HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.24
_ ~,,
PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE Mdy 13, 19 88 CASE # $$-24
APPLICANT The River Road Ranch Co. ADDRESS0100 E. River Ranch Rd.
. ox
OWNER Steve Main (923-47b~~ Woody Creek, Colo. 81656
ADDRESSSame as above.
LOCATION OF PxOPERTY Lot 12-B Aspen River Valley Ranch, 0100 E. River Ranch Rd.
Countv of Pitkin (See Plat)
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be
made part of this Case # gB_Zq
The Board may return this application if it does not contain all
the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed
variance showing justification:
Applicant has utilized property, together with leased acreage, for agricultrual _
purposes' (livestock grazing, hay production and horse boarding) over the past eight
years and wishes to build a barn building which would accomodate eight indoor box
stall areas that will provide for the specialized boarding needs and care of horses.
The building will consist of 1800 sq./ft. (50ft.x36ft.) of space with an interior
height of 12ft. from floor to truss joist. The over all exterior height will not
exceed 20 ft.. The construction of the building will be of treated posts set into the
ground on a concrete base with metal roof and wood siding. The building will be dark
red in color with white trim to blend ih with the surrounding builings. The construction
and materials used throughout the building will be of the highest quality and stand-
ards to insure the value and integrity of property and the building itself. The
location of the building is well within set back standards as provided by code.
Applicant Signature
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official
forward this application to the Board o£ Adjustment and reasons
for not granting a building permit:
Steel-e~G z AI d71c~
Zoning Official
Date permit rejected_~ llo ~ Board decision
Application filed z d~ ~~ Date
Notices mailed_~_SZ-, ~ Secretary-
. .
A;SPE1V~hIT~CIN ~cG10N;AL ,BUILC~tNt~ DE'IPAI~TMEIVT _
- .i[ ...fik..- P m'M+#.iL/r.d,SWda, tmu^uwf cr. - ..-
' -
NOTICE 6F PidBLIC REA'R'ING...... `
B$FORE.THE.,PITKEN„COU,„r BOARD gF ADJUS;TIKENT
N'C Y
..,, ..
p.„ BY THE-_REQUESTED ZONYNG OR USE„w ~,.
VARIANCERDESCRIBEDNHELOCdF~'~~TE
,.
Pursuant to'Fitksn boiin~y, Re'salufiozz,__of Turie 5, `1955, as '
amended, a Public ;TIearing wild be ~ielet',~in `the '~"istrict""~'ou'r"~
.~:~. -
Room,`Pitkin Coiznty'Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such
other place as the' m,eetz.ng.>nay then be acY,7ourned) fto cotisader an
application f_il.ed,-wath.,_the said.~oard'o~"Ail~jixs"tm >~ reques'~ing,.
r sJw` ...-.-ice 4.,..>.v_,r.~,Y-. ....,...
authority for"variance from 'the pr"avisians of Ebe"County Zoning
....
Resoliztion._; "' ' _
All persons affected by the proposed variance are ~:nvited to
appear and state their views, prdtests_.or objectj.ons: If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state 'your views by letter, particularly if you have~ob~'Jec'tion to'
_.. - .
such 'v'ariance; as'the Board of Adjustment wr7l g>ve serous`
on ,to the,.oprnions of 'surrounding property owners and
consideratz,
other,affect,ed sn_'.deciding whether to grant or'deny the request ,~
for variance.. - ~ .
.,.
THE PAIiTIC,ULARS ,OF THE";T1E"AR'YNG"'"`Ai~D~"6F~`fiTiE `;Rh'~i71~'7'ED' VA.R~A,N;~E _AR'E ";;
AS FOLLOWS:
_ _ ...~
Date and. time o;f, meet,ing: May `3l, 1988 at "5:15. p.m_"_ ,.. ,u..,,.._,=---.;:,., w"_.-,,;._...; ,...,..,
Name and 'Address of Appllcazit for Variance
The-River Road-Ranch 'C'ompany ~`"'""" "'" '
P.O. Box, 9 ,;r~:.:,~.:.,> ...., ,:,::._....::-~,,;,.,.:,., ..., s.„...:,., _ .,.:..,
Wo'odY 'Cr'eek; C0 sl'6`~'.1,..:-.v..,„ -,. ;-...,.,„...,....,.,. _.,
Location of ;,Property or'Description:
La't 12-8 `5 As "en River
p "Vailey'Ra`nch'; Sub.did'i's'ion "' ~"""'
Pitkin County, Color'ailo "
..Requested: ., -._-
approval to;,construct aiz l8Cl0 'sq.'ft. barn'wi'tfi an'eater"i'or' '
height not to ex~ee;d'"$b~,~~":, ,iv~fiere a;':I.2,'ft,~;'; nfaix,inum' is`'a'll;owed, `iii.. .
the ,AF-T Agricultural and'`Fo'restry Zone.' `'' "` -'" -~
Duration of ' '
Voidance: Permanent: XX""""';"Te>riporary
Condition:
THE }?ITKIN„COT~NT,Y- BbARD-'0'F 'AD,J' "_
USTP'1ENT
®fficea:
5'17`East Fiopkens Averet~'°'
Aspen, Colorado i:3'i611 `": '
Evan_Gu11 Chai ~ 1"6as~ Kd_ _
. rain St~eeti
;~i~~%J25=5J'7'31..._.. ...~'isperi,~o~o ~~°~t~()2~ .....
..~
AS;PEN~PITKIN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN.COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR. USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: ~~ „
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution o£ June_b, 1955, as
.........:
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Court-
., rww
Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such
other place as the meeting'may then be ,adjourned) to consider an
application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
,.., ., ... a+ .ry ,...a,~
authority for variance fr?~ the pio~zsions~of`'the`County Zoning
Resolution. -, ,...
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to
M_,.
appear and tate their views, protests or objections` If+~you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are ur"g'ed to
state your views by"letter, particularly if you have objection to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrouniiing property owners and
other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
,.. n+~t ~ a. .... ar a , nwn,.matN.w~ac.v+e.n d.4., uxNwn +wt~~4«4s^ ~„ ,Cd~~M"a .1x ..~4 ,d n,
AS FOLLOWS: .X ..
Date and time of meeting: May 31, 1988 at 5:15 p. m.
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance:
~~ w . ;~:
The River Road Ranch~Company
P.O. Box 9
Woody Creek, CO 81621
Location of Property or Description:
Lot 12-B 5, Aspen River Valley Rnnch Sizbc',ivisiga,
Pitkin County, Colorado
Requested:
approval to construct„ an 1800 sq. ft. barn with an
height not to exceed 20 ft where a 12 ft maximum
the AF-1 Agricultural and Forestry Zone.
terior
allowed in
..~. ,w.,.. _ .~ . ..
Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary
Condition:
G^%'%l PIT IN COc~UG/NTY ByO/ARD~ O,~F~rA~D~JUSTMENT p/,
/ i ~ '/ ..//// / LA /
~t ~~~ C~~~ ~ A o
eff,ieese Evan Gu1~1, C~ia~irmY[~il addreese ~ `
517 East Flbpkins A u 506 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado 8'1...,.1'1 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colo '169'1
~~~~'~ `~
-----_.. .._. ... ~. .~., .~.,.,a„r....,.. .,.~ .o .:.: ~ .w. w.,.,e:.::.:, .nm:. .~w~, a~av.aaar~.:.,die'~'dfaer u~w~, cn,~iy9,;*a kaz+: ra;.ez'a:~:M
Lot 13, Aspen River Valley Ranch.
Owner: Mr. Dick Fitzgerald
1621 Lower River Rd.
Snowmas5,~ Colorado 81654
Lot 12-B, Aspen River Valley Ranch
Owner: Mr. Jim. Gibbons
1700 Lower River Rd.
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Lot 11, Aspen River Valley Ranch
Owner: Mr. James Collins
P.0. Box 9174
Aspen, Cdlgrado 81612
The Aspen River Valley Ranch Homeowners 1lssociatign
Mr. Jeff Jandegiah, President
P. O. Box 6455
0400 E, River Ranch Rd.
Snowmass, Colorado 8T615
...,. ..,
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Ad.iustment
May 31, 1988
Members Present: Kandi 5haffran, Chairman
Peter Dobrovolny
Melinda Pearson
Bob Miller
Chris Conrad was present with staff recommendations. 5haffran
called the meeting to order. There were no minutes to review.
There was a letter from Evan Gull resigning as chairman and
expressing interest in remaining on the board as an alternate
member. Shaffran mentioned that there had bean two 'other
applicants interested in serving on the Board and she hoped they
could be appointed by the next meeting.
Case #88-16 - The Inn at Aspen, 21646 W. Hiphwav 82
Diane Schweiner and Dick Rather were present. Conrad informed
the Board that he had made a mistake in his earlier calculations,
the sign was only 3.28 sq. ft. over what was allowed by code,
not the 13.5 he had originally thought. There was some discus-
sion about the fact that this was the third sign they are
requesting and whether a variance should be granted. Rather
brought up the fact that the sign was not visible from the
highway, in fact he didn't think it was 'visible from off the '
premises and showed the Board photographs to illustrate that
point. Conrad stated that it was questionable whether they
needed a variance or not, if the sign were not visible. Conrad
showed the Board a plan of the 'building which showed-the scale of
the awning in relationship to the bulk of the en£ire building°.
Dobrovolny felt that most of the sign code was intended for signs
visible from Highway 82. After discussion, Shaffran moved to
approve the sign as submitted due to the fact that it is not '
visible from Highway 82 and shall not be placed in such a manner
as to obscure the vision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
not constitute a hazard. Miller seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion carried 4 - 0.
Steven Shute was present representing Rocky Mountain Natural
Gas. Shaffran moved to remove case from #`$8=17 from the°t`able.
Dobrovolny seconded the motion. Ali were in favor and the motion
passed 4 - 0. Shute explained as part of their safety and
general upgrading program they were planning to build a new town
. ins.v ,.. _v L'+ae. eu ,.. x,x_ .. ~r,Lrs,w..d+L~nS .rie~.e,...... ,.x'.r: £;
1
. _ z. .. ~,
. ,. , ~ . _.
border station for Aspen and include in that one., facilities for
Snowmass Village. This station. would measure the gas and reduce
the pressure before it entered such highly populated areas.
After two years of research they felt the proposed site was the
only possible site. Shute continued that they were precluded
from the other side of lIghway 82 because that was the mast
probable alignment of the enlarged highway. Shaffran asked about
the possibility of a car hitting the building from Shale Bluffs.
Shute stated that it was impossible from one way and highly
unlikely, if not impossible £rom the other .side. Shaffran asked,
about emissions. Shute, replied that the only emissions would be
from a flue; it is required to heat the gas before it enters the,
regulator. Shaffran submitted, to the record a letter from
Suzanne Caskey; Chairperson of the Clean 'Air ~Advi'sory `Board """" ""
supporting the location. Shute explained that they had gone
before the Planning and Zoning Commission recently. He stated
that they had found a 16' X 24" log building that they thought.
would be more appropriate than any of the building designs that
were submitted. He continued that they would hire a landscape
architect or a regular architect to make sure the building would
be the bast obtrusive. Shute continued that, he had, done much.
soul searching and could not recommend that the building be
placed underground, due to the equipment. It would have the
potential for a gas leak, in a room that size would only take a
matter of seconds and quick exit from the building was important.
If the building were placed underground it would require tcao
exits and a long driveway. Shute was asked about the proximity
to the highway. Shute stated that the present one was less than
10 ft. off the road and that most of the ones they had built are
close to the road and they hadn't had any problem with them. He
thought it was preferable for the station to be closer to the
highway rather than close to a perma.hently occupied subdivision.
Peter Van Domelan, representing Walter Mills was present. Walter
Mills was also .present. Van Domelan stated that Mills has
agreed to grant the easement to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas for
the use requested and has no objer_tion to the location. He
requests that the building be constructed in such a way that the
visual impact he minimized. They would feel most comfortable
with a topographical map. Shaffran asked Mills if he still felt
as he did last month. He stated that Van Domelan had express''ed
his feelings. Conrad stated that they had been working on this
for a long time. $e brought up the question of a public utility
the fact that they were required to provide public serdce.
Shute stated that the building would be located 88 ft. from fhe
guard rail and 62 ft. from the right of way. Shute explained if'
they moved it further from the highway the building would be
visible for 1/4 mile, in the proposed location the building would
be visible for'only about 3 seconds at 45 miles per hour.
Shaffran felt that public safety should be their first concern,
not the visual impact, but tucking the building in would help.
Shute again explained that they were limited by the location of
the existing pipelines. Pearson asked if this was just a
temporary solution. Shut e. replied that it was not. ,Conrad
reminded the Board that. a,hards,hp needed to be demonstrated.
This had been addressed. in a letter to the Board from Tom Smith.
,., _ ..
Dobrovolny suggested a site visit to determine it there_,were„any
alternative sites. Shaffran moved to table Case #88x17 untilaa
site visit could be scheduled. Dobrovolny seconded the motion.
_ .__
All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. The meeting was
scheduled for Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. Mills and 5hu e both
said they would be attending.
Case #88-20 - Robert Snvder for Rene Tornare, 413C Pacific Ave.
Robert Snyder was present representing Rene Torn are. He was
requesting a 4 ft. side yard setback for the construction' of a
,:
deck similar to 7 other decks constructed during 1987. OnYy two
units were affected by the setback. The lot line was determined.
to allow the project to be sold in phases. Only 4 more decks
could possibly be built. After they were built the plan was to
amend the plat, show the necks and remove the lo_t line. Pearson
stated she didn't see what. the hardship is. bobrovolny'and
Pearson suggested having the,.lot line adjusted, so a variance
would not be necessary. Snyder explained that they only wanted
to amend the plat once. Pearson moved to deny the request due
to lack of demonstrated hardship. Shaffran seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0.
Case #88-21 - Dnug Lucks, Lot 43, Holland Hills Subdivision
Doug Lucks was present requesting a 25 ft. front yard setback
variance and a'ZL ft. 6 in. side yard setback. Lucks asked if
the Board had received letters from all the neighbors. "Th`e
following neighbors: Barbara Schutz, Anita Glatz, Randy Troxel
and Noel Kelleher, Sue and Joe Schoeller had sent letters `
supporting the variance request. Shaffran also read into the
record a Letter from the Holland Hills Home Owhers Association
supporting the variance. Lucks explained that since he had
submitted the application he had changed the orientation of the
house, but the setbacks would be unchanged. He wanted to Ue as
far as possible from the other houses. He explained that there
was an irrigation ditch and he wanted to place the house to
avoid possible water damage. There is a history of irrigation
ditch breakage history. He explained that the proposed location
would obtain the best solar advantage. Dobrovolny made the
motion to grant a 25 ft. front yard setback .variance and a 22-1/2
ft. side yard setback variance from the ngrth property line due
to topography and downzonng. `Pearson seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0.
Case #88-22 - William Gerner 0287 Apache Trail.
William Gerner was present, requesting a 21.1 ft. front yard
_. - --- - ------- , , <. y„~ Imo,.,.. DY ~ ~.~~
... i ,.
_. .>~ , - M1 ~ t r ...
setback variance. He explained that he wanted to build_a garage.
The area he had been using tci park his cars was right behind the
house and was in the front yard setback. He showed the Board
,..
pictures of Lhe ax•ea_. He stated that building the garage at the
30 ft. setback c,~ould requite removing many mature oak trees ahd
require extensive excavation, Lerner sated that the lot. sloped
quite a bit anc3 if he_were to place the garage there it 'would
require extensive cutting. Dobrovolny stated he was having
trouble seeing cohere there would be_estensive excavation.. '
Pearson agreed. Dobrovolny stated he couldn't really see a
hardship. Lerner stated that you really couldn't see how steep
the lot is from the pictures: Shaffran suggested a site visit.
Pearson felt the applicant shquld provide a topo if they were
requesting a variance for a topogx•aphical hardship. Af£er
discussion, Dobrovolny moved to table Case #88-22 until,a site
..
visit could be made. Shaffran seconded the motion. The motion
.,, .,
passed 4 - 0.
Robert and Yvonne Davis were present, requesting a 70 ft. front
yard setback variance and a 15 ft_. s_ide yard setback variance due
to downzoni.ng. The Davis's felt they were conforming to what was
e
consistent with the neighborhood. The downzoning had made th,
Davis's lpt unbuildable: Shaffran moved to,.grant a 70 ft. front.
yard setback variance and a 15 ft. side yard setback variance' due
to downzoning. Miller seconded she motion., All were in favor
,. __.
and the motion passed 4 - 0.
Conrad explained that this case had_been withdrawn..
Case #8H-25 - John Ukraine Lot 84R Starwood 14
Jim Columbo was present. representing John Ukraine, requesting a
40 ft. front yard setback variance. The lot currently has an
existing main home and a detached caretaker uni Both,struc'- '
Since then the.propert n
tares were built in 1974. y has bee
downzoned. They would like to demolish the main_„house and
replace it with a new home. They wanted to put the home in~the
same Location to minimize the environmental impact to the
property and it would be difficult to move the house back, due to
the topography of the lot. Conrad stated that the StarWOOd
Homeowners Association felt that if they forced the new house to
be built up slope they would have an even bigger problem Phan if
the variance were granted. Pearson_moved t~ grant a 40 ft. front
yard setback variance clue to,downz_oning. Dobrovolny seconded the
motion. All wire in favor and the motion. passed 4 - 0.
--- -
... _
Case #$8-26 - Rorv A. and Barbara Jane Balance 1755 Snowmass
Creek Rd.
Rory and Barbara Jane Salance were present. Mrs. Salance
explained that they had come before the Board last month and a 25
ft. front yard `setback variance had been approved. Due to a
small change in the building site and an erroneous survey the
setback granted was not adequate. They needed a 50 ft. variance
to place their house where they wanted and still comply with the
site chosen by the 1041 review. Stewart Eitgerly, Ted Flanagan
and Lisa Olsen, neighbors, were present. Edgerly explained that
he had talked to the Balances before they purchased the lot and
it was obvious that a variance would be necessary. He continued
that he didn't .realize that the original variance was for 25 ft.
and due to the 'f act that he was leaving for Australia the'"rieXt
day, he didn't attend the last meeting. Now that the variance
had jumped. to 50 ft., he was very concerned. He stated that he
had granted the`Salances an easement. He showed the Board'
pictures of the Balances lot taken from his lot. He explained
the neighborhood had always used the lot as a greenbelt of sorts
and the proposed house was going to be placed in the middle of
the lot. Edgerly suggested that they move the house up 'into a
more harmonious part of the"lot: "Salance explained 'the 'allo`w2ble '
building area a's determined by the 1041 review. Flanagan and'
Olson pointed out that the proposed location was not~a'an
advantageous site for solar gain. Edgerly stated that he was `
opposed to the 25 ft. variance that had been granteii, so he cc as
even more opposed to the 50 ft. variance. 'He felt it would
totally block his view and the house would be lonmimg over his
- _. ~ ~K ;.
house. Edgerly stated that if"there ~ "' "~" '
was no other place to pu~~"~~~""
the house they should conform to the setbacks as closely as
possible. The Balances did not want to move the house, .the plans
had been dracan and if the house were moved the house design would
have to be changed, she understood Edgerly's views, but they had
bought the lot and part o'f that was the view. They wanted to
place the house in the middle of the lot rather than on the side
of a meadow. Rory Salance stated that he felt that they had
tried very hard', to accommodate Edgerly's wishes. After discus-
sion, Dobrovolny thought the Board needed more information about
the 1041 envelope. He stated he would be inclined to turn down
the variance and they would have to go with the first variance.
Shaffran agreed, .and stated that the hardship was`now of their
own making. Shaffraa suggested to the Balances and their negh-
bons, that, since they were neighbors, that they should get
together and work out a solution. There was some discussion
between the neighbors about alternat'ivQ sites. The Balances
agreed to let Onsgard or Conrad know if they wanted to be on the
agenda for the,next meeting. There was general agreement that
the Balances should met with their neighbors. Dobrovolny moved
to table Case #88-26 pending the applicants providing the Board
with more information. Pearson seconded the motoh. All were in
favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. The Balances asked if they
could build on the old variance.. Shaffran replied that they
could.
Miller moved to nominate Shaffran as the new chairman, since Gull
had requested that he be made an alternate member due to his
schedule. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were; in favor.
Miller moved to adjourn. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. 'All
were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
~i~'--~l~f' J
.~.C~~~lc~ L'"rb?~.~C /~,--fit. ~~% 2Gx.-~
Secretary r Chairman
Bpi 988
Date
t?
- .. .. +..Ma .nu ..,.w.,-... n, .,.e .. ~. x,-..a ~.~.v. .,...,. ..-.. ._ <~, at+. m ...rn uL,:i.a .,W~w~.,.m,,.~;i. } a,-~.,g,.,3;q~"+tte~i
-.-">,e-...e+x-.-.~...-,--w+..~.... .. ..-..... .e i ~. v„ t a... ... 't'kY, ~:°~.°,. eA.IR.: uw±V+"am'* ttnrn>~~'.N 4 r,'~W n:ac+Yw,q~ .ava~S 1. -. .
O
0
O 1
~ {
O ~
S `.
~ ,
~ •.~nA'6... .. .. ~:
'++
~:
1r .--- _
W ~::
s
A.P 2 TR 70
T 3 5 R 36 W~~^~~
O
320 O
~.
' ~9
\~
- - - ~ E£S
.. J=`=- -
= ,. - `` ..
20 _ i
5 '~ =71G0 i
12 i~ iii' i ~ ;,.
--... _ ~ r .. __ \
' 56.55 S ~, --.. ,E - - . '
~-- ,~ -
J,./f ~ . -
r
~. ~
9 ~ ~
s / / ` ~
Y `~
x
t --~ - \~ 3
n
- - x ., '.
V/ _~/ 0
~ .i ~ ' ~
~ ~ "
,~~~ ~ ~__ - _ 39.30 ACRES
4 Y) ~ r M x
~~.' ~~-a.K~ T - Z
Z
-. _ s
s y M
_ __._..._ .. \\\t\
_. _ - ~ _
' - T Y _~ ~-
_ n _ ._ .- -
__'
_ .. //~- -T .~~.
_ _ ti I7.~ ~.. -.-
---~ "' _
- ~ ~- E1LF ~} .~'-~~ ~S"Y~T60E la" E--18 95"'-' - -
_._. ~~~ ~, jam. .., --
"" 1 -
;,.._% y
".~.. , ~ +.,"'.,~ " . .@. _. _. :.... ~ N I 5i' "E 30.0 ; ~ '~!
"E ~ ~
.. ~ ,/ ~ S '03°W 151.5
--- 4--' f ~ 2. O ES 66.6 ~`~'
.,• 36° "W I .80
N33°03'47'°E 384.43
x
..,.._..
~ a 9,~
'a ~ 1 ~ ~ _. ~~ ~ __-~ r io 98.26
o _ = = !~ /-
------ ,
~ O, U LO7'!B OEC IOUS 7 ES S -
Q I ... _...riY~ N 7,a ~, 65
5 ` oos i, t { .__ e 'as'w a7oo
,_ _, 5 Nom,
.,~wrL
/f1` j A S
~~~ ~ ~_. ~
,r
--~ ~'
-_ _
_ -.
. _... _Y. w _ - ^ ~
\ __ „ .
--~
,,
,_ >` ~ - ~.. `:'~' Yom--.. -- ,.-~~.~, . ,. 36 ___ i
~~
- ._