The URL can be used to link to this page

06-23-15 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — May 20, 2015 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 4800 Killarney Drive Peter Mover and Shanna Hanson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 4 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the replacement and expansion of an existing deck. 145 Cutacross Road Christopher & Nicola Dixon, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 10.5 ft. off of the required 18.5 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck. II1. Other Business IV. Adjournment � This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 7b3-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats � may inclutle large print,electronic, Brailla,�utliocassette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich, and Planning Commission Representatives Johnson and Segelbaum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Maxwell was absent. I. Approval of Minutes —April 28, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried ur�animously to approve the April 28, 2015, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 125 Meadow Lane North (continued item) LeeAnn Bell 8� Paul Romslo, Applicants Request: Waiver from Sec#ion 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Sefiba,ck Requirements • 14.2 ft. off of the �equir�d 21.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (sout�� property line. Purpose: To al�ow f�r the c�nstruction of a garage addition. Goellner reminded the Bdard that this request was tabled at their last meeting in order to have a fut! Board present. She referred to the survey of the property and explained the applic�nts' request to expand their existing two-stall garage 11 feet toward the side ya�� (soutfi)��roperty line in order to allow for the construction of third garage stall. Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that the unique circumstances with their property are th2t the home was built with a two-stall garage near the minimum setback line, they feel there is no place on their property to build a detached garage, and that any garage construction will require pilings because of poor soils. Goellner stated that staff recommends denial of the requested variance because a third garage stall this far into the setback area is not reasonable and the extent of the request would compromise the character of the locality. There are other homes in the area with three garage stalls, but they did not require variances to be built. Also, the applicants can continue to use the extended driveway in place of a third garage stall, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 2 and staff has concerns about setting precedent and remaining consistent with variance requests. Segelbaum asked if the side yard setback requirement is larger in this case because of the height of the house. Goellner said yes, and explained that the side yard setback for this property started at 15 feet and increased to 21.5 feet because of the height. Segelbaum referred to the recently discussed "tent-shaped" method for determining setbacks and asked if that method would have helped in this case. Goellner'said no, this proposal would require a variance using either method. Segelbaum asked if there would be any limitations in extending the proposed garage toward the rear of the lot. Goellner noted that there is a deck and windows on the rear of the house. � , Segelbaum asked if there are soil issues on the entire prQperty. Goellne�,�a�'d�yes. Johnson asked how far forward a garage addition could be;built.`'�oellner stated that the front yard setback requirement is 35 feet and that the ezi�ting garage is located 47 feet from the front property line. Nelson noted that the applicants could build a tandem garage. She said she realizes that would not be ideal, but it is an option. Johnson asked if a detached garage could built on the north side of the house instead of the south side as proposed. Goellner said yes. LeeAnn Bell, Applicant, sa:id they did consider building a garage on the north side of the property but there are six eve�g��ens located on that side of the house and their roots are close to the surFa�e so she doesn't want to build there and endanger the trees. She added that a detached,garage is nat allowed to be located in front of the house so putting it in that location!w�uld �fso require a variance. She stated that a tandem garage wouldn't work beCause the roof lines wouldn't match and there is a four season porch and a gas vent'behind the existing garage that would cause problems. She said she has spent a lot of time trying to figure out other options and they just don't have another op#�on. Skte stated that she reviewed the state statute and thinks her proposal meet� the cri��ia u�ed in granting a variance because a three-stall garage is reasonable an�knew houses in the area are being built with three-stall garages. She said they �on't�have any place else to build additional garage space and that the only access to t}i'e�property is in the front because there are no alleys. She noted that the outside of the garage appears reasonably wide, but inside there are stairs and a closet that jut into the space. She said she has tried all kinds of different configurations and that anything she comes up with would need a variance. She stated that this proposal makes sense and the proposed garage will be consistent with the neighborhood. She said that they didn't cause the issues with the property and that they bought the house because they love the neighborhood and truly want to improve the house and bring their house up to the level of the other houses in the neighborhood. She stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 3 there is nothing about a three-stall garage that is inherently against the character of the neighborhood and that an enclosed stall is more aesthetically pleasing than items stored outside. She stated that the house isn't perFectly centered on the lot and that the neighborhood is unique because all of the houses are different and no house is situated the same way on any lot. She said her proposed garage will have no impact on the neighbor's privacy and there would still be 30 feet befinreen their garage and the neighboring garage. She stated that having a 7.3 foot setback will not negatively impact the neighborhood and added that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted v�riances in the past for garages to be located closer to a side yard property line than the 7.3 foot variance she is asking for, so this wouldn't be the smallest setback variance the Bo�rrd has granted. Nelson explained that most of the properties that were granted variances to be that close the property line probably had smaller setback requirements to begin,with and were asking to go from a one-stall garage to a two-stall garage. Bell said is doesn't matter if the proposal is for a one-stall or two-stall garage, the question is if a three-stall garage is a reasonable use and if the proposal negatively impacts the character of the neighborhood. She said a variance for a three-sta;ll garage doesn't harm the character of a neighborhood any more than a two-stall garage would. She stated that portions of their house are two-stories and portions are on'� story;and in this case the one story portion of the house is the garage and isn't imposing on the neighbor. She said the purpose of setbacks is to provide a fee;ling af openness and the feeling of space in the community and all landowners are asked to donate a portion of their property in order to make those feelings in the community. She said they have donated 75.7 feet to the community when all of the se�la��k��re taken into account. She said she truly believes she has met all of the criteri�"cor�sidered when reviewing variances and that they are not negatively impacting th�: neighborhood. Segelbaum asked about some �f the other options explored and why a garage couldn't be built on the other side of#�ie house. Bell stated that a garage can't be located in front of the house and to build it the same depth as the house would not be deep enough to park a car in. Goellner nated that the depth would be 28 feet and that the typical size of a two-stall garage;is 2�,fee. x 22 feet. Bell said a garage would not have enough depth with the locatian of the sport court and the six pine trees that are in that area. Segelbaum asked about the ability to build a tandem garage addition onto the existing garage. Bell said there is a retaining wall and four trees behind the existing garage so they can't move the garage further back at all. She said she could build the garage 12 feet further forward, toward the front, but it still would not be deep enough to park a car in. Paul Romslo, Applicant, added that bringing the garage 12 feet forward would look bad. He reiterated that they can build onto the back of the garage because the roof lines won't work. Perich asked the applicants if they had considered building a side-loading garage. Bell said there is not enough depth to be able to turn 90 degrees into a side-loading garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 4 Johnson asked about the standard depth of a tandem garage. Goellner reiterated that 22 feet x 22 feet is the standard size for a two sta►I garage. Bell said the neighbors are not enthused about the idea of a tandem garage and neither are they. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Johnson said he doesn't understand why 32 feet or 36 feet in depth is not;�n�c��,h depth to be able to park two cars in tandem. x � �, � Nelson said she appreciates that the applicant has considered other alternatives ar�d that it is one thing to go from one garage stall to finro, but she doesn't ever recall granting a variance for a third garage stall. Johnson agreed and said he`doesn't think all of the alternatives have been exhausted. Perich said it is a large variance request for a third garage stall and there are other options. He said he would consider a smaller variance but he would not support the current proposal. Segelbaum said he thinks three-stall garages are the norm in this neighborhood but he doesn't see how they can take two-thirds of the side yard for this proposed garage addition. He said he wants to see homes improved, but this proposal does seem to impact the character of the neighborhood. Orenstein agreed. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by JohnSon and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 14.2 ft. off of th� required 21.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) prop�rty line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Bell said she„,is disa�pp�inted and that taking down six trees on the north side of their property is not �;good idea for this neighborhood. 1319 Tyrol Trail Dan & Sheila Bro� hq tori�Applicants �, a:�= Request:=�laivel�ft'�m S��ction 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 6 ft. off of the r�quired 17 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard,(south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and house addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Yard Setback Requirements • 2.3 ft. off of the required 17 ft. to a distance of 14.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southeast) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a porch addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 5 Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to build a new garage with living space above on the front of the home and a new porch addition on the rear of the home. She explained that the applicants have stated that the unique circumstances in this case are that the home was built with a small one-stall garage, the property is a corner lot with a small buildable area, and is triangular in shape. Nelson referred to the proposed porch addition and asked if it would be locafietl further away from the south property than the back corner of the existing house currently is. Goellner said yes. She explained that the southeast corner of the house is located 14 feet from the south property line and the proposed new porch would be 14.7 feet from the south property line. Segelbaum asked if the front corner of the proposed garage will be in the s�me place as the existing garage. Goellner said the applicant could explain the prop�sed new garage dimensions and placement. Segelbaum asked Goellner if she has explored other options with the applicant. Goellner said the proposed porch could be built smaller in si�e, but the garage seems reasonable due to the shape of the lot. Segelbaum asked if the potential changes in the Cod,e language regarding side yard setbacks would affect this proposal; Goeilner said no and explained that due to the height of the existing home the side yard setback is 17 feet. Jennifer Christiaansen, U + B`Architecture and Design, representing the applicant, referred to the criteria the Board u�es when considering variances. She stated that the applicants are proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner and the size of the existing garage was not ca��ed by the current landowner. She explained that the buildable footprint on �his property;�s small and their goal is to maintain the home and keep it within the charact�r of'th�existing neighborhood. She referred to photos of the existing garage and noted that the interior height is only 5.5 feet. She added that she showed the appli�ants fourtproposals and that the proposal they chose is the least intrusive and w�n't n��tEvely impact the neighborhood. ,�a Johr��on askec�, if t�� existing concrete beam inside the garage will be removed. Christi�ansen s�id it will be replaced with a steel beam � ��,,. Segelbaum asked when the house was built. Christiaansen said the house was built in 1937. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is in favor of granting both requested variances. She said she is sympathetic to allowing a second garage stall, the proposal is reasonable, and the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 6 shape of the lot is unique. She added that the proposed addition will improve the character of the neighborhood and that she is comfortable with the proposed porch addition because it will be further away from the property line than the existing home. Segelbaum said he thinks the variance requests are minor and that work has been done to keep the addition within the existing character of the neighborhood. Perich agreed and added that with the uniqueness of the property itself, the proposal makes sense. Orenstein agreed that the proposal is reasonable. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . � �T • 6 ft. off of the required 17 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closesf poi;nt to the side yard (south) property line. To allow for the construction of a garage and house addition. • 2.3 ft. off of the required 17 ft. to a distance of 14.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southeast) property line to allow for the construction of a porch addition. 413 Rhode Island Ave. N. Travis Kierstead, Applicant ' ' Request: Waiver from SeGtion 't1.72, Fences, Subd. 3(A)(1) Front, Side and Rear Yard Regulations � • 4 ft. taller than the allo�nred 4 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the front (north) property line. • 2 ft. taller than the aflowed 6 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the rear (west) prop�rty line. • 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. for a total height of 6 ft. for a fence along the front (east} pro�erty line. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to build an 8 foot t�ll fence along the north and west sides of the property, rather than the allowed 6 feet, and a 6 foot tall fence along the east side of the property, rather than the allowed 4 fieet.'She noted that the applicant has stated that the unique circumstances with this property are its proximity to Highway 55, it is a corner lot, and Highway 55 and the neighboring property to the west are at a higher elevation than their property. She showed the Board a photo of the property submitted by the applicant illustrating how much lower their property is compared to Highway 55. Nelson asked what fence height would be allowed if Highway 55 was not considered a front yard. Goellner said a fence could be 6 feet tall if it were a side yard. She said she Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 7 thinks a 6 foot tall fence along the west, south and east sides of the property, and a 7 foot tall fence along the north, adjacent to Highway 55 would be appropriate, given that this property is lower than the other properties around it. Perich asked if variances have been granted for other properties along Highway 55. Goellner said no. Orenstein asked if there are any other fenced-in areas nearby. Goellner said there is a fenced area to the east with plantings to help with screening Highway 55. ' Segelbaum asked if the development to the south has limited ability to build fences. ' Goellner said no. Travis Kierstead, applicant, referred to the photo he submitted and explained�that a 6 foot tall fence along Highway 55 would not work because they would still see a lot of traffic and headlights, and would hear a lot of noise. He stated thafi he doesn't think an 8 foot tall fence along the west side of his property would negatively impact the neighbor because they are quite a bit higher than his property. He added that the neighbors to the west and south have given their support to the proposal. He reiterated that the uniqueness of the property is that this is the only property on Highway 55 that is below the grade of Highway 55 and his yard is directly next to the highway. He gave examples of other 8 foot tall fences in the communi#y and said he understands that the City doesn't want compounds, but he thinks his property is unique. Nelson asked the applicant when he bought the property. Kierstead said he bought it 3 years ago. Nelson asked about the propp��:d fence material. Kierstead said cedar or pressure treated wood. � ,�,. Segelbaum aske�,the �pplican��f�he has plans for landscaping outside of the proposed fence area. Kierste�d said there is a gully with quite a bit of greenery between the highway andl his yard �nd there are three existing maple trees that help keep noise down from,the:hous�. He said if he replaced those trees with a row of evergreens he would be �rading one problem for another. Perich asked the applicant if he would be open to building a 7 foot tall fence along the north sid�; of�he property. Kierstead said yes. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he is sensitive to the noise issues from the highway, but he is concerned the property will look like a compound. He and he is supportive of a 7 or 8 foot tall fence along the north property line and a 6 foot tall fence along the other property lines. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 8 Johnson said he thinks an 8 foot fence along Highway 55 is reasonable especially because of the low grade. He said he would be in favor of allowing an 8 foot tall fence along the north and a 6 foot tall fence along the other sides. Perich agreed and added that he doesn't think the proposed fencing will alter the character of the neighborhood. Orenstein agreed. Kierstead asked the Board if they would entertain allowing a 7 foot tall fence along the west property line. Nelson said she would not support that. Segelbaum said he doesn't see as much of a need for a taller fence along the west side of the property. Orenstein agreed and added that an additional foot or finro won't help with noise issues, it would be more of a visual thing. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance requests for 4 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. ffor a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the front (north) property line, 2 ft. taller;#han the allow�� "ft. for a total height of 6 ft. for a fence along the front (east) properiy line, ar�d to deny the variance request for 2 ft. taller than the allowed 6 ft; for a total height�of 8 ft. for a fence along the rear (west) property line. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment ' The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 pm: �:x�. � � David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant d, a, ��, �.1��' t)� °°�.� C��G��rZ 1 1 Ph sical Develo ment De artment �a e� � p p 763 5�3-8Q95/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 23, 2015 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 4800 Killarney Drive Peter Moyer and Shanna Hanson, Applicants Peter Moyer and Shanna Hanson, owners of the property at 4800 Killarney Drive, are seeking a variance from the City Code to replace and expand their deck. The applicants are seeking a variance of 4.0 feet off the required side yard setback of 15.0 feet to a distance of 11.0 feet from the side yard (southwest) property line. The property currently has a deck that is approximately 240 square feet, which wraps around a portion of the back of the home. While replacing the existing deck, the applicants would like to build an additional 64 square foot deck on the southwest side of the home. The addition would be 8.0 feet long and 8.0 feet wide. A staircase would accompany this deck design. The home is currently 13.7 feet from the southwest property line and the applicants are requesting that the deck be located 11.0 feet from the southwest property line. Since the current side yard setback requirement is 15.0 feet, any deck addition on this area of the home requires a variance. There is a row of mature evergreen trees between the applicants' home and the neighboring home at 4820 Killarney Drive. The residents of 4820 Killarney Drive submitted a letter to the City stating that the evergreens provide screening between the two properties. The applicant notes that the property is unique in that the home was built in the 1960s by another owner on an irregularly-shaped lot. The applicants note that the home was built askew to the side property lines, but it is aligned with the front property lines. In order to build the deck to align with the side property line, the deck would be asymmetrical to the home. The applicants would like to build a deck that is flush and square to the home. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum side yard (southwest) setback requirement is 15 feet. The applicants are requesting a variance of 4.0 feet off of the required 15.0 feet to a distance of 11.0 feet at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. To constitute practical difficulties, the property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, the landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner, and that the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff recognizes that the buildable area on the side yards of this property are limited due to the irregular shape of the lot and the way that the building was originally oriented on the lot by a different landowner. At 64 square feet, staff finds that this is a reasonably sized deck for the property. The distance between the property line and the current home is 13.7 feet, while the proposed deck would be 11.0 feet from the property line. Given that these distances are similar, staff finds that this addition would not compromise the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of 4.0 feet off the required side yard setback of 15.0 feet to a distance of 11.0 feet at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line. 112 0 i _ ;� I 51lLt - _ ��. ..} Q 1100 j ' � --� . ....., �Y,�- � ��., v�c �. .�� i, ' Subject Property �, "°° ' ,a� . , '� 4710 � .�. � � SWC@77ey i1}�6' . 4T10 `—' .,� � � /� 1030 � - 4740 �� •- ' ) -_ ' \ .Ir � -..�� . ^_.r �:.� 4760 �'/T�<<O,`P� 1020 9G0 � "w . 1 d711 j I . � 3800 � j ,�' � v � \ ( ,'I � `�� / � y � �'�;1�. - t� \ `,� an� +_ ,w, 924 4810 \,�� .� :ilv � � \\ `� __._�__�.�-.�--�� :.:, ' z � aaao '� � "� � � \�"� eio �:= �w S. � ` a5oo�� '' so� /vw � i j- � :�vB.- . . d821 , �.� � . 9i� 4920 j 900 � r" � � y4 Adefine Nah�re A�ea � 48" \�\ � = .� � r ' . ..�, � , �.: _ ,�.--, - �--'�-�.�'--`� .,�< ;.�w �'t ^ .,�-7 z --- �; ��:,,w} »� � 'v-- Schaper Park +L . � � .:�� . eas � � �� . v�` � _�-- i f. � _ ` ,yo-'..3. �,y. ..�. �:_ l :�. :.t. .. . .. , i, . � � , i ! "wn . iy .- � :i:, --'-. '�W.. ...�,n � -=il �� 4696 �-t city of olden va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: 4800 Killarney Drive 2. Applicant Information; Name: Peter Moyer& Shanna Hanson Address: 4800 Killarney Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Email Address: petermoyer2001@Hotmail.com Phone Number: 763-710-9193 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Homeowner seeks to replace and add to an existing deck. The new deck would minimally encroach upon the 15' property line setback. 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(sj to property Home, built in 1967, sits askew on an irregularly-shaped lot. The corner of the home nearest the property line is located 18" inside the setback area. The proposed deck addition would be built flush and square to the home and, due to the shape of the lot and the home's position,would encroach on the setback by up to four feet. The deck will be constructed upon 8x8 cedar or pressure treated posts with concrete footings extending below the frost line.The decking will be a composite product from Trex or Timbertech. Railings will be constructed from aluminum to allow significant visibility of the surroundings. 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. The current position of our home in relation to the property line, as built by a previous homeowner, combined with its askew stance on our lot necessitate a variance to build a deck of suitable size for family use and aesthetically appealing with square angles to the home. What is unique about your praperty and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Our home's existing encroachment and askew stance in relation to the property line necessitate a variance. Abundant, lush vegetation along the property line also visiblv obscures any addition from the neighboring property. Our neighbor's home is built farther forward on their lot:- Our proposed deck will be no closer to their home than our existing structure already sits. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. The factors requiring a variance were introduced in 1967 by a previous owner and the home's builder. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. The 280 square foot addition represents less than one half of one percent of our 1.4 acre property. Two sides of the new deck will face our home. The third side, which is closest to the property line, will face 15 mature cedar/juniper trees that�rovide a year-round curtain of ve�etation�o obscur�the deck from our neighbor's view (their letter accompanies this application.) The fourth (lake) side of the proposed deck is more than 90' from shoreline and no closer to the water than our existin�structure. 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative aptions to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do yaur project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. The third side of the deck could be built exactly parallel to the property line and in an asymmetrical fashion as compared to our home. 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current colnr photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.gov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the attion applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the-ar�a cted by this request. � �"`� Peter B. Mo er Y Signature of Applicant If the applicant is not the owner of al) property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner X $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Famity Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to a!1 adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties direcily across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. '`�--==-'�_ � , a _ _ : , � � .,. ..,-- � �: V 4n L �� ;1 n i � � +�' �" �'' � _ � � .' k'.: ' 3`=`. � �' ",�,i, View from property line toward proposed deck area. :`\ ��."'�;� '�.;�r �'�'r � , ,� . _ ., -, , � . . h _ . , ,.._ K� .. .., , ; �� i �: _{. :� �� r, � 1' � � . �, , . � �� . �, » :�: �: � ,r� ;_ r . . � i € .:. , -� � r *F� �1 , ' t +.i�� '� r ..��: .��`.:.." , ` � , II 1 � I . . � I � � � ' � I (R � � � � '� • I �,:_':' �_. .,�'":'"l��4'f,`J`. View from applicant's yard toward neighboring property. Note vegetation. � �,. .,;%�;•i" , � �. f � � � �-.-il' %� • , • -�,.;' :,�� : ' +� � + � y r �� ,-'M;•.s� . ♦ i y � ` . i a;�`. I p � € � x t:C ' , { _ f� � �:,� � � � , � ' � *e, �# ��:� � � i�� ,, � �„d ,...�:. �� a '� ��S �' � � � � � � � � � � ,� .: , � . » � � <� � �;�'�'� ' , b � � � �� * .. , . ;:.�.,x,• �' ; ._� _. . �► • •• • • � - • . • • • �• - • • - '"':� ' ' ��: '�.r- ;+�!ayL�,,� - „ . c, �,' " � '�'��-,. � i o-., .. .y. f�' �~"!r ��/�' �� I �•3� � Y�'>° ±� �`�,t� ... � . r �. �l•.w . . .P' �% Y<- ��- ,.s . .. sir � �.,i n .� .�_ . '. a �. ` t • . �� ;~, • " . ' .. • . � W ,� �W f . . _ . �.. ��I r . . , .,:;,,� .� .. . .,. _ . �.. �•-0R� '4_ '..`, _ ' . '� .- . o . � f � �q ,� a # i - �4�i .F��g ., . 1 " 'p� I ��:�t �� . . . I � � � � . � . � � � �� , � .. r �; �. w� � - � l f� a�. � � �. . �4 : � � . , '�� . i g f '� ` � ,"t � t �� .�� _ `�r„� r I��I�� ..y�� 'r „ :. �'- ..y,,� ,g ' { �� '�' X.�'� r �. .,, ' k �u n . re • .<. ••� � � . � .t ^ p- '' _ ' , ��"� ,. , . u. : � , �. • ! , . , � � � � � ,�.� ��'�'� � >,� ,� # � , .. ° . �'� � ..• . , � � ,� fl ..� � � - �V . n. : ��_ _ � ,, �,- � � . MI � �_: � ,�' � � � : , �i,�� 0 4'"S .P;, s . `.a� � — �� aa � z�' . _ , � _ �. ; r.,<< < � =� ` ,� ;, a�; �.._ �:'r �' ,�� r � � . Aerial view of properties showing that the proposed new construction is no closer to the neighboring home than the current structure. 23 May 2015 To the City of Golden Valley Planning Department Staff, Our neighbors at 480o Killarney Drive, Shanna Hanson and Peter Moyer, have shared with us their desire to replace and add to the existing deck on their home. We understand that their plans i) call for the new deck to be built no closer than io feet to our property line, and 2) require a variance from the City for the project to move forward. The deck, as planned, poses no concern to us and will, in fact, be largely invisible to us from our home thanks to its design and the mature trees that sit on both sides of the property line. We absolve the City of Golden Valley from any liability in approving this matter and ask that you do so with our blessing. Thank you, The Rosen Family 482o Killarney Drive i .�d`�-e�...� \ \� � o � c�..A\ `a, a `7"w \ �y� a� � ��\ � �`'�� e ��4�`i� � \ s`. ' 6' •x �d' `, 'a, �+te \J� . 1e `� � • 10�.w �\sy , \ ��'$29�6// . . • 6 �' 1 � . '�P. '5'',• ,� " �� P ,�y � �, � �°y� . � �s�,� \ � �_ � ;� �- , � � � 2°'� � \ � d � , ,� �' \ \ ./E' �`,` y') . �t5 � / � \ \ \ .\% /1,�'y6�� 'bd.�, / \ \ �'S ��\ 6 Z� 3,y7 •� 3`8�9ZS1��\ '�1b�Zs., �y7 w', � .` Z�y � � v ��; 16 d n •� \ \ r`il+ �,'�"� •\ •� \ — - 'rJ �. U �w�w 3Nn�Y�y • � ��X,�� `�� waa�d�,_,� . (� �� / \�', 0. � ; ., �� N � � �� U � x � � alo � � � o � . o �� a � � bo % � � r \ � y �b � vv� � � g ° a`i •y � � � �W o O N � � O� d y� � � � � � �•a� ;�h CT� N q�� 5 � � � d•� w „� � � � �b � � � M a � y a . � N .� O N� p,' ead .. � �I v`�', '^aa a„ °' a°�.5 z � C'� '= N � �� s � � � w �� b � � �y A � � �' VJ Fr We� T+Q' '�V..yi q' � F1 t. �p �•�i 4:. N y^ tQ O �� F� F � Q N � M 7 �� W ,� W � A � a °� ^ � g �°' � �.�� x � v� � '�� d y� � y�j � � O� V' a "� o N �� ° � � �� a � � o � � ti � � W � .�'" �,�� p p �b � � � ° �� w � N � � � � z � � � � o � �aw � �o ° � o� �' � b � zo3'-� ap o �'� IV 'o o g'' �'� �� o•�'� O ^� `d'p � � � � W o � H� �,� �'� a U� ��`'y � � y 't7 W � LL t�2 y � W p: [�.� � � �� z � a �� mo � aa aO •�a r`' � � NN o� �.�a�•�� o �tl �� . � z � � � �� O�,�0 i�� O 0� � � N o � �"' 3.�� °,�.� � y �`�'a w a wx w m ,� �p ,� a' T C� � � x � �� °�� A s � �� W�° °��o �� = W�� '� �n �n rn .a S �n-».9 o d c�i�i �n! U v� a \ \� � � � �P'\ `p e` `�,,�w \ �y7 �� "' ��,\ �j `'�' ��`�s' `� \ ,��: ° ��•� `� d `s, ,�. Y� �+ ' �e s��s y ;� � `�a $,,�g yb. . . �,;, N22�9� . �6. . �� P �y�.�'' , � o�,� � . ° y�'`4�q�-�63c � � � � \ s ,' � ♦ 2°'�" ' ` � � . .�y ;- � �;; � � �. �, � .� / � ,y9�y�o 3� �bd / / ••` \ � �•51�'6 �+ ��\ .� 69�� 3Nn �� `8��ZS�,� \ 'C�y� "'Z� w;" .` H � v �" � \ `' �� \ r`d+ "� •\ �� \ -, - `Y��v? 3rony��r��\ �0,�;i � � • � O `�``' o�,_� � � �� .� � � � � � � � � / � � / V a / � �/ �� V o � � � . ql0 � � � o .. Fi y,M U � � O �U v o y � U V '�'i 0 Q O v � � � � � .N > �� Tw ��.� o O d N � � � � °3 �i �o w Gqm � °„3 �y.a a � � o % � � �� W N �� y �1 � � .5 o a°pi � aa �^ d � �C�I vNi '^.�a o.a�,y.t� °' a�i,�. Z � 1��/ `'' N � �'� p! � Q �i a� ^I w �� b� v � �a � � VJ ^�'�•.y+ C� 1-I W � �W yN"' a40 i� � � `, � >�� a" �i'� °" �1 � � A ° �a � �.�� a�b x 0 a �� N�� C� p A o ° �� .� � � .� ,��,sda � s � � `� � a �i � � � �';� � � oa z O � � � w � �.� � �� z'N �� ,� � � ° � A:�w � �o �� .�� ' � � � U � 0 3 ^� � � � � '� g g' �.� ��o.�� ' � �w � � d � � d � � 3'� w OU'� a� � � � W x �� ° 3 y .d T m y 4°,'� °� a, �; �1 � Er�_` o0 0 � � �;==� o �tl a�a y� � W C '1 N N !-�� 6p p�q �•�N ^ O � �'�y U p � iy�-�r PJ� '��.p�T�O � � 7 O'� d� N � z ' � � � o �� v�; 3.�' g�.� 3 �� w''.� � � x � �A A o O•B.° ��_�.en � ° V�'� � � V � V] � �V� "'�' f� W � d'"� Qi C� � �1 p� � � � M � �� n��l O�,g O �fV t�i �� V�� V] AI �� Cl�y 0� '�'R�� otden t� E � o� RA � Qu � Va. ey Physical Development Department 763 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax) Date: June 23, 2015 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 145 Cutacross Road Christopher and Nicola Dixon, Applicants Christopher and Nicola Dixon, owners of the property at 145 Cutacross Road, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build a deck. The applicants are seeking a variance of 10.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 18.5 feet to a distance of 8.0 feet from the side yard (south) property line. This triangular-shaped lot was created through the subdivision process in August, 2014 and the home was finished in June, 2015. The property currently does not have a deck, but a set of sliding glass doors were built to accommodate a future deck. The deck proposed by the applicant would be approximately 338 square feet in size. The proposal initially included a larger deck, but the size was reduced to avoid the drainage and utility easement along the south side of the property. The easement extends 6.0 feet from the property line and the proposed deck would be 8.0 feet from the property line. While the applicant is requesting a variance of 10.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 18.5 feet to a distance of 8.0 feet from the side yard property line, the drawings submitted by the applicant were not consistent with the request. From staff's analysis, the proposed deck appears to be approximately 11.5 feet from the property line. The applicant was not able to verify this calculation prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, so the request remains as originally stated. The applicant notes that the property is unique in that the lot is triangular shaped, which reduces the buildable area. The home is aligned with the front lot line, so the buildable areas in the side yards are smaller than most lots in the area. The home was designed so that the deck or patio would be located off the dining room and kitchen. It is the only entrance at the rear of the home. The applicant stated that they originally planned to build a patio, which is what is shown on the building plans submitted to the City. However, the patio designers hired by the applicant thought that a deck would have a better flow since it is several feet above ground. Also, the designers thought it would be difficult to keep the patio clean due to the slope of the lot and the drip lines from the roof. The patio designers recommended that a deck be built to mitigate these issues. The applicants noted that they have worked with a professional deck firm to design a deck that will complement the home and will be integrated very nicely with the neighborhood. The applicant also noted that there are trees in the backyard that can be preserved with this plan. The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum side yard (south) setback requirement is 18.5 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 10.5 feet off of the required 18.5 feet to a distance of 8.0 feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. Practical difficulties result in a use that is unreasonable, are based on a problem that is unique to the property, are not caused by the landowner, and do not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff recognizes that the buildable area on this property is limited due to its location on the corner and its triangular shape. However,the property was recently subdivided and the home was recently built. In September, 2014, City Council enacted a moratorium on subdivision applications in order to give staff time to address issues of contention for the community. One of the key issues addressed during the moratorium was the regulation regarding side yard setbacks in single-family neighborhoods. Since the moratorium was enacted (and since expired),the side yard setback regulations have changed. At the time the building permit was issued for this property,the side yard setback requirement for a deck on this property was 15.0 feet. Due to changes of interpretation of the zoning code, the side yard setback requirement is currently 18.5 feet based on the height of the home. On June 16, City Council approved an ordinance regulating side yard setback requirements in the R-1 zoning district which will adjust the side yard setback requirement for a deck in this location to 15.0 feet. There were additional regulations approved regulating building height, but that is not applicable to this application. This ordinance is effective on Friday, June 26. If the applicants reconfigure the shape of the deck to keep it 15.0 feet from the property line,the deck could still be approximately 338 square feet in size. The proposed deck in the variance application is approximately 338 feet in size. Therefore, adjusting the shape of the deck to meet the 15.0 foot setback is recommended by staff. By waiting until Friday, June 26, this outcome could be reached without a variance. In order to reach this outcome sooner, a variance of 3.5 feet to a distance of 15.0 feet at its closest point to the property line would need to be approved. Staff recommends denial of a request for a variance of 10.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 18.5 feet to a distance of 8.0 feet from the side yard (south) property line. 2U I 316 - ��_d,�-. '. 297 242 � � -- 245 258 �'� � � I - 11G � � � - { 324 /3� i 2J4 _��.vk. �08 � � 287 ,� - ---� \ .�. _..�.-. � 2� �i 2 8 S ^ 215 �� .v�,��- � Y i �f0 2�� 220 '� -`.ji 2� Z 309 � 275 ` 30 227 209 � i � 211 216 t ` � 210 � �0 � 277 \ 217 208 • �� 2 00 10 208 �� Z2' Z05 � Z� Subject Property 30Zo 3C^„ 136 — 2IX3 165 201� 117 125 124 �12a `� 106 101 7 30 �qg �_,` 108 pf�'� �� 124 '� � 116 109 17Y --720 Q-� 75 115 i Q� � 70 L 110 25 / � 3t ' 26 :_- 26 55 � � i. 50 v- � '330 6324 G12Q �S I 6140 6100 _ 6030 ��Q 5924 5970 1 � �OS 6237 100 6145 6101 105 720 111 110 115 ' 6015 120 . 125 120 . 125 1y0 131 - - 130 135 -..�.� �,� 715 " , iao _ ias �ao ias �sa Y coo� = '. 73p s 155 ' ��S 1 .J _ �8� �51 ,'��_'UL city of olden g va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: �'S CGI,�GLG!'OS �C OR� �a1�-/� �a-�( , ss¢22 2. Applicant Information: i Name: � �/1�'('I�S�b(�� IGa�Gt/ r�l xl'/YI Address: TeA�I¢?lXG•r�l GZd�,f��SS f�t✓ ��21�IS�� 2S� �t,�,rn�s G'o SS�Da� � . , � 2 I 3, �l�e-�, I�� SS�-1� Email Address: � I X�✓�S' ��'f L'DI'1/)/'�ii S'� . ✓��'f" Phone Number: �� ]-��7 4- 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Z � � � I g '�" x 22 ' e,eda.r vJood. d,.ec I,� i� �-I� lo�c� of �� In,orv�� lo�. �e�Q �� I �-�cr,t.ta.Gra�s �, �r owr ��rn. � I "s u.s� + er�J o r✓�,-� . � � 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) 7 • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property ' C � �I I/c�. l( rt�rr I S fi � � Q 's �� S i n c� a.. e oY v�� o F � I,� d�cc� wou�� a ll W i�I�� f (�.e l� � �r�p�er Se-�-bac� � f I e�t se � 5� �� 1�'lo i�- � � V� ��.c� • I�U�� w�o�tcQ� vV��i� a. �p�o F�s �w1�2 d�C I,� `rn� fi� a(.e�r'� a d.�c r� ,�l �.n �tl�a.-�- YV�i I I LD n�,n ( Q�e/�t � ��m�t� . �.vl�C i►��r-�.t� 1�� I�l�C� v✓i t V1 -} (i!-� VI-2 c �D�lit�v�-P . 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. (,�(,t_� �1 P.r.v �/1 D�VI� �141 S OYl� C�,DU� �'D '�I� ��- �g��-��t�'S i s �I�� I OCa,�h'd►� �S�e.� �x1�,�7oi fi f� ) Vl��e � ' �t,� C � G(.� l� � D�,�-T �-rY1 c�!�'S �S e . What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it ne ssitates a variance? ` fi r �' � ot ��.� * S � �t; [Le Gi- l �'C� D �'� � S u. I fi�n i n S�bGz.�k � G�a se � -F In.� I�.�rvr�� i ✓� +I� lo�t� �t�. rCA� S i , -y�d S . 1/�l�� Vv►�� d�c�l C p�e..seni'c Gt,� ( +I�� s-�l �.sl�►ed I�a.rol woo�[. �' s �eh,r►-�d Explain how the negd'�f,or a variance is based on circumstances that are nqt a result o a ,. landowner action.T�'!� ��rN�'�� 5D 'f-I�� 1oGc..GIG�/��0� �S ✓�v � �� • 1N� I�a.d r� v �oYr�ro I a�r� fln�e l o� 51�k.P-z , 1ou.fi � �l�.Ds� i fi" 5� w� �Du�( � ��n�t�u`� i/1 -�(�t s . V��c� I�,�oo�liu�v� vJ�'�.e 1 ru.eoe � o1-c��.�es . °l� Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. l.iK.� p�� ?_G�s i r� -f I�� ✓l�i aVi Iv�Vt00�, 1�1�.i5 INt! 1 b.,� a. n� o d�s� a l I-✓ta.-fi,�.�� vv�da� �t ect� fi��f- �'s d�L� ►n�e� ^t'o �a u,�. � �I�- I/larn� , s�-i-fi'✓t a,n� c� �V�� Ol GG k i S Nl i h �"nit A, l lv� V i S�i'�✓l.L ovr� s e�C t . J �s� �cl�,�bi� �� 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. •� �t_ !�l�l,��J�1 smQ.( (� o�r Dd�-Sl�a..fled d�c1� 7 12t�1,e-� Du.-� G�S WDU� ✓tot G�-�Cv�-r�rnDd�t�. D� ��c.�y� i l �I � i✓�i✓i� ��Gt-`�1'D Gc.,�11,� sc� .e � . J ' -� i✓1 CcG �G� -� f Gt.S Inf� e ✓10 i��er�sfi �n �err� V�r� fir-c�e s, a,✓1� �(�e l s n o d.c�r, n � d�re��f ��esS ��► l�o�s� fiv �-v�a t- s�zc� . 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvalleymn.�ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. �v C R ' nature of Applicant l�itGOL/� �11CDIV ls� E 1 . � ` .,�'+. �� . ':�17Y�Si:4�3`''� �'. �i �.,1�� '�: � .� �,. . t . � N.w.. . y. T't�. 1�,i{,t1�41,11 ` �� • �.. . � � - . ��'+ �As , :� . �� ,�, ,a . . L �. ;� - . � r� - ', ,��.' � -a � .. �.� �- !" .v :, � �� AS,��'� ,� '�� - .,,�e"'��-.""'.-,,..._...t. y k � .- `� � 3� ��q(.%��i ,�tlk - � " � ..^K � F } �� y ..• - • �'ti � t H��' *�' `� • �.'.� %. H: sti � '� � ;-�''JC � : � t� � ,,,�«� �: � . ., x� . � ��€� �t ,, • .: , ti �,>. � �� "� � r y,� - . � yF -� - t' �� • ' - wti - � . �,£ �___ � '� . . . _ ,�.�� . _- .. . . ., � .�. �s�i yr � ' . ._- ": -�. ,. s+.; > ' � �,G. �.. �� ` � � • �� . � � �ti��.��, � �+ X'.; �. . �� .x':<1 ��' � � .�r , �-�,�{{ , F • Y � . �� - � �: J I . �} .. '��. -'�}�^..[.q. � � �, � x.:' �_�'� 9 ��.. �� `��: i�', (� � .., �:�, b� ..: _ ��n � � � � � X � W � ;�• ' y _ .�#1�,� ` `� :m� �� I ��i�� , ' �� .. � � . .� . : �i- . � ,� Zc-_ ` —. � � , _ .� �.: ; � r • :'�'.�t �, '��;J'� �ta } �` � - ��l .�, .a1� � �� tY�. �{ >� �/ k,$; 3i��-"'�--!� ��'3� } � /' � '�� 1 .� I��. L - � 0.1C'� � �_ _ � �A �' _ :: i .„ , � ,. �'�' �� f �" � '� � �• u'i yl�� ,6 l,� �� ■ i �,�; 4� . i ,t,.� ��g � 1?'$�', i��I I�� `� �. l� ��f� ,. wl�+�'�Y+ih�� s � i � ..�, �' �� ,. i�� I Jl I > • k� �.�.��' �� + qP'H.�x' �I Illi' ��f _ 1 �'r. �w�'" � I I j' • ,/ 4 i �, 1+ � i �. � `M�ia'�� '_� � ' � .4�� Rr ..�,�, � (�'�• f�'. •�: � y��f . �� r�y ��}�� „• J � � � � ,�� :. )�. ;. � � �. � , �.._d y'��'-�-�A .- .+�� y, . �� ` '�. � ';t � �.-��a� �'� � �* � . f��,� ��'� s��' � ' .#L� �'_ 3ya.�� '� 1 � `` . . . . . ,.4. .z�3�� a7k�.� ��-��•�"�1' �:a� � 3'. E x F� 3 � `_ � ° � W �� a m ` — �..r — rx `` x o � �� E: O ,. � x � 1Cp o� � �> � " �� b � � . � P� m� _ ^�.,F ao � _ O �� ~ Q _ � e v � � � - 5cJ ,� — � � m � O , o�, , ; � m �, G� M mN � ; � o � � � a < m. � h o ,�P 8�$ �� n a � �ld m- b` a �j a, G " � , -��s � m� ��$1��, :" / � � -�9 � �e � ^ ; a .:.:.... • o� a�,��s. �o .. o= � � o �� ' `-e N � m< , �4�� o d�r ' kt a,;o�. �` ��0 � �' ��. � .., a 0 >. , , ag2 „/ � s�+� � m o - -ca ` `. � e� i I n p � � ;�. i 8 � a„ i i3O, t �� ,,o�� Z � � �. � � � l� �$s ` � � '��,tiP�.+ � - � ��"`� - v � m �N `� oo sr�� I.. c s u � 6 ��_ s m � '°� � mu�, oaQ& 'N oa b88 � ��o B � 0 ��o s� m ` �D Q V �; �?. '� 0 � � ° V � � O ��` �'��a.zy►�'m� `. sm \ � N .~'+ $+_� m ,� a � S oo '��,� m< > �` `s\ y � � �8 � B88 � ��ga y�o. a g/��.' � 2 6'6 I8 � � � � � O� '?1hO f��b� �\ � W � \ �{� � Vf g�g� \ 'J o�� A � � �- tn �8.. � �s - �� O � \ s�, `r,. 1, "a Q i- � � �\ 5° Q � a 0 i-� � �$ 'O� � m �\ o� �o�' ' 4'6��y W � m -� � � �f \� � ° `° � � a o M U � m - � �� Y ,,m. .$9 .,m � �'��`'� � � ��. n _ X d. � i � c'v`+ o ` "w N W .-i �� q' �t .N m^'"7 I W o �• \ w� � .�� .L; '�' CV J , .�. ._., � ....�$ ��qp� ^ �O ,.. ' � ` /�� m\ wa 0W O ~ !� +�. W [-_ 03 Zb•� � Q - �J o,/ 1'.; � , as ''�` q� � � � � � �� .� m892 O M � m� � 7-+ � '`4 2� � >' � � eg^I � � 3 �� o s �\ � �� cs � � � � � � v v � ''' u m� d � �'�9�9 �a�. u� � � `'S x � � g96 �' av o � v C` G � W > �� _ „ o m '� o �; � ' m<�> �� mo o � 3 N C,) C O 1 �"� "-� 898 � �c o� Z r � p � � H�� tly � � � � K ~ (� N � °i m� W � Lyy / � N2 <W � m �y��W N <O r�,, � o qQ�2zY < � t� �� Z V ��fn � N � � � maF�vai �Wu� c' �z a� � c�� o00 � a � O �O M =W j� F N V1 W�Vj�W O =W� � C+' i Y Oo F. ao�� <W J o cn � � c� ��a� �'i<�� p�•� Y � � a < ��c� � o y h W N W ��ri z'�zF� < �'y � �� '��'m aao o a � � Q W OpO� X�X K W W W O � W l��yl W� �t�� % � � �m� �� WaW�� [� � � WCKy�y�p W�yt/1j0«' O ` W > � � >< J Z� � � - � Q W liF� NW!n(yn�V{�l yfn� Q W �'.' a Z3 m Or W1��(-iW YL� W G a a Q�(!10 �F-F-F-F Z. d' W � p�pWOW W��W � 1.0 Z t � o O �a�3'o zzzzz m c�i " v��i<�<�m =E ' � � � �� o a ��oo 00000 0 � Y y�o��n9��ozo ;� � cn r � N � � W W � Z<3 W W m W�3NZ V C ` � a � � �o � �, �, 9 <Z�'�mW��N� �`� a � W � � � � w W O Z��Fz4&a< n p 2 oi, � x S 4, m U��i< �iK��U p C (n YI 1 I � I I < I N< i N I d� t �J -� i U � X i � � p � � � 1"�� Z�l-6 (Z � � n _� __._ ...__ � '��l�'�.-- ~ � ' � � � '�� , s � � � � '� �r�'" ,�. � �._�,��4 �,, �« _..::. rT,' � �� . � . - ..,. . ... . �� ^ � tL7 ,. � �.____..______.�__. .._ q { .._...... ._ _,... � ; 0 _.• _ ..� _ i � l/'N r:,. .�j HJ { � $a- t/+ _.. � I. � ' . . � � ( � � ' ! � I � O . _t " Q _.. —-. � � � f _-- � � i — f —" (p . � • _. .._ � � N Z `"'' t � cn � ,,� t � N • � N ii � 4 `]"; ; ,.. . � � �� . `' ; i ... _� � x�� .� G . �qy �� W �7 � � ! ��; � O . z � s ��i � ` � S 1 }*�' s � N �. ,�.,� � -a n ; rp O . � ; �r � I � � i`�, � � � � � � i � � ! � � _ � -: .. _�.._..�. � ___ ..._ .. ____ __ . - - _ . ._� ._ __.___ , _ _ _- -. . .• nrr�nr�� .. _ � � � � � � � '„r � � , . _... . . . (p —. __._........_._..--_-...-..�.�. ... __ .... . _ � � _ �`s�, 1 . � � µ ` _ � —• "S � � . .. � � .-..-_.�.._._.____...._ . ._.__,,. _ � ri' N � Cn -+, �