HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2009-09-01Prepared: August 25, 2009
Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT
a. Approval of minutes dated August 4, 2009
3. REQUESTS
a. Metes and Bounds property located at 189 & 191 E. Riverside Drive
OwnerApplicant: Minglewood, LLC, Paul Whyard
Request: Variance from Section 1.9.D.2.a. of the EVDC, which
requires unobstructed setbacks from the ground to the sky in
stream and river corridors. Request is to allow the roof eave
to encroach into the 10-foot setback
Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott
b. Lot 4, Block 2, Fall River Estates, 2180 Blue Spruce Court
OwnerApplicant: Kenneth and Patricia Czarnowski
Request: Variance to EVDC Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2, which
requires a 25-foot minimum side -yard setback in the E-1
Estate Zoning district to allow a storage room and deck
addition 10 feet from the side property line
Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott
4. REPORTS
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
August 4, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Chuck Levine, Members John Lynch, Bob McCreary, Wayne
Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant
Attending: Chair Levine, Members Lynch, McCreery, and Newsom
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Alison Chilcott, Planner Dave Shirk, and
Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Al Sager
Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated July 7, 2009
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) to approve the minutes as
presented, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1209 MANFORD AVENUE - Request for a
variance from §1.9.E to allow construction of a new grandstand above the 30-foot
height limit.
Chair Levine stated that this is a joint project between the Town and Estes Park Urban
Renewal Authority (EPURA), since Member Newsom is on the EPURA Board and Chair
Levine is on the Town Board they been advised by the Town Attorney to recuse
themselves from discussing and voting on this item. Chair Levine noted there is a quorum
present and the Board can consider this item.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The Town of Estes Park and EPURA are
working together to replace the grandstands at Stanley Park Fairgrounds. The applicant,
Thorp Associates, has also submitted a special review and location/extent review
application, which will be reviewed by Planning Commission and Town Board for the
replacement of the grandstands.
Planner Chilcott stated the application being reviewed today is for a variance from Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 1.9.E Height which establishes a maximum
height limit of thirty (30) feet from existing grade. The request is to allow the ventilating
cupolas on the grandstands to exceed the maximum allowable height limit by four feet
and four inches. The main roof of the grandstand is proposed to be 30 feet and seven
inches in height, which is within the allowable height based on the slope of the land. This
property is zoned CO -Commercial Outlying and the proposed use is permitted by special
review in this zoning district.
Planner Chilcott stated that staff reviewed the variance request for compliance with Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.C, which includes evaluating whether or not special
circumstances and practical difficulty exist in complying with the code standards from
which a variance is requested. Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical
difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards.
Planner Chilcott stated the special circumstances are related to the unique use of the
building as a grandstand and the goal noted in the statement of intent to "maintain good
visibility of the area...for the spectators," while increasing the grandstand seating
capacity. Seating capacity will be increased from approximately 2,200 seats to 2,700
seats.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2009
In determining practical) difficulty, Planner Chilcott noted the variance is not substantial,
and the main roof of the grandstand complies with the height limits. Staff finds the
essential character of the neighborhood could potentially be improved as Stanley Park
redevelops, and the new grandstand will be an improvement in design over the old
grandstand. The new grandstand will be subject to design criteria adopted by the Town.
The cupolas may have some impact of views from properties south of Stanley Park. In
general, the properties immediately south of the proposed grandstands are mostly
commercial.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request with one condition for a height
certificate prior to pouring the foundation.
Public Comment:
Roger Thorp, Applicant stated the current grandstands are approximately 24.5 feet high at
the peak. The main opening of the proposed grandstand is about two feet higher than the
existing structure. This proposal is subject to architectural design criteria, which
establishes minimum roof pitches. In order to maintain a 3/12 pitch and keep the opening
high enough that people in the top row can see the arena, the height of the opening had
to be raised. This will allow a good view of the arena from all seats, and partial views of
the lake. Mr. Thorp stated the cupolas serve a functional need for ventilation as well as
visually breaking up the long roof line.
It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Lynch) to APPROVE the request for a
variance from EVDC §1.9.E Height to allow construction of a new grandstand above
the 30-foot height limit with the following condition:
CONDITION:
1. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After
the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify
compliance with the variance and provide a height certificate.
The motion passed, with Newsom and Levine abstaining.
4. REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:16 a.m.
Chuck Levine, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
189/191 E. Riverside Drive
Setback Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009
LOCATION: The site is located at 189/191 East Riverside Drive, within
the Town of Estes Park. The parcel has a metes and bounds legal
description.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Whyard/Minglewood, LLC
STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott
APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC)
REQUEST:
The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a portion of a roof
eave in a ten -foot river setback established in EVDC §7.6.E.1.a.(3) Stream
and River Corridors in the "CD" Downtown Commercial. The portion of
the eave for which a variance is requested is shown below. The red dashed
line represents the ten -foot river setback.
ROOOMELL STREET
Eave in 10 Ft.
River Setback
PrONXIND SW(
MRNICK DOT/MOPE
ate NOtl1.WWIGBade
,
IaRITRIN MUMMIES
ODOMMUSE%
Mf0 RtCT0C4
COIdRT OELGY
RTNOYE MT/NG AR
1114q TI EFROY,..'
RE'.. BO RCM PLO
ovnlic
fIRTRYf
Specifically, the owner requests a variance to EVDC Section 1.9.D.2.a
Stream and River Corridors, which states,
Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance
between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth
in §7.6.D.2, and the furthermost projection of a building or
structure along a line at right angles to the setback line.
Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the skv
except as otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this
Code. See Figure 1-2.
II. SITE DATA
Number of Lots/Parcels
One
Parcel Number(s)
35251 21 071
Development Area
0.11 acres per site plan 4,792 square feet
Zoning
CD- Downtown Commercial
Existing Land Use
Residential
Eating/Drinking Establishment
Mountain Munchies
Retail (East Riverside Gallery of Glass)
Proposed Land Use
Residential
Eating/Drinking Establishment
Mountain Munchies
`Tiki' Bar
Retail (East Riverside Gallery of Glass)
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Adjacent Zoning
Adjacent Land Use
North
CD -Downtown Commercial
Municipal Parking Lot
South
CD -Downtown Commercial
Single -Family Residential
East
CD -Downtown Commercial
Accommodations/High-Intensity
(The Lofts)
Multi -Family Residential
West
CD -Downtown Commercial
Municipal Parking Lot
SERVICES
Water
Town of Estes Park
Sewer
Estes Park Sanitation District
Fire Protection
Town of Estes Park
Electric
Town of Estes Park
Telephone
Qwest
Page #2 - 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
0111111111mll@ illol
Ily
111,11111111,
III. REVIEW CRITERIA
All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards
and criteria set forth in EVDC Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable
provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code.
This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level
review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
Page #3 ,m 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS
This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff and adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was also
printed in the Estes Park Trail -Gazette.
Reviewing Agency Comment
The following reviewing agencies submitted written comments.
Town Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison
Chilcott dated August 26, 2009.
Town Police Department See Andrew Hart's email to Dave Shirk dated
August 18, 2009.
Town Public Works and Utilities Departments See Tracy Feagans'
memo to Alison Chilcott dated August 21, 2009.
Town Fire Department See Derek Rosenquist's email to Alison Chilcott
dated August 19, 2009.
Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated August
13, 2009.
Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula's letter to Alison
Chilcott dated August 12, 2009.
Public Comment
The following correspondence was received.
160 and 164 East Riverside Drive See Lee Lasson's email to Alison
Chilcott dated August 26, 2009.
V. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds:
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.
Page #4 - 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may
result from strict compliance with Code standards.
The following special circumstances exist.
a. The lot is much narrower than most CD -Downtown Commercial
zoned lots. Ranging in depth from a minimum of fifty-three feet to a
maximum of seventy-five feet, this narrow depth combined with the
river and front -yard setbacks reduces possible building depth.
b. The proposed addition follows the existing building line and will not
encroach any further into the river setback than the existing building.
The existing first floor eave that encroaches into the river setback
will be removed and a new eave constructed.
c. One of the purposes of the river setback in the CD zoning district is
to provide room for public pedestrian access to Fall River and the
Big Thompson River. Public pedestrian access along this section of
the Big Thompson River is unlikely due to the proximity of existing
buildings to the river. Public pedestrian access to the Big Thompson
River is provided on the opposite river bank, next to the Town
public parking lot.
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: Staff finds that there can be a beneficial use of the
property without the requested variance. The existing uses can
continue.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the variance request is not substantial.
The encroachment will not further reduce pedestrian access to the
river or have any further impact on wildlife habitat. The addition to
the building will encroach no further into the existing setback than
the current building.
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.
Page #5 - 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the essential character of the
neighborhood will not be substantially altered and that adjoining
properties will not suffer a substantial detriment. The proposed
addition is in keeping with the style of the existing building.
Staff has received one comment in opposition to the request.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: This application was routed to providers of public
services, such as water and sewer. 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 standard addresses whether or not the Code
requirements changed during current property owners' ownership of
the property. For example, did the property owner purchase the
property prior to adoption of the required setbacks?
This standard 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.
The property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the
river setback. Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor records, the
owner purchased the property on August 12, 2004, which is after the
February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development
Code.
The applicant has made significant improvements to this property
and has received a number of variances in the past to complete these
improvements.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through
some method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The roof eave could be eliminated provided this
complied with the Building Code. The property owner is concerned
about maintenance problems if the eave is eliminated.
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
Page #6 - 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or
situations.
Staff Finding: The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
applicant's 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.
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 would 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 variance, if granted, represents the least deviation
from the regulations that will afford relief.
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: The proposed use is permitted.
7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as
will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives
of the standards varied or modified.
Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has
recommended conditions of approval.
8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff
for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by
reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are
incorporated as staff findings.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the forgoing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested
variance with the following conditions:
I. Compliance with the application.
Page #7 — 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
2. Compliance with the comments in the Town Public Works and Utilities
Department memo dated August 21, 2009.
3. Any code violations shall be addressed to the Code Compliance
Officer's satisfaction prior to issuance of a Ietter of
completion/certificate of occupancy for the addition.
4. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and
provide a stamped and signed setback certificate.
Page #8— 189/191 East Riverside Drive Setback Variance Request
Town of Estes Park
Department of Building Safety
MEMORANDUM
To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Date: August 26, 2009
Subject: Minglewood, LLC Variance Request
189 & 191 E Riverside
The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for the Variance Request for the
above -referenced property and has no comment at this time.
Alison Chilcott
From: Dave Shirk
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Alison Chilcott ��j
Subject: FW: Czarnowski, Widawski & MingleW od, Attys at Law
FYI -
From: Andrew Hart
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:35 AM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: Czarnowski, Widawski & Minglewood, Attys at Law
Dave —
I have made variance review/BOA hearing site visits to:
1) 2180 Blue Spruce Dr (Czarnowski)
No violations observed
2) 205 Park Lane (Widawski)
Only violation observed involves a small scattering of mullen (noxious weeds).
v3) 189 & 191 E. Riverside Drive (Minglewood, LLC)
I spoke with Paul re: outside storage of construction materials beside the buildings. He has some
screened storage on the south side of the building that needs to remain screened. I'll confirm if he is in
the CD or not, my map is too small to determine this....That will affect his outdoor storability.... He said
that he will clean up the exterior of the buildings.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Andrew
Andrew M. Hart
Estes Park Police Department
(970) 586-4000
ahart@estes.org
1
Alison Chilcott
From: Tracy Feagans
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:19 PM
To: Alison Chilcott; Bob Goehring; Scott Zurn
Cc: Reuben Bergsten; Jeff Boles; Cliff Tedder; Greg Sievers
Subject: Combined comments from Minglewood Variance Request at 189 & 191 E. Riverside Dr.
Attachments: combined-Minglewood LLC Variance Request at 189 191 E. Riverside Dr.doc
Alison,
Please see attached comments from Public Works, L&P and Water departments on the Minglewood Variance Request at
189 & 191 E. Riverside Drive.
Tracy Feagans
970-577-3588
Town of Estes Park
Public Works d, Utilities Department
PO Box 1200
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
tfeacans@estes.orq
www.estesnet.com
1
4
ESTES ER c.PARK
COLORADO
Memo
Room 100, Town Hall
P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
To: Planner Alison Chilcott, Bob Goehring, Jeff Boles, Todd Steichen, Reuben
Bergsten, Scott Zurn and Greg Sievers
From: Tracy Feagans
Date: August 21, 2009
Re: Minglewood, LLC Variance Request 189 & 191 E. Riverside Dr.
Background:
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the
submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and
construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted. It is important to
note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise
comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans.
Water: No Comments.
Engineering:
1) The proposed construction includes a staircase to be located within the setback, and within
the existing driveway cut. The existing driveway cut was constructed with public money by the
Public Works Department during the 2004 roadway reconstruction project. At that time there was
parking on -site for the Barber Shop. Due to this new proposal the existing slopes and curb cut
are not at appropriate grades and will constitute a pedestrian hazard. Therefore, the curb cut shall
be removed and replaced with this project, to safe grades.
2) There is also a drainage easement and culvert under the north side of this building that is
not shown. See attached photo.
• Page 1
Light & Power: The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for the above
referenced property to be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1,
2009, and has the following comments:
1) An increase in required electrical Toad, i.e. appliances and light fixtures, etc. from currently
installed service will require resizing of transformers and wiring. This detail has been
discussed and agreed upon between the Town of Estes Park and the property owner (Paul
Whyard). ( see attached memorandum dated 6-17-09 )
2) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners
request and expense.
3) Each and every meter socket will need to be permanently marked with the specific address
and or unit number prior to hook-up by the utility.
Town of Estes Park
To: Paul Whyard MEMO
From: Todd Steichen
Date: 6-17-09
Re: Electric power constraints 189 & 191 East Riverside Dr.
BACKGROUND: As stated on the variance request dated 6-13-07 the availability of usable
power is marginal in the area. The electric loads cannot exceed the present day services without
creating major low voltage problems. It would be expensive for the owner of the project to
correct the situation.
RECOMMENDATION: As long as the owner is not increasing the size of their current
electrical service everything should be ok. The existing transformer & wire sizes are sufficient to
supply power to the existing services.
If the owner does increase the size of their current services then the owner will be responsible for
the upgrading of facilities.
Light & Power Department
Property Owner
gu..9
• Page 2
� !
1111111:111ul ; \.
,,-444.."1141‘4114,1,11111111
ƒ
Alison Chilcott
From: Derek Rosenquist
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:39 AM
To: Alison Chilcott; minglewood@q.com
Subject: variance request 3063 riverside
No comment from the Fire Department
Derek Rosenquist
Training Captain
Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department
970-577-3690
t
North Park Place
1423 West 29th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80538
GREGORY A. WHITE
Attorney at Law
August 13, 2009
ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER II
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1200
ESTES PARK, CO 80517
Re: Variance Request — Minglewood, LLC
Dear Ms. Chilcott:
I have no comment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
ery ruly Yours,
Grego] A. White
GAW/Idr
CC: Paul Whyard
P O Box 1872
Estes Park, CO 80517
970/667-5310
Fax 970/667-2527
P.O. Box 568
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
(970)-586-4544
(970) 586-1049 Fax
August 12, 2009
Alison Chilcptt, Planner II
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Variance Request
Minglewood, LLC
Metes & Bounds, 3063-Riverside
189 & 191 E. Riverside Drive
Dear Alison,
AUG 1 8 2009 i
-- i
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,
724--
Lines Superintendent
cc: Paul Whyard
PO Box 1872
Estes Park, CO 80517
Alison Chilcott
From: Lee Lesson flee®on-line.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:01 PM
To: Alison Chilcott
Subject: 189 & 191 E. Riverside Dr,
Hi Allison,
I have property across the street from the Minglewood LLC on East Riverside.
I see on the Website, Staff Report and Comments are to be posted today. Has the comment period ended? If
not, I'm against the variance and that is my comment.
Thank you,
Lee Lasson
164 and 160 East Riverside Dr.
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-4760
This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other
third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the
sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats.
y
EVDC Chapter 1. section 9, D.
2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors and Wetlan
a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the
distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in §7.6.D.2,
and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles
to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the skv
except as otherwise specifically allowed in 47.6.D of this Code. See Fioure 1-2.
While the typical setback requirements allow for the eaves to project into the setback,
the river corridor does not provide an exception for eaves. It is the architect's
recommendation that the roof needs eaves for structural continuity and water
disbursement. The current design utilizes the existing building imprint and carries it to
the second level. The roof structure will mirror the existing building imprint and eaves.
The current building was constructed in 1978, and has eaves in the river setback. The
new building will be the same intrusion as currently exists, except it will be 10' higher.
12 BOVE!)
The granting of a variance to the unobstructed setback of 10' for this project would
acknowledge:
1 That the current building already has eaves in the setback,
2 The new second floor must be built on the existing building footprint,
3 The architects' recommendation regarding the necessity of the eaves,
4 The eaves extend into the setback for a 10' length, starting at the SW comer,
5 The eaves will be 20' above the ground
6 This variance will not create a precedent as we are seeking remediation of an
existing intrusion into the setback vertical plane
We have changed the look of this comer significantly since purchasing the property in
September, 2004. This project will continue that level of improvement, and allow us to
open our third business in Estes Park. We anticipate that our new venture will
significantly increase our sales revenue and sales tax collected in all three businesses.
As always, we will remain committed to building a future landmark of Estes Park, on a
comer that just five years ago was a single family dwelling. Thank you for your time and
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Whyard
577-9883
July 16, 2009
h
00
Ili
II
G
GV
II
Submittal Date:
.Deneral Information
R .t.. • er(s): n'1
Street Address of Lot: /j
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
A
latoeuv.2
IJ
JUL 1 T 2009
% I
Legal Description Lot: Block:
Subdivision: O 3 IU !� C
Parcel ID # 3 5 1i l-C71 Section ,=v'vr Township S
f Site Information
lv
11
11 11
GI
IU
i,i!',LV
Lot Size
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service
Proposed Water Service
vs
Tract:
Zoning QS
Ran
r?1 c
I blown
r"" 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?
Valiance
`'ri V5 E-
r
Well r Other (Specify)
""" Well I""" Other (Specify)
Re EPSD
r EPSD
r Other
'not- Aicact
r UTSD r Septic
UTSD r Septic
r None
r Yes Pn No
Specific variance desired (state development code section #.: . Co
Primary Contact InformatFon
C_-e>ilia-1 ipo
Name Mailin ProAddress Contact Zs'?� L � me,f1Z f Primary IeK
r Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
j' 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') `*
r 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
Ire -Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout)
*" 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.
Town of Estes Park -a4 P.O. Box 1200 .e. 170 MacGregor Avenue ...Estes Park, CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: I970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 -B. www.estesnet.com/ComDev
Co tact �11 011� Bilon
Primary Contact Person is Owner IX, Applicant Consultant/Engineer
Record Owner(s) + Y \. k In
Mailing Address
Phone
CeII Phone
Fax
Email
Applicant
Mailing Address ,.,..�. 1 4(7Z w' CO
Phone
CeII Phone
Fax
Email Q woo
t7 �"° _coC
r� LLc
— qcite
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.comlComDevlSchedules&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/ComDevIDevCode.)
► 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 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 comers of
my property and the proposed building/structure comers 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: 1V `^ C Y7Y��
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Cc
Date
Date
Revised 10/13106
General Provisions § 1.9 Rules of Measurement
angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the
sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in this Section. See Figure 1-2.
b. Features Allowed Within Building Setbacks:
(1) Cornices, canopies, eaves or other similar architectural features, provided
they extend no more than three (3) feet into a required setback or yard;
(2) Driveways and sidewalks, provided that the edge of a driveway shall be set
back at least three (3) feet from an adjacent property Tine unless owners of
abutting properties agree in writing that the edge may be closer to or abut
their common property line;
(3) Fences or walls subject to height and other restrictions set forth in this Code;
(4) Patios and decks, uncovered and at -grade, provided they do not extend more
than thirty percent (30%) of the required setback distance to any required
setback. See Figure 1-2;
(5) Steps to the principal entrance and necessary landings, together with railings,
that comply with the Uniform Building Code, provided they do not extend
more than six (6) feet into the required setback;
(6) Landscaping;
(7) Trees, vegetation or other features of natural growth; and
(8) Utility lines, wires and associated structures within a utility easement.
(9) Signs that comply with applicable sign regulations. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
(10) Postal boxes. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
(11) Parking lots that comply with landscaping standards set forth in §7.5.G,
"Parking Lot Landscaping." (Ord. 8.05 #1)
c. Front Setbacks on Comer Lots and Double -Frontage Lots: For corner lots and
double -frontage Tots, all sides of the lot with street frontage shall be required to
establish the applicable front yard setback. See Figure 1-2. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
d. Intersection and driveway sight visibility: Intersection and driveway sight visibility
shall comply with the requirements of Appendix D, Section IV.0 (Intersection and
Driveway Visibility). (Ord. 18-01 #1)
2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands.
a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the
distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in §7.6.D.2,
and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles
to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky
except as otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2.
b. Wetlands. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the
delineated wetland edge, as set forth in §7.6.D.3, and the furthermost projection of
a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks
shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically
allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2.
,Si pp. 6 1
Minglewood, LLC Variance
0
~ \ \ Q Q \ 0 n
G m m o in m# ®o ®oG
0 0 0 03 0 o m® 00 0 rI 0
0 m 2 0 u$ m
§ S 00 E- E E® z 5 m 0
5 4L) — - - 0 . < ,
CO r% k% 1 2 c W(
i I a ± V) Q_
$$( f/\§$ E 6 Q k d
0 0 u 9 uj w 0 3 0 m 3
to
e
J
§
0
§
0
PO Box 1200
Town of Estes Park
1067 S Race St
Roberta Shaklee
PO Box 1878
k
m
0
o_
PO Box 4457
§
k c
te
x D.0 w
_ 2 co #
% 0
d CL ( §
W V) —I 0
PO Box 1736
-
\ E 2
< > C k
-216 .o
q R 0 § v
co # m in -
CC
§ S $ 0 G Cr
rq ena � m
NBL Land Trust
Lisa Von Bargen
Kenneth Schwarz
Minglewood, LLC Variance
ROCKWELL STREET
SIDEWALK
ACROSS EXISTING
BRIDGE SIDEWALK
EAVES ALLOWED IN SETBACK PER
EVDC; PROTECTION NOT REQD
DUE TO LOCATION ON PROPERTY
REUSE EXISTING GUTTER
NEW METAL ROOF ---
REMOVE UNUSED,
CAPPED ELECTRICAL -
CONDUIT BELOW
REMOVE EXISTING AIR
INTAKE THROUGH ROOF; -
RE: 2ND FLOOR PLAN
1/A4.1
.11 ACRES
REUSE EXISTING GUTTER
& DOWNSPOUT, REPLACING
TOP OF DOWNSPOUT; _
PROVIDE APPROVED
FILTERING SYSTEM
FOR RUNOFF
REMODEVADDMON
EXISTING TO REMAIN
UNCHANGED
--s---- 1-f 1..N63"4740"W
GRASS
PROPOSED ONE STORY
BAR ABOVE EXISTING ONE
STORY BLOCK BUILDING BELOW:
MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES
-ss-
3" NOMINAL
WDSDDECISING
GUARDRAIL AT OUTDOOR
SEATING NOT SHOWN
2/A4.1 4_
D(ISTING 2 STORY
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
ABOVE EXISTING GALLERY
DECK
BELOW
Site/Roof Plan
11 MONIZINIMEREEZIONEIMMEA
1 /8" = 1 '-0"
MIN. SETBAC
V 1/A4.1
PROVIDE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
-GUARD, 42" TALL, <21" SPACING
PER IMC 304.10; RE: ELEVATIONS
STEPS TO PRINCIPAL
ENTRANCE AND NECESSARY
LANDINGS TOGETHER
WITH RAILINGS PERMITTED
6INTO REQUIRED SETBACK
PER EVDC 1.9.D.1.6.5
EXISTING GREASE TRAP
4" LINE (EXISTING)
3/4" LINE (EXISTING)
_ HOOD EXHAUST FAN
RELOCATED TO NEW ROOF
CRICKET
..„_ MOVE SATELLITE
DISH TO NEW ROOF
FURNACE AND WATER
HEATER FLUES
REUSE EXISTING
GUTTER &
- DOWNSPOUT,
REPLACING TOP
OF DOWNSPOUT
CURB BELOW
EXISTING LANDING;
GUARDRAIL NOT SHOWN
EXISTING ROOF AT
ENTRY BELOW
-- EXISTING UTILITIES
_ EXISTING
SIDEWALK
EAST
RIVERSIDE
DRIVE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
DUMBWAITER LOCATION;
VFY DIMS WITH UNIT SELECTED
CLG REGISTER,
TYP OF 4
REROUTE EXISTING FURNACE
COMBUSTION AIR INTAKE -
THROUGH EXTERIOR WALL
2/A4.01
ENSURE 2 HR INFILL
AT OPENING BETWEEN
OCCUPANCIES;
RE: 6/A4.0 ALTERNATE
1/A4.1•
2 HR FIRE BARRIER
(OCCUPANCY SEPARATION)
1 HR SHAFT: 5/8" TYPE'X' GYP BOARD CONTINUOUS ON
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF SHAFT WALLS FROM LOWER
FLOOR TO 1 HOUR RATED CEILING OF SHAFT; RE: 4/A4.0
0
0
18" x 18", 1 1/2 HOUR SELF CLOSING DOOR; BASE SPEC:
MIDLAND CHUTES DOOR & SLEEVE W/ ADA HANDLE
EXISTING M
1st Floor Plan
1 /8" = 1 '-0"
EXISTING
AWNING ABOVE
GAS REGULATOR
---- - LOCATION TO REMAIN
REMOVE EXISTING ROOF
SUPPORT & BEAM ABOVE
♦ 2/A4.0
EXTENT OF NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEM;
STORAGE TANKS IN CRAWL SPACE BELOW
• 1/A4.1
ENSURE 2 HR WALL IN FIELD
(BLOCK DENSITY MUST MEET IBC REQUIREMENTS)
ENSURE 2 HR INFILL
- AT OPENING BETWEEN
OCCUPANCIES
JA4.1
1
WALL TYPES (PLAN)
1
1 HR EXTERIOR WALL
2
1 HR INTERIOR WALL
3
NON -RATED INTERIOR WALI
4
2 HR WALL/INFILL
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
A 41K WORKSTATION (KROWNE METAL KR21-W48L-E3
B 3 COMPARTMENT SINK (KROWNE MFTAI 18-010
C FII LER(KR0WNE 1800 OR MOO SpRIFK4
D 30" MINTER W/ 1 DOOR REF BELOW
E 69" STORAGECOOLFR (ZESCO 735dr098)
F ICE MAKER (ICE 0-MATIC ICEU 300)
8' WALLS;
PROVIDE CONTINUOUS RATED
SHAFT WALL BEFORE
INSTALLING LOW WALL
RILL HEIGHT WALLS,
THIS QIASE ONLY;
RE: SECTIONS
HAND SINK; PROVIDE
SOAP & INDIVIDUAL
PAPER TOWELS
RELOCATE & WIND
TING WATER HEATER
FLUE; RE: SECTIONS
48' TALL COUNTER
2/A4.0A
HAND SINK; PROVIDE ,........
SOAP & INDMDUAL
PAPER TOWELS
747
TEMPERED WINDOW
REMOVE EXISTING FURNACE AIR
INTAKE THROUGH ROOF;
RE. 1ST FLOOR P158
REROUTE EXISTING FURNACE & HOT
WATER HEATER COMBINED FLUE ,,
THROUGH FLOOR TO EXTERIOR WALL,
RE: RESIDENTIAL SECTION
1/A4.1 Ye
EXISTING WALLS
BELOW TO BE BEARING ^^^^
WALLS FOR DECK ROOK
DECK RAILING +.
NEW
EXISTING fly
r 2 9 /
1.5%(INSULATION)
4/- 1% (PAVERS)
/
/ m/6
PROVIDE WALL MOUNT
FIRE NGUISHER
RE: CODE STUDY:FOR AISLE WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS, VERDI( WITH
FURNITURE SE}ECtED
01170009
SEATING
6 SEAT'S \`
SHOWN / PROPOSED DECK ': "VE
1 5% (INSULATION I EXISTING ONE STORY
♦/- 1% (PAVERS - BLOCK RESIDENCE BELOW
WALLS ALIGN WITH
/ WALLS BELOW
/. FLOOR DRAM; PROVIDE
CLEANCUT & P-TRAP AS REQ'D;
TYP OF4
VERIFY DIMS FOR CHASE IN FIELD
EXHAUST DUCT,
RE: LONGITUDINAL SECTION:
PROVIDE 1 HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE
WRAP AROUND GREASE
DUCT PER IMC 506.3.10 FROM
CEILING BELOW TO ROOF ABOVE
NEW EXISTING
2nd Floor Tiki Bar' Plan
2711uuuii1i1MErmiENMEMINSIIIMEiMME NEMERMA
1 /4" = 1 '-0"
BAR: 510 SF
DECK: 12005F
TOTAL: 17105F
A 2/A4.0
11" TREAD, TYP
1'-0" HANDRAIL EXTENSION
PAST TOP & BOTTOM RISER, TYP
RUN 0.00R SHEATHING ABOVE AND RATED DRYWALL.
.••••.. CEILING BELOW ACROSS CHASE; CUT HOLES
FOR DUCTWORK & PROTECT WITH FIRESTOPS
RELOCATE & EXTEND EXISTING
--. FURNACE COMBUSTION
AIR FLUE; RE: SECTIONS
ALIGN PAVERS TO DECK SLOPE
....... B' TALL BATHROOM WALLS
WINDOW ABOVE, IYP;
RE: ELEVATIONS
• 1/A4.1
GC OPTION: 1 HOUR NON -BEARING
WALL OR PROVIDE CONTINUOUSLY
RATED WALLS BEFORE INSTALLING
,•....INTERIOR NON -RATED WALLS, TYP
WHERE INTERIOR WALLS CONNECT
WITH E7QERIOR WALLS
REMOVE EXISTING RAIL
-^--& HANDRAIL FOR NEW
DGT ACCESS
GATE, MIN.. 32" CLEAR
RELOCATE EXISTING
BATH EXHAUST DUCT
& PLUMBING VENT
WALL TYPES (PLAN)
1 HR EXTERIOR WALL
1 HR INTERIOR WALL
3
NON -RATED INTERIOR WALL
5
North Elevation
E
8
"Z7777777777:
South Elevation
2
E
'7?
FM2180 Blue Spruce Court
Setback Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
IiimmommiII Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009
LOCATION: The site is located at 2180 Blue Spruce Court, within the
Town of Estes Park. The lot's legal description is Lot 4, Block 2, Fall River
Estates.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Kenneth and Patricia
Czarnowski/Same
STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott
APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC)
REQUEST:
As described in the statement of intent, the property owners are requesting a
variance to construct an "attached 10 foot by 22 foot walk -out all concrete,
fire resistant storage room addition to the west side of [the] garage. The flat
roof would also be utilized as a deck."
Specifically, the owner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development
Code Section Table 4-2, which establishes twenty -five-foot setbacks from
all property lines in the E-1--Estate zoning district, in order to construct an
addition ten feet from the property line.
II. SITE DATA
Number of Lots/Parcels
One
Parcel Number(s)
35222-06-004
Lot Size
0.46 acres
20,038 square feet per Tax
Assessor records
Zoning
E-1 •Estale
Existing Land Use
Single -Family Residential
Proposed Land Use Single -Family Residential
SERVICES
Water
Sewer
Fire Protection
Town of Estes Park
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
Town of Estes Park
Electric
Town of Estes Park
LOCATION MAP
Qwest
h
Aspen
IuYeS r Ct t"
ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING
E-1
Estate
Iff))
Page #2 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
'Accommodations y
n�Jle-Family Homes
ndeveloped S iFi:IL
III. REVIEW CRITERIA
All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards
and criteria set forth in EVDC Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable
provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code.
This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level
review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
IV, REFERRAL COMMENTS
This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff and adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was also
printed in the Estes Park Trail -Gazette.
Reviewing Agency Comment
The following reviewing agencies submitted written comments.
Town Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison
Chilcott dated August 26, 2009.
Town Police Department See Andrew Hart's email to Dave Shirk dated
August 18, 2009.
Town Public Works and Utilities Departments See Tracy Feagans'
memo to Alison Chilcott dated August 21, 2009.
Town Fire Department See Derek Rosenquist's email to Alison Chilcott
dated August 19, 2009.
Page #3 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated August
13, 2009.
Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula's letter to Alison
Chilcott dated August 12, 2009.
Public Comment
The following members of the public submitted written comments.
Fall River Estates Homeowners' Association Architectural Control
Committee See the Committee's memo to the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment dated July 18, 2009.
V. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds:
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.
The following special circumstances exist.
a. At 0.46 acres this lot is undersized for the E-1 Estate zoning district.
The E-1 Estate zoning district has a minimum lot size of one acre
for new lots. This lot is closer in size to new lots in the E-Estate
zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one half acre for
new lots and a side -yard setback of ten feet rather than twenty-five
feet.
b. The house was constructed in 1977, prior to the adoption of the
EVDC. Portions of the existing house are within the twenty-five
foot side -yard setback.
c. A drainage swale runs through the property as shown below and
drainage is routed around the eastern side of the house. An addition
Page #4 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
on the eastern side of the house would comply with the setbacks, but
would be located in the drainage swale.
9!i11MpmiJII''
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: Staff finds that there can be a beneficial use of the
property without the requested variance. The existing house could
continue to be used.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the variance request is not
substantial. This lot is 0.46 acres, which is comparable to lot sizes in
the E- Estate zoning district. If this lot were zoned E-Estate, the
Page #5 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
side -yard setback would be ten feet rather than twenty-five feet and
the proposed addition would comply with the setback.
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: Staff finds that the essential character of the
neighborhood would not be substantially altered and that adjoining
properties would not suffer a substantial detriment.
Staff has received a letter of support from the Fall River Estates
Architectural Control Committee. This letter noted that "A detached
structure would not conform to the Associations' covenants and
would be opposed by this Committee." A detached structure would
have more impact on the character of the neighborhood and would
result in more land disturbance.
Staff has not received any written correspondence expressing
opposition to the request.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: This application was routed to providers of public
services, such as water and sewer. 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 standard addresses whether or not the Code
requirements changed during current property owners' ownership of
the property. For example, did the property owner purchase the
property prior to adoption of the required setbacks?
This standard 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.
The property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the
twenty -five-foot setback. Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor
records, the owner purchased the property in 1991. In 1991 the
property was zoned E-Estate, which required the same twenty-five
foot side -yard setback.
Page #6 _ 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through
some method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The statement of intent describes other options and
the problems with those options.
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 submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
applicant's 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.
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 would 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 variance, if granted, represents the least deviation
from the regulations that will afford relief.
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: The proposed use is permitted.
7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as
will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives
of the standards varied or modified.
Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has
recommended conditions of approval.
8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff
for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by
Page #7 2180 Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are
incorporated as staff findings.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the forgoing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested
variance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the application.
2. Compliance with the comments in the Town Public Works and Utilities
Department memo dated August 21, 2009.
3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation
forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation,
the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a
stamped and signed setback certificate.
4. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review
and approval with the building permit application.
Page #8 218U Blue Spruce Court Setback Variance Request
Town of Estes Park
Department of Building Safety
MEMORANDUM
To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Date: August 26, 2009
Subject: Czarnowski Variance Request
2180 Blue Spruce Drive
The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for the Variance Request for the
above -referenced property and has no comment at this time.
Alison Chilcott
From: Dave Shirk
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Alison Chilcott
Subject: FW: Czarnowski, Widawski & Minglewood, Attys at Law
FYI -
From: Andrew Hart
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:35 AM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: Czarnowski, Widawski & Minglewood, Attys at Law
Dave --
I have made variance review/BOA hearing site visits to:
1) 2180 Blue Spruce Dr (Czarnowski)
No violations observed
2) 205 Park Lane (Widawski)
Only violation observed involves a small scattering of mullen (noxious weeds).
3) 189 & 191 E. Riverside Drive (Minglewood, LLC)
I spoke with Paul re: outside storage of construction materials beside the buildings. He has some
screened storage on the south side of the building that needs to remain screened. I'll confirm if he is in
the CD or not, my map is too small to determine this....That will affect his outdoor storability.... He said
that he will clean up the exterior of the buildings.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Andrew
Andrew M, Hart
Estes Park Police Department
(970) 586-4000
ahart@estes.orq
Alison Chilcott
From: Tracy Feagans
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:48 AM
To: Alison Chilcott; Bob Goehring; Scott Zurn
Cc: Todd Steichen; Reuben Bergsten; Jeff Boles; Cliff Tedder; Greg Sievers; Barbara Boyer Buck
Subject: RE: Combined comments on the Variance request from Czarnowski residence at 2180 Blue
Spruce Ct.
Attachments: combined-Czarnowski Residence Variance Request at 2180 Blue Spruce Ct.doc
Attached memo has logo location corrected.
From: Tracy Feagans
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:40 AM
To: Alison Chilcott; Bob Goehring; Scott Zurn
Cc: Todd Steichen; Reuben Bergsten; Jeff Boles; Cliff Tedder; Greg Sievers; Barbara Boyer Buck
Subject: Combined comments on the Variance request from Czarnowski residence at 2180 Blue Spruce Ct.
Alison,
Please see attached comments from Public Works, L&P and Water departments on the Czarnowski residence at 2180
Blue Spruce Ct.
Tracy Feagans
970-577-3588
Town of Estes Park
Public Works & Utilities Department
PO Box 1200
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
tfeagans®estes.orq
www,estesnet.com
11
ESTES '"1100'4P A R K
COLORADO
Memo
Fown of Estes
Public Works tiliti
Room 100, Town Hall
P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
To: Planner Alison Chilcott, Bob Goehring, Jeff Boles, Todd Steichen, Reuben
Bergsten, Scott Zurn and Greg Sievers
From: Tracy Feagans
Date: August 21, 2009
Re: Czamowski Residence Variance Request at 2180 Blue Spruce Court
Background:
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the
submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and
construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted. It is important to
note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise
comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans.
Engineering:
1) Care should be taken in the placement of this addition to avoid any inadvertent disruption
of the natural storm drain flow.
2) Provide positive drainage around the proposed work to prevent any future storm water
damage.
Light & Power: The Light and Power Department has reviewed the above referenced variance
request to be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2009, and has
the following comments:
1) Town of Estes Park, Light and Power have no concerns as to the variance request.
2) Future electrical service to this 10 ft. by 22 ft storage room addition must be permitted
through the state electrical department at (970) 577-3589.
Water: No Comments
Alison Chilcott
From: Derek Rosenquist
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:40 AM
To: Alison Chi!cott; kenczarnowski@hotmail.com
Subject: Variance request 2189 Blue Spruce Ct
No comment from the Fire Department
Derek Rosenquist
Training Captain
Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department
970-577-3690
GREGORY A. WHITE
Attorney at Law
North Park Place
1423 West 29th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80538
970/667-5310
Fax 970/667-2527
August 13, 2009
ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER II
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1200
ESTES PARK, CO 80517
Re: Board of Adjustment - Czarnowski Residence
Dear Ms. Chilcott:
I have reviewed the application including the Statement of Intent and Site Plan for the Variance
Request for the Czamowski Residence to be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
I have the following comment:
1. Review of the Site Plan shows that certain portions of the current residence and the
existing deck are already located within the 25 foot setback. Approval of this Variance
Request shall contain a provision that the approval of the Variance does not affect the
current non conformity of the structure. I assume that the non -conformity of the
structure occurred when the property was rezoned in the adoption in 2000 of the Estes
Valley Development Code.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Greg
GAW/ldr
cc: Kenneth J & Patricia T Czarnows
2180 Blue Spruce Ct
Estes Park, CO 80517
ruly Yours,
A. White
P.Q. Box 568
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
(970)-586-4544
(970) 586-1049 Fax
August 12, 2009
Alison Chilcott, Planner II
Town of Estes Park
F.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Variance Request
Czamowski Residence
Lot 4, Block 2, Fall River Estates
2180 Blue Spruce Ct.
Dear Alison,
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,
ielori--
Todd Krula
Lines Superintendent
cc: Kenneth J. & Patricia T. Czarnowski
2180 Blue Spruce Ct.
Estes Park, CO 80517
July 18, 2009
D
ECEOVED
JUL 2 0 L009
Memorandum
To: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
From: Fall River Estates Homeowners Association Architectural Control
Committee
Subject: Request for Variance at 2180 Blue Spruce Court
We have reviewed the site plan and request for a variance prep by the owners of the
house located at 2180 Blue Spruce Court. The plans as submitted would not conflict with
any of the covenants of the Association. We believe that if authorized, the proposed
addition would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood and
adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. In
fact, the closest residence to the proposed structure is well over one hundred feet away.
The option selected is the most practical given the difficulties associated with the other
listed options. A detached structure would not conform to the Association's covenants
and would be opposed by this Committee.
We recommend that the requested variance be granted.
1
CEC&dVE
JUL 20 2009
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
Estes Park Town Hall,
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Variance request to reduce side yard building setback
Dear Board of Adjustment:
2180 Blue Spruce
Estes Park, CO 80517
July 21, 2009
As the present owners of the residence at 2180 Blue Spruce Court, we are requesting a
side yard building variance to build an attached 10 ft. by 22 ft. walk -out all concrete, fire
resistant storage room addition to the west side of our garage. The flat roof would also be
utilized as a deck. Approval of this request would alleviate the hardship of our particular
situation.
Background History:
The house was built in 1977. We purchased this property on May 29, 1991 prior to
current zoning regulations. The lot is now located in an E-1 zoning district and is
substantially substandard in size (0.46 acres). The local terrain is steep and heavily
wooded. Adequate public streets and utilities are available in this subdivision and should
not be hindered by this small addition. A natural drainage exists just east of the house as
indicated on figure 1.
Other options we have considered:
1. Tear down the existing back porch and deck and build an attached above grade
storage room on the south side of the existing house. Pros: Meets setback
requirements. Cons: Loss of existing porch and deck, blocks egress doors from
existing kitchen and sunroom and blocks bathroom and bedroom windows.
Conclusion: Very expensive construction and not practical with existing floor
plan.
2. Build an attached, walk out storage room on the east side of the existing house.
Pros: Meets the setback requirements. Cons: Blocks the window in the
utility/laundry room, requires relocating gas meter, electric meter, and electrical
disconnect panel, blocks fireplace clean out door and encroaches on the natural
drainage swale possibly causing erosion problems. Conclusion: Less expensive
that #1 above but blocks natural light and ventilation to the basement, requires
relocating utility meters and may create erosion and drainage issues.
3. Build an attached storage room on the north (front) side of the existing house.
Pros: Meets the setback requirements. Blocks the main entry door, garage door
and lower family room windows. Conclusions: Not practical and would destroy
the character of the front house facade.
4. Build a detached, all concrete fire resistant structure. Prod: Meets the setback
conditions. Cons: If placed north of the existing house, extensive and valuable
existing landscaping would need to be cleared making the structure highly visible
from the street. If placed east of the existing house, it would have to he placed on
a hill slope away from the natural drainage swale, making the structure
inconvenient to use. Also a detached structure is more expensive to build because
it requires a fourth footing, foundation and wall where an attached structure
shares these existing components. Conclusion: A detached structure will likely
destroy existing landscaping, require the removal of large mature trees, is
inconvenient to use and more expensive to construct than an attached structure.
Preferred option:
The proposed location for the attached walks -out fire resistant storage room and as shown
on the site and is the most affordable, reasonable and practical option that we have found
to meet our needs. The\ west foundation wall of the garage has no openings that would
be blocked thus making it a perfect common wall between it and the proposed storage
room, which also serves as a two hour firewall between the two occupancies. No existing
utilities will need to be relocated and the existing deck or porch can remain.
The location of the proposed addition is very convenient for easy walking to the exterior
entry door located in the north wall of the storage room. The room would be mostly be
below finished grade with the exception of the north wall which is only 7ft. 9 in. tall. The
entry door will be screened by an n existing large pine at the northwest corner of the
garage as well as numerous other trees. The exposed concrete foundation walls will be
covered with siding matching the existing house and painted to match the house. The flat
roof of the structure will be use as a deck and will have a 36 in. high redwood railing
matching the railings on the existing deck.
The existing topography and current drainage situation will not be altered thus it will not
affect other property owners in this regard. Because the neighbor hood is heavily
wooded as shown in figure 1, will be hardly visible from other properties or from the
street and will not affect the essential character of the neighborhood. At least a 10 ft.
minimum wide side utility easement will be maintained from the closest comer of the
new structure from the west property line which will be verified with a registered land
surveyor's setback certificate.
We appreciate your review of this application and request your favorable action toward
granting a variance for a side yard building setback,
Sincerely,
i ee, 0 ..,,,e fre s- A - , -- e s - a - dr -- )
Kenneth Czarnowski
61.4........, „firk, 6„........„..4._
Patricia Taylor Czarnowski
July 18, 2009
Memorandum
To: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
From: Fall River Estates Homeowners Association Architectural Control
Committee
Subject: Request for Variance at 2180 Blue Spruce Court
We have reviewed the site plan and request for a variance prepared by the owners of the
house located at 2180 Blue Spruce Court. The plans as submitted would not conflict with
any of the covenants of the Association. We believe that if authorized, the proposed
addition would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood and
adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. In
fact, the closest residence to the proposed structure is well over one hundred feet away.
The option selected is the most practical given the difficulties associated with the other
listed options. A detached structure would not conform to the Association's covenants
and would be opposed by this Committee.
We recommend that the requested variance be granted.
2'
(
� f�\
,oitinn]
m/`«
A
�
�
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Submittal Date:
General Information
Record Owner(s): tjV>r(r 1ki1(.5 A b
E T V Y V E
JUL 2 0 2009
9. 1 eIA 14-Lots. CZAR- iJovV5Kt
Street Address of Lot: 2, t o 13 LJ f SPRt1 L E C.T
Legal DescriptionLot: Block: �, Tract:
Subdivision: FR L1- 8. LVEf4 ES T ATE S
Parcel ID # "�rgSt-j!4s,OQ`f Section'.'... Township Ranse 3
Site Information
Lot Size , -4•6 G A C R tE:
Existing Land Use R E5 lD EJ f T(A. L
Proposed Land Use EFS I p„G.ti Ti A. _
Zoning EA
Existing Water Service ! Town r Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service r Town r Welll r Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD " UTSD r Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD r UTSD r Septic
Existing Gas Service J Xcel r Other r None
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes T. N
Specific variance desired (state development code section #):
ma - O
C� v e c..btQ do •s�.d Se+Uc �k : �, E-1 mar, ;,,. d� �k'r-; ct-
SIDE teAeb SEA 3Ac:k
Primary Contact Information
Name of Primary Contact Person le o Aotl k TH
Ckf
Mailin! Address 1 , 0 24 E 5' e RUC C'
Attachments
r7- Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
rr Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code)
17:- 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') **
r✓ 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
r✓Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout)
"' 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.
fE elf CO
Town of Estes Pork .. P.O. Box 1200..170 MacGregor Avenue 4. Estes Park. CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4, Fax: (970) 586-0249 .m. www.estesnet.com/ComDeev
Contact Information;'
Primary Contact Person Is
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
CeII Phone
Fax
Email
Owner )° Applicant r Consultant/Engineer
KEApia -r- Js dti� Q i"i2iclad anau, '(
62 )f3o r3 i.0 ' S p 2uc6. vfr---5'rg 5 ry4RIB
q70 566 o t3
170 III --3393
Z4 r, OW 5 �!t'}l 70'r
fs
Applicant
Mailing Address
Phone
CeII Phone
Fax
Email
Consultant/Engineer ALI L PD lv1V / T ! CT
Mailing Address 2 5 'i 5 u 1 o M 6 A.) PR t 5 T
Phone 9 T o 52 3' 7
Cell Phone
Fax
Email � r
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.estesnel.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicaiionFeeSchedule.pdf.
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
P. 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).
► l acknowledge that 1 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. 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 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 comers 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.
► 1 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: KFNyA TW <; d 1214 T g/G 1
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: I" .6-/ye g: Tl f
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Ce, Rdt1.0 •x
d P/9- ri /G /f? G 2 ,g / tiUWS K
•*,fin-�
Date
Date
Revised 10/13/06
Zoning Districts
z ring
Disltriot
RE-1
RE
§ 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zon ng Districts
1/10 Ac.
1/2.5 Ac.
MilliOlUrO Lot
Btande i1D [5
(Ord. 254711.)
10 Ac.
2.5 Ac.
200
200
inf" Ilc[i
4
;Fritnt
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
30
20
20
E-1
R-1
R-2
RM
(Ord.
18-01
#14)
1
2
4
8
4
Residential
Uses:
Max = 8 and
Min =3
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
Max=24
1 Ac. [3)
Ac. [3]
Ac.
5,000
Single-family
=18,000;
Duplex =
27,000
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft./unit
[4] [8] (Ord.
25-07 §1)
Senior
institutional
Living Uses:
1 Ac.
100
75
60
50
60
60;
Lots
Greater
than
100,000
sq. ft.:
200
25
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
15
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
25
10
10
10
10
10 [6]
25
15
15
15
10
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20 [7]
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] It 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 constricted on a minimum 2,000 square foot 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 development") are allowed for townhome developments.
[7] Minimum building width requirements shall no 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
#14)
[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)
Czarnowski Variance APO
en
co cr)
a000 1Do
^�h0,.-4 ��ri���rl
00.` v+o 0000000
00 00 ca 0 CO 03 00 CO 2 oo 00 00
N00 c•Q1O'om000}.000
aj Y Y O 0 n Y Y Y E .t. L. X
0 y.,
4ca . a sVI m y- a a 0 • 0. ▪ 0f _ • 0.
a) a`) 3 o E C CA a) a) '^ w w u
CA IA IA • IA IA IA
U W W L▪ i U> CL W W W J W W L)J
PO Box 314
1�
a)
C
0
1-
U
ro
<n -13
0) OO ++
CO to
0 N ID
CO 0 m
-t CO LO
N N N
320 Central Park Av
5128 Meadowside Ln
1069 Fall River Ct
1077 Fall River Ct
1079 Fall River Ct
u
J
0)
�a_+)
L
a)
i.
O
1-
D_
a) ao
• m C 7
J N+ ,CC
a) C „0 aa)) Y • L 1I C 111 O
▪ a) E o C U a) >a CC
co • u E 2 C O • O= C c
. YVl Y L MS CO t • r. 7C
co 0 }O co l[ ~ ▪ ~ r 7
C W 06 C 00
W a) ?� L1�{ -0 °a 0,1 iliC
3 v, C a) CO E ` 0 .>c ▪ E 0.
O ix Y w v) • �; CL O C7 Ln
2120 Fall River Rd
1140 Fall River Ct
0
4-'
vs
uJ
W
}
K
�o
LL
Czarnowski Variance APO
PIN Nor
{ 0uN
3
0
0
0
z
PIM FoLMD
c�P NoT
LECiIBL
pEcrA, 3o°0010d' RADIUS z5(
NORTH
\ I
\I
10' \
\
I \ F I CoHCKEIS
Zg 1 we. Wei
1
N 810 531�5,1
CON
Mew DEc,
SYepDov'H
X15TiH6- Kb ILIr
1
w
1Z-" TizIt-J
orP.K �
-44 1
+--- 4
1 i-1 I E A e A1D
I` 1'4 221 > 7T N @ icp" 0.c.
5' D "
NON PSCV
bawi.l
L/ JDtNc-rt
1
r
s
yl
CoNcpETE ?IE-R
g" x 10" Co t-i c R E'i~E roar iHC--
5o L1 T 11 L.YAT