Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-02-06Prepared: January 31, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:00 a.m. — Board Room, Town Hall 1. CONSENT a. Approval of Minutes — December 5, 2006 2. REQUESTS a. Lot 5, Amended Plat of Creekside Subdivision, 1505 Fish Creek Road Owner: Raymond & Shara Davies Agent: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Request: Request for a post -construction variance from Section 4.3, Table 4- 2, to allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42 feet Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 3. REPORTS 4. 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 5, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Dill, Members Lynch, Newsom and Sager, Alternate Member Grant Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Member Levine, Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the November 7, 2006 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. METES & BOUNDS, 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE, Applicant: Richard and Mary Wilson — Variance request from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow side -yard setbacks of 10 feet in lieu of the minimum 25-foot setbacks required In the E-1—Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow a 1,200-square- foot addition to an existing 555-square-foot cabin, as well as construction of a 280-square- foot deck and the relocation of an existing accessory building. The submitted building plans will need to verify compliance with the maximum height limit of thirty feet. In considering whether special circumstances exist, the Board should consider the following. The existing residence was located legally at the time it was built in 1935. With present setback requirements, the entire house is considered non -conforming. The lot, at 0.27 acres, is significantly sub -sized for the E-1 zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. It more closely meets the requirements of the R—Residential zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 0.25 acre. The 25-foot setbacks required in the E- 1 zoning district were created for lots with a minimum width of 100 feet. The applicant's lot is forty-five feet wide; the 25-foot side -yard setbacks overlap and it is impossible to build on this lot without a variance. The R zoning district requires a minimum lot width of sixty feet and side -yard setbacks of ten feet; these requirements are more applicable to the lot under consideration. The applicant's request is to increase the square footage of the residence from 555 to 1,755—a 216% increase. It is the opinion of planning staff that the variance request is substantial. Neighborhood buildings range in size from 144 square feet to 1,630 square feet, with a median size of 946 square feet. It is staff's opinion that the proposed addition is out of character for the neighborhood. Staff would support a variance to limit the overall total of building square footage on the lot to approximately 1,000 square feet; this includes square footage of outbuildings. Planner Shirk noted again it would be impossible to do any expansion to the residence, even a deck, without a variance. Planning staff suggests that a ten -foot setback is appropriate for the property, although the overall variance amount RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2006 2 requested is too great for the neighborhood. Therefore, staff would move for a continuation of the request to allow the applicant to redesign the addition. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments or inquiries were received from three neighbors. Lola Spicknall, 1219 High Drive, expressed no concern about the variance after being informed that the proposed addition would not affect her view. Greg and Jill Jameson, 1760 Hummingbird Lane, expressed opposition to the request because "the cabins are already too close to each other." The Jamesons own the cabin to the immediate west of the Willson's. Darrell Franklin, 1731 High Drive, expressed concern about the scale of property and impact on property and property values. Public Comment: Paul Brown was present to represent the applicants. He stated in staff's review of the median house size only a portion of the information acquired from the Larimer County assessor was utilized. Mr. Brown reviewed the square footage of the surrounding properties including all outbuildings, decks, and porches, and concluded the Wilson request is not out of character with the neighborhood. Amy PlummerNan Horn Engineering stated a large majority of the properties are nonconforming due to the E-1 zoning of this neighborhood. if the property was appropriately zoned with 10-foot setbacks, the applicants would not need a variance for the proposed addition. Richard Wilson/Applicant commented the addition was designed with the character of the neighborhood in mind. He stated he was unaware of the zoning implications and believed the property was zoned incorrectly. Discussion followed: square footage of the addition is Tess important than the setback requirement; whether or not the applicant could connect to the sewer and if so, where; the status of the water supply; congestion on Hummingbird Lane. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located at 1740 Hummingbird Lane, to allow side -yard setbacks of 10 feet in lieu of the minimum 25-foot setbacks required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes, approved site plan, and building plans. 2. Prior to issuance of a buiilding permit,the applicant shall comply with Upper Thompson Sanitation District requirements regarding acquisition of a sewer easement, and shall connect to the sewer or obtain approval from the Larimer County Health Department for the current septic system. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall notify the Larimer County HealIth Department regarding abandonment of the existing septic system. 4. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. REPORTS Director Joseph stated that the change of meeting start time for future Board of Adjustment meetings has been approved by the Town Board and County Commissioners. Beginning in January 2007, ally Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. Planner Shirk advised the Board that the Planning Commission has had discussions regarding accessory dwellings and staff plans to discuss the issue with the County planning staff. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2006 3 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2007 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Dill) to appoint Member Newsom Chair, effective beginning January 2007, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Newsom) to appoint Member Lynch as Vice - Chair, effective beginning January 2007, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) that the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary for 2007, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. Cliff Dill, Chair Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Davies Heights Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: February d, 2007 REQUEST: A request by Raymond and Shara Davies for a variance from the building height limitations found in Chapters 1 and 4 of the EVDC. LOCATION: 1505 Fish Creek Rd. APPLICANT/OWNER: Raymond and Shara Davies STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Hom Engineering (Lonnie Sheldon), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 25314-21-005 Number of Lots: One Proposed Land Use: Same Development Area: 0.7 Ac. Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Existing Zoning: E-1 Estate Adjacent Zoning - East: R-1 West: E-1 Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential Services - Water: Town Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer North: CO South: E-1 North: Golf Course South: Single Family Residential Sewer: UTSD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicants, the Davies, request a variance to Section 1.9.E.2. and Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a Building Height 3.42 ft. in excess of the maximum allowable height of 37 feet as provided for with the slope adjusted formula found in chapter one of the EVDC. The purpose of this post - construction variance is to avoid the destruction of existing roof structure and redesign and construction of a new roof design. 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 Comment: The lot does have the physical constraints of slope, however, staff does not think this has any direct bearing on this request since compliance with the height limit is unaffected by the slope. It is staff's opinion that this request constitutes a self-imposed hardship since a code -compliant structure could easily have been designed for this site. 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 Comment: The property may continue as residential use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 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 Comment: The proposed height variance would have a minor impact on the character of the neighborhood. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The height regulation was in place at the time the design of the home was commenced. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment The purpose of this post -construction variance is to avoid the destruction of existing roof structure and redesign and construction of a new roof design that would be code compliant. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: Staff would support a modified request to limit the demolition of the existing roof structure to retain an existing load bearing point. However, this request as presented does not represent the least deviation that will afford relief. 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. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighbors. Staff has received comment from one neighbor who is concerned about the precedent this request might set, if granted. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: I. The applicants, the Davies, request a variance to Section 1.9.E.2. and Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a Building Height 3.42 ft. in excess of the maximum allowable height of 37 feet as provided for with the slope adjusted formula found in chapter one of the EVDC. 2. The site is located at 1505 Fish Creek Road, within incorporated Estes Park. 3. There are no special circumstances. 4. The property may continue to be used for residential use. 5. The Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 6. The proposed variance would have a minor impact on the character of the neighborhood. 7. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 8. The requested variance does not represent the least deviation. 9. The applicant should have known and complied with the height limit. 10. 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. 11. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 12. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the 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, this formulation exists in Chapter One of the EVDC. 13. Approval of this 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. 14. Approval of this 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; Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variance to allow a Building Height 3.42 ft. in excess of the maximum allowable height of 37 feet as provided for with the slope adjustment formula found in chapter one of the EVDC. SUGGESTED MOTION: DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because... (state reason for denial - findings). January 25, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request — Davies Residence Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comment: 1. The Statement of Intent indicates that the Design Plans were approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Statement is incorrect. The Estes Valley Planning Commission does not review nor approve Design Plans for residences. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAW/ldr Cc: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Lonnie Sheldon Fax: 970/586-8101 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING January 16, 2007 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING RE: Height Variance Application for 1505 Fish Creek Road Dear Mr. Shirk: 1/We, neighbor(s) of 1505 Fish Creek Road, understand the height variance application for the home located on the subject property. I/We have no objection to the approval of this height variance application. Sincerely WI iam Henderson 1488 Creekside Court Riegelsville, PA 18077 /62.6r14.31 Margaret Henderson 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 970-526-9388 • fax 970-526-8101 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING January 16, 2007 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING RE: Height Variance Application for 1505 Fish Creek Road Dear Mr. Shirk: I/We, neighbor(s) of 1505 Fish Creek Road, understand the height variance application for the home located on the subject property. I/We have no objection to the approval of this height variance application. Sincerely, Edmond Baisley 1490 Creekside Court Estes Park, CO 80517 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 970-526-9388 • fax 970-526-8101 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com Statement of Intent Davies Height Variance Lot 5, Amended Plat of Creekside Subdivision This Statement of Intent concerns a height variance for a newly constructed single family home on a 0.70-acre property known as Lot 5, Amended Plat of Creekside Subdivision within the town limits of Estes Park, Colorado. The owners of the home, Raymond and Shara Davies, are requesting a post -construction height variance regarding the east extent of the main roof. The roof exceeds the prescribed 37' height restriction by 3.42'. This height discrepancy was calculated and measured. The remainder of this Statement follows the Standards for Review found at §3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code: 1. Special circumstances or conditions: A variety of construction and design obstacles had to be overcome to build a home on this legal lot. The property is zoned as E-1 Estate, which has a 1 acre minimum lot size. The property is only 0.70 acres, almost one-third of an acre less than the other lots zoned in the same district and contained a previously platted building envelope. The slope of the property is a steep, east -facing slope adjacent to the Fish Creek floodplain. A drainage easement bisecting the southern half of the property and the wetland habitat along the southern property boundary have been avoided. The home was constructed outside of the Fish Creek floodplain setback and was moved slightly upslope from the original design plan, within the tight building envelope created by the surrounding easements. 2a. Beneficial use of the property without the variance: The subject home has been constructed with a complex roof structure by design. Modification of the roof to meet the prescribed height would be extensive and not feasible or desirable to the owners. There could be beneficial use of the property without the variance if a shorter home was constructed on the property. 2b. Substantial variance: The prescribed maximum height for this home constructed on the given 25% slope is 37'. The maximum height of the home measures 40.42' at the highest point from original contours. Given the above, the variance is 3.42'/37', which is less than 10% thus not considered substantial. 2c. Neighborhood impact of the variance: The magnitude and nature of this variance does not appear to impact the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighboring homes are comparable in size and appearance. Residents of adjoining properties have provided testimony stating their acceptance or letters of approval. Due to recent heavy snowfall, photographic documentation will be collected at a later date when the roof line is more visible. Photographs of the subject home from the adjoining properties and neighbor testimonies will be provided at the hearing. We believe the adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 2d Adverse impact delivery of public services: The height of the subject home does not encroach any utility crossings or easements on the property. This variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 2e. Applicant's awareness at time ofpurchase: The Davies purchased the property with the knowledge of the height requirement. The construction company contracted by the Davies also had knowledge of the height requirement. The plans for construction were reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and no height concerns were raised. The excessive maximum height of the home has been determined to be an admitted oversight by the construction company and the Town. 2f. Can there be mitigation of predicament other than a variance: The home was constructed upslope approximately 5.6'west of the original footprint. The horizontal change in the position of the home resulted in a 3' elevation increase over the planned floor/roof height. However, the result was a 2.1 foot elevation decrease as related to the EVDC height calculations when comparing the constructed height with the height as shown on the approved plans. One possible method of mitigation would be reducing the roof height along the roof line to correspond with the height prescribed by the Code. Reducing the roof height would consist of cutting the roof and an approximate 2.0' thick gluelam ridge beam along 28.3' of the roof line. The roof pitch is currently 3.25:12, which is already flatter than the standard asphalt shingled 4:12 pitch. Furthermore, a load bearing wall, at 17.5' from the east edge of the home would have to be structurally altered to carry the beam. This roof adjustment would also result in numerous structural modifications within the framing throughout the home. A second possible method of mitigation would be to reduce the roof line from the east extent west until the load bearing wall (17.5') an place a functioning chimney at the load bearing wall that extends 10.8' west along the roof line to cover the small sliver of roof exceeding the height limit thus allowing compliance with the prescribed height restriction. The house was not designed with a chimney. A chimney is allowed to exceed the height limit requirements and would obstruct views from adjoining properties and nearby homes more than the current roof line. None of the alternative design results are desirable to the current owners. They feel as though they desire the planned and approved architectural style/look of the home and hence they are requesting this variance. It should be noted that the internal ceiling and wall heights are constructed as shown on the approved plans at 9' 1" basement floor, 9' 1" main floor, and 8' 1" loft floor (also as previously noted, the roof pitch is not excessive). Conclusion: The subject single family home has been constructed 3.4.2' taller than the prescribed 37' height restriction. The design plans approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission together with the contours from the approved site plan illustrated a maximum height of 42.5', which is 5.5' above the prescribed height. A building permit was obtained for the approved design plans and the oversight/violation was not discovered until the house was approximately 90% framed up. The Town's review standards since this application/plan-set was approved have changed to require additional information. If this application were processed under today's Town standards and guidelines this oversight would not have occurred. The two possible methods of mitigation are very expensive, not desirable to the owners, would require re -engineering new design plans, and additional review for building permits. Thank you for your consideration of this variance. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Genera! information Record Owner(s): a >ro D Street Address of Lot: (5b 5 , - 1.g ti -rem„ Re. act Legal Description Lot: S Block: Tract: Ec Subdivision: ed. , I,a Parcel ID#Z53i4-21-o05 Section { Townshi,r 5 N Ramie R2-1A1 Site Information Lot Size 0 acre. (30,513.9 5F) Zoning E - 1 E Existing Land Use Rey t de-E l c{ Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service 12e5L of I 'Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service l?Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Ik Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) 4[c_5 a,n Co_rS_ Are there wetlands on the site? ► Yes r No Variance ✓ EPSD ✓ EPSD ✓ Other I UTSD UTSD r None r Septic r Septic Specific variance desired (state development code section #): Sect G(. 3 . C. S G-vrcL Sec €ti y- t.q. € .2 f'r Diary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Lonnie 51n4ldor, Mailin• Address IOH3-Pis hcreek Rood Estes Poik Co, 845i Attachments R Application fee (see attached fee schedule) R 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") 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 -a P.O. Box 1200 4, 170 MacGregor Avenue 4, Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4. Fax: (970) 586-0249 .41. www.estesnet.com/ComDev sa18oas (0,6). x — es (OL6) Mond 9 d loa �Ndbd ]153 E* 90d N33iq HSlf Cvol ONIA3AafiStl ONV ONIa33NI0N3 NaOH NVA OCIVNTIO3 'x?IHa SHISH 'ans aaisxa�zia aaaHawv '9 s dad a.LIS E, N 8/8 888,88 1 1 TRACT 34 NOI1D111:11SNOD ):IgAOISJM DNIGlIng 8 6 21ww=fti-MEN0,74=MW:=1 Im=-1.1.--mg=magramE, teih.ftit2fteir,P.54,11g r ii an ...• . w hietra21190....#1442; 1111AmMINZ=11.07=1117.0.11 622.04-MM="1"*Magii 1,0M,VenMr04711.11'"":"' IknailWaria.151411.41 g 414el..en.."Sr! mis ...... .. il iii....L. amm lasuMME: -ME AUP Initteparm. M2=' Igs-ew., -dem. ......-. ILI2 IN P. am .1.2vraml ...a....... m.- ...' tag ... :mac fla4 VAIIIEIA: mo...e. - ALlifter IN - ea -er inov.04.. izear FAST 4144....= intl am.n ia-. samER:F.- ..0-Tm_..a.- 55:4=R: mu-mm.-iMeal:T=S: wlemc.-ms.==m.eve FammEmETE-OT=SqT azem:==4-Tiam- .macmarge.r. N.40 eagmEsOmg Team! tim-r• gw.-.2-•ff..-Tera-ds „am. m-.............vg m -mew- 2mrel em .4:41....em. ftm. -.4 lAmmillm-aMmmeN .2 mx -Wmilenw: -m2 .g. -mwrame.- -Re. Wille....J. re-Mmo*ffMm.... ir"lbl".....MW•ORma. g-ffil+MMIle.2111111......ftm .-mMia-mm%--mm. om-egft-mmft-mg.-2 wzmiLmiamEmzonlmmmi 12=gairAl....a1MM1222 iraftgagisegag=e NOISIAICI2rnCIIS>192110 S# 101 -§3IAVCI VIIVHS 2 AVJ :110A Art ,Laz 90/ZO :1LN/0 >00DHDIIH 111101 :AS NMV210 LJJ 0 < � � 1,1 r � ± g � y �oz; 3 � Q \* 1 »=9 » » W T T T T T Y T IC:)- P.^ N. N.~ P. P. N. N. N. 0000m0000m000QQQ00000(00 00 0o co c,„ r co 00 ao Do T co co, O co., 0o Oo Oo Oo w co co 0 co N O O O m v) 0 0 0 0< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 II: Y i. Y D O Y Y Y _o Y Y Z _, Y Y_ Y Y J w, �+ Si_ cn c� O ca ifs lG j (a cd � l6 N c0 co � CD CD 00 Z MI yaaa �, �ao_o_o_ N0_Q_ a,o_o_o_o_o_o_ao_ ca N N N -0 N N N co N co co co co N co co co N co N 4. d m c . m a; a; v) m m a ai a) m a� a) 0 a) a) $ a) N N N O N N N N N N cU N co N N co N N co ,c co c�wwwa�mWWWWCcww0wwwwwwww.Jw a) v a a c O c m> > o 3 c U� 9 o a1UYU 0 a) CU N 0 cc a) C N a) C J C N a) c y m Y YU .UP.cv - YUY a)� L- CY �6Y6 N E"g U Y = a Y "O d L N 5 C 71 N N 'O r N T 1- •C a0j al r N O vs x 0 2) ,N P2 O a) C i a) x P. x x N L_c x i r_.. Ui�U0_ 0UUUUac�U�U5( U o ow0OD co .15 8 T VJ /m d o 0 CO to T [[O''''�] Vl /� C� /m m U] (%�1/W]j ItW T T r. 0- T T T Cr - M T. 77 et V- 6L T 0- 0 T T Up Q Elizabeth & William Elinor C C O 0 O L 'i 2N. a1 C j Y 12 'U 10 m aa) N a7 c�Ca N` N O O a) = O N ` N 2 O 7 (a t= 01 C 91 QI L Y _CO CCI aa) a) Ica CO L L_ a) 01 fC N .0 O C f!} fit O N 'al O N a) .0 0 oes ]�[ � O N Y c rg c c O Q c N m°�of 3 =ets 8 c'dT 12 D5 orm`w¢�ciy N ow — O N y U -p 0 N CO O E . 0C C d co-3 °� C 06 0 co °� C Ni. '0 = 40, co ccU ; y a1 co O o L 0(a O T E N 0 8Smc 0 OwC[nDc o,ow0' 5U©-1000QC7Q-,❑-7H Davies Height Variance