Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals (mintues) - 11/24/1999 Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 November 24, 1999 Regarding the findings of fact,Mr. Dahl felt there are alternatives to solve the problem which would be less expensive and simpler. IV: 1302 W.MURDOCK AVENUE HGM Architecture,applicant, Harold Eichstadt, owner, requests a variance to construct a 9' 8"x 17'4" addition to a commercial structure which will result in a 22' front yard setback from W. Murdock Ave.and a 12' 2" front - yard setback from Vinland St.; whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c)requires a 25' front yard transitional setback from W. Murdock Avenue and Vinland Street. Mr. Ron Hansche, HGM Architecture, and Harold Eichstadt, owner, appeared to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Hansche stated the existing building is about 40 years old. The lot has a transitional front yard on two sides, as well as the rear yard. The owner is proposing an addition on the east side for handicap accessibility. Parking on the east and south sides of the lot would be removed. Mr. Eichstadt noted the addition in any other location could make it difficult for handicap persons. Mr. Hansche stated the.lot in question and the lot across the street aze zoned C-1;the lot next to that is manufacturing, with residential surrounding the area. He did not know why these two lots were left commercial. However, based on this,the hardship is the zoning and transitional yard requirements. Mr. Roehling inquired why the addition could not be put on the south side of the building? Mr. Hansche replied the adjacent house crosses the lot line, which Mr. Eichstadt also owns. Also with the transitional yard reyuirements,there would not be room for handicap vans,deliveries, etc. He stated this is a prime commercial corner and Mr. Eichstadt wants to improve the property. Mr. Schorse inquired if the asphalt would be removed up to the building? Mr. Hansche replied yes. Mr. Schorse felt making green area on two sides would improve the property. Mr. Roehlig indicated he would like to see the addition on the other side of the building, but that could create problems. Motion by Dahl to move approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: (1) The asphalt between the building and Murdock Ave. and the building and Vinland St. be removed and landscaping installed in this area per a landscape plan approved by the Dept. of . ;•� Community Development. (2)The area between the new parking spaces on the west side of ' the building and Murdock Ave., as well as the transitional yard on the west side of the property, be landscaped per a landscape plan approved by the Dept. of Community Develop- ment, with said plan to provide screening for the parking per Section 31-35(I)(2)of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Roehlig. Motion carried 4-0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Dahl fe(t the proposal would be a net improvement to the City and the neighborhood.