City Hall

City of La Crosse, Wisconsin

400 La Crosse Street

La Crosse, WI 54601

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of Zoning Appeals

Monday, May 19, 2025

4:00 PM

Council Chambers

City Hall, First Floor

Call to Order

Chair Cherf called the meeting to order and explained the meeting procedure.

Roll Call

4 - Douglas Farmer, Jai Johnson, James Cherf,James Szymalak

1 - Anastasia Gentry

Present:

Absent:

Variance Appeals:

An appeal regarding the requirement to provide a 25-foot front yard setback at

2546 7th St. S, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

2691

Andy Berzinski, representing the Building & Inspections Department, was sworn in to

speak. Berzinski went over the three requirements for granting a variance:

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

public interests. The applicant has applied for a permit to put an addition onto a

Single-Family Dwelling that does not meet the required front yard setback. Municipal

Code Sec. 115-143(2), front yards, states that on every lot in the Residence District,

there shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than 25 feet; the two adjacent

main buildings are set back over 25 feet and therefore the 40 percent rule doesn't

apply to this property. A variance of 12.5 feet would need to be granted for this project

to proceed as proposed.

Berzinski showed an aerial view of the property showing that the development would

not be in the floodplain. He showed updated photos of the current home and garage as

well as the space where the new garage would be built. Berzinski also showed the

original site plan and stated that the applicant submitted a revised site plan and is

asking for now asking for a 6-foot setback which would then require a 19.5-foot

variance. Berzinski then showed elevations. Berzinski stated that there is no

unnecessary hardship as the property can continue to be used as a dwelling without

the proposed addition. There are no unique property limitations; this lot is larger than

most lots in the City. There is no harm to the public interest. Therefore, this variance

should not be granted. Farmer asked if the proposal is considered an attached garage;

Berzinski responded that the breezeway makes it attached.

Doug Buchner, 2546 7th St S, was sworn in to speak. Buchner stated that the purpose

is extra storage space. He stated that the Board has additional pictures of the

neighbors' properties; these show that because they don't have extra garage space,

they keep boats and other property in their front yard. He added that there is no alley

access which makes this property unique because you can't put stuff in the backyard

through alley access. He stated that his boat, trailers, riding lawnmower, and other

things that are stored outside. He added that his mechanic recommended that his cars

be in a climate control garage, so that is what he is proposing. He stated that the

architect drew plans, and the garage will be similar to house in style.

Buchner stated that his surveyor noted that the tree would be lost if they had to move

the garage back, which would be a hardship if he had to remove it. He showed an

aerial picture that shows the tree that shades the whole back. He also added that if the

garage is placed back any further the view of the river will be inhibited for both himself

and his neighbor. Buchner stated that eleven neighbors have buildings that closer than

the current allowed setback and about eight are closer than what he is proposing. He

stated that the miscellaneous pictures the Board has are what the neighbors have in

their front yards because they don't have storage space; one neighbor got a variance

to keep an additional garage, and he doesn't have anything outside because he's got

the storage space.

Johnson asked about the change in the requested variance; Buchner responded that

he felt like he should be in line with the neighboring propertied instead of being further

back because it would fit better within the neighborhood. He added that to lose the

shade tree will be a hardship. Farmer asked what kind of tree, and Buchner responded

that it is a Cottonwood. Farmer stated that if this is granted, he'd possibly have room

for 9 cars; Buchner responded that he doesn't have 9. Farmer stated that it is a

54-foot-long garage, which would make it three cars deep. Buchner responded that the

front will be glass, and he will be able to put furniture next to the garage on a patio.

Farmer stated that the patio would be additional space and Buchner agreed. Farmer

asked if the neighboring properties have room for 9 cars in their garage; Buchner

stated that one might. Johnson asked about approving a smaller structure with the

same setback; Buchner responded that he would not be in favor of that.

Farmer asked Inspections about the neighboring properties being closer to the street

than what Buchner is requesting; Berzinski responded none of the main principal

structures on the properties were closer, but there may be one garage. Berzinski

added that the average that is taken is of the primary buildings, not detached garages.

Farmer asked if he could go closer if the garage were detached. Berzinski stated that

he would also have to get a variance and reiterated that the average is only off principal

structures, not off accessory structures. Szymalak asked about regulations on

number of garages; Berzinski responded that one detached garage is allowed; since

this is attached, it is allowed. Johnson asked applicant for the larger aerial view map

so they could view it up close. Cherf asked if the neighbor's garage that is closer to

the road is attached or detached; Buchner responded that it is detached.

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, that the appeal be

REFERRED to the June 17 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:

3 - Farmer, Johnson,Cherf

1 - Szymalak

Yes:

No:

1 - Gentry

Absent:

An appeal regarding the requirement that allows only 60 multi-family

apartment units above a commercial space at 922 & 928 State St., 915 & 927

Main St., and 115 & 119 10th St. N., La Crosse, Wisconsin (Haven on Main

project).

2692

Berzinski, still sworn, stated that the applicant has applied for a building permit to

construct a 70-Unit multi-family apartment unit with commercial space on the main

floor that does not meet the development density requirements for Traditional

Neighborhood Development zoning districts. Municipal Code Sec. 115-403(2),

development density, states that the number of residential dwelling units and the

amount of nonresidential development (excluding open spaces) shall be determined as

follows: The number of multi-family units shall be 15 to 40 dwelling units per net acre.

All dwelling units constructed above commercial uses shall be permissible in addition

to the number of dwelling units authorized under this section. However, the total

number of dwelling units shall not be increased by more than ten dwelling units or ten

percent, whichever is greater. Cherf confirmed that in this case ten percent would be 6

units, but up to 10 would be allowed. Berzinski added that a variance to allow 10

additional apartment units on this 1.25-acre development would need to be granted for

this project to proceed as proposed.

Berzinski showed exterior elevations, the civil plan showing the layout and parking lot,

a picture of the former building on the site, and pictures of the current site with the

building razed. Berzinski stated that an unnecessary hardship exists; the Council

approved the general plan for this property prior to the code changing. The old code

would have allowed this project. There is no unique property limitation as several lots

were combined. There is no harm to the public interest. Cherf asked for confirmation

that the approval of the plan was by the Common Council; Berzinski responded that

Cherf was correct. Berzinski responded that it has been approved through TND

(Traditional Neighborhood Development) General, but it still needs to be approved for

the TND-Specific plan. Cherf confirmed that the TND guidelines have changed since

their first approval. Farmer asked for clarification on what TND meant and confirmed

that the project needs to go back to Council for final approval. Farmer asked why it is

before the Board now; Berzinski responded that if the variance does not get granted,

the project cannot proceed.

Farmer asked why the Board is taking up this item before the Council. David Reinhart,

representing the Building & Inspections Department, was sworn in to speak. Reinhart

stated that in the Traditional Neighborhood District process, the project needs to go

through Council twice; the TND-General was approved for this prior to the change in the

new (TND) zoning ordinance. The approval meant that they could go forward with their

plan based on what was approved; they have to come back with the specific plan,

which they are in the process now; in order to proceed with the specific plan, they need

the variance. Farmer asked why the Council can't take up the item first as they have

the broader vision of the community, because the Board should be the last.

Gideon Wertheimer, representing the Attorney's office, was sworn in to speak.

Wertheimer stated that the Board could wait. He added that the TND-General part of

the application is for the density standards. The Board could approve the variance, but

he cautioned that it should be made conditional upon the zoning being approved. He

summarized by stating that the Board could wait or move forward with a conditional

variance. Farmer again stated that Council should take up the process first. Cherf said

that there could be a motion to refer until a vote has occurred at the Common Council

level, or the Board could hear testimony before that could be entertained. Farmer

stated that another problem is there are also only 4 members present so they may

want to refer.

Tim Acklin, representing the Planning Department, was sworn in to speak. Acklin

stated that when general plan was reviewed by the Council, the applicant submitted

plans that stated what the project would be, how many floors, the number of units for

the density; the Council approved the use and number of units. The second step is the

final plan review, which will occur in June; at that time the use and number of units will

not be up for debate, unless they are changing to a greater density. They will be

approving the final master plan for the site; Acklin added that the variance they are

asking for was really already approved by Council during the first step of the process.

Cherf stated that a 70-unit apartment building was approved in the general plan; the

ordinance changed between then and now and the current TND zoning only allows for

60 units. Acklin stated that Cherf was correct, both Planned Development and

Traditional Neighborhood Development are always 2 steps, where the intent is that

approval of the use and the general plan allows the developer to move on with spending

money on specific plans and possibly get funding based off of the original plan. Acklin

added that the applicant went into this thinking they were able to have the number of

units the originally planned on, and then the TND-Specific approval is the site plans

and landscaping, unless something changes from the original plan.

Szymalak stated that he doesn't believe this should be before the Board and asked

why a variance would be required here because it seems the Board has greater

legislative authority than the Common Council. Szymalak the TND ordinance that says

the Council may approve, deny, or amend any proposed development and asked why

the Council can't approve the TND General or Specific at the density they deem

necessary. Wertheimer responded that the Council can't disregard rest of the

ordinance regarding the 60-unit requirement; if so, it could be considered contract

zoning which is illegal. Wertheimer added that this zoning standard was rewritten so it

could be enforceable, which is where the Board comes in to be able to grant a

variance from the density requirement. Szymalak stated that the density requirement is

per dwelling unit, but it is confusing because a housing unit could have unlimited

bedrooms; with the standard being 15 to 40 dwelling units, there could be 40 studio

apartment or is it 40 5-bedroom apartments which could be 200 people. Szymalak

stated that if these are hard limits, then the TND ordinance is now more restrictive that

it preciously was. Wertheimer agreed that it is more restrictive because it does say

"shall" now.

Farmer says the hardship noted in the presentation states that if the old code was still

in effect, that this wouldn't have the need to come before the Board. Reinhart

confirmed that Farmer was correct. Farmer again stated that the Board shouldn't take

up the item first.

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, that the appeal be

REFERRED to the June 17 meeting, to allow time for the Council to act on the

rezoning request for the project. The motion carried by the following vote:

4 - Farmer, Johnson, Cherf,Szymalak

1 - Gentry

Yes:

Absent:

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.