City Hall

City of La Crosse, Wisconsin

400 La Crosse Street

La Crosse, WI 54601

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of Zoning Appeals

Monday, April 21, 2025

Call to Order

4:00 PM

Council Chambers

City Hall, First Floor

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

Roll Call

5 -

Present:

Anastasia Gentry, Douglas Farmer, Jai Johnson, James Cherf,James

Szymalak

Annual Code of Ethics Certification

Chair Cherf confirmed that the committee members reviewed the Code of Ethics.

Election of Vice Chair

Johnson nominated Farmer; no other nominations. Johnson, Cherf, Gentry, and

Szymalak were in favor; Farmer abstained.

Variance Appeals:

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

at one foot or more above the regional flood elevation, and an appeal of the

required front yard setback at 1806 Caledonia Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

2690

Andrew Berzinski, representing Building and Inspections, was sworn in to speak.

Berzinski went over the three requirements to grant a variance and stated that the

applicant applied for a permit to construct a new single-family dwelling that does not

meet the 15 feet of fill requirement for construction in the floodfringe district and the

required 17.5-foot front yard setback. Municipal Code Section 115-281(1), states that

the fill shall be one foot or more above the regional flood elevation extending at least

15 feet beyond the limits of the structure. Municipal Code Section 115-143(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.

Berzinski added that two separate variances would be needed for the new

Single-Family Dwelling to proceed as proposed: a variance of 9 feet for the fill

requirement and 2.75 feet for the required front yard setback.

Berzinski showed an aerial view and a street view of the property, as well as a photo

from the alley showing the existing detached garage in the back. Cherf asked if one of

the neighboring lots are higher or lower than the subject property and Berzinski stated

that they're fairly even with the subject property. Farmer asked for the dimensions of

lot and Berzinski responded that it is 50 by 140. Berzinski then showed rendering and

proposed layout, which shows setbacks of adjacent properties for the average. He

showed a survey of the lot as well as renderings of the new house with the interior

layout of the floorplan.

For the front yard setback, Berzinski stated that there is no unnecessary hardship as

the dwelling could be moved back to meet the setback and still meet all other

municipal code requirements. There are no unique property limitations as this lot is the

same size as the other lots in this area. There is no harm to the public interest

Because of these reasons, the variance for the front yard setback should not be

granted. For the fill variance, Berzinski stated that for the unnecessary hardship, the

property cannot be developed if the proper fill cannot be provided. for the hardship due

to unique property limitations, the size of the lot doesn't allow for the required fill and

there is no harm to the public interest. For these reasons, the variance should be

granted.

Johnson asked Berzinski for the depth of fill will be added; he responded that it will be

approximately 2 feet.

John Friemel, 1806 Caledonia Street, was sworn in to speak. Friemel stated that the

reason for the setback on the north is the size of the lot. They will gain a little bit of

yardage at the back because the size of the home. They're getting it out of the

floodplain which all are interested in. Regarding the setback average, one house is

10.5 feet back and the other is 25 feet because it was designed to have a semi

backed up to it. Friemel showed pictures showing where the new house would sit and

pointed out where the steps are. Cherf asked if they are addressing the fill with a

retaining wall and Friemel responded that they will have a retaining wall and rain gutters

on their own property. Farmer asked what is across the street and Friemel responded

that it is Central States Warehouse and that they are adjacent to an industrial area.

Szymalak asked why this applies for a property that is being replaced when the entire

lot is being brought out of the floodplain; Berzinski responded that 15 feet is required

per municipal code regardless it is the whole lot is being brought out and added that

the house will become floodplain compliant; they are keeping the detached garage,

which will be in the floodplain. Johnson confirmed that the edge of the 15 feet will also

be in the floodplain because the fill is tapered; Berzinski responded that the fill will still

be one foot above the base flood elevation and the fill will taper as it goes outward the

15 feet. Farmer confirmed that they applicant doesn't have the ability to put 15 feet

outward because they'd be putting it onto the neighboring properties. Berzinski

confirms that the applicant will get the 15 feet of fill needed on the front of the property

and rear of the property.

Brent Thielen, 1239 Cliffwood Lane, was sworn in to speak. Thielen stated that they

are seeking the front yard setback variance because where the house would sit on the

lot, it would prevent them from having much of a backyard and would push a lot of

water toward the detached garage. He added that with the variance they will be able to

slope the fill more with a shorter setback in the front.

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, to DIVIDE THE

QUESTION (to move on the two variance appeals separately). The motion

carried unanimously.

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

at one foot or more above the regional flood elevation, and an appeal of the

required front yard setback at 1806 Caledonia Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

2690

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, to GRANT a variance of

9 feet for the required fill. Farmer stated that the fill is the easiest part of this to

grant because the board can't authorize somebody to put fill on someone

else's property. That is both the unique property limitation and the unnecessary

hardship. The property being raised up isn't going to damage anything (public

interest). The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Gentry, Farmer, Johnson, Cherf,Szymalak

Yes:

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, to GRANT the variance

of 2.75 feet for the required front yard setback. Farmer stated that the solution

would be to raise the garage to prevent water draining toward it, which would

make access from the alley problematic, which is a catch-22. The saving grace

is that it is across the street from a commercial property. The motion carried by

the following vote:

4 - Gentry, Farmer, Johnson,Szymalak

1 - Cherf

Yes:

No:

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

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

2691

Berzinski, still sworn, stated that 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 Section 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. In this case the average setbacks of the two adjacent buildings cannot be used

because they are set back over 25 feet, so the required front yard setback for the

property is 25 feet. A variance of 12.5 feet would need to granted for this project to

proceed as proposed.

Berzinski showed an aerial view of the lot, a street view of the current house, and

noted that there is a 14.5-foot right-of-way on this property so that is a little bit unique;

the addition would be 12.5 feet back from the right-of-way and 27 feet from the back of

the curb. Berzinski then showed renderings of the proposed addition. Cherf asked for

clarification on the right-of-way, and Berzinski went back to the slide showing the

notations. Berzinski went over the three requirements to grant a variance. 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 as

the lot is larger than most lots in the city. There is no harm to the public interest.

Because of these reasons, a variance should not be granted. Farmer asked for the

dimensions of the lot and Berzinski responded that it is 160 by 143.

Doug Buchner, 2546 7th Street S, was sworn in to speak. Buchner stated that he's

building the addition because he collects cars and wants to have them in one location;

as of right now, they are in multiple locations. He stated that the hardship is to have

many cars in multiple locations; this allows in one location. He stated that the garage

belonging to the neighbor that is to the south is 12 feet closer to the road than what he

proposes, so it would look out of place to be much farther back. He added that the

view may be blocked if he puts the garage farther back toward the river and the

neighbor was very concerned about this. Farmer asked about the unnecessary

hardship as it is difficult to argue that having many cars is a hardship. Buchner

responded that the visibility along the river is a hardship, especially when the neighbors

were concerned. Buchner stated that they got a variance to build their garage closer to

the road for the same reason. Gentry asked Buchner if he is keeping the current

garage; he responded that he is keeping the original garage for personal vehicles and

is a two-car garage. Buchner agreed that it would look like one big garage, but he is

breaking it up with the breezeway and is making it look more like a house than a

warehouse garage by putting stone and on the front of the garage with shakes and

gables to make it appealing.

Szymalak if Buchner explored an option without having the breezeway, since there is

concern regarding the view; Buchner responded that he did, but the breezeway will

break it up and make it not look so much like a garage. The breezeway will make it

look nice, and he will be able to park outside it and they can drive through it to get to

the back of the house to do things. Farmer asked Berzinski if there are restrictions on

how many garages you can have on a parcel; Berzinski stated that there is not a

restriction for attached garages, but a detached garage would be limited in size. Cherf

asked Buchner for the setback he's proposing for the side yard; Buchner responded

that it would be six feet like a normal house which is more than the two feet that are

required for a garage. He added that the back side facing the river will have windows

and a concrete patio. Szymalak asked about the documentation provided in the

PowerPoint that they were not provided in advance and Berzinski responded that they

were not available at the time the packets were sent to the Board. Farmer asked how

many vehicle stalls the applicant would have if this would be granted; Berzinski stated

they would technically; two current, one in the breezeway, and two in the new garage.

A motion was made by Gentry, seconded by Farmer, that the Request for

Variance be REFERRED to the May 19 meeting with direction that the

Inspections department provide the board with schematics and topography and

the applicant provide the hardship if the appeal is not granted. The motion

carried by the following vote:

4 - Gentry, Farmer, Johnson,Cherf

1 - Szymalak

Yes:

No:

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.