City Hall

City of La Crosse, Wisconsin

400 La Crosse Street

La Crosse, WI 54601

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of Zoning Appeals

Monday, July 15, 2024

4:00 PM

Council Chambers

City Hall, First Floor

Call to Order

Chair Cherf called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and explained the meeting

procedure.

Roll Call

5 - Douglas Farmer, James Cherf, Anastasia Gentry, Ryan Haug,William Raven

Present:

Variance Appeals:

Roll Call

Farmer recused himself during applicant testimony for file 2685 and Szymalak

stepped in to participate; he participated for the remainder of the meeting.

5 -

Present:

James Cherf, Anastasia Gentry, Ryan Haug, William Raven,James

Szymalak

An appeal regarding the requirement to have fill 15 feet beyond the structure

one foot or more above the regional flood elevation at 2710 Onalaska Ave, La

Crosse, Wisconsin.

2685

Andy Berzinski, representing the Community Risk Management Department, was

sworn in to speak. Berzinski went over the requirements for granting a variance:

unnecessary hardship, hardship due to unique property limitations, and no harm to

public interests. The applicant applied for a permit to place 15 feet of fill on only three

sides of a dwelling, instead of the required 4 sides. Per Municipal Code Section

115-281(3)(a)(1), the elevation of the lowest floor shall be at or above the flood

protection elevation on fill unless the requirements of section 115-281(3)(a)(2) can be

met. The fill shall be one foot or more above the regional flood elevation extending at

least 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure. A variance will be required to allow 15

feet of required fill on only three of the four sides of the dwelling.

Berzinski showed an aerial view and a street view of the proposed project. He also

showed a site plan where the fill is located on the three sides. Cherf confirmed that the

property in question shown on the site plan is the top property with the grey

hashmarks. Berzinski stated that for the unnecessary hardship, the dwelling cannot

become floodplain compliant if the fill is not installed. For the hardship due to unique

property limitations, the property is in the floodplain. He added that this type of

variance has been granted multiple times previously and there is no harm to the public

interest.

Mara Keyes, representing the Planning and Development Department, was sworn in to

speak. Keyes stated that that they looked into options for the erosion measures as

discussed in the prior meeting. They could put in a retaining wall, which is the 4th

option, but will still need a variance for that option.

Szymalak asked about the retaining wall option and confirmed. Keyes stated they're

asking for the zero on the north side of the property to give them room for the retaining

wall. Szymalak responded that they could meet the retaining wall they could meet the

height restriction but reduce the amount. Keyes agreed that it would be about three

feet, so if that is what is granted, they will work with that. Szymalak again confirms

with Keyes on what exactly they are asking for in regard to the feet needed for the

variance, if it is zero or three. Keyes stated that they need to get the property sold, so

they are trying to come into compliance by obtaining a variance of zero feet with

showing the water erosion plans. Szymalak stated that the applicant has the burden of

proof to prove that the variance is justified; with option four in the retaining wall there

doesn't need to be a zero-foot variance.

Gentry asked for clarification on why this is required for the property to be sold. Keyes

responded that with the DNR floodplain code they cannot sell in the property in its

current state. They did fill the basement and brought some fill in around the property to

meet FEMA code, but because they're not up to the DNR standards, they need to get

a variance so they can sell. Szymalak stated there is no legal prohibition about

transfer of property that is not floodplain compliant, and asked if there is something

else causing this. Keyes responded that Community Risk Management was not going

to recommend for approval regarding some floodplain dollars that they were putting into

the property. Szymalak stated that not recommended is not the same as prohibited

from something. Keyes responded that in her understanding they need to get it into

compliance because the City doesn't want to sell a property to a low-income

homeowner when they know it is not compliant. Szymalak reiterated that the

requirement is to grant the minimum variance to get to compliance and that zero feet

is not required; this is a policy choice on transfer, not a legal choice. Keyes stated that

she agrees with that statement. She asked Berzinski if he could add to that from the

floodplain standpoint. Berzinski responded that he would need to refer to Chief

Reinhart to confirm if floodplain grant money could be used in this case. Keyes added

that it was their understanding that they could not transfer the property until it becomes

DNR complaint.

Kevin Conroy, representing the Planning & Development Department, was sworn in to

speak. Conroy stated that they went through the compliance process through FEMA

but found out they were not in compliance with DNR regulations. He stated that the

amount of fill on three sides will be substantial and because of the position of the

property line on the north side, there is very little space to satisfy the 15 feet. The

variance request was to not have any fill added to the north side. Szymalak stated that

if they used the same block as is used a couple lots down, they could raise it up to the

floodplain without the use of soil. He asks why they can't use monster block instead of

soil, then they don't need the zero-foot variance and adds that the law requires the

minimum variance possible. He stated that an engineering fix could be the use of the

blocks and asks why they haven't considered that option. Conroy stated that it would

be an option if they brought in a barrier to contain the fill, but it would be contingent on

the adjacent homeowner being in agreement with the use of the blocks as opposed to

a retaining wall.

A motion was made by Szymalak to grant a variance of from 15 feet minus

whatever the property line is up to the property line. Szymalak added: the

extra-large block that Habitat was required to put on their property two houses

down, will work fine; it's very economical, it can be set in place above the soil

level so we don't have to worry about water coming into the north side house,

they can slope it out to drain out back, a very easy solution. My

recommendation would be up to the property line and no farther.

Cherf asked to confirm that the distance of the variance; Berzinski stated that it

is roughly five feet.

Szymalak modified his motion by stating that the variance is from the 15-foot

requirement to the five-foot property line from the house.

Haug seconded.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Cherf, Gentry, Haug, Raven,Szymalak

Yes:

An appeal regarding the requirement to provide an 8.915 foot setback from the

front property line at 1018 Badger St., La Crosse, Wisconsin.

2688

Andy Berzinski, still sworn, stated that the applicant applied for a permit to build a new

single-family house that does not meet the allowed 8.915-foot front yard setback

requirement. Per Municipal Code Section 115-142(c)(2), states that on every lot in the

Residence District, there shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than 25 feet,

provided that where lots comprising 40 percent or more of the frontage on one side of a

block are developed with buildings, the required front yard depth shall be the average

of the front yard depths of the two adjacent main buildings. A variance allowing a

2-foot, 1.5-inch reduction to the allowed front yard setback, from the front property line,

would need to be granted for this project to proceed as proposed. Berzinski showed an

aerial view, a site plan with the proposed setbacks noted. Cherf asked about the

setbacks of the adjacent properties. Berzinski stated that the setbacks of the

adjacent properties are 8.83 feet and 9 feet. Berzinski showed a street view and noted

that the house in the photo is now demolished, and then showed a street view of the

property with the foundation for the new dwelling. Cherf asked if the foundation

encroaches; Berzinski confirmed that it does encroach into the required setback.

Eric Glamm, 320 West Avenue N, was sworn in to speak. Glamm stated that the

property in question is on an exceedingly small lot. There was a very old house that

outlived its useful lifespan. They submitted plans that were approved to redevelop the

property into a four-bedroom, two-bath property. Glamm stated that there were some

challenges when working with a lot that is about 1800 square feet, they are proposing a

1200 square foot home. They support a variance because otherwise the requirement

severely limits the size of the living area that they can put in, which is approximately 11

feet by 10 feet; if they comply with the required setback, the living area would be 11 by

9. Glamm stated that all houses in the area are dense and built prior to the current

code requirements, which is why they don't have the 25-foot setback that you normally

see. Glamm adds that a 2-foot variance isn't too much to consider to develop the

property to its full potential.

A motion was made by Haug, seconded by Szymalak, that the variance be

granted due to unique property limitations being how narrow the property is.

Cherf confirmed that Haug was referring to a variance of 2 feet, 1.5 inches.

Szymalak added that it would be an unnecessary hardship to cut this back and

to make modifications to the foundation that was poured in good-faith reliance

from what they were told by the city; it would be against the public interest to

penalize this property owner for complying in good-faith with what they were

told by the City. This is an aesthetic (inaudible) with a setback, I walked the

property and it's still in line with the neighbors. I believe this variance is

consistent with the public interest; it's a unique property, it's small and again, it