1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

41237. Miller/Harvey to grant a variance of 4 feet, more or less from re- quired setback from Lake Circle. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Lake. Circle at this location is not clearly delineated in this area but is part of a large blacktop parking lot serving several businesses leth,atc,k encroachment. would not have any adverse effect. 2. Denial of variance would cause severe problems with the design of the facItlty. a) . Built-in freezer-cooler would have to be torn out and relocated. b) . Proposed conveyor for unloading delivery trucks would not be possible. Deliveries would have to be hand-carted down steps to basement. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. Motion carried. #1238. Schwahn/Kruschke to grant a variance of 4 feet, more or less, from the required setback from Marrick Court subject to vacating a portion of the court to provide setback compliance for the pertinent residences. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Radius of Marrick Court is above normal, 75 feet instead of 60 feet. 2. locational survey submitted by applicant disclosed that two other residences were constructed too close to the court. Apparently pre- suming a 60 foot radius instead of the 75 foot. 3. Vacating of a portion of the court would solve the setback encroachmenr for all 3 residences. 4. Granting of variance subject to the vacating will allow Mr. Wetzel to "close" on his residence. CONCLUSION: 1. One of the responsibilities of the board is to see that "the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done", ss 59.99 (7) (c) . Mr. Wetzel's case is certainly one of a self-imposed hardship which if based solely on its own merit would have been deni:d. • The situation is compounded by the other residences also violating setback and the board believes that vacating of a portion of the court will resolve all noncompliance while still achieving the "spirit of the ordinance". Motion carried. #1239. Harvey/Schwahn to grant a variance of 2.3 feet, more or less, from required rear yard and a variance of 126 parking spaces from required parking FINDING OF' FACT: 1. Complex was constructed (luring the time that the City of Madison was exercising extraterritorial zoning control and the building location slipped by. 2. The parking requirements at time of construction were less restrictive, 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 spaces per apartment unit instead of the 2 spaces per unit required today. 3. Variances will allow complex to achieve a complying status. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 4IW 2. hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried.