This is the Monday, May 11th uh 2026 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Walkish Show.

And uh we will have a call to order.

Kevin Riley present.

Eric Dunst present.

Timothy Redding, present.

Junior Mike on Tim Reddick present.

And uh just for information's sake, uh, we're starting at 4 15 rather than four o'clock because we had some members who had some prior engagements, but I hope that's up okay with everybody.

And uh 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 13th.

Do we have a motion to accept the minutes?

Motion to accept the minutes.

I'll second.

First and a second, uh Kevin Rayleigh votes aye.

Eric Dunce votes aye.

Tim Reddick votes aye.

The minutes of April 13th have been uh approved.

And we are on to new business.

We are going to rearrange the order of new business, and instead of the ID 2603 506 being the first item on the agenda, we are going to move on to ID 2603507, the appeal of the Salvation Army of Waukesha County for a dimensional variance from section 22.427A 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 of way.

All right.

Uh so this is 445 Madison Street.

Uh it's at the uh intersection of Madison Street and Third Street, uh, just up the hill from City Hall.

Uh this is it's the Salvation Army property.

As you can see, the uh the building is uh situated right at the corner uh with a with a parking lot behind it, and then a small additional parking lot uh off of third street up at the top of the hill.

Um the building is there's a kind of a primary mass that's right on on the corner, and then two wings that uh that extend out behind it, so you can see the the one that goes down Madison Street there, and then this is the one that comes out uh along third street.

Uh and uh the applicants would like to add an attached garage uh onto the building at at that third street uh the uh facing towards third street at the top of the hill there.

Um so here you can see this is the uh the topography for the property.

Um as you can see it's built into the hill, and uh the portions of the property that aren't the uh either the building or the uh the parking lots are uh uh very much steep grade that are you know that that it's taking up that hill.

Um so there isn't really much space on the property to expand or add any even a small uh garage without without going into that grade.

Uh so here's the area that they that where they would like to locate the garage.

As you can see that the hill is going down uh from that uh from that space.

So if they moved it uh back even a little further than where they want to put it, uh it would it would have to be into the uh into the parking lot area.

Um you can also see the uh what looks like sort of like a uh an ambulance uh in the parking lot at the base of the hill is the uh is the vehicle that they would like to put into the garage.

It's uh an emergency response vehicle uh that that uh needs to be parked indoors.

Um so they've considered a number of other options.

Uh the most recently they they looked very closely at the possibility of locating a garage behind and potentially attached to uh the small house that's that's at uh that's located to the right of the uh parking lot entrance along Madison Street.

Um so there's the the house that's a one-story formerly uh a residence that they've uh taken over and and they use for uh I believe auxiliary office space.

Um in that location, as you can see, there's uh also a steep grade behind it.

Uh you can see several retaining walls.

Um that would have that would have required some pretty significant grading work and would have uh had some complications with neighbors and uh and with uh utility lines.

So there's the the house that's a one-story formerly a residence that they've uh taken over and and they use for uh I believe auxiliary office space um in that location as you can see there's a also a steep grade behind it uh you can see several retaining walls um they would have that would have required some pretty significant grading work and would have uh had some complications with neighbors and uh and with the utility lines uh so that location ultimately turned out to be not not feasible for the garage um so that was because that location wasn't feasible they had settled on this location instead um this is the uh the footprint for the proposed addition um it will it's intended to line up with the uh with the main with the larger mass of the main building uh closer to Madison Street as you can see that's uh a setback about 11 feet from uh from third street it's also uh about 16 feet from the Madison Street right of way so that it's legal non-conforming uh with the current setbacks for the the district um the building is almost but not quite parallel with the third street right of way so running further back it's a little bit closer to the right of way than than that mass is uh so that would be they're estimating a setback of not less than uh eight feet eight inches for that for the addition and here it is uh the rendering from uh from the east side facing towards the parking lot you can see it'll be built into the hill there'll be a uh foundation uh underneath and then the uh garage up above uh which will have uh brick and uh a roof uh designed to fit in and to match with the rest of the building um here it is again uh at that uh the level of the uh the street so you can see the where it'll fit into the building um and then this is just the elevation facing from Madison Street where it will not there there won't be any visible addition um the garage will be it's again set back about seven feet from the the lot line uh so it'll be less than one vehicle length uh out onto the street um so normally normally a 25 foot setback is required partially uh for the the purpose of uh when there are front facing garages to allow a space for parking in front of the building uh without extending over to over the uh over the sidewalk in this case uh even a normal sized car would probably be extending into third street if it was parked in front of the building uh so that wouldn't really be possible here uh but it is something that's a concern if it was to be used for uh for parking uh so we would ideally like this to be approved with uh a condition whether you whether the board of zoning appeals does it or or the plan commission this will have to go to the plan commission with the condition that that space won't be used for parking uh also if they were to back out the the truck uh it would probably be over the sidewalk before uh before the driver um could see out out from beyond the garage uh so that might be a safety concern as well here they're showing it uh backed in and they have stated that they that they would always back it in and have a spotter um so that may be less of a safety concern but um you may want to consider uh requiring uh uh um some kind of a mirror or something similar to uh aid with the with pulling out uh since we can't require that they we can't really require that they always back the truck in so um again this is just a close up you can see that that seven foot setback and and the uh path for the vehicle uh leading out so again this is 22.42 which is the uh I one institutional district and 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 uh questions for Charlie in the city before opening it up for discussion seeing none uh do we have anybody here from the uh salvation army who would like to uh speak to the appeal I'm elected 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 um so basically that canteen is my responsibility um I know there is a concern about being close to the the street um and we always back the vehicle in um 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 uh if we were to clean the garage we would pull it off into the parking lot and then back it back in um that way so there's no either stall would would never be parked

Um 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.

Uh 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 wanted to be stored inside.

Um up until this year we were blessed to have the uh uh fire station two from the city was allowing us to park it there, but now they bought another piece of equipment, so uh it's time for us to get our own uh place uh to put it into.

So um we service three different not that you're interested, but we service three different counties, about 32 fire departments.

Um 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 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 trailers 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 uh a thought that as long as we're building a garage, it 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 at of the you know the the month that I mean 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 um and the I will say that the we do have cameras on that side of the building.

The pedestrian traffic on that side on third street is is minimal.

157 third has a few people that walk up and down, but um if that makes a bearing on anything, but 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 doors at on the side here?

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 uh obstructions and stuff because you would always be so you'd be aiming the third street parking lot up that way.

It's concrete is this uh Hey, this is I'm Connor from Fisher Fisher Tice Architects.

Um 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.

Um we have not directly looked at the driveways kind of exiting, you know, behind us in this image.

Um 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.

Um 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?

Um just uh neighbors, you've got neighbors across the street, but nobody to the to 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 uh there are neighbors all around.

Um there's none on our side of the street.

That the lot up there is ours.

Yes.

Right.

There's not a neighbor right here, but uh further to the south, there's an apartment building.

Um there are a couple of single-family homes on the opposite side of third street.

Um so it it's not uh it's not directly there look there's some separation there.

That's a huge heel.

Um have you been in contact with neighbors on third street across the street?

No, sir.

We did get uh notifications.

Notifications.

Charlie?

Yep.

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?

That is kind of the same as my question about the directing.

Well, 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 heel and everything, and that was the first problem they were coming into.

It's a huge hill there.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

But the only real problem with that is you need taller footings, basically, right?

Okay.

Uh I don't have any more questions.

Meaning.

Any anybody else from the public want to comment on the uh issue at hand.

Seeing none, we can go into deliberation.

Is that where we're at, Charlie?

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

My my initial thoughts are um I can see the need for this.

Um, I'm aware of all the good work that the Salvation Army does.

I'm also aware that they lost their spot at the uh fire station.

Uh they always work in good cooperation with the city on emergencies, and they're a huge asset to the city, so um 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, the height of that drop-off is significant.

It's very, very significant.

I 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.

Uh I can't see changing it on the top at all, except for the the dimensions that they've suggested.

I'm inclined to uh grant it simply because again, like you said, all the good that they do in the emergency situations and everything for our community and uh and abroad.

Um given the fact that I'm going to just go out on the 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 in working condition, and like you mentioned, they lost that ability with the fire department.

Their design does match the current building well.

Um I think we probably should require the mirrors.

I mean, maybe right now their insurance requires a pack of we don't know the future and the insurance is gonna change it.

All it would take is them not having that in place and hitting someone, and that goes through the roof, and the insurance has to pay for it.

It's still gonna keep have the mirrors there though, definitely, and that's a minimal requirement.

I mean, that's what 50 bucks, 100 bucks put a mirror up, if that's a good place to start, yeah, or to finish rather.

Uh do we have to make uh uh an amendment to the appeal, Charlie, to put that into place?

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

Done.

So uh conditional on uh uh mirror placements, yep.

Okay, all right, undo are we uh 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 22.427A 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 of way.

So uh 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, uh Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirmed Eric Dunst affirm.

All right, so that's three to zero.

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 Redick affirm?

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunst 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 a grounds for the granting of a variance.

Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

Eric Dunst affirm.

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 Rayleigh affirm.

Eric Don't firm.

All right.

So all of those were three to zero.

Seeing we have uh uh found in the affirmative for all the uh findings of fact, we can move on to a motion.

Uh someone like to make a motion to I Tim Reddick uh make a motion that this uh affirmation happens on the basis that they put mirrors in place for safety of the public.

Uh all 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 Dunst 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 uh appeal of any old walkie Shaw Gas Engines Incorporated for a dimensional variance from section 22.397A of the zoning code.

If granted, the variance will allow for reconstruction of an existing entrance to a manufacturing building at uh one 1,101 West St.

Paul Avenue with a street yard setback of seven feet two inches from West St.

Paul Avenue right away when there shall be a minimum street yard setback of 25 feet from the right of way of all streets.

All right.

Uh so this is 1101 West St.

Paul Avenue.

Uh this is the uh the INEO uh gas engines plant.

Uh it's I believe the largest uh the largest footprint of any building in the city at about 600,000 square feet.

Wow.

Uh and it has a uh front facade that's uh 13 a little over 1300 feet long uh along West St.

Paul Avenue.

Um part of the that facade uh meets the required 25 foot setback.

The the building uh certainly predates the zoning code.

I think it had been uh as of our first aerial photos in the 1940s, most of it was there and and uh portions of it were added by the 1960s.

Uh but it so it definitely predates the uh the setback requirement.

Um and it is a facade that whole length along the street.

Um the main entrance is right at the center of the building here.

Uh and the applicants would like to do an update uh to that entrance.

So you can see it's uh one story um one story entrance uh with um uh just a small uh sort of white uh covered uh facade and then a green metal uh accent.

Um and you can see here the the uh sidewalk is uh kind of a double wide sidewalk.

The lot line runs right along uh near where the uh where the divide in the sidewalk is.

Um so the applicants have a portion of sidewalk that's on their property, and then the rest is in the right of way.

Um and then there's a there's sort of a gap between the building and the uh and the sidewalk, uh, 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 uh there are several uh flag poles there, and then an existing utility pole.

Uh so they would like to uh reconstruct that entrance to make it a little more prominent and a little more easy to find.

Uh and uh the proposal is it's uh larger uh uh uh curtain wall uh glass uh windows extending floor to ceiling there uh with a metal accent that'll extend up to the the height of the top of the building and that'll be angled slightly out from the building.

Uh they will still be retaining those flag poles and then that uh the utility pole will be in the same location.

So here it is in the elevation.

Uh the rest of the building is around it is unchanged.

Um and then uh from the east and west, you can see the there's a railing uh right at the edge of the sidewalk, so it'll extend out a little bit ways into the sidewalk.

Um you can see where the railing is on both sides, uh just a couple people, a couple feet back from the uh from the front of the building.

And here it is in the site plan.

Um you can see the where the uh entrance will extend out and it'll be at a little bit of an angle, so it'll be just over seven feet uh from the uh 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 uh to the um to the south, and it it is at that same uh that same setback for the whole extent of the building.

Uh so this is section 22.39.

Uh the M2 general manufacturing district is the the zoning district for that property, uh, but it's essentially the same as the previous uh application.

Uh it's 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 and the city?

No.

Uh just for clarification, Charlie.

The basically what they're asking for is a uh 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 uh yeah, yeah.

Do you mean that they can't it's it's that's where the grandfather line was in the past, right?

It might be slightly closer to the lot line, but uh if it is, it's by a foot or two.

So it's a right now it's seven feet or half away, uh right.

It might be a little bit farther right now than it will be, but uh it's based it is currently um well under the the 25-foot setback.

Uh one other clarification the the part there is uh available that's all parking spaces all up and down St.

Paul in front of the building, correct?

Yep, okay.

Yeah, that's uh street parking there.

So that would be their that would be their main entrance for their clients and yeah, and they'd like to they've 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 if they couldn't either keep that as the main entrance or if they had to meet the setback requirement.

Thank you.

Uh Tim or Eric, you any other questions for um Charlie before I bring up any old?

I don't okay.

Uh 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 uh address and your association with INU, yeah, definitely.

Uh Dan Colvin with Riley Construction construction manager for uh representing INEO here today.

Um address is NNA4 West 1370 Fond du Lac Avenue Menominee Falls, Wisconsin.

Um I'll first address the the comment about uh 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 uh entrance as reflected here.

Thank you very much.

Uh we're we're looking to get a couple inches closer, um, just due to uh making sure that we can get the ADA compliance within uh the entranceway itself with the rotation clearances, the ramp, um, and then also uh the stair adjacent to it.

Um little clarification there.

Um beyond that, really just uh scope of the project.

So as some of you may be aware, uh we currently have an addition project proposed as well as a significant office renovation that's ongoing.

Uh 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.

Um 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 uh end users of the engine who may want to see it be ran or tested.

So definitely it was Dan again.

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 part is just when guests arrive, they feel more welcomed when they know where they're going rather than potentially making a misstep.

So it's not in the purview of this appeal, but uh I noticed you've got some signage on your old entrance.

Are you planning on uh putting up?

I didn't see anything on the new new entrance.

Correct.

Our intention would be to include signage.

We we don't have that uh determined at this point, uh whether it would go on the metal panels towards the middle of the curtain wall or on the curtain wall itself.

Uh 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.

Okay.

Uh do we have any other questions for Dan?

No, sir.

No.

I think we can go to deliberation now.

Thank you.

Dan kicks off.

Eric?

Oh.

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 I would tend to agree with uh that giving the INEO's been an amazing asset to the city, and especially with their expansion and stuff.

I think uh cleaner, more modern, uh beautiful entrance only reflects better on the city if we give them six six or eight inches extra to to get that done.

I'm I don't see any reason to make a problem with that.

It's basically the intent of follow us the old grandfather.

I agree.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think we can vote.

You want the findings of facts?

Sure.

Okay.

All right.

So the appeal of Ineo Wancasha gas engines for a dimensional variance from section 22.397A of the zoning code.

Uh, 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 Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunst confirm.

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 right to confirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunst firm.

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 the granting of a variance.

Tim Redic affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Don't 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 Reddy confirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunes confirmed.

All right, those are all uh three to zero then.

We have uh affirmed all the findings of fact in the affirmative, and we can move on to a vote.

Do we have a motion for the uh appeal?

Uh a motion to appeal.

We have a motion motion from or a fur uh from Tim for to upgrade.

Do we have a second?

To to approve the appeal.

Yeah, there we go.

Thank you.

I'll second that, yeah.

Yeah, all right.

We have a first and a second with me.

Kevin Rayleigh is aye.

Eric Don't style.

Tim Reddick is aye.

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

Thank you.

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

Yeah, glowing.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to the city's appeal.

Doug, are you doing this or I'll give that Charlie?

Oh, okay, Charlie.

Yeah, I've got the presentation.

Doug's sort of like the applicant, I guess.

Okay.

All right.

So this is 223 Southwest Avenue.

Uh this is a very small at it's uh right at the intersection of West Avenue and New Hall, uh, just to the uh west of the the uh railroad tracks.

And it's it's a very small sliver of uh property which has been uh for many many years uh owned and used by the water utility.

Uh it has a small building on it, which uh that they've used for storage, and which you can see uh in this aerial photo um it looks like the uh the property line uh that the building runs right through the property line.

Uh sometimes the aerial photos are a little bit inaccurate that the angle of the photo uh makes the property line look uh 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.

Um so we believe that uh at some point they probably expanded West Avenue and just move the right-of-way across the building because they figured it was a city-owned building, so that was uh you know, that was a fine location for the right-of-way anyway.

Uh now the water utility uh has determined that it doesn't need this building for storage anymore.

Uh so they're looking to uh they're looking to sell it.

Uh and there is a local artist who is uh has proposed an idea for uh reusing the building, and uh the council has approved that uh uh that reuse um assuming that it can that it can receive all the necessary approvals.

Um so as you can see the sidewalk kind of uh angles out around the building.

Um that that is the location of the uh where the right of way will be relocated to if this uh if this appeal is granted.

Um the city has approved a uh street vacation for uh that portion of the right of way.

So the lot will extend out uh a couple feet uh a couple feet further from where it does now, and then the the right of way will just be a little bit narrow there.

Um but yeah, in order to make that happen, uh we would need to approve a certified survey map, or we need to have a certified survey map uh approved by the planning commission and council.

Uh they can't approve a lot that is uh not that doesn't meet the city's zoning code requirements.

Um so in order for them to approve a new lot, uh it would they will need uh a variance.

Um the street yard uh requires street the 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.

Uh and it also is uh quite a bit less than the uh setback from the railroad right of way uh on the east side of the property.

Uh so it doesn't meet either the street yard or the uh rear yard setback.

And the district uh has also has a requirement for lot area and width that uh individual business sites in the B1 district shall provide sufficient area for the principal building and uh it's accessory buildings, off-street parking and loading areas and required yards.

Uh so really it's sort of up to you as the board of zoning appeals to decide how you want to uh take this.

Uh if you are going to vote uh on a variance, you could just approve the uh a variance for the street yard setback and the rear yard setback and then leave the just say it that since 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 uh to allow a lot uh to to then go through the plan commissioning council for approval uh that doesn't provide sufficient area for all 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?

Nope.

It would it would the building will stay in the same location.

Uh so it would be a rear yard of uh um let's see uh a rear yard of less than seven feet.

Uh so that's there's about seven feet right here, and then I would just stay in the same location.

So the the uh street yard set the street yard would kind of extend out into the into the uh right of way and the the right of way there has already uh 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, uh, it's uh a local artist who is uh uh looking to move a studio space there.

Got it.

Any other questions before we move to deliberation?

I have I have no other questions.

Me neither.

Yeah, no, I'm good.

All right, we will move to deliberation.

Um, as someone who rode my bike on that street as a small child, and I think I crashed into that building uh because of that goofy sidewalk.

Uh my preference would be that they would straighten that out and fix that.

It it is somewhat of a hazard, and I want to kind of make that clear that it it is 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 uh 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.

Um but I on the other hand, I I like the idea that the city is finding value in our old properties and finding a new value for them.

Um 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 banana art studio.

I don't think they're gonna have a lot of people coming and going.

Um, like you said, they're finding they're repurposing the building, so it's not gonna sit vacant and become an ISO 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, and it's not necessarily going to always be an art studio.

True, but for now it's gonna be an art studio.

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

That is an absolute absolute fact.

And it has been rezoned to B1 neighborhood business, which would allow um it would allow businesses that are meant to fit in with uh you know, with a residential neighborhood that tends to be you know, corners where there are three or four businesses uh surrounded by houses and 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.

Yep.

Um I guess is um plowing, we would be plowing right up against that building at times, and then uh 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 in the sale.

So this is gonna go to public works.

Um they I guess they're the ones that you know that uh um would be responsible for probably the uh clearing the snow, but I think it's sure.

So this um it took the land has already been through council determined to be surplus land, right?

Um, and then they also put out an the council put out an RFP for proposals and then chose uh this local artist to be the one to work with for the future uh use and sale sale of the property to this person for their future use.

Um so they should be aware of all of the requirements for show snow shoveling, things like that.

And uh I I would uh I'm pretty reticent to 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 uh my reservations on the record.

Fair enough.

Make motion to move to findings and facts.

Yeah, you get any other comments here?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so this is the appeal of the city of Waukesha for a dimensional variance from sections 22.335B, 22.337A, and 22.337 C of the zoning code.

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 should 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 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 Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

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 ready to confirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunstef.

All right.

And 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 a variance.

Tim ready to confirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunstefirm.

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 or and intent of the zoning code or public interest.

Tim Redick confirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Eric Dunstefirm.

All right, those were all three to zero.

Seeing we have a unanimous affirmation of the findings of fact, we can move on to a vote.

Can entertain uh a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the appeal.

Tim Reddick second the motion.

We have a first and a second.

Kevin Riley votes aye.

Tim Redick votes aye.

Eric Dunstep 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.