HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.536 W North St.33-80�r
Episcopal Church Parking"
It •
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 6/80
2. APPLICANT: Christ Episcopal Church
3. REPRESENTATIVE: Warren Palmer 925-2776
B 2684 A
4. PROJECT NAME:
5. LOCATION:
STAFF: Karen Smith
ox , ape"
Episcopal Church Parking Conditional Use
536 W, North St.
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
7. REFERRALS:
x Attorney
x Engineering Dept.
Housing
Water
City Electric
Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
No. 33-80
Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
x Conditional Use
Other
Sanitation District School District
Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
x Parks State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric Other
Mountain Bell
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: To come before Aspen P & Z on August 5, 1980
(Conditional use application follows variance procedure - Section 2-22)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Christ Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use and Special Review
DATE: July 31, 1980
There will be a public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 1980, for conditional
use approval of a modified parking plan for the Christ Episcopal Church
on North Street in the west end of Aspen. Because the applicant is also
asking for a reduction of the number of spaces apparently approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in August, 1973, the application also requires
special. review pursuant to Section 24-4.5, which requires the Planning and
Zoning Commission to establish the number of parking spaces for this type
of use in the R-6 zone. Originally, the applicant applied for and received
a building permit on the basis of a parking plan showing 14 spaces (a site
plan will be given to you at the meeting). Fourteen spaces was the number
arrived at considering the four spaces that would be required by the new
rectory, as well as spaces that had been required by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on the basis of the 1973 expansion request. Parking for the 1973
expansion request was based on the design criteria of two cars per 1,000
square feet usable floor area. On this basis, the Building Inspector issued
a building permit.
Subsequently,and based on comments from the neighborhood, the applicant has
agreed to process an application showing a reduced number of parking spaces,
namely, ten, which would be located immediately behind the new rectory under
construction. Four spaces, proposed to be located immediately behind and
north of the church,would be eliminated, thus saving the landscaping that
flourishes in that area.
We have not received comments directly from the neighborhood, though property
owners within 300 feet of the church have been notified of the proposed change
in use. We have received the attached comments from the Engineering Depart-
ment that recommend approval of the parking reduction and its configuration
under both conditional use and special review, because of the advantages to
be obtained in saving existing landscaping. The Engineering Department also
noted the sporadic nature of the impact, and the apparent belief of the
surrounding neighbors that on -street parking of a sporadic nature is preferable
to losing the landscaping. We note for the Planning and Zoning Commission
that a previous conditional use application on behalf of the Baptist Church
involved similar conclusions regarding parking, that is, that the sporadic
nature of the use and parking impact warrants a reduction in the amount of
paving and the amount of parking provided. In that instance, it was noted
that the church could share parking with the Forest Service on adjacent property.
In this instance, and should the problem become more unbearable in the future,
either with increased usage of the church or more constant usage, then it
might be possible to explore shared use of the MAA parking lot.
In conclusion, and given what we know of neighborhood opinion, the Planning
Office recommends approval of the special review for reduction of parking to
ten spaces, and conditional use approval of the configuration of parking
spaces numbers one through ten, shown on the TriCo site plan dated August ,
1979. Such approval is based on a calculation of one space per bedroom in
the rectory, equaling four spaces plus 1.6 space per 1,000 square feet of
floor area within the church itself, equaling six spaces for the total of
ten. This approval should also be conditioned upon:
An annual review considering the further development of the neigh-
borhood, and future problems or complaints, and the overall impact
of parking on -street.
The first review would take place in August, 1981.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use
DATE: August 13, 1980
The staff and Episcopal Church representatives will meet on Monday, August 18
to discuss further parking reductions based on input at the last meeting.
For clarification, the application before you is a conditional use applica-
tion for the parking only. Staff has previously ruled that the Code does
not require conditional use approval for the rectory.
cc: Ron Stock
4 rr, wc
e!��
K 5Pr
9� 'v
Nil
chi
6Nk
L4f
�Ut Jo-Q 0, cd�
VIJ
a
na
Z
hduAkk 44�1
Warren I. cr rchitcct
box S72 cnrbondale, co. 81623 phone 563-2155
QT�
�� �►n�4 C,�16�1-i J9 �c`��1�"1!'�1:� C��'Ici�
✓ p� 1►
�i�i i �vic�✓� Clt�6`�%'�'�- � G.�c� �e���yt�� �n
i4AwT V v E—spa.-
Gt�►YTD�S 8��1«G�
•
•
o-Ig - t*,o
�� *CA-A44/t/
U.
for
/AW ic,,•
mill
�� GtGEGs4� FH.
warren i. q-_-zimcr orchitect
box 972 ctarbondala, co. 81623 phone 963-2155
2a May t9�o
c it
., ,� cr►e can , boate �� (P13 s�
4A v Ftc-rj s. Cm���� �
,o
f- Ami,-,gy, -6 aim" vc."49 r c�vmuinae, A-i lo-i(o)
Lowev F Cv��auc)
Utz cm— C., W�,UaC,
t3ol sF
to tq- ,�AF
v,er_vCA cy" z- %:�c3vGG,
lei - �jV� wit 1 �viGi-e Icy �'�'�-� Cr�t2��Ntsn� s-t 1930�
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
001M w C. F. H.WkCL 6. e, a L. Ed. --- ----__ -_ -- -- --
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September G, 1973
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Barbara Lewis,
Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Chuck Vidal, and Geri Vagneur. Also present
Assistant Planner Donna Baer.
Episcopal Church- Ms. Baer explained that the Episcopal Church was located
Ordinance #19 at the corner of North and Fifth Streets. Further stated
Review that the existing structure is a conditional use.
Architect Ted IMularz submitted drawing of proposed building,
and gave a brief history. Mularz pointed out the need
for additional classroom facilities and a large meeting
room.
Mularz stated that the Building Committee had done a
Master Plan in order to do the project in phases. Could
take from 5-10 years for ultimate completion. Stated the
first priority_ was the Chlzrch-proper.
Mularz pointed out that they would like to re -do the roof.
Under present regulations, can build to 372 feet, but are
looking at 34 feet. Wculd extend the Church 10 feet to
the south, or 300square feet, and would replace the
present spiral staircase with regular walkup -type stairway.
Mularz gave a present site description. Stated they would
have room for 9 additional parking spaces. Felt there
were no technical problems as far as the variance was
concerned.
Whitney Miller was present and pointed out that the existing
structure is twelve years old.
Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office had no objections
to the proposal.
Jenkins stated that he would like to see the project come
in as a luster Plan since the function of the building
will not, change.
Chairman Adams suggest they come in after Ordinance #19
for the rest of the project.
Commission agreed to grant approval of the project.
Norway Shadows Chairman Adams opened the public hearing on Norway Shadows
Ordinance #19 Subdivision, Preliminary Plat.
Revicw &
Subdivision - Charles Brandt, Attorney, was present representing Preusch
Preliminary Properties, Inc. Brandt described the location of the
Plat project as 711 S. Aspen, the site presently occupied by
the Norway Lodge.
LAW OFFICES
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR.
WILLIAM R. JORDAN M
R03ERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
D=BORAH OUINN
OAT ES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 1, 1980
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
RE: Parking variance sought by Christ Episcopal
Church
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent Charles and Jan Collins who are adja-
cent land owners to Christ Church. Mr. and Mrs. Collins
live on Fifth Street and Gillespie, and the Church is
located at Fifth Street and North Street.
As you know, Christ Church has obtained a building
permit for the construction of a rectory of approximately
4,176 square feet with four bedrooms and perhaps additional
bedrooms to be added in the basement. The Church owns
five lots. Generally the width of each lot is twenty-five
feet. In our view, the Church should have been required
to process a conditional use expansion application pursuant
to Section 24-3.3(c) of the City code prior to obtaining the
building permit. As you may know, the Church has obtained
a building permit and has constructed a foundation. In
addition, the Church should still be required to file a
subdivision exemption application so that the lot line
between the Church and the rectory house meet City code
requirements and be filed of record to prevent any hardship
application or confusion or uncertainty in the future. That
is, the single family residence being built as a rectory
meets the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (it is appar-
ently 6,025 square feet). But it does not meet the City code
requirement of a sixty foot width at the front lot line, if
one uses the lot line the Church shows on its building plans.
That lot line makes for a width of approximately fifty feet.
The lot line should be moved closer to the Church, or the
land subdivided to meet City code requirements. The only
% 4D
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 1980
Page Two
logical alternative is to treat the residence as an accessory
use to the Church building, which would call for specific
written conditions appropriate to its accessory nature.
If the land is not subdivided, then it should be
clear that the City erred in not requiring a conditional
use expansion application. Clearly adding a very large
residence expands the conditional use and a church is a con-
ditional use in the R-6 zone. Section 24-3.3(c) provides:
"No approved conditional use may be modi-
fied, structurally enlarged or expanded in
ground area unless such modification, en-
largement or expansion receives the prior
approval of the commission which approval
shall be obtained by repetition of the
granting procedures herein provided."
our clients' principal interest is in the parking
places numbering fourteen shown in the rear of the Church and
the proposed rectory on its plans. Perhaps "rear" is mis-
leading since there should not be considered in that area of
the West End, a "front" and "rear" that are treated differ-
ently in a significant way. That is, the Collinses' view
towards Aspen Mountain is curtailed substantially if not
entirely by the rather large proposed thirty-foot high rectory,
building. Their view from their deck and backyard is directly
upon the rear of the Church, which has been nicely landscaped.
There are several trees of six-inch diameter that presumably
would require a City permit for cutting if parking places
are installed. Unless the Church proposes to expand its activ-
ities, fourteen parking spaces may not be required in the
least. It has been the Collinses' observation that the vacant
lot on which the rectory will sit, which had been used for
parking, rarely had many cars. The access is through a very
narrow alley, with two power poles at each corner of the
alley on Fifth Street, and a great many cars could not con-
veniently use that access.
It would not seem appropriate'to have no parking
places at all in the so-called "front," or North Street side,
and fourteen parking places directly facing the Collinses
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission "
August 1, 1980
Page Three
and their neighbors. We recognize that since the Church
has already put in the foundation, it may not be in a posi-
tion to move many of the parking places, but some could
still be put in the front facing North Street, as opposed
to all of them facing the Collinses and their neighbors on
the other side of the property.
As we recall, a few years ago the Baptist Church
was given a parking variance to eliminate many of the off -
site parking places that might have been required, and we
would urge the same be true with Christ Church, i.e., that
no parking places be required or permitted on existing lots
11, 12 and 13, and that the parking on existing lots 14 and
15, directly behind the rectory, be limited to spaces mini-
mally necessary. We would also urge that the Church be
required to landscape the parking area to minimize the
obstructions and impacts of the parking upon the Collins and
other adjacent land owners. Obviously, when "paving paradise
to put up a parking lot," one should be sensitive to the needs
of those who live adjacent to the property. */
We will appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on Tuesday to present our clients' views, and thank
you for considering this writing. We are sending a copy to
the applicant and its representatives so that they may
understand the interests of the Collinses in advance.
JNMj r/ s s
cc: Rev. Robert Babb
Mr. David Farny
1�r. Max Freeman
Ms. Karen Smith,
Ronald W. Stock.,
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
By t
J. Nicholas McGrath, J .
Aspen/Pitkin Planning
City Attorney
*/ As a matter of observation but not objection, we add that
the other view of the Collinses, toward the Institute, faces
a large parking lot.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Ron Stock, City Attorney,/
Jim Holland, City Parks Department
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use, Special Review
DATE: July 21, 1980
The attached materials outline the Christ Episcopal Church's proposed parking
addition. They are requesting a reduction in the required number of parking
spaces, and a review of the configuration. This item is scheduled to come
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for a conditional use hearing
on August 5, 1980; therefore, may I please have your comments concerning
this application no later than August 28, 1980? (Many apologies for not
allowing more time for referral comments...)
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing will be held by the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission at a regular meeting on August 5, 1980 beginning at
5:00 P.M. irl City Council -Chambers, 130 S. Galena, City Hall, Aspen, to
consider an application for a conditional use for the Christ Episcopal Church,
located at 536 West North Street. The Commission will consider a reduction
in the requ;red number of off-street parking spaces and also the proposed
�cpnf�gurai.tn of the parking. For further information, contact the Planning
Office, 3rd.i loor, �' .�' 1 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, 925-2020, ext.
225.
• .. V� 1. + , !1 �- ] G7 r '-r�
• MEMORANDUM •
TO: Karen Smith, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office
DATE: July 29, 1980
RE: Episcopal Church Parking, Conditional Use,
Special Review
Having reviewed the above application for a parking reduction
variance and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department
has the following comments:
1) First of all, in view of the utilization of the
property as a church and meeting facility, it is
subject to large but sporadic parking loads. Were
the neighborhood more congested, provision of the
maximum achievable on -site parking would be imperative.
2) There are several factors in this case, however,
that point toward a compromise solution of some
type. One such factor is the low congestion of the
existing neighborhood and the apparent lack of
concern of the adjacent property owners with
respect to the parking loads created by the church.
I spoke with Dave Farny today who lives across
the street from the church and this feeling was
expressed and had been confirmed throughout the
area by him.
3) Additionally, creation of maximum on -site parking,
although possible, would eliminate considerable
existing landscaping and several large trees that
are currently an asset to the neighborhood.
In view of these factors, the Engineering Department has the
following recommendations:
a) That the parking requirement for the church facility
be reduced from the standard 3 per 1,000 square
feet of floor area to 1.6 per 1,000 resulting in
six spaces.
b) That the new rectory be required to provide one
space per bedroom as required of any other residence
in the R-6 Zone resulting in four spaces.
c) That the ten spaces be located behind the rectory
as shown on the site plan dated August 1979
prepared by Tri-Co Management (Alpine Surveys).
d) That the four spaces behind the church on the above
site plan be eliminated.
0 2 •
e) That this parking arrangement be considered conditional
and subject to some form of further review considering
the further development of the neighborhood and any
future problems or complaints.
0
•
MAXWELL ALEY
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
July 15, 1980
Ms. Karen Smith
City and County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-5953
Re: Lots 11 through 15, inclusive, Block 99, Hallams Addition,
City of Aspen - property owned by Christ Episcopal Church
Dear Ms. Smith,
Reference is made to a conversation you have had with
the architect for Christ Episcopal Church, Warren Palmer. Pur-
suant to such conversations, on behalf of the Church, I am
formally hereby requesting an exemption from required off-street
parking for the subject property. Please schedule this matter
for hearing.
I also want to assure you that no further work will be
done on parking on the subject property until the Planning &
Zoning Commission has resolved this matter of the requested
exemption.
Very truly yours,
/4h"4w 1a 06A;,-,
Maxwell Aley
MA ch
cc Charles Shepard
Warren Palmer
r
it
warren I. Palmer
box S72 carbondale, co
architect
81623 phone E363 - 2'155
A4rV
kayh GMt%
Cj a Can 116nnlr�
Co OV v
f<JL:- mvi�t if"�Val ChOv-ch 14�cbvij
peav Vavrnw
Mv- Gharli-e q�rd Chvi-�Dt tEtcs�1
IOU �-(V Cn-t o zyM
i
�-1� �v� Gh -�.he� v��n9 requ�re-
L�dd►-tr� G' -�•v�lo�k�nns
� .t��ev� � Col o .
-1Fie Gh�tv�ch� hd5 becv� r-ecElvi �
i� M �Il ��� -kv ��ONIA
��c�h�n�r c`�v�ol -t � wotn�d li t�
�v�2 5 ,�n Z
WA have av- aaro►wntr--o
e ►.}e one a �a� i � ���
Chavlr� �ne�avd �t 9z-;s
�/1✓ �� l6 e3Ye!ru� 3try-e-GAeA
6ar-r --tv
µ�- -C-"Af=t C-
G�re�reiy
•
- CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH G ' 3
V
CJ
I 1
IL
J
j ..
/, /-, hu � �, (
(tcriwe��
71�
o d
i y 64-1- 1�1�0 ��
!* -�'--.........
rj:�.z0l, 1\DIT`I
• TO: ordinance 19 Revie\a Committee
FRO:i: Planning Office
DATE: November 29, 1973
SUBJECT: Christ Episcopal_ Church -- Preliminary &. Final
Presentation
dater okay
Eiccric okay
Gas okay
Sewc!r okay
Fire Protection okay
Engineering recorinendations -- as attached
Parking va.s reviewed and approved at conceptual stage
Construct side;aal-k as shoe- n on plan - escrow and build
sun.uner 1974.
warren I. Palmer architect
►%.o, box 972 carbondnio, co. 811323
phone C303 1 963 • 21JJ
TO
_cam
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU C Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ____
the following items:
❑ Samples Specifications Shop drawings K Prints C; Plans ._. P
❑ Copy of letter C: Change order :: -----
i COPIES �
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
L�---------- --"-� -----
_ CA LC41
w
c�k tv� �w �� s � �. M�(aa•_ __ t��
1
g ��a
4
_
THESE ARE TRANSM1ITTED as checked
below:
❑ For approval
❑ Approved as submitted
Resubmit_
—copies for approval
W/-For your use
❑ Approved as noted
Submit
copies for distribution
— ❑ As requested
n Returned for corrections
F_ Return --corrected
prints
7V/For review and comment
[ :
— --- -- --
- -_— —
❑ FOR BIDS DUE
19 `
PRINTS RETURNED
AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS —
COPY TO_1"n'`�V�IE�i�_�I�LL�`7�<'—
Gt-P'yV>W f{T-Zq MM-V SIG N ED � -
r
•
LAW OFFICES
•
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR.
WILLIAM R. JORDAN III
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
DEBORAH QUINN
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 1, 1980
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
RE: Parking variance sought by Christ Episcopal
Church
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent Charles and Jan Collins who are adja-
W1'�`cent land owners to Christ Church. Mr. and Mrs. Collins
,A live on Fifth Street and Gillespie, and the Church is
�,0 located at Fifth Street and North Street.
As you know, Christ Church has obtained a building
permit for the construction of a rectory of approximately
' 4,176 square feet with four bedrooms and perhaps additional
bedrooms to be added in the basement. The Church owns
five lots. Generally the width of each lot is twenty-five
feet. In our view, the Church should have been required
to process a conditional use expansion application pursuant
to Section 24-3.3(c) of the City code prior to obtaining the
building permit. As you may know, the Church has obtained
a building permit and has constructed a foundation. In
addition, the Church should still be required to file a
subdivision exemption application so that the lot line
between tree Church and trio rectory house meet City code
requirements and be filed of record to prevent any hardship
application or confusion or uncertainty in the future. That
is, the single family residence being built as a rectory
meets the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (it is appar-
ently 6,025 square feet). But it does not meet the City code
requirement of a sixty foot width at the front lot line, if
one uses the lot line the Church shows on its building plans.
That lot line makes for a width of approximately fifty feet.
The lot line should be moved closer to the Church, or the
land subdivided to meet City code requirements. The only
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 1980
Page Two
logical alternative is to treat the residence as an accessory
use to the Church building, which would call for specific
written conditions appropriate to its accessory nature.
If the land is not subdivided, then it should be
clear that the City erred in not requiring a conditional
use expansion application. Clearly adding a very large
residence expands the conditional use and a church is a con-
ditional use in the R-6 zone. Section 24-3.3(c) provides:
"No approved conditional use may be modi-
fied, structurally enlarged or expanded in
ground area unless such modification, en-
largement or expansion receives the prior
approval of the commission which approval
shall be obtained by repetition of the
granting procedures herein provided."
Our clients' principal interest is in the parking
places numbering fourteen shown in the rear of the Church and
the proposed rectory on its plans. Perhaps "rear" is mis-
leading since there should not be considered in that area of
the West End, a "front" and "rear" that are treated differ-
ently in a significant way. That is, the Collinses' view
towards Aspen Mountain is curtailed substantially if not
,entirely by the rather large proposed thirty-foot high rectory
uilding. Their view from their deck and backyard is directly
upon the K.2.ar of the Church, which has been nicely landscaped.
There are several trees of six-inch diameter that presumably
would require a City permit for cutting if parking places
are installed. Unless the Church proposes to expand its activ-
ities, fourteen parking spaces may not be required in the
least. It has been the Collinses' observation that the vacant
lot on which the rectory will sit, which had been used for
parking, rarely had many cars. The access is through a very
narrow alley, with two power poles at each corner of the
alley on Fifth Street, and a great many cars could not con-
veniently use that access.
It would not seem appropriate to have no parking
places at all in the so-called "front," or North Street side,
and fourteen parking places directly facing the Collinses
1
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 1980
Page Three
and their neighbors. We recognize that since the Church
has already put in the foundation, it may not be in a posi-
tion to move many of the parking places, but some could
still be put in the front facing North Street, as opposed
to all of them facing the Collinses and their neighbors on
the other side of the property.
As we recall, a few years ago the Baptist Church
was given a parking variance to eliminate many of the off -
site parking places that might have been required, and we
would urge the same be true with Christ Church, i.e., that
no parking places be required or permitted on existing lots
11, 12 and 13, and that the parking on existing lots 14 and
15, directly behind the rectory, be limited to spaces mini-
mally necessary. We would also urge that the Church be
required to landscape the parking area to minimize the
obstructions and impacts of the parking upon the Collins and
other adjacent land owners. Obviously, when "paving paradise
to put up a parking lot," one should be sensitive to the needs
of those who live adjacent to the property. */
We will appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on Tuesday to present our clients' views, and thank
you for considering this writing. We are sending a copy to
the applicant and its representatives so that they may
understand the interests of the Collinses in advance.
JNMj r/ s s
cc:U Rev. Robert Babb
Mr. David Farny
Mr. Max Freeman
Ms. Karen Smith,
Ronald W. Stock,
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By &JL C G.�L
J. Nicholas McGrath, J .
Aspen/Pitkin Planning
City Attorney
*/ As a matter of observation but not objection, we add that
the other view of the Collinses, toward the Institute, faces
a large parking lot.
0
kJ4