The Municipal Services Committee met 04/25/2022. One of the items it took up was a request from a resident named Kurt for a variance to Section 19-91 (c) to park his RV Camper (longer than 26 feet) in the front yard and a variance to Section 19-91 (f)(3) to extend his driveway greater then twelve feet wide.
For reasons unknown, Kurt did not attend the meeting to make his case to the committee, and ***SPOILER ALERT*** the committee denied his variance requests.
Kurt basically had two problems he wanted to get variances to solve.
1. His RV was 32’ long. The city does not allow recreational vehicles or boats that are longer than 26’ to be parked or stored in the front yard, but he had a corner lot with two front yards and no side yard where he could park it.
2. He wanted to install a 24’ wide extension to his driveway where he could park the vehicle without having it overhand the sidewalk, but the city does not allow driveway extensions greater than 12’ wide.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) is the Chairperson of the Municipal Services committee this Council year. Before diving into the item, he wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of subsection g of the relevant section of code which outlined how appeals to the requirements of the section were to be dealt with. It read:
Appeals to the requirements of this section shall be filed with the Inspections Supervisor and heard by the Municipal Services Committee. In hearing and deciding appeals, the Committee shall have the power to grant relief from the terms of this section only where there are unusual and practical difficulties or undue hardships due to an irregular shape of the lot, topographical, or other conditions present, as contrasted with merely granting an advantage or convenience. Decisions of the Committee shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this section.
He further noted that “the purpose of this section is to clearly define acceptable areas for parking vehicles within the front yard or side yard, as defined in Chapter 23, of private properties in order to address off-street parking issues and maintain the acceptable appearance of City neighborhoods.”
With that in mind, he asked for a motion on the item. Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) moved to deny the variance requests. Alderperson Joss Thyssen (District 8 ) seconded that motion.
Although Kurt was not there, Alderperson Siebers asked if Director of Public Works Paula Vandehey had any comments.
She said that she had talked with Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was the alderperson for the district this property was located in. Alderperson Hartzheim had put a note on her blog about this variance request and had not received any complaints from the neighbors.
Alderperson Siebers started the discussion out by saying, “My feeling is that if we’re going to make an exception here then maybe what would be more appropriate would be to change the ordinance, because once you make an exception, in my opinion, you start setting precedent, and when you start setting precedent that means everything’s—other people can come forward, and it makes it more difficult for us to decide who we’ll grant exception to and who we won’t.”
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) was not a member of the committee but he was in attendance because of the Soldier’s Square resolution that the committee was going to take up later. He asked, in the event that the variance request was not granted, what would happen if the owner parked the RV there and blocked the sidewalk.
Director Vandehey answered that it would have to be removed for two reasons. (1) It was blocking the sidewalk, and (2) it was longer than the 26’ allowed in the front yard by code.
Alderperson Schultz asked how they determined if something qualified as a hardship. It was also unclear to him why the property owner wanted to park the RV there. Was it just for convenience?
Alderperson Siebers said he likewise had some confusion on that point. The email from the resident stated, “This request is our attempt to insure [sic] safety while loading and unloading the RV.” To Alderperson Siebers, that indicated that they were not storing the RV for any period of time, unless it was going to take them three months to unload it, so he didn’t see that as a hardship whatsoever.
Alderperson Schultz asked, if the vehicle was parked in violation of city code, how long would it take before it became an issue and the city came in and told them to move it. Would they have a couple of days to unload the vehicle? The overall variance request seemed strange to him.
Director Vandehey responded that if the Police Department or the Department of Public Works received a complaint about the RV blocking the sidewalk, they would work to get it removed immediately.
[I appreciated Alderperson Schultz’s questions. It was kind of weird that Kurt didn’t come to plead his own case, and I would have been inclined to deny the request on its face simply because of that. But Alderperson Schultz had some good questions that would be useful for the homeowner to know the answers to if he happens to watch the video of the meeting. Alderperson Schultz wasn’t necessarily in Kurt’s corner as it were, but he did seem to be asking questions that had his interests in mind which I thought was nice.]
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) asked to confirm that the yellow outline on the diagram that had been submitted illustrated the additional concrete pad that the applicant wanted to install.
Director Vandehey confirmed that was what they were proposing. They wanted to angle the RV in so that it would not be hanging over the sidewalk.
Alderperson Doran was concerned with that setup because even if it wasn’t overhanging the sidewalk, it would still be obstructing people’s vision of pedestrians on the sidewalk. He was worried about that causing problems as the neighborhood expanded.
He also asked if the property owner could come back with an amended plan or if the committee could offer up suggestions for an amended plan.
Director Vandehey didn’t know what the committee would find acceptable. She didn’t know if there was a better idea of how to put the driveway in there, although perhaps they could straighten in out a little and make it more parallel to the existing driveway.
Alderperson Doran wondered if the homeowner could extend the driveway further out toward the side of the garage and then park the RV up alongside the garage. Because it was a corner lot, that wouldn’t eliminate the need for a variance to park it in the front yard, but, from his view, it would have more of a side-yard feel and he could see being supportive of the request because it would be completely clear of blocking any vision obstructions from the sidewalk.
None of the other alderpersons had any comments or questions and the committee voted 4-0 to recommend the variance requests be denied.
[So, on the one hand, I am fully in favor of homeowners installing moats and 10’ walls with sniper towers around their property, so parking an oversized recreational vehicle in the front yard is not a big deal to me. On the other hand, if you don’t show up to the meeting where your variance request is going to be voted on then you shouldn’t expect it to be approved.
Obviously, the discussion would have benefited from the presence of the applicant. In the absence of the homeowner, it was difficult to understand why the variance was necessary and why they couldn’t they just park the RV in the street while they were loading and unloading it.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=958481&GUID=DB391CE6-023C-43C7-B18D-2817C175EB6C
Be the first to reply