Laserfiche WebLink
�, pqden spoke on 1us own b�l�alf and made the folloauxJ state��t�' <br /> m3ke it difficult tc � <br /> 1. The oontour of the P�Y� �� parking sl� <br /> pmvide more p�r1�4 <br /> per unit. <br /> 2. They p�chased the prq��' aPProxvnately 5-1/2 Yearst <br /> ago. At that time the one parking stall I�r �n <br /> unit was in force. <br /> • <br /> 3. There are scme Proi�sed zoning changes that should <br /> be in affect in 1977 that wwld allv+r one � �e <br /> parking. <br /> 4. The one to ane parkin9 i.s consistent with good reasoning. . <br /> Utilization would not be there on a one and �e-hal.f <br /> parking ratio. 'PheY want to awid parking in fmnt of <br /> � pi.��3 apartimnt. <br /> 5. At one and one-11a1f parkin4 stalls per unit theand ake <br /> wwld probably fonn a ring ��'a �e building <br /> � I up a }�ortion of the landscaping. <br /> Mr. Skotdal a�so spoke in bPhalf of the applicant and � several exa�les <br /> arkin4 in his apartment builclings. <br /> of one to �e p <br /> After visually viewin9 the subject PmP�'tY and considering all the facts � <br /> and testimonY. it was moved bY P'1�'• 1�sse11, seconded bY r'�• ��4' �d <br /> wianvrously carried to l�ostpone the applicant's request for thirtY (30) <br /> I3ays to allaa further reconsideration. <br /> pn moticn the �ting az1jo�� at 8:05 p.m. <br /> Jamie G. Johnson, SecretaiY <br /> go�-d of Pdjustment <br /> .� <br />