HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19911024 CITY OF ASFEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 24, 1991
4.00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS--MAIN FLOOR
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES
JANUARY 31, 1991
APRIL 11, 1991
SEPTEMBER 12, 1991
SEPTEMBER 26, 1991
III. CASE #91-7
EDWIN PHELPS & LINDA MCFARLIN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24 1991
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm.
Answering roll call were Anne Austin, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson,
and Ron Erickson. Remo Lavagnino, Josephine Mann and Bill Martin
were excused.
CASE #91-7
EDWIN PHELPS AND LINDA MCFARLIN
Charlie read into record request for variance. (attached in
record)
Chuck Brandt presented notice of mailing and affidavit of posting.
(attached in record)
Brandt: This was owned and sold by Carol Nicholson in 1975 . To
enable the property to be sold, was when the encroachment onto the
Whitcomb's property was first discovered. So the Whitcombs entered
into an encroachment agreement at that time which allowed the sale
to be completed.
But that agreement says that if there is an alteration or remodel
to the house which would result in an increase in the amount of the
air space of that easement, encroachment is then to terminate. So
we have met with the Whitcombs on the property twice and it is our
intention to, in fact, eliminate the encroachment.
To comply with the code requirements with respect to the setback
of that portion of the house which would remain on the ground level
up to the property which we have the right to maintain the non-
conformity. But with respect to the proposed second floor addition
that would comply with the setback.
It is the Whitcomb 's position that they do not oppose the variance
but they do wish to have that encroachment eliminated and that is
our intention as well .
The existing house is about 1, OOOsgft. What we have are several
non-conformities. We have a non-conforming lot, 3 , 230sgft, which
is the minimum lot size of 6, 000sgft in this zone district. We
have non-conforming as to lot width. We have a 50ft lot width vs.
60ft. We have the house as it exists which does encroach in the
existing portion into the front yard setback.
What is proposed before you is to leave the existing structure so
the non-conformity may continue to exist but with respect to the
addition comply with the setbacks with the exception of the side
yard and the rear yard.
BAM10. 24 . 91
So the choices here are really to request the variances, the side
yard and the rear yard, or to demolish the house. And then to
comply with all the yard requirements. The house size in terms of
FAR would be the same. Whether we demolish the house to comply
with the code or get the setbacks today we are talking about the
same size house.
The application really boils down to recognizing the hardships
which are created by an existing (someone moved the mike here) to
choose siting on this lot recognizing the lot size and the lot
shape and to hopefully grant the variance as sought today to permit
the remodeling and the addition proposed by the applicant. Or to
say to the applicant "You must demolish the entire house, lose what
is there with respect to the opportunities to remodel the existing
house" . Or to build the same size home.
If we were to demolish the house we have sort of a special
circumstance there. We have a building envelope which is shaped
20ft by 40ft and if you subtract exterior walls and you think about
a house that would be 20ft in depth, it really presents some
peculiar architectural considerations with respect to room
arrangement and proportions to rooms.
There is a leg of this lot that goes down to the Roaring Fork
River. If we complied with the setbacks there, there would be an
opportunity to extend out with the room which is again loft. But
that is not much of an option. Further we are dealing with a very
steep grade going down to the Roaring Fork River.
Before we applied for the variance we contacted the owners of the
2 units of the lean-to condominium units which is located to the
south. We proposed to swap land which would have avoided the need
for this variance. They wanted the land plus a lot of money. So
that turned out not to be a viable option for us.
What we are asking for today is an addition with respect to the lot
area covered is 361sgft.
Bill Drueding: Since they applied for this variance other
information came that they were going to build over the top of this
second story which requires additional variances.
Brandt: I don't believe so. We discussed that. It is not our
intention to come back to the Board another time.
Drueding: I feel we can amend it if it is necessary.
Brandt: The City code requires that the front or rear yards total
no less than 30ft and that the front and rear yard shall each be
2
BAM10. 24 . 91
a minimum of loft provided that the rear yard for that portion of
the principle building used as a garage shall only be a minimum of
5ft. However, if you put a bedroom above the garage then the code
requires that you have a loft rear yard setback. We are asking for
a variance with respect to that portion of the property of 5ft.
With respect to the side yard setback for a lot size of up to
4 , 500sgft the minimum side yard setback is 5ft with respect to both
yards or a total of 10. And it is the City' s interpretation when
you have a situation such as this one when you have an existing
structure which encroaches into one of the side yards as this one
does that then you must have loft for the other side yard. So what
we are asking for is a variance there to reduce that from the
required loft down to 5.
The basis for the variances are several. The hardships that we
have encountered are trying to take a structure from the early 60s
and to remodel it and expand it and make it a functional home of
rather modest size. The location of the house on this lot and the
desire or the preference of the applicants to remodel rather than
demolish the house presents a hardship. The area proposed for the
addition is really the only flat area which is available on the
property. The area between the home and the river besides the
peculiar lot shape is rather steep. Thirdly the City side yard
setback of 5ft each--given the City side yard setback of 5ft which
is an area loft in which exists over that portion of the Roaring
Fork which is sort of that leg going down. So that really doesn't
present an opportunity for us to utilize that area in any
meaningful way.
The dimensions of the legal building area--that 20x40 presents a
hardship with respect to the size and the shapes of rooms in any
new structure. Thus the variance route is the preferred method of
dealing with that matter.
The impacts on the adjacent properties: We have analyzed those and
it seems to me that the 5ft variance request next door to the lean-
tos is really a minimal one. But for the fact that the home the
existing structure encroaches into the northerly yard setback next
to the Whitcomb property there would be a 5ft setback there anyway.
So in a sense though there is a code requirement for 10, if we
could comply with a northerly yard setback there would be 5ft next
to the lean-to -in any event: - - - - -
With respect to the 5ft variance request for the rear yard that
appears to be unusable and perhaps unbuildable property by the
condominium unit owners. That would be a general common element.
I haven't checked the square footage or the FAR but I doubt that
they would be able to take the units down and then move to the west
into that area. So that impact seemed to be a very negligible one.
3
BAM10. 24 .91
To date in there has not been anybody opposed to the application.
Drueding: I am confused. When we first started this procedure he
told me that there was no construction going on the second floor.
I don't know where your building footprint is right now. This
doesn't make sense here. These are your setbacks. Are you
building over the top of this? Or are you bringing the building
back?
Brandt: No. The second floor- will be complying where it must
comply where you and Susan Furr discussed compliance which is this
area above the entrance way.
Drueding: So that is an additional setback requirement or request.
Rick: He is saying that they are lopping this off and that the
second floor is going to be jogged in 5ft.
Drueding: Your second floor is going to be right in this building
footprint here, right?
Brandt: That's right.
Drueding: OK. That is fine.
Ron: So your second floor is going to be in complete compliance?
Brandt: That' s right.
Rick: I think it would be appropriate to inform the applicant that
we are only 4 members and that he needs all 4 to vote in favor and
he has the option of tabling to a future date.
Drueding: Let me get this straight. On the second floor it will
comply with the setbacks?
Brandt: That's right.
Drueding: OK. Fine. That is what we need then.
Brandt: With respect to the south and the west if there is a
variance granted then that would apply would it not?
Drueding: Are you putting a second story above the garage?
Brandt: Yes.
Drueding: I don't have that information.
4
BAM10. 24 . 91
Brandt: In the application that is the reason because of the
bedroom addition above the garage that is the reason why we need
the 5ft variance.
Drueding: It would be the same, yes.
Rick: I was confused or taken aback by this house. Is there
something about this house that these people want to keep? I would
think when I look at what they are going to have to do here with
chopping off some of these walls on the Whitcomb side and
underpinning some of the foundations over here that it probably
would be cheaper to just tear the thing down and just comply with
the underlying zoning. This looks like an awfully expensive
remodel . And if the finance comes into play I would think that
they might consider doing that.
Brandt: The applicant has consulted with the architect, Susan
Furr. I think generally that they are aware that it is an
expensive proposition but there is one advantage to it which is
really the reason for the basis for the variance. The opportunity
to keep the non-conforming with respect to the footprint and that
means that something less than 50% of the house gets dealt with.
Something less the 50% gets demolished, torn down, or we come
within Ordinance #1 and have the employee housing.
If we tear it down we have a 20x40ft structure and we have to deal
with that 20ft aspect of it and room proportions less wall widths
and those kinds of issues. So there is some advantage to go with
the expensive one to keep the non-conformities which we have a
legal right to do and remodel within that framework.
Rick: With the grade of the driveway coming on to the street, I
have some reticence about giving you a variance on this and then
finding out that this plan isn't going to work because of that 12%
maximum grade problem.
Susan Furr: The original plan had the garage on the same level as
the living room in lieu of the bedroom that is there now. And then
we switched it around because the owners have seen other under
garages. But it would be a very simple matter to redo that.
Rick: OK.
Ron: The total size of the new structure is going to be 3 , OOOsgft.
How many bedrooms?
Brandt: Three.
5
BAM10. 24 . 91
Ron: Three bedrooms, three baths. Does that include a garage?
Or is there a garage in addition to this? The 3 , OOOsgft--does that
include a garage?
Furr: It is a little more than 3 , OOOsgft with a garage. It is
3 , 172 with the garage. Without it it is 2 , 835.
Rick Lindner: If you are familiar with the size of this house and
the size of those 2 units--that building which is adjacent to the
new walking bridge that is going in this week across the Roaring
Fork and Dr. Whitcomb's property has already been approved for a
fairly large duplex that this house of 3 , 128ft will be modest
between those 2 buildings and anything smaller than that will look
like a shed sitting there.
Anne: I have a question, Bill. When you are remodeling vs.
demolishing how much of the original structure are you required to
keep so that they don't have to comply--
Drueding: More than 50%. If they demolish more than 50% they have
to pay cash-in-lieu or have employee housing.
Anne: The premise here is they are remodeling so that they can
have more use of the lot than they would if they tore it down.
Drueding: If you gave them the variance and they went and tore it
down they would still have the variance but they would have to pay
cash-in-lieu or provide employee housing and then build to the
variance unless it was conditioned that they cannot demolish.
Ron: Chuck, you mentioned that demolishing the building would be
a hardship. It may be an economical hardship but why would it be
a hardship in this case?
Brandt: This is about 20ft in depth and so if you can envision
designing a house that they have no more depth than 20ft less the
width of your exterior walls and whatever interior walls you would
have a very peculiar problem.
Ron: You say demolishing is a hardship when if you demolish it you
would come before us with the same type of variance as you are
coming in front of us for now.
Lindner: It has to be determined before the purchaser will go
forward. The situation is to find out because he is dealing with
a lot which is very difficult. We have all spent a lot of hours
trying to figure out how to best improve this property because what
is there has lived out it' s best and most useful life and still
stay within the confines of the lot.
6
BAM10. 24 . 91
Brandt: This is the preferred route to go and this is the route
they chose.
Lindner: This property affords the buyer a wonderful river and
mountain view that obviously is a very important concern to the
purchaser and to the seller. The 20ft depth really does not permit
somebody to take advantage of that and still have privacy off of
Park Ave and off the street. It would inhibit what could
eventually end up being a very nice house there in what is going
to be between 2 large duplex structures.
There being no further public comments Charlie closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Ron: I would put on my Josephine Mann hat here. She would say "We
have developed a code based on imperfect human attributes with the
idea that not everybody in this town who owns a lot is going to
have the same benefits that everybody else has. We are going to
try and equalize them. But there are going to be some small lots
in Aspen that are going to be suitable for small houses that are
not suitable for large houses. And therefore they should not be
built" .
I think this is a really small lot and I think it should have a
small house on it. It should be a single family house and not a
duplex or anything else. I am having a hard time finding a
hardship that is not the owner's making. What I mean by that is
that this lot is an existing lot. It has got a sufficient house
on it. The applicant wants to remodel it and really expand it.
Tripling the size of it I find fault with on this size lot.
I don't know what it is going to look like. I don't particularly
like the fact that they are building a 9, 200sgft duplex on the next
lot but I can't do anything about that. So I have a hard time
finding a hardship other than the fact that this is a small lot.
You don't get on a small lot what you would get on a big lot and
you don't pay that much for it either.
So I think what we are talking about here is pure economic
considerations which has nothing to do with hardship and I would
not be in favor of granting this variance.
Charlie: I think we have to consider what is what is existing in
the neighborhood. And there are certain property rights that
people do have with what is being done in that neighborhood.
Ron: Philosophically here is a single family house and lot in the
middle of 2 duplex lots. So the fact that it is a single family
lot it does not have the same rights that a duplex lot has.
7
BAM10. 24 . 91
Anne: My feeling is that we are trying to maintain a gross non-
conformity by "remodeling" this. If they were to tear this down
and start all over again and we granted a variance where there
would be the least impact which would be over on this side because
this land is unusable. If they came in 5ft here, conformed with
this setback which is 20ft--5ft on either side--and we granted them
a variance in this area which I don't think would amount to more
than what they have here, I think I would feel more comfortable
with something like that because I think this is a joke in the
sense that this house is going to get torn down one way or the
other. The concept of remodeling to me doesn't sit quite right
here. I think they are going to figure out a way even if they pay
cash-in-lieu. I would rather see them bring as much of this lot
into conformity from the straight side where you see it and come
out into this area and ask us for a variance.
Ron: Which probably would increase the views looking across the
river and over to the mountain.
Anne: I would think it would be to the benefit of the owners of
this lot.
Ron: My only problem is that taking a tiny little lot and, modest
though it may be, 3 , 200sgft to me is a big house on a 3 , 200sgft
lot. That is 1ft to 1ft. I don't think the code intended there
to be 1ft to 1ft buildings on lots.
Rick: It is actually 3 , 400sgft with 600 below grade which isn 't
counted.
Rick: I am very sensitive to the enigma posed here and there is
a deal that could go down in flames if this isn't approved. But
in good conscience I really can't see a hardship that isn't created
by the applicant. They can certainly live in what is there now.
We are not taking anything away from them. I would however suggest
that any comment about allowing a variance to the west, I would be
in favor of because it really isn't impacting anyone in that
direction. I could probably live with that kind of variance. The
side yards I just think that is a can of worms and I probably
wouldn't be in favor of granting this.
Ron: I would probably be in favor of going along with the rest of
the members if we brought this structure into conformance on the
roadside and any variance needed would come on the river side or
on the west side of the property. I would also like to see them
reduce the overall size of the house because I just think it is way
too big for the lot. And as long as they want a variance I am
going to tell them that.
8
BAM10. 24 . 91
Anne: Even if we gave them 5ft in the rear yard they would have
all of this all the way across here they could build.
Rick: 25x40 or possibly 30x40.
Ron: I would grant the rear yard setback variance.
Charlie: It seems like a very large house for a small lot. And
I would be willing to go along on a rear yard setback but I would
be very hesitant on the other part.
Rick: Actually at 30x4Oft they could get 1, 200sgft per floor above
grade. That would give them 2 , 400 above grade and another 1, 200
below grade.
Charlie re-opened the public portion of the hearing.
Brandt: The suggested approach certainly gives the applicant more
than he has now and the applicant would simply have to decide
whether that is a workable solution. It would seem to me that that
would be a workable solution. That is the area that clearly has
the least impact. Nobody is ever going to be there.
Anne: But you are saying you would like us to revise this variance
request at this point? We can't do that.
Charlie: It is not a revision. We have a right to say that we
will grant a part of this variance. We don't have to grant the
whole variance. And we can say we will grant the 5ft--the rear
yard setback. We are not making a revision. And we are not
granting the other part. we can do that any time we want to.
Ron: I think that if you brought in a plan that shows you are
bringing the building into conformity on 3 sides--
I am willing to grant a rear yard setback variance of up to 10ft
right to the property line or a foot from property line. I don't
think you need anything back here. Now you are telling me that
nothing is going to happen with this property and I believe you.
I don't think that the lean-to condominiums are going to use that
property at all and I think it is open space basically. So why not
take advantage of that property there for building purposes?
There was further discussion along with suggestions from the Board
as to what variance they would grant.
It was noted that there was no one from the public in attendance
at this hearing.
Then with the agreement between the Board and the applicant:
9
BAM10. 24 . 91
MOTION
Rick: I move that we continue this hearing on Case #91-7, Edwin
Phelps and Linda McFarlin to date certain of October 30, 1991 at
4 : OOpm.
Anne seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
JANUARY 31, 1991
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of January 31, 1991.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
APRIL 11, 1991
After corrections:
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of April 11, 1991.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 1991
After corrections:
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of September 12 , 1991.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 1991
Ron made a motion to approve minutes of September 26, 1991.
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
Time was 5: 25pm.
i
Jan'ce M. Carney, ity Deputy Cler
10
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A
County of Pitkin } VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF
) ss. ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant
State of Colorado } to Section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni-
cipal Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I Charles T. Brandt being or
representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of
Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as - it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the 9th day of October 1991
to the 24th day of October 19 91
(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the
hearing date) .
Applicant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 24th day of October
19 91 , by Charles T . Brandt _
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My ComnT-s%ipn expires: 17hi
Not Publi 's Signature
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
Phelps/McFarlin Variance
Hearing
I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6-
205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached
hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property
on October , 3 , 1991 .
Charles T. Brandt
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed before me this
24th day of October , 1991
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
y commission expires: %S
--- Nota Public
t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #91-7
EDWIN PHELPS & LINDA MCFARLIN
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962 , as
amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the Zoning ordinance, Chapter 24 , Official- Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged 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 surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: October 24 , 1991
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: Rolla B. Hill, Jr. as Trustee Charles T. Brandt
Address: 2151 Highway 128, Philo, CA Holland & Hart
Location or description of property: 163 Park Avenue, a portion
of Lot 12 , and Lots 22 and 23 , Riverside Addition to the City of
Aspen.
Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-6 PUD zoning
category. Lot size is proportioned to be 3,260 sq. ft. Minimum
rear yard setback is 10 ft. (Sec 5-201(D) (4) Chapter 24 Aspen Land
Use Code. Side yard is a total of 10 ft. (Sec 5-201 (D) (5) Chapter
24 Aspen Land Use Code. Applicant appears to be requesting a 5 ft.
rear yard setback and a side yard total setback of 5 ft.
Will applicant be represented by counsel: YES: X NO:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
( 7)
T
PHELPS AND MCFARLIN
VARIANCE REQUESTS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCES
Background. Rolla B. Hill, et al own a portion of Lot 12
and Lots 22 and 23 , Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen (the "Property") . The Property is zoned R-6. The
square footage of the three lots is 3 , 230 square feet. The
applicant wishes to remodel the existing house and expand it to a
total of 2 , 413 square feet. Allowable F.A.R. is 2, 428 square
feet. There is presently no garage or off-street parking for the
existing home. The applicant proposes to construct a one car
garage and provide two additional off-street parking spaces for
the two additional bedrooms.
The following non-conformities exist with respect to the
Property:
1. Lot size - 3 , 230 square feet vs. minimum lot size
requirement of 6, 000 square feet for the 2-6 Zone
District.
2 . Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) -
3 , 230 square feet vs. 6, 000 square feet for a
detached residential dwelling;
3 . Minimum lot width - 60 feet vs. 50 feet.
Variance Requests. Two variances are requested. They are:
1. Rear Yard Setback - the code requires that the
front and rear yards shall total no less than 30
feet, and that the front yard and rear yard shall
each be a minimum of 10 feet, provided that the
rear yard for that portion of a principal building
used as a garage shall only be a minimum of 5
feet. The attached Site Plan shows the existing
house and an 800 square foot building envelope.
The front of the house will be reconstructed to
provide a 20 foot front yard. Since two bedrooms
are proposed to be built above the garage (which
will be situated below grade) , the minimum rear
yard setback is required to be 10 feet. A
variance of 5 feet for the rear yard setback is
requested.
2 . Side Yard Setback - for a lot size of 0 to 4 , 500
square feet, the minimum side yard is 5 feet with
a total of both side yards being 10 feet. It is
the City' s interpretation that in cases such as
this where the existing house already encroaches
into one of the side yard setbacks, the remaining
side yard setback must be 10 feet. A variance is
requested to permit the dwelling to encroach 5
feet into the 10 foot side yard setback along the
southerly boundary line.
See attached Site Plan with setbacks illustrating
this variance request and the two sections of
contemplated remodeled and expanded residence.
Justification for Variances. The size and shape of the
Property and the steep rear yard present special conditions and
circumstances which are unique to the Property. These do not
result from the actions of the Applicant. These special
circumstances and conditions preclude the construction of a
moderately sized home, one in keeping with the scale of the
neighborhood.
The adjacent property to the south is a duplex condominium
building. It is unlikely that this building could be expanded to
utilize any portion of the property situated to the west of the
existing structure. As a result, the rear yard setback of 5 feet
will not negatively impact the owners of the adjacent property
(Lot 21) .
Similarly, the side yard setback request does not violate
the usual standard for a 5 foot side yard. Thus, the southerly
neighbor would not be impacted any more by a variance of 5 feet
than if the 5 foot side yard requirement had been met on the
northerly property line thereby eliminating the need for a
variance for the southerly side yard resulting in a 5 foot
setback.
HOLLAND & HART
By
' Ll Z' ""Z
`- harles T. Brandt 9/18/91
2
(7823)
BU/LD/Nbr �m r dLpPY
.5 75101Y A
(600 567•FT.�
•
. I
� J _,r>•1.� (EX/ST/NG HOUSE)1 •�;�r�=%• ••�i •:C:i:,
5/NCGLE FAM• s::•r•f J':: i'
• • P =�v' ^y�' 'i.
0 \ �•_ - -
t-Ml
�:: rt•: :'''! r+-• .'�.►t•f;t;. FX1577IV4
f
L • I• i `t's,. f�,�•:•.'tiS,•S •'• �.ri•'� , DM/V'6WAY
!
- CAR GAMAGO
BEDROOMS ABOVE k`j}�f/7t�%;;�j t;s•' •:.;... :.:.
r• 't. '• t: •f K... i. ..
kk= PROPERTY 'r f
• Lor SM-W 32900,
ALLOWA4BLB A A.X. 2,4 273
PROPO3it0 F.q./Z.
24130 517E ALAN �'Y�56T84S
PIM405, 4NP 1ff ciCAIVUN (/AR/qNG- R�GPUEr�!"
'.'..i i 'S:`in.,.� ,. a.ti.{/k4�.rs.+^.?eaNGsY'#.'.ar..,Y,..�.,......t. a,re%b 4a•.+:i...p: - .... .-._....i.......,.:.: .. -.» ...,r.. ......✓...�.....
1 1
� I
.MASTER BEneoCUM i
i I I
1 1�1i5!/N�r� G/VINer
I I
1_1..------ ----- ---- -1---.-- -1 is
1 i
-A 7-70 '
so
✓.tours/ ��
f'/PE •
1
� Z
PROn�.erY /oc Hidis-1 wale I
G/NE FGOiOD LJNit G/NE
• 1
I � F � 24AR/Nora
FORK R/VE,�
PHEG�S AND M��ARGlN !/i4R/ANC,E �'E4G/E5T
'SECT/ON f3
MA 67'C=9 BEDROOM Ir i
I I I
1 _------- - ----- -- --- -1---J
190 t
I I
1 I
i I
� OFFICE/BA'7)!
I � PAR.r
� I AYENC/.
80
f
UNG'' _ � � LlN.6 �_ ! ' �� � � �P✓N.is�.RrY
Rc�4R/Ne3
.=ORw R!VE"R
P//_"G/"S AND MC,1154RG/!Y 114R MNGE" REQUEST