Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Architectural Code Exception topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Beloit council denies exception to allow metal siding at 324 State Street

2768764 · March 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Beloit City Council rejected a request to allow more than 25% metal siding on the Bagels and More building at 324 State Street after staff and the Planning Commission found the application did not meet the ordinance's hardship criteria.

The Beloit City Council denied a request to allow more than 25% metal siding on the building at 324 State Street, the property housing Bagels and More, after a public hearing and debate over whether the request met the city's architectural review standards.

The application, filed by David Sikorsky on behalf of Sikorsky Revocable Trust, sought an exception to section 34.151 of the city's architectural review and landscape code that limits metal on nonindustrial building walls. The council acted after the Planning Commission recommended denial and staff advised the request did not meet the four statutory criteria for an exception.

David Sikorsky, the applicant, told the council he believed similar exceptions had been granted elsewhere in Beloit and asked, “I wanna know what part of my application failed.” He described alternatives the project team had reviewed and said a nonmetal option proposed by a contractor would cost roughly $80,000 compared with about $40,000–$45,000 for the metal siding he prefers. Sikorsky said the examples he cited included a now-removed downtown coffee kiosk and a building at 690 Third Street, and he said the metal siding on the corner of Sixth and Saint Lawrence had been in place for about eight to 10 years.

Julie Christiansen, a city planning staff member, told the council the ordinance requires applicants to meet four criteria to qualify for an exception and that staff and the Planning Commission did not find the hardship criterion was met in this case. “The ordinance requires you to meet the 4 criteria in order to be approved,” Christiansen said, and she said the commission believed alternative materials could meet code requirements and better preserve historic building materials.

The Planning Commission considered the application twice: it deferred the item on April 15 to allow the applicant to pursue alternative materials and later voted on Nov. 20, with the motion to approve failing by a vote of 2–4. At the council meeting, after the public hearing closed the council paused for a motion; when no councilor moved to approve, the item initially failed. Councilor Terrell later moved to approve the exception, with Councilor Adama seconding; the motion failed on a voice vote with councilors opposing approval.

The council did not adopt the exception, meaning the metal siding proposal as described in the application will not be allowed under the cited section of the city's architectural review and landscape code. The applicant and city staff discussed returning with alternative materials and cost options for further consideration.

Items cited in the record include the application by Sikorsky Revocable Trust and references to section 34.151 of the architectural review and landscape code; the Planning Commission record notes the two hearings (April 15 and Nov. 20) and the 2–4 vote on the recommendation.