Laserfiche WebLink
TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT , , <br /> 1.9�1 F';. <br /> Fr.oM gglD SHOCKEY <br /> onre NOVEMBER 29, 1974 ` <br /> "`� I <br /> sua�ecr STAFF REVIEW--VARIANCE REQUEST-- ��T� oF �vcacll. cvr.aert, wnsNir�ctorv <br /> RICHARD ALMVIG, 2325 GRAND AVE. ,) <br /> i <br /> I. REQUEST: � <br /> Mr. Almvig wishes to add one additional aoartment unit to his �, <br /> building at 2325 Grand. This would give him five units. He <br /> is currently zoned R-3 and with 6,000 square feet of property, <br /> he is cnly allowed four units (at 1,500 square feet of land � <br /> area per unit) . <br /> The Code would also require eight parking stalls (1. 5 spaces x <br /> 5 units) and the applicant would like to provide only five. <br /> II. ARGDMENTS IN FAVOR: <br /> A. A caretaker apartment would eliminate the vandalism. <br /> S. The increase in units would be minor in actual num- <br /> bers. <br /> C. The applicant is correct in stating that the visual <br /> character of the building would not change. <br /> D. It would be virtually impossiblE to orovide eight <br /> parking spaces on this 50-foot parcel. <br /> E. The need for security could constitute a hardship. <br /> III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: <br /> A. The increase in density could be construed as a re- <br /> zane. <br /> B. In percentages, the increase in density is 258. <br /> C. There are other security measures available (light- <br /> ing, alarms, etc. ) . <br /> D. If the fifth apartment is not used for a caretaker, <br /> e�r se, then the owner will realize additional re- <br /> venue from this property not available to other <br /> persons subject to the density limitation. <br /> E. Sy his own statements, the applicant acknowledges <br /> a parking problem on Grand Avenue. This could be <br /> aggravated by a reduction in off-street parking. <br /> F. This would tend to be a self-created hardship. <br /> - continued - <br />