The Municipal Services Committee met 08/08/2022. The item that took up most of the meeting was the request from Michael for a variance to allow his driveway to be widened more than 4 feet into his front yard.
This item had been discussed during the 07/25/2022 committee meeting. At that meeting, the contract who poured the concrete appeared on behalf of the homeowner and explained that the paved area was not intended to be parked on but instead was supposed to be turned into a mural. The contractor had not known that he needed to get a permit or that city code did not allow driveways to extend beyond 4 feet into the front yard. He took it as a lesson learned and was willing to make whatever corrections were necessary. Inspections Supervisor Craanen suggested that they cut out only a portion of the concrete keeping some as a walkway from the sidewalk to the front door and some as a walkway from the driveway to the front door. The contractor was amendable to that and the committee voted to hold the item to give time for the property owner to come into compliance.
That seemed to have all been thrown out the window for this meeting. Michael, the homeowner himself instead of the contractor appeared to plead his case, and the variance ended up being denied 4-1.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen told the committee that since the previous meeting, he had spoken with the contractor and also Michael and Michael had indicated that he wanted to keep the paved area and move forward with seeking a variance. City staff’s recommendation was that the variance be denied.
Michael told the committee that he already had a rear facing patio. His initial intention for the paved area in the front of his house was to have a driveway extension that he could use as a personal parking space when he had company over so that he could easily get out of his driveway if his brother, who lived with him and had health issues, had any medical emergencies.
His understanding was that Inspections Supervisor Craanen was at the property when the cement was being poured. He also said he had several other conversations with Mr. Craanen [it wasn’t clear to me if these conversations happened before or after the concrete was poured]. Michael’s idea had been to transform the newly paved area into a mural for the Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and then only park on it during special events. Michael told the committee that Mr. Craanen verbally told him his plan would be okay.
Michael understood now that there had been no actual approval for a variance. He said he was very new to this sort of stuff and did not know what was necessary to be able to install a driveway extension. He said that Mr. Craanen had told both him and his contract that the paved area was okay to be mural but not a driveway.
After the pavement had been poured, Michael said he did park on it at one point. He ran the Hip Hop for Humanity event and some people were stopping by his house to pick up their prizes from the silent auction and raffle. He noted that all proceeds from the event had been donated to Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. Michael had wanted those people to be able to get in and out of his driveway without being obstructed, so he had parked on newly poured area that morning.
He went on to describe an interaction that he had with Inspections Supervisor Craanen. It was not clear to me from the way he told it whether it was one event or if these things happened during more than one interaction.
He said that Mr. Craanen had showed up at his property at 9AM in the morning when Michael was still in his pajamas and was “very brazen” and “escalated his voice”. He also said that Mr. Craanen had told the contractor that the rule about not paving front yards was in place because “These minority people have been having multiple families living in one house so that’s why we don’t allow the extra parking for them in the front to minimize who can live there so that we can prevent these kind of problems.” [That is what Michael said that he said, but it was not clear to me that Michael actually heard it first hand or if he was simply recounting what his contractor told him had been said.] Later in the meeting Inspections Supervisor Craanen plainly denied having said anything about minorities.
Michael also wondered if the way he was being treated was due to his tattoos, appearance, and demeanor.
He said that he had explained to Inspections Supervisor Craanen that, if the major issue was using the area as a parking space, that he did not need to park there and would instead park in his driveway or on the street. He then said that Mr. Craanen told him that the mural was denied because it was not up to city code. This confused Michael because he didn’t even know what the mural design was yet. He finished up by saying that Mr. Craanen had called him the week before to tell him that he was removing himself from the issue and that Michael should come to the committee meeting on 08/08/2022. Michael usually worked Monday through Saturday and had to take off of work to be there that evening.
William Siebers (District 1), the chairperson of the committee said, “The comments that I heard you say were made, I as the Chair of this committee want to say I apologize.”
Michael responded, “I appreciate that. I have still to this day not gotten an apology from Kurt. When I did mention to him that I do know he has said this to myself and to other people, he was speechless and unable to respond.”
After that, the committee started their discussion on the variance request. Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) made a motion to deny it. Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) seconded it for discussion purposes.
Alderperson Siebers mentioned he had gone past the house and noticed that the car was parked in the driveway alongside the house and patio furniture had been placed on the area in dispute.
Michael confirmed that was the case and said the Inspections Supervisor Craanen had told him that if he got planters and made it more of a patio area the committee might potentially recommend the variance for approval by the Council.
He and Alderperson Siebers talked about the details of the Council meeting that would finally decide the fate of the variance request. The timing of the Council meeting on 08/17/2022 was problematic for Michael who would be out of town until 8PM, an hour after the meetings start time.
Alderperson Siebers asked Inspections Supervisor Craanen if it was accurate that turning the area into a patio with planters would mean the concrete did not necessarily need to be dug up.
Mr. Craanen answered that was not the case and he did not know where that was coming from. He did not remember saying that. The notice of non-compliance had been sent out and his department’s position was that either a permit or a variance was needed.
Alderperson Van Zeeland was trying to unpack everything that Michael had said and wanted to hear from Inspector Craanen about the remarks Michael had said were made.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen answered, “I never said anything about minorities. I said that the reason in the past when this ordinance was originally discussed years ago, multi-generations—sometimes people would pave their own front yard. I think there were several cases where we did have people that needed to tear the pavement out because we didn’t want front yards in residential properties to become parking lots. Okay? The reason that this ordinance was passed was to set some parameters. Four feet in the front yard, not 10 feet, not 20 feet. Four feet was enough space to get one more car, so we did have a couple situations where, you know, whole front yards were paved. That’s why—and I was explaining that day because there was confusion about why this was happening, and I was explaining this is why this ordinance was passed years ago. So front yards are not parking lots.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland mentioned that there was a property in her district that had to tear up their front yard which they had paved in the hope that they could have more parking for their family. She was familiar with the reasons for the ordinance. “I guess I just wanted to make sure that the things he’s saying—it was a miscommunication and not that you said what he said because that would be a problem.”
Inspections Supervisor Craanen answered, “I did not say that.”
Michael said, “I do go on record, and I do have witnesses that that is exactly verbatim what was stated and that was stated to my contractor.”
He also said, “That is something that also a very prominent business owner recognized how he had spoke to me the morning that he had knocked on my door.” [He phrased that oddly and I wasn’t clear to me if he was saying that somebody else in addition to the contractor had been there and heard this statement being made.] He said he didn’t know where else he would have pulled that kind of speech from and he had never been a subject of those kinds of words. and I’ve never quite been a subject of those kind of words or anything like that. and as I have worked myself up to be some sort of an upstanding person and try to give back to the community as much as humanly possible.
He said that he no longer needed to park on that area. He had placed some planters and a patio set in that area to give anyone who might be out walking there the opportunity to sit down. He had works to be an upstanding person and try to give back to the committee. He was trying to make sure the paved area provided convenience. Ultimately, what it came down to was he did not want to destroy $17,000 worth of work that he had already paid for.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said she was going to set aside the situation about the remarks because she thought that was something that could be handled administratively. She wanted to focus on the driveway and asked Michael what he intended to do with it now.
Michael answered that at that point he wanted to have an area for his daughter to play in front because he was working on remodeling the porch which wasn’t a play area. His daughter had just turned 4 and wanted to ride her bike up and down in front of the property. Other than that, he would like to make it be a resting area for anybody walking by who needed a quick rest. He reiterated that his car had not touched the area since he was visited by Inspections Supervisor Craanen and he had also pretty much given up on the idea of getting a professionally painted mural to honor Children’s Hospital. At this moment he just wanted a street-facing patio.
Alderperson Van Zeeland commended him for thinking about the community, but she was concerned about the amount of concrete in the front yard. She said it looked like a parking lot which was not how the city wanted homes to look in their front yards. She didn’t want to impact the property values of the surrounding properties, so she would be voting no.
Michael asked, “Are you guys going to pay for the destruction of the cement?”
Alderperson Siebers responded, “No, Sir.”
Michael then said, “So even though that Mr. Kurt was on my property while it was being poured and gave the verbal approval to the contractor, that no longer holds any weight?”
Alderperson Siebers raised his hand as if to say “that’s the way it is.”
Michael said, “That is why we did not get the permit before, because he was on site, and I have the contractor that was here during the last meeting that will verify that.”
Alderperson Siebers responded, “Okay.”
Michael continued, “We would never have poured it. I do not wish to break any laws. You can even pull up my police record.”
Alderperson Siebers interjected that he was not trying to imply that.
Michael continued speaking. “But it’s something that I don’t want to—I don’t want to be breaking anything or doing anything out of order. But now that it’s completed and it looks solid and my daughter enjoys it which is my entire world, now I’m going to be pressured and actually voted against, so to say, in a time when the economy is at an all-time inflation? To lose almost $10,000 worth of money.”
Alderperson Siebers responded that during the last meeting the contractor had been present. Rather than taking a vote on it, the committee had referred it back to Mr. Craanen because he had given the committee the impression that maybe something could be done rather than digging up the entirety of the concrete.
Michael said he spoke with Mr. Craanen a couple of days before and that had not been related to him.
Alderperson Siebers that a potential fix had been related to the committee which he had thought was a pretty good fix. He was surprised that nothing had been done.
Michael said he wasn’t sure what that was. He said Inspections Supervisor Craanen “had called me a few days ago and—I believe it was Friday—and I had explained the same exact information I just relayed to all of you. It is his responsibility to somehow inform me of that, and he had laid it onto somebody else’s shoulder. I had not spoken to Mr. Craanen since that morning he had showed up at my front door. I had no idea that anything was going outside of this committee meeting two weeks ago or whenever that might have been. I was not informed or kept in the loop as the property owner, and I explained that to Mr. Craanen at that point in time.”
Alderperson Siebers asked, “Whose fault is that?”
Michael responded, “I am not quite sure. I figured it would have been Mr. Craanen’s to inform me.”
Alderperson Siebers pointed out, “You have a contractor. And my understanding is the contractor was
Michael said he still had a contractor who was willing to do what was necessary to make things right, but he wasn’t appearing at the meeting on Michael’s behalf. Michael didn’t understand how he could have something professionally done so that it looked property and he could decorate it in a nice manner to tie it into the neighborhood but he was still being told it needed to be removed. He noted that the house next to him was being torn down to make room for the condominium building that was being put up in the former VFW parking lot.
His neighbors loved how nice his property looked and how much he had improved it since purchasing it. He indicated none of his neighbors had raised an issue with what he was doing or the way it looked, but if one neighbor said they had a problem with it then he would tear it up.
The committee had no further questions and comments and voted 4-1 to deny the variance with Alderperson Joss Thyssen casting the lone dissenting vote.
Alderperson Siebers reminded Michael that the committee’s vote was not the final vote and that it still had to come before the Common Council. He suggested that between the committee meeting and the Common Council meeting further discussions could take place between him and the Department of Inspections and perhaps they could find a resolution.
[I was a little surprised to see how this went down. It sounded like they had a fairly decent compromise figured out during the previous committee meeting, and I find it odd that Michael apparently never checked in with his contractor to find out how things went. When you’re facing the prospect of having to tear up the new pavement you just had installed, it seems like it would be a priority to check in with your contractor on how the variance request went. Clearly there were some communication issues.
As far as paving the front yard goes, based on the limited pictures available it seems like the property has been much improved, but that doesn’t seem like good grounds for a variance. A better path would perhaps be to push for the ordinance to be changed. Perhaps a discussion about how much say the city should have in the aesthetics of a privately own lot would be warranted. If we’re going to promote yards getting overgrown with grass and weeds for No Mow May maybe people should also be able to pave their front yards if they so desire.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=982992&GUID=7B609413-E21B-4D6E-8FE1-ECC3C0BF1769
Be the first to reply