All right, if everyone's ready, good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, this is the Board of Zoning Appeals for February 16th, 2026.

Um, I'm gonna call it to order.

My name is Christy D'Angelo.

They've decided that I'm gonna run the meeting today, so I guess that's how we're gonna do it.

Um I will do a roll call though, starting at my right.

Tim Reddick present.

Kevin Riley.

Christy D'Angelo, present.

Eric Dunn's present.

All right.

Um 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 will move on.

Uh, next is the approval of the meeting minutes from the November 10th of 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.

Okay.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

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.

Um, 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.

Um, 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.

Uh, when he is done, then it will be your turn to present any additional information or evidence that you want us to hear today in our consideration of your appeal.

Um then Charlie will also have an opportunity to ask you any questions, and we on the board will be operat have an opportunity to ask questions.

It's kind of a give and take as we go through this today.

Uh, 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 then to rule for our on the petition.

Um, 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.

Please state your first and last name and your um uh physical address just for the record, um, 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 an open forum so 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 order an answer before you leave here today.

So with that, we will start with ID number 26-02876, the appeal of Bethesda LLC for a dimensional variance from section 22.38 sub-7 sub-C of the zoning code.

If granted, the variants 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.

Uh so Charlie.

All right.

Uh so this is 576 Elizabeth Street.

It is uh a manufacturing storage building.

Uh it's adjacent to the the Jiffy gel plant, uh, which is currently operated by uh Aries Industries, um, and the properties owned by Bethesda LLC.

Um here it is from Elizabeth Street.

Uh it's the building on the left, uh, which is not very easily visible.

And then from the uh parking lot in front of it, the um the uh building is uh right up to the uh right up to the parking lot, and it's a very utilitarian building.

Um the there's a section in the rear.

Uh the building is is built in several several different uh sections and additions.

Um the section in the rear uh was removed a few years ago.

Um so here you can see it from 2018.

This is from uh facing from the uh uh from the north.

Um you can see where the section in the rear was, and then that has been removed.

It was in in uh um in the kind of a state of disrepair.

It was uh a very old section of building.

So that was removed, and uh the applicants would like to uh rebuild in essentially the same uh the same location.

So you can see a portion of the building still does extend right up to that uh rear lot line, and then the adjacent building, the the uh the uh Chiffy gel plant, the Aries Industries building uh also extends uh right up to that lot line.

They were in the past used uh for um uh the applicants have stated that they would have been used for uh loading and unloading onto the railroad, uh, and that that really is uh the only location that they I believe they have to extend the building there.

Uh so this is the uh this is the the section that they would like to add on to the rear.

Um if they do receive a variance, they would need to get uh approval from the plan commission, uh, but they would like to uh they would like to find out whether or not they'll get a variance before they go through that process.

Uh so and here's the view from uh this is from Dunbar Street uh uh looking from the north uh down towards where the building is.

You can see the the uh uh railroad line there in between and then uh large lawn in between the street and the uh property boundary, and then there's another uh and and then this is uh to the other side of the street is Bethesda Park.

So there's uh there's not really anybody to the rear that would be impacted.

Uh so this is again uh section 22.38.

So that's the ordinance for the RS3 single family residential zoning district, which states that there should be a rear yard of not less than 25 feet.

Um who is here to speak on behalf of Bethesda LLC?

You just want to 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.

Um my name is Mark Rollinger.

I live at 2144 North 68th Street.

Okay.

Do you have any questions for the city?

Yeah.

Um I don't.

Thank you for presenting.

I appreciate it.

Um I'm more here if you guys have any questions.

I'd like to field them for you and just let you know.

Uh the question, can you go back to the picture before the building was torn down?

Okay.

And when was it torn down?

If you know.

Charlie, either one of you.

Uh it was definitely torn down before I think we had a photo in 2020.

I didn't see a demo permit to get the exact date, but uh uh, so sometime between 2018 and I believe 2020.

And 2020 is when Yeah, that is correct.

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

Okay.

Uh can you what kind of manufacturing?

What exactly does your company manufacture just for reference for me?

Sure thing.

It's the neighboring company, Aries Industries.

Um, and they um they build sewer things for municipalities, um like cameras and inspections, and they retrofit trucks for plumbing contractors like that.

So it's um pretty clean manufacturing, all new trucks and stuff, and they retrofit them with their equipment and sell them to plumbing contractors and municipalities.

And they're just they're outgrowing their facilities, so we're trying to help uh 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 to bring it all under one.

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.

Um with the how old the JIF or the bottling plant was parts of that original building were in 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 um for that term like that picture there looks highlighted in.

Yeah, about um 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 would have gone out to um the notice would go out to anybody who is within 100 feet they probably are of the property.

They may have it may have gotten to a few of these houses uh along Dunbar.

Um and the I guess the hope with that is uh, you know, if if it is an issue that that's pertinent to the neighbors that they would talk to each other about it.

Uh, but it wouldn't have it would have been maybe two or three houses at most, I guess.

And then the of course the park is directly across.

Yeah.

Um from the looks of the lot, it does not appear like there is any other location on that lot where you could build out uh correct, yeah, like as far as in front or anywhere else on the property.

Um there's already um there's kind of a drive path uh 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 uh 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 uh just another question.

Uh how tall do you is the the height line gonna approximately match the other buildings?

Uh yeah, there was a pretty large building there before.

I don't know the exact heights.

Um, our new building is definitely about the same height approximately.

Okay.

Um because this it used to be a three-story building in the center section of the old property.

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.

Um it would be more in line.

Um it'd be uh 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, um, 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, uh just a center 50 feet or so.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

Yep, anything else, let me know.

All right, is there anyone else here that wishes to speak on behalf of this appeal for or against all right?

Then I will close down any further comments, and we will talk amongst ourselves on the microphones.

Uh I don't have any problems with this.

See it as a good thing.

So allow it.

Yeah, it's pretty clear.

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 thing.

Why not?

So it's pretty clear to me it's not encroaching on anyone.

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

Yeah, there's our incement and everything there.

In addition to that, I think it's uh a good plus to increase the manufacturing and the tax space.

It's a good thing for and I'll also it doesn't make any sense to to enforce a setback that's only gonna make a uh a bump out that would just be a problematic, particularly for that part of town where we have a 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.

So for all those reasons, I would be in favor of granting this.

So smart.

Um other discussion.

Right.

Do you want to walk through the findings, Ben?

Sure.

Okay.

All right.

Um just get the page up.

Uh 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.

Uh so finding one is that they're 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 uh properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district.

Start with them.

We're voted on yet.

Yep.

A firm or vote, a firm.

A firm.

Affirm.

Affirm.

Sorry, my mind is like that's uh 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.

A firm.

Affirm.

All right.

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.

A firm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Affirm.

A firm.

All right.

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.

A firm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Affirm.

Affirm.

All right.

All right.

Those all passed four uh four to nothing.

Zero.

So based upon the findings of the Board of the Zoning Appeals, I am making a motion that the appeal of Bethesda LLC for a dimensional variance.

Uh 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 um approved.

Tim Redick uh second that motion.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

So the appeal passes, you can move on to the planning commission and good luck.

Thank you.

All right.

Item two.

Um ID number 26-02891.

The appeal of Michael and Charlene Marquardt for a dimensional variance from section 22.26 sub 7 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 100071 at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Peewaukee 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.

All right.

So in this case, there's also uh they also have somebody here to uh speak for them.

Uh the applicants are uh live in Minnesota and they uh weren't able to be here this week, unfortunately.

So uh they have a friend, uh his name is Matt uh Sobotic, I believe.

Um and uh the applicants confirm both uh over the phone and uh in writing via email that he's authorized to speak for them.

So okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh so uh this is uh the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Peewaukee Road, it's just a little ways to the north of uh of City Hall here.

Um the streets come together uh at uh at an angle uh which leaves this kind of small uh triangular property uh at the intersection.

Uh it hasn't been built on it was uh uh it was owned by the city uh for some time, uh but the applicants would like to uh to build a single family home there.

Um so here's a this is a photo of the property from the sidewalk.

Uh as you can see Pewaukee Road is uh it it's at a um kind of a steep incline.

Uh so any home would be have to have to be built into the hill.

Uh the proposal is for a uh house with a first floor area of approximately one thousand square feet.

Uh then that would include a one-car attached garage built into the front of the house as well as a foyer and then uh uh living space behind it.

Um so you can see uh the the site plan is uh uh the whole property, and then they also have the setback line uh shown on it.

Um 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.

Uh so uh you can see the uh there's a corner of the house that that is proposed that would extend about 14 feet into that uh street yard setback along Buena Vista Avenue, uh so it would be set back about 10 feet from the property boundary there.

Uh they don't have uh full plans for the house.

Uh they'd like to uh the the wait until they have a you know until they know whether or not they'll have a variance before they uh before they put together full plans, uh but they they have provided some uh conceptual design ideas uh for the style of house that they would like to design.

Uh and then that's the incline from the other other direction.

So you can see it is quite a steep uh hill at that location.

Um again, it it'll be it would be a 10-foot uh as they've indicated here, three and a half inch uh setback from the property boundary rather than 25 feet.

Um so the lot is uh 6,700 square feet in area, which is uh substandard under the uh the zoning code.

And for the mo typically substandard lots have reduced setbacks, uh, but in this case, uh so again the side yard setback, the rule is uh that it can be reduced to five feet or ten feet, ten percent of lot width, whichever is greater, um that's from a typical setback of ten feet.

Uh in this case the lot is since it's triangular, it's 90 feet wide.

Uh so they would be able to reduce it to nine feet.

Um so they they could potentially move the house a little bit a little bit further in, probably by a little less than a foot because of the angle.

Uh and then uh the rear yard uh typically can be reduced to as little as ten feet.

Uh in this case, the rear yard is also the street yard, so uh they can't really reduce that any more than in than it already is.

Um and then for street yards, when there are houses that are uh on either side that have a street that have a street yard setback uh less than the the 25 feet that's required.

Uh the street yard can be reduced to the average of the depth of the 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 the one side.

So they don't really they can't really take advantage of any of those.

Um there is a there are several houses going down Pewaukee Road and also on Buena Vista Avenue.

The applicants have noted that the uh the intention is to build a house that would be of a similar scale and size uh to those neighboring neighboring houses.

Uh they've also noted that since the uh since the it's on a corner lot, uh they don't believe that it that the um that the variance would have the same impact uh on the neighbors as it would if there was a house adjoining them to the west side or to the northwest side uh because there is a pretty significant distance between where they would be proposing to build and where the neighbors would be.

Uh it also isn't a a uh vision corner uh issue because that it is more than 20 feet uh from the the corner uh at the intersection.

Uh so again, this is a uh uh this is section 22.26 of the zoning code, so that's uh for the RS3 single family residential district.

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

Is this the street yard setback is the only one that's an issue?

Just in that one location.

Can you go back to like the where it showed the lines?

Yeah, so that's the only the only spot where they have to go over the uh over the the setback line.

They 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 just over.

And then it gets farther and farther back.

Yeah.

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.

So the house will be built in what direction?

Um it would be facing towards Pewaki Road here.

Most of the houses on Pewaki Road have uh have driveways that face out onto it and have partially basements that are partially on a on a or garages that open into a basement.

Um yeah, so exactly.

So it would be next to the this house uh uh 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 they're really any other room to go up or right.

Yeah, okay.

So their driveway will be off of Peewalki Road.

Yeah, that's what they're proposing.

As well as their street address would be Peewalky Road.

Yep.

Got it.

Okay.

Any other questions for Charlie?

All right.

If you um you're here on their behalf, come on up, please at least state your name.

Um where you reside, who you are.

I'm Matt Sobotec.

Uh I live in Pewkey.

My address is N32 W22190, Hillendale Circle, Pewky.

So I am here because I'm a family friend, and they had nobody that could come.

So they're in Minnesota currently?

Yes.

That's 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 it was pretty recent.

It was yeah, it was within the last year or so.

That it had been city owned.

Um I believe a neighbor had previously mowed the lawn, and so nobody really realized it was city owned, and then somebody stopped uh taking care of it and the city decided to sell it.

Fair enough.

Um 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?

Uh I'm not sure.

Um probably because it was closer to their family.

That makes sense.

Yeah, they're planning to actually move here or um eventually, I think.

Is there a plan?

They're they're getting kind of older.

Um retirement is what I'm thinking.

Uh so until then, is this gonna be an income property?

Do we know how close they're gonna be able to do that?

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

So basically be a second home for them.

Yep until they move here, yeah.

Potentially.

Okay.

I I have one question on are we talking about the driveway entering on Pewkey Road?

Yep.

Yeah.

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.

That is very true.

I guess the the other houses uh going down Pewaukee Road do have driveways that uh uh that enter onto the street.

Um it it may have just been a decision based on the the angle of the lot and um ease of putting in a driveway.

I I I agree there are other properties with driveways on Pewkey Road, but just knowing that neighborhood quite well Pewaukee Road is I 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 uh driveways on with attached garages.

Uh I don't know that it's a requirement, but we do prefer that the driveway or that the the garage face it it normally would be a requirement uh that it be 25 feet uh from the right of way because um because that allows room for a car to park without hanging over the uh uh over the the sidewalk.

So I think if you're gonna build into the hill, you'd rather have it be your garage than like your living room.

Okay.

My guess.

Any other questions?

No.

Um you said uh the my other I'm really happy to see this lot potentially being built on.

Uh the 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 those both of those streets.

Um I'm not sure there's a sidewalk.

I'm I'm sure they they know that.

Yeah, like any corner lot.

Yeah.

Okay.

I just wanted it on the record.

Yeah.

It's your responsibility.

A lot of sidewalk.

Any other questions?

Um just more curiosity.

The the back of the house, uh the how much distance is it from the back of the house to the top corner of the lot.

Uh I believe that was about 50 feet uh back from if I can go to the yeah, just based on adding uh these two numbers, which I can't see uh now, but uh 50 and 25 is 75.

Yeah, so it was about a um it was about 50 feet back towards this corner.

Actually, I got a question then.

I the front of the house, I we officially consider the front of the house where the address is.

Right.

So based on that, put in all the dimensions fit it in in any way because it's 10 feet for the sides, 40 feet from the back, 25 from the front.

It's 25 from the front, and then also 25 from uh, you know, from any street yard is 25 feet.

So I mean what it's saying is we officially consider the front of the house, the address.

Right, which is 25 feet.

So the back of the house we just said is for about 40 feet or fifth or higher.

So would it that fit in all the variances anyway?

Yeah, except for the uh the street yard along along Buena Vista.

That's the that's the two yards.

It has to be 25 feet the whole way.

It's just uh an unusual angle.

I'm now getting it.

Usually.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

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.

All right, thank you.

Well, a couple minutes.

All right, thoughts.

It's a good thing for the city.

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

Yeah.

So 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 be.

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.

Yeah.

I guess the only question I have is whether we want to do it saying they have to do it, bring it down to nine feet to make it as close as possible to what would be allowed.

I mean, I don't have a problem with it otherwise, but if we move it over a foot, it's at least closer to what it's supposed to be.

So we're also just talking about that corner piece.

Yeah, I feel like it gets farther and farther away.

In general, I don't know if I was wondering if that one little bit.

Yeah, I'm fine.

Yeah, I'm good.

Okay.

I'm personally in favor of this.

All right.

It's a very unusual situation, and that plus benefit to the city and follows the general spirit of the zoning laws as close as it can be applied.

All right, Charlie, if you would.

All right.

So this is the appeal of uh Michael and Charlene Marquart uh 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 tax sea WAKC 1000 1 at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Pewkey Road, uh set back 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.

Uh one oh go ahead, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh finding one, uh, 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 Redek affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Christy D'Angelo Afirm.

Eric Dunst affirm.

All right.

Uh 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 Redica farm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Christy d'Angelo Firm.

Eric Dunst firm.

All right.

Uh 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 of a variance.

Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Christy D'Angelo firm.

Eric Dunst firm.

All right.

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 intent of the zoning code or public interest.

Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Eric Dunst firm.

All right.

So those were all 4-0.

All right.

So based upon the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I make a motion that the appeal of Michael and Charlene Marquart 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 Peewaukey 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.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

So the motion and the appeal carries unanimously.

You can let them know that they can get their plans underway.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming in.

Sure they appreciate you.

Yeah, sorry, you had to deal with me.

All good.

Um.

And I think you just need a motion to adjourn, right?

Yep.

You don't really need a motion.

Oh.

Anybody opposed to an adjournment?

Nope.

Nope.

All right.

We're all set, then that was easy.

Those are interesting.