Board of Adjustment Documents 1991

Home Browse Search

within the front yard setback. The applicants are Chris and Marla Martoglio. The property is located at 580 Cleveland Avenue and today's date of the meeting is June 10, 1991, 7:30 p.m., at the Louisville City Hall Council Chambers, 749 Main Street, in Louisville. All persons in any manner interested in the consideration of the variance were requested to attend the public hearing, published for the Louisville Planning Division for the Louisville Board of Adjustment by the Louisville Times on May 22, 1991. Are there any other publications? Wood: Would you just add, Mr. Chairman, that the applicant did physically post the property with the variance applied here. Sears: On what date? Or do you have that? Wood: I don't have that. Sears: Okay. And were letters sent out? Wood: Yes. Sears: Okay. So, at this time I would ask the applicant if there is a desire to continue this on to another meeting time when five members can be present. You will need all four. Eisenstein: I'll speak to them. Let me introduce myself. First of all, good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is David Eisenstein. I am an attorney. I practice law in Boulder, Colorado at 831 Pearl Street, and I am here to represent Chris and Marla Martoglio in this variance application. Sears: I will stop you for a second here. I appreciate you coming up so soon. That's good. What I need to do is, at this time, explain what conditions have to be met. You are welcome to stay here and ....in order to grant a variance, so, let me do that and then we will get on your presentation. If it would be easier for you, I would like to address the question of whether or not we want to have this tabled. If you want to do it sort of informally before we are actually going into the public hearing process, that is fine with me. So, I know we are in the public hearing now, but... because I would like to get a feel from all of the Board members present as to how you would like to proceed. Eisenstein: Ideally, we would have liked to have had five voting members here because then, obviously, the odds are better. We have a better chance of getting four people for approval. We realize we need four votes. As I think you are aware, this is somewhat of a difficult application. I think you are aware of some of the history of it. And, I assumed you have all had some opportunity to review your packets, the submission by the applicant, the report from the staff, so you know a little bit about the application. So, maybe you have have some ideas on how we should proceed on this. If you think the process might be better served by having five members present, let me know, or if you feel that you are 2