Hearing examiner John Fuchs recommended denial after a public hearing on a controversial Oconomowoc condo development.
The hearing examiner in a controversial condominium project in the city of Oconomowoc has recommended denying the project, since the proposal does not meet mandated design criteria, according to a report.
John Fuchs, an attorney for Fuchs & Boyle S.C., acted as the hearing examiner during a March 20 public hearing after the architectural commission recused itself in January.
The hearing centered around WaterView Condominiums, a nine-unit development proposed by Renner Architects at 517 and 525 N. Lake Road in Oconomowoc's Isthmus District.
According to city ordinance, all development built in the district must reflect the practices as common in the period between 1870 and 1930.
"The homes in the area, particularly on Lake Road, are substantially dissimilar to the proposed development, both in terms of mass and other design criteria, and essentially the surrounding area does conform to the applicable design standards," Fuchs wrote.
Fuchs said the project did not conform to the applicable design standards and did not reflect the architecture of the time.
"I conclude it also fails to complement similar development in the area," Fuchs stated.
Fuchs' decision will serve as a recommendation to the city's plan commission.
In his report to the city, Fuchs said all the letters he received were against the project, with the exception of one authored by a former mayor. Fuchs also reviewed an architectural report prepared on behalf of those opposed to the project, an independent architectural report procured by the city, two treatises from the Isthmus Historical Preservation Society, the city's land-use map and city ordinances.
Fuchs had to decide whether the project, as proposed, conforms to the design standards set in Oconomowoc's ordinance. According to Fuchs, the district allows for up to 10 dwelling units per acre. The site in question is 1.3 acres, thus allowing for 13 dwellings.
Renner's project consisted of two structures. One, a standalone building, would be 3,800 square feet. The eight-unit building would be roughly 25,000 square feet.
According to documents, there would be 26 interior parking spaces and 13 surface parking spaces for the main building. The single building would have three inside and three surface spaces.
Fuchs said there was an overwhelming view from the citizens that the development did not conform to the requisite standards.
"One might argue that those opposed have an inherent bias and thus argue there is noncompliance," Fuchs wrote. "It would seem more logical and likely that it is non-compliance which motivates their objection."