HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.1235 Mountain View Dr.004A-85Messiah Luthern Church
jo,4 A~5
MOUNTAIN vIEw
DRIVE
CUL-DE
PpWER J
POLE
D (7)
D l�
v
c
10
44
0- 6 5
15 E.
BL
AR �
{ --_
�-CATtGN MARKERS
z
j
i`C
GRAVEL PARKING LOT
BUILDING
I
A -EVERGREENS
B-AS("�rvS
C - LILACS TO 6E RELOCATED
NE�,R 11EW SUILL ING
D-ASPENS THAT SHIELD PARKING LO-T
PLAN
SCALE = I"= 10'-0"
167.00
Im
•
EXISTING WATER LINE
0 �
'J
N i �
C H U R
APPROVED BY:
MESSIAH LUTHE
AqPFN COLORAD
•
0
J7
IQ, 4 1:71 :-L
V a - A I— 7z. (-- �-'
-------------------------
SCALE:
APPROVI
CATE:
_J
SCALE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY
DATE: REVISED
DRAWING NUMBER
Amk
iCe';, GG
AR I N S EA
N,
•
L
A07 u�
, T
RAI L R OA p
rT1%J�yRkINC
x
\ \ PAI�� \
k I N G \A P,
I ivG
aGA57
r \ / r_q'
pN Q,gQ rj �OC� 0
R J I
Nv{+nr�
l
'ON
ANlc
Tar, ,�{'{CP
+.1 � �
I
G.
ESQ
THB�.E
a!- 3
lhl(i
�C)o
/IA�V���
•
! )I
SCALE: APPROVED BY:
DATE:
>» r r
FOUND: REBAi
L.S. 9
w
m
0
h
a
m
L.S. 12707y�r
;ET REBAR g CAp
L.S. 9184
_R
�P
r— — — — — — — — — — —
HI �
w�
�Irl
r-
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
SCALE I"=10'
BASIS OF BEARING ; FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, JAMES F. RESER HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND., 1983
A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION
OF A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH WEST 1 /4- OF SECT 1 , T 10 S,
R 85 W OF THE GTH. PM., PITKIN COUN;A84-
ALPINE SURVEYS BY.F' RESER.SEPTEMBER 5TH.,1963.
F,
R
step ,
9i84
O
OF GO�'�r
Alpine Surveys Surveyed 2 e3 Revisions Title MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ASPP-N Jot:
:,uvey within six years after you first hiseover
y action hased upon aey A,4ect m this survey Drafted
.a� years from the date of the -ertihcahon shown
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
01 303 925 2688
I FOUND REBA
L.S. 9
L.S. 12707v^
'ET REBAR 8 CAP
L.S. 9184
IER
:AP
i
r— — ---1
wl I
F=1
1- I
0.'
w� I
NORTH
0 5 10 20 30 4.0 SO
SCALE I " = 10"
BASIS OF BEARING : FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, JAMES F. RESER HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON SEPT=MBER IND., 1983
A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION
OF ATPLACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH WEST 1/4. OF SECTION I ,T10S,
R 85 a OF THE GTH. PM., PIT KIN COUNTY, COLORAQ�:
ALPINE. SURVEYS BY JAMFS F RESER
SEPTEMBER 5TH.,1983. LS D184-
o law you must commence any legal action
uvey within six years after you first discover
y action based upon any defect in this survey
ears from the date of the certification shown
Alpine Surveys
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303 925 2688
Surveyed 3, 2.83
Drafted 9 ' `J ' 83
Revisions
Title MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
16 7.00
s
I � �
\
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING STANJAP�S
TRANS !�CRT-ION 6�0
RG. 610 TABLE 21 3AF61C Fi.�G ,��ERING MAN;�BO
C� OK
EXISTING WATER LINE
;O
t
N
a
/
PLAN
SCALE - I" = 10� _ O,/ SCALE:
DATE:
ME
A
0
(O
O
CHUB
APPROVED BY:
1 NO 1000H CLEARPRINT
._.SELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen oo LIA - 5
DATE RECEIVED: CASE NO. QW61041
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF:
PROJECT NAME : k S51 L t466" t 1U r(_A Cn-nj +t Md Vs-k--
APPL ICANT • V t,
Applicant •Addresses honel•I i'Z35 ;Y11 • Ara-) �Q ;:
RP.PRFSFNTATR7F,: tJ(�l'l 14ose-
Representative Address/Phone:
Type of Application:
I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
III. EXCEPT ION/EXEMPT ION/REZ ON ING (2 step)
Y IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
Special Review
Use Determination
X Conditional Use
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)'
($ 680.00) V �¢
P
Other
P& CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: 5ES NO
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS:
v City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall �Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 30 iS INITIAL:
City Atty v City Engineer V Building Dept.
Other: �_ �\A, Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
v gpoSITION:
,viewed by: :A-13p_-. P&Z 5\2a\�S City Council
OC
0
0
The applicant will —veet the Environmental Health DenartmentIs
request that the quality and quantity of the ;rater supply be
- tested; prior to the issuance of a building per-imlt for the
project.
2. The applicant ac+rees to remove the existing church building
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new build,inc;.
3. he ai:�.licants c.7ili. surr?it a landscaping, elan to the Planning
Office ,)rior to issuance of a building permit. The olan
will (a) demons -'Crate what Cie , cn ted nicilies will be used to
formally eieslcnate the parking spaces, (b) identify any
trees which care to be removed or relocatedf including
peruission from the Huil(Hng Inspector and Parks Director
for a,ny such removals; anci (c) illustrate how lanuscarIng
-fill be use6 to so-ften th.e appearance of the structure and
screer, u7 e zz r.;i r.e : rea. r <<,, ` 4
y \ �...f � \\ U V � R� . •+. � � �'l O � i\ ill..\ ,� �"� k eI ►� �
- .�, •,�.-1 � .,.,,.z . — . , ..--gyp \ . 1�. '. c ..... �_ J h �. P , �l'� p ,�,u ¢v ��1
r
k4_
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Richman, Planning Director
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office
Re: Messiah Lutheran Church
Date: May 28, 1985
According to the plat of the West Meadow Subdivision filed in
1958, Mountain View Drive is a 60 foot wide public right-of-way.
The width of the paved area is presently 24 feet.
This street could easily handle the increased traffic of about 30
or 40 vehicles for a few hours per week.
Presently, there is not adequate room for a long, emergency
vehicle to turn around in the cul-de-sac. The City Code requires
a 100 foot diameter cul-de-sac. The right-of-way of Mountain
View Drive includes a 90 foot diameter cul-de-sac, the paved
portion presently has a 45 foot diameter.
The road does not have adequate width to allow parking on both
sides of the road. Signage must be installed that designates
parking on one side only. We feel that the Church should be
responsible for this. We recommend that parking be allowed only
on the south side of the street since there is room for smaller
cars to turn around in the cul-de-sac. There is a fire hydrant
next to the church entry that restricts parking by 15 feet from
the entry. The enclosed sketch depicts our parking proposal.
The plan submitted for the parking lot allows for 26 parking
spaces. This makes optimum use of the available area. Without
marking each parking space, the number of cars able to use the
parking lot might be less than 26. If the parking lot isn't
paved, marking the specific parking spaces would be difficult,
especially for the middle aisle.
This department feels that this application has the potential of
impacting Mountain View Drive through increased parking and
traffic. However, we do not feel that from an Engineering
position there will be sufficient negative impact to warrent
denial of this application.
4 nl
\- sruvItCle,
� r
arL
L;,,;-L
May 10, 1985
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
As ownersof the house at 1240 Mountain View
Drive, Lot 10, Block 1, West Meadow Subdivision, we wish
to voice our objection to approval of plans for expansion
of the present Messiah Lutheran Church.
Parking is already a problem in the cul-de-sac
of Mountain View Drive and a larger structure with added
facilities would further limit available public parking
and off-street parking.
We are also opposed to any new structure whose
height would block the view of Aspen Mountain and Independence
Pass vistas. When the church was built, we were promised that
there would be no expansion beyond the present structure.
Because of the larger structure, there will most
certainly be more activities and greater frequency of use.
The neighborhood most certainly cannot absorb these expansion
plans.
4
The plans should be rejected for all the reasons
cited above, particularly in view of the Aspen and Pitkin
County parking ordinances.
Yours very trul ,
Bruce J. ich
Emmeline Polich
1240 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Katherine Reppa
1250 Mountain View Drive, Aspen 81611
RE:. CMessiah Lutheran'Chu ch-proposed expansion
DATE: Play F.
It is out of great concern for the integrity of my neighborhood
and the safety of its residents, particularly the increasing
number of young children, that I write this letter of opposition
to the expansion of Messiah Lutheran Church.
PARKING Membership of Messiah Lutheran has, in the past two
i
years, increased approximately sevenfold. With the projected
membership of 172 (seating capacity 140), the parking problem
would be a severe one, with cars lining Mountain View Drive.
The 30 parking spaces provided in the church's plans would be
woefully inadequate.
Not only is on -street parking in direct violation of the
West Meadow Homeowners' Association covenants, but it also
would create a potentially disastrous problem in the event
that a fire truck or other vehicle needed emergency access.
Whether other churches in the area provide off-street
parking or not is hardly a rationale for changing a tolerable
situation to an intolerable one on our small, dead-end street.
Even now my husband and I are very aware when services
begin and end each Sunday because of the stream of cars passing
our house, and this is from present church membership of 90.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE It would be much more preferable to
have a single family residence of 4661 square feet. Such. a
dwelling would enhance the neighborhood and would not have the
impact of traffic, noise and polluting car exhaust that would
result with the new church.
The memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Messiah
Lutheran states that their impact on the community "would be
no more than most single family or duplexes being built today."
This statement is absolutely incorrect and completely ignores
the tremendous traffic impact which a residence would never have.
CHILDREN The pastor of Messiah Lutheran explained that the
expansion request came from a need for more space for the Sunday
School, and "that we want the best for these children." The
residents of Mountain View Drive want the best for OUR children,
also, and that is not by having cars from 170 members travel
down this street several times a week.
FACILITY USE I do feel that the church is downplaying the
extent that the facility will be used. As membership grows, I
feel certain that more programs, meetings and activities will
be offered. A key church member told a neighbor that a day
care program was planned, which, if approved, would mean a
number of cars on Mountain View Drive twice a day.
A COMMUNITY CHURCH?? Alan Richman's memo of May 21 states that
the church serves the local community. This, in fact, is in-
accurate. None of the residents of Mountain View Drive or
Overlook Drive are members of the congregation; there have never
been any activities which included the neighborhood or general
public; and some of the key church members have been openly
antagonistic to residents of the area. A "community_" church it
is not.
CONCLUSION I would never choose to live in close proximity to
a business that generated such a degree of traffic each week,
and I feel that this present situation is comparable.
To be sure, the members of the Messiah Lutheran congre-
gation are relieved that a church of this size, with its
resulting traffic, is not situated on THEIR street.
Religion has a place in our society, but that place should
not be at the end of a small, quiet residential street. A
church of 170 members --or even 100 members --and its resulting
problems is not in keeping with our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter which is of
such great importance to the homeowners and their children of
Mountain View Drive.
TO: Aspen P__.__ning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ann & Bill Gaechter
1220 Mountain View Drive, (Box 414) Aspen 81612
Re: Proposed expansion of Messiah Lutheran Church
Date: May 25, 1985
We would like to express the followin; concerns and opinions
regarding and opposing the proposed expansion of the Messiah
Lutheran Church:
PROPERTY VALUES: Our property is located directly North
of the church, adjoining the church's property along their
parking lot, which makes us one of the property owners most
acutely affected by the church's expansion plans. In April
1984 our property was appraised by James J. Mollica & Assoc.,
Inc., M.A.I., Aspen. The appraisal states Site is well
landscaped and has average to good views southeast toward
Aspen Mtn. and Independence Pass." A picture is also included
in the appraisal showing an unobstructed view to the southeast.
Our house was rebuilt in 1978 and designed specifically to take
full advanta7e of this view. If the new church is built in
the location shown, it will completely obliterate this view,
and greatly devaluate the property, as there then would be
no view from this property. The proposed location of the
church would also directly affect the view and value of at
least five other properties. The alternative of adding on
to the existing church in its present location would be less
damaging in this one respect.
IMPACT ON 14ELL: We, the Krausch's, and the Gubser's, share
a well with the church. In the summer of 1982 and 1983, the
church was watering. the lawn and trees with the well water,
which caused a great draw on the well, and continual running
of the well pump. After many frustrating requests from Paul
Krausch, the church agreed to begin using the water from
Maroon Creek that all four lots in the Bargsten Tracts have
rights to, and that the other three lots have always used
for watering; using the well only for domestic use. In 1984
we allowed the church to put a ditch through the length of
our backyard so their holding pond could drain into ours, and
the church began watering from t'-:eir pond. The proposed
location of the new church is where the pond is now located,.
and I saw no new pond location, or mention of a pond in the
plans or proposals, which would lead me to believe the well
water would be used for irrigation again. Also, with a
possible future congregation of 170 members, meeting at least
twice a week, I raise the question that it would put excessive
demand on the well.
CHARACTER OF TEE NEIGHBORHOOD: Our appraisal also states
"The general area is very popular with Aspen's permanent
residents." Also, "Site is capable of supporting a duplex,
but further construction would damage the existing single
family residential character of the site." It is chosen by
-2-
local residents because it is a small, quiet, family
oriented neighborhood, and always has been.. Building
a lar-le church in the neighborhood would destroy its
character and appeal.
PARKING: The church has been very protective of their
parking area, and on many occasions have asked nei°hbors
not to park there even thou-h no services were in session
at the time. INTow they want the nei;_rhborhood to bear the
burden of their very inadequate 30 space parkinm area.
FACILITY USE: The church is requesting to increase the
size of the church 5-L times the size of the existing structure.
They are not anticipating even doubling the size of the
congregation, and plan to more the old church to El Jebel,
which would seem to lessen the demand on the new church
even more. I propose they are overbuilding for the current
and anticipated need.
With the increased size of the church, and increased
membership anticipated, one would assume activities would
increase, which in turn would increase traffic, parking
problems, and noise in the neighborhood.
I understand that once the new church is built, a
day care program may possibly be initiated. This would
be running- a business in the neighborhood and causins_ much
daily traffic and noise. There is also a belief that once
the church has built this large, expensive building, it may
be rented out to other or�-anizations for non -church functions.
de are very concerned that increasin�r the size of the ci-.urch
will greatly incre�.se the amount of activity in the building.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH: In your file a letter from the church
states "We have always worked with the community and neigh-
borhood respecting their wishes and ri,--hts and do not wish
to offend anyone.' They have not worked with the neighborhood
at all, and no one was aware a new c'iurch was to be built
until we received the notice of the Public Hearin;, which
many of the neighbors did not receive. I do not believe
one family in the area is a member of this church, and I
believe, as in our case, has not been invited to join the
church. I don't believe the church serves the local community.
I feel they are a very closed Troup. It is also interesting
that, to my knowledge, none of the con.revation live in the
neighborhood where they want their church built.
CHURCH ',TEEDS : When I spoke to the Pastor on Sunday, Iviay 12,
he said their primary reason for expansion was for space
for their children for Sunday School. This was also repeated
May 21, after the cancelled P & Z meeting, when the Pastor
and several church members and neighbors were present.
I propose that this does not justify the size of the building
they wish to build.
CONCLUSION: I propose that the church add on to the
existing structure to meet their need for a Sunday School
area, which to meet this need should be no larger than
the existing facility. This would allow them to satisfy
their need, would not precipitate greatly increasing the
congregation, which in turn would not create the traffic
and parking problems anticipated. And by adding on to
the existing church in its present location , it would
be keeping the character of the old church, which would
not have such an adverse affect on the neighborhood.
Ann Gaechter
Encls: cc of appraisal pertinent to letter
tInCA1T1Al AnnnAl9%
n�rvn I File No. 713;
er am ace er,
Census Tract Map Reference see a aC
Address args en raets o , 1220 Mt. View Drive
spen County Pitkin State Colorado Zip Code 81611
escription args en raets, Lot 2 (see attached for com lete le al descri tionce
$ Date ofSale N/A Loan Termyrs Property Rights Appraised [gFee ❑Leasehold ❑DeMinimis PUReal
[Actual
Estate Taxes $ 7 •70 (yr) Loan char es to be paid by seller $ Other sales concessions For roposed refinance
Client United Bank of Denver
Address
nt Owner occupied: Appraiser Scott Bowie MAI Instructions to Appraiser Fee appraisal of market value
existing James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc. for prospective mortgagee
Location [� Urban ❑ Suburban ❑ Rural
Good A.q Fav Poo
Built Up [� Over 75% ❑ 25% to 75% ❑ Under 25% Employment Stability [id ❑ ❑ ❑
Growth Rate ❑ Fully Dev. ❑ Rapid [2 Steady ❑ Slow Convenience to Employment [2 ❑ ❑ ❑
Property Values ❑ Increasing [2 Stable ❑ Declining Convenience to Shopping 4 ❑ ❑ ❑
Demand/Supply ❑ Shortage [ In Balance ❑ Over Supply Convenience to Schools 12 ❑ ❑ ❑
Marketing Time ❑ Under 3 Mos. 4-6 Mos. ❑ Over 6 Mos. Adequacy of Public Transportation 12 ❑ ❑ ❑
Present Land Use %1 Family29j%2-4 Family _%Apts. % Condo _%Commercial Recreational Facilities [2 ❑ ❑ ❑
_% Industrial _% Vacant % Adequacy of Utilities ❑ ❑ ❑
• Change in Present Land Use [Not Likely ❑Likely (') Taking Place (') Pr ❑ I� ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Property Compatibility t,�l
• (') From To Protection from Detrimental Conditions ❑ ❑ ❑
Predominant Occupancy rt�10IOwner enant % L+'I ❑T Vacant Police and Fire Protection ❑ ❑ ❑
Single Family Price Range $ 175000 to $ 500000 Predominant Value $ 900000 General Appearances of Properties ❑ 4 ❑ ❑
Single Family Age 5 yrs to 25 yrs Predominant Age 15 yrs Appeal to Market 12❑
Note: FHLMC/FNMA do not consider race or the racial composition of the neighborhood to be reliable appraisal factors.
Comments including those factors, favorable or unfavorable, affecting marketability (e.g. public parks, schools, view, noise) Tneighborhood
i e
within 2 miles of central Aspen where schools churches shoPping &t entertainment
Gated. Bus service is available near the subject and ser i ces throughout the
inity, sur-
rounding subdivisions and local ski areas. The general are
t
permanent residents. The neighborhood is approximately built up with single family
and
duplex--1/2 duplex residences ranging in value from $125,000 to $500,000.
Dimensions Rectangular approx ma e y = 17 J460 Sq. Ft. or Xa[jLX ❑ Corner Lot
Zoning classification Single ramily Duplex Residential Present improvements ® do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulations
Highest and best use: Present use ❑ Other (specify)
Public Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Level
Elec.] Municipal Street Access: [N . Public ❑ Private size Adequate and typical of neighborhood
Gas �y] R-R-y- G-- Asphalt
Surface with Base Shape Adequate and typical of neighborhood
Water t'f Maintenance: Public Average
❑ Private View to good/ typical of area
San.Sewer Municipal
❑Storm Sewer ❑Curb/Gutter Drainage No drainage problems apparent
❑ Underground Elect. & Tel. ❑Sidewalk ❑Street Lights Is the property located In a HUD Identified Spacial Flood Hazard Area? [ No ❑Yes
Comments (favorable or unfavorable including any apparent adverse easements, encroachments or other adverse conditions) Site is part of a 4
lot
unrecorded subdivision. Site is well landscaped and has average to pod views
-Southeast
Rapen. epenence Pass. Site is capable of supporting a duplex, a factor
we have given some consideration in our analysis, but further construction would (see attach
It Existing [:]Proposed❑ Under Constr. No. Units Type (det, duplex, semi/det, etc.) Design (rambler, split level, etc.) Exterior Walls WdFr
Yrs. Age: Actua16 Effective3 to 5 No. Stories S. F. Detached
Mountain/eontemp. T&G wood
Roof Material Gutters & Downspouts None Window (Type): OU a an ermopane Insulation None Floor
B.U. & Asphalt sh None: Typical of Area
❑ Storm Sash [N Screens ❑ Combination ❑ Ceiling � Roof A Walls
Manufactured Housing % Basement ❑ Floor Drain Finished Ceiling _
Foundation Walls ❑Outside Entrance ❑ Sump Pump Finished Walls
• Poured Concrete
,• ❑Concrete Floor %Finished Finished Floor
❑ Slab on Grade Crawl Space Evidence of: Dampness ❑Termites ❑ Settlement
CommentsSubject is of attractive mountain design and good quality construction and finish work
features
popu ar wit a market.
Room List
Foyer
Living
Dining
Kitchen
Den
Family Rm.
Rec. Rm.
Bedrooms
No. Baths
Laundry
Other
Basement
tst Level
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2nd Level
•
Finished area above grade contains a total of 8 rooms 3 bedrooms 2 baths. Gross Living Area 2674 sq. ft. Bsmt Area sq. ft.
Kitchen Equipment: Refrigerator Range/Oven isposal Dishwasher Fan/Hood ompactor Washer ryer en Air
HEAT: Type H. W. B. B.Fue1 Nat. Gas Cond. Good AIR COND: ❑ Central Eibther None [; Adequate Qnadequate
Floors ❑ Hardwood Carpet Over y eram c
Walls Good Avq. Farr Poor
• Drywall ❑ Plaster [� Natural Wood Finish Quality of Construction (Materials &Finish) � ❑ ❑ ❑
'Good
Trim/Finish
❑ Average ❑ Fair ❑ Poor Condition of Improvements E ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Bath Floor E;Ceramic ��yy Carpet/vinyl
L`t L �Room sizes and layout � ❑ ❑ ❑
• Bath Wainscot Ceramic IN ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Closets and Storage
Special Features (including energy efficient items Skylights; high Insulation —adequacy Ijd ❑ ❑
❑
vaulted ceilings; wet bar; solarium; oversized Plumbing —adequacy and condition ❑ ❑ ❑
tub in master bath; coca. garage door openers Electrical —adequacy and condition jC� ❑ ❑ ❑
ATTIC: ❑Yes [ No ❑ Stairway ❑ Drop•stair ❑ Scuttle ❑ Floored Kitchen Cabinets —adequacy and condition ❑ ❑ ❑
Finished (Describe) NO attic area ❑ Heated Compatibility to Neighborhood ❑ ❑ ❑
CAR STORAGE: Garage ❑ Built-in [T Attached ❑ Detached ❑ Car Port Overall Livability IX ❑ ❑ ❑
No, Cars 2 [ Adequate ❑Inadequate Condition Good Appeal and Marketability EX ❑ ❑ ❑
Yrs Est Relrglning Etxtnomic Ufe- 7 tee. Explain If Ion than Loan Term
FIREPLACES, PATIOS, POOL, FENCES, etc. (describe) Decks and Porch totaling
areas approx. 969 sf. Stone
ireplace in living clom. Fenced yard
COMMENTS (including functional or physical inadequacies, repairs needed, modernization, etc.)
fire which dAstrnyAd 1, original struattirA on the Rite in 1978---rUndition is nearly new
Prior have hPAn excellently maintained. Quality of construction
FHLMC Form 70 Rev. 7/79 12 Ch. ATTACH DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND STREET SCENE FNMA Form 1004 Rev. 7179
ZONING:
The subject property is zoned R-15, a single family residential zoning district
which permits duplex construction on lots of 20,000 square feet or larger.
However, for lots divided prior to 1977, duplexes are permitted on parcel sizes
of 15,000 square feet or greater. From information we have been able to
gather, it appears that the subject parcel existed separate from its neighbors
prior to 1976; and, therefore, the subject site would qualify under zoning for
construction of a duplex. However, the subject is currently improved with a
single family residence of a size and quality consistent with the better single
family homes in the neighborhood. The West Meadow area is currently primarily
single family construction. We feel construction of an additional unit on the
subject site would damage the single family character of the existing house.
Therefore, we have included in our estimate of land value some premium over and
above single family sites in the neighborhood to reflect the ability to
construct a caretaker's unit or a larger half -duplex unit. However, we
question, at this time, the economic feasibility of such a split of the
property.
damage the existing single family residential character of the site.
COMMENTS ON THE MARKET DATA ANALYSIS:
Sale 1 is a single family home located in Knollwood Subdivision east of central
Aspen. The home is situated on a lot with good views east towards Independence
Pass and value reasonably comparable to the subject's. However, the subject's
design and quality are superior to that of this home. A partially offsetting
feature is the 1410 square foot unfinished basement included with this
property.
Sale 2 is a single family residence located in Aspen Highlands Subdivision. It
is comparable in quality and condition to the subject but slightly inferior in
design and appeal. It is situated on a very private site adjacent to Aspen
Highlands ski area, and land value is superior to the subject's. This home
sold for cash to an assumption of an existing mortgage.
Sale 3 is a single family home located in Mountain Valley Subdivision east of
central Aspen and near Sale 1. The home is located at the top of Mountain
Valley Subdivision, with excellent views and privacy. Land value is comparable
to the subject's despite the fact that this site is not capable of duplex
construction. Design and quality of this home are very good, superior to the
subject's. Condition is similar. This home sold for cash, unfurnished.
In addition to these sales, we have also considered the sale of the Richardson
property, Red Butte Block 1 Lot 4. This property is located in the Red Butte
Subdivision northwest of central Aspen. It sold in October, 1983 for $475,000.
The property is situated on a 3/4-acre lot overlooking the Roaring Fork River,
and land value would be considered significantly superior to the subject's.
The home, built in 1960, sold in good condition. Special features include a
large and well -designed kitchen with commercial appliances and two jacuzzi
tubs. The sales price did reflect excellent terms, including $400,000 carried
by the seller, interest only payments for seven years at 11%. The property is
improved with seven rooms, four bedrooms and three baths in 2654 square feet of
finished area. The property also includes 467 square feet of unfinished
basement. The superior river front location of this home would establish it as
the upper range of value for the subject.
We have also considered the sale of the Ansay property, West Aspen II Lot 22,
in July, 1983 for $435,000. This property is situated on a desirable site near
the Aspen municipal golf course approximately 1/4 mile from the subject. The
home was built in 1979 and sold in good condition. The property is improved
with eight rooms, four bedrooms and five baths in 3646 square feet of finished
area. The home also includes a two car garage and large Jacuzzi tub. This
ENTIRe VIEW would bE io,T- ++ CItVKCL
It- (l'i feorOsed. lOCA- ION ..
Subject's view toward Aspen Mountain ski area
J
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Katherine Reppa
1250 Mountain View Drive, Aspen 81611
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church -proposed expansion
DATE: May 23, 1985
It is out of great concern for the integrity of my neighborhood
and the safety of its residents, particularly the increasing
number of young children, that I write this letter of opposition
to the expansion of Messiah Lutheran Church.
PARKING Membership of Messiah Lutheran has, in the past two
years, increased approximately sevenfold. With the projected
membership of 172 (seating capacity 140), the parking problem
would be a severe one, with cars lining Mountain View Drive.
The 30 parking spaces provided in the church's plans would be
woefully inadequate.
Not only is on -street parking in direct violation of the
West Meadow Homeowners' Association covenants, but it also
would create a potentially disastrous problem in the event
that a fire truck or other vehicle needed emergency access.
Whether other churches in the area provide off-street
parking or not is hardly a rationale for changing a tolerable
situation to an intolerable one on our small, dead-end street.
Even now my husband and I are very aware when services
begin and end each Sunday because of the stream of cars passing
our house, and this is from present church membership of 90.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE It would be much more preferable to
have a single family residence of 4661 square feet. Such-. a
dwelling would enhance the neighborhood and would not have the
impact of traffic, noise and polluting car exhaust that would
result with the new church.
The memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Messiah
Lutheran states that their impact on the community "would be
no more than most single family or duplexes being built today."
This statement is absolutely incorrect and completely ignores
the tremendous traffic impact which a residence would never have.
CHILDREN The pastor of Messiah Lutheran explained that the
expansion request came from a need for more space for the Sunday
School, and "that we want the best for these children." The
residents of Mountain View Drive want the best for OUR children,
also, and that is not by having cars from 170 members travel
down this street several times a week.
FACILITY USE I do feel that the church is downplaying the
extent that the facility will be used. As membership grows, I
feel certain that more programs, meetings and activities will
be offered. A key church member told a neighbor that a day
care program was planned, which, if approved, would mean a
number of cars on Mountain View Drive twice a day.
A COMMUNITY CHURCH?? Alan Richman's memo of May 21 states that
the church serves the local community. This, in fact, is in-
accurate. None of the residents of Mountain View Drive or
Overlook Drive are members of the congregation; there have never
been any activities which included the neighborhood or general
public; and some of the key church members have been openly
antagonistic to residents of the area. A "community_" church it
is not.
CONCLUSION I would never choose to live in close proximity to
a business that generated such a degree of traffic each week,
and I feel that this present situation is comparable.
To be sure, the members of the Messiah Lutheran congre-
gation are relieved that a church of t1nis size, with its
resulting traffic, is not situated on THEIR street.
Religion has a place in our society, but that place should
not be at the end of a small, quiet residential street. A
church of 170 members --or even 100 members --and its resulting
problems is not in keeping with our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter which is of
such great importance to the homeowners and their children of
Mountain View Drive.
UK1ili c7:K. l M1
TO: Jay Hammond
Elyse Elliott
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church
DATE: May 22, 1985
Last night we were unable to proceed with the review of the Messiah
Lutheran Church expansion due to the lack of a quorum at P&Z. However,
about 15-20 residents of Mountain View Drive showed up to express
their displeasure at the proposed expansion and some of them spoke to
me when it became clear that the meeting was cancelled. Concern was
expressed about the impacts of the expansion upon the neighborhood in
the following manner:
1. Does this street have the capacity to handle the increased
traffic?
2. If the churchgoers park on the street from time to time,
will there be enough room for a fire truck or other emergency
vehicle to enter the street and/or to turn around?
I ask you to take a second look at the revised site plan and landscaping
plan and to send me another comment regarding the traffic and parking
impacts of this proposal. P&Z has continued the hearing to Wednesday,
May 29, so your comments would be appreciated no later than Tuesday,
May 28. Thanks.
MEMORANDU M
TO: Aspen Planning and 7,oning Commission
FROH: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church - Conditional Use
DATE: [Iay 21, 1985
LOCATION: Parcel "A". Block II, 1-Test Meadow Subdivision - 1235 Mountain
View Drive.
ZONING: P.-15.
APPLICANT`S REO VEST: The applicants is requesting Conditional Use
approval to replace an existing church of 810 sq.ft. with a new church
facility of 4,611 sq.ft.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The I'essiah Lutheran Church has been located
on this property since 1964. Over the past two years, the applicants
have reviewed several alternative locations for the church with the
Planning Office staff. None of these alternatives were found to be
viable by the applicant for a variety of reasons which included
zoning, cost, and similar problems.
The lot on which the church is presently located is 17,360 sq.ft. The
floor area limitations of Section 24-3.4 would allow a single family
house of 4,661 sq.ft. to be built on this lot and the applicant is
proposing to build a church of 4,611 sq.ft. The current church building
is only 810 sq.ft. Since a substantial expansion is being requested,
a Conditional Use review must take place.
The criteria for the granting of a Conditional Use Permit as outlined
in Section 24-3.3 (b) of the Municipal Code are:
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all require-
ments imposed by the zoning code,
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives
and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning
district; and,
3. If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses and uses in the area.
Responses to these criteria are as follows:
1. Zoning Code Requirements - Issues to be addressed include
height, open space, FAR, setbacks and parking. The applicant
proposes a 21 foot structure with no appurtenances extending
above the roof ridge. The limit in the R-15 zone is 25
feet. There is no open space requirement in this zone. As
noted above, the structure is Proposed to be 50 square feet
less than the maximum allowable for a single family house.
There is no FAR requirement for uses other than residences
in this zone.
The plan submitted shows a 10 foot rear yard setback. The
Code requires a 20 foot rear yard setback for buildings
other than, dwellings and accessory buildings. This problem
will need to be rectified by having the applicant first
obtain a variance from t1ie Board of Adjustment or via
submission_ of a new site plan meeting the 20 foot rear yard
setback before you grant a conditional use permit to the
church.
Section 24-4.5 states that parking for "all other uses" in
the R-15 zone is to be set be review of the Planning Coru-..is-
sion based on the following criteria:
- Projected traffic generation of the proposed development
- Site characteristics
- Pedestrian access
- Availability of public transportation
The site plan shows 26 usable angle parking spaces and 4 or
5 handicap spaces in a parallel parking configuration. The
30-31 spaces compares favorably with the requirement for
"all other uses" in other zones of 4 spaces for every 1000
square feet, which would require 19 spaces for this building.
The spaces proposed also appear to represent the maximum
number which can be locates: on the site without a significant
alteration in the design of the church.
The new structure is intended to hold a maximum of 172
persons, with a seating capacity of 140 persons. Although
this capacity exceeds the present size of the congregation
(90 persons) at full usage it is likely that the parking
impact on the surrounding neighborhood would be severe. The
applicant notes, however, that neither the Episcopal nor the
Methodist Church now provide any off-street parking.
2. Intent of the R-15 Zone - The R-15 zone permits "institutional
uses customarily ifounu in proximity to residential uses" as
conditional uses. It is submitted that churches are commonly
found in residential districts in Aspen and other communities
and that the proposed use is in keeping with the intent for
this area.
3. Land Use Compatibility - The elevations provided demonstrate
that the church will be a subdued building, in a style
consistent with surrounding residences. The principal issue
as to compatibility is the effect on the neighborhood of
congrec,ational parking. The applicant has clearly taken
this impact into consideration in providing 30 off-street
spaces. however, we attach for your consideration a letter
submitted by the adjacent neighbor to the north who objects
to the anticipated traffic and narking impacts from the
expansion.
During my visit to the site I found Mountain View Drive to
be a quiet. single family street which dead -ends off Cemetary
Lane. The lot in question is located at the er.d of the
street, so any traffic generated by the use will affect all
residents of the block. I spoke with the immediate adjacent
neic_,hbor to the south of the church and founcO, that only on
rare occasions, such as Christmas, does the church require
on -street parking to supplement that on the site. The
existing parking area is not formally arranged and probably
is not very efficiently utilized. We recommend that the new
parking plan utilize landscaping. railroad ties or a similar
design to more formally designate space locations and
arrangements.
During the visit I also found that the existing building is
attractively surrounded by landscaping which softens its
appearance. Once the building is removed and replaced by
parking; we recommend that all efforts be made to retain the
5-6 relatively large Aspens and Evergreens fourd in this
area. If the applicant intends to remove these trees, a
determination should first be made by the Building Inspector
as to whether a tree removal permit is needed, which will
also require input by the Parks Director. We also recommend
that the applicant implement a landscape plan to soften the
appearance of the new building and to screen the parking
area from the street, with said plan to be reviewed by the
Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project.
The applicant indicates that the existing church is served
by a private well. We contacted the Water Department and
found no reouirement on their part to hook the use to thf_
central system. We have also referred the matter to the
Environmental Health Department who request that prior to
the issuance of any building permit, tests be performed to
verify the adequacy of the quality and quantity of the wat, r
supply.
The Planning, Office has evaluated the applicability of the
growth management quota system to this construction. 11e feel
that one of two exemptions could apply to this project. On
the one hand, this project could be termed an "essential
community facility" and be subject to review by P&Z and
Council as per Section 24-11.2 (e) . On the other hand
Section 24-11.2 (i) refers to all development not limited by
the residential, commercial and lodge quotas. We feel that
this latter provisio, is more ap licable to the proposal at
hand and request that P&Z make a finding to this effect. Tle
do not see any down -side to this finding since we feel that
the applicant has substantially addressed the growth impacts
associated with this project. Furthermore. to be an essential
public facility, the church would have to demonstrate that
it meets an essential public purpose, which would be quite
subjective in this case. Other criteria, which it would
clearly meet, are that it is not a growth generation, is
available to the general public, serves the local community
and is a not -for -profit venture.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planninq Office recommends that
you table tilis application until the applicant has properly addressed
the rear yard setback problem. If this problem is rectified, then we
would recommend the granting of a conditional use permit for the new
church, special review approval of the parking proposal and a finding
that the project is not subject to the limitations of the quota
system, as per Section 24-11.2 (i) , subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will meet the Environmental Health Department's
request that the quality and quantity of the water supply be
tested, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
2. The applicant agrees to remove the existing church building
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new building.
3. The applicants will submit a landscaping plan to the Planning
Office prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan
will (a) demonstrate what design techniques will be used to
formally designate the parking spaces, (b) identify any
trees which are to be removed or relocated, including
permission from the Buil(Hng Inspector and Parks Director
for any such removals, and (c) illustrate how landscaping
will be used to soften the appearance of the structure and
screen the parking area.
May 10, 1985
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
As ownersof the house at 1240 Mountain View
Drive, Lot 10, Block 1, West Meadow Subdivision, we wish
to voice our objection to approval of plans for expansion
of the present Messiah Lutheran Church.
Parking is already a problem in the cul-de-sac
of Mountain View Drive and a larger structure with added
facilities would further limit available public parking
and off-street parking.
We are also opposed to any new structure whose
height would block the view of Aspen Mountain and Independence
Pass vistas. When the church was built, we were promised that
there would be no expansion beyond the present structure.
Because of the larger structure, there will most
certainly be more activities and greater frequency of use.
The neighborhood most certainly cannot absorb these expansion
plans.
The plans should be rejected for all the reasons
cited above, particularly in view of the Aspen and Pitkin
County parking ordinances.
Yours very trul ,
Bruce J. ich
Emmeline Polich
1240 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
MEMORMIDUM
To: Janet Raczak, Planning Office
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office
Date: May 3, 1985
Re: flessiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use
After reviewing the above application, the Engineering Department
has the following comments:
This applicant complies with all the requirements in the R-15
zone as far as lot size, setbacks, and height. Vle do not see an
adverse impact on any city services.
The applicant has provided for 30 parking spaces and has indicated
that this structure will hold 172 persons with a maximum seating
capacity of 140. In order to accommodate 140 to 172 persons in 30
vehicles, each vehicle must carry 4 to 6 people. This does not
seem realistic, especially since 11 of the parking spaces are for
compact cars. However, this situation of maximum capacity will
probably not occur often, and will impact the neighborhood for
only a short period.
During normal services, we feel that 30 spaces for a congregation
of 90 people is adequate.
ASPEN*PITKIN AGIONAL BUILOINb DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM F�-
2 E II
TO: Janet Raczak, Planning
FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
DATE: April 23, 1985
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use
City Case No. 004A-85
1. A church is a conditional use in an R-15 zone.
2. 30 parking spaces - 140 seating space? No specific requirement for this use.
3. No open space requirement.
4. All setbacks appear to be met except rearyard which is 20` for all
buildings except residences and accessory buildings.
5. The lot area of 17,360 square feet will allow 4,661 square feet - the
building proposed is 4,611 which is 50 square feet less than that allowed
for a single family dwelling in this R-15 zone.
6. Agreement should be specific concerning removal of existing building
at time of Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Is the well permitted as a water source?
kL
8. Only 28 parking spaces are shown and two of those appear to encroach
into the walkway.
PN/ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: Janet Raczak, Plan Office
FROM: Barry D. Edw
DATE: April 22, 1985
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use
City Case No. 004A-85
We have reviewed the application of March 15, 1985, together
with the plot plan submitted therewith.
The City Attorney's office has no comment at this time. We
will, of course, be present at the May 21, 1985 planning and
zoning commission meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on May
21, 1985, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the Aspen Planning
and 7,oninn Commission. to consider an application submitted by the
Messiah Lutheran Church requesting conditional use approval to erect a
4,511 square foot church on Parcel A, Block II, West Meadow Subdivision
(1235 Mountain View Drive) in Aspen.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (3030) 925-2020, ext. 225.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen -31 ann in g
and Z or_ i_n g Comm i. ^ s i on
Published in the Aspen Times on April 18, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
CITYICOUNTY Pi_ANvT"'A t r'ICK
130 S. r E' : -
ASO+FN. COLORADO 81611
:ry,,L11
Red Butte Cemetary Assn.
c/o Delbert Copley, Pres.
604 North 3 rd
Aspen, CO 81611
�N'
APR 17 o
AM
l985
COA'IFS
REID &WAIDRON
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
April 18, 1985
Mr. Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Perry:
As an owner of Black Birch Estates, Lot #3, I received a copy of your
public notice regarding the Messiah Lutheran Church request to increase
the size of their church on Parcel A, Block 3, West Meadows Subdivision.
As the closest neighbor, we are obviously concerned that due diligence
be taken in reviewing their application.
My concern in writing is to address a much larger issue and that is the
need of an access easement through the Lutheran Church property to
access the upper lots of the Black Birch Estates Subdivision. As you
may be familiar, the current access requires you to go all the way down
a very steep and dangerous section of Cemetery Lane, come back the
entire distance on Red Butte Drive and then up what is clearly an
unsatisfactory steep, northern exposed, unimproved section of road to
access the six lots on the top of Black Birch Estates. A much more
logical, efficient, and safe access would clearly be through the Luthern
Church parking lot to allow direct access to the Black Birch
Subdivision.
I think the Planning Commission is in an excellent position to request
such an easement from the Church, given their current application and I
think it would have the following benefits to the community:
1. Reducing traffic on a very dangerous section of Cemetery Lane;
2. Reducing traffic on Red Butte Road;
3. Reducing auto pollution from the more direct access as opposed
to the current route;
4. Eliminating a very dangerous section accessing upper Black
Birch Estates; and,
5. Reduce dependability on the steep section of Overlook Drive.
Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-1400, (303) 925-7691
Snowmass Office • Box 6450, Snowmass Center, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 • (303) 923-4750
Mr. Perry Harvey
April 18, 1985
Page two
Perry, I would be happy to take you up to the property to show you what
I had envisioned, as I think it would greatly improve the situation for
all parties involved.
Please give me a call and we'll go out to the site at your convenience.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
K. Brent Waldron
KBW/ssw
I hereby certify that on this �� day ofC4Aj_L ,
1985, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing
was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
Nancy `Crell i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Building: Zoning Enforcement Officer
Janes l\aczak, Ll ualll llt \.VL11l.0
RE: Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use
City Case No. 004A-85
DATE: April 10, 1985
Attached for your review is an application submitted by the Messiah
Lutheran Church requesting conditional use approval to erect a 4,'=ll
s.f. church on Parcel A, Block II, West Meadow Subdivision (1235
Mountain View Drive) in Aspen.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than May 7, 1985, in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z at a
public hearing on May 21st.
Thank you.
March 15, 1985
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Board
FROM: Messiah Lutheran Church
1235 Mountain View Drive
Parcel "A", Block II
West Meadow Subdivision
Aspen, CO., 81611
Subj: Application for a "Conditional Use" permit to erect a 4,511 sq.ft.
Church on the above subject property.
Messiah Lutheran Churchhas been on this property since 1964. The present
building is 810 sq.ft. and serves an existing congregation of 90 souls and
will seat 60 persons per service. It is our hope that the existing building
may remain on this site until the new building is ready for occupancy.
Completion date for the new structure is targeted for Oct. 1985. At that
time the old structure would be dismantled and removed from the site.
The proposed new building consists of 3,631 sq.ft. on the main floor with
a basement of 980 sq.ft. under a portion of one wing. The total height is
21 feet above existing grade. The new structure will hold a maxium of 172
persons with a seating capacity of 140. We have provided for off-street
parking for 30 cars.
The lot size is 17,360 sq.ft. and is zoned Residential(Duplex) with a total
allowable floor area ratio of 5,039 sq.ft.
At present the regular services are conducted at:
10:30a.m. to 11:30 a.m. each Sunday
5:30p.m. to. 6:30 p.m. each Sunday from Mid -November to Mid -April
7:00p.m. to 8:00 p.m. each Wednesday from Mid -April to Mid -November
Special Services would be held approximately 4 - 6 times per year in
the evenings for a period of one hour plus a limited number of weddings
and funerals.
Messiah Lutheran Church represents the only Lutheran Church in Aspen and
serves the entire valley. The next closest Lutheran Church is located in
Glenwood Springs.
It has been demonstrated since zoning has been in existence that churches
belong in residential areas to serve the spiritual needs of the community.
As to the impact on the community, it would be no more and most likely less
than most single family or duplexes being built today. Tile height and maxi-
mum floor area is less than allowed, we do not pollute the air with solid
wood burning appliances, our sewage disposal would be less averaged on a
weekly basis, and we have our own well and water rights shared with 3 other
neighboring properties.
Messiah Lutheran Church Page 2
The need for parking is amply provided for and would not create problems for the
neighbors such as it does for both the Episcopal and Aspen Conmiunity-United
Methodist Churches who have no off-street parking.
Our exterior design will be wood, stone and metal roof all in earth tones so as
to blend with the community. No spires,crosses or other appertenances would
extend above the roof ridge.
We have always worked with the neighborhood and community, respecting their
wishes and rights and do not wish to offend anyone. Our only hope is serve.
We trust this application will meet with your approval, if you have any further
questions, please contact the Bldg. Chairman at 923-5524.
Sincerely,
MESSIAH LUTHERA CH
E.,A. Sch macher, President
�Ile
K. R. Nelson, Bldg. Chrmn.
Enclosures:
Exhibit "A" Survey Plat
Exhibit "B" Statement of Ownership
Exhibit "C" List of Adjacent Property Owners
Exhibit (D) Parking layout and Elevations
Check for $680.00
3
�d
s
too
I- Orar4V
MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP
ACCOMMODATION - NO LIABILITY
Please direct correspondence to:
601 E. HOPKINS
ADDRESS
MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH
Missouri Synod ASPEN CO. _ 81611
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
1235 Mt. View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611 ORDER NUMBER 7302696
L J
Description:
AS SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO
AND INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE
Grantee in last instrument apparently transferring ownership:
MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ASPEN, a Colorado Corporation, AS TO PARCELS A & B;
MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ASPEN, a Colorado Corporation, as their interest
may appear AS TO PARCEL C.
Trust deeds and mortgages apparently unreleased :
NONE
Liens and judgements (against last grantee) apparently unreleased:
NONE
This information is for your sole use and benefit and is furnished as an accommodation. The information has
been taken from our tract indices, without reference to, or examination of, instruments which purport to
affect the real property. The information is neither guaranteed nor certified, and is not an Abstract of Title,
Opinion of Title, nor a Guaranty of Title, and our liability is limited to the amount of the fees.
Date: FEBRUARY 8 1985 at 8:00 A.M.
Trans;'P"'
7.Hnigens
surance Company
Vince
Form No. C-567
EXHIBIT "A"
SCHEDULE A —Continued
2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of PITKIN
Described as:
PARCEL A:
A tract of land in the SW)i of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the 6th P.M. described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the 4 corner between sections 11 and 12, Township
10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. of the Kimberly Survey bears S 14020'
W 2498 feetb
thence S 85 15' E 1085 feet;
thence N 6030' E 98 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence N 85015' W 167 feet;
thence N 6030E 104 feet;
thence S 85015' E 167 feet;
thence S 6030' W 104 feet to the POINT OF TRUE BFGINNING.
PARCEL B:
An undivided one -quarter interest in and to a tract of land in the SW� of
Section 1, Township_ 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as
follows:
Beginning at a point whence the quarter -corner between Sections 11 and 12,
said Township and range, of the Kimberly Survey bears S 14020' W 2498 feet;
thence S 85 15' E 1085 feet;
thence N 6030' E 390 feet to a point of TRUE BEGINNING;
thence N 89030' W 15 feet;
thence N 6030' F. 28 feet;
thence S 89030' E 15 feet;
thence S 6030' W 28 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL C:
Also a tract of land described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of the above described tract (parcel B);
thence N 6030' F. 12 feet;
thence N 89030' W 179 feet;
thence S 6030' W 320 feet;
thence S 85015' 12 feet;
thence N 6030' E 308 feet;
thence S 89 30' E 167 feet to the point of true beginning, being a strip of
land used as a road by the property owners advacent to said strip lying to the
South and the Fast thereof.
Form No. C-142.2
r-.x41.(3iT- ►,C,
Messiah Lutheran Church 1235 Mountain View Drive, Aspen, CO., 81611
1225 Mountain View Drive - W.McComb & Susan K. Dunwoody
V inverness Group
4300 1st City Tower,
Houston, TX. 77002
1220 Mountain View Drive - William R. & Ann Elizabeth Gaechter
3010 E. Williamette Lane
Littleton. CO. 80201
1210 Mountain View Drive - Frank M. & Hazel M. Crismon
350 Jasmine
Denver, CO., 80220
1240 Mountain View Drive - Bruce & Emmaline Polich
621 Williams St.
Denver, CO., 80208
1245 Mountain View Drive - John M. & Bette 0. Oakes
408 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO., 81611
1250 Mountain View Drive - Katherine M. Reppa & Daniel M. Gold
1250 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO., 81611
1265 Mountain View Drive - John M. & Bette D. Oakes
408 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO.,, 81611
1270 Mountain View Drive - Manfred Jakober
Box 2596
Ketchum, Idaho, 63340
1285 Mountain View Drive - James & Elva Fitzpatrick
P.O. Box 197
Aspen Colorado, 81612
1300 Mountain View Drive - Robert & Gillian Baxter
1300 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO., 81611
Rid Butte Drive --j::ffrey H. Sachs & Bruce Smith
% Jeffrev H. Sachs
201 No. Mill St.
Aspen, CO.. 81611
1265 Red Butte Drive - Valerie L. & LeRoy E. Hood &
Renate M. & William B. Wood
1453 E. California St.
Pasadena, CA., 91106
1235 Red Butte Drive - Charles & Audrey Lipton
P.O. Box 2449
Aspen, CO., 81612
1205 Red Butte Drive - Louis Dorfman
Suite 213
13500 Midway Rd.
Dallas, TX.,75234
1290 Snowbuniny Lane - Sidnev V. & Rosemary C. Binaham
P.O. Box 3341
Aspen, CO., 81612
1280 Snowbunny Lane Kenneth A. Bekkedahl
-z olst Baptist Church of Aspen
1278 Snowbunny Lane
Asnen, CO., 81611
Thomas D. Hines
Box 8
Aspen, CO., 81612
1270 Snowbunny Lane Joe Allen & Marga -et B. Porter
Unit 101
1270 Snowbunny Lane
Aspen, CO., 81611
Robert P. Beals & Victor Sherman
1243 Oalethorpe St.
Macon, GA.. 31201
Red Butte Cemetary Assn.
%Delbert Copley, Pres.
604 North 3rd.
Aspen, CO., 81611
1185
Overlook
Drive
- Peter C. & Sandra K.
Johnson
215 South Monarch
Aspen, CO., 81611
1155
Overlook
Drive
- Clark P. & Sarah A. Smvth
P.O. Box 3665,
Aspen, CO.. 81612
1115
Overlook
Drive
- Neligh C. Jr. Coates
& Betty Bvers
& Brent Waldron
% Coates. Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO.,. 81611
1110
Overlook
Drive
- John Vallari, Trustee
under Vallari
Trust
P.O. Box 2941,
Aspen. CO., 81612
1130
Overlook
Drive
- John Val leri . Trustee
under Vallari
Trust
P.O. Box 2941
Aspen, CO., 81612
1160
Overlook
Drive
- James S. Papandrea
7 Morningside Place
Crawford, New Jersey,
07016
1190
Overlook
Drive
- Timothy John Charles
& Caroline C.
Charles
P.O. Box 1061
Aspen, CO., 81612
n
PETITION OF OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN
We the undersigned do hereby petition the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission to find that the specifications
required for a "conditional use" permit in an R-15 zone
(residential) are not being met by the Messiah Lutheran
Church for the following reasons:
1. The traffic impact on the small, dead-end resi-
dential street would far exceed that created by a
single family dwelling.
2. The planned parking lot of 30 spaces is inade-
quate for their projected membership.
3. The safety for small children in the neighbor-
hood is at great risk due to the increased traffic.
4. Access for emergency vehicles would be greatly
hampered.
5. The church project will violate the height and
parking restrictions established by the West Meadow
Subdivision Homeowners' Association covenants.
6. There will be increased noise and air pollution.
Pao P0-Y `( �w � 6,e s P R s � r arc � 1 � � C.) � r- Z t4.
V ►�� �_ T t� EY M-�4vE G� vGry V G=128 kt- Pv2 r-t �ssi oN Tc� W-4 D TF �
N HS TO t-46 Al0J-r10Q , vJ2trret*j P"xtNrs AKZ_4;- 4wakL_naL6
vPoF-J4.>6ST.
NAME ADDRESS
zoo M 4-o,. V,6r.
VleL,.)
6c.
PoL-ic-44z
..
Vt o,r A5V � r..
M M i5 L_(&�6 Li W
lZ�-fu 44%. Uct,,� [1,-
�Nu
r�r�
(2-1-4D ..
Vlkk -.) A. ,,A•._
I` .
PETITION OF OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN
we the undersigned do hereby petition the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission to find that the specifications
required for a "conditional use" permit in an R-15 zone
(residential) are not being met by the Messiah Lutheran
Church for the following reasons:
1. The traffic impact on the small, dead-end resi-
dential street would far exceed that created by a
single family dwelling.
2. The planned parking lot of 30 spaces is inade-
quate for their projected membership.
3. The safety for small children in the neighbor-
hood is at great risk due to the increased traffic.
4. Access for emergency vehicles would be greatly
hampered.
5. The church project will violate the height and
parking restrictions established by the West Meadow
Subdivision Homeowners' Association covenants.
6. There will be increased noise and air pollution.
NAME ADDRESS
ICC.m 16 C C'6�1f/ 3 � d M T,41 lei &, �L 1) R A PZ: nl , Co
_w Ui. 41:�i61_w La
lc
�-iU
9" � - /� P s ,, u AiJ�
PETITION OF OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN
We the undersigned do hereby petition the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission to find that the specifications
required for a "conditional use" permit in an R-15 zone
(residential) are not being met by the Messiah Lutheran
Church for the following reasons:
1. The traffic impact on the small, dead-end resi-
dential street would far exceed that created by a
single family dwelling.
2. The planned parking lot of 30 spaces is inade-
quate for their projected membership.
3. The safety for small children in the neighbor-
hood is at great risk due to the increased traffic.
4. Access for emergency vehicles would be greatly
hampered.
5. The church project will violate the height and
parking restrictions established by the West Meadow
Subdivision Homeowners' Association covenants.
6. There will be increased noise and air pollution.
NAME ADDRESS ae
C I � � C — Vac v i Lo �Y . A<,
�i
I