Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 20, 2015 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br />Meseck 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 the application to be heard this evening is complete, and was mailed <br />to surrounding property owners on May 4, 2015, published in the Boulder Daily Camera <br />on May 3, 2015; and the property was posted on posted on May 4, 2015. <br />Ewy moved and Stuart seconded a motion that all requirements have been satisfied and <br />the application submitted by the applicants has been properly filed. Motion passed by <br />unanimous voice vote. <br />Meseck 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 />Meseck asked for disclosures from the board members for any site visits, ex parte <br />communications, and any conflicts of interest or required disclosures on the application. <br />All Board members indicated they did not have any ex parte communications or any <br />conflicts of interest for the application. <br />Meseck stated that for the requested variance to be approved, four (4) of the four (4) <br />votes would need to be affirmative. <br />Meseck asked the applicants if they were ready to proceed with the hearing. <br />The applicants indicated they were ready to proceed with the hearing. <br />Staff Presentation of Facts and Issues: <br /> <br />McCartney summarized the request for a variance at 145 Hoover Avenue: <br />• Background: <br />a. Would like a 5 foot rear yard setback to construct a 144 SF shed <br />b. A 10 foot setback is required for an accessory structure <br />c. There is an existing utility easement, with a clear area of 17 feet <br />from the property, where a shed can be placed. <br />d. Zoned Residential Estate (RE) <br />• This property is one of three which has this easement <br />• This property does have a large slope at the rear of the lot to prohibit placement <br />which complies with the setback <br />• All criteria have been met. <br />• Therefore Staff recommends approval of this request <br />Questions from Board to Staff: <br />Rich Morrow, the applicant and owner, presented. He stated, after further review, it <br />appears the variance might be needed to allow for a 4 foot setback instead of a 5 foot <br />variance. <br />Meseck asked staff if we were restricted to what was proposed. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. <br />Stuart stated he thought the board could make modifications.