Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZBAP 2003-06-11TOWN Ol "Icebox of 1 Town of Fraser Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Agenda Town Hall, 153 Fraser Ave June 11, 2003 6:30 p.m. Roll Call Approval of Minutes from the January 30, 2002 meeting Open Forum Action Items Whispering Pines I Nfinor Subdivision -Ream yarrd setback vcrri~ce request +,• Discussion Items Staff Choice Commissioners' Choice • • • FRASER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 PLACE: Town Hall Board Room PRESENT Commission: Chairperson Debbie Knutson and Members: Rusty Boudreaux, Karen Frye and Steve Sumrall Staff: Community Development Director Jeff Durbin, Planner Drew Nelson and T.,W~~ Clerk Molly McCandless Others: None Chair Knutson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Oven Forum Chair Knutson asked for items not on the agenda. CDD Durbin introduced new Town employee Drew Nelson. As Planner, Drew will be working closely with Jeff and the Commission. Hearing nothing further for Open Forum, the Chairperson moved on to the next item. Action Items Mountain Timber Furnishings -Public Rearing Variance from Minimum Parking Requirements Comm. Sumrall moved, and Comm. Boudreaux seconded the motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried: 4-0. CDD Durbin reviewed the parking situation at the new Mountain Timber location. Staff Choice Commissioners' Choice None • ýÿ Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 02/30/02 Page 2 Comm. Frye moved, and Comm. Boudreaux seconded the motioa to adjourn. Motion carried: 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ~~__~ Molly M Bless, T~.~,~~ Clerk • TOWN OF ERASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 1 ZO / 153 Fraser Avenue v Framer, Colorado 80442 P: (970) 726.5491 F: (970) 7265518 pa~ iraser~town.freser.co.us ~~ °4A° MEMO TO: Members of the Boazd of Zoni g Adjustment FROM: Drew Nelson, Planner ~~ DATE: June 4, 2003 SUBJECT: REAR ~~1tsACK VARIANCE FOR 821 ERMIlVE LANE Backsround The Town of Fraser has received an application from Dean Cinocco of Distinctive Design to reduce the reaz setback requirement for two lots (hots MH-68 and MH-69) located on Ermine Lane (see attached context map). The lots, owned by Scott Kimball, currently have an open foundation on them that was constructed in the 1980s for afour- unit building. The existing foundation is located approximately six feet from the rear property line, and was approved as part of the Whispering Pines Subdivision from the 1980s (see attached plat). Consequently, this variance request would allow the applicant to place their proposed structure in roughly the same location as the existing foundation. The applicant is proposing to tear out the existing foundation to install afour--unit townhome structure. Issues As part of the new construction, the applicant is proposing that a setback variance is needed to r.~. ride azchitectural interest to the building, allowing the two interior units of the building to be inset from the two outer units. In order to allow a variance for a six foot rear setback, the Boazd of Zoning Adjustment must review six criteria as set out by the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Staff has provided comments below in regazds to the criteria required by the Zoning Ordinance as well as responses to the applicant's submittal. Section 13-10-4. Jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment (2) Variances: The Boazd of Zoning Adjustment shall have the power to grant variances from the provisions of this Ordinance, but only after consideration of the following provisions: (a) That satisfactory proof has been presented to the Board showing that the present or proposed situation of a requested building, structure, or use is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. • Staff Comment: The applicant states in their letter that the owner of the • property should be allowed to maximize the potential of his property, and by granting this variance the owner would be able to do that. Staff feels that the proposed variance would not inconvenience the public, and agrees with the applicant's assertion that azchitectural variation would increase the visual aesthetics of the proposed development, thus potentially adding to the value of the property as well as to the surrounding properties. (b) That the variance which is requested would not authorize any use other than uses enumerated as a use by right of the district. Staff'Comment: The requested variance would not authorize any use other than uses enumerated as a use by right of the district as four-unit townhome dwellings aze allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. (c) That an unnecessary hardship to the owner would be shown to occur if the provisions of the Ordinance were literally followed. Staff Comment: One factor for the Boazd of Adjustment to consider is that the original proposed building could be constructed today at the same distance the applicant is proposing to construct the four-unit building, and holding the applicant to the current zoning requirement of a ten-foot reaz setback could be perceived as a hardship. In addition, the lot configurations on the upper • Ptarmigan lots aze unique in that they were originally designed for mobile homes. Because of the angled nature of the lots, staff has approved buildings to encroach imo the setbacks as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance (allowing the setback of a building to be the average distance of the footprint of the building from the property line). Thus, multiple buildings have been constructed in the azea that also encroach into all of the setbacks, as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, and requiring this particular site to meet all setback requirements may also be perceived as a hazdship. (d) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship either were not created by the owner, or were in existence at the time of the passage of this Ordinance, and cannot be reasonably corrected. StcrJ`'Comment: The circumstances of the perceived hazdship aze associated with the design of the subdivision and the unique orientation of the lots. Because of the lot design, it is somewhat difficult to accommodate stick-built single- and multi-family residences in this area, even though the Zoning Ordinance provides property owners with the ability to construct these types of buildings in the upper Ptarmigan azea. These circumstances were not ....,pled by the owner. (e) That the variance would not injure the value, use of, or prevent the proper access of lighted air to the adjacent properties. • Staff C..~~.~~.ent: As the applicant noted in their submittal, the variance may • increase the value of the property in question, as well as the surrounding properties. Side setbacks are not being encroached upon, and would not prevent the proper use of adjoining properties to the sides. The rear setback is proposed to be encroached upon; however, atwenty-foot buffer area owned by the Town is at the rear of the property, and would r. ~, side a minimum distance of thirty-six feet from adjacent buildings to the rear if those setbacks are not encroached upon. The structure is proposed to be thirty-two feet in height, and would not prevent the access of lighted air to the adjacent r.~,rerties. (f) That the variance would not be out of harmony with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. Staff C~,~'~.~,.ent: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Section 13-1, is described as follows: "This ordinance shall be for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present toad future inhabitants of the Town of Fraser, by lessening congestion in the streets and roads; increasing safety from fare and other danger; providing adequate light and air; the classification of land uses and devel..t,~',rent; protection of the tax base; securing economy in gotic~' ~~~,eental expenditures; fostering and encouraging business and industry; and the protection of urban toad non urban devel~.t.~',.ent. " • It is staff's opinion that the proposed variance request would not be out of harmony with the intent and purpose of this ordinance, as stated above. Recommendation Town staff recommends that the Town of Fraser Zoning Board of Adjustment make the following findings and approve a variance to allow a rear setback of six feet for a property located at 821 Ermine Lane: Suggested motion: "I move that we make the following findings: (a) That satisfactory proof has been provided showing that the proposed situation of a requested setback variance is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public; (b) That the requested setback variance would not authorize any use other than a use enumerated as a use by right of the district; (c) That an unnecessary hardship to the owner would be shown to occur if the provisions of the Ordinance were literally followed; (d) That the circumstances found to con.-:'.t ate a hardship were not created by • the owner; • (e) That the variance would not injure the value, use of, or prevent the proper access of lighted air to the adjacent properties; and (f) That the variance would not be out of harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. and therefore approve the request for a variance to allow a sig foot rear setback on Lots MH-68 and MH-69 of the Whispering Pines I Minor Subdivision." G: IG~r,~a iF. W~.w.~+FileslErmine 821~311zba variance 060403.dac • ýÿ CONTEXT MAP /~ / BADGER LN 1 \. \. /~ WOLVERINE LN /~ V / / /~/I J - ERMINE LN //j/- ,~ //~~ \\ _ \/ ~ ~_ ~^~~ °,~ Kimball Setback ~~ ~ ~~ Variance Request l_~ 821 Ermine Lane ctive ~1 CONCEPTS Town of Fraser ~/--~ ~, tilt r/N~cfiiirifo~c~liii iiiftiroi•~?rli ss ~n ecf 7iiasiir e+riieir! ~iii~ ni~iriii 7tanir ~~»~iirfd ._ f ,__~ May 1, 2003 P.O. Box 120 Fraser, CO, 80442 ~ . _ - ~ - : To: The Board of Zoning Adjustment For: Request for rear setback encroachment Property: MH-68 & MH-69 Ptarngan, Fraser, Grand County, Colorado From: Distinctive Design Concepts representative of property owner Scott Knnball Please find enclosed a request for a rear setback encroachment variance on lots MH-68 and MH-69 Ptarmigan The following is intended to expedite your review of this application: Reauest for Variance: We are requesting a variance for a rear setback encroachment of four feet in order to provide architectural interest to a proposed 4-plex on the above described parcels in order to create a more pleasing and aesthetic looking building within the Ptarmigan area. Please reference the attached plat drawing which shows the area of encroachment. The site currently has an existing foundation, for. a duplex, that was constructed in the early 1980's. The rear of the existing foundation is currently set at six foot from the rear property line. The land owner understands and acknowledges that setback distances have been revised from five foot setbacks to the current ten feet at the rear. The original design for this structure was a building that would meet all setbacks and subdivision regal. ;....ents as prescribed by the Town of Fraser. Although it would meet all requirements the 4-plex would be in the shape of a straight, monolithic form which does not provide many opportunities for architectural interests and creativity. The request for a rear setback encroachment is to allow the two center units of the buildings to be moved back four feet to create a more interesting roof line and to add a considerable amount of architectural interest to the building which will increase the aesthetic interest of the building and would ultimately provide increased properly values to the adjacent properties. By creating broken planes in the building footprint we can add an enormous amount of architectural interest and street appeal that could not otherwise be achieved. Section 13-10-04-(21 Variances: Z(a). The above request is reasonable and necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public. Adding architectural interest to the building will help to maintain current property values in the area and could potentially increase future property values: If a variance is not granted, and in order for the property owner to maximize his property's potential, the building footprint would be rectangular in shape and would have limited architectural interest which would reduce the potential of the property and the surrounding area. 2(b) N/A ýÿ ctive _ Dl : S N CO N C E P T S a~ r~Ycchi~ ril~ ~ii iiifpi roi• ilrat~~~(/ecf 7itaitagP/1/BIII ~~ `~ ai~ii~r// ~nutP,Gi n~iirf.~ 2~c) That an unnecessary hardship could occur if the variance is not approved: A landowner has a right to maximize the use of his or her property. As previously mentioned, a rectangular structure, with each unit having the exact same dimensions, amenities and finished square footage and meeting all requirements can be built on this site but may not necessarily maximize the potential value of the property. By creating more architectural interest in the building and making it more visually appealing it has the ability to increasing either sales prices or making it more competitive in the market place. By appealing to more buyers it maximizes the value of each unit which will increase the property's values for my client as well as increasing value to adjacent properties. Please be aware that it is less expensive to build a simple rectangulaz structure than to build the design we are proposing. By spending an additional amount of money effectively maximizes the earning potential of the property and in addition gives back to the community a more aesthetically appealing structure which maintains Cu..~..d values and may even increase future values. Not having the variance granted could prevent the property from being used to its maximum potential by limiting returns on any investment. 2(d) N/A 2(e). An approved variance will not injure or reduce the value of adjacent properties. As previously stated, there currently exists a foundation that has been there since the early 80's. This foundation is six foot from the rear property line and is an eye sore and a safety hazard. In constructing the proposed 4-plex the existing foundation would be removed and the new building, with azchitectural interest and curb appeal, would improve the overall property values in the area. Another important consideration is a twenty foot wide greenbelt that cu~.;,..tly exists at the rear of the two properties. If the setbacks of the two properties are added together and combined with the greenbelt azea and taking into consideration the four foot encroachment the closest distance of the two building at the rear will be a minimum of thirty-six feet. Taking this into consideration and looking at the overall benefits to the community of creating architectural interest to the building appears to enhance all properties. Creating buildings that have good aesthetic appeal should be extremely important to all ca..u~.anities and can only compliment and enhance the overall azea. 2(f) Approval of variance will not be out of harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is an effort to create a minimum distance between structures. In this situation it appears that the basic intent of the ordinance will be preserved due to the greenbelt area adjacent to the rear of said pazcel. As stated previously, the two structures will be a minimum of thirty-six feet apart from building face to building face. In summary, it is our intent to create a building that has visual interest and curb appeal that will add value to the building itself and in turn will maintain and potentially increase the value of the adjacent properties without creating a negative impact on the adjacent properties. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Dean Cinocco Distinctive Design Concepts LLC. M • . • • C0. AD. 8 ~ 18/ a ~ tt120 -~ P ~B. ~ ~ vrcMm MAP N.T.S. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT WHISPERING PINES 1 AMENDED BEING A RE-PLAT OF WHISPERING PINES 1 REC, ~ 185781, A.K.A. LOT MH-68 AND MH-69, PTA'RMIGA , SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO PRIVATE P.4RI~ (SBi'St'02~R 7ODIT (M.E9'( Cfa~T ~Yr14'h (~~ aw~.arww 70.08' & /`- a~~~.~:,ri t a / 1C SEIBAGt ~: e10700Dr 28W' ~ „~~, 2b9P ~ / :: ~ ~ , fa9b' - - ~ rpopavW Gov pg ~%~~`` lAT NN 69 M1~~. 6~ / i i i ~ ~ ~~,~9/~ ~~ ~ i i 8DN/M.' Y / ~~C~ `a,. M~1 ~ ~~+ ~a / uxirY o,Yn a /+~ oxn r ter'. w~ ~ fg, oamr+w~ ~ mararaen ~ ~ rrrwwr~~ ~ evwwwreen ~ OPBN SP.KB LOT ,lIH 6T ~~,~ ~ ; '°" °° ~~,~ :: .~ .weer i ~a t9T~; ~N~! _ I ~ ~ ,1~ / d'P6P SP,ICB i ~ ~H' / - ~ ~ /~'~i¢a I ~/ ~ I ~_ ah~ - - ~ , ~ EA4YPoIT F011 FA9EYDIT F9t_ 7 ~ _ / ~ ?Jloa' oEd1 ABDYE oEdt t moor I / tE' ABOVE n ~~ MOC _s,~- !so NBSO / 1901 elb ,` /~'. S' xdf-EROfI~eE urnm EASEYFMT LOT /III 68 21Y u7urr EAa:::.i . / ~ / 70 to tPoNVLKD W11N Tf14 lgAT dDN/6SY! (~ per, Na T~7BI) ```` ~ a sETBAaI ~- ~ ~ ~ (~) ~ ~ h p NB9'8YT1'E (NBB'47Y1'E) NB9'/1'21'E - BASIS OF B~'ARING NB9'9y'19"~' 190.,21' hRAffIN~' LANG' (80' A.0.v.) SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: I DAVID R. LU72, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR M THE STATE OF COLORADO. DD HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 7195 PLA1 ~ WHISPERMO PMES 1 ATTENDED TRULY ANO CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS ~ A SURVEY 4ADE BY NE AND UNDER NT dREM SUPERNSICN AND THAT SAID PLAT COMPLIES VWTN THE RE019RENENTS d• TITLE 3& ARTICLE !1, COLORADO STALE STA7U7E£ 1973, AND THAT 7HF MONUMENTS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW MID THE TOWN OF FRASER SUBdWS10N RECIOAlIONS HAVE BEEN PLACED M THE CROUNO. DAWD a. Lu7z COLORADO P.L.S. J5568 LOT !9H 70 DEOICATId4 AND NCTARY aAUSE: Knor oA people by them Demote Thal Scott d KMbap to the Duna of Ne real poperly aHuoled h the Town of Frosa. Crard County, Cakroda mae PoEy denriMd as lopowe: Lots MH-9B and MH-69, Plormigan. Thol he Aa9 cased said real popnty to be laid al oral surveyed oe 9hkperYrg Piros T Amended, arM does Ireraby dedkate and eel apart a0 the etreeta a9ap and other puNk woya and Waces shmm an IM accanponykq plat fa Iha use of be puDlk lorem, and does haaby dedkate chose partkm of eak real paperly whkh aro Y~ealed ae easements an the dCCalnpan)II19 Dlat W ..,,....„ ... M WITNESS ,. wa,r, Stoll 1 NMba9 hog caa9[d Ab flame to be Aaeandn a.,-":...J thk-day 01 BY: Sept 1 NfmDtll STATE a cat>RAOG ) DaMtt aF ~ the laegobq NeUamnt was ..~:..., .,.:.,.J befar me Ihb_doy of DY Stott d KYnDa9. BY:. - Yy Cmmhdon Espkea SEAL CERTIFICATE FOA APPROVAL BY THE PLANh2NG COMMiSSIOFk The Plannkg CammisMai of lne Tam of Fraser, Cdaado does haeDy auUake aM appme tole RaL Appoved Ihl9~doy of BY:_ Rmnhq Commlesion CAaDpamn, Tosn of Fraser CER7VICA7E FOR APPROVAL BY 1HE TOWN BOAAG: Approved arM m punk dedltallona ateapled tNa-, day of. _ Dy 1ne fraea Tam Boad Tna Town of Fraser does not assume any reepontB9ily fa the carreelness a oeturatyry of any Mfamatkn dkdosed on thk pkt rwn any ..,~. tatkne a klamotlon peaenied to the Town of Froea rhkh educed the Town to gNe th+e ter119cota. BY• Mapr. Town of Fraser NOTES: t. DATE ~ FOT.D rudnc APRIL 28, 2QD3 2 A TITLE SEARCH WAS NO7 PERFORMED BY MOUNTAIN STATES SURVEYMC, MO, AT 1NE REQUEST OF THE OWNER OR AGENT. LEGAL Dca,mr ~~GN AS SHOWN HEREON. IS BASED UPON THE TITLE COMMITLIENT ORDER N0, R-20143, GATED 01/22/2003 BY GRAND CW11tt TIiIE AND ESCROW COMPANY, MC.. RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS WERE NOT RESEARCHED BY THIS OFfi~ AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLIENT. RIC4tT5 ~ WAY AND EASEMENTS WERE NOT PR05~ED qTH SAID TITLE C0IOUTMENT. EASEL9ENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE PER RECORDED PLATS 3 CER7IFIGTION NOT VALID WITHOUT ORICMAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE. THIS SURVEY AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE i0R THE SOLE IISE OF 1NE CLIENT AT THE DATE OF CER7IFICA1W11. 4, d14'N90NS M PAwwnu:a~S ARE THOSE PER PLATS OR DEEDS WHEN dFFERENT fROM THOSE MEASURED M THE FO'lD, S N07Nt: ACCORDMC TO COLdiADO LAN YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION RASED IR'Ot1 ANY DEFECT M THIS SURVEY WITHM THREE YEARS Af1ER YOU FIRST dSCOVER PolCM DEFECT, M NO EVENT YAY ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY OFFECT N 114S SUR1E1' ~ COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE GATE OF CER791CARd4 SHOWN tIEREON. B. BASS !lF BEAKNC 6 1HE PoCHT OF WAY LBO' CF EAYRIE LANE BETWEEN THE 3/8' RERAR FWNO AT THE SOUmncai wrorn t>F LOi MH-68 AND THE !/8~ REBAR WITH 1-1/2' ALUMMUM CAP LS} 31942 FOUND AT THE SOUTIO'AST CCPNEA OF LOT YH-89, PTARMIGAN. SAID LINE BEARS NORTH 89'4714• EAST AS RECORDED AT RECEPTION N0. 125924, 7, THE TOPOf2LAPHY PORTION ~ THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON A ASSUMED ELEVATION ~ B000 FEET AT A SET HAS NAO M THE ASPHALT 18 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHEAST ~w.m:n OF LOT MH-89. 8 AN AS-BOOT PLAT MUST ~ PROVIDED PER 1NE TOWN ~ FRA&R SUBdYISION REQ1lAT10NS AT THE TWE OF COMPLETION a THESE rnvrvacV iOWNHd1ES 9, TOWNHOME DEaARA710NS ncwmca AT REurnu~ NO ~ GRAND COUNtt RECORDS. 1.0. m. Edl flan. CO ttola tDon:191d,. Lee: Ea1W ~. NohIY:1910) auun m------ a 0 N a W C O -z------ ~~2~ aa~~ ~~~0 a2~pU OZ~~ affil ~ J=Vy N J LEND $2 ~ U N P j LAND USE TABULATION A L MI II CA 3196 S Q 7/8' REBAR-NO CAP TOTAL AREA 10505.11 SOFT 100A e BU0.DMC AREA 3520 SQF1 3319. 19TAND COUNtt USE WATER SERWCE , PARKMG AREA 1201.57 SOFT 11.45$ ® TRANSFORMER OPEN SPACE 571.54 SOFT 55.05& DAff: 4/30/03 DE9GN BY: Q} p PEDESTAL a s m m r DRAYRi BY: D} Y ® SNOW STORAGE i_a_~ _-~ ~ I CHECKED BY; ~Y { { REC Na IBl7B1 1 a erzr I JOB N0. 1 lase . 10 R ( ) REO NQ 125924 G 4 KO( ~~ 011-03 SHEET 1 OF 1 ~ r ~,~.~ ~ 17Fi r ~ ~i[~ • ~ ,~~ `aJ~ - u ~.ti; '~ ~ ., ., ` ~. lo' ~ 6' o' id ^ COlITOUq tNTEItvAts 2' ,j . ~~ i • M I ZONING MN 67,E S :` ;~,: +~ ~~. ~*d ;~ .. ~; :,. 1 ~' .~~! •/ ,,y~ M~ `~. ., - 1 f ~. r~i~ . i 9~ }~. b' ~ .~ `~ ~ ,, V~~ ~~ ~;~ '' ~, ~ MH 68 ~ 5250 sq.ft. •~ • J Lr .'t ~`~ `"~,,, • 1•Jt ~~~# ~.~ iV¢ ~~i t ~~ t ',x 7 ~ f' ` tk ,I''r• 4 t . ~, ~~~ ~ ;, ~•`~ ~, 1q 01 (TO 40 ) N ~f~ 61' Ot"E UNITS I ~ 2 EACH WITH 2 BORMS. i isi/~//~// f i, 1 ~~ ~• .`i Y~I~" UNITS 3 ~ 4 EACH 1NtTH 2 6DRMS. ss~hs • ~LANYER 1 DEC tr • 1 ~ ~ Q I . A ~~ :. sNOw a~ ee ~ ~ // / 1! -- -- •--- --t-- ---------- ~ t RE U9E ~`'~- ~ -- PARKING ,~ ~-FENCE 6 SPACES/ I~OO sa. f t. /~ ,P~ ~ ~~ r ~..... .......~ cus`vt:RY.......w ...., ....... / ~ • .a ~~ t M :NOMI sTO1lA~ r ~~ i -~ '~.. 70.06 (T0 VO ~ 1 r T0.0~ 170 04) ~ rp ` (N es 4T t~ E 3.0.9) `~' 1 ~ 1 u~cr~u~ A~aav~o ~iuA~, SAT ~ ~ G ~ M H 6g 5250 sq.ft. _ ~~~, r ~- . 4'A \.~~ .w} GREENBELT \ ~ ~, f9 (70.00) \ K ~f• ~T' I~" t ' ~e ea e~ Ub. ~~ IaN~s~r.~~u~ ~~~5 .FtM1NE LAND' .a i ..r. ..~.. ..... . ..r ~~ •.~. '~.~ .,r ..• 1 .. -.. - - I ~- ~, _ ~ ~. 4~ 04' .. ... fir.