordinary circumstance.

I'm probably in favor of enforcing the zoning code as written considering that the neighbors are in conflict and I don't see how we can make a variance to favor one party that goes outside the code, even though in another circumstance if the neighbors were on good terms and they had a good relationship, it's obviously in the neighbors benefit to have the house be farther away. But I don't believe they're going to get beyond that fact. So I don't want

And I hear that and I'm concerned about us allowing neighbors to come in and influence whether or not we should be enforcing the zoning code because then we can become a board that's being used as a vendetta. So I'm looking at it trying to figure out if the neighbors even understanding that they're an objection to it, are there grounds for either approving it or denying aside from that.

The the other thing that that concerns me is I am very much in favor of us banning granting appeals that let situations like duplexes, more affordable housing, more density, good good density build in in Waukesha, much, I'm quite happy to see a well designed duplex go up in our downtown area. That's fantastic. So I'm not happy about feeling like I have to vote against this.

When I first saw this, I was yeah. It's a few inches. I was gonna I was gonna be all for it, but I broke it down by everything we need to check off. I don't see how we can.

The the only other comment I have is I do believe the homeowners or the the owners of the property have other options they can explore, including changing the design to the duplex to conform in another more unique fashion or putting a single family home there on the space.

I think that's the one I struggle with the most is that it's not necessary for them to be able to use the property or build on the property. That's the only one that I'm struggling with. Yeah. Because there are other options.

That that would be my my thing is is there there are other there's another several options they could explore to still exercise their property rights.

Ready to vote? Yep. Findings? All right. Charlie, do you want to connect?

Yep. So this is the appeal of Lynette Jordan for a dimensional variance from Section 22.307 b of the zoning code. If granted, the variance will allow for the construction of a duplex at 236 Southwest Avenue with side yard setbacks of nine feet when there shall be a side yard on each side of all buildings of not less than 10 feet in width. 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.

Kevin Riley, dissent.

Tim Reddick, affirm. In

We the substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity?

Kevin Riley, dissent. Tim Reddick, dissent.

Christie D'Angelo, dissent.

Eric Dons, dissent. Right. So

made

I'm progress we variance.

Pleased

Kevin Riley, affirm. Tim Reddick, affirm.

Christi D'Angelo, affirm.

Eric Dunst, affirm. That's four to zero.

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.

Kevin Riley, affirm.

Tim Reddick, affirm.

Christy D'Angelo, Affirm.

Eric Dunst, Affirm.

All right. So

Go ahead.

Okay. So based upon the findings made by the board, you have to have a majority affirm of all four of those points in order to grant the variance. So I will need a motion from someone to deny the appeal.

Kevin Riley makes a motion to deny the appeal. I'll second.

We will do a roll call vote.

Kevin Riley, yes.

Senator Reddick, May?

Well, it's based upon our findings. So the motion is made based upon the findings. So the findings Right. Are that we deny the appeal. I understand. Okay.

And I I wanna I want to say give them the right to do it.

Okay. Okay. And those grounds, I would say nay as well.

Okay.

So again, you need to have a majority. So the motion to deny the appeal passes. The appeal has been denied, so you'll need to conform with the zoning codes. Alright. That was the only item of new business on the agenda. So I will take a motion to adjourn.

Tim Reddick, motion to adjourn.

Kevin Riley seconds.

All those in favor?

Aye.