Common Council Approves Variance Allowing Property Owner To Install 12-Foot Driveway Extension Into Front Yard

The Common Council on 10/05/2022. One of the items they took up was a variance request from a property owner to install a 12-foot-wide driveway extension into their front yard. City code only allows 4-foot-wide driveway extensions into front yards, while 12-foot-wide extensions must be directed toward the side yard; however, this was a corner lot with two front yards and did not have a layout that allowed directing an extension toward the side yard.

The item had originally been recommended for denial by the Municipal Services Committee but after it was referred back and discussed a second time, they ended up changing their recommendation to approve the variance request. The Common Council also ended up approving the variance by a vote of 13-2 with Alderpersons Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) and Chad Doran (District 15) casting the dissenting votes.

Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) was the alderperson of the district in which the property was located, and he started off the discussion by asking the Council to approve the variance.

Alderperson Hartzheim opposed approving the variance because there was a code conforming option for the property owner to widen his driveway. (He could extend it by 4 feet on each side instead of 12 feet on one side.) “We have this portion of the municipal code for a reason.”

Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) supported the variance, based on the due diligence that had been does by the Municipal Services Committee and the hardships that the property owner was experiencing. The Municipal Code existed for a reason, but people also asked the Common Council for variances for reasons. “Clearly, the legal option in this case is completely undesirable and our existence and our ability to serve our constituents as a council is in order to accommodate these situations that need a literal case by case analysis.”

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) noted that the code-conforming option to extend the driveway was not just undesirable to the homeowner but also undesirable to the neighborhood.

Woodford: Alder Van Zeeland. She said that they had discussed it at length during the Municipal Services Committee meeting. One of the things that changed her mind was the fact that Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen had told them the main issue with variances like this was that property owners widened their driveways without widening their apron which led to the terrace being driven over, but in this case the property owner was going to extend the apron in addition to the driveway. Additionally, Inspections Supervisor Craanen had told the committee he had no issue with this variance request.

Alderperson Schultz was in favor of the granting the variance. He noted that roughly 15% of the properties in the city were on corner lots with two front yards. He thought there was some vagueness about what was and what wasn’t a front yard. He also noted that the family that lived in the property was a multi-generational family which some significant needs and hardships and building a driveway extension would help them be able to function in a better way.

There was no further discussion and the Common Council voted 13-2 to approve the variance request.

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=997430&GUID=CC2EFB36-498F-4A6B-B4CD-DDA542428A4D