Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2010-02-02Prepared: January 22, 2010 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, February 2, 2010 9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated December 1, 2009 3. REQUESTS a. Lot 6, Block 2, Owner: Applicant: Request: Staff Contact: 4. REPORTS Park Entrance Estates, 530 Heinz Parkway Scott and Michelle Spreen Andy Human Variance from EVDC Table 4-2, which requires a 25-foot minimum building setback from the rear property line. Request to allow encroachment into the minimum setback for construction of a proposed detached garage. Dave Shirk Staff Level Reviews a. 1100 North Lane Kinley Residence — Minor Modification b. 1875 Moraine Avenue Rippling River Estates — Minor Modification 5. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 1, 2009, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Chuck Levine, Members John Lynch, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Levine, Members Lynch, McCreery, and Sager Also Attending: Director Bob Joseph, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Member Newsom, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated September 1, 2009 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Lynch) to APPROVE the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, 189 & 191 E. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, Owner: Stonewood Properties, LLC, Applicant: Don Chasen — Request for variance from §7.5.F.2.b(6), which requires a 25' Landscape Butler from the property line. Request to allow an access drive to be located within the Landscape Buffer Zone. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The purpose of this variance request was to allow an access driveway to be located within the required 25-foot Landscape Buffer Zone in order to develop this property with nine residential/accommodations units in an A - Accommodations zoning district. Director Joseph stated this same variance request was before the Board of Adjustment on October 2, 2007, under a different property owner/applicant, and the variance was approved unanimously, with the following condition: District -buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial -street standards. The original development never came to fruition and, therefore, the variance approval expired on October 2, 2008. The applicant's property lies between the river and Spur 66. Staff's view was the property had some constraints due to the narrow width, which, combined with the required setbacks, created a limited developable area. The proposed site plan kept the footprint of the buildings in compliance with all applicable setbacks by pushing them north closer to the highway. Part of the driveway on the east end needs a variance requiring Board approval. In accordance with Section 3.6.C, Standards for Review of the Estes Valley Development Code, staff has determined that special circumstances exist that are not common to other areas of buildings similarly situated. This parcel has a steep drop from the road, and the lot is significantly narrow, considering the river and arterial road setbacks. In determining practical difficulty that may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, Director Joseph stated the property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. Staff has determined this variance is not substantial. Also, because of the slope and the grade difference between the driveway and the highway, you tend to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 1, 2009 look out across the site and would probably not be aware of the encroachment, which mitigates the negative impact of the variance. Therefore, staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood will have minimal impact, and can be minimized further by using the district buffer landscape requirement instead of the arterial) street standard. This should conceal any off -site visual impacts of the encroachment. The applicant purchased the property in 2008, with knowledge of the setback requirements. Staff feels this variance request is minor with very few complliicatiions. The sewer easement is already in place and there is no encroachment into the right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of this variance with one condition. Public and Board Member Comment: Member McCreery was concerned about the density level, and Director Joseph explained this zoning district could actually support more density than what was proposed. This particular development plan was a staff-llevel review, and proposes a much lower density than a previous proposal. The applicant was not in attendance. Director Joseph stated this was the second development plan for this property by this applicant, who decided to change the plans for marketability purposes. Dave Ranglos, adjacent property owner, expressed concern about the density and preferred to see only three homes on the property. Ann Toil, previous owner of the property in question, also preferred a three -house plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lynch) to APPROVE the request for a variance from EVDC §7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow an access drive to be located within the 25-foot Landscape Buffer, with the following condition and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITION: 1. District Buffer (landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial) street standards. 4. REPORTS None. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Levine announced that two officers were to be elected. According to the Inter - Governmental Agreement, the incoming Chair is required to be a county resident, while the Vice -Chair is required to be a town resident. Member McCreery was nominated to serve as Chair, and Member Levine nominated to serve as Vice -Chair. it was moved and seconded (McCreery/Sager) to elect Member Bob McCreery as Chair and Member Chuck Levine as Vice -Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for 2010, and to elect the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant as the Recording Secretary. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m. Chuck Levine, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Spreen Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 simmimmemom Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: February 2, 2010 REQUEST: Variance from the "E- 1" Estate 25-foot yard setback requirement. LOCATION: 530 Heinz Parkway, within the Town of Estes Park APPLICANT: Andy Human PROPERTY OWNER: Scott Spreen STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: 11111111111111111 1111111111111111 Surveyor: England Surveying Parcel Number: 3526311006 Development Area: 1.57 acres +/- Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land use: Same, with a detached garage Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Zoning - East: "E-1" Estate North: "RE" Rural Estate West: "E-1" Estate South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services - Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a detached garage to be built with a comer located 5-feet from the property line. 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 set forth below: 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 exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically, the shape, slope, existing site disturbance, and location of the existing structure combine to create special circumstances. 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: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. Specifically: • The existing single-family dwelling may continue it's use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance could be considered substantial, with a proposed setback of 5-feet. There is an unused 60-foot wide right-of-way adjacent to the lot. 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, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. Page #2 Spreen Setback Request d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. Specifically: Public service providers received the variance application for opportunity to review and comment. No concerns were expressed about adverse impacts to the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: This factor addresses whether or not requirements changed during current ownership of the property. For example, did the property owner purchase the property prior to adoption of the required setbacks? This factor is not intended to address whether or not the property owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine which setbacks are applicable to his/her property. f Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though it would result in additional site disturbance and grading. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The Board should use their best judgment if the request represents the least deviation. 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 has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of Page #3 Spreen Setback Request this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Properly Owners. Staff has received one email from a neighbor, who requested clarification about the location. Once clarified, the neighbor had no objection. Staff has not received any other correspondence regarding this request. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. 3. The requested 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 applicant was unaware of the Code requirement when the property was purchased. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though it would result in additional grading and site disturbance. 8. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Approval of the variance would not 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. Page #4 Spreen Setback Request 12. Approval of the variance would not 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; 13. 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. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a rear yard setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. SUGGESTED MOTION: 1 move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5Spreen Setback Request 9N1TV P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970) 586-1049 Fax January 06, 2010 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request Spreen Residence 530 Heinz Parkway Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent cc: Andy Human 822 Alpine Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Reuben Bergsten Date: 1-14-2010 1 -8-2--- Re: Variance Request, 530 Heinz Parkway The Light and Power Department has reviewed the above referenced variance request to be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, and has the following comments: 1) Town of Estes Park, Light and Power has no concems as to the variance request. 2) For clarification, overhead power service is provided at the south western comer of the asphalt drive/parking area. Overhead communication / cable TV is located across Heinz Parkway at the southeast comer of the property. See image below 1 Eliectric Service to be undergraunded Overhead Communication / CATV ra�rm�•,w,.!q60m77.�r,rr^wo,1,:v�,,.�r, • Page 2 a�L Page 1 of 3 Dave Shirk From: Alison Chilcott Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:02 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: FW: 530 Heinz pkwy From: Greg Sievers Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:55 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: RE: 530 Heinz pkwy Thanks for the clarification. It does appear our Town map is incorrect. PW has no comment on this Board of Adjustments request. it appears unclear who the adjacent backyard property owner is. Greg Sievers, Project Manager Town of Estes Park, Public Works Engineering P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586 From: Alison Chilcott Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:06 AM To: Greg Sievers Subject: RE: 530 Heinz pkwy Greg, Here's what I found on the Larimer County website. Alison Parcel Number: 35263-11-006 Tax District: 3304 Schedule Number: R0576964 Current Mill Levy: 70.082 General Information Owner Name & Address Property Address SPREEN, LOUIS SCOTT 530 HEINZ PKWY KENNEDY-SPREEN, MICHELE ESTES PARK 80517-0000 4642 229TH PL SE SAMMAMISH, WA 98075 Subdivision #: 0202 - PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES Neighborhood #: 33525 1/11/2010 IP Statement of intent Submitted to: Estes Valley Board of adjustment For: Scott and Michele Spreen 530 Heinz Parkway, Estes Park, Co. The attached application for a set back variance to construct a two car garage at the above residence is based on the following> • It is the only feasible site for a garage on the lot. • It would be built on the existing driveway footprint. • It would allow reasonable turn around space at the existing house level. • The slope off of the edge of the south side of the existing driveway is very steep and would require extensive and high retaining walls and backfill to locate a garage there. • The impact of building on the proposed location will have little or no impact on adjoining properties. • Building on the proposed location will have little or no visible ground damage to the lot and is expected to make no unsightly impact on the existing lot and slopes. • Alternative garage locations are non existent without major and cost prohibitive earthworks. Your consideration of this variance request is appreciated. Andrew E. Human for: Scott and Michele Spreen ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): y 11164,4 tzc P'1-tr Street Address of Lot: C3 o Hi~'An_ Legal Description Lot: Block: Subdivision: rival Eivr itkr'c.T 14 Parcel ID # Site Information Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service VTown Proposed Water Service f""" Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance Specific variance desired (state development „ Primary Contact Information r Well - Other (Specify) r Well r Other (Specify) N%l9 1' "' EPSD f'" UTSD 1 Septic EPSD r UTSD f Septic Other V.,, None code section #): ' ��Lit Name of Primary Contact Person nro y :4-41A-L,9A1 Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is i" Owner Attachments r 'Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** 17 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.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. V,Z I�&P,A' az Jrri PA2 C 20fl7 Applicant r Consultant/Engineer APPIMPIMMIM Town of Estes Park 4. P.O. Box 1200. 170 MacGregor Avenue 4. Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4. Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estesnei.com/ComDev Revised 11 /6/2009 Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Sce Applicant r Mailing Address Phone /'1 S'�6 Cell Phone 41 7 Fax 6 Email ,e.A„rL4E S?LEE Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 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 www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. 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). ► I 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 www.estesnet.com/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. ► 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 Empioyees 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 staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. O. 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: . H S PR.i:l<nI /Inciffs-ztr /Cc NAd[ 11 y .<4/2 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: A E kr�►A M Signatures: Record Own Applicant Date a.- Zoning Districts Table 4-2 § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Base Density and Dimensional Standards'Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Mild Max. N Denetty (units/acre) plynimh Lot ., Standards [D) [67 (Ord.- 2�7:g 1) Minimum j,bltdinglStrn pjy " [9] (Ord 25 7 11)- B M lining -, 4i ►}. 14nae '(s f) A Width {�M). Fral ►( ) $IJ .� �� ) F1 (' ) hef h �4 4Li ��., r • ` RE-1 1110 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 25- E 2 Y2 Ac. [3] 75 arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 25- R 4 '/a Ac. 60 arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25- R-2 4 = 18,000; 60 arterials; 10 Duplex = 27,000 15-other streets 10 30 20 RM Residential Uses: M ax 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] 60; Lots 25- (Ord. 1 B-01 Min = 3nd Senior [8] (Ord. 25-07 § 1) Greater than arterials; 15-other 10 [6] 10 30 20 [7] #14) Institutional Living Uses: Senior Institutional 100,000 sq. ft.: streets Max 24 Living Uses: 200 Y2 Ac. Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, 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.D.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) [3] 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 townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square fool lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line developmenf") are allowed for townhome developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall mt apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 rf14) [9] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off -site dwellings or lots. 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 slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Supp. 8 4-7 a 0 r r 0 EECiEI V DEC 2 9 2000 e� 6'• a • klfwg3 0-4vr3"17 s^""j p a p IECLEO DEC 2 9 ?IV; a r F 471 v 8 Spreen Residence Variance APO 0 00 O1 0 U 01 in 00 O V�1 inN 1�A O N N N0000 �n00> 000oomoo0o N NJU -U anU 0000 DU IX _ - y y L C O Y Y ` ` ate., Q N d C 1 .= OCI- a a a �Tj Y 00 3 Ycu tura t 3 .. Y Y Y W i U VI W(r) m VI /n �n N = W W W W 3°C 3a 4., 4-;u � 3 _ CO j 0oa c = 'L c c y i S V) 2 0 -0 .-I 01 Tr 00 'O 0 0 1.0 <inrnmLnin 0) 3 0 4) 3 0 Howard isner and Survivors Trust PO Box 336 cc m 3 a•Do v) 0 CO cur. O tom° V1 V) O 0 s-+ m N 6. Victoria Lee Bessie Chittwood 1150 Willow Lane V1 0 0 N 5 41 f0 r U 0) Y f0 J CC 0 ftt o m V. O 0`60 ` 41) 0) 0 c �° c ar N Tr M Irene Marek, Jeannette Morin y O R E >uZ v � c z E •o O LL 07 In '8 - E C C 1. co cc vi Z Spreen Residence Variance APO cl; 0 1:•:, c`r3 --3 25' SITE PL,4N (055 4,4 ‘'t ‘'kri`r co.