HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter (2)
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
January 8, 2014
PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski
EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording
Secretary
Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present.
The minutes of December 11, 2013 were approved as presented. (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 ReferenceRequired Proposed
Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Side yard Front
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is
zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used for commercial banking purposes. The principal
structure is a branch bank built in 2012 with vehicular 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 applicant is proposing to construct a refuse enclosure in
the northwest corner of the development however since the parcel has double-frontage, the proposed location
is defined as a front yard. The original development called for all refuse to be located inside the principal
structure however the owner is now proposing to store refuse materials outside which requires appropriate
screening. The proposed enclosure will be constructed of concrete block wall and will match the existing
principal structure. The double-fronted lot configuration and lack of rear yard on the parcel is creating a
justifiable hardship and is outside of the petitioner’s control as there are no side yard placement alternatives
available. The proposed location will create the least impact aesthetically and will provide practical access
for waste collection vehicles. No building or fire code issues are anticipated and staff recommends approval
of the variance as requested. Mr. Muehrer also presented a large scale site plan that encompasses the entire
site for board members to review.
Ryan Otto, 2251 Omro Road, representing Horicon Bank, 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 outside 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 above and
beyond requirements for the enclosure for aesthetic value. He commented that the only other alternative for
storage inside the structure would be to place the refuse in the lobby.
Mr. Krasniewski questioned if they considered alternative locations along the side of the building.
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 January 8, 2014
Mr. Otto responded that the only alternative location was planned to be utilized for future expansion of the
bank.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the area between that location and the driveway.
Mr. Otto replied that this location housed the gas and electric meters for the development and the amount of
area they had to place this enclosure was very restrictive.
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 reviewed
the large scale plan to see if there was an alternate placement for the enclosure that would not require a
variance.
Mr. Penney inquired when the future expansion of the bank was planned to take place.
Mr. Otto indicated that there was no specific time line at this point and the market would determine when the
expansion would occur.
Ms. Larson requested to see an example of what color blue would be utilized.
Mr. Muehrer referred to the subject site photos and indicated that the best way to describe it would be navy
blue.
Board members briefly discussed the landscaping on the site and Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there were
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 similar to the building so she did not feel that screening
was necessary in this case.
Mr. Otto stated that the refuse containers to be stored in this enclosure would be more like large garbage cans
on rollers and not dumpsters.
Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the
front yard.
Seconded by Carpenter.
Ms. Larson commented that there were no other alternatives for placement of the enclosure.
Mr. Muehrer stated that given the double frontage of the parcel, city staff knew it would be a challenge to
develop this site and there were other commercial developments in this area of which some had base
standard modifications to allow placement of structures in setbacks as they were planned developments.
Ms. Larson stated that the issue was due to the physical limitations of the property.
Motion carried 5-0.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 January 8, 2014
Finding of Facts:
Unique situation.
Hardship with two front yards.
Minimum variance necessary.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. (Penney/Krasniewski).
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 January 8, 2014