HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.35
.
It
Dottie Fox
moved that the following r~ adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.
83-35
Phillip/Sally Miller, Lot 5, Replat 2
Ridge of Red Mountain
\~IEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin
County, Colorado; and,
mfEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny
such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-l.3, Pitkin County Code
(Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-.ll8 (2) (C) ; and,
ItJ!'IEREAS, based On the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the
following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq
property owners, has been shown by the applicant.
2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established.
J. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the.
public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps.
nOh', TEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
F.A.R. increase of 499 square feet
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing
and possible revocation.
Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll
having been called, the vote was as follows:
Bill Mason - yes
Dottie Fox - yes
Paul Krausch - yes
Bill Lukes - yes
Kandi Shaffran - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED:
January 31, 1984
The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin
County, Colorado
Attest:
I1ff ~~
~ ^6.'~e'c~~'0c, "'<~
Chairman
("" 11:1''' r)"'''' 1.
J" ".. ... '..._~ -<Ji . .II .A.
e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .
DATE
//~
19'..3
CASE#
A:~ - ,-3~
OWNER
~/L/'/7 6 ..5AL~Y
('J ~ .-? ~)
~ L<"~~ ADDRESS $~)('
..zc)~. A~~A.J
APPL1CANT
ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~ u 7" #s: ,Re~L."\-:r ?
/01?(. ~
t:>"c
~eo
/77 L:;>c...>,.J 7 ~ ~ J:;/MJ /.-V/J/ lJYa
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
this Case No.
The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts
in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing
justification: .
5~,L.
A 7/A-~~.o
~Cd-~;u?;A-7/~
Applicant Sig ature . ..~
. : ' . .J);:;;;i2~~
provisions of the zonlng resolution requiring the ~g I~s~or to
forward this application to the Board of. Adjustm~nt and, reasc;>n for not.
granting ,a buiding permi t: . f) .. " /J // . . . v(U' //
.....- . ~ ~ .:70 ~d ~~-Q.../ .fa ~
C:~.~ 0 J /l 1\- d.. .. .
~ ~"i M aA-<.-,L.-
Date Permit rejected:
Building Inspecto~ ~
Board decision . .
Application filed
Date
Mailed
Secretary Board of Adjustment
( \ " ~ , l\' " .. ~" ',"
.i. ~ \_... 0.." _. ~
..
..
e
e
NovEmber 1, 1983
MEmbers
Pitkin OountyBoard of Adjustment
Aspen, Colorado
Dear MEmbers:
We are the owners of Lot#5, Ridge of Red Mounta:Ln, Replat #2., We wish to r~
quest a variance that will allow us to add up to 499 square feet to our ;re"
sidence. Due to an unusual situation, we are facing a hardship that prevents
us fran adding square footage to our hone.
The Ridge of Red Mountain is zoned R-30. The floor area ratio for this zoning
is .13 ( see Exhibit I). This ratio is quite understandable where lots are
30,000 square feet or greater in size. It controls hanes fran being excessively
large (Exhibit II). However, in 1975 when Replats 1 and 2 were approved - re-
ducing the number of sites originally platted fran 34 to 17 ,- 12 sites of less
than 30,000 square feet were created. Ours is the third snallest at 16,657
(Exhibit I II) .
When you canpare the allotted square footage for the replatted sites to an R-15
zoned subdivision such as lliuntain Valley (Exhibit IV) you will note that many
of the sites are snaller, yet the hanes larger, than ours. In other words, to
provide additional square footage for 81laller sites (and I might add, in much
IIDre dense areas) the ratio in R-15 zoning was increased to .16. We therefore
ask that we be allowed a build-out of up to that .16 by adding a bedrocrn and
bath over our garage. This will in no way change our existing footprint (Exhibit V).
As you know, there has been a change in the way floqr area is calculated. At
one time certain annunts of square footage built below grade were not counted.
'Ibis assisted property owners on steeper sites. Oonsequently, of the twelve
si tes mentioned that are smaller than 30,000 square feet, a number of thEm have
homes that greatly exceed the .13 allotment (Exhibit II).
We believe it is fair, and reasonable, to request that this unusual hardship be
adjusted to allow us to build out to the .16 ratio. Should we not be allowed
at least what Mountain Valley, Eastwood, Knoll\\OOd, Aspen Grove and other R-15
zonings enjoy? And, as we in no way will impact our footprint or our neighbors'
views by this addition, is it not equitable in granting?
Thank you for considering this application.
./.-/----s-in~~ '
C__- A ~~~
/~~ (uer
.~~tt /f/LdJ
Sally A. Miller
"".> .'''.'.J
l, ..".~....J
...J
e e
.
../- A ~/,..f ,!Jc ~~ ~r PULI.//:, &/~//::J / JA L (. Y /P// L;"'~
A-"o..,/ A~LC/f-J7 &u/./~...<?y L?b-''''''''6.<J
--
-
....(07 3~ - dAL- A. 7/cA-O~6L..--L-
//// hp~L/7y /L~2-A
?>~LAr/D;nA C/~ OKL. 73/D 2...
Lo/~/e:~~T2- A?/Z~/d/?...r 7~ ~..c-c..<
.-5 ~x <;'<r..r ..3
4s-~~-j C:;. cF/t-/~
/ u/ ~ ~c~{)\'7 z.. - /7/,4-1//;4 ~L2A .i?6LA ~u~
ft ~~,;' c,:) ;;-,R' uPe>s Z Y-z...
7D/2,e Eo~
. ~c0ArfUL-~ /He)(l~Q
L~ 7" S /C'..P'tA-T Z-
~~~L/~Y
9/ ~s...rcx
/ ~~ArL y
./
~E~ /~ Ey
LJ~.
/V6....J A/tScy Z>?~7o
Lw/ :2 7 -
c;;; ~o/l-<:'6 C7? .c. t:..::'
6u)( Z99u
/' ;7: ~ t::),It-/ ~ -;::;;)(: -;7 f- /' c0 /
.
C_.' , : :.'~ ~: ~: 1
~
\'\
~
~
-
''-
. ..........
Ij!~~~Ji;i
i ~I
~I~
~I
~
'" ~,
Si:~.2u
~J ii~ ~
~ ..<;
~
'i
~.~
~.~ ~ ~
o~ 2 2_
":'3 -
~-;-
III
:::
:0-
Q)
::l
C
C
o
.e
tll
-
U
-.::
..
i5
;(
I
tIl
C
CI)
E
CI)
...
:;
0"
CI)
a:
x.
:;
a:l
t'
J.,
H~
.'" E
.....
3~i
::E",o-
...::E...
::Exo-
.-~
'!?
q~ g ~
::Z:1I~-
ii ~~
<~ J:O
"':" u
0: .
c-
~ '?
u U U
. ... . .
;; c -
:0 I
&~i
~~E u
.
s.= ..
~g.~ ~
.gi1l_
0'" ~
X....-
m",,,,
~
':i
g
""
@
~
N
I
C')
= ~
~ ~
~
~ : .
, :{
;;;
. :2 .
'- ';
,~~ , ~ ?
:
~ -
II~
~~-"'r'M
MM~i;i;i;
OIoL.aCDC]aJ
~I-(/)""NM
u..u.~....
::E::E::E::E
@g
'" ,""
. '"
Cl - -
G
~6
Ci ~~
~~M,,-~
~~.~~~
u.. 'u.Q)
::E ~::E
~~ ~ ~~~
- :2 li "'~Cl"" oi
...l! :;>"'<?'9x
25 l&. u..Uo.lD
::E ::E::E
~~
_ -f/ti
6 ~.~
x=
&L O.
::E
- ~~~
~2"'oi-~
...:1\"'....0:..
:;>.,;l3'9~x
~ &L~3a)
::E x
!~~~~~
~-'~-N-
:;>l3'93X!
~~~x"'o
~~~- U
.,;ri .l!:2s:l.
-'S:!!.~~:
:;>0'93"-x!
~~~x "'0
~~
"'0
::E=
xo
.
c ~j t ~~~~r r
-"'I
~I ~I I ~, ".,~~
::>1 e ~I '" '"
'" -
~I I ' .
~I ~I I I
I I
I
, I i
~I .1 i
-, ti ?!, Si ei~ ~~ :!l
I
I
I
!
0 ~. ~i :iI ~ ~~
~
I
1
'I 0 ~: ~: Sl ~ "N
~ .. -
I
~
~
8
"!
~,
~
i
i
J
iii!
2/
!
j
~i
i
I.
i
!
2Sl
lS~
ll!
~
E
~
'5
E
c
:! s
,!
0
il
"
..,
"!
G
C
o
iii:
i
22
....
N-
o
c
o
:iI.
2:
,
i
!
~I
!
~ ;e.
"N
.. -
!
o
~:
~~
....
.. -
ll!
~ .. ~: ~i ~~
& ~ ",-
i ::E!
x5
~
..;
!
~I
I
~.!
M\
~!
",:
I
Ie
'.
'0.- ..,
I "'=: >.~
'c .
I ~,~~ S
I ':: 0 G
i~5fg'{
l~~g-~~
I E~?::;).5
It~~~~
-:>
co.
-= -&:.-
~- -.. ....~
~~~~~!a
~i~~;g~2
~~1K~~~~
~o~.c.~~~~
oo~;;"2i5;;~
~;~~%~~~
o
!
Sl.
la;
11
;e
la,
o
~
iii!
i
~:
gj
11
I
11
i
11
I
o ILg
l~ ;i
I'E c!:
I~H
1-= 3 ~
!HL
~:
0'
-I
~'
"'I
:il
~:
.n I l..n
-' ~l~
~E j~ I'
,jg !~S
,.,; ''0 U I
'i og i:. ~
i!~: ifJ
E :?~ E .5
HtHi:
g
.,g~
D~
~ C
~ '
u;
~4
0-::
~ ~
a.;.
::i"
~ "
,~ "II!
~I~
I
~I~
1iI1~
I
01'"
- ..
e!2
i
01'"
- ..
III ~ :l!
.. N
.. -
.. ..
N -
....
N -
~I
i
i
lil~~I:il1 ",0
lil.~ ~l ~ ~
I 9 >-
. ~ g
, "','l
~ '~ ~l '0 i
; E
~ ~
&2-= II ! Ii '.ii
~EEg ~ ~ I ,i ~
~3g.2th-. ~ ~ -= i
_ -<>.- ,0:;" ~ I ~ E
~~~~~5~ ' ig.
Ic.....,~-... ii ~4' ~ iI
'='B~?~~5 .~I -~
i!;;';.eiJ; D g;j ~ ~
I}~~!~C:_~'~:; i ~~...
:5'~~ ~~~~: ~~: J ~~.,
'" N
N_
0>
'<l'
,,~""r
,~ .>.J
e
e ~~,,,, T 7r
-...- . ,.....~
RIL'GE OF RED MOUNTAIN
*Assessor
LDt Number House Square Footage* LDt Number House Square Footage*
1 3,486 23 4,302
2 8,285 24 2,385
3 Unimproved 25 Unimproved
4 5,362 26 3,660
5 3,080 27 Unimproved
6 3,272 28 1,677 (not correct)
7 Unimproved 29 3,916
8 4,178 30 2,577
9 2,740 31 3,488
10 7,902 32 1,842 + addition
11 5,538 33 2,048
12 3,832 34 3,376
13 2,762 35 Unimproved
14 3,270 36 2,288 + addition
15 4,607 37 2,335
16 Unimproved C21 + C22 3,354
17(C) 1,955 C23 1,670
18(C) 1,955 C24 2,241
19 Unimproved C25 2,173
20 5,441 C26 1,912
21 4,683 C27 1,912
22 5,080
( ') " " , '" I' ,..~."
\..J .. ...~ '..J ....01 U
e
e ~~~"',. ~'(
IU1X3E Ol" REDWUNTALN
-4 I 'M,.,I;;,::"II'':;'}'.'~~.~Tr~-'''i'-~,.:" ".,,~_
*Assessor
Lot Number Lot SqtiareFOOtage HbtiSeSquaxe-:FOOtage* Squa:re:Footage OVer .13
-._~.~..-~...~-~-. , ,
Rep1at 1, #1 16,075 3,699 1,609
2 19,048 Unimp:roved
3 21,840 2,455
4 24,718 2,199
5 31,008 2,284
6 25,232 3,910 630
7 21,689 1,577
Replat 2, #1 51,797 1,986
2 16,198 2,156 50
3 17,007 3,016 805
4 18,008 3,403 1,061
5 16,657 - 2,240 74
6 19,130 2,554 67
7 25,923 2,730
8 31,006 3,408
9 33,502 2,896
10 30,618 1,816
(.,~'l"''''#''~''~
~ ,',.'1.oJ _,~ ..
e
M:>UNTAIN VAlLEY 1
lot Number Land Square Footage~
1 15,015
2 15,015
3 16,122
4 18,631
5 18,996
6 22.245
7 20,553
8 16,769
9 16,147
10 15,847
11 17,147
12 19,812
13 16,635
14 17,012
15 16,377
16 16,334
17 15,369
18 "See Lot 18 O:mdaninium"
19 15,186
20 17,635
21 16,220
22 16,485
23 15,060
24 15,750
25 15,443
Nom: YELIDW INDICATES IillS LARGER THAN OURS
.H~~"T ....
1,1 ,II "".l~UI'L.I'I''''''''.''''':':'.'JiU",",..oit.,JI~
*Assessor
House Square Footage*-
2,572
3,393
3,698
1,949
2,642
1,808
3,138
3,079
2,940
2,915
1,846
3,060
2,662
2,736
2,304
Unimproved
3,040
2,215
1,080
1,764
3,956
2,912
1,560
3,678
#"l.........",#"l..--U
~,._ _,.'_ ,.J
e
e ~~~~? 7Jr
",.,.. III ,; I.;~"."' .'JI~',r..<"I.~.',;I,:~ -l....,~, '~.r;:..;<o"i~r...
MJUNTAIN VALlEY 1 (continued)_ *Assessor
lDt Nwnber Land Square Footage* House Square Footage*
26 16,196 3,000
27 16,196 2,800
28 16,196 Unimproved
29 16,196 2,931
30 15,087 2,232
31 15,114 1,173
32 15,291 3,434
33 _ 20,022 2,201
34 23,001 3,867
35 16,118 3,360
36 15,294 2,024
37 "See Mountain Valley Condaniniums"
"
38 18,434 3,760
39 19,149 Unimproved
40 18,787 1,536
41 15,525 2,900
42 15,015 2,489
NOTE: YELlOW INDICATES r.ars LARGER 1HAN OURS
('I'" ,'''' "'I'~"'9
, .. ...> '-. ....
e
~~~'r ~"
IDUNTAIN VAlLEY 3
"'Asse";~r
.~Jl"!~ .. ,_ ~.~ ~'''a<..:"''!\7Q'
Lot Number: Land Square Footage* House Square Footage*
82 18,717 2,458
83 15,005 2,178
84 16,598 2,464
85 17,856 2,060
86 17,080 1,970
87 17,080 2,408
88 17,213 5,350
89 17,856 1,874
90 25,745 4,945
91 24,495 3,123
92 31,387 1,986
93 29,332 2,946
94 20 , 198 Unimproved
95 30,085 2,385
96 26 , 290 1,952
97 22,242 3,744
98 23,100 2,054
99 22,440 Unimproved
100 19,800 4,287
101 18,480 Unimproved
102 25,745 2,586
103 15,715 3,240
1<Y.l 22,013 2,864
105 26 , 327 2,925
106 15,298 2,454
Noml YELLOW INDICATES LOI'S LARGER THAN OURS ("..., lo,....,.,.4I! 0
\.... " ',> '-- .;.....
e
e~x~~~r 7/L
..
. ,o,.-,...I.-"",l:,
.-..
(
b~r&
.JI/'
~'
I
SCALE
AS SHOWN
I$(J' 'ct IQO'
XXJ'
I
I DATE I REVISIONS & PURPOSE I HOl Y CROSS
k1.~!.~~!ln n~~f.1iAWN __li~~ E~~E~l~Cs~~~?c~~~~~N
1.0 I _ _ UPDAT[-- - -~
F-' -~--,-. -------~-------j DRAFTING DE~OLORA: y3C:O:AE~~C~RIC ASSN ,ONC
I __ I ___~___~ I DRAWN BY..J.E.1)SBURN APPROVED BY
r- -r--- ~BY I DATE 11/1~/1974
DETAIL MAP
THE RIDGE-REO MOUNTAIN
SU80lVISION
STATE 6 COUNTY/ TOWNSHIP 1 M...' NO
--------~-
COLO T.IOS 90
PITKIN R,84W AREA
R.8~W .53
RIDGE-REO_MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVISION
"".,.,,,, t '" $ ~
lJ ... \.., ~-' .\......
,r
e
e lJI' e
~~~~~ ,?IF ~ ~{j//
.'.,_' I uJ-..
/ J... / ff /
I ;.... I Q '>
ill / ~$
? ;76
< Ov
/.it Q'" ~
t() "Ill
~
?:
...7
c.~
.....,.. '",
'..t ;;
:; c
'J';()
.1 J
~ If)
~.... r)
< ::
" ~
.1
'::L '2
:J -
<r
f:. <:'
- '--
~ L
.:- ~
n1
it
Ul
b
z
tlJ
..;J
J)
:;j!
..
'i!.
.~
. 'Ill
o III
~oO~1g-
1/10"
~6r-oi~
_ ill 10 1/1..
II II II I' .
<l1VJI--O
~.A.AT /
"\ '\).
'\<~~,
"'~~
,~,
'\~~!,
,,/'0/
'~'t~
"\ .t' ~
,':1j
,.,):
'\
I
/1
/~,/" I
//
./
/././
".~-.~ .~ ij/
.. " <l.~' :\ <j /
G' ,1- 1//
?#J / ~}; " "\, if /
'L___ N ':\ V.i/
/ /. /r- - - - - - - --=---=--=-r- - -=--=-
/.' /c';
..0011>-. / "',,,
,G~ VVG
.c;~, S9G -3." ';"-,.~l .
'<~~~4.
,~
, Co)
'>(
, '.
, '"',
il' ,",' \
1)., ,4
2:c "', > ',~
. "
. '-. \
.
III
r
,..0
~
111
I-.
10
~
)\--
.-7.
jLll
~-:?:
'w
~~
N.J
\--
'Z
dJ III
N6 ~
~ ~
\U
/
:r
,I.)
r
o
Z
o
~
:3
<1
(l
.,j
8
11.,.,.., '" ~."')
If.. '.' '- ~.......
\
\
)
/
/
I
I
~
.,
()
I"
It)
.!/
.i/
:i-
",
t
'v)
~--..- .v '..'~..... .......~ n... ,-"-"- ......~.. . .." .,~. . ,_, . .. .. ~ ~r..., ~'
"-1.~.-".' '''''''' '.'- ~ .--. ' :~A.-' i ;.,....")~~,,. ..~~'.:;
_~:Z:8U~ ..al-.+1~*C'y-"-_':"~I_-~w...-r~_:W~LL - .~'iiIF. - ., --.:,'
WY ~-lII,..1tIII. _ ~ ~ ~'., <,9 i J82,J4' .
. ~E,vO.
REQUIRED BY R-30
IN THIS
/I'IJJPL
-- ~ ':
I
51797+
'"
(1)
!"
...
"".
1"-sd
/.
~'Otl045
R'370,o9'
l'56.50
{
A?4f~T
z.
MOUNTAIN REPLAT
NTY PLANNIN AN
NOr ro SCAL E
SCALE
e
e
/WI~.r "dl.
-v-...,,,;,..,it'...,....,"""J
,,. "_.~""",,,,..,.....~
ASPEN 6ROVE
~EHH
::::::
111111
.}I/"
KNOLL WOOD
,AB.g~....l..'!!.
:::::::::~::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:
SEE MAP !JO AREA 71
EAsrWOOD
AREA 73
:;::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::
..........................................................
-.:IG
1['
I DATE I REVISIONS & PU=POSEJ HOLYCROSS DETAIL MAP
110-/974 j /iFDRAWN _ ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
I" 77,1"", UPOATE GlENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO MOUNTAIN VALU, SVIION/StON
180 I uPgATE ,STATE & COUNTY TOWNSHIP I MAP NO
~ '1- - - ------ COLORADO 34 EAGLE -- - --- ,-- --l' '90
- ---~~ ------ ORAFTINGOEPT HOlYCROSSElECTRICASSN tNe COLO. r./OS I AREAS
--,-_ ______ _.______-+--"~~~Y",EOS8IJRNI~P!.ROVEO~_ I P/rK/N R,85W173,74
CH'CKEO RY DATE 10/ 21 /~
MOUNTAIN VALLEY SUBDIVISION
t.' - . .. >, . '" ...
. . '..J< .~ ..-.... I
-
e
~~ ~~~T
IE
.1 """,.1,' n.
',":;~~~~~'MJ!I.':JlI'"kJ,~
LOr~
RlCGE a: RID ~
RERAT I'Q 2
'.
wr4
RJO:,E ex: R9) ~
Rl;PlAT Nj. '2
OQA.w -"
OQII/r;
,5 :t
~Wt tlUJ CAP j
L.~ ..~
TR/-CO Management. Inc.
Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303, 925' 2688
~EYEO
CfW'TEO
REv\sloNS
d,,,c, 718. '7tQ
dale, 7&2:'Co T'::'
'1\ I
I
~)
.
.
( ... , '" ,"'" T.... -'Jt r-
, '" .'- _ J
~m n~ U' :~~~~~~
~:N \. uT"
""1111 11111l......._~ ~ '--"- : I
rr- ; r-:.l' ~ I ".' i ~,' . "'It ); -r1. '
"t. r'i,." ,l"7" ~ r r -T-~J'~~ I
~ ~~ ~ I,' '::~i ; ~ -!-~_. Vr- t---- ,'h~ i-t '.~~:
..A l'~{'~ I <"'.11'" ~ 'j-.. Po "J I Q1~'~'r-r-- :.'
.. , .),~ if I . i ~ ...... ~ i '. 6 I " ' '
~ ~k i I ~JJ '~ig~~ i ~l~ : I ~Q":
~",:. ~vq ! 1<>><: :~~ ri ~,~~". I I " ::
. : :~':, ' " b
r\" " I> I : ,1' ~l' " -:::r.J:: !A': ,
~ - I I ' : ~ r ~>~.,,' ';'1, . I I ~ "
~ ilf II ilL
~' i I U. . . :: i:<l>
, ~ ',r/ '_:;:'; :-.- I lID'
___ _____-"-,LJ1 : ~i ,,{A. I' I ' -
1 t ~ I I I . ~- j _ll-, t . -
I : iii,
! " i r I .
: I I
1:1
I I
I '
I I
, I
I I '
I I I
_ __ ,I ~-1
\' ~+T I
1\ . I I:
\ : 'I
"
\ /'1
, : I
I I
I I
11
I I
\ r I
I I
I I
I I
\ !"I
I I
~ Ii .
~, ~t1" <l ~ c
\ \ I ", '- ... J
\ I!
-
-1--' '-'-
- -_.._ .---.0-
!I '
~,
;. .
1
r '
, I
~I .
~ ~~
~~
-Ij ;,
~~
I : ; i I I I
I . ! I I , ;
~ t I I .
,~ ; ,.1 ; ; i i
~ ~ ! i ; .
j . I I
I ~.;
: i ! : ; : : ;
! ; ; I ! ; : :
: ; , !,' . I
! ' ;, 'f: I ' I
I ., .
, . , I I . j
, ,; , i . , I
~! ! ~I~
~~ jQ~.z;,
\
; !
o
')
'J
,)
',:( . L'
:11' ~\ j
,-- ~'\
! ! ' -, f~
~1 ~! r ! ~
Ii f 1 i! - 1
, -~T:-;'-~-~', ! i : I
, I' I , I ,
I I' I : i
" I I
)-
,
, i
J I '
I I '
~ ! :.
; ; !
I
f I
I
: l' .
: ~! '
': I
, ~,:.,~ ", ~'.; dt
~ .~ :..... . f :
'"~,, !- :il!~' I
. . .' i i~tr .
-,...: " ;:.:. !~~. ~ I
" ! i j: " . : i ; . lii~. 'I,j I
,; " 'I' Ii i ': : ; ~ i :: . : I: ~ !," I '
I :' I : I ' '
t : I I : i : J
, I .:. I'- i
! I , : :\: '
I : ~ ~. .
_, I :~ :
9d . .\
f ';
tit
-
~~4-7 Z
\
~
"S<i\
~~
:0-
~~
(~Wl
I
\
\
\
\
\
\ ~'\.,
\ '~
\,
"-
"-
'I>I.~ ."~""I'"'''':':;''':''''' ..".._.r"'I".I..~.,~ /. .......
LDr~
I<05E a:: PJD ~
QER..Ar f'.Q 2
'.
wr4
~ cr ~ tvO..NW--l
R\;PLAT N:j, 2
-I
OQ4w
DQ1'v.,
,5 't
~.
REBaR "wi AUJ CAP J
L.~ ...~
TRI-CQ Management, Inc.
Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303'925'2688
~EYEO
DRAFTED
AEVISlONS
dale' 7/B '")to
dale' 7/2'-1, X. ToJ
-1\ I
I
/)
.
..
('lIto"....'''..,.,.., ,
'_r ,':. 0-", . '" .
\
I I J)
. ~ I .
i - r I ~
0 ,
l 1-
(') , -
rn " '~ .'
~ ~:
0 0
TI
:
:u
rn
0
S
0
c
Z
-1
~
-
Z ,
..... ;
e
. \ '!
I
,',' : \ ~ . . " .::~. ",1
,;!'. ,'f. ';'" "
I .....,... \, '.
,......__.' -----.---.-...,--:-.~-:,7""~:-~-~-.~-~--, -~-
, :.
. - . ~':'" :~'.~ ~,'
\
I
. .,.. l.:~' .:::~;:}:,:,;>:::
.. \..'
'.~ '.,
\ :
'--'-;----'4=~,'.=... .-..- -- "
r..:c
"
----
----.
"
:.~ ,
. ..... I .-.
,,:,,~,,;':<:)':':j;
,:.~:' >: },!':'/.::~ " -
T
.....
" ' ," .':..: ': ' ..'
..' \.' ,.''\i;~?''H i'j~~tiil~j~{~: ;,;; " ",.,/" "'.'
'.....--.'e
~-
"....
, ,
~ -----
-------- --.
--_.._..~ --..~-------_........
, "
..
-.
II
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
1':'f':l<fl '1. H ,." \.,1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PITKIN COUNTY
,JANUARY 31, 1984
Me~bers Present: Bill Mason, Chairman
Dottie Fox
Paul Krausch
Bill Lukes
~lternates: Kandi Shaffran
Bob Throm
Evan Gull
Peter.Dobrovolny
sill Mason called the meeting to order. He question~d the members
if there were any questions or corrections regarding the minutes
from the last meeting. Fox moved to accept the minutes as written.
Evan Gull second the motion. All were in favor.
Phj_lliD/Sally Miller, Lot 5, Replat 2, Ridge of Red ~ountain 83-35
coming back before the Board to request a variance over the
allowable F.A.R. Mason stated that he met with Phil Miller and
Tom Smith, County Attorney and Patsy Newbury of the Building
Department after the November meeting to discuss this situation.
Mason felt that the request fell within a grey area of the code
that the Board couldn't really handle, but since they felt strongly
about the issue had informed the Co. Commission Chairman, Michael
Kinsley. Newbury stated to the Board that if the subdivision
had been done now, the 30,000 square foot lot size would apply
to any lot regardless of the size of that lot. She explained
that the open space in the subdivision does make up the difference
in the lot sizes. Newbury informed the Board that Colette Penne
of the Planning Department felt the problem would be better handled
through Special Review in the Planning Dept. Lukes questioned
this opinion. Newbury stated that it was betause there are so
many lots involved. Throm felt that the land was the hardship
in this case and that the Board had the authority to act on the
variance request. Fox agreed. Tom Smith stated that 'legally
the Boar~ co~ld not based their decision on that. Lukes felt
that because the subdivision predates zoning does not mean that
the present zoning does not apply to the lots in the subdivision.
Krausch felt that if an individual buys a piece of land that is
zoned a given way it was bought with full knowledge of what could
or could not be done on the lot, and he thought that was the
situation in this case. Miller stated that during the first
meeting regarding this case, he thought it had been pointed out
that at the time the lot was purchased there was no F.A.R., but
at the time the house was built there was an F.A.R. limitation.
Krausch stated that his point stands that the Miller's built
their residence to conform with the existing F.A.R. and could
not see that the Board had a right to provide a variance under
those circumstances. Newbury advised the Board that Colette
was probably right and the issue should go through Special Review.
Shaffran questioned how the open space makes up the lot size,
and how it could be adjusted. She questioned if there was enough
open soace to make all the substandard lots standard. Newbury
stated that there was usually more than enough.
L
,
.-~..
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
"I'" "I"o;:n fl. q fI L. LJ.
Page 2
Board of Adjustment
January 31, 1984
Newbury explained that under the new PUD development they allow
the development of that lot although it may be described-as a
substandard lot the same F.A.R. as would be allowed for a 30,000
square foot lot. Lukes questioned why the Board should force
~iller to go through Special Review if those were the current
planning regulations. Newbury stated it was because of other
subdivisions with this problem and it would save the Board from
having to review every substandard lot. Krausch, after re-reading
the minutes from the November meeting, was satisfied that he was
not aware that there was a separation in time between the time the
F.A.R. was in effect and the time the lot was purchased.
Smith felt that Newbury's suggestion of Special Revi~w might
be the more efficient method in this situation. Smith stated
that the critical issue here was whether this falls within the
powers of granting the variance. He felt that the problem
could be with the law and not the lot. Throm stated that he
had a problem with the lot and not the law. He also stated that
at some time it may be worthwhile for someone to go through the
special review and if he was assured that it would solve the
problem once and for all thats what he would urge, but he had a
suspicion that going through the planning dept~ would not get
the job accomplished. Throm felt that the Board had ihe ability
to grant the request. Krausch pointed out other cas~sthat the
Board had turned down a request because the owner had bought a
lot after the downzoning~ad taken place. Lukes stated that
he h'as having a difficult time dismissing this case to the
planning dept. Krausch felt that in granting this request, each
time there is a problem with the land use code, it would be
brought before them. Lukes felt that the variance could be granted
on this lot due to the peculiar and specific hardships that have
resulted from downzoning. Smith pointed out that Miller had
no problem until the Board of Commissioners adopted the F .A. R..
limitations, the problem was not the topographical or geographical
aspects of the property. If it was, there is nothing in the land
use code that isn't a topographical or geographical problem.
Gull felt that a decision based on downzoning in this case would
be consistent with other decisions made by this Board.
Krausch questioned how long the process would take if they sent
the issue over to the planning dept. Newbury didn't feel that
it would be a very tedious process and that it wouldn't take
quite so lorlg because discussions had already been held with
the planning dept. Miller urged the Board to act on the request
in a positive manner since it seemed to be consistent with other
decisions of the Board. Mason questioned Smith and Newbury how
they would feel if the Board takes action on something they feel
strongly about, and are going to recommend that action be taken
by the Commissioners and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Smith
felt that Newbury's recommendation was the best avenue to take,
but the Board had to make their own decision. Miller pointed out
he was not asking for more than he should be entitled ,under normal
conditions. Shaffran agreed that clarifying the point that the
property was bought prior to the F.A.R. regulations did make a
difference.
r
.-
e
-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
;R'" H,:r~>( FL Ii, iL I; l (...).
Page 3
Board of Adjustment
January 31, 1984
Fox motioned that the request be granted, feeling that the Board
was within their right. Bill LUkes second the motion. Sha~fran
wanted to know on what basis the request should be gr~nted.
Krausch suggested that an amendment to the motion should be made
stating down zoning as the hardship. Smith stated that the action
would not be defensible on that basis. Fox stated that she would
base her decision on the fact that the F.A.R. restrictions were
set nfter Miller had purchased his lot with respect to the size
and shape of the land. Krausch wanted to add that maybe the
sublcct could be considered. Mason stated that he would make
a resolution for the County Commissioners and P & Z that this
Board recommends that they review the F.A.R. ratio for the lots
in question. A vote was called for and all were in favor.
Pitkin County Airport c/o CWH, Airport Entry Road 84-01
requesting a sign variance. Carly Wood was there to represent
the Airport Management. She presented her sign designs to the
Board for their information. She explained that the sign was
already in place with permission from Patsy Newbury. She
stated that between this time and spring there would be a new
sign program developed. Newbury questioned if the old signs
would be removed. Woods stated that the two blue ones would be
taken down. The standard highway "airport" signs wotild be
put back up. Mason questioned if the sign would be lit. Wood
stated that the entrance sign is lit now and the terminal sign
is wired to be lit, but at this time was not. Mason wanted
to know if the lighting would be a hindrance to traffic. Wood
stated that the lights were directed back toward the sign.
Gull questioned if the sign was the correct size. Wood stated
that if the sign code regulations were applied to the entrance
sign it would look bad and be dangerous. It wOuld be too small.
She stated that the lettering area is 6'7", ~hereasthe entire
sign was closer to 12'. Wood explained that the sign was exempt
because it was a governmental sign. Newbury stated that it had
to go before the Board for review however.
Gull motioned to approve the sign as requested. Throm. second
the motion. A vote was called and all were in favor.
Hans Gramiger was there to have a discussion with the Board. He
did not make a formal application, so Mason explained to the Board
that there would not be a formal action taken by the Board.
Gramiger gave some background information to the Board about
his situation. At one time in the past he claimed that the Board
had nothing to do with zoning matters and was challenged in
the Court of Appeals and went on to the Supreme Court. He was
before the Board at that time to notify them that he was filing
a lawsuit against the Commissioners for the denial of equal
protection under the law, due process, inverse condemnation with
just compensation, and he informed the Board that they had a duty
to say that they grant or deny his variance or that the Board has
no jurisdiction in the matter and by that action of the Board he
will have exhausted all of his administrative remedies. Mason
suggested that Gramiger go through the proper channels and
make a proper application before the Board. Gramiger stated that
he had not been denied a building ,permit or that he had be agrieved
by a Board.
,
. -
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
III~ [ (; 1'\ [L n, f< 'j C l. ,1
Page 4
Board of Adjustment
January 31, 1984
Gramiger stated that the Board could turn him away because he
didn't have anything which falls within a 30 day time limit, or
because he doesn't have a formal variance application, or they
could lean on some language that he drafted for their guidance.
He stressed to the Board that they had an obligation to help him.
He nassed the draft to the Board members. Smith questioned
if there was an application before the Board. Mason stated
that there was not. Smith stated that there was nothing for
the Board to act on. Mason agreed. Gramiger stated that was
what he wanted the Board to state, which was there was nothing
to act on. Mason stated that he could not call for a vote
because it was not an official variance request. Gramiger
argued that point. He explained to the Board that the~e was
presently a suit pending with the Commissioners because they
have allowed a restaurant in an AF-1 zone and yet are ~till
denying his restaurant in the same zone. Mason insisted
that the Board was not going to take formal action because
there was no application.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
\ (~,
(~-\"-'~) ,'\..'l--<...A. ~ C^---- N\.c.-----
~
--
J3d /)JJaArtA-/
Chairman
...~
-
..
"
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
lRh4" C. r, tiO[CKEl R. B. Ii, L. co.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 29, 1983
Regular Y..ee.ting
Members Present:
Dottie Fox, Acting Chairperson
Paul Krausch
Joe Zanin
Alternates:
Kandi Shaffran
Bob Throm
Evan Gull
Dottie Fox, acting chairperson, called the meeting to order.
She questioned if there were any additions or corrections to the
many minutes that were done during October. She pointed out
some wordings in the sentences that she wanted to clarify on page
5, first set, regarding Hendric~ feelings and on page 7, regarding
a statement made by Moran regarding the building permit, which
was stated as building department. There were no other corrections.
Zanin moved to approve the minutes. Throm second the motion. All
in favor.
Peter Dobrovolny 83-39
6945 Highway 82, Snowmass, Colorado
Requesting a variance for a business identification sign. The
sign will be two-sided and attached to the building. 6 square
feet in size and the building is aPproximately 100' from Highway
82. Peter Dobrovolny explained that he was not aware until he
became an alternate member with the Board that a variance was
necessary. He explained that he would be expanding his practice
and needed to change his sign. Fox questioned what the color
scheme would be. Dobrovolny explained that the background would
be light orange and the lettering would be brown. Gull questioned
Pasty Newbury, of the Building Dept., if there were any letter
limitations in the code, such as letter sizes. Newbury stated
that the letters were limited to 12 inches. Shaffran questioned
the lighting of the sign. Dobrovolny stated that there was two
deck lights on his end of the building~ the up-valley side he
was planning to elliminate. Fox questioned Newbury if a sign
needed to be posted for a sign variance. Newbury did not feel
that they did. Throm questioned if there were any other signs
on the building. Dobrovolny stated that there were signs for
the realestate company in the other half of the building.
Fox questioned Newbury if the letters:were within the proper
height. Newbury stated that the requirement was just for cut-out
letters. Newbury then determined that no letter shall be larger
than 12" in height except for the initial letter which may be 18"
high. Dobrovolny agreed that he could adjust his lettering to
meet these requirements. Shaffran moved to grant the sign approval
with the condition that the sign conforms to County Code, which
is that t:he first letter is no higher than 18" and the following
letters no higher than 12" Krausch second the motion. A vote
was taken and all were in favor.
-
..
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
lRhI 'C F HOECKEL B. 8. 8: L. CO.
Page 2
Board of Adjustment
January 12, 1984
Steve Knudson 83-38
0127 McSkimming Road, requesting a 156 square foot floor area ratio
variance for addition of entry way. Knudson was not there due
to a snow storm that was detaining him in Denver. He had requested
that they call him and discuss the matter over the telephone.
Fox read the application, explaining that the entryway was necessary
to keep down heat loss. Newbury also explained that at this time
the structure was a duplex and the owner was trying to make the
unit a single family residence, which is what the zone requires.
Also a storage shed located on the property would be torn down.
~ewbury stated that the owner would be taking out the kitchen. in
the second unit. The proposed stairway would be outside the
structure. Zanin confirmed that the stairway could not be placed
inside. Fox pointed out that there were no complaints from the
neighbors. Krausch questioned why it was referred to as an entryway
instead of a stairway. Newbury answered that it would be like an
airlock. Fox felt that the fact that there were no F.A.R. requirements
at the time of construction should be considered.
Gull moved to grant the variance for an additional 156 square
feet over the floor area ratio thats allowed because of obwnzohinq
changing the F.A.R. with the condition that the property reverts
back to a single family residence in accordance with the current
county zoning. Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for
and all were in favor.
P~ilip/Sally Miller 83-35
Lot 5, Replat 2, Ridge of Red Mountain SiD, requesting a floor
area ratio variance of 499 square feet for addition of residence.
Phil Miller was there to represent himself. He explained that
the basis .for his hardship is that at the time the F.A.R.'s
were imposed, 13% was applied to R-30 lot with a minimum lot size
of 30,000 square feet. He explained his reasoning behind the
purchase of his lot in 1975. He gave a brief explanation of the
history of his lot and how the size of the lot is smaller than
what the F.A.R. zoning is meant for. He pointed out that if his
lot was located in any of the other subdivisions, i.e. Mountain
Valley, Aspen Grove, they could build out to 1.6 and that is what
they are basing their hardship on. There was a study that he
put together that was included in the packet to the Board members.
Phil explained that he had been to the homeowners association and
had reviewed his request with them. and, they approved his request.
He presented photos of his r~sidence to the Board and pointed out
that he wanted to expand over his garage, which would not increase
the footprint of the residence. He explained that they would not
be going any higher than the existing roofline. He stated that
his neighbors would not be impacted as. far as their view is concerned.
Krausch questioned what the square footage of the residence presently
was. Miller stated that according to the architect is was 2098 square
feet. He also stated that the assessor's office showed his residence
as being 2240 square feet, which exceeds the F.A.R. by 50 square feet.
But he stated that he had noted that the assessor's figures were
not exact all the time.
e e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ORM <, c r HQrCKEL B. B It L. co.
Page 3
Board of Adjustment
November 29, 1983
Miller made the point that it would only be fair to adjust
the F.A.R. requirements of his lot to fit the size of his lot,
instead of the larger lots in his subdivision. Fox stated
that she did not see a major impact in comparison with the
large homes in that area. Miller stated that the house was
built under the present zoning, but due to constraints of a
budget, was not planning any additions at that time. Fox
informed the Board that there were no objections in the file
from adjacent neighbors. Gull stated that he felt it was
a reasonable approach. Shaffran questioned if the Board had
the right to change the zoning on that lot. Gull stated that
they were not changing the zoning but were allowing the variance
request.
Newbury explained to the Board that with this lot a given amount
of land was dedicated as open space to bring those lots up to
their required zoning requirements. She explained that this
is the thing that is not reflected in. the lot itself in these
clustered areas. When this area was being dedicated part of
the land came from what would have been Miller's lot.
Krausch felt that the Miller's bought and built their home
with the present conditions and could not see a hardship. Also
he was troubled with setting a precedent, and felt that this
argument could potentially be unlimited in scope. He was
not favorable to granting the request. Shaffran wondered what
grounds the Board could act upon. Throm questioned the use and
Miller stated that it would be a bed and bath.
Gull felt that there was a large number of instances where there
are inapP!opriate zoning on lots of incorrect size and this is
one example. Krausch questioned about the fact the owner bought
the lot with the present conditions and knew what he was getting
into. Gull was dealing with the fact that the zoning is inappropriate
to the size of the lot. Fox felt that the Board was appointed
to handle situations where lots were handled unfairly by the zoning
process. Gull explained to Krausch that he was trying to apply the
appropriate zoning to the size of that particular lot, stating
that he was against F.A.R. variances on a lot that is appropriately
zoned. Krausch agreed that the lot was inappropriately restricted
in the floor area, a hardship thats imposed upon the lot. But
he had a problem considering it a hardship imposed upon the owner
who bought the lot knowing what the l~mitations were.
Gull felt that it would not be unreasonable for Miller to go before
P&Z to get the lot rezoned.
Shaffran felt that the owner bought his lot on the Ridge and
to live there he had to live under th~ zoning of that area, instead
of comparing the zoning to that of Mountain Valley, where he didn't
live. Miller answered that priorities changed and he just wanted
a fair F.A.R. for his lot size, in comparison with other subdivision
lots of that size. Zanin questioned ~f the Board had the authority
to act on this request. Newbury stated that if there was a hardship
they could take an action. Miller requested a straw vote to get
a feeling of what action the Board would take. Krausch stated that
he felt inclined to vote against the request, but since it was an
entirely different approach from anything brought before the Board
he was interested in thinking about the matter and discussing it
more.
e e
aR~'~ c. I, H[)(CKEl B. [I. (] l. CO.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Page 4
Board of Adjustment
November 29, 1983
Newbury suggested that a meeting be held with County.Attorney
Tom Smith to discuss the matter. Shaffran wanted to know what the
hardship could be. Fox felt the hardship was an inappropriate
zoning which lowered his F.A.R. due to the dedication of open space
cutting into his lot size. Shaffran pointed out that was very
different from other hardships that the Board has always used
as a guideline. Throm stated that not all cases can be looked
at in such a black and white manner. Krausch felt that they
must follow the guidelines. Throm felt that it would be worthwhile
to request a special meeting and invite the county attorney to
clarify the bounds in which the Board works under. Fox motioned
to table the issue until direction could be gotten from the
County Attorney. Shaffran second the motion. All the members
were in favor.
Alfred/Valeria Braun 83-36
1440 River Road, Woody Creek
requesting a 100' front yard setback variance and a 50' rearyard
setback variance to construct a cedar fence over 6' tall. Alfred
Braun was there to represent self. He explained that the main
reason for making the fence so high is to hide the view of his
neighbors property. He presented some photos of the property to
show the Board members what his property looked like and what his
neighbors property looked at. Fox wanted to know if the situation
of the neighbors property had ever been brought to the attention
of the zoning enforcement officer. Braun stated that it had, and
was sited in 1981 for operating an illegal dump, but the property
was still in bad shape. Braun claimed that his fence would not
block the neighbors view from the deck of his residence, as
is allegated in a letter to Braun from Gary Gidley, the neighbor.
Krausch questioned if this was the only neighbor that was objecting.
Braun answered that it was. Gary Gidley was there to voice his
objections. He presented photos to the Board members showing his
fence, which he admitted was too high, but stated that he got permission
from Braun to build the fence that high. He claims that Braun has
vehicles and gas tanks on his property also. He did not feel that
the Braun fence should be that high and claimed that he obstructed
his view. He pointed out the area of the fence that blocked his
view and requested that it be stepped at that point.
Pat Fox was there also. He agreed that Gidley did not obstruct
any views with his fence, but did build the fence on an easement that
belongs to Fox. Also he stated that Gidley violates. the scenic
quality section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code with the state
that his property is in.
Don Feeley was there and stated that he was not in favor one way
or another regarding the fences but wanted to state his displeasure
with the need for the fence and was backing up Fred for wanting the
fence. He urged Gidley to clean up his property and try to organize
his equipment.
Gull moved to deny the variance and encouraged the neighbors to
work toward taking care of the situation through the courts. He
felt that there were no grounds for the Board to work with. Krausch
felt that the County should enforce their codes and since nothing
has been done to clean up Gidley's property, the Board has every
right to give Mr. Braun some assistance. Gull's motion was not
seconded. Braun stated that if the County could force Gidley to
clean up his property he would lower his fence.
...:.
,... .....
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
- ,. 1l<l[(KrLfJ, r, II L. en.
Page 5
Board of Adjustment
November 29, 1983
Throm motioned to grant the variance on the basis that pitkin
County Land Use Code, Section 2-16 Scenic Quality provides this
Board with the ability to grant the variance for the 7'6" height.
Krausch suggested that something be mentioned about taking the
fence down. Throm stated that he didn't want to do that. Krausch
second the motion as originally stated but expressed his concern
that the County has not followed up on the violation. Shaffran
expressed concern that the Board was exceeding their bounds. Throm
stated that if they were someone could come talk with them. A
vote was called for. Fox, Krausch, Zanin and Throm were for.
Gull make an opposing vote. The motion passed.
David Koenck , 83-37
Lot 4, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass, requesting a
70' front yard setback variance and a 30' sideyard setback variance
on each side for construction of residence. David Koenck was
there to represent self. He explained that he was not aware
of the setback requirements set by the County on the lot and
presented to the Board his drawings of the residence. He was
assured at the time of purchase that the subdivision covenant
was in effect. He stated that he did do research at Clerk &
Recorder and found that the covenant was recorded. Krausch
questioned how Koenck was mislead. Koenck answered that he
was assured by the realestate broker. Newbury added that the
area was originally zoned AF-2 and his setbacks would be ok
under that zoning.
Fox wanted to know if there was another place on the property
to place the structure. Koenck stated that it would be very
difficult because he was trying to place for solar benefit.
Throm poiDted out some other locations. Koenck had a topo
map to show the most practical location.
Zanin moved to grant the variance request due to the topographical
hardship and for the solar conditions. Shaffran second the motion.
A vote was called for and all were in favor.
Throm suggested that Newbury contact the realitors in a letter,
or whatever, to advise them of the downzoning in the Gateway of
Snow:nass area.
The meeting was adjourned.
Resoectfully submitted,
" \.
( ---- '---.......
,. "
. \)
''--..S,;,. '----\.. 'f----'-- C J" <(v' n.~'-'--'
C '"
~)
/12/ ~~
. Chairperson
Scanned 8/7/07
File Finders Box
#10