Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-10-17Prepared:September 24,2014 !‘.. I “Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,October 7,2014 9:00 am.—Board Room Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of minutes dated September 9,2014 3.UNIT 12,RIVERS EDGE CONDOMINIUMS;1605 Ziola Court #12 Owner:Jerome Lauer Applicant:Jerome Lauer Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.4,Table 4-5,which requires 15 foot side setbacks in the A-i—Accommodations zone district. Request to encroach approximately five feet into the side setback to replace a deck destroyed by flood waters. Staff Contact:Phil Kleisler 4.LOT 9,MOUNT VIEW PARK;250 Granite Lane Owner:Janice Whitmore Applicant:Janice Whitmore Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 25 foot setbacks from all property lines in the E-1—Estate zone district.Request to encroach approximately eight feet into the side setback and approximately five feet into the front setback to allow enclosure of an existing carport. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 5.REPORTS A.Sombrero Ranch variance update B.Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan &Development Code 6.ADJOURNMENT The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. I- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 9,2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lynch,Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau,Members Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith;Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending:Chair Lynch,Members Moreau and Newsom Also Attending:Senior Planner Shirk,Planner Kleisler,Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Member Smith and one vacant position Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 am.There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. 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 July 1,2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0,with one absent and one vacant position. 3.PORTION OF LOT 9,MOUNT VIEW PARK,831 Big Horn Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report.This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which sets a minimum building and structure setback distance of 25 feet in the E-1—Estate zone district.The apphcant requests a variance to replace an existing unsafe concrete patio with a wood frame deck. Approximately eight feet of the existing residence and the entire patio lies within the 25- foot setback.The proposed deck would be two feet from the property line.Planner Kleisler stated the home and patio were built in 1940,before the current setback standards were in place.The deterioration of the patio has become a safety concern and prevents adequate use of an exterior door. Planner Kleisler stated normal repairs and maintenance could be made without a variance,but replacement requires a variance.Adjacent property owners and affected agencies were notified,with no significant concerns received. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 September 9,2014 Staff Findings 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist.Staff found that the lot is 0.39 acres.The minimum lot size in the E-1—Estate is one acre.The unique scattered rock outcroppings throughout the site present exceptional difficulties in locating the deck to the north.These topographic conditions were the likely reason for the location of the house (far southeast partially in the setbacks). 2.In determining “practical difficulty,staff found the following: a.Residential use may continue without the variance. b.The variance request was not substantial c.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance.Nearby homes are similar in size and character,with many containing similar patios/decks,Adjoining properties would not suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 66 feet to the northeast along Granite Lane.It appears the view of the deck would remain the same from this property,while the area below the deck would be naturally screened by rocks.Furthermore,replacing the concrete patio with a wood frame deck would eliminate the concrete wall of the existing patio along Big Horn Drive. d.Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.The home was built in 1940,before the adoption of setback requirements.The applicant purchased the home in 2002,after the adoption of the current setback standards. f.A variance is the only option to replace any portion of the existing patio,given that it is entirely in the side setback. 3.Representing the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief,the applicant proposes to reduce the size of the deck to two feet from the property line. The Board of Adjustment may,at its discretion,require that the deck be further shortened. 4.If approved,staff determined verification of the location of the deck could be obtained without a surveyor certificate. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval,with conditions listed below. Public Comment Mike Todd/applicant representative stated the current deck is in structural failure,and is impeding the entry to the house.Repairs would be substantial,and the owner is requesting replacement with a wood deck structure.The proposed wood frame deck would be less imposing to the neighbors,and have less economic impact on the property owner.The concrete wall would be removed. 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 September 9,2014 Public comment closed. Staff and Board Member Discussion None. Condition of Approval 1.Compliance with the approved site plan. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau)to approve the variance request for a Portion of Lot 9,Mount View Park,with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0,with one absent and one vacancy. 4.LOT 5,REPLAT OF LOT 26,BLOCK 1,FALL RIVER ESTATES;1255 FaIl River Court Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report.This request is for a variance from EVDC section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 25-foot setbacks in the E-1—Estate zone district. The applicant requests to replace an existing deck,without expanding it further into the setback.Planner Kleisler stated the home was built in 1999,and was zoned multi4amily with 25-foot setbacks.At the time of construction,red lines on the plans indicated the deck could not be built in the setback.However;the permit was issued without revisions to the plans,and a certificate of occupancy was issued.Due to this error,the home is considered nonconforming.Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners.No significant concerns were received.The property borders Rocky Mountain National Park,and Park personnel did not oppose the variance. Staff Findings 1.Special circumstances exist relating to lot shape and the location of the house on the lot.The long and narrow shape of the lot is due mainly to steep topography,street layout and the nearby location of a Town water tank;for these reasons many lots in the Fall River Estates subdivision are oddly shaped.The location and orientation of the house also prevents any reasonably-sized deck from being constructed to the south and east. 2.In determining “practical difficulty”,staff found: a.Residential use of the property may continue without the variance b.The variance is not substantial c.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance.Nearby homes are similar in size and character.The nearest residential home is over 200 feet to the east.It appears that the portions of the deck related to this variance are not visible to other properties in the Valley. d.Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 September 9,2014 e.According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor,the home was built in 1999.The property was zoned RM—Residential Multi-Family in 1999,which also required 25- foot setbacks.The applicant purchased the home at the time of construction,which was after the adoption of the setback standards. f.Normal repairs and maintenance can be performed on the non-conforming sections of the deck,but they cannot be fully replaced. 3.If approved,the variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.The applicant has received a permit to construct the deck portions outside of the setbacks.The applicant does not proposed expanding the deck beyond the current location. 4.If approved,staff can verify the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the requested variance,with conditions listed below. Staff and Member Discussion Planner Kleisler stated there were notes on the original plans which stated the deck could not be built in the setback.However,it was approved and permitted.Because of situations like this,Setback Certificates are now required if they are near the setback. Public Comment None. Condition of Approval 1.Compliance with the approved site plan. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau)to approve the variance request for Lot 5,Replat of Lot 26,Block 1,Fall River Estates the findings and condition recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacant position. 5.SOMBRERO RANCH Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report.The applicant,Sombrero Ranch,Inc.,is requesting to expand a nonconforming use on property that is zoned for low density development.Planner Shirk stated the request is to stockpile materials being removed from an existing pond at Lost Antlers Ranch,2153 McGraw Ranch Road.The materials being removed were washed into the pond from Rocky Mountain National Park during the 2013 flood.The proposal stated the stockpile on the Sombrero Ranch property would be used over an estimated ten to twelve (10-12)years for normal repairs and maintenance of existing roads and trails on Sombrero Ranch properties.The proposed stockpile site location’is zoned RE-Rural Estate,with a minimum lot size of ten acres. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5oSeptember9,2014 Planner Shirk stated the stockpile would be approximately two acres in size and approximately six feet deep.Approval of this variance would not allow an increase in additional development on the property outside of this stockpile.The proposed stockpile would be located behind mature trees,approximately 700 feet east of and 100 vertical feet above the Stonegate Drive/Dry Gulch Road intersection.There would be several hundred feet of vegetative buffer between the stockpile and road.Planner Shirk stated the applicant (Cody Rex Walker)was in attendance to answer specific questions concerning hours of operation,traffic control plan,erosion control,etc.Representatives from Van Horn Engineering were also in attendance. Planner Shirk stated the variance request was from EVDC Section 6.3.C.1 Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited,to expand a nonconforming use to allow outdoor storage of fill materials for use on-site.The Board of Adjustment was the decision-making body,with any appeals going to District Court. Planner Shirk stated staff received various written comments from adjacent property owners.These comments were included in the meeting packets.He stated the existing commercial use in a residentially-zoned property is a legal nonconforming use.The EVDC states nonconforming uses shall not be extended unless they come to the Board of Adjustment for approval.The applicant could store the materials closer to the structures on Big Thompson Avenue without a variance;however,the location would have a greater visual impact. Staff Findings 1.In determining whether special circumstances exist,staff found the Sombero Ranch consists of 288 acres,and are zoned CO—Commercial Outyling.The majority of the property,including the proposed storage area,is zoned for residential use (RE-i— Rural Estate).This area includes the horse trails and hay storage area.This renders the property nonconforming in terms of the development code,therefore necessitating the variance request to expand the commercial use of the property.Section 6.1.C.1 of the EVDC states “a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended.”If located on the commercially-zoned portion of the property,the proposed outdoor storage would be a use-by-right,and would have to comply with screening requirements outlined in Section 7.13 of the EVDC. 2.In determining “practical difficulty”,staff determined the following; a.The existing commercial use may continue.Section 6.3.B allows for repair and normal maintenance to keep a nonconforming use in safe condition.The proposed stockpiling of materials is intended to provide for long-term maintenance of the property. b.The variance is substantial in that it would allow a two-acre area with several feet of fill materials to be stockpiled for the next 10-12 years.The stockpile area is not substantial in relation to the overall size of the property (nearly 300 acres). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 September 9,2014 c.Staff found the primary impact to the neighborhood would be temporary,during the hauling operations.If the variance is approved with the recommended conditions of approval,the long-term character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance.Many residents of the North End feel the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered,as demonstrated by the volume of written comments submitted for review and consideration by the Board. i.The primary neighborhood concerns center on traffic impact,visual impact of the stockpile,and potential environmental impacts such as erosion and weed infestation. U.Because of the long-term nature of the use,the storage pile should be vegetated with native grasses to mitigate visual impact,discourage invasive weeds,and prevent windblow and stormwater erosion.The temporary access should be reclaimed with native grasses after the hauling operations cease. U.The proposed use would generate approximately 1,500 truck trips over the course of several weeks.Once the hauling operations ceased and the access road reclaimed,the overall impact on the neighborhood would be minimal. Approval of the variance would reduce additional hauling activities to the Sombrero property in the future because the materials would be available on- site.Disapproval of the variance would not eliminate the use of McGraw Ranch Road,Devils Gulch road,or Dry Gulch Road during the dredging operations and hauling operation;the pond would still be dredged and materials removed from the McGraw Ranch Road site. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer,staff found the proposed hauling operation could have a negative impact on both the privately maintained McGraw Ranch Road and the publicly maintained Devils Gulch and Dry Gulch Roads.The Larimer County Engineering Department has recommended conditions of approval to mitigate such impact.If approved,storing the materials on the Sombrero Ranch property would have the least overall impact on the county road system because it would minimize the travel distance of the materials.If disapproved,the materials would most likely be hauled out of the Estes Valley,increasing the impact on the roads. e.Staff found the applicant purchase the property in 1995,prior to the EVDC regulations being adopted. f.Staff found the applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance;the applicant could truck in construction materials as needed. 3.Staff found,if the variance is approved,EVDC Section 7.2.C Restoration of Disturbed Areas and Section 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas,Activities and Mechanical should apply. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 September 9,2014 4.The Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff recommends several conditions to mitigate the impact of the variance request. These conditions address traffic control,erosion control,site restoration,development agreement,and form of credit.The variance request provides an opportunity to impose operational requirements on the overall dredging process;without the variance,there would be no opportunity for County Engineering review of the dredging and hauling operations. Planner Shirk showed photos of the proposed site,on the east side of trees between Dry Gulch Road and the ridge.He stated staff did not require a visual simulation due to the number of trees between the site and Dry Gulch Road.He clarified to the Board the dredging operations were not a part of this request.The dredging will take place with or without the approval of the variance.The variance is only related to the stockpiling of the materials on the Sombrero Ranch property.Planner Shirk stated silt fencing would be required,and the state would need to approve the drainage plan for the site.Staff would require a development agreement and form of credit to ensure the site restoration at Sombrero Ranch was completed satisfactorily.This agreement and credit would need to be in place prior to the commencement of any site work. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the variance request,with conditions of approval,listed below. Public Comment Jim Fletemeyer/applicant representative stated the materials were needed on the Sombrero Ranch properties for reconstruction of trails damaged by the flood and for long- term maintenance.The ranch has always stockpiled materials for this use,just not on their property.He stated the material coming from the site on McGraw Ranch Road has an impressive consistency and will be excellent for rebuilding trails and corral operations. There are four locations in the Estes Valley where the applicant would like to use the materials.Sombrero Ranch employees use pack horses to distribute the materials on the riding trails.Mr.Fletemeyer stated Sombrero Ranch would be the receiver of the materials,and would not be involved with the dredging operation on McGraw Ranch Road.He explained in detail the processes involved in maintaining McGraw Ranch Road during the hauling operation,mentioning all the permits and plans required and obtained from various agencies to complete the dredging,hauling,and reclamation process. Keeping the material at the deposition site was considered,and it was determined it would be more harmful to the environment to keep it at the site than to haul it away.He stated the applicant has been working with Community Development staff to ensure compliance with the EVDC.A contract has been signed with a seeding company for reclamation of the area and revegetation of the stockpile.A stormwater management plan was created and will be submitted to the state if the variance is approved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 September 9,2014 Mr.Fletemeyer submitted a document in response to the public comments received.This memo has been included in the official meeting packet.He explained an agreement was reached between the owners of Lost Antlers Ranch and Sombrero Ranch concerning the dump fee. Glenn Porzakiland use and water law attorney explained the easements,road maintenance agreement,etc.concerning McGraw Ranch Road.NOTE:McGraw Ranch Road is private,and the issues pertaining to the use of this road are not in the purview of the Board of Adjustment for this variance request. Ben Keeter/supervisor of hauling procedure explained the proposed hauling process. NOTE:The hauling of the materials is not in the purview of the Board of Adjustment for this variance request.He stated the hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,no more than five days per week.The decision was made to begin the operation in the fall to avoid conflicts with summer guests and part-time residents.The goal is to complete the hauling in six weeks,weather dependent. Fran Grooters/Road Association President for McGraw Ranch Road stated she wanted to the plan to work,and shared several concerns.NOTE:McGraw Ranch Road is private, and the issues pertaining to the use of this road are not in the purview of the Board of Adjustment for this variance request. Chair Lynch reviewed the variance request,which is only for the stockpiling of materials on Sombrero Ranch property.There was brief discussion among the Board concerning the variance application. Peter PrautiCounty resident had concerns about the use of McGraw Ranch Road.NOTE: McGraw Ranch Road is private,and the issues pertaining to the use of this road are not in the purview of the Board of Adjustment for this variance request.Mr.Praut distributed a document listing suggested additions to the conditions of approval.This document was made part of the official meeting packet. Senior Planner Shirk stated it was outside the Board’s purview to require specific approval from property owners.It would,however,be appropriate for a condition of approval to request Larimer County’s approval of the hauling plan.He stated Mr.Walker mentioned using the stockpiled materials at locations other than the site where the material was stored.If the Board was willing to allow this,they would need to make an amendment to the Conditions of Approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9 September 9,2014 Betty Hull/County resident stated she understood this would be a temporary process.She was concerned about blowing dust from the site during the windy winter months,noxious weeds,and erosion of the stockpile.She was opposed to the variance request. Nancy Hills/County resident was concerned about wildlife migration corridors,truck noise, wind,dust,and the reclamation of the area.She referred to the Clean Water Act (EPA) and was concerned about health issues from particulates.She asked the Board to consider all the items brought up by the adjacent property owners. Celine LeBeau/Van Horn Engineering stated an erosion control study was completed.A state permit is required,which describes the details concerning erosion.Inspections will be completed on a regular basis throughout the process.Silt moving outside the silt fence would be in violation of the permit.Other measures will be in place to mitigate erosion.It would be in violation of the permit to discharge sediment into the drainage.She stated 97.7%of the materials being moved are from Rocky Mountain National Park.Chemical contaminants are very low.She stated it would have a greater adverse environmental impact to leave the sediment on the property because it is a direct watershed area.This would be detrimental to fish,aquatic habitat,and wildlife.Reseeding will take place immediately,using a rye grass blend that will take hold very quickly. Scott BecklLost Antlers Ranch owner stated he is not cutting corners or shaving expenses. He was grateful there was a nearby landowner willing to take the material,as flood recovery has been a significant expense.He assured the Board and the property owners along McGraw Ranch Road the process would be handled correctly and appropriately. Mr.Walker/applicant stated Sombrero Ranch did not own any trucks as large as those doing the hauling,and the material would be used mostly for corral operations at their liveries. Public comment closed. Staff and Board Discussion There was discussion concerning the amendments to the Conditions of Approval as listed in the staff report.Comments concerning the application included,but were not limited to: “We need to realize this was a huge flood and leaving sediment in its deposited location is not goad for the environment,”“It seems like the applicant has covered all the bases.” Conditions of Approval 1.Materials stored on Sombrero Ranches shall be used only on the Sombrero Ranch site and other livery operations controlled by Sombrero Ranch for repairs and normal maintenance of the existing trails and roads.Approval of this variance does not provide approval for expansion of the existing trail and/or road system. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10 September 9,2014 () 2.The stockpiled material and access road shall be restored in accordance with EVDC Section 7.2.C Restoration of Disturbed Areas no later than May31 2015. 3.A development agreement and form of credit to ensure site restoration shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any site work. 4.The modification of the access off of Dry Gulch Road shall require an Access Permit from the Larimer County Engineering Department.The issuance of the access permit shall include improving the access to meet the County access requirements and shall also include the requirement to reclaim the access to the pre-construction condition. 5.A detailed construction plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Larimer County Engineering Department.The plan shall detail the proposed access road on the site to the location where the materials will be deposited.The temporary access road shall be built to minimize disturbance and the potential for erosion.The plan shall also address screening,as required by EVDC Section 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment. 6.A State Construction Activity Permit is required prior to commencement of the hauling operation.The detailed stormwater management plan required with the State permit shall also be submitted to the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Town of Estes Park Planning Department for review and approval. 7.A traffic control plan shall be submitted to,and approved by,the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to commencing the hauling operations.This plan shall include management of traffic on McGraw Ranch Road. 8.A haul plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Larimer County Engineering Department.The plan shall describe procedures for maintaining a safe and functional road for the residents during the hauling operations.For example,dust suppression may be needed,pull outs for passing,the requirement for only one truck at one time on the road,where equipment would be stored overnight and during weekends,vehicle tracking pad,etc. 9.All other necessary State permits shall be issued prior to the commencement of the hauling operations. 10.The owner of the originating site shall maintain McGraw Ranch Road during the hauling,and shall repair the road upon completion of the hauling. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau)to approve the variance request to allow expansion of a nonconforming use to allow outdoor storage of fill materials on a portion of the Sombrero Ranch property with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and amended by the Board and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 6.ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS Planner Shirk stated a formal adoption of the amendment to the bylaws was required by the Board.He stated Town Administrator Lancaster has requested all policies and bylaws be revised and reformatted to be as consistent as possible.In so doing,a few other C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 11 September 9,2014 revisions were made for consistency with the IGA with Larimer County.Examples include specifying that the Chair and Co-Chair alternate between Town and County appointees and clarification about attendance.The proposed amendments to the bylaws have been approved by the Estes Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.The final step is formal adoption by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau)to adopt the amendments to the Bylaws as presented by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 7.REPORTS A.Planner Shirk reported the silo at the Multi-Purpose Event Center was raised according to the approved variance in July.The height certificate has yet to be submitted.The additional height will allow for additional office space,and the Town Board approved a change order to proceed with the additional space. B.Senior Planner Shirk reported revisions were made to the Sign Code section of the Estes Park Municipal Code.Sign code variances will be coming to the Board of Adjustment,as in past years.One of the revisions included the elimination of the Creative Sign Design Review Board. C.Senior Planner Shirk reported on the vacant position,and the new detailed job description for a Board of Adjustment member.Hopefully,a new member will be appointed soon. D.Senior Planner Shirk reported he will begin educating the Board on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code.This will take place in brief training sessions as part of the regular Board of Adjustment meetings. E.Member Newsom reported he was comfortable with the decisions the Board made today. There being no other business before Board,the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. John Lynch,Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary 0 0 ‘0 1605 Ziola Court Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division Room 230,Town HaH,170 MacGregor Avenue PC Box 1200,Estes Park,CC 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 w.estes.org MEETING DATE: October 7,2014 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.4,Table 4-5,which sets a minimum building and structure setback distance of 15 feet from the side property line in the A-i Accommodations district. The Applicant requests a variance to replace an existing deck ten (10)feet from the side property line (five foot encroachment).The deck was destroyed by the September 2013 flood and was not legally permitted. River Corridor Protection While not part of this variance request,river corridor protection is still relevant.EVDC §7.6.E.1(2)establishes a 50-foot river corridor setback for all buildings and accessory structures.The location of the proposed deck is 50’from the annual high water mark of Fall River. River setbacks are intended in part to preserve wildlife corridors and habitat and are ground to the sky.At this point we do not floodplain maps as a result of the 2013 flood event. required to be unobstructed from the know the extent of future regulatory LOCATION:1605 Ziola Court (Town) APPLICANT/OWNER:Jerome Lauer/Owner,Jess ReetzlEngineer ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Proposed Deck Location _.—-.,—-y-1:_EIL:r..\:%•_ -.;- North view (proposed deck location in yellow) STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with Section 3.6 C.“Standards for Review’of the C) 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. REFERRAL 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 were expressed during review. Public.As of August 3,2014 no public comments have been received;comments received after this date will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentApphcations for the Board’s review. 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:Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions do not exist.The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Rivers Edge development plan in April 2004.This planned development consisted of 12 residential/accommodations units designed to meet the setback requirements of the A-i zone district. The site is adjacent to Fall River and requires a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark.The applicant’s site plan states that the proposed deck would be exactly 50 feet from the high water mark,making an extension to the north not possible. 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 and the existing deck may continue to be utilized. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not substantial. 1605 Ziola court Page 2 of 4 Setback Variance Request c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially 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.However,the extension would not be consistent with other end units in the Rivers Edge development. 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.The location of the proposed deck will directly abut a public utility easement.The proposed deck will limit access along the side of the property by requiring residents and grounds keepers travel along the public utility easement. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding:According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor,the applicant purchased the home in 2010,after the adoption of the current setback standards. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:A variance is the only option to extend the existing deck in any location due to (I)the side setback and (N)river setback. 1605 Ziola Court Page 3 of 4 Setback variance Request Flood damage is visible from aerial imagery 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding:The conditions as submitted in this variance petition are general and recurrent in nature. 4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision,pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding:The variance,if granted,will not reduce the size of the lot. 5.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The existing deck may still be utilized. 6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding:Residential and accommodations uses are permitted in the A-i Accommodations zone district. 7.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.Should the variance be obtained,staff can verify the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1605 Ziola court Page 4 of 4 Setback Variance Request PHONE 970.586.2458 EMAcesces.ccc corn 1692 Big Thompson Suite 200 Ectet Pa;k,Colorado 80517 ENGINEERING &SURVEYING.INC. August 26,2014 Phil Kleisler Planner Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Co.80517 RE:1605 Ziola Court,Unit 12 Deck Variance Request Dear Phil, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying,Inc.(CES),on behalf of the owner Jerry Lauer,is submitting a variance request for a deck setback for 1605 Ziola Court,Unit 12,Estes Park,Colorado. Le2aI Description Unit 12,Rivers Edge Condominiums Variance request: Table 4-5 Base Density Dimensional Standards For Non-residential Zoning Districts A-i,Minimum Building /Structural Setbacks,Side -15 feet. Project Description This project involves the replacement of a previously existing deck that had been damaged by the September 2013 flood.The previous deck addition had been approved by the condo association in 2007,but no record of a building permit was found.Mr.Lauer purchased the unit in 2010 with the deck and deck addition in place. After the flood Mr.Lauer attempted to obtain a replacement permit,at which time the lack of permit for the deck addition was identified and the need for a setback variance recognized. The flooded river channel has been repaired by NCRS and placed back in its approximate original location. The proposed deck addition will not be closer to Fall River than the deck approved when the unit was constructed.Furthermore,the previous deck addition protruded 8-feet from the eastern edge of the unit placing a portion of the deck within an existing public utility easement.Our proposed deck will only protrude 5-feet, placing the deck addition outside of the existing easement. C‘vir.Lauer has obtained written permission from the adjoining properties on the south side of Fall River giving [heir approval of the proposed deck addition.The main property being affected by this variance would be the residence at 1595 Fish Hatchery Road. 1605 Ziola Ct,Unit 12,Request f1rVariance Setback Parcel Number 35164-13-012 Page 2 of2 August 26,2014 Practical Difficulty When determining “practical difficulty”the following factors are considered: a.Whether the variance is substantial; a.This variance is not substantial and will be replacing a structure that had been in place for seven (7)years. b.Whether the essential character of the neighbo;-hood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; a.As stated above the deck had been in place for seven years and the adjoining property owners have given their consent for the variance. c.Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of public services such as water and sewer; a.The proposed deck will be placed outside the existing public utility easement an no utility services or mains are located within the proposed deck area d.Whether the Applicant purchased the property wüh the knowledge of the requirement; a.Mr.Lauer purchased the unit in 2010,three (3)years after the completion of the deck addition.To the best of his knowledge,the deck was an approved structure as part of Unit 12. Sincerely, 0 &Surveying,Inc. Jes Reetz Planner . ‘Submittal Date:August 26,2014 Record Owner(s):Jerome Lauer ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Street Address of Lot:1605 Ziola Ct.Unit 12 Legal Description:Lot: ____________ Block: Subdivisiorrs Edge Condominiums Parcel ID #:35164-13-012 Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service IX Town Proposed Water Service Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service W Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? . Septic Septic ‘Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):EVDC Table 4-5,minimum side setback of 15-feet,request to place 10-feet from nearest property line Name of Primary Contact Person Jes Reetz Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is X Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the EVDC) X 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20)** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (ii”X 17”) Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning©estes.org **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached). 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. Tract: Condominiums Condominiums Zoning A-i r F Well Well r F r F Other F Other EPSD EPSD Other (Specify) (Specify) IX IJTSD IX UTSD None F F Fish Hatchery Road F Yes No F Owner 1692 Big Thompson Aye,Suite 200,Estes Park,CO 80517 F Applicant IX Consultant/Engineer [LI own of Estes F’ork ..U.box 121)0 .Iit)Mocoregor Avenue esles rark,CC)bOb II Community Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 .Fax:(970)586-0249 -wwvestes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Jerome Lauer 3049 N.Elena Maria,Tucson,AZ 85750 (970)586-2639 Email SMJGLAU@AOL.com Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Jerome Lauer 0 Contad lnfoation 3049 N.Elena Maria,Tucson,AZ 85750 (970)586-2639 Email SMJGLAU@AOL.cOm Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying,Inc. Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave.,Suite 200.Estes Park,CC 80517 Phone (970)586-2458 Cell Phone Fax (970)586-2459 Email jreetz@ces-ccc.com APPLICATION FEES 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 fee schedule online at: http://www estes.orq/ComDev/Schedules&Fees)PlanninqAnlicationFeeScheduIe pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. C Revised 2013.08.27 KT 0 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC,and that!prior to filing this application,I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: htto://www.estes.orci/ComDev/DevCode I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void.I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. I understand that I am required to obtain a “Variance Notice sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road.I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be posted and the slaking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant 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 may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”(Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:Jerome Lauer Applicant PLEASE PRINT:Jerome Lauer Signatures: Record Owner _________________________________________________ Date 24’£:7t Applicant _.fr’,Date ‘2t/V Revised 2013.08.27 KT RE:Jerry Lauer 1605 Ziola Court,Unit 12 Deck Variance Request Dear Neighbor, . The deck attached to our condominiums unit was damaged during the September floods in 2013. During the research into reconstructing the damaged deck,it was discovered that the previous deck encroached into the easterly side yard setback (15-foot setback)by 8-feet.We are now in the process of applying for a variance to replace the damaged deck with an encroachment of 5-feet into the easterly side yard setback. We are expressing our desire for your support for this variance.The deck will not be greater than what was previously constructed and hope that you can support us in this endeavor.We request your support by signing the bottom of this letter with your address and return it to us to include in our submittal into the Town of Estes Park. Sincerely, Jerry &Susan Lauer Address: b dJxLofh;/ LO _/;L*L thslv C /;j cLtrJ Print Name: /Gi 7;A iL/y 1.\c/ Signature: 7t Tax Parcel Number.Date C’RE:Jerry Lauer 1605 Ziola Court,Unit 12 Deck Variance Request Dear Neighbor, .. The deck attached to our condominiwns unit was damaged during the September floods in 2013. During the research into reconstructing the damaged deck,it was discovered that the previous deck encroached into the easterly side yard setback (15-foot setback)by 8-feet.We are now in the process of applying for a variance to replace the damaged deck with an encroachment of 5-feet into the easterly side yard setback. We are expressing our desire for your support for this variance.The deck will not be greater than what was previously constructed and hope that you can support us in this endeavor.We request your support by signing the bottom of this letter with your address and return it to us to include in our submittal into the Town of Estes Park. Sincerely, Jerry &Susan Lauer Print Name: /S-9 fCC($;/3 Address: Signature: nc Parcel Number. L Signature: t •C Zoning Districts §t4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4.Table 4-5:Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Minimum Buildingl Area per Minimum Lot Size (1]Structure Setbacks [4][8]*4 Max. I Accommodation -Max.Lot or Bldg Cover Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max.age District (sq.ft.per unit)(sq ft)(ft.)-(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)ft.)19]FAR (%) Accommodation —ArterialUnit—1,800 [1],=25 5 A 40,000 (2]100(3)All other 15(6]10 [6)30 N/A 50 streets =2-Family =6,750;15MF=5400 Arterial =25 [5); A-I 10890 15000 [2]50 [3]All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets = 15 Accommodation I Units Only =I1,800; SF &2-Family (stand.alone) 9000;2-Family If lot If lot Accommo-(stand-ni.abuts a abuts a Dwelling Units dat;on uses aone)=25;mum =residential residential CD (is!Floor)1 unit =20,000 (stand-property property =30 2.0 n/aper2,250 square alone)=tvlaxi-10;10; feet of gross All other mum =land area uses =n/a 100; 16 All other All other All other cases =0 cases =0 Dwelling Units (2nd Floor)No uses =n/a minimum gross land area per unit (Ord.15-03 #3) Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Fronting Arterial Commercial arterials =25 [5]; CO n/a Recreation/200; All other 15(6)15(6]30 25 65 Entertain-All other streetsment= I iots=50 =15 ;40000 (2) Au other tots =15,000 [2] Supp.5 4-21 Zosthig Districts .9 Nonresidential Zoning Distil ots 5.Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. a.Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted.One (1)or more principal usesshallbepermittedperlotordevelopmentparcel,except that in the A zoning district,only one (1)principal residential use shall be permitted per lot ordevelopmentparcel. b.Permitted Mix of Uses.Where more than one (1)principal use is permitted per lotordevelopmentparcel,mixed-use development is encouraged,subject to thefollowingstandards: (1)More than one (1)principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed orestablishedtogetheronasinglelotorsite,or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Codeandallotherapplicableordinancesaremet. Minimum Lot Size jl) Minimum BuildinglStructure Setbacks [4)161 -Minimum Land Area per Accommo dation or Residential Unit (sq.ft.per unit) Residential Units(2d Floor) 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft.GEA of principal use. n/a Zoning District 0 CM Area (sqft) 15,000 [2] 6,000 [2] Max. Building Height (ft.)[9] 30 Width (ft.) Fronting Arterials = 200; All other lots =50 50 Side (ft.) 15 [6] Front (ft.) Arterial =25 [5]; All other streets =15 15 Rear (ft.) 15(6] Max. FAR .25 .50 Max.Lot Coverage 50 800(6]0[6]30 Fronting Arterial 15 000 Arterials ==25 [5]; -I-I n/a ‘[21 200;All other 10(6]10 [6]30 .30 80 All other streets lots =50 =15 (Ord.2-02 #6;Ord.1 1-02 §1;Ord.15-03 #3) NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1]For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have full kitchen facilities,the minimum land area requirementperguestunitshallhe5,400 square feet.See also5.1 .P below. [21 If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations setforthin§7.12,“Adequate Public Facilities.” [3]For lots greater than 2 acres,rnininium lot width shall be 200 feet, [41 See Chapter 7,§7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord.11-02§1) [5]All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set I forth in §7.5 of this Code. [6]Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. (7[See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase In minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.(Ord.2-02 #6) ‘[8 All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or tots,Thesetbackshallbemeasuredfromtheedgeofpublicorprivateroads,or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasement,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be thQ same as the applicableminimumbuilding/structure setback.This setback is applicable only in the “A-I”district.(Ord.11-02 §1) [9]See Chapter 1,§1 g.E.which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3) Supp.5 4-22 La t t e r Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e . x l s Ow n e r Ow n e r II Ad d r e s s Ci t y ST Zi p Mi c h a e l & Li n d a St r e c k 81 6 55 t h St We s t De s Mo i n e s IA 50 2 6 6 Br a d f o r d & Re b e c c a Sn y d e r 34 3 4 Fi l l m o r e St NE Mi n n e a p o l i s MN 55 4 1 8 Ha r m o n y Fo u n d a t i o n P0 Bo x 19 8 9 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ri c h a r d & Mi c h e l l e e Pu r k e y 15 4 3 Ct y Rd 30 7 5 Ki r b y v i l l e TX 75 9 5 6 Co n n i e Le h m a n Tr u s t 68 st a n f o r d Ln Lo n g m o n t CO 80 5 0 3 Je r o m e & Su s a n La u e r 30 4 9 N El e n a Ma r i a Tu c s o n AZ 85 7 5 0 Ka t h l e e n Ga g l i a n o Ka r e n Ch e r m a n 70 2 3 Vi c t o r i a Av e Ri v e r s i d e CA 92 5 0 6 Ha y s Ho s p i t a l i t y Gr o u p , In c . P0 Bo x 16 3 0 Ke a r n e y NE 68 8 4 8 EP De v e l o p e r s , LL C 20 8 6 Up l a n d s Ci r Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Da v i d Jo n e s 19 0 1 8 Pi n e Fo r e s t Ct Ho u s t o n TX 77 0 8 4 Cr a i g & Ju l i e Sm i t h 22 3 1 Ma s t o d o n Dr Im p e r i a l MO 63 0 5 2 Ri c h a r d & Ja n e t Po r t e r P0 Bo x 24 9 Gl e n w o o d IA 51 5 3 4 Sh e r i An d e r s o n P0 Bo x 22 9 5 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 La u e r Re s i d e ‘a r i a n c e . x l s 3 i 3 N SI M O • W ‘W oH U 3 M m t * f l s a i ! m a L 3 s 3 . O a 3 N O I S H 3 N b C : S i I I — — I 1 ‘ f l u • , _ — i f i 4 — £ N 0 A H 3 ’ J 3 L 3 I 1 I J 3 ] 1 3 U3 1 3 t 1 SV 0 1V 1 S 3 0 3 d DF N 1 3 3 1 3 N I 1 S X 3 v L S 3 a 3 d JN O H d 3 9 3 I 0N 1 1 5 1 X 3 J . ’ t 0 4 S N 5 m SN U . S 1 Y 3 30 H N Y f l UJ M J S DN I I S I X 3 JN I 1 3 M 3 S Ad V I I N Y S ON I 1 S X 3 ]N I ] SW O 03 1 W I S N I 30 1 A U 3 S d M 3 S .9 03 1 I V I S N I 3 M J M 3 S .8 OJ 1 1 V L S N 1 DP d 2 y 1 D Y I 3 G3 T 1 V I S N ! DA d .2 ZI 1 D 3 1 3 Q3 1 1 V 1 S N 3D I A 3 S d3 I W A f r / c O3 T 1 V I S N I 3N ’ d J I V M d: 0 8 Q3 T W I S N i 1N 3 1 % 3 S < 3 9N l i S X 3 DN f l )1 D V 9 1 3 5 ON I C l I n S OM I I S I X 3 3N f l AT h 3 d o d d 1D 3 r 8 n S e ci U ‘ 7 ©‘ 1 I - f l — 3 —i i • 0 f l C . 0 CG V ’ d O l O D 5f è J V d S 9 ± S 9 / f l ±I N f l ‘ f l i f l O D V ] O I Z 9 0 9 1 95 1 s r i - M d L s c s s O 2 a w d s s i s a c a a i r s i V N J — n s I B ’ s s I 3 ’ 3 n n AH 1 1 3 ( N V I d 3 I I S mm t II N f I 1 3 VI Q I Z ca g i .L S 3 f l b 3 d 33 N Y I N V A 41 1 8 S # - r - r a - i DI d t D 3 ] ] 3N O H d 3 1 3 1 Sv o 31 Y M 11 3 A 3 5 Aa V J N Y S :s ? f l a f A Q H d A I I l I l f l 13 3 d CC 33 1 1 2 13 3 4 c 13 3 3 1 5 13 3 4 SI JO ’ S S2 D Y 9 1 3 S ON l O l i f l o rl f l h , N ’ f l L Y 51 3 1 2 1 5 1 0 21 0 3 0 b V N V t S 12 % 1 D S N J , I P 0 O W 11 SN Y J 35 2 9 c— s 31 8 2 1 . i s a n b g t 33 N V 1 I VA SN O I I V O O V Y O D D V 2 0] N O Z 02 0 2 1 .& 2 1 J H D I V H HS r 4 00 9 1 SN I NO I I V O N U O J A N 0 v l v 1 OH ! \ N 3 1 0 H N 1 M ‘O N 01 NI V I N 3D 2 1 0 3 21 J M O S .& V i I N V S J1 V D S D9 _ _ _ o _ _ o I a-I SN O I L V O O r , 0 3 D y i —y SJ N O Z 0 2 0 2 )2 1 J H D A V H HS l J 5 6 5 2 02 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 N3 3 1 H ! 2 9 I 3 1 2 3 5 av i v A. L I N I D I A I n Os IC - I d d y ) oa a , 3 5 3N 4 1 1 0 0 •S H U M > 3 3 0 dO 50 4 1 3 0 3 D 3 1 v i S 3 —3 03 N 0 Z 02 0 2 1 21 3 A ) 2 1) 2 4 81 9 Z NO S H O O N Y I2 ] H S 01 . N I f l U i! 0 f l L1 “ / 4 i t t V 1 0 / L Nu n -Q i i , / N- , C. 0 .L S 3 f l O ] U BO N V I U V A NV 1 d 3J . I S -J 31 2 1 5 3 3 0 3 N 0 2 Ss 3 2 1 0 0 v O i l s O N df l O N S 1I I 1 V J I 4 S O H 51 2 ) 1 D 31 . V I S D —3 03 N 0 3 02 0 2 1 21 3 1 ) 2 1 1) 2 4 O 9 Z S] N O I ’ 01 1 2 0 / ‘O . % Or