The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2013-08-06L_E—Prepared:May 29,2013 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,August 6,2013 9:00 a.m.—Board Room Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated July 2,2013 3.METES &BOUNDS PARCEL (Lot 29,unrecorded plat of Dunraven Heights) Owner:Steve Discher Applicant:Steve Discher Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 25-- foot setbacks from the property line in the E-1 Estate zone district.Request to encroach approximately 13 feet into the front setback to enclose a porch which currently sits in the setback, and add a proposed deck adjacent to porch.Approximately 100 square feet of proposed deck would be constructed in the front setback. Staff Contact:Phil Kleisler 4.REPORTS 5.ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 2,2013,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Jeff Moreau,Vice-Chair Bob McCreery,Members John Lynch, Wayne Newsom,and Pete Smith;Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending:Chair Moreau,Members Lynch,McCreery,Newsom,and Smith Also Attending:Planner Shirk,Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:None Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.There were three people in attendance. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT Approval of minutes of the June 4,2013 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3.METES &BOUNDS PARCEL (Lot 29,unrecorded plat of Dunraven Heights) Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report.He stated the property owner,William Moschel,requested a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.4, Table 4-5,which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of fifty (50)feet from the property lines in the RE—Rural Estate zone district.Planner Shirk stated the lot is currently developed with a single-family dwelling located within eight feet of the rear property line.The purpose of the variance request was to allow enclosure of an existing deck that is located approximately thirty feet from the rear property line.The entire structure sits within the required 50-foot setback,and no additions or alterations could be done without a variance.The proposed deck would be enclosed with glass,but not necessarily winterized.The dwelling is not visible from Fish Creek Road.Planner Shirk stated there would not be a need for a setback certificate since the entire structure was already in the setback. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS________ Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 2,2013 C) Planner Shirk stated the request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.Adjacent property owners were notified.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Staff Findings 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9.Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the variance request,with the findings presented. Public Comment Amy Plummer/Applicant stated Planner Shirk summarized the request very well.She stated the house sits back in the trees,and was built prior to the current zoning regulations.She stated the proposed roof line would be lower than the highest point of the existing roofline. Staff and Board Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch)to approve the variance request as presented with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDN’JGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 2,2013 REPORTS Planner Shirk stated there were no specific reports,but he requested feedback from the Board about aerial views of properties being discussed.All Board members appreciated the aerials,and wanted to continue use of them. Planner Shirk reported on the modernization of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.He stated staff are using the 1996 plan,reformatting it to be more user-friendly with today’s technology.Changes consist of updating statistics to align with current census data, providing new photographs,removing obsolete references,etc.Planner Shirk stated the Comprehensive Plan is used with challenging variance requests,as this plan was the basis for the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. There was brief discussion concerning the sign code and who was addressing possible violators.Planner Shirk told the Board about new staff member,Phil Kleisler.He also stated the Community Development/Community Services (CDCS)committee received a report on possibly updating the current sign code to make it more user friendly.The committee urged the Town Board to follow-through with updating the code.At this time,no decisions have been made as to the future status of the Creative Sign Design Review Board. There being no further business,Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:16 a.m. Jeff Moreau,Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary 0 0 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Estee Park Community Development Department,Planning Division Room 230,Town HaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: August 6,2013 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the side property line in the E-I Estate zone district. The Applicant requests to encroach approximately 13 feet into the setback to enclose an existing porch and construct a new deck. LOCATION:978 Sutton Lane APPLICANT/OWNER:Steve Discher STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with Section 3.6 C.“Standards for Review”of the EVDC,all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFFERAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment.A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies.No concerns expressed during review. Public.No comments have been submitted. STAFF FINDINGS: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g.,exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness,shallowness or the shape of the property)that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards,provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards,this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding:The home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor,this single-family home was built in 1920 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards.The lot size is 0.7 acres,which is generally more compatible with the E-Estate district (1/2 acre minimum with side setbacks of 10’). 2.In determining “practical difficulty,”the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding:Residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not substantial. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially 0 altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding:The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance.Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger,and many decks similar in scope to the one proposed.Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 114 feet to the west. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding The applicant purchased the property in early 2013 after the adoption of the current setback requirements. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Page 2 of 3 f.Whether the Applicants predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding A variance is the only practical option to enclose the existing porch.The proposed deck could be constructed to meet setback requirements. 3.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The size of the proposed deck could be shortened and still meet the egress needs of the applicant. 4.In granting such variances,the BOA may require such conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment.Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the approved site plan,with the exception that the proposed deck be shortened to six feet,as extended from the proposed enclosed porch. 2.All new exterior lighting comply with EVDC Section 7.9. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 3 C) 0 0 ‘V \a:\.t:0N0) LU IDN0) N0I 0 ‘V0 -J N I 1 V Front house view. Front house view. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment View from northwest side of property. ( View from driveway showing closest neighbor. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment View from from end of driveway. View from Marys Lake Road. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment 0 0 (p Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service F Town Proposed Water Service F Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service x Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? UTSD UTSO None W Application tee (see attached tee schedule) W Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6,C of the Estes Valley Development Code)x 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1 =20)” kZ 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11”X 17”) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (atlached).The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. Town ol esPark .,P.O.Box 1200 .170 MacGregorAvenue .a esPark,cc 80517 Communny Development Depanmeril one;(970)577-3721 %‘Fax:1970)5860249 www.eesorgIcomDev Submitt’ ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FCEAVE * JUN252013 C0MMU V yE.LOPME F Record Owner(s):Steve &Carolyn Discher Street Address of Lot:976 Sutton Lane A’ca.11 Subdiv,s,o1 1U20473 52 T04 R73LegalDescription:Lot: __________ Block: ______________ Tract: ________ BEGAT NW COR2.4-73,N gg 5GE 710.SSFT,S 2.337’E 7I7.OSFT,S23 StE 1IBFTTPOB,58937E87.46FT.Subdivision:NO 12’E 180 FT N 5932’W3 Ft N 89 37’A’G8.61 Ft S 2332’E40 FT.N8937 W 22.86 FT.S 2337’E 3622 FT M’t TFOBParcelID#:34022-00-065 0.7 acres Residential Residential Zoning El ‘C Well Well r Fr Other (Specify) F Other (Specify) EPSO * EPS0 Other F F Septic Septic r Yes X No ‘Variance Desired (Development Code Section#)SS4 3C Density/Dimensional Standards Name of Primary Contact Person Steve Discher Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is K Ownerr.’I,fl 978 Sutton Lane,Estes Park,Colorado 60517 X Applicant Consultant/Engineer C Pevid 11/20/na () : -Record Owner(s)Steve &Carolyn Diseher •Mailing Address 706 Putter Ct,College Station,TExas 77845 Phone §79412-1609 Cell Phone 979-412-1609 _____ Fax 8665852175 Email sdischertrne.com ______ Applicant same ______ Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax JIc Email -‘-Consultant/Engineer_none _________________________________________________________ ,j-Mailing Address Phone 1 t,Cell Phone Fax Email --0APPLICATIONFEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area,both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the lee schedule online at: All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. vid 11.20,09 APPLICANT CERTiFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that theapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC,and that,prior to filing this application,I have had theopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: htto6wwwostes.orp’,rnDev’Dn’Code I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application feebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided isincomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. I understand that a resubmittal tee will be charged it my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application isdeterminedtobecomplete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with properidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication. I acknowledge that I have received the Esles Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and thatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidscheduleshallresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofroyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.I understand that full lees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has becomenullandvoid. I understand that I am required to obtain a Variance Notice sign from the Community Development Department andthatthissignmustbepostedonmypropertywhereitisclearlyvisiblefromtheroad.I understand that the corners ofmypropertyandtheproposedbuilding/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must bepostedandthestakingcompletednolaterthanten(10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustmenthearing. I understand that if the Board of Adjuslment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant to apply for a buildingpermitandcommenceconstructionoractionwithregardtothevarianceapprovalwithinone(1)year ofreceivingapprovalofthevariancemayautomaticallyrenderthedecisionoftheBOAnullandvoid.”(EstesValleyDevelopmentCodeSection3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:Steve Oischer Applicant PLEASE PAf NT:Steve Discher Signatures://-1 Record Owner -9 1• Date 6-13-13 Applicant4—/L/v--’Date 6-13-13 3 Ivid 11/20/09 Steve &Carolyn Discher 978 Sutton Lane Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Submittal Item 1,conference.cqrnped 6-12-13 Item 2,application form,attached hereto. Item 3 fe ttachedheretQbv checkIsi.itma. ( 0 Item 5a,location of structures.setbacks. N Item Sb,statement of proposed use. C The subject of this application is a cabin built in the 1920’s,purchased in February of 2013 by Steve and Carolyn Discher.The applicants plan to use the cabin during the summer months as well as various holidays throughout the year.The applicants desire to enclose the existing front porch to create additional living area in the home.In addition,applicants want to add a front desk to create some outdoor space.All of the proposed work will be done in concert with the vintage and style of the cabin and in concert with the neighborhood where it resides. itm5cJ2cation_of property lines. Please see Item Sa.No streams,rivers,wetlands or other critical wildlife habitat exist on this property. 22.86’.978 SUTTON LINE R000t UOLmTAIW £SWO*&l71Z hW. CC4WRVENT ,:RW155-12 Thl1E 10/70/20 72 LLG4L YQqpj?E A4 2.9 AV.59.87 PARCFL I SLUTON (AWE [JE LOCAJ7ON NORTH 4 SCALE:7 =30’ Ic 179.1$IVU \ —— FWfl t IWO.AIONUMENT AS OESCR/SED NC4CHUET -. —... ARCEL — a *e53.82o —FDL /5 13 \_w C Item Sd.location of adjacent buildinRs with 200’of the lot or propertyjj. Item 6,standards to be varied, The applicants wish to request a variance on the setback requirement of 25 feet for the requestedimprovementstotheproperty. Item 7,statement of standards. This application meets the Standards for Review under the Estes Valley Development Code,Section3.6,section C.,Standards of Review: 1.Special circumstances exist due to the location of the home on the property.The home wasbuiltinthe1920’s,long before any 2oning or development codes existed and therefore waslocatedverynearthepropertyline.In order to utilize the existing space in a more usefulmanner,the applicant’s would like to enclose the existing porch area which does notincreasethefootprintofthehomebutduetoit’s location,the home is not in compliancewiththe25footsetbackrequirement. In addition,applicant would like to build a deck on the front of the home.The deck jsnecessaryduetotheslopingterrainofthepropertytoallowingressandegressfrom thefrontdoorinacomfortablemanner, 2.a.With reference to ‘practical difficulty”,we would demonstrate that the current size of thehomeisnotsufficientforafamilyoffivewithonlyonebedroom.Therefore,the applicantswishtoenclosethespacetoallowtheuseofthefrontporchasasecondbedroom. c.The character of the neighborhood will not be altered in any way by enclosing the porchandaddingthedeck.The neighborhood is all currently composed of homes the size of thesubjectpropertyorlarger.In addition,the homes in this neighborhood are in better repair -‘4.r...-2 .‘-.t,;n •V —:‘..-•,,_,,___,,• than the current state of the subject property and the improvements requested will enhance it’s place in the neighborhood. d.The variance will have no affect on the delivery of any public services. e.The applicant purchased the home without the knowledge of the setback requirementssincethehomeisoutsidethecitylimits. f.Any plan to increase the size of the home’s living space is going to require a variance to thesetbackrequirementandthereforethereisnoothermeanstocreatethenecessaryspacewithoutavariance. 3.Not Applicable.Conditions are neither general or recurrent in nature.They are specific withregardtothesetbackrequirement 4.Not Applicable.Variance will not affect the size of the lot. 5.The variance requested is singular in nature,a variance o nthe 25 foot setback requirementforthesubjecthome. 6.Not Applicable. 7.Not Applicable. Item 8,any other information requested. Applicants will make all information available to staff as requested. Item 9,Field Staking.. Applicants will stake as per the requirements of this section. Item 10,Site notice. Applicants will post required signage on the subject property at least 14 days prior to the publichearing. a Zoning Districts C’ §42 Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Minimum BuildlnglStructure Mm. zoning Standards (1 (5]Property Line Setbacks (2][41 Max% Building Disti-iCt (Ord.25-07 §1)[91 (Ord.25-07 §1)BuildIng Width (It)Max.Net Density Area Width Side Height (unltslacre)(sq ft.)(ft.)Front (ft.)(ft.)Rear (ft.)(ft.)(10) RE-i 1/10 Ac.10 Ac,200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20 El 1 1 Ac.[3)100 25 25 25 30 20 25- arteriais;10 15 30 20E2½Ac.[31 15-other streets 25- arterials;R 4 ¼Ac.60 10 15 30 2015-other streets P-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25- =18,000;arterials;R-2 4 60 10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60; Uses:./unit Lots 25-RM Max =8 and (4](8](Ord.Greater arlerials;(Ord,Miii =3 25-07 §1)than 15other 10 [6]10 30 20 [7]18-01 Senior #14)Institutional Senior 100,000 streets Living Uses:Institutional sq.ft.: I Max =24 Living Uses:200 Notes to Table 4-2: (1](a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.0,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4,§4.3.0.1. (b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for clustered lots in open space developments. (c)See Chapter 11,§11.4,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for attainable housing. (d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes. (Ord.2-02 §1) [2]See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord.11-02 §1) (31 If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in §7.12,“Adequate Public Facilities.” [4]Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each individual townhcme unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre, 151 All development,except development ot one single-family dwelling on a single lot,shall atso be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR)of .30 ar.b a maximum lot coverage of 50%.(Ord.25-07 §1) [6]Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are allowed for lownhome developments. 17]Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [81 Single-fami’and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(Ord 18-01 #14) (9]All structures shalt be set back from public or prvate roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site dwellings or Jots,The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback.(Ord.11-02 §1;Ord.25-07 §1) (10]See Chapter 1,§1.9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on stopes.(Ord.18-02 #3) Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Q) a(.j Supp.8 4-7 Di s c h e r Re s i e Va r i a n c e x i s Ow n e r Ow n e r II Ad d r e s s Ci t y ST Zi p St e v e n & Ma r l e n e Sh o r l a n d 28 5 0 N. La k e Rd . Gl e n n i e MI 43 7 3 7 Lo r i Gr e e n i n g P0 BO X 16 4 2 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Be t t y e Wa l s h Ca r o l Da v i s PC BO X 7 Ba t e s v i l l e VA 22 9 2 4 Gi n & Ta r i q Od e h 19 1 1 Si l v e r Tr e e La n e Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ke v i n Ch r i s t o p h e r 10 4 7 Su t t o n La n e Es t e s Pa r k CC 80 5 1 7 He r m a n Dw a y n e P Tr u s t P0 BO X 36 3 7 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ja m e s Fr e y Ho l l i e Pe t i t 86 1 Bl u e Mi s t Ln . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Wi l l o w Ri d g e PU D Pr o p e r t y Ow n e r s As s o c 85 8 Bl u e Mi s t Ln . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Br i g i t t e De l i s a 97 6 Su t t o n Ln - Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ha l l e t t Ho u s e In c 64 7 Su m m i t Dr . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ja n i c e Pa u l e y 86 5 Bl u e Mi s t In . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ha r o l d De l a n e y St e v e & Ca r o l y n Di s c h e r 97 8 Su t t o n Ln . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Jo h n Mu r d o c k Jo h n Yo u n g 12 2 7 Ta y l o r Av e . Co n r a d IA 50 6 2 1 Da n i e l Br o w n Na n c y Gr i f f i n PC BO X 61 3 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ro b e r t Co p p e r PC BO X 11 2 5 Es t e s Pa r k CC 80 5 1 7 Ro n d a Me y e r PC BO X 14 3 4 Be r t h o u d CO 80 5 1 3 Ka t h l e e n Ch r i s t o p h e r 97 0 Su t t o n Ln . Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Di s c h e r Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e . x l s 0 0 0