Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 15, 2014 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />Ewy reviewed the procedures for the meeting; opened the public hearing; and stated <br />there are six criteria which must be met for the board to approve a variance request. <br />Ewy then stated copies of the criteria are located on the table next to entryway. He <br />asked for verification of proper public notice. <br />McCartney verified both applications to be heard this evening are complete, and were <br />both mailed to surrounding property owners on December 27, 2013, published in the <br />Boulder Daily Camera on December 27, 2013; and the property was posted on posted <br />on December 27, 2013. <br />Niska moved and Stuart seconded a motion that all requirements have been satisfied <br />and the applications submitted by the applicants have been properly filed. Motion <br />passed by unanimous voice vote. <br />Ewy asked if anyone at the hearing had any objections to the hearing procedures he <br />had described and asked if there were any other preliminary matters that needed to be <br />taken care of. None were heard. <br />Ewy asked for disclosures from the board members for any site visits, ex parte <br />communications, and any conflicts of interest or required disclosures on both <br />applications <br />All Board members indicated they did not have any ex parte communications or any <br />conflicts of interest for both applications. <br />Ewy stated that for the requested variance to be a•.sroved,,tour (4) of the five (5) votes <br />would need to be affirmative. <br />Ewy asked the applicants if they were ready <br />roceed with the hearing. <br />The applicants indicated they were ready to proceed with the hearing. <br />Staff Presentation of Facts and Issues: <br />McCartney summarized the request for a variance at 475 Fillmore Court: <br />• Background: <br />a. 4,846 SF lot <br />b. 1,680 SF home and 1,120 SF footprint <br />c. 23% lot coverage <br />• Property is located in Residential Estate (RE) zone district. <br />• RE zone district limited to 20% maximum lot coverage <br />• Addition of 208 SF creates 27% coverage <br />• Existing structure and proposed addition comply with setbacks. <br />Questions from Board to Staff.. <br />No questions <br />Applicant Presentation and questions from the Board to the applicant: <br />Russell Brinkmann, applicant, stated he agreed with staff's assessment and asked if the <br />board had any questions. <br />Malmquist asked if the twine layout on the property was showing the future addition. <br />Brinkmann answered in affirmative. <br />