Laserfiche WebLink
T�. Board of Adjustment <br /> FftOM Reid Shockey �°" <br /> � <br /> DATE November 29, 1974 <br /> suo�ccr STAFF REVIEW--VAkIANCE REQUEST-- c�rr ov �vcRctr. u��n�rr. wnsrnr+cror� <br /> RICHARD ALMVIG, ?:.'25 GRAND AVE. <br /> (Page 2) <br /> IV. QUESTIONS: <br /> A. Haw will the caretaker be compensated? (To deter- <br /> mine additional revenue accruing to the owner. ) <br /> B. How many vehicles now use the existing five parking <br /> stalls? (To determine the need for eight stalls <br /> versus five. ) <br /> - C. Will front yard be landscaped? (As the owner in- <br /> dicates he will do if caretaker quarters are pro- <br /> vided. ) <br /> D, What actual damage has occurred on the property? <br /> (To determine the seriousness of the problem. ) <br /> V. POSSIBLE FINDINGS: <br /> A. That there are exceptional circumstances applying <br /> to this property that do not apply generally to <br /> other properties in the vicinity, namely: <br /> 1. That the building design and location is not <br /> conducive to proper security; and <br /> 2. That parking is only possible from the rear <br /> portion of the property due to the topography <br /> in the front. <br /> B. That such variance is neces�ary for the preserva- <br /> tion of a substantial property right, because the <br /> caretaker unit would provide greater securitp for <br /> the property. <br /> C. That the variance will not be materially detrimen- <br /> tal to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent <br /> properties because the impact of one additional <br /> unit will be minimal when compared to the security <br /> benefits to the owner. <br /> D. That due to its minor nature, the variance will not <br /> adversely effect the comprehensive plan. <br /> VI. POSSIBLE STIPULATIONS: <br /> A. That the additional unit be used only for caretakers <br /> quarters. <br />