Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 19, 2012 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Public Notice Verification: <br />Jasiak requested public notice verification. <br />Staff verified the public notice was published in the Camera on December 9, 2012; <br />posted in City Hall, the Public Library, the Recreation Center and the Courts and Police <br />Building on December 7, 2012; mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of <br />the subject property on December 7, 2012; the property was posted with the required <br />signage. Development review fees were paid. <br />Stuart moved and Brassem seconded to accept the Public Notice Verification <br />information as presented by staff. Motion passed by voice vote. <br />Board Member Verification of site visits, ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest: <br />Jasiak requested Board Member Verification of site visits, ex parte contacts and <br />conflicts of interest. 4"': <br />Jasiak, Stuart, Brassem, and Ewy reported they had done a site visit, had no ex parte <br />contacts and no conflicts of interest. <br />Staff Presentation of Facts and Issues: <br />McMillan summarized the request with the following points: <br />• Background: <br />1) Located in the Sundance .Subdivision has a PUD. <br />a. Smaller lots: 4 0 SF <br />b. No lot coverage <br />2) 1,320 SF house <br />3) 4,441 SF lot <br />4) 795 SF footprin <br />5) 17.9% lot coverag <br />6) RE zoning <br />a. 12,000 SF lots <br />b. 20% lot coverage <br />▪ Request would allow a 25% lot cove <br />▪ Reviewed the Variance Criteria (LMC 17.48.110.B.1 thru B.6) and stated the <br />criteria have been met and recommends approval. <br />Questions from Board to Staff: <br />No questions. <br />Applicant Presentation and questions from the Board to the applicant: <br />Applicant representative: Eric Eicen, 1853 Garfield Ave representing his brother <br />Stephane Eicen. He will answer to the best of his ability any questions. He had nothing <br />to add to the staff presentation. <br />Jasiak asked if the applicant came with a 25% lot coverage when perhaps a 30% would <br />be allowed. He asked if a condition of approval could be given so the applicant didn't <br />have to come back with another variance request to cover a slight lot coverage increase <br />because of slight location of underground problems not identified until actual <br />construction. <br />