DCPCUP-0000-00417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

►trr/thIr 0, /1IrJII;II'MrliI' tilnnl i r • • y Ilirvr mhr1 I , I 'lll l FINDING OF I'm"1': I ) . I?xl:.I inCJ hui 1cllnIi hi alnnu;l entirely wIIIiin the required setback. No :; ignificant addi I ions or all eral inns could he made wi 1hout n variance. 2) . New stairway is farther from road than the old one and is better pro- tect:rd from traffic. CONCLUSION: 1 ) . Proven c.ir;r of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. 5-0. I!1317.Miller/Schwahn to: 1) . Grant a variance from screening as provided by Section 10. 16 (ti) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance and 2) . Grant a variance of one foot from the required length of parking spaces. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Steep rise and grade difference at rear lot line renders conventional screening impractical and useless. 2) . Existing trees, bushes along side lot lines do provide adequate screening. Ordinance requirement of either wall, fence or evergreens is unduly re- strictive. 3) . County Zoning Ordinance parking regulations have not been updated to consider the shorter length of the majority of automobiles. CONCLUSION: 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. 5-0. #1318. Krushchke/Harvey to grant a variance of 18 feet, more or less, from required setback from CTH KP West, subject to the following conditions: 1) . No new access to service the silo from CTH KP may be constructed. 2) . The silo shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improve- ment requires additional right-of-way. Motion carried. 5-0. . #1319. Miller/Schwahn to deny the variance. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Variance would allow an increase in density not otherwise provided in the ordinance. 2) . Current use of the property is at maximum permitted density under the Zoning Ordinance. 3) . Apartment dcn.ist:y and off street parking requirements are consistant throughout the ordinance and do not vary district to district. 4) . A hardship other than a desire to permit maximum use of the building space was not expressed. 5) . Property is zoned B-1 Local Business which permits other uses eg. offices. CONCLUSION: 4/Ih 1) . Addition of another apartment unit can only be categorized as "mon- etary gain".