The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.88.32> .~.i ` i /DATE "~ V t1 ~ PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 19 ~~ APPLICANT_~SdoG/~6 Tlp~ OWNER O~E~ ~TBi L'//E~ CASE # 88-32 ~ £3c~. ~2og~ ADDRESS '~-~~'~ ~ ~S~Ir~Z ~\Z3- ~~Z ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY 5~~. /O~T77ieev~.D Any pertinent data must accomppany this application, and will be made part of this Case # 88-32 . The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: See attached. ~usw ~EK~.c~asY..u.~i¢d Applicant Signature v1~P~ `C~9e~ a Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons for not granting a building permit: S~ ~a~ ~lorc~ Zoning Official Date permit rejected~~S~J Application filed 6/30/88 Notices mailed Board decision Date ~iaa~o ,0 S Secretary ~ i~ ~r, ~F1 ASPEN~PITKIN 1-~EGIIL~NdL t3~.IlLl~i~111. NOTICE OF_PUBLIC REARING BEFORE THE PIT'1SIN COT7NTY BCARb t~#"AD`J~fSTi~~~N'~'"`'`'' "'"` VARIANCERDESGRIBBD~BELOFFECTED BY THE RE~UE5TEli ZOC~'INC ~~'R~"CT`~"& '~"~~ "" Pursuant to Pit"kin County"Resolution of `June 5', 1955', as amended, a'Puhlic Hearing will b'e held`an t'he District Court- Room, Pitkin County Court Rouse; aspen; "G~o`lora3o mTor `'at ~sucl~ authr place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an' of a cation filed with"~tlie said""board of Adjustment requesting Resolrity for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning ' ution, AlI persons affected by the proposed variance are invite3 to' appear a1~d state their views, protests ~or o'bject ions `~f`~you~ cannot appear, personally at such meeting,' £Fien you a're` urged to state your views by^'~ette`r"", particuYarly i~f you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surroundin` " other'affecte~C`sn deciding whether to"grant gorrdenytthewrers and quest for variance. - THE PARfiICULARS" 0'F TIRE RE~TRING "e1ND"0"~``"T`Rb Rb`Q"(~~~'1`E15 `'~AltIif'I~CE~~Ait~""~"',~`' AS FOLLOWS: _ _ Date and time of meetingi Augri`st 2, 19$8 at 5:1b p.m. Name and Address of App Brush Creek Landowner's P,O.'Box'12018 Aspen, CO '81612 Location 'of Property or Lot 9, Block 2, Filing Lot 3A, Block 1, Filing licant for `Variance': ,. Association Description: 2 - Brush "Cree& Subdivision Z '- Brush `Gr'eek Village Request: :. , _ri~ ., ..,_u ;. approval to locate twogtrash eol ec~ion,,faci~t`es w~th`~zero ~'~~~ foot setback extendin snto the ri ht of wa Duration of Variance:- Permanent: XX :Temporary Condition' ~ " THE PITBIN COUNTY "B'bARD''dF`A~:~"1 l:Cra,da~ ~_- KandiShafrraa hairerson' mail address. 517 East Nopkiris /venue 506 East Main $'treet ...n.~ .~~.......w;,~xN.~w>~.,~i~~ .«~..~~_.«. , spen, Colorado E16'19 °' 3D3/91?5-973" "' .aspen, Colorado 816`11 " OWNERS: SITE #1 - LOT 9, BLOCK 2, FILING 2 - BRUSH CREEK SUBDYVISION Scheinbaum, Jerome Scheinbaum, Jill P.0. Box 81 Aspen, CO 81612 SITE #2 - LOT 3A, BLOCK 1, FILING 2 - BRUSH CREEK SUBAIVYSION Elay Corporation C/0 Albert Rose and Leonard Millman 4098 South Parker Road Aurora, CO 80014 DESCRIPTION OF FROPOSED VARIANCE AND JUSTIFICATION: for Brash, dumestersaowTheseAshelterspareltoebet~obuild two s e t p aced near'~the ers entrances to the Brush Creek Subdivision for the purpose of housing dumpsters to be used by the residents of the subdivision. Heavy truck traffic in the subdivision has resulted,,n serious damage to the subdivision roads. A resolution gassed by the Pitkin Couht Board of Commissioners (see copy attached) attempted to address this problem by imposing weight restrictions on traffic using the roads. Because no other method of trash disposal was available to residents, an exception was made in the resolution for trash trucks. The Landowners Association can eliminate this traffic through the provision. of trash collection facilities for the residents of the subdivision. In order for the trash collection facilities to serve the residents' needs, th.e dumpster shelters must be placed closer to the road than is allowed by the setback regulations. Further, the Association has no access to a building site which would allow the shelters to be placed in such a, way as to confarm to the setback rules. The Brush, Creek Landowners Association requests back regulations which will allow the placement shelters as shown on the attached surveys. i a variance to the set of two dumpster C~~+~ x':33 ~"" SITE NUMBER 1 - LOT 9, BLOCK 2, FILING 2 - BRUSH CREEK SUBDIVISION ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: LOT # BLOCK FILING NAME AND ADDRESS:. 9 2 2 Scheinbaum, Jerome Scheinbaum, Jill P.O. Sox $1 Aspen, CO 81612 12 1 2 Sherriff, Richard A. Apple, Mary J. P.O. Box 4943 Aspen, CO 81612 8 2 2 Bass, Howard Bodner, Michele J. 6040 Boulevard East West New York, NJ 07093 10 2 2 Mitchell, William and Jane A. Mitchell, Ethelynn Bratton - Barham P.O. Box 12259 Aspen, CO 81612 SITE NUMBER 2 - LOT 3A, BLOCK 1, FILING 2 - ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 3A 1 2 Elay Corpo C/0 Albert 4098 South Aurora, CO BRUSH CREEK SUBDIVISION ration Rose and Leonard Millman Parker Road 80014 3 1 2 Rivera Drilling and Exploration Inc. Suite 101 899 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 1 2 2 Klar, Joan L. Burroughs, Jeanne K. P.O. Box 722 Aspen, CO 81612 1 6 1 Krieger, Ingeborg P.O. Box 10040 Aspen, CO 81612 6 2 1 Cornish, Robert Henry Cornish, Jean Hart P.O. Box 2002 Aspen, CO 81612 ~w~~~~~~ August 2, 1988 Pitkin County Bcard of Adjustment Pitkin County Courthouse Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to confirm that I have given permission to the Brush Creek Landowner's Association to build a dumpster shelter on my property (Lot 9, Block 2, Filing 2 - Brush Creek Subdivision). The Brush Creek Landowner°s Association agrees to assume all liability which may arise from the use of the dumpster shelter or from its placement on my property. Sincerely, Jerome Scheinbaum The terms of this agreement are accepted Landowner's Association. ~'~ James P Brush Creek Crowley ;~ LAW OFFICES OF ' HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIOtJ ' ' 201 NORTH MILL STREET' SUITE 203 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (30319256700 TELECOPIER (3031 925-3977 ' April 18, 1988 Mr. Jim Crowley P.O. Box 12018 Aspen, Colorado 81b12 Re: Brush Creek Village Road Load Limits Dear Jim: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of April 18, enclosed please find a copy of Resolution No. 87-54 establishing the load limits for the roads in Brush Creek Village. Resolutionou have any questions concerning the enclosed please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN, PROFESSIONAL COR~,ORATION .//-/~~ By: ~C~/ ,_ Herbert S. Klein HSK/nwt/1~J38 Enclosure ~~~ t.;t ~}'i~i.T A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ESTABLISHING WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR TRUCKS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC ROADS IN THE BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION AS FOLLOWS: FROM JULY 1 TO MARCH 31 ANNUALLY, A MAXIMUM GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF TWENTY (20) TONS FOR REAR TANDEM-AXLE VEHICLES AND TWELVE (12) TONS FOR REAR SINGLE=AXLE VEHICI'ES; AND FROM APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30 ANNUALLY, A M XIMUM GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF TEN (10) TONS FOR REAR TANDEM-AXLE VEHICLES AND SIX [6) TONS FOR REAR SINGLE-AXLE VEHICLES; AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Resolution No. 87-~_ WHEREAS, the County has accepted, with certain limite'tions, the maintenance of certain public roads within the 'Brush Creek Village Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Brush Creek Village Homeowners' Association approached the County in September', 1986 with information end documentation indicating that those public roads were deteriorat- ing rapidly and that this deterioration was being caused in large part by large trucks and other heavy equipment on tie roadways; and WHEREAS, the Homeowners' Association then requested an emergency Resolution establishing weight limits on t'he public roads within the subdivision to halt the deterioration of the roads, which Resolution No. 1986-102, was adopfed on September 22, 1986; and WHEREAS,' the Homeowners' Association has now requested that the weight restrictions be made permanent and has requested e twenty (20) ton limitation from July 1 to March 31 anrueily and a ten (10) ton restriction from April 1 to June 30 enhually, both with certain additional restrictions; and WHEREAS,'the County has the authority, pursuant to, inter alia 1973 C'. R.S. Sections 30-15-401(h), 42-4-109 (g) and (y), 42-4-401, 42-4-406 to 408, 42-4-410(1), [2) Arid (3)arid 42-4-411, to adopt and enforce certain weight restrictions on County roads; and WHEREAS, the County has conducted three public hearings and has taken evidence from the Homeowner's Association, and the County Road and Bridge Director supporting the permanent weight restrictions and heard comments and ob,)ections Prom certain homeowners and construction-related contractors; _ ._ =~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO: Section i That the Board determines that the rapid uncontrolled deterioration of the public roads in the Brush Creek Village Subdivision is a fiscal and public safety problem and that permanent weight restrictions on those roads. are in the interests of the health, welfare, and safety of the residents and visitors to the subdivision and the people of Pitkin County. Section 2 That until otherwise amended or superceded by Resolution, there shall be mandatory maximum gross weight limitations on all trucks and other commercial vehicles or combinations of vehicles (including loads) moved or operated on the public roads within the Brush Creek Village Subdivision as follows: a) For all rear tandem-axle vehicles or combinations of vehicles, as defined in 1973. C.R.S. 42-4-406 and 407, a limit of twenty (20) tons or 40,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight, including load(s) and combinatigns, between July 1 and March '31, inclusive, annually; end a limit of ten (10) tons dr 2D,DOO pounds, gross vehicle weight, including load(s) and combinations, between April 1 and June 30, inclusive, annually; ehd b) For all rear single-axle vehicles or combinations of vehicles, as defined in 1973 C.R. 5. 42-4-406 and 407, e limit of twelve (12) tons or 24,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight, including load(s) and combinations, between July 1 and March 31, inclusive, annually; and a limit of six (6) tons or 12,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight, including load(s) and combinations, between April 1 and June 30, inclusive, annually. Section 3 That the following vehicles are exempted from these weight limitations: a) Authorized emergency vehicles of official public safety agencies and vehicles responding upon the request of those agencies to bona fide public safety emergencies; b) Authorized road construction or road maintenance vehicles temporarily moved upon these roads for construction or maintenance of these roads; c) Vehicles equipped with self-compactors ahd used solely for the regularly-scheduled collection end transporta- tion of residehtial trash. lP ~~~~~PC:Y ction 4 _~ That the Brush Creek Village Subdivision Homeowner's Association, as maintenance contractor for the roads, in its own name but with reference to this Resolution, is deemed to be in control of the public roads within the Brush' Creek Village Subdivision as described in 1973 C.R.S. 42-4-411, or as it may be amended, for purposes of this Resolution and is authorized to erect such signs and to take such civil enforcement actions as are required or provided by law. Section 5 This Resolution may also be enforced by the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department as further provided by law. Section 6 This Resolution shall be published by title and short outline after adoption. Section 7 The provisions of this Resolution shall be severable and if any portion(s) or provision(s) o,f this Resolution shall be declared invalid or unenforceable,' such a declaration shall not render any of the other portion(s) or provisionfs) invalid or unenforceable and all remaining portions or provisions oP this Resolution shall be given full force and effect. INTRODUCED, FIRST READ AND SET FOR PUBLIC NEARING BY`THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY AY ITS'RE6ULAR MEETING ON THE 9th DAY OP FEBRUARY, 1987. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING ANO PUBLId NEARING BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER$ AT IT5 RE6ULAt~ MEETING ON' THE 73rd DAY OF February, 1987. APPROVED AND FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER THIRD READING AND PUBLIC MEETING ON THE STHADAY OF JUNENT198~OMMISSIONERS A'f ITS RE~iULAR DAY OFUBLISHED AFTER ADO987ON IN THE ASPEN TIMES ON'THE ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By: Pat Belfonf George Madsen, Chairman Deputy Clerk F COMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: B.W. Eylar Road 8 Bridge Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: rY E ary V sis Oounty Attorney resoroad.ge r _. _. _.._~..-...._.-.-.:~___._ 4 . ~ F. Y rt- ' '- ~' L ' ~: t.,:.. ;z,_ .,;,~.. : ,. t,.. ,_ . x 5. l .~~`.., .~ f_ d (1 .~ ~~ Y {' ' \ 1. ~~2:~. .. i r r% Y 5 ~ 1 r^ ~ ~ a 4 ~ r / >U. ~ ` Oar r ~ ~ / ~ ~ o ~ ~~ . ~_,,. NSA .r 0 1<y '`~ m: ~~., 8 \~~, ;. { Q~. ~ ,.w ~1'~'r...,~ p or.tY.O ~ '..~"~.~ r.r•. • -'~--'i71{~~ 1 µ ~ '~ .. • .. .. ~ .. d \.. ,A ~ ,. o- . l~ ~~, '~ o , a ~ Y" : , ~t t''O J '. b ~.. 4y ~/ ' ,~ t ,, to ; r r Tj ~ .r ' ~~. `: G' hha '- ~ ~ Tj~ ~'. a J$s \ .~ ~~' ~t . f p,.. :, ~ ., gl$ ~J F ,., y _~ :: .;~. ,a eta ~ , o \ . .,. l .: .. L .. • t i ., ~ ~~ : ~ h . ~~ r ,\. ~ k; ------ ~ r ?.~; K ' ~ 4 Jb , ~~ .: Z S\ ~, ~ ~ ~ \ ~ o 1, i ~ 4 „tit ~ M3 ; ;. ,- 4 x p ` k r. ~ '' ~°' f~ v ~ ~ .''{. ,y Tye ti .~ N ~ (,( s .r , .. ~~ .r 7 4 w } k `~ pD o~ " . t `:? xA ~yt/ r r v ~~ o w ' ~ / .... ~ . ..~¢..~. ~ ~_. ~f c.1.L.~t, _::nJ '".i. ~w,`. ~:.. .~.~.... ~ .,,. tr. ±.w.YS.xt Y~..i.~?+ 9~°i ~. M" '..- y4 if -~ (_. `I Y`:, r., J 1 ~::. , :: ) 14772 G.6. T 1 C„ W ~ '~, O+ A N O n, A U1 J N W O) U ~ N 0 lD UI J 0) 4t A N O 1 I f C ~ ~ ~ ~ m - ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ : ~. o ~ ~ ~ ~ o a z cn ~ o . .~ F. : a ~ ~. ~ a ~ 3 . n,:Q, ~~~ ~~ ~.' ,, -- ~ .. , V~ I n .V .. ~' , ~, - - ~ ....~.. - I ..... __..,. .. _. .. ... ~ . y~ I4/ ~ ~ s s J ` ~ ~O ~"'] ~ . I s J Q I ~ ' 1 ' ~ ~ J 1 w ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~~ • _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C1 ,' ~. 1 ~ ~` i ~ t~ N S J ~ ~ n „` (f -r.- ! I J ~ ~ J - ~~ I Cj H ~ ~ , ( ~ ~, ., f ~ I ,,, S - is 7 ra F~ .p y ~ .~ ~ 3 (: I ! ~ ~ n jl .-r f ~ J 1 ~x c it J f.~` 1 ~K J+ N S -# SPl 1 % N J ac u J ~ fl .. II .,, C4 ! i~ J x r'; F i-+ ~ .. . H J N .-; -, J C7 ~ u J ti ~: 1 II oa C.7 : ~ H I x C '~ . ; .+ ^~' f ~k L'^^. v s K ~: S -x •• w r 4 q ~ ~~ ~ /. .. _ ~ A . - ~~.~._~. _.`~ _ ~ .L __ ~""~ ~"1 M ~ Peter Dobrovolny moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJiJSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITRIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 88-32 Brush Creek Landowners, Lot 9, Block 2 + Lot 3A, Block 1, Brush Creek WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 0' setback variance for the construction of two trash enclosures as presented on the drawing be granted due to topographical hardship. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Evan Gull seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: ''"~ Resolution # 88- 32- Page 2 Kandi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Evan Gull - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: August 2, 1988 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: Se¢`retar Chairma~i c Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustments August 2, 1988 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairwoman Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Evan Gull Chris Conrad, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement Officer, was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran called the meeting to order at 5:25PM. The reading of the minutes was postponed until the end of the meeting. Conrad informed the board of a problem in case numbering, and so cases were in heard in the following order. Case # 88 - 27, Bruce Dreher 110 Ardmore Lot 4 Ardmore Subdivision Chris Conrad submitted a letter by John Thomas Kelly, requesting that the variance request for his (Kelly's) client, Bruce Dreher, be tabled until the September 6, 1988 meeting due to a last minute conflict. Gu11 moved to accept the postponement, and Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion carried 4-0. Bill Brashear was present to represent Richard Knecht. A variance was being sought to allow Knecht to build a house and barn so he may avoid a floodplain and sloping portion of property where drainage would be a hardship. Conrad confirmed that Knecht's building envelope is very tight. Gull observed that since the barn would lie on an upgrade, it would be 1.5' higher than the house. Conrad pointed out that an accessory building has a 12' restriction, and anything higher is a principal structure. In this case, the house must be higher than the barn. Dobrovolny commented that the proposed barn would be too close to the road. Brashear replied that this would allow for better. access and that the rear of the barn would have no access at all. Neighbor John Olson was present to object to the height of the barn, claiming it would obstruct his view and be out of context. Olsen asked if Knecht would be able to eventually change the height of his 72' house, to which the board answered 'yes'. Gull remarked that Knecht might also choose to request a height variance on the barn. Brashear suggested a stipulation be placed on the variance to restrict Knecht from building higher. Gull offered a compromise in a motion to grant a 29' setback for the house and a 40' setback for the barn, due to topographical hardships. The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny and the motion was carried 4-0. Case # 88 - 32 Brush Creek Landowners Lot 9 Block 2 + Lot 3A Block 1 Brush Creek Jim Crowley was present representing the Landowners Association. Mr. Crowley explained how residents in Brush Creek spent $60,000 - $70,000 last year maintaining Brush Creeks' roads even though the roads are owned by the county. Large trash trucks weighing up to 30 tans empty, destroy these roads, thereby increasing costs to Brush Creek residents. The Brush Creek Landowners proposed placing twa dumpsters near the entrance to the subdivision, so the trucks needn't enter the development, thereby saving the roads. The dumpsters would be placed on the right of way which is approximately 60', with a 30' easement on the side. They proposed further, to build enclosures approximately 6' tall with four sides and a roof, similar to those in Snowmass. Cedar shakes would cover the enclosures. One dumpster would be placed on each parcel, one which belongs to the subdivision, the other belonging to Mr. Jerold Scheinbaum. A letter from Mr. Scheinbaum supporting the construction was submitted. Brush Creek Landowner, Mr. Spencer Pearson was also present in support of this variance. Gull pointed out that the purpose of setbacks is to protect neighbors from each others problems and that in this instance, a group of neighbors are facing an administrative problem. If the county had wanted to do the same, he continued, they would just do it, and not be in a position to obtain a variance. After a discussion on what the exact hardship in this case is, Dobrovolny motioned for a 0' setback variance for construction of two trash enclosures as presented on the drawing, due to topographical hardship. Gull seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried 4- 0. Case # 88 - 34 Carol and Bob Ewald 9427 Highway 82 Bob and Carol Ewald were present requesting a variance which would enable them to build an extension on their house. The Ewalds proposed to add a front porch cover with a gable which would protect their front door from the weather, and a garage with much needed living space above. The addition would be covered with wood siding as is the bank in Snowmass. Since the Ewalds intend to leave the surrounding trees standing, the addition would be hidden from view of Highway 82. Chris Conrad confirmed that the document was prepared for 1041 review for i floodplain. Although Shaffran thought the addition would look nice and argued that such variances have been allowed before for larger buildings, Pearson countered that it's only been done on non-view sides, and that the addition would have a large impact on Highway 82. Though Pearson had 'a problem with the whole thing', she admitted she could 'go with the house'. Evan pointed out that legally, the Ewalds could build a 30" overhang for their porch without a variance, but the Ewalds suggested that a larger one would look much nicer. Gull made a motion to grant a 35' front yard setback variance from the county road, and a 160' setback variance from the South property line of Highway 82 as depicted on the drawings but not to include the 6' porch roof submitted on the application in addition to staying within the building envelope on the survey submitted, due to downzoning. The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny, and the motion carried 4-0. Case # 88 - 35 Richard Smith, Lot Y Crustal River Subdivision Mr. Richard Smith and Robert McCormick were present requesting variances which would allow Smith to build a house on property which has previously been downzoned. Although the subdivision is zoned AF--1, the lot is closer in size to an R-15 zone. A covenance for the subdivision requires that 30' front yard, 15' side yard and 20' rear yard setbacks be maintained. Approval could be granted from the Corporation, to allow for a 5' deviation on the front and rear sides, and a 10' deviation on the side yard. Smith pointed out that several other variances have been granted for that same subdivision. Gull suggested that setbacks for an R-15 zone apply to this lot, with setback requirements of 30' front yard, 10' rear yard, and 10' side yard. Pearson motioned to grant a 72' front yard setback variance, a 2' south side yard variance, a 10' north side yard setback variance and a 10' rear yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Dobrovolny seconded the motion, and the motion carried 4-0. Case # 88 - 36 Jeri Ann Rovsek Lot R-45 Stanwood Subdivision Gary Kerr and Elli Brickham were present to represent Ms. Rovsek. They requested variances which would allow the Rovsek's to place a pre-built log house, approved by the Stanwood Architectural Committee, on their lot. However, if kept within zoning regulations, the house would block neighbors view of Sopris. Kerr explained that it was not the lot which presented the hardship, but rather the particular house which the Rovseks intended to place on the lot. Gull pointed out that setbacks protect neighbors from one another, but that " by denying it [variance] we're hurting the people the setbacks are supposed to help. That's where we have a conflict". Shaffran argued that distances between neighbors must be protected for future landowners as well as those currently affected. She suggested that Kerr and Brickham discuss the matter with the Homeowners again, and made a motion to table the request until a new meeting has been rescheduled. Shaffran informed both Kerr and Brickham r Minutes were reviewed and the minutes as corrected carried 4-0. The meeting Respectfully Submitted, ~t ~~~ ~~~~~, ~1 ~`, Secr;etary ~~~ a motion was made by Pearson to accept The motion was accepted by Gull and was adjourned at 7:45PM. ~'~-~-~ ~ . ;~ .,~ ~ wiz a-.-~.J Chairman Date