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.