HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.Lots R & S-Block 119.014-77
,
,
,,/
,/
.- .,
iIPI't/"\L TO
pr'jf....!iq
,.II i"l J \1.;
(".
n--
".r) f' ~ . .,.,
II ,< 1 fiC]
fIr) J'U" ITT.TT
~ '- ,-) I I ,: ~.1 I
(:r"l ',! (\I,'I~ [,r'n"')
, Ixu
[;[,TE !,?~i~_1.~~_1.~.77__ U,SE 1:0 .77-~.~~.__.___
,! f" F t: L L I~ 1'1 T
BAYARD Y. HOVDESVEN
ADDRESS 830 East Hopkins, Aspen, CO 8161]
-- -~---_._--~--_.._--,._-----_._--- -- .-.'.-.---
--_._---_.-._-_._-----~._-~.----
.s_al1\"'__ __." __'-H"""'_'''''__''U_n PliO r: E
925-6642
.~--~---_._-- -~---
o\n::~R
-_.__._--_.__.----._._..,~-- ------------------ .----
fd) D I~ E S S
___ ~.__.._u_. ______~___.____________.__ _ .._......_
--..---...-_.__.____.u_.____.___._______._____ "_._._
-----..--.-.-.-.---------------...---.......--
lo:rITION OF PROPUnV ~.ot~_~_~_n~__~~~_~_~~ock ll9~-=~y and To~~n~ite _Of.___
Aspen
rsT,~(;-(;t'-T'., u 1;1 bl"~' o-:f~-S-ul)d 'iv E:ron"i3Tk .E;-ToCIT()~)-
Ruildin~ Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
Ui!'C'l must accompany this appl ic"tion, and \'1111 be made part of
cr.s~ no.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRl PTlON OF P1WPOSED EXCEPTION SHCJ\-!IUG JUSTIFICATInflS: Appellant
requests variance from the FAR as recommended by the Resolution of the
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April..:.2n 1971'11,5%11 ****10.00
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "An. That Resolution suggests
in Section ld., that the existing FAR of 1:1 be reduced to 0.5:1 "to insure
th~t the neighborhood commercial developments are of a scale that is com-
patible with the residential areas they are designed to service". Although
the said Resolution has not been acted upon by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, it (the Resolution) does have the effect of an interim change of
the zoning requirements to the proposed change by virtue of Section 24-11.7
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. The appellant desires to
construct improvements on the property which is the subject of this request.
Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a preliminary sketch and layout of "The
Durant - Original Bldg" proposed for the property. As shown, the proposal
\; ill yell; he I' e p I' C S en t c d by co u" S e 1 ? Ve s x ['J 0 (over)
Bayard Y. Hovdesven
SIGNEO;By
^ppeflil!i{L~"onard-M: Oates'-
'-.. .. --- -. -- __H__ -- . .-.- .--__ __ ..__~ _. _ _~.______ ___u_ Hl.lLbj;j;QL!lliX..___.._
--------~-------~---- ----- --~----- ---~-- -~--- ---~----------
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONINC ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE GUILDI~G INSPECTOR
..,..:~ F(\;; '...'/\ RO T J [I S !'. r P L J C r\ T I 0 il TO TH E U Ord<~D 0 r Al1Ll U S T ;-iC HT PtNO r-~ [:.S\~Ji~
ee';.; ::(iT GRld,:TI lie: It is anticipated that the Planning Department will
comment on this request.
Application is made for a building. permit to build a
Commercial building.
The proposed commercial building will have an ~xt~rnal
floor area ratio of 1:1. The required floor area ratlo.ls 0.5:1.
Sec. 24-3.4 Area & Bulk Reguirements NC(PUD) Zonln~
District, and as amended by resolution of the Aspen Plannlng
and Zoning Commission April 19, 1977
: ,,1! :: -i- ;.- !) ~ [1/\ -j r
1)[ C I, I ;'i: -'~)
Chief Building. Inspecto~
~ i. It it: '-,
i l r~ T L
'I ")"
I J '" ,
I- : l L I;
I~;\ II. i J
i:J':\!~ I r: (;
{\ ~', ., i
Resolution of the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, dated April 2, 1977
EXHIBIT "A"
To
Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Aspen
/
:/.
y
RESOLUTION OF TIlE IISPEn PLANNING AND
ZONING CO:.:JU"SION REcommNDING VARIOUS
CIll\NGES '1'0 TIlE l\SPEN ZONING CODE
AND DISTRICT MAP
\VHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and' Zoning Commission has been
presented with recorr~ended changes to the Aspen Zoning Code and Zone
District Map, constituting Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
/
and a public hearing on such changes has been properly noticed and
conducteu on February 17, :'976, and
vlHEREAS, the Conmission is required by virtue of Section
24-11.3(d) of the Aspen Municipal Code, subsequent to such public
hearing, to report and recommend to the City Council on the proposeu
changes, and
WHEREAS, Section 24-~1.7 provides that if the Commission
shall affirmatively recomnend changes to the map or code, and do so
by resolution, such recommendations shall have an interim effect, all
as further described in silid section, and
H1IEREAS, the Commission \~ishes to make known its recommenda-
tions with respect to every change proposed, and formalize its report
in resolution form such as to enjoy the effects of Section 24-11.7,
:lm~, THEREFORE, :lE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMHISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. Recommendations with respect to the Area and Bulk Require-
ments Chart of Section 24-3.4.
fl. Corn!nercial Core (CC). The Comlnission recommends that
within this district the present externalFloor Area Rat,io of 2: 1. be
maintained but that there be established a new internal FAR as follows:
:let Commercial FAR by Right
1. 5: 1
Bonus Fl\R by Special Review
Resid0.nt:i<J 1
0.3:1
Additional Comm(,rc,lill
0.2:1
GrOSfj !'1dX j JilUill pr\H
2.0: 1
bCCilur;c (i) th if; cl1ol"I(' \Vi] ] g'.'Il<'l'a te il c!"",lrable 1,lix of l1',e~' ill t:hl'
rktL
. ~
')~t#'
commercial core, (ii) commercial uses will be available to subsidize
residential uses within the same structure, and (iii) for most areas
within the commercial core, commercial uses beyond the second floor
are not practical and the third and fourth floors are more amenable
to residential uses.
~~.
within
b. Commercial One (C-l). ~he Commission recommends that
this district the external FAR should be reduced from 1.5:1 to
1:1, inasmuch as this will reduce building massing within the C-l dis-
trict. However, the Commission further reco~mends that there be given
a density bonus of .~ for residential uses, the Commission being of
the opinion that the mix of commercial and residential uses is as
appropriate in the C-l as the CC district.
c.
Commercial Lodge (CL). The Commission recoInr.1ends a
/i... '4
jf~.flU-.
6. J.:~' ~~ reduction
1J4i~'
,~/
oK
CK
of the external FAR in tills zone from 2: 1 to 1.5: 1, inasmuch
as the existing FAR would permit a building bulk and mass that could
constitute an unacceptable barrier between the City and its mountain
surroundings.
d. Neighborhood Comnercial pun (NC-~UD). The Commission
recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR from 1:1 to
0.5:1 to insure that the Neighbo~hood Commercial developments are of a
scale that is compatible with the residential areas they are designed
to service.
e. Service/Cormnercial/lndustrial (S/C/I). The Commission
recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR in the S/C/I
districts from 2:1 to 1:1 because the existing FAR would permit
buildings of a size and mass incompatible with the areas in which
the S/C/I zone has been designated (the periphery of the City as
opposed to the commercial core).
'l;t;"'l;t1'Jl):J<;<uc/ f. Office (0). The Commission recommends the proposed
{" Cr..;..c: I
. d amendment to the external FAR in the 0 district from 1:1 to 0.75,
hy right, with an additional .25 allowed for residential uses, by
Special Review. 1l00vever, the Commission further recommends (i)
that the requirement that resiclenU al bonus be permitted only \vhcn
-2-
}
~
coordinated with the Housing l\uthority be dropped ilnd such rC<Juire-
ments be again considered only when the l\uthority hils presented and
there has been adopted a housing plan for the co~nunity, and (ii)
that it be made clear that the residential density bonus does not
preclude use of 0 district lands entirely (or at a ratio greater
than .25) for residential uses which are specifically permitted.
CL
g. Commercial One (Cl). The Commission recommends that the
height limitation in this district be reduced from 40 feet to 32
feet, l'lith a right to construct to the full 40 feet being given only
on Special Review. 7he reeommend~tion is made because the desired
density reduction in this district can be achieved by the change in
FAR recoR~ended above and in some instances 40 foot buildings may be
desirable to encourage variations in building heights within this
district both to eliminate the now monotonous skyline and provide
view planes around structures.
h. Commercial Lodge (CL). The Commission recommends that
the height limitation in this district be reduced from 40 feet to
28 feet, with a right to construct to the full 40 feet being given
only on Special Review. The reasons and rational for this recow~enda-
tion are the same as those given in Paragraph g.
'/
:lr1J, Section 2. '1ecommended Change to the Permitted Conditional Uses
"yf;!,.. I:
/~,oti:( UChart of Section 24-3.2.
~dll i/' The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the
!f:I.t"
J Office One (01) and Office Two (02) zone categories to create one
office district (0) with the following elements:
INTENT - To provide for the establishment of offices and
associated commercial uses in such a way as to
preserve the visual scale and character of formerly
residential areas that now are adjacent to commer-
cial and business areas and along Main Street and
other high volume thoroughfares.
PERMr~TEO USES - Single family, duplex and multi-family
residc'nces; professional anu business offices.
CONOI'rrONl\L USES - Art, dance or music studios; museums
mortuaries; library; day care centers; fraternal
IOd'll'" and SOCL1I cl ubs; n'~;taurilnt S ilnd/or
-J-
boarding houses if located in a structure which
has received an II, Historic Designation and
adequate parking is provided on site with access
from an alley.
AREA AND BULK
REQUIREtlENTS - 3ame as R-6 District.
The recommendation is premised on the fact that all existent office
districts are in areas predominantly residentially developed and the
adoption of R-6 area and bulk requirements for offices uses will
provide a better integration of the new office with the existing
residential structures.
Section 3. Changes to the Square Footage Limitations of Section 24-3.6.
/";~ /':A~/ .
~/ /?~ a. Sectlon 24-3. G. Food Store.
%-~~~ c:r
the reduction from 20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet net for
The Commission recommends
food products only, and an additional 3,000 square feet for additional
grocery accessory products and storage (gross total 15,000 square feet)
because it will preclude the construction of massive groceries, and
force the development of smaller localized food service areas which
(i) are both more compatible with the scale of the Aspen area, and (ii)
will generate less cross-town traffic.
L7 4 b. Section 24-3.6. ~lajor Appliance. The Commission recommends
(/~"/.'
~~~:~~tBe reduction from 12,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet as the
square footage limitation for major appliance stores, as 9,000 square
feet is adequate for this use and will insure construction of such
stores at a scale compatible with the Aspen Area.
?JitJ I Section 4. ':i'he Amendment of Section 24-3.7 (3) (2) .
v~r.J/-./~~'(O ,<
,. The Commission, on review of the recommended change of Section
24-3.7 (3) (2) to read:
For purposes of calculating external floor area ratio,
there shall be included basement and subCiurface commer-
cial storaqe areas but excluded subbasements and storage
areas which arc accessory to the principle use. Provided,
howevpr I th(~ :-.ub-b<l:,cmcnt and ilcccssory storage arcas
shilll i\lway,; be. i ncludcc] in the CC and CI di I;t:rict. ^ny
b""l'nlf'nt or "lIb:;l1rL1C'~ ,.rea devoted to off-Ic;l:reet parkinCj
t;J1i\ll be c.'xclud,'d in c;llcu];:ttinq extern..l floor arc'a ratio,
~xcepl: in CC ;1Ill! Cl di';l:ricU;, wl1l'rc it [;11i1]1 bC' included,
)'('colllmendr: tll<~ eh;llIlJ<' to i nc Jude sub-l'd[;('l1\cnt anc] acccr:sory stora'lC'
in Ill,' ['(' ..",d Cl di"'l';,"'[' JWC'''"::.' U,i" ('11:111<]" ::l1l\ul,] lJ,IV,' t:h(~
...1..
r[
J
6~
effect of reducing the tendency of landowners to construct areas
which are ostensibly basements and later convert them to commercial
uses, but recommends against the inclusion of basement or subsurface
areas (in calculating external FAR) devoted to off-street parking in
the CC and CI districts inasmuch as (i) in these commercial districts
underground parking areas will accommodate employer/employee parking
needs to reduce the use of public rights-of-~lay for this purpose, and
(ii) if the City wishes to encourage residential uses in these dis-
/
tricts, some parking must be available for residents of these areas.
Section 5. Rezoning of Lots D, E, P,G, H vnd I of Block 78 from
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to the Office (0) District.
The Commission recommends against the rezoning of Lots D,
E, F, G, H and I of Block .78 from Neighborhood Commercial/Specially
Planned Area (NC/SPA) to the new Office (0) district inasmuch as
there has been no demonstration that the present zoning is inappropriate
and the office designation has received no support at all.
Section 6. Various Other Changes to. the Zoning District Map.
The Commission recommends and rejects various recommended
zone district changes, the areas of which are more particularly
defined on the map attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
a. Hixed Residential (Nest). The Conunission recommends the
change of the zoning of this area from R-6 to R-IS inasmuch as the
area (i) provides a transition area with adjacent county zone dis-
tricts, (ii) is limited in its development by the potential acquisition
and utilization (for public transit) of the Midland Right-of-.!ay, and
(iii) will provide a gracious residential neighborhood for the
community.
. V b.
C' 1---- against the
'"
Mixed Residential (East). The Commission recommends
rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-6 inasmuch as
development of the area to date is predominantly multi-family and re-
zoning would effect a limited number of landowners in an unfair manner.
, i
i "
c. Okluhom,l Flats. The Commission recommends the rezoning
'_/
of this area from R-l5 PUD to R-30 PUD because the area has limited
access ilnd other devr'loplIlcnt constraints tJ1i.lt prcclud,~ int.clli<wnt
dcv<,lopmcnt at H-]5 den,dti,'-".
- I~l-
,~r-
d. Holy Cross Property. Tl1e Commi ssion reconunends the
rezoning of this tract from R-15 pun to R-30 PUD as such zone (1)
will be compatible with adjacent zone districts, and (ii) recognizes
the reduced development of the area anticipated in the Aspen Area
;'. 'j Greenway
;::t1 , .
I)/CU'~ e.
Plan.
Aspen One.
The Commission recommends the rezoning of this
property from R-(' PUD to R-15 PUD for the same reasons described in
this section, paragraph d.
--t-
f. Rivcrsirle Property. ,",he Commission recommends the rezoning
of this area from R-6 PUD to R-15 PUD because (i) it is shaded by
high bluffs resulting in a sunless area, not suitable for intense
residential development, and (ii) the area has very steep terrain.
I "ttf,<,-;,
...v"
""",-
...i~
against the rezoning
g.
Spring and Main (NE Block).
The Commission recommends
. .,,,,,,,.
'.-1-
of this area from R/l1F to R-6 PUD inasmuch as
it is the opinion of the Commission that the present zoning is
correct as the area offers an appropriate site for multi-family
development.
;~
h. Lakeview Subdivision. The Commission is satisfied that,
.~
hecause of limited access, the area is comparable to Oklahoma Flats
,
,
v'
in its development potential, and that, consequently, reduction in
allowable density is appropriate. The Commission would recommend, how--
ever, that the area be rezoned from R-6 to R-30 PUD but realize that,
because this change was not advertised, the Commission is (at this time)
limited toa recannended change to R-15 PUD
CC
i. ~-15 Lodge (PUD). The Comnission recommends against the
rezoning of R-15L PUD districts to R-30L PUD inasmuch as retention
of the R-15L PUD should encourage the construction of additional
lodging units at the base of the
mountai~. / ~
/:;r::? ,~/ /.?/~' -f/' /.-; .
, /. --~<:/;//.//L/t~/.. 'l;..?Y(~ /~- ~/t..~......:: -;?-r-.-:>
~~-t -.' ~-,(. . ......'L./..L. \
- Chairman
Dated: ..-l>)lri 1 ~ ,--l9.l6
J
~.
.'
"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 77-14
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOAPJ) OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY ffiVNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a
public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such othe; place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed vqriance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.
you: views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,
as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to
grant or deny the request for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
June 9, 1977
4:00 PM
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name:
Address:
Bayard Y. Hovdesven
83ll East Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611
Location or description of property:
Location:
Description:
Lots Rand S in Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen
Vari,ance Requested:
Application is made for a building permit to build a Commercial building. The
proposed commercial building will have an external floor area ratio of 1:1.
The required floor area ratio of 0.5:1.
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
'iUllplX~ Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF AD JU STVili NT
BY
Chairman
.,.....,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Board of Adjustments
FROM: Planning Office (HC)
RE: Hovdesven Variance Request - Lots R & S, Block 106
DATE: May 18, 1977
Mr. Bayard Hovdesven, owner of Lots R & S, Block 106, Aspen Townsite
has made application to the Board of Adjustments for a variance to
the 0.5 F.A.R. requirement of the Neighborhood Commercial zone. The
Planning Office wishes to go on record with the Board as to the
following comments.
1. We strongly support the existing 0.5 F.A.R.
requirement for the NC zone and agree that the
two lots are properly zoned NC.
2. Extenuating circumstances do exist in this case.
The Durant Mall Building was approved via the
Ordinance 19 review which allowed a 2.5 to 3.0
F.A.R. for the adjacent building. Also, Lots
R & S represent the last undeveloped properties
currently zoned NC. We feel a larger building on
Lots R & S to the extent of a 1.0 F.A.R. allowance
would produce a structure of more compatible design
with the Durant Mall Building. We anticipate
additional rezoning to NC in Aspen and wish to
retain the 0.5 F.A.R. for these new development
sites.
3. The nature of the NC zone is to accommodate
neighborhood shopping needs which involve significant
automobile use. Therefore we urge retention of the
on-site parking requirement of four spaces per
1000 sqare feet of commercial development.
4. The site is also subject to Planned Unit Development
review which will be accomplished by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council.
es
"",
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8. JORDAN
BOO EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
ASPEN, COLORADO Bl611
,J. NICHOL.AS MCGRATH. ,JR.
WILLIAM R. .JORDAN ill
April 19, 1977
ROBERT W. HUGHES
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 92S-2600
BARRY D. EDWARDS
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
c/o City of Aspen Building Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Reference: Lots Rand S
in Block 19
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
OF THE BOARD:
You will please find enclosed the application of
Bayard Y. Hovdesven requesting a variance for the above-de-
scribed property, together with a check in the amount of $10.00,
inasmuch as this is a request for a variance other than a use
variance. I would advise that the adjoining properties are
as follows for purposes of notice:
The Durant Mall
c/o The Durant Mall Association
702 East Durant Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: John C. Ginn
Chateau Chaumont Condominiums and
Chateau Dumont Condominiums
c/o The Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association
and Chateau Dumont Condominium Association both
731 East Durant Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Le Clair Vaux Condominiums
c/o The Le Clair Vaux Condominium Association
P. O. Box 4055
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: Frank Simpson
-,
...,.....
-
OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH
City of Aspen
-2-
April 19, 1977
Der Mittendorf Condominiums
c/o Der Mittendorf Condominium Association
Address Unknown
City Market, Inc.
One and Colorado Avenue
Grand Junction, Colorado
We would ask that this matter be placed upon your
agenda for hearing at the earliest possible available date.
Very truly yours,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
BY~
Leonard M.
LMO:mt
Enclosures
LAW 0 ~'FICE:'3
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
OOu EAST HOPf.l~,,,,, ~>TRF.ET
LE:ONARD MOATES
ASPE:N, COl.ORADG 816!1
RONA~D D_ AuSTIN
J. N1Cl-jOLAS McGRATH. JR.
WI...L:AM R. JORDAN 1lI
AREA CODE :-;':):)
ROB~~T W. HUGH!':S
April 25, 1977
TEU';PH(lNE 9?,~-26aO
ez"PRY D. EDWARDS
City of Aspen Planning Depatment
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Conwission
City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention:
Hal Clark
Reference:
Bayard Y. Hovdesven
Pending Land Use Application
DEAR CHAIill1EN AND MEMBERS
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING CO~~ISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
I previohsly submitt.ed an application on behalf
of Bayard Y. Hovdesven respecting a proposed project, "hich
I erroneously referred to as being proposed for Lots R & S
in Block 117, City and Towns~te of Aspen, the proposed project
lots are in fact Lots R & S in Block 106 and I respectfully re-
quest that you consider this letter an amendment of our pending
application to that effect. The designation of adjoining prop-
erty owners was correct in the original application.
Please accept my apology.
Very truly yours,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & J'ORDAN
By.
Le
LHO:mt
",., .....
,-r,'>.
~,
LAW OFF"ICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8. .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
.,J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, .,JR.
WILLIAM R. ..JORDAN III
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
BARRY D. EOWARDS
April 25, 1977
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
ROBERT W. HUGHES
City of Aspen Planning Depatment
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Hal Clark
Reference: Bayard Y. Hovdesven
Pending Land Use Application
DEAR CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
I previously submitted an application on behalf
of Bayard Y. Hovdesven respecting a proposed project, which
I erroneously referred to as being proposed for Lots R & S
in Block 117, City and Townsite of Aspen, the proposed project
lots are in fact Lots R & S in Block 106 and I respectfully re-
quest that you consider this letter an amendment of our pending
application to that effect. The designation of adjoining prop-
erty owners was correct in the original application.
Please accept my apology.
Very truly yours,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By
Leo
LMO:mt