During the 09/12/2022 and the 09/26/2022 Municipal Services Committee, the committee took up and deliberated on a variance request from a resident on Glendale Avenue to install a 12-foot driveway extension to provide more parking space for the 5 adults who lived in the home, each of whom had their own car.
City code allows driveway extensions up to 12 feet when those extension go into the side yard. This property, however, was on a corner lot so it seems the Inspections Department viewed it as having two front yards. Additionally, the existing driveway was on the corner of the house such that extending the driveway on either side would extend it in front of the house instead of to the side of the house. City code allows driveway extensions into front yards, but the maximum width for those extensions is only 4 feet. The property owners had the option to extend their driveway by 4 feet on each side of the driveway, for a total of 8 feet, without needing a variance, but this would result in having to juggle the cars to get them in and out of the garage and was not as ideal as simply having one driveway extension on one side of the driveway. Additionally, although the Inspections Department seemed to view the property as having two front yards, in practice only one of the yards was viewed and treated as the “front” by the residents.
Neither the applicant nor a representative of the applicant appeared to plead his case during the 09/12/2022 committee meeting and the committee ended up voting 3-2 to deny the variance request. One concern raised was that earlier in the meeting they had dismissed (after having previously denied) a similar variance request by Michael for a driveway extension into his front yard on Packard Street. Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) specifically felt it wouldn’t be appropriate to deny that request and then turn around an approve this other request. Another concern was that the need for the variance was self-created and that the property owner had the option to extend it by 8 feet total (4 feet on each side) without needing a variance.
Although no one had come to the committee meeting, two of the residents did attend the Common Council meeting on 09/21/2022 and expressed concern that extending the driveway by 4 feet on each side would be a less safe option than extending it on one side only and would result in having to juggle cars around more in order to get them out of the driveway. It also was unclear to them why they were not allowed to install a 12-foot driveway extension because it appeared to them that they met the requirements laid out by code. Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9), although not a member of the committee, referred the item back to the committee for further discussion.
During the 09/26/2022 Municipal Services Committee some of the household residents did come to plead their case and the committee ended up vote 3-1 to recommend the variance for approval.
Questions And Issues That Were Raised During the 09/12/2022 Municipal Services Committee
- What elements were needed in order for the committee to approve the variance?
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was not a committee member but she was in attendance. She noted that during her time serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Sheboygan it had been drilled into board members’ heads that a variance could only be granted if there was no other solution to the problem and the problem was specific to that individual property.
City Attorney Christopher Behrens agreed that was correct under the zoning code (Chapter 23); however, the issue before them involved Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code so the standards for be granting a variance were not necessarily as stringent. - Was it appropriate to grant a variance in this situation when they had just denied a similar variance request for a driveway extension into the front yard of a property on Packard Street?
Per Attorney Behrens: “You are seeing similarities potentially between the two, but each one of you [the committee members] looks at each case on a case-by-case basis and will make that determination. So, one decision won’t necessarily tie you in for all future decisions. You do take each one on a case by case—and you may look at them on the agenda and say ‘Well this one is so similar to a previous one, I’m having a hard time reconciling how we act differently,’ but I just want to make that point that you should act on a case-by-case basis.”
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen also pointed out that one of the issues with driveway extensions is that people tend to drive over the terrace to access them. In fact, extensions are supposed to be flared in order to help prevent that. The Packard Street driveway extension had not been flared and there was a much greater risk of cars being driven over the city’s terrace in order to access that space than on this current proposed driveway extension in which the property owner would actually be extending the driveway’s apron to match the driveway extension. - What is the purpose of limiting driveway extensions to 4 feet in the front yard but allowing them to extend 12 feet into a side yard?
Inspector Craanen could not speak for what the legislative body was thinking when they changed that ordinance; however, he thought that they didn’t want cars parked in front of houses. 4 feet was seen as a width that could be flared easily and people would not drive over the terrace. 12 feet extensions into side yards was something that the Council at the time had viewed as something they could “live with”. He reiterated that he was assuming that was the Council’s reasoning at the time.
There was also an, at the time, unanswered questions about how wide a driveway was allowed to be.
Questions and Issues That Were Raised During the 09/26/2022 Committee Meeting
- How wide are driveways allowed to be in the City of Appleton
The Engineering Department had a policy that 40 feet was the maximum width of a driveway. That usually was not an issue except possibly for very big houses. - How wide was the current driveway on this property and how large was the requested driveway extension?
The current driveway was 20 feet wide and the driveway extension would be 12 feet. - Was there a width in between the 4 feet permitted by code and 12 feet that could be agreed upon between the committee and the property owner?
Matthew, the homeowner’s son, said that ordinarily he would agree with trying to reach some sort of compromise, but their belief was that 12 feet was what was necessary. They were mainly wanting to extend the driveway for the winter so that they could have three cars across in the winter. There cars were on the larger side. He mentioned that his father drove a pickup truck and he had a minivan (he had his fiancée had young children.) They did not want to end up in a situation where someone was parking with their tires on the lawn. - Did the fact that the property was considered to have two front yards contribute to their need for a variance?
Inspector Craanen said that the issue was more that they wanted to extend the driveway more than 4 feet in front of their house. [Personally, although this was not explicitly stated, I would say that the problem was related both to the fact that the house was on a corner lot as well as the location of the garage in relation to the two front yards. Because the garage was located on the corner where the two front yards came together, there was no way to extend the driveway into a “side” yard. If the garage had been located on the northeast corner of the house or the southwest corner of the house then they would have been able to extend the driveway toward one of the neighboring properties and away from the front of their own house and could probably have done so without needing a variance. Instead, because the driveway was located in the middle of both “fronts” of the house, they could only by code extend it 4 feet in each direction.] - What was the difference between this variance request and the Packard Street variance request which the committee had denied?
Inspector Craanen explained that the people requesting the Glendale Street variance were proposing widening the driveway apron in addition to installing a driveway extension. That mitigated the risk that they would drive on the city’s terrace which was still a concern with the Packard Street situation.
As a follow up to that, Alderperson Siebers asked if Michael, the Packard Street resident, had widened his apron would they have supported that variance. I thought that was a very good question and was interested in hearing the answer, but, unfortunately, the staff member who responded did so off microphone and I couldn’t hear what she said. - Did the Inspections Department have an issue with this request.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen said, “I don’t have any problem with this request.”
Ultimately, the Municipal Services committee voted 3-1 to recommend the variance request for approval.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) had been the one who referred the item back to committee. He explained to the committee that he did that in part because he was a little confused by the existing city policy as well as the definition of what a front yard was on a corner lot and how that affected property owners. He told the committee, “Anybody who has a property on a corner lot in the city of Appleton (which is 15-20% of the homeowners I suspect) might find themselves in an odd situation whenever they’re dealing with code and this double front lot scenario. So, I think it’s the committee’s jurisdiction to hear these requests and understand that they’re sort of—they’re special circumstances for a homeowner who finds themselves needing to extend a driveway.”
[I do think it would be helpful to revisit some of the city codes as they relate to properties with double frontages. I don’t have any exact numbers, but I do know more than one variance request has been brought forward because a property had two “front” yards. I’m not sure its fair or beneficial to have a code which results in owners of corner lots having to jump through additional hoops to do things that those with non-corner lots don’t have to jump through. It seems like that disincentivizes the ownership of corner lots.
I also still don’t understand why people parking in the front yard is such a problem. I can understand some people might have concerns about aesthetics, but I’m failing to see what objective or practical concerns there might be to support banning that practice. I don’t understand what the harm is in people paving their front yard and parking there if they want. Is it any more ugly or harmful than people having tall grass or planting vegetables in their terraces?]
View full 09/12/2022 Municipal Services Committee meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=982994&GUID=F2D6721C-BEC7-4542-9D09-6775375CDBEB
View full 09/26/2022 Municipal Services Committee meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=21300&GUID=CD8D928B-E803-4B82-AD8D-F31409C7547A
Be the first to reply