HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 January 8, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 8, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penn ey, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Admin istrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declare d present. The minutes of December 11, 2013 were approved as p resented. (Krasniewski/Carpenter) ITEM I: 2251 OMRO ROAD R.J. Albright, Inc.-applicant, Horicon Bank-owner, requests the following variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Side yard Front Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used for commercial banking purposes. The principa l structure is a branch bank built in 2012 with vehic ular access provided via a single curb cut on Omro Road with three drive thru access lanes and an 18-stall open off-street parking lot. The general area is a mix of commercial and low-density residential uses. The a pplicant is proposing to construct a refuse enclosu re in the northwest corner of the development however sin ce the parcel has double-frontage, the proposed loc ation is defined as a front yard. The original developme nt called for all refuse to be located inside the p rincipal structure however the owner is now proposing to sto re refuse materials outside which requires appropri ate screening. The proposed enclosure will be construc ted of concrete block wall and will match the exist ing principal structure. The double-fronted lot config uration and lack of rear yard on the parcel is crea ting a justifiable hardship and is outside of the petition er’s control as there are no side yard placement al ternatives available. The proposed location will create the l east impact aesthetically and will provide practica l access for waste collection vehicles. No building or fire code issues are anticipated and staff recommends a pproval of the variance as requested. Mr. Muehrer also pre sented a large scale site plan that encompasses the entire site for board members to review. Ryan Otto, 2251 Omro Road, representing Horicon Ban k, commented that he would like to make a statement in support of approval of the variance request. He further stated that the refuse being stored outsid e would create better use and function of the site and they did not plan on this at the time of development. The current storage of the refuse inside the structure is creating fire code issues and they have gone abo ve and beyond requirements for the enclosure for aesthetic value. He commented that the only other alternati ve for storage inside the structure would be to place the refuse in the lobby. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if they considered alter native locations along the side of the building.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 January 8, 2014 Mr. Otto responded that the only alternative locati on was planned to be utilized for future expansion of the bank. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the area between tha t location and the driveway. Mr. Otto replied that this location housed the gas and electric meters for the development and the amo unt of area they had to place this enclosure was very rest rictive. Mr. Krasniewski questioned where the front yard and side yards for the development were located. Mr. Muehrer displayed on the site plan the location of the front and side yards and board members revi ewed the large scale plan to see if there was an alterna te placement for the enclosure that would not requi re a variance. Mr. Penney inquired when the future expansion of th e bank was planned to take place. Mr. Otto indicated that there was no specific time line at this point and the market would determine w hen the expansion would occur. Ms. Larson requested to see an example of what colo r blue would be utilized. Mr. Muehrer referred to the subject site photos and indicated that the best way to describe it would b e navy blue. Board members briefly discussed the landscaping on the site and Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there we re any requirements for screening of the enclosure. Mr. Muehrer responded that the board could require it if they felt it was necessary. Ms. Larson commented that the enclosure will look s imilar to the building so she did not feel that scr eening was necessary in this case. Mr. Otto stated that the refuse containers to be st ored in this enclosure would be more like large gar bage cans on rollers and not dumpsters. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a varia nce to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the front yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Ms. Larson commented that there were no other alter natives for placement of the enclosure. Mr. Muehrer stated that given the double frontage o f the parcel, city staff knew it would be a challen ge to develop this site and there were other commercial d evelopments in this area of which some had base standard modifications to allow placement of struct ures in setbacks as they were planned developments. Ms. Larson stated that the issue was due to the phy sical limitations of the property. Motion carried 5-0.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 January 8, 2014 Finding of Facts: Unique situation. Hardship with two front yards. Minimum variance necessary. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at 3:45 p.m. (Penney/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator