Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.1235 Mountain View Dr.004A-85 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen (2ayA - &5 DATE RECEIVED: 7-(19k< CASE NO. : $s '' DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF: PROJECT NAME: V SS t %Lt'71 ) r /l • d • 1! /_ APPLICANT: r5C 4E,s LA6ux 041 Clf� Applicant Address /Phone: i23 %YI - . P • - REPRESENTATIVE: — On n I 79 - 3C Representative Address /Phone: Type of Application: I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00) Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00) Final Plat ($ 820.00) II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00) Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00) Final Plat ($ 820.00) III. EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) Y W. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00) % Special Review Use Determination X Conditional Use Other: CC MEETING DATE: A Z PUBLIC HEARING: \ ES NO DATE REFERRED: 6 f5 INITIALS: 1, i REFERRALS: 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: Zoninq /Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief _ Other: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 30 IS INITIAL: City Atty `! City Engineer L Building Dept. Other: . '1 J" _ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 1-U 0 � p ivy kh,.6P 1 vls ppg IT ION: R eviewed by: ASPZ,PS 1 P 5 \2a\�S City Council II N . 4 aC \w a A O yl3o0 ,,-<. t* Q-Q,k& 0f-- C\—e_ �n.pvital_ w -vim UGZ C r0klD 4- 1 \ - Va -1 - 1. The applicant will meet the Environmental Health Department's request that the aue.lity and quantity of the water supply be - tested. prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 7. The applicant agrees to remove the exi sting church building - Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new buildi - - J. The ar, icayits will. su riit a landscaping plan to the Planning - Office prior to issuance of a building, permit. The plan Y:il1 (a) de monstrate what design techniques will be used to • formally designate the parking spaces, (b) identify any trees which are to be removed or relocated, including • perI.dssion from the i:uilc:ing Inspector and Parks Director for any such removals and (c) illustrate how landscaping will be used to sot ten the appearance of the structure and screen the _ !,iha area. C \e•' ? \�--- 0Pt. L.�.b N,......... 6�.:1 ) L Y Pcp \,t1 --I W• \\ AA. .,•.- • •10 f;Ant� " `1 Ix S 1 ® VN..° _ L ( ,4 \ PNlp \.Les...it o % ‘•••••• C- L. : W .\\ - A�f e�� \2 ? L.+. :,- vR- '1 ( � � n c ..J2_ D�" .'tiu`.... / J, a,..: o�.....Z __. .o._.,e \.,•,C-Q -s S P( °`'- tn.o(I. "71 C k'm , •- )=� III , IA k . G\,_ 2- \.w lAA ` w". \\�� .no\ e . i \ 4[1\•1\- h .( `1 C�a(« - 0 r..- :, ' 1\x..�J A{ J K.t. 44 U �.,., t € \4.1•- 6 ,.11 "A Lt C. .J t S - IP 1 • 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. 1 \cs L/ \ y Fire 14 t•- IC' PariGli '< 4s' -de -sac P osited Ar ping " Nori s;ott - s*,e, c.) z4 Road kfidji • I ;tilt, 0 00�E I V MAY 15 litb 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. Rpdich Emmeline Polich 1240 Mountain View Drive Aspen, CO 81611 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. j C P� titre }}dranE lc'ParY.inq L; nni� < 4s 60 -de -50c > �os+ed ; ho P4r K;,.� `" Nort S. d� e{ S *fe n z4 / Road Wrd// TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Katherine Reppa 1250 Mountain View Drive, Aspen 81611 RE: Messiah Lutheran'Chu.ch- proposed expansion DATE: May , 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. fal. fruhltt) IAA AgA- 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. 4 Rep TO: Aspen P1`"hhning 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 following 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 advantage of this view. If the new church is built in the location shown, it will completely obliterate this view, and Rreatly 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 WELL: 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 their 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 THE 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 large 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 neighbors not to park there even though no services were in session at the time. Now they want the neighborhood to bear the burden of their very inadequate 30 space parking area. FACILITY USE: The church is requesting to increase the size of the church 5i times the size of the existing structure. They are not anticipating even doubling the size of the congregation, and plan to move 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 causing 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 organizations for non - church functions. We are very concerned that increasing the size of the church will greatly increase 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 rights and do not wish to offend anyone. They have not worked with the neighborhood at all, and no one was aware a new church was to be built until we received the notice of the Public Hearing, 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 group. It is also interesting that, to my knowledge, none of the congregation live in the neighborhood where they want their church built. CHURCH NEEDS: When I spoke to the Pastor on Sunday, May 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. r -3- 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. 4 SPL Ann Gaechter Encls: cc of appraisal pertinent to letter • 3IDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 7132 Borrower • am aec er. Census Tract Map Referedce see a achd c Property Address Bargsten Tracts Lot 2, 1220 Mt. View Drive City Aspe county Pitkin state Colorado Zip Code 81611 a szi Legal Description Bargsten Tracts, Lot 2 (see attached for complete le•al description n L a Sale Price $ t A Date of Sale N/A Loan Term yrs Property Rights Appraised ❑ mis PUa 74 • 9 [� Fee Leasehold ❑DeMini E 1 6 Actual Real Estate Taxes $ 70 (yr) Loan charges to be paid by seller $ Other sales concessions For proposed refinance 9 Lender /Client United Bank of Denver Address ' a Occupant 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 Avg F. Poo Built Up [ Over 75% ❑ 25% to 75% ❑ Under 25% Employment Stability [ ❑ ❑ ❑ Growth Rate ❑ Fully Dev. ❑Rapid [Steady ❑Slow Convenience to Employment [ ❑ ❑ ❑ Property Values ❑ Increasing [ Stable ❑ Declining Convenience to Shopping 4000 Demand /Supply ❑Shortage [ In Balance ❑ Over Supply Convenience to Schools [ ❑ ❑ ❑ Marketing Time ❑ Under 3 Mos. [ 4 -6 Mos. ❑ Over 6 Mos. Adequacy of Public Transportation [ ❑ ❑ ❑ Present Land Use 75 %1 Family 25 % 2-4 Family % Apts. %Condo %Commercial Recreational Facilities [ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' _ %Industrial_ %Vacant% Adequacy of Utilities (1 0 ❑ ❑ Change in Present Land Use [Not Likely ['Likely i ❑ Taking Place 1') Property Compatibility ❑ [ ❑ ❑ 1 From To Protection from Detrimental Conditions ❑ [2 ❑ ❑ Predominant Occupancy (IXOwner ❑Tenant % Vacant Police and Fire Protection [ ❑ ❑ ❑ Single Family Price Range $ 175000 to $ 500000 Predominant Value $ 300000 General Appearances of Properties ❑ [ ❑ ❑ Single Family Age 5 yrs to 25 yrs Predominant Age 15 yrs Appeal to Market lt:f ❑ • • 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) The neighborhood is within 2 miles of central Aspen where schools, churches, shopping & entertainment are Jo- cated. Bus service is available near the subject and services through.. r- - rounding subdivisions and local ski areas. The general are: - .•p - • ; - -,s- permanent residents. The neighborhood is approximately 95% built up with single family and duplex - -1/2 duplex residences ranging in value from $125,000 to $500,000. Dimensions Rectangular (approximately) = 17400 Sq. Ft. or XMISm ❑ Corner Lot Zoning classification Single Family / Duplex Residential Present improvements ® do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulations A Highest and best use: Present use ❑ Other (specify) Public Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Level Elec. [[] Municipal Street Access: A.Public ❑ Private Size Adequate and typical of neighborhood Gas [1] R.M.N.u. surface Asphalt with Base Shape Adequate and typical of neighborhood Water ]Wk 1 — Maintenance [X Public ❑ Private View Average to good/ typical of area v1 San.Sewer J Municipal ❑Storm Sewer ❑Curb /Gutter Drainage No drainage problems apparent ❑ Underground Elect. & Tel. [(Sidewalk OStreet Lights Is the properly located Ina HUD Identified Spada! Flood Hazard Area? [No ❑Ves 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 good views southeast owar• , spen ' n. an• n.epen.enee Pass. Site is capable of supportin• a duplex a factor we ave g ven some cons •- -- on n our analysis, but further construction would (see attach it Existing [proposed ❑ Under Constr. No, Units 1 Type (det, duplex, semi /det, etc.) Design (rambler, split level, etc.) Exterior Walls WdFr Yrs. Age:Actual Effective3 to 5 No.Stories S.F. Detached Mountain /contemp. T &G wood SO Roof Material VrtUTted Gutters & Downspouts A None Window (Type): Doubie and therm0 ane Insulation halt sh None: o ❑ None �,I Walls B.U. & Asphalt P Typical of Area ❑Storm Sash [ Screens ❑ Combination ❑ Ceiling [l] Roof Walls $ ❑ Manufactured Housing % Basement ❑ Floor Drain Finished Ceiling . Foundation Walls 2 [(Outside Entrance ❑ Sump Pump Finished Walls o Poured Concrete [(Concrete Floor %Finished Finished Floor 0 m . a ❑ Slab on Grade 6t2 Crawl Space Evidence of: ❑Dampness ❑Termites ❑ Settlement - cemmentsSubjeot is of attract ve mountain design and good quality construction and finish work features popular with the market. Room List Foyer Living Dining Kitchen Den Family Rm. Rec. Rm. Bedrooms No. Baths Laundry Other Basement 1st 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: iii Refrigerator Range /Oven [lbisposal 'Dishwasher [Fan /Hood [. ompactor qWasher 1! ryer [ JenAi F HEAT: Type H.W.B.B.Fuel Nat. Gas Cond. Good AIR COND: ❑Central (1PCher None (I Adequate Ejnade W Floors ❑ Hardwood [ Carpet Over Ply [ Ceramic Good Avs. F,., Pc,, a Walls Drywall ❑ Plaster LT Natural Wood Finish Quality of Construction (Materials & Finish) Joao ry �' ❑ ❑ ❑ O W Bath Floor [Ceramic Carpet/vinyl Trim /Finish L9 Good ❑ Average ❑ Fair ❑ Poor Condition of Improvements ❑ ❑ ❑ o Z Room sizes and layout L ❑ ❑ ❑ o Bath Wainscot [Ceramic ❑ )- Closets and Storage ❑ ❑ ❑ H Special Features (including energy efficient items Skylights; high CC Insulation—adequacy 1900 z vaulted ceilings; wet bar; solarium; oversized H Plumbing— adequacy and condition • g ❑ ❑ ❑ LL tub in master bath; elec. garage door openers w Electrical— adequacy and condition ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ATTIC: Ves rrj� No Stairway Drop-stair A ❑ LS ❑ Y ❑ opstair ❑Scuttle ❑Floored Kitchen Cabinets— adequacy and condition A000 2 Finished (Describe) No attic area ❑ Heated ¢ Compatibility to Neighborhood H CAR STORAGE: [Garage ❑ Built -in 4 Attached ❑ Detached ❑ Car Port Overall Livability EX ❑ ❑ ❑ — No, Cars 2 Ade uate ['Inadequate Condition a ❑ ❑ ❑ [ q ❑ q Good Appeal and Marketability — Yrs Est RenninIng Economic LJ nfe 47 to 50 . Explain If less than loan Term FIREPLACES, PATIOS, POOL, FENCES, etc. (describe) Decks and porch areas totaling approx. 969 sf. Stone firpplone in living room. Feneed COMMENTS (including functional or physical inadequacies, repairs needed, modernization, etc.) Sub feet was built following a • • •- • -• p' • _ .. • •• /_ - - • • • ••d_ •i - e_r_ ew and bnth intenlnr and pxt.prinr have been exnellently 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. 7/79 ZONTNG: 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. STTR COMMENTS (continued): damage the existing single family residential character of the site. COMMENTS ON THE MARKET DATA ANALYSTS: 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 1s 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 1s 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 1s 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 1s 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 --- il� s EN R� v t vJ WCuta bE io�T Ii cl�vRCI tS bVtt1" IN, t f Q CSEd IoC.A110N . ,f.. ." _ _.. _ { V �� _. -rte: v r t 7 :LJ Subject's view toward Aspen Mountain ski area 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 sing e 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. 44010/Alit-U Rece% MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Hammond Elyse Elliott FROM: Alan Richman 444 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FRO Al an Pichman, Pl arm inc Office Ri,: bessiah Lutheran Church - Conditional Use DATE: EIay 21, 1985 LOCATION: Parcel "A Block II. rest [eadow Subdivision - 1235 Mountain View Drive. ZONING: R -15. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants is requestinc Conditional Use approval to replace an existing church of 810 sc.ft. with a new church facility of 4,611 sq.ft. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The Messiah 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. Mono 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 all ow 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 e: :nansion is being reouested. 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. Thether the proposed use otherwise complies with all require- ments imposed by the zoning code. 'Whether the proposed use is consistent with th objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning district; and,, 3. If tihe proposed use is desicned to be compatible with surroundinc land uses and uses in the area. _Pesnonses to obese criteria are as follows: 1. Zoning Code Requirements - issues tcc be addressee. include height, Open space FAR, setbacks and parking. The applicant proposes a 21 foot structure with no appurtenances estendinc above the roof ridge. 'The limit in the P. -15 cnc is 25 feet. There is no Opera space requirement in this ,^,ono. I`•'; noted above, r 1ct o is r c toted above, the st_i.v_er., i.; tro,.osed to be 50 square feet less than the ma:;inLm allowable for a single house. There is no FAR reruironent for uses other than residence: 1 21 tats zone The plan submitted shows a 10 foot rear yard setback:. Th Code recuires a 20 foot rear yard setback for buildings other khan dwellings and accessory buildings. This problem will nee;... to be rectified; b_' raving the applicant first obtain a variance from t',e ?oard of Adjustment or via submission of a new site plan Iileeting the 20 foot rear yard setback before you c;rant a corditicnal ese permit to the cif u r c h . Sec ion 24 -4.5 states that parking ;ing for "all other u:'•es" 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 ciiaractcriatic. - Pedestrian access - Pivailability of public transportation The site Ulan 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 recuirement f or "all other uses" in other zones of 4 spaces for every 1000 :;c DE. re feet, Which haould recuire 19 spaces for this building. The spaces proposed also appear to represent the maximum number which can be located on the site without a significant alteration in the design of the church. The new structure is intended to hold maximum of 172 persons, with a seating capacity of 140 persons. 1.1thouc;; this capacity exceeds the present size of the concregaticn (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 P. -15 zone permits "i.nstitutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses" a 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 keepinc: 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 i r;s ue as to compatibility is the effect on thc neighborhood, of concrecationai Parking. The applicant has clearly taken this itipact into consideration in Providing 30 off - street Entices. However- we attach for your consideration a letter submitted/ by the adjacent neighbor to the north who objects to the anticipated traffic and park inc impacts _icm the expansion. During_ my visit to the site T found fountain View Drive to be a cuiet, single family street which dear ends off: Ceraetary,7 Lane. The lot in cuestion is located at the e- c. of the _,treet., so any traffic generated by the use will affect all residents of the block. i nnoke with the immediate adjacent ncichbor to the south of the church and fount, that only on rare occasions, such as Christmas; does the church rernire on-street parking 'so su:p1 r'1en% that on the site. The existing parking, area is not forma'-lly arra:ngeC and probably is not very efficiently utilized. Fe recommend that the new parkins plan utilize landscapinc railroad ties or a cinilar de .ion to more formally design.ato .,pace locations and ar rs.n Cements. During thc visit I also found that the existing building is attractively surrounded Ly landscaping which softens its appearance. Once the building is removed and replaced by parking. we recG'u end that all efforts be made to ratain the 5 -5 relatively large Ascenn and Evercreer'is foul ei in this area. If the arlicant intent]._ to remove .these trees, a de feral 1ihati On ;haul d. first be made o' th ili1C'nc; Tns ct Or as to whether a tree removal permit is needed, which will also reeguire input by the Parks Director. ? - 'e also recommend that the applicant implement a landscape plan to soften the appearance of the new building end to screen the '.a.rkinc aares from the street" with said plan to be reviewce by the P1 anninc'; Office prior to the issuance of a building per➢lit for the project. The applicant lncilcr.tes that the c_:'l ti'. "'g church is .s>ery F.C.. by a private well. TTe contacted the .later Department and fount; no recuirer:hent on their part to hook the use to thy central system. TTe have also referred the matter to the 'Inv ironr:hental TIealth Department who request that prio.: to the issuance of any building permit, tests be performer to verify the adequacy of the quality and quantity of the wat. r The Planning Office has evaluated the applicability of the growth management quota system to this construction. Tie feel that one of two exempt i on CO UIG a pply to this pr.oj ect. On the one hand, this project could be termed an "essential community facility" and be subject to review by P &7 and Council as per Section 24 -11.2 (e). On the other 'nand Section 24-11.2 (i) refers to all development not limited by the residential, commercial and lodge quotas. Tie feel that this latter nrovisio i.n more ap icable to the proposal at hand and request that P£7, make a finding to this effect. 77e_ do not see any downside 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 I t meets all essential public nurno se which would be ct uite subjective in this case. Other criteria, which it would clearly meet, are that it in not a growth generation, is available to the general public, serves the local corhmunity and is a not- for - profit venture. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Of -ice recommends thr..t you table this application until the a :r.].i has properly addresse the rear yard setback problem. If this problem is rectified, then T, 3 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 _er Section 24-11.2 (i) , subject to the following conditions 1. The applicant will meet the Environmental Health Department's request that the finality and quantity of the water supply be tested prior to the issuance of a buil ding permit for the project. 2. The applicant agrees to remove the existing church building prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occu pancy 'for the new building. 3. The ay ;l icants will submit a landscaping plan to the Planning Office prior to issuance Of a building permit. The plan will (a) demonstrate what desicn techniques will be US :C tO formally designate the par king spaces, (5) identify aihy trees which are to be removed or relocated, inCl mil nc permission from the Pulping Inspector and Parks Director for any such removals, and (c) illustrate how 'lands cant no will be used to soften the appearance of the structure and screen ithe :i,.r i;inc area. WI I 5 It 10 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 truly, Bruce J. gLich Emmeline Polich 1240 Mountain View Drive Aspen, CO 81611 © fi nil a \\ MAY - 3 1985 l iii , 1:EFOT To: Jant;t flaczak, Planning Office Prop: 7lyse Flliett, Enc4neering Office Date: Ilaw 3, 1005 fle: :essian Lutheran CliUrCil Conditional Ilse After reviowin(j the above aoolication, the Ihigineerine Department has the following copments: This applicnnt complies with nil the roguirepents in the a-15 zone as far as lot size, setbacks, and height. Ue do not sea •an adverse iuoact on any city services. The avnicant has Provided for 30 parking spaces ane has indicated tLat this structure will acid 172 persons with a maximup seatin capacity of 140. In order to accommodate 140 to 172 persons in 30 vehicles, each vehicle pust carry 4 to 6 people. This does not seem realistic, especially since 11 of tdo parking spaces are for compact cars. Dowever, this situation of maximuu capacity will probably not occur often, and will ip)act the neighborhood for only a short period. Durinc normal services, we foal that 30 spaces for a congregation of CO people is adequate. ASPEN*PITKIN RtGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT n ,Z r , APR 2 5 1913b MEMORANDUM 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. T-0-t"a 7. Is the well permitted as a water source? 4 1, , r A 4, A 1 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 . H l r ,,ASPEN 130 ∎ '.,;street asp 41611 R ? ". I l e ,7 0 APR 2Val MEMORANDUM TO: Janet Raczak, Plan Office FROM: Barry D. Edw= �� e DATE: April 22, 1985 r 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, on i n n Commiss to consider p 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. n /Perry Harve Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 18, 1985. City of Aspen Account. E _ ' c�/f E tea I \ APR 1 7 19ei 110 tiittll I ) ) } )• \ t , -1 ' - 1 I ( i , E ! I, Y F N ul • 02 LI 14 t ., .J ww U FcC CD ua A O u (11 N,c0 y.0 t) U +i 4:11 w 7 O c1L]z0 w rooc N \O co W Uuo4 4 C to C Y co F- < it 0 } J Z e U o u' u n� `� V r 4 F- U Alillii * COMES 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 CERTTFTCA9'E OF MATL,TNC i hereby certify that on this day of 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. 3 a w : � i Nancy "Crell i MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Building: Zoning Enforcement Officer F'.*M:• Janet Raczak, Pla. Office 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 4,511 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. Than 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 Churchh3s 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:OOp.ni. 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. The 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 Lp1scopal and Aspen Conmiun1ty- 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 tRCH E. ,A. Sch macher, President K. R. Nelson, D1 dg. Chrmn. Enclosures: Exhibit "A" Survey Plat Exhibit "3" Statement of Ownership Exhibit "C" List of Adjacent Property Owners Exhibit (D) Parking layout and Elevations Check for $680.00 . ! t p ?f f ,, d I —Q Lr �� v. cri Id I � • 07 M C f ITO d 1 4 C. 4) Eli c L t ' i;dc y CD ct Q c 4 . 1 3 I 30 trt , r- w Cc S 7 � � � � d r M 4--) 0 a '� S -.; N +„; •I v f .. .. d °' ( d s s • a 81 r � `g7 y ii urs n tC ct s1` P. f J 0- N s c7I 414"14V ) \ I 1 : do Y et MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP ACCOMMODATION - NO LIABILITY Please direct correspondence to: 601 E. HOPKTNS 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. Transa one rtl Insurance Company By Vince Higens Form No. C -664 i y / s 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 SW1 of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the 1 4 corner between sections 11 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. of the Kimberly Survey bears S 14 20' W 2498 feet- thence S 85 6 15' E 1085 feet; thence N 6 ° 30' E 98 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 85 ° 15' W 167 feet; thence N 6 o 30' E 104 feet; thence S 85 ° 15' E 167 feet; thence S 6 o 30' W 104 feet to the POINT OF TRUE BEGINNING. 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 14 20' W 2498 feet; thence S 85 o 15' E 1085 feet; thence N 6 ° 30' E 390 feet to a point of TRUE BEGINNING; thence N 89 ° 30' W 15 feet; thence N 6 ° 30' E 28 feet; thence S 89 o 30' E 15 feet; thence S 6 o 30' 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 6 ° 30' E 12 feet; thence N 89 ° 30' W 179 feet; thence S 6 ° 30' W 320 feet; thence S 85 ° 15' 12 feet; thence N 6 ° 30' E 308 feet; thence S 89 o 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 East thereof. EXHhair „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, 00.,, 81611 1270 Mountain View Drive - Manfred Jakober Box 2596 Ketchum, Idaho, 83340 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 1295 P d Butte Drive - Jeffrey H. Sachs & Bruce Smith % Jeffrey 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, 7X.,75234 1290 Snowbu'nmy Lane - Sidney V. & Rosemary C. Binaham P.O. Box 33 Aspen, CO., 81612 1280 Snowbunny Lane Kenneth A. Bekkedahl 4 %1st Baptist Church of Aspen 1275 Snowbunny Lane Asnen, CO., 81611 Thomas D. Hines Box 8 Aspen, CO., 81612 1270 Snowbunny Lane Joe Allen & Margd•et B. Porter ,Unit 101 1270 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO., 81611 Robert P. Beals & Victor Sherman 4 1248 Oalethorpe St. Macon, GA.. 31201 Red Butte Cemetary Assn. %Delbert Copley, Pres. 604 North 3rd. Aspen, CO., 81611 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. • 146 Fo LLD outitr Paoaa-Yk own.JsS PR&SeoTti-e L11/tr OUT OP- ZN-E \ TR * Li=! . Tt-e? lHAvE G.WVEts Ve=ta peytxcssio ' To $l-4D TN-e M2 Nq s - I � to - rwb aaoV� PrrL r o� , uJ2�rr Pz.wx A2� Ewa gnaw veorJ 1 NAME • ADDRESS ( A39.l \A ito 1-?o LE �t 132 ('4 . V1a,o Sri 14 per■__ KR Ttt`< ` � -t 0-D 0 Vie,J v. I4 #k2. (Zsc 414 13 LC I'Wn. Vim . ,Po i 3 g vC6 P O L 1c , I 40 rte Vitt- pc As E m M 8 POU Cal 1 t0 (HL. Utz A NL) E. c-+3 (Z2o k4"._ 1' . Vle Aar — c3tLL a-. C.b4a l – VIE.) Dr. I 3 PETITION OF OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN We the undersigned do hereby petition the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to find that the specifications required for a "conditional use" permit in an R -15 zone (residential) are not being met by the Messiah Lutheran Church for the following reasons: 1. The traffic impact on the small, dead -end resi- dential street would far exceed that created by a single family dwelling. 2. The planned parking lot of 30 spaces is inade- quate for their projected membership. 3. The safety for small children in the neighbor- hood is at great risk due to the increased traffic. 4. Access for emergency vehicles would be greatly hampered. 5. The church project will violate the height and parking restrictions established by the West Meadow Subdivision Homeowners' Association covenants. 6. There will be increased noise and air pollution. NAME ADDRESS �t »1 L b 6 C C h . 4 v , / 3 6 n M ti /t w D R Asec N, c o O . a • C. ,� , A _ _ _ e c) y t I s- i I , zio / [ti+i. /!cup ' [IVY �$'�•r Co, g �, . ) /..1? ihkr.40 U Ar2241j GDA^ C C Ca • • 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 2_S0 Mc�u asi ��e�� . I�SP. .1(o ( J; , /2 (/) 2 i j C Y •%� /,-(/_ / /.'�, Kraa- e i/6/1 4_Al ti lc-1) 'We 1.34/5 1.'] .1i h X.0 h 41 (I10l. r) (1( R. - -. , fig i,