MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

June 26, 2007

 

            The regular meeting of the Larimer County Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., June 26, 2007.  Members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Bridget Barclay-Sudol and Eric Berglund were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Matt Lafferty and Samantha Mott, and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of May 22, 2007 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0658  (Turner Setback Variance)

Owner:            Jerry Darrell Turner

Applicant:       Jerry Darrell Turner

Property Description:

 

LOT 133A OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION OF LOTS 133 AND 137 GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH PUD AND INCLUDING THE VACATION OF THE 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE COMMON LOT LINES, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Jerry Darrell Turner, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a new home as well as a detached garage to be 20 feet from edge of the road rather than the required minimum of 45 feet in the E-Estate zone. 

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SE 36-9-72; 48 and 56 Donald Peak Court, Livermore; located at the intersection of Donald Peak Court and Twin Pillars in the Glacier View Meadows 12th Filing PUD.

 

 

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               5.0 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             E - Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E - Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Twin Pillars

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow a new home and a new detached garage to each be located 20 feet from the edge of the road easement of Donald Peak Court.  The required setback is 45 feet as stated in Section 4.1.7.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         This applicant was in the process of combining his two lots, Lot 133 and Lot 173, into one lot at the time he applied for the variance.  The lot consolidation was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 29, 2007.  Therefore, the subject lots have now been consolidated into one building lot.

 

6.         Donald Peak Court provided access to both lots off of Twin Pillars.  No other lots had access via Donald Peak Court.  Donald Peak Court provides access to the new consolidated building lot by nearly splitting the lot in half.

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

8.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

9.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The lot is 5.0 acres in size.  The property has significant site constraints such as steep slopes and numerous rock outcroppings which severely restrict the areas where the two proposed buildings could be located.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The circumstances described above are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered by the applicant. 

 

 

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Because of the topography of the lot, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship. 

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structures. 

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections to the variance have been received by any of the neighboring property owners.  An e-mail has been received from a neighboring property owner who states that not only does the lot consolidation make sense, but that the configuration of the lots makes locating a construction site difficult.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

10.       To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

 

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the Variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicant (a) takes affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submits a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Bridget Barclay-Sudol and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0660  (Tinker Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kerri Tinker

Applicant:       Wyatt Knutson

Property Description:

 

LOT 7A OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION OF LOTS 7, 8, AND A PORTION OF LOT 9, POUDRE PARK 2ND ANNEX, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Wyatt Knutson, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a front deck on an existing residence to be located 10 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet and to be located 43 feet from the centerline of Falls Creek rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SE 2-8-71; 90 Falls Creek Drive, Bellvue; located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Highway 14 and Falls Creek Drive.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.20 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, recreational

g.         Access:                                    Falls Creek Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow a front deck, which will be added onto an existing residence under construction, to be located 10 feet from the front property line and 43 feet from the centerline of Falls Creek.  The required setbacks are 100 feet from the creek centerline and 25 feet from the front property line in the O-Open zoning district.

 

5.         This property was granted a variance for the location of the existing house under construction to be 50 feet from the centerline of the Falls Creek under the Sugden Setback Variance request.  This variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment on September 27, 2005.  The Sugden Setback Variance Extension request was approved by the Board of Adjustment in December of 2006, to extend the timeframe on the original variance request by one year.

 

6.         Originally, there was an existing residence on the subject property.  With the Sugden Setback Variance request, the applicant proposed to demolish and remove the existing residence and replace it with a new residence.  The previous residence was located approximately 35 feet from Falls Creek.  The proposed residence was to be located 50 feet from Falls Creek and 25 feet from the front property line.  This new request comes closer to the creek and the property line than the original variance request, but no closer than the original residence on the property.

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

8.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

9.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

            A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The steep topography to the rear of the lot and the lot’s irregular shape make it extremely difficult to place any type of residence on the property.  The proposed residence would be in a better location than the existing building because it is further from the creek and road. 

 

            B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The special conditions described above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The owners had no control of the extreme terrain or the lot configuration.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

There are many other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet setback requirements from Falls Creek.  Three were granted variances in the past three years, and others have been there for 40-50 years.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

            D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land.  There currently exists a single family dwelling on the property.  The current structure already encroaches into the front and creek setbacks but it is no closer than the original residence. 

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.   The applicant has submitted a letter signed by numerous neighboring property owners in support of this variance request.

 

           

 

            F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan. 

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

10.       To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicant (a) takes affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submits a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Bridget Barclay-Sudol and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0657  (White Setback Variance) 

Owner:            Andrew Brittain White

Applicant:       Andrew Brittain White

Property Description:

 

LOT 12A, AMENDED PLAT LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 1, WEST ACRES SUBDIVISION

 

            The Application of Andrew Brittain White, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a garage to be located 3 feet from the north side property line rather than the required minimum of 5 feet and to be located 3 feet from the rear property line rather than the required minimum of 10 feet in the FA-Farming zone.  This garage would be attached to an existing outbuilding which is up against the existing north side property line.  This request includes allowing the existing outbuilding to remain.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SW 9-7-69; 214 South Sunset Street, Fort Collins; located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and Sunset Street.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.17 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Sunset Street

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow a garage to be located 3 feet from the north side property line and 3 feet from the rear property line.  This garage would be attached to an existing outbuilding which is up against the existing north side property line.  The required setbacks in the FA- Farming zoning district are 5 feet from the side property line and 10 feet from the rear property line.  This request includes allowing the existing outbuilding to remain.

 

5.         The property is a 0.17 acre lot with an existing single family dwelling and outbuilding.  The property is long and narrow and was carved out from a larger parcel. It is unknown the exact timing of when the existing outbuilding was located on the property, but it appears to have been prior to setback requirements.  Staff has no objection to this nonconforming building remaining in its current location.  

 

6.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The property consists of generally level, open terrain.  The lot is currently occupied by an existing home and outbuilding.  If the garage were required to meet the setbacks it would be right up against to the house.  The proposed location would be offset from the neighbor’s house.  The size of the lot, the lot’s long narrow shape and the location of the existing house and outbuilding limit the area available for construction of the garage.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The special circumstances described above are not the result of the actions or inactions by the applicant.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Other property owners in the area have constructed structures within the setback.  The location of the proposed garage is more in conformity with the location of other neighborhood buildings.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structures in their existing locations.

 


E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  When staff conducted their site visit several neighboring property owners gave their verbal approval of the variance request.  In addition, numerous other properties in the area have detached garages and other structures, including single family residences, that currently encroach into the required setbacks including both immediately adjacent neighboring properties.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it does not satisfy the review criteria for granting a variance.  The property has sufficient area that is suitable for building and could satisfy the setback requirement.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Bridget Barclay-Sudol, and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0659  (Ballard Setback Variance)

Owner:            Bruce & Renee Ballard

Applicant:       Bruce & Renee Ballard

Property Description:

 

LOT 3, CEDAR PARK 4TH, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Bruce and Renee Ballard, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing cabin with an ‘as-built’ addition to remain 35 feet from the edge of a road easement rather than the required minimum of 45 feet in the E-Estate zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is NE 20-6-71; 438 Aspen Drive, Drake; located approximately 1/3 mile north of the  intersection of Storm Mountain Drive and Aspen Drive in the Cedar Park 4th Filing Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.99 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential/Recreational

c.         Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential/Recreational

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential/Recreation

g.         Access:                                    Aspen Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an existing cabin with an already built addition to remain 35 feet from the edge of a road easement.  The required setback is 45 feet as indicated in Section 4.1.7.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 


5.         The subject lot is 2.99 acres in size.  The applicants bought the property with the cabin already on the property.  The original cabin was 196 square feet, 14 feet by 14 feet, and was constructed on the lot by the prior owners without a permit.  The applicants built a14 feet by 20 feet  (280 square feet) addition.  The entire cabin with the addition is less than 480 square feet. 

 

6.         The lot is situated in the platted subdivision of Cedar Park 4th Filing as one of the northernmost lots.  The access to the lot is severely restricted and can only be reached by Foggy Park Road which serves no other lots.  The property on the other side of the road is owned by the U.S. Forest Service.  The property has an address off Aspen Drive, but is actually off Foggy Park Drive.  Foggy Park Drive is not platted along the entire north side of the property, but instead it becomes a Forest Service Road which is only drivable during certain times of the year.

 

7.         The property consists of 2.99 acres.  If this variance is denied the applicant would have to tear down and/or relocate the portion of the cabin that encroaches into the required setback.  This would have significant impact to the surrounding area. 

 

8.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.  Applicants testified that the two closest neighbors have no objections to the request.

 

9.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The lot is only 3.0 acres in size.  The property is sloping and heavily wooded.  The lot is also in a remote location.  The road to the house is usually closed during winter months.  The cabin as initially constructed by the prior owners encroached into the setbacks. 

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The existing cabin was put on the property prior to the applicants’ purchase.  If the prior owners had applied for a permit when the cabin was constructed, setbacks would have been identified and the structure could have been placed on the property to meet setbacks.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code will cause unnecessary and undue hardship because the cabin would have to be relocated on the property to meet setbacks. 

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.  The only area cleared on the property is the existing driveway and the existing building locations.  The rest of the lot is heavily wooded.  

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.  The purpose of the setbacks is to preserve land for future right-of-way expansion and to provide safety to structures from traffic.  In this case, the road primarily serves only this cabin and it is unlikely that the road will be expanded.  In mountain properties, survey lines are not always entirely accurate.  Therefore, the location of the actual centerline of the road and the distance of the cabin from the actual centerline may be subject to question.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

10.       To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Jean Christman moved and Bridget Barclay-Sudol seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Applicants must pay all fees owing under Building Permit 06-B1194 for the original cabin and addition and obtain all required inspection approvals within 30 days of approval.

 

2.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Bridget Barclay-Sudol and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2007.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________