Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances to allow paved rear parking at two‑unit property on Hubbard Street
Summary
The Green Bay Zoning Planning Board of Appeals approved variances allowing a widened paved driveway and small increase in lot impervious surface for a two‑family property at 812–814 Hubbard Street, after hearing staff analysis and neighbor testimony about alley constraints and parking patterns.
The Green Bay Zoning Planning Board of Appeals on June 17 approved variances requested by the owner of 812–814 Hubbard Street to replace a gravel rear yard drive with a paved driveway and allow dimensions that exceed several standards in the R‑1 low‑density residential district.
Board members approved relief from driveway‑width, side‑setback and impervious‑surface rules after planning staff described site conditions and alternative layouts. John (planning staff) told the board the property is 65 feet wide and that, under the code, “they're seeking 100% at 65 feet” for driveway opening relative to the frontage standard. He also said the parcel’s current impervious surface is about 74.4 percent and the applicant’s plan would raise that to about 75.6 percent, above the 55 percent maximum for R‑1 lots under Section 44‑559.
The applicant said the project would remove a deteriorated shed and pave the rear access from the alley to create defined parking for the duplex. Daryl Freeman, a realtor representing the owners, said the shed “is already gone” and described parking patterns that rely on diagonal stalls and tight alley access. Applicant Nathan Wallenfang and co‑applicants described the site as serving two three‑bedroom units and argued that providing usable off‑street parking is necessary for tenants and to reduce on‑street conflicts.
Planning staff presented alternatives the board could require to meet code — for example, limiting a paved area to a 32‑foot wide by 15‑foot length to remain under the 50 percent frontage rule and reduce impervious area — and explained how angled parking would change width needs. Staff noted the alley dedication is about 8 feet wide and that historical aerial photos show a mix of angled and perpendicular parking behind homes on the block.
Board members discussed whether to allow four required parking stalls or grant relief for additional stalls. Several members said the lot’s configuration and the narrow alley create “exceptional circumstances” that make strict application of the standards impractical. One member said the increase in impervious surface was “de minimis” given existing conditions and that paving could improve safety and the appearance of the alley.
After deliberation a board member moved to approve the variances “as requested”; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board did not record a roll‑call vote in the minutes; the chair announced the motion carried and that the applicant “has the variance as requested.”
The approvals relieve the property from (1) the cumulative maximum driveway width limit tied to overall frontage, (2) the R‑1 district impervious‑surface maximum, (3) accessory structure side‑yard setback standards where the proposed paving meets or reduces some setbacks, and (4) related driveway alignment standards in Section 44‑1746. The board did not attach additional conditions reported in the meeting minutes.
No formal appeals or other follow‑up actions were recorded at the meeting. The board’s approval allows the property owner to move forward with constructing the paved rear parking per the variance scope presented to the board.
