HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin Center.19A-87 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 62/ PARCEL ID AND CASE NO
DATE COMPLETE: ILA - SI
STAFF MEMBER: `>Tc. t.J c--
i
PROJECT NAME: If K IY\ (III I lug (b Jit
Project Address:
APPLICANT: I !I \ 61 14
Applicant A ress:
REPRESENTATIVE: I �1,1( 1 d �I�jl)L) - &Ale (- hIK�IJ
Representative Ad ress Phone: •b. $$ 7 1 .�
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: SI/ S •/
00
1 STEP APPLICATION:
•
P &Z MEETING DATE: ¢ A PUBLIC HEARING: NO
DATE REFERRED: 1// INITIALS: kl
t /STEP APPLICATION: 00 or f , /k C
CC MEETING DATE: R G l
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS:
✓ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water r/ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon /Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. n Other
q
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ',3--?i INITIAL:
City Atty ✓ City Engineer V Bldg. Dept.
other: Pa L.e De A ft. - R Du)c AA; ff oo.
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CA --y Va f q t"
? b! keur, P4 Z — puhi, : h 1�
p ca, per is olv 1 / ri Le Forr. mr e 'tit(
CASE DISPOSITION
PITKIN CENTER GMP AMENDMENT (THE DUMBWAITER)
On August 19, 1987 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously recommended to City Council denial of the requested
amendment to the Pitkin Center (520 E. Hyman) Commercial GMP
application to delete the dumbwaiter /service elevator serving the
second floor restaurant.
Restaurant owner Walt Harris withdrew his application after this
meeting, therefore, no City Council action is requested.
1�
` JUL 2 3 l?g?
•
CITY . , ,� :_ __ __
�. F
`.
130 eet
'
asp :� � —. 611
I ' I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 22, 1987
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Amendment
We have no comments at the present time.
PJT /mc
June 29, 1987
Planning and Zoning
City of Aspen
Dear Committee Members:
1m writ111Y tJ ;ou on behalf :t my client, Wait Harris. _ am
'iv iL1;WL architect far a ten 17101 Ja 75: ;:1 the .i'c( f L floor W
he newly rnleted t..:ln , 'r lli �' _LC 13W. he 1
to he
The request t }
_ 1_ vii. ., n!° wish to .. k t3 in re = _ to this r „ Y , _
concerning the use of a dw nbwai eer. In the o: igiral apppnval of
Pitkin Center by Planning and Zoning, it was requested that in
the event of a restaurant on the second floor a dumbwaiter or
separate elevator be installed for delivery purposes. The reason
cited for the request was concern over misuse of the passenger
elevator in the building.
We would like to have the committee reconsider the request for
the dumbwaiter based on the size, volume, and style of the
restaurant being proposed. The restaurant has a total of 2,150
square feet. 950 square feet is allocated for dining and bar
area. The remainder of the square footage is used for the
kitchen, bathrooms, and other support areas.
The restaurant will seat 44 persons, and the fine dining
experience Walt intends to provide will allow a maximum of 2
seatings per night. The delivery requirements for an
establishment of this size are 3 times a week for approximately
20 minutes each delivery. There is a secondary— direct access -
stairway from the alley to the restaurants kitchen. Under no
circumstances would the passenger elevator be used for the
deliveries. All deliveries would be brought up the secondary
stair.
The infrequency of deliveries, the brief duration they would take
place, and the off —hours they would occur (late morning) indicate
no problem with building circulation. The direct stair makes for
easy access and is finished in durable material. Walt commits to
maintaining the stair in its new conditions in the event of even
minimal damage. The owner of the building, the architect, and
the general contractor have all agreed that the dumbwaiter is not
a necessary amenity, and have no objection to our request. The
cost of the dumbwaiter (approx. $15,000.00) has encouraged us to
examine its real need relative to its expense.
June 29, 1987
Page Two
Based on the previous discussion, we would appeal to the
committee to reconsider the requirement of a dumbwaiter and
review our position. We appreciate your consideration of this
matter and look forward to you decision. Please contact myself
or Walt Harris if you have need of more information.
Sincerely,
a—a - 4c- 2- ye--
Clark H. Willingham
Architect
925 -9258
/ �1
Walt H arris
Owner
925 -9258
Doug T`rom
General Contractor
920 -1719
h l
N ll. 2 3 1 997
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
K From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department July 23, 1987
Re: Pitkin Center GMP Amendment
After reviewing the application and making a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has these comments:
1. The trash /utility area is 250 square feet which is adequate
for this building and will accommodate restaurant usage.
2. As long as all deliveries are made through the alley, we
don't care how the goods are brought up to the restaurant. If
the back stairs are used, it seems that the delivery trucks would
sit in the congested alley longer than if the deliveries could be
placed in a dumbwaiter.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Amendment (Public Hearing)
Case Number 2737- 182 -13- 004- 19A -87
DATE: August 11, 1987
LOCATION: Lots P and Q, Block 94, Aspen Townsite, 520 E. Hyman
Avenue.
ZONING: Commercial Core (H- Historic Overlay District)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests an amendment to
the Pitkin Center GMP application in order to delete the dumb-
waiter serving the second floor restaurant.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24- 11.7(b) sets
forth the procedures for amending an approved GMP plan. The
proposed amendment may effect criteria (1) and (4) as quoted
below:
"(1) Any change which would potentially alter the points
originally awarded during the GMP scoring;" and
"(4) Any modification to the type and level of physical
services and facilities of the project."
The Section proceeds to explain that P &Z shall rescore the
original application to determine whether it continues to meet
the threshold or changes position relative to other appli-
cations. Finally, "the commission shall make a recommendation to
the city council as to the appropriateness of the amendments to
the original proposal and any further conditions of approval
which the applicant shall meet."
BACKGROUND: The Pitkin Center application was one of three GMP
commercial proposals that received allocation in the 1986
competition. During the discussion prior to P &Z's scoring of
Pitkin Center on September 30, 1986, a Commission member ques-
tioned the adequacy of stairway access to a restaurant on the
second floor. Both the project architect and owner assured the
P &Z that a dumbwaiter or separate service elevator would be
installed. (See minutes atached).
GMP scoring categories possibly affected by this commitment are
"site design" (access for service vehicles) and "trash and
utility access areas" (efficiency of trash and utiity access).
Site design received an average of 2.3 points; and trash and
utility access areas received 2.1 points.
Council Resolution 86 -37, allocating commercial space to Pitkin
Center, picked up on the dumbwaiter /elevator representation,
stating:
"G. A dumbwaiter or separate elevator for food service will
be installed if a restaurant is located on an upper story of
the building."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Agencies:
1. Engineering Department: In Elyse Elliot's comments of
July 23, 1987 she noted:
a. The trash /utilities area is 250 square feet which is
adequate for this building and will accommodate
restaurant usage.
b. As long as all deliveries are made through the
alley, the Engineering Department is not concernced how
the goods are brought up to the restaurant. If the
back stairs are used, it seems that the delivery trucks
would sit in the congested alley longer than if the
deliveries could be placed in a dumbwaiter.
2. Police Department: Rocky Whitford verbally reported on
August 11, 1987 that he believes that deletion of the
dumbwaiter would contribute to the alley congestion problem
in downtown Aspen. He estimated that most deliveries tie up
an alley for an hour each. While the problem may not be
critical today, within 10 years we may have a severe
problem. Rocky stated that the congestion may complicate or
render impossible emergency services through the alleys. He
recommends that the City do what it can at this time to
avoid problems in the alleys in the future, including to
create standards for restaurant service access.
3. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark stated on July 29, 1987
that he had no problem eliminating the dumbwaiter. A
dumbwaiter is one more mechanical system to worry about
concerning fire hazards. The rear staircase to the kitchen
is separate from other stairs to residences. Therefore, the
proposed service access use does not eliminate fire exits.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The referral agencies have expressed varying
views of the public benefit served by the dumbwaiter. Areas of
concern are (1) service deliveries would take more time and
increase alley congestion without the dumbwaiter, (2) delivery up
staircases is back - breaking, and (3) the nature of commitment by
the applicant to install the dumbwaiter may have general implica-
tions for other GMP applicants.
Staff sought other opinions to help in evaluating the extent of
the problem. The City of Boulder has at least two upper story
restaurants downtown. Boulder does not require dumbwaiters
through their building or zoning codes. What's Up Restaurant in
Boulder has a service elevator, while the other, Rocky Mountain
Joe's does not. Management at Rocky Mountain Joe's claimed there
is no particular problem servicing the 75 seat restaurant with
daily deliveries up rear stairs. It is hard to say that dumb-
waiters are standard in the industry or in other comparable
communities.
Nobel Sysco employee Bill Jerky said that a dumbwaiter capable of
carrying 300 to 500 pounds would save lots of labor and alley
time, and avoid health hazards. He estimated that a typical
restaurant delivery in Aspen may take over 1 hour if hand
carried, while only 30 minutes if using a dumbwaiter. When Mr.
Jerky learned the subject restaurant will seat only 44 persons,he
shifted from the position that a dumbwaiter should be installed.
He also expressed the opinion that a dumbwaiter would probably
not significantly save alley time because the real problem for
alley congestion in Aspen is caused by owner and skier parking
that block alley and building access.
Staff believes that setting precedent of allowing applicants to
delete project commitments to provide necessary services or
amenities is dangerous. However, it is not obvious to staff that
the dumbwaiter deletion will significantly decrease the building
or alley levels of service. There is no question that the
dumbwaiter would be an asset to the restaurant and would help in
some small degree to limit alley congestion. However, given the
general problems in Aspen's downtown alleys, the size of the
proposed restaurant and existence of an independent rear stair-
case to the restaurant, we do not believe the dumbwaiter is
essential.
Rescoring of the project based on this amendment would probably
not result in a different score and not pull the project below
threshold. If you agree, it would be appropriate to affirm your
original score.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P &Z to affirm
its original score and recommend to City Council approval of the
requested amendment of the Pitkin Center GMP application to
delete the dumbwaiter subject to the condition that the restau-
rant be limited in seating to a 44 person capacity, and that any
increase in seating will require reconsideration of the need for
the dumbwaiter.
dumbwaiter
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30' 1986
Commission there are no overhangs to effect the solar gain of the
building. Harvey said he feels this is a sensitive design to
house a valuable local business.
Anderson opened the public hearing.
Bill Little, Little Cliff's Bakery, told the Commission, the
applicant has been very supportive, gave the bakery time to move,
and he is in support of this application. Terry Badger,
applicant, told the Commission the design of the building goes
along with natural foods, which is a service to this town and the
town people patronize the business more and more.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
Colombo said he is concerned about the north side of the building
as viewed from the corner. Hunt said the applicant might
consider reversing the trash area and the stairway. Bruce
Sutherland, representing the applicant, reiterated that the site
plan and architectural design should warrant 3 points each.
Burstein told the Commission employee housing is a formula and
received 9.75 points. Harvey said the applicants would like a
special review for use of open space as dining area.
(f) PITKIN CENTER CC /C -1 COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING AND PUBLIC NEARING
Steve Burstein, planning office, said this is located at 520 East
Hyman and is a three -story commercial building with commercial,
office and residential uses. Two free market accessory units and
4 on -site employee studios are proposed for this project.
Burstein said the FAR of the proposed structure is 2:1 using the
bonus available for on -site employee housing, with a total square
footage of 12,800. The planning office recommends a score of 2.5
in architectural design. The structure is stepped back on Hyman
street to create a reduced bulk. The materials to be used are
good design features and should compliment the neighborhood.
Burstein recommended 2 points in the site design category. The
25 percent open space is met by the south facing court yard.
Burstein told the Commission the staff is concerned about the
quality of the space and the quality of the landscaping. There
is a problem with service access in the alley currently, and the
•applicant has not proposed any special provision for getting
trucks into the area. Burstein pointed out staff recommends 3
points in the energy category on referral from the Roaring Fork
Energy Center. The trash and utilities area meets the standards
of the code and received 2 points. Visual impacts category
received 2 points; the structure is not out of character nor are
any public views obstructed. Water and sewer provisions are
standard and 1 point is recommended. Burstein told the
7
y M
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30. 1986
Commission staff recommends 2 points in storm drainage because
they have proposed to retain all storm drainage on -site.
Burstein said there is a problem with the parking proposal; both
engineering and planning feel the parking is inadequate and will -
put additional burden on surrounding streets. In the employee
housing category, staff recommends 10.4 points for 4 studio
employee units housing 45 percent of the employees.
Bill Poss, representing the applicant, told the Commission a lot
of planning has gone into the orientation of the building. It
has been stepped back to create a usable open space. The
building has been oriented to be sympathetic to the Pitkin County
bank building as well as the Elk's and Mason and Morse building.
Poss pointed out another reason for the building's orientation is
to take advantage of a 10 foot planting strip existing next to
the bank, which will add visually to the open space. Poss showed
the proposed landscape canopy of aspen trees which will create an
urban seating area as well as create a barrier to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. Bike racks will be provided on the property
for residents and public.
Poss noted in the amenities category the design of the courtyard
and the association with a planting strip creates an usable
amenity by the public. Poss said the mid -block link ties in with
° S the adjacent building to the north and is an amenity. Poss told
P & Z the applicant is providing the required trash and utility
area of 250 square feet, which is paved and will be screened by a
brick wall. Poss said if compactors are used, the trash size
could be reduced and used as a service yard for other uses. Poss
told the Commission the housing in this building is accessory to
the other uses. The main premise is that housing in the downtown
core areas is for employees who do not wish to have cars, and are
close to their work and public transportation. Poss pointed out
there are 17 employee units approved under the GMP process which
have not provided any parking. This building is providing two
spaces, which does improve the area and does benefits the
project. Poss reminded the P & Z the Code does not require
parking in the CC zone. Poss said he feels this project does
benefits the city and does warrant bonus points with the creation
of the courtyard and block link, the stepping of the design, and
use of materials. Hunt said the drawings indicate a restaurant
ant
f use on the second floor with the only access a stairway.
indicated they would install a dumb waiter or a separate elevator
if a restaurant were to go into the building. Hunt said he would
like the applicant to insure, if there is to be a restaurant, it
will be serviced adequately. Jim Martin told the Commission they
: would not want the restaurant using the public elevator and will
install adequate service of either an elevator and a dump waiter.
Poss pointed out there is a development right already existing on
the property from a demolition of over 4 years ago. Poss pointed
8
rTh Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 3', 1986
t
out the phase II, the GMP allocation is to the east and the 4
employee units.
Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
White said there are 3 projects competing, 2 have cash -in -lieu
for employee housing and one with on -site employee housing.
White said it is difficult to balance these two options and to
give the same points for different options. Richman said the
employee housing scoring category is clear and objective. When
Council adopted cash -in -lieu, they gave it equal credit. Richman
suggested the Commission raise this concern with Council. Richman
said in this instance each applicant should receive an
appropriate score; they are making a commitment to house a
certain percentage of their employees.
Commission members scored the three applications. Burstein
announced all three meet the threshold. Hunt moved to accept the
scoring and forward to Council; seconded by Colombo. All in
favor, motion carried.
RITKIN CENTER FAR BONUS; EMPLOYEE HOUSING GMP EXEMPTION; PARKING
REDUCTION
(-) Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Commission the proposal
is to deed restrict 4 units on -site to low and moderate income.
Burstein said there may be a need for moderate units to satisfy
those with a greater income, thus the recommendation for a
greater income span.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of an employee housing GMP
exemption to deed restrict 4 on -site units to low or moderate
income; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried.
Burstein pointed out the Code gives the P & Z the ability to set
the parking requirement for free market units in the CC zone, and
to send a recommendation on the employee parking. The applicant
is committing to two parking space on -site for the free market
units. Burstein said one parking space per bedroom is an
acceptable parking arrangement. However, there is no on -site
parking for the employee studios. Burstein said if the tenants
do not have a vehicle, and the proximity to downtown makes these
units very convenient. The planning office does feels that most
employees have vehicles, and recommends there be 3 employee
parking spaces and 2 for free market, for a total of 5 parking
spaces.
Poss noted in the CC zone, there is no parking requirement and
there has been none required in the past. The intent of this
9
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
fl zone is for employees who do not wish to have a car. Poss said
they feel the two spaces provided on -site are above the zone
requirements. Poss said the two residential units they are
building were there previously and did not have any parking
spaces. Anderson asked if the rear of the building could be
reconfigured to accommodate one additional car. Poss said the
building is under construction, and it would be difficult to
provide for one more parking space.
Hunt moved to set special review at two parking spaces for the
free market units and recommend exemption for parking for the
employee units; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor with the
exception of Colombo and White. Motion carried.
Burstein said the last review is FAR bonus and staff recommends,
except for the parking issue, there is not a problem with the 2:1
FAR proposed. Burstein had recommended this request be denied
based on the deficiency of the parking; however, based on the
previous motion, P & Z may approve this.
Ms. Tygre moved to approve special review of the FAR bonus of
.5:1; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried.
NATURE'S STOREHOUSE - Cash -in -lieu for employee housing;
reduction of trash and utility requirements
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Commission the
applicants propose to pay $70,000 for emplpyee housing to provide
housing for 3.7 low and moderate employees. The housing office
and planning staff recommend approval; however, staff recommends
the Commission ought to send a message to get a program together
on using the cash -in -lieu in the next six months. Ms. Tygre
said, at present, P & Z has no review of the housing authority's
plans. Alan Richman, planning director, pointed out the
applicant is only required to pay their share, which has been set
by formula. Ms. Tygre asked what happens when an applicants'
payment does not cover the expense to build the housing for the
number of employees he has committed to. Richman said staff
feels they have the correct formula to implement the program.
Ms. Tygre said she feels this program should be monitored because
there may be hidden costs to the city. Richman said if P & Z is
uncomfortable with the program or with the cash payment, P & Z
may recommend to Council not to accept the cash -in -lieu. Ms.
Tygre said her concern is that the employee housing get built and
would like a timetable for providing this housing. Richman said
it is reasonable for the Commission to expect the housing
authority to come up with a plan on how it intends to use the
money.
10
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: PITKIN CENTER GMP AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 18, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the City
Council Chambers, 1st Floor of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Jim
Martin requesting GMP Amendment for the purpose of deleting from
the Pitkin Center Building project, a dumbwaiter serving the
second floor restaurant. The restaurant has a total of 2,150
square feet and 950 square feet is allocated for dining and bar
area.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 30, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Fire Marshall
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Amendment
DATE: July 16, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Doug Throm on behalf of his client Jim Martin requesting GMP
Amendment for the purpose of deleting from the Pitkin Center
Building project, a dumbwaiter serving the second floor restaur-
ant. Deliveries off the alley would be transported up the rear
staircase. The restaurant has a total of 2,150 square feet and
950 square feet is allocated for dining and bar area.
Please review this material and send your comments to the
Planning Office no later than August 3, 1987 so this office has
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z.
Thank you. a''
n � A � V � 'h. Na DQi l 6
• n (! r
1 7
A PEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925 -2020
Date: - 3 1 ).14 300 113i C4 Ikk,I,h3une3y117
and leaf moss »e to
S iCc will Cle l �J , llindhp.,
RE: PriiSin (e1ter GMP 4,ne4m,iaT 6 so
Dear OD
J
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined
that your application IS NOT complete.
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
/ Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
1 7 A check in the amount of $ 3
A. Your application is complete and we have scheduled it for
review by the on We will
call you if we need any additional information prior to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
/ sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on the next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Fire Marshall
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Amendment
DATE: July 16, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Doug Throm on behalf of his client Jim Martin requesting GMP
Amendment for the purpose of deleting from the Pitkin Center
Building project, a dumbwaiter serving the second floor restaur-
ant. Deliveries off the alley would be transported up the rear
staircase. The restaurant has a total of 2,150 square feet and
950 square feet is allocated for dining and bar area.
Please review this material and send your comments to the
Planning Office no later than August 3, 1987 so this office has
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z.
Thank you.
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE ` 1
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925 -2020 p
Date: tie- a o
/. o GI. 1_
I. d f
RE: _ S 1 1 '�I II Nor � ' a
1
Dear
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined
that your application IS NOT complete.
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one cow)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
i A check in the amount of $
A. Your application \ mplete and we h ve c duled it for
review by the � Y on (,W 7 y . We will
call you if we need any additional informa ion prior to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.
_ 13. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on /the next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call \ Jf,/
Agitikg----_
'
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE